ARTHUR T. RUSSELL, B.C.L. of St. John's college, Cambridge, stated that Thomas Andrews and Johan Andrews were religious parents, whose son, LANCELOT ANDREWES, is one of the most eloquent and munificent Prelates that ever adorned the Church of England, born A.D. 1555, in Thames-street, in the parish of Allhallows, Barking, London. Besides his education, they left him a fair estate which descended to his heir at Eawreth, a little village between Chelmsford and Rayleigh. Thomas in his latter time became one of the Society and master of Trinity House, and was descended of the ancient [family]... Anne daughter of Mr. Thomas Andrews, citizen of London, brought it to her husband Thomas Cotton, of Conington, in Cambridgeshire. This Anne must have been the bishop's niece. Her only daughter Frances married Dingley Ascham, Esq.
FROM DEAD ANGLICAN THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY -September 20, 2012:
Lancelot may have acquired his flair for languages from his father, Thomas Andrewes, who was a merchant seaman and master of Trinity House. He undertook to master a new language every year, and it is said he was fluent in 15 or 16 languages, ancient and modern, as an adult, and could read 21 languages.... Lancelot officiated at the funeral of Queen Elizabeth and was was closely involved in making arrangements for the coronation of James VI of Scotland as James I of England.
Eugene Chrisman, 830 N. 10E. Mountain Home, has Thomas' burial as June 25, 1593, Al Hallow Barking, London, Middlesex, England and has him married to the following:
1. Agnes Newport
Marriage abt. 1516, Sandon, Hertfordshire, England
2. Joan Andrews
Marriage abt. 1554, Towerhill, London, Middlesex, England
_________________
Son Lancelot Andrews' will:
to my father's half sister Johan (her first husband's name was Bousie) and each of her two children, and more kindred I know not.
__________________
Bishop Buckeridge in his funeral sermon for Lancelot Andrews said that Andrewes's parents "left him a sufficient patrimony, which has descended to his heir", and Isaacson described the parents as "honest and religious". Andrewes himself, in his private prayers, records his thanks that he was "not the sad egg of sorry crows".
Lancelot's brother Thomas was named after his father, who appears as a benefactor to All Hallows', Barking, " 1593, towards repairs of the church, £2; to the poor £5;" probably bequeathed.
_______
Thomas Andrewes, of Tower Hill, London, mariner; son of his father's first marriage.
Thomas Andrewes the younger; unclear by which marriage, though apparently not the first; named in the will of his sister Agnes, 1563, then under age; named in his father's will, 1568.
His father's Will - To Thomas my son, the younger, a feather-bed.
Thomas Andrewes, son of Thomas Andrewes and his first wife, nee Goodwin; born at Hordon-on-the-Hill, Essex; of Thames Street, Tower Ward, London; mariner; of age, 23 March 5 Mary I/4 Philip [1558], when he entered in a bond; legatee of his uncle William Goodwin, 1561, then of London; bought a messuage, a toft, a garden, 60 acres of arable, 20 acres of meadow, 40 acres of pasture and 3 acres of wood at Horndon for £160, 1587 [Essex Feet of Fine]; named in the Assessment of 1589 for Tower Ward; "having most part of his life used the seas, in his latter time became one of the Society, and Master of the Holy Trinity, commonly called the Trinity House" (Isaacson); will dated 23 June 1593, proved PCC 4 July 1593:
"I, Thomas Andrewes of the parish of All Saints Barking on Tower Hill, London, mariner; to my well-beloved wife Joan the moiety of my manor or farm in Raweth, Essex, called Borrells, and of all the lands except the advowson of the church of Raweth, which I will shall remain to my eldest son Lancelot Andrewes, clerk; also the moiety of that farm and those lands in Hordon on the Hill, and lands called Gore Oke and Clayes, and of houses in Redriffe, Surrey; to my son Nicholas the other moiety of Borrells and lands in Rawerth; the other moiety of those houses and lands in Horndon shall remain to my son Thomas; the premises in Rederiffe shall remain to my son Roger; to Martha Andrewes my daughter, L200 at 21, with remainder if she die unmarried to my daughter Mary; to the poor of Horndon where I was born, L5; to my brother William Andrewes one quarter of my ship called the White Hart; to every of my brothers and sisters by my father's side dwelling in Essex, 40s apiece; to Thomas Andrewes, son of my brother Robert Andrewes, and to Anne, sister to the said Thomas, to each a dozen of silver spoons; residue to wife Joan".
Thomas' son Lancelot Andrews' Will:
...to my father's half sister Johan (her first husband's name was Bousie) and each of her two children...
Then follows the last will and testament of John Parker, of London merchant taylor, as executor of the last will &c. of the Right Revd Father in God Lancelot Andrewes late Lord Bishop of Winchester deceased. Reference to his kinsmen ...his father's half sister Jone (her first husband's name was Bousie) and her two children.
Bishop Buckeridge in his funeral sermon said that Andrewes's parents "left him a sufficient patrimony, which has descended to his heir", and Isaacson described the parents as "honest and religious".
Andrewes himself, in his private prayers, records his thanks that he was "not the sad egg of sorry crows".
________
Memoir of the Ancestry of Dr. Lancelot Andrews
In the second volume of the Rev. William Palin's History of "Stifford and its neighbourhood," I had the honour of contributing a brief memoir of the ancestry of that eminent and learned Prelate Dr. Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester, in which I claimed for the Bishop an Essex ancestry, proving that his father and grandfather were of Horndon-on-the-Hill (where the former says he was born), in direct contradiction to the statement of the Bishop's amanuensis and biographer, Henry Isaacson, who states that he was descended from an ancient Suffolk family.
He was buried (as "Mr Thomas Andrewes") at All Hallows', Barking, in the choir, 23 June 1593 during a period shown by the registers to have been one of very high local mortality.
Married Joan, named in the will of her step-mother in law, 1592;
Executrix to her husband, 1593; will dated 1594 proved PCC 10 January
1597/8:
"I Joan Andrewes, widow, of Tower Hill in London; body to be buried with due and decent funerals and laid in the Quier of the church of All Saints, Barking, hard by the body of my late husband Thomas Andrewes, as near as conveniently it may; to son Lancelot my best salt with cover, being silver and gilt; to son Nicholas, L100; to son Thomas, servant [ie apprentice] to Mr William Cotton, draper, L130; to son Roger, L100; to daughter Mary, wife of William Burrell of Ratcliffe, shipwright, L50; to Andrewe Burrell her son, L100; to daughter Martha Andrewes L100 over and above the L200 she is to receive of me as executrix of Thomas Andrewes her father; to Alice Andrewes, the wife of William Andrewes my brother-in-law, L5; to Thomas Andrewes, second son of Matthew Andrewes my brother-in-law by his first wife, L5; to my brother-in-law William Andrewes and Richard Ireland, my third part of the ship called the Mayflower, the said Richard Ireland to be master of the same as heretofore; to son Roger a gilt tankard and a goblet (of) parcel gilt; to daughter Martha Andrewes my second salt with the cover of silver and gilt; to Joan Butler, late wife of Robert Andrewes my brother-in-law, my hooped ring of gold; to Agnes Butler her daughter, a ring of gold; to my cousin germane, Emma Fowle, L5; to my cosen William Biam, my ring of gold with death's head in it; to my sister Alice Andrewes, wife of William Andrewes, one cloth gown, a kirtle, the residue of my wearing linen, now in a little black chest; son Lancelot executor"
She was buried (as "Mistress Andrewes") at All Hallows, Barking, 7 January 1597/8.
Joane Andrewes (spelt Andrewes), widow of Thomas, who made her will in 1595, mentions therein her brothers-in-law, Matthew, William, and Robert Andrewes. We have therefore clear evidence of the existence of the father and two uncles of Bishop Andrewes whose names accord with those mentioned in the will of Thomas Andrew, the carpenter. John may have died prior to 1593, and Robert who is not named in the carpenter's will might have been a posthumous son. The orthography of the name is variable and in the wills of the Bishop and two of his brothers it is spelt Andrews.
If not proved to demonstration or with the same absolute certainty with which the Pedigree printed in Mr. Palin's work has been established, the evidence, I think, is such as to leave no reasonable doubt that Thomas Andrew the Horndon carpenter, was the grandfather of one of the greatest and most learned Prelates of the Church in England, Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester and Prelate of the Order of the Garter.
H. W. K.
* There was a good family of gentry and yeomanry of this name in that part of Essex. They had a grant of arms and occur in the Heraldic Visitations.
_________
All Hallows by the Tower:
All Hallows by the Tower is an ancient Anglican church located in the City of London, just uphill from the famous Tower of London.
History
All Hallows was first established in 675 by the now-defunct Saxon Barking Abbey and was for many years named after the abbey, as "All Hallows Barking." The church was built on the site of a former Roman building, traces of which have been discovered in the crypt.
The church was expanded and rebuilt several times between the 11th century and 15th century. All Hallows' proximity to the Tower meant that it acquired royal connections, with Edward IV making it a royal chantry and the beheaded victims of Tower executions being sent for temporary burial at All Hallows.
The church was badly damaged by a nearby explosion in 1649, which demolished its west tower, and only narrowly survived the Great Fire of London in 1666. It owed its survival to Admiral William Penn, father of William Penn of Pennsylvania fame, who saved it by having the surrounding buildings demolished to create firebreaks.
In 1926 a Roman pavement and many artifacts were discovered many feet below the church. Restored in the late 19th century, All Hallows was gutted by the Blitz in World War II and required extensive reconstruction, only being rededicated in 1957.
All Hallows by the Tower has connections with several famous persons, including:
• John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States - married here in 1797
• Judge Jeffreys, notorious "hanging judge" - married here in 1667
• William Laud, archbishop beheaded at the Tower - buried here 1645
• Thomas More, Catholic humanist, author and Lord Chancellor, refused to acknowledge Henry VIII as head of the Church - beheaded at Tower of London and buried here in 1535
• John Fisher, beheaded at the Tower - buried here in 1535
• Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Chichester, oversaw King James Bible - baptized here in 1555
• William Penn, founder of the U.S. state of Pennsylvania - baptized here in 1644
__________
Andrews Genealogy and Alliances
BY CLARA BERRY WYKER
DECATUR, ALA.
MRS. JOHN D. WYKER
1917
Methodist Book Concern Press,
Cincinnati, Ohio
From Boston Library, copied and sent me by librarian.
Genealogical Gleanings in England, p. 333:
Johan Andrewes, widow, of the Tower hill. All Saints Barking, 19 February 1594, proved 14 January 1597. My body to be buried in the choir of All Saints Barking hard by the body of my late husband Thomas Andrewes.
To my son Launcelot Andrewes my best salt with the cover, being silver and gilt. To my son Nicholas one hundred pounds. To my son Thomas Andrewes, . . . one hundred and thirty pounds (and other bequests). To my son Roger one hundred pounds. To my daughter Marie Burrell, wife of William Burrell of Ratclif, shipwright, fifty pounds. To Andrewe Burrell their son, one hundred pounds. To my daughter Martha Andrewes one hundred pounds over and above the two hundred pounds she is to receive of me as executrix of the last will &c of my husband, Thomas Andrewes, her father. To Alice Andrewes, wife of William Andrewes, my brother in law, five pounds. To Thomas Andrewes, second son of Matthew Andrewes, my brother in law, by his first wife, five pounds. To my brother in law William Andrewes and Richard Ireland, sometime my servant, my one third part of the ship called the Mayflower of the burden of four score tons or thereabouts, equally between them, upon condition that they shall aliene or sell the same and that the said Richard Ireland shall follow, attend and be master of the same ship as he hath followed, attended and been master of it heretofore. To Joane Butler, late wife of Robert Andrewes, my brother in law, my hooped ring of gold and to Agnes Butler, her daughter by my brother Robert Andrews my "gimous" rings. To Emma Fowle, my cousin germain five pounds. Lewyn, 5.
(The Launcelot Androwes or Andrewes mentioned in this will was the learned Bishop of Winchester, about whose ancestry a short paper will be found in the Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society, New Series, Vol. i, p. ^^. — Henry F. Walters.)
Above is followed by will of John Andrewes, 1649.
Page 418 :
Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester 22 September 1626, with codicils dated 1 May 1626, proved 26 September 1626.
Bequests to the poor of All hallows Barking where I was born, St. Giles without Cripplegate where I was Vicar, St. Martin's within Ludgate, St. Andrew's in Holborne and St. Saviour's in Southwalk where I have been an inhabitant; to the Master, Fellows and Scholars of the College or Hall of Mary Valence, commonly called Pembroke Hall, in Cambridge (a thousand pounds to found two fellowships and also the perpetual advowson of the Rectory of Rawreth in Essex);
to brothers' and sisters' children, viz*. William, son of brother Nicholas, deceased, the children of brother Thomas deceased (his eldest son Thomas, his second son Nicholas, his youngest son Roger, his eldest daughter Ann, married to Arthur Willaston and youngest daughter Mary), the children of sister Mary Burrell (her eldest son Andrew, her sons John, Samuel, Joseph, James and Lancelot, her daughters Mary Rooke and Martha), the children of sister Martha Salmon (her son Thomas Princep by her former husband Robert Princep, her sons Peter and Thomas Salmon, her daughter Ann Best);
to kindred removed, as cousin Ann Hockett and her two sons and three daughters, cousin Sandbrooke, cousin Robert Andrewes and his two children, cousin Rebecca, to my father's half sister Johan (her first husband's name was Bousie) and each of her two children, and more kindred I know not. To Peter Muncaster son of Mr. Richard Muncaster my schoolmaster. To Mr. Robert Barker lately the King's Printer (whom I freely forgive those sums wherein he stands bound to my brother Thomas deceased) and his two sons Robert and Charles, my godsons. To my godson Lancelot Lake. To the poor of All Saints Barking by the Tower, Horndon on the Hill, Rawreth (and other parishes) &c. &c.
My executor to be Mr. John Parker, citizen and merchant taylor of London, and overseers to be Sir Thomas Lake, Sir Henry Martin and Dr. Nicholas Styward. Hele, 109.
(See will of Johane Andrewes, the testator's
mother, and notes, ante, page 333. — Editor.)
___________
The Bishop also makes mention of his cousin Anne Hockett. John Hockett was BA. of Trinity College, Cambridge, 1662, M.A. 1666, and a Fellow of that society. Another of the same name was B.A. of that College 1696. He names another cousin, Sandbrooke; also his cousin Robert and his two children; his cousin Bebecca; his father's half-sister Joan; her first husband's name was Bousie. Also his godson Lancelot Lake, son of Sir Thomas Lake. There was a Lancelot Lake, BA. Catharine Hall, Cambridge, 1666, M.A. 1670. Also his two godsons Bobert and Charles Barker, son of Mr. Bobert Barker, "latelie the King's printer." His principal executor was Mr. John Parker, citizen and Merchant Taylor, of London, to be assisted by Sir Thomas Lake, Sir Henry Martin, and Dr. Nicholas Styward or Steward. His will was witnessed by Robert Bostock, Prebendary of Norton Episcopil in the church of Lincoln, and afterward Archdeacon of Suffolk, and (if not in 1626) Prebendary of Chichester; Joseph Fenton, probably our prelate's physician; John Browning, Bector of Buttermere near Hungerford, whom he had preferred to that living in 1624, author of Six Sermons concerning Public Prayer and the Fasts of the Church (Lond. 1636); Thomas Eddie and William Green, two of the Bishop's servants. Archdeacon Wigmore also signed the three several codicils to the will.
_________________
Ancestry of Lancelot Andrewes (b 1555), Bishop of Winchester
PART ONE
Relatively little seems to be available on the ancestry of Lancelot Andrewes, Elizabethan scholar and Bishop successively of Chichester, Ely and Winchester until his death in 1626. Similarly, various claims may be found in print and online about other Andrews families who claim descent from the Bishop's family - many of these turn out to be spurious (in particular, much of the IGI material is erroneous) but there are some notable descendants living today, including the Parker Bowles children of HRH the Duchess of Cornwall.
John Aubrey ("Brief Lives") tells us that Lancelot Andrewes was born in London and was educated at Merchant Taylors School there, before going up to Pembroke College, Cambridge. Otley in his biography "Lancelot Andrewes" (1894) states that "he was born in Thames Street in the Parish of All Hallows Barking in 1555", noting that the exact date of his birth is unknown; he records that "the family was connected with Suffolk, but very little seems known of its history" - based on statements by the Bishop's earliest biographer, Henry Isaacson, in his "Exact Narration of the Life and Death of the late... Lancelot Andrewes" (1650) ("his father was... descended from the ancient family of the Andrewes in Suffolk".)
Bishop Buckeridge in his funeral sermon said that Andrewes's parents "left him a sufficient patrimony, which has descended to his heir", and Isaacson described the parents as "honest and religious". Andrewes himself, in his private prayers, records his thanks that he was "not the sad egg of sorry crows".
The best two articles dealing with the history of the family may be found in "More About Stifford & Its Neighbourhood", by W. Palin(1872), at pp 8-13 and 70-71, summarising the research of H.W. King, and in Suffolk Manorial Families, which re-examines the former material and provides the texts of some probate records to augment it. These articles are largely correct, but include some incorrect statements, as well as omitting some important facts.
There are also a couple of unreliable references in three Harleian Society Manuscripts in the British Library (Harl MSS 1094 and 1184, and 4031), nominally papers connected with the Vistation of Northamptonshire in 1618-19 by Augustine Vincent, and an undated roll pedigree in the Society of Genealogists' Library. These provide the following originating stemma:
1. Thomas Andrewes of Carlisle, ff 1286, married Magdalen Tokett
2. Ralph Andrewes, ff 1334, married Mary Thompson
3. Ralph Andrewes, of Cockold, married Jane Witney
4. Richard Andrewes of Husdon, married Elizabeth Marcant
5. John Andrewes, married Emma Vaughan
6. Henry Andrewes, married Blanche Smythe
7. Thomas Andrewes 'of St Edes' [i.e. St Neots, Cambs], married Mary Brough
8. Richard Andrewes, of Horndon-on-the -Hill, Essex, married Joyce Bresom
9. John Andrewes, of Horndon, married Joan Cotton
10. Thomas Andrewes of Horndon, "had three wives"
11. Thomas Andrewes of London, father of L Andrewes, Doctor in Divinity, Bishop of Chichester".
It is curious that the latest (ie contemporary) generation in this pedigree should be the only one missing a Christian name! These documents have normally been treated as an ambitious, but essentially fanciful, attempt to connect various disparate Andrews families, and hence it testimony rejected in terms of accuracy.
Nevertheless, we find that it is correct in relation to what it tells us about the Bishop's father and paternal grandfather, including (as we shall see) the statement that the latter had three wives.
I have been unsuccessful in ascertaining whether there is any historical evidence for the earlier generations, and accordingly suspect they should be treated as myth.
In this course of this thread, I shall aim to examine the background of the Bishop and his siblings, and intend to use the Harleian MSS's end generations as my peg.
MA-R
PART TWO: PATERNAL ANCESTRY
Thomas Andrewes of Horndon-on-the-Hill, Essex, was the paternal grandfather of Bishop Lancelot Andrewes. According to the Vincent pedigrees he married three times. Evidence from the Essex wills (published by Fitch in his series of that county's probate records) allows us to confirm this statement, and most of what King's reconstructs of the family:
1. Thomas Andrewes, witnessed the will of Thomas Armerar of Horndon, 21 February 1558/9 (pr Archdeaconry of Essex, 3 April 1559); named in the will of William Goodwyn, his brother-in-law [see will of his daughter Agnes, infra], waxchandler of Horndon, dated 30 May 1561 (pr. Archd. Essex, 3 December 1561):
"L30 to the children of Thomas Andrewes of Horndon, i.e. to Robert
L10, to John and Matthew L5 apiece, and to Agnes L10, all at 23; to John and Matthew in addition L5 each at 23; to Lancelot Andrewes and Agnes Andrewes the son and daughter of Thomas Andrewes of London, mariner, my part of and in the ship called the Trinity of Caryte, and of and in the crayer called the Hearne of London" as "Thomas Andrewe, carpenter of Horndon-on-the-Hill", made a will:
"to the poor men's box of Horndon, 12d; to John my son a bullock and my best coat; to Thomas my son the younger a featherbed; to William my son a gold ring; to Matthew my son a bolster, pair of sheets, two platters and my best jerkin; residue to Margaret my wife whom I ordain my executrix; Robert Drywood and my son Matthew to be overseers;
witnessed by Robert Drywood, maker of this will, Matthew and John Andrewes his sons", dated 29 December [presumably 1568], proved Archd.
Essex 25 January 1568/9.
married firstly ( ) the sister of William Goodwin of Horndon; had by her Thomas, Robert, John, Matthew and Agnes.
married secondly ( ), by whom he had William, not named in any of the Goodwin wills but still living in 1597, and possibly Thomas the younger
married thirdly Margaret, his widow. She seems to have married firstly a Mr Lowe, by whom she had a daughter Agnes [see will of Agnes Andrewes, infra]; then Thomas Andrewes, and thirdly John Goodwin of Horndon, her second husband's nephew by his first marriage. Her will, dated 19 November 1592, proved Archd. Essex 17 February 1592/3, names her son Robert Goodwin, her daughter Sarah Almon; her daughter Agnes Gyles; her daughter Elizabeth Hawkins; her daughter Joan Bowsy, and "Mistress Andrewes of Tower Hill", to whom she left her "bay nag with saddle and bridle". The will of her third husband John Goodwin (dated 26 May, proved 18 June 1588 Archd. Essex) names Margaret his wife, his son Robert and his daughter Sarah. We may thus conclude that by Margaret's marriage to Thomas Andrewes, she bore Elizabeth, afterwards Hawkins, and Joan, afterwards Bowsy.
Issue:
2a. Thomas Andrewes, of Tower Hill, London, mariner; son of his father's first marriage - see part three
2b. Agnes Andrewes, daughter of her father's first marriage; mentioned in her uncle's will, 1561; unmarried; left a will dated 2 February 1562/3, proved Archd. Essex, 7 September 1563:
"Agnes Andrewe of Horndon, maiden; from the money that my brother Thomas Andrewes hath in his hands which was given me by the will of my uncle William Goodwin: to my father, my two brothers William and Robert, each 10s; to my brother Matthew 20s, and my brother Thomas the younger, 40s each at 21; to my sister Elizabeth and my sister-in-law [i.e. step-sister] Agnes Lowe, each 20s at 18; residue to my father; witness: Robert Drywood"
2c. Robert Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; mentioned in the will of his uncle, 1561, and that of his sister Agnes, 1563, then of age; mentioned in his father's will, 1568; dead by 1594, when his widow is mentioned in the will of his sister-in-law Joan Andrews;
married Joan (called "Joan Butler" in the 1594 will, so probably she remarried); had issue:
3a. Thomas Andrewes, named in the will of his uncle Thomas Andrewes, 1593
2d. John Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; mentioned in the wills of 1561 and 1568
2e. Matthew Andrewes, named in the wills of 1561, 1563 and 1568; aged under 21 in 1563; witnessed the will of James Roger of East Tilbury, 18 February 1572/3 (pr. Archd. Essex 13 June 1573); executor to his mother-in-law Alice Thomson, 1579 (Archd, Essex); married firstly ( ) the daughter of Alice Thomson of East Tilbury, by whom he had three children; married secondly ( ); engaged to marry Judith Turner at the time of making his will, proved Archd. Essex, 16 October 1599:
"Matthew Andrewes of Horndon; to my son Robert L20 at 21; to daughter Rebecca, L20 at 20 or marriage; to son William, L5; to Judith Turner, whom, had God permitted, should have been my wife, L10; residue to Nicholas Andrewes my cousin, whom I make executor"
Had issue by both marriages:
3a. William Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; named in his maternal grandmother's will, 1578; named in his father's will, 1599
3b. Thomas Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; named in his maternal grandmother's will, 1578; named in the will of his aunt Joan Andrewes, 1594 as "second son of the first marriage"
3c. John Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; named in his maternal grandmother's will, 1578
3d. Robert Andrewes, son of his father's second marriage; mentioned in his father's will, 1599, and the wills of his cousins Lancelot Andrewes, 1626, and Martha Salmon, 1650; had two children, according to the 1626 will
3e. Rebecca Andrewes, daughter by her father's second marriage; mentioned in the wills of Thomas Almon, her godfather, 1594 (Archd. Essex, 112 ER 17), her father, 1599, and her cousins Lancelot Andrewes, 1626, and Martha Salmon, 1650
2d. William Andrewes, apparently son of his father's second marriage, as not named in the wills of William Goodwin or Margaret Goodwin; named in his sister's will, 1563, then of age; named in his father's will; bequeathed an interest in a ship by his brother Thomas, 1593, and again by his sister-in-law Joan Andrewes, 1594; married Alice, named in the 1594 will
2e. Thomas Andrewes the younger; unclear by which marriage, though apparently not the first; named in the will of his sister Agnes, 1563, then under age; named in his father's will, 1568
2f. Elizabeth Andrewes, daughter of her father's third marriage; named in her sister's will, 1563, then under 18; mentioned in her mother's will, 1592, having married a Mr Hawkins; she had a daughter Susanna
2g. Joan Andrewes, daughter of her father's third marriage; not named in the will of her sister Agnes, 1563, so possibly not then born; named as "Joan Bowsy" in her mother's will, 1592; referred to as "my father's half-sister Joan - her first husband's name was Bousie" in the will of Lancelot Andrewes, 1626; married firstly Mr Bowsy/Bousie, and secondly ( ). Had two children, according to the 1626 will.
MA-R
PART TWO: PATERNAL ANCESTRY
1. Thomas Andrewes, of Horndon-on-the-Hill, carpenter; had issue, incl:
2d. William Andrewes, apparently son of his father's second marriage, as not named in the wills of William Goodwin or Margaret Goodwin; named in his sister's will, 1563, then of age; named in his father's will; bequeathed an interest in a ship by his brother Thomas, 1593, and again by his sister-in-law Joan Andrewes, 1594; married Alice, named in the 1594 will
This William was a party to a property transaction in Brentwood, Essex, 1594:
"William Greatham and Joan his wife v. William Andrewes and Alice his wife, re two messuages, a garden and an orchard in Brentwood parish of Weald; £40" (Essex Feet of Fines 1581-1603, p 120 #60)
PART THREE: PARENTS AND SIBLINGS
Perhaps the greatest level of confusion about the family of Lancelot Andrewes concerns his siblings. A quick glance at the IGI, for instance, will reveal no fewer than 15 brothers and sisters variously assigned to him. I have been able to confirm 12 only, including an unnamed sibling who died young. The spurious children credited to his parents appear to be:
(a) Ann, said per IGI to have been born in 1568, but of whom there is no trace
(b) Agnes, said per IGI to have been born in 1582, but of whom there is no trace
(c) George, of whom King states "baptised at All Hallows 1563 (and) buried there in 1571", quoting the parish registers (this is presumably the source of the identical details appearing in Boyd's Inhabitants of London). No George Andrewes is named in the parish register for the period in question, either in respect of a baptism or a burial.
(d) William, referred to in the 'Suffolk Manorial Families' pedigree, but of whom there is no other evidence.
In fact, details of Lancelot's parents and siblings are as follows:
Thomas Andrewes, son of Thomas Andrewes and his first wife, nee Goodwin; born at Hordon-on-the-Hill, Essex; of Thames Street, Tower Ward, London; mariner; of age, 23 March 5 Mary I/4 Philip [1558], when he entered in a bond; legatee of his uncle William Goodwin, 1561, then of London; bought a messuage, a toft, a garden, 60 acres of arable, 20 acres of meadow, 40 acres of pasture and 3 acres of wood at Horndon for £160, 1587 [Essex Feet of Fine]; named in the Assessment of 1589 for Tower Ward; "having most part of his life used the seas, in his latter time became one of the Society, and Master of the Holy Trinity, commonly called the Trinity House" (Isaacson); will dated 23 June 1593, proved PCC 4 July 1593:
"I, Thomas Andrewes of the parish of All Saints Barking on Tower Hill, London, mariner; to my well-beloved wife Joan the moiety of my manor or farm in Raweth, Essex, called Borrells, and of all the lands except the advowson of the church of Raweth, which I will shall remain to my eldest son Lancelot Andrewes, clerk; also the moiety of that farm and those lands in Hordon on the Hill, and lands called Gore Oke and Clayes, and of houses in Redriffe, Surrey; to my son Nicholas the other moiety of Borrells and lands in Rawerth; the other moiety of those houses and lands in Horndon shall remain to my son Thomas; the premises in Rederiffe shall remain to my son Roger; to Martha Andrewes my daughter, L200 at 21, with remainder if she die unmarried to my daughter Mary; to the poor of Horndon where I was born, L5; to my brother William Andrewes one quarter of my ship called the White Hart; to every of my brothers and sisters by my father's side dwelling in Essex, 40s apiece; to Thomas Andrewes, son of my brother Robert Andrewes, and to Anne, sister to the said Thomas, to each a dozen of silver spoons; residue to wife Joan".
He was buried (as "Mr Thomas Andrewes") at All Hallows', Barking, in the choir, 23 June 1593 during a period shown by the registers to have been one of very high local mortality.
marred Joan, named in the will of her step-mother in law, 1592; executrix to her husband, 1593; will dated 1594 proved PCC 10 January 1597/8:
"I Joan Andrewes, widow, of Tower Hill in London; body to be buried with due and decent funerals and laid in the Quier of the church of All Saints, Barking, hard by the body of my late husband Thomas Andrewes, as near as conveniently it may; to son Lancelot my best salt with cover, being silver and gilt; to son Nicholas, L100; to son Thomas, servant [ie apprentice] to Mr William Cotton, draper, L130; to son Roger, L100; to daughter Mary, wife of William Burrell of Ratcliffe, shipwright, L50; to Andrewe Burrell her son, L100; to daughter Martha Andrewes L100 over and above the L200 she is to receive of me as executrix of Thomas Andrewes her father; to Alice Andrewes, the wife of William Andrewes my brother-in-law, L5; to Thomas Andrewes, second son of Matthew Andrewes my brother-in-law by his first wife, L5; to my brother-in-law William Andrewes and Richard Ireland, my third part of the ship called the Mayflower, the said Richard Ireland to be master of the same as heretofore; to son Roger a gilt tankard and a goblet (of) parcel gilt; to daughter Martha Andrewes my second salt with the cover of silver and gilt; to Joan Butler, late wife of Robert Andrewes my brother-in-law, my hooped ring of gold; to Agnes Butler her daughter, a ring of gold; to my cousin germane, Emma Fowle, L5; to my cosen William Biam, my ring of gold with death's head in it; to my sister Alice Andrewes, wife of William Andrewes, one cloth gown, a kirtle, the residue of my wearing linen, now in a little black chest; son Lancelot executor"
She was buried (as "Mistress Andrewes") at All Hallows, Barking, 7 January 1597/8.
Issue:
(1) Lancelot Andrewes, born circa 1555; educated at Merchant Taylors school and Pembroke College, Cambridge; successively Dean of Westminster, Bishop of Chichester, Ely and Winchester; Dean of the Chapel Royal; died 25 September 1626; buried at St Saviour's, Southwark [tomb extant] (Alum. Cantab.); aged 71 and some months at his death (Funeral Certificate, College of Arms, I.8/31 and I.23/30); unmarried; will proved PCC, 109 Hele and 23-24 Skynner: inter alia named "cousin Sandbrooke; cousin Ann Hockett, her two sons and three daughters; my father's half-sister Johan (her first husband's name was Bousie) and each of her two children; my brother Thomas, deceased; my cousin Robert Andrewes and his two children; my cousin Rebecca"
(2) Judith Andrewes, buried at All Hallows, Barking, April 1559 (PR)
(3) Agnes Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 30 September 1561 (PR); named in the will of her great-uncle, William Goodwin, 1561; buried at All Hallows, Barking, 19 June 1571 (PR)
(4) (child), buried at All Hallows, Barking, 6 December 1563, during a period of severe local mortality (PR)
(5) Sarah Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 30 May 1564 (PR); presumably died young
(6) John Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 30 January 1565/6; buried there 3 February 1575/6 (PR)
(7) Nicholas Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 23 February 1566/7 (PR); bequeathed property in Essex by his father, 1593; named in his mother's will, 1594; grocer, of the parish of St Brides, Fleet Street, October 1598 (London Subsidy Rolls); residual beneficiary of his uncle Matthew Andrewes, 1599; appointed to the Registrarship of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster Abbey for life, 3 December 1602 ("Lancelot Andrewes", P. Welsby, London 1958); received assignation of a lease of tithes at Erbury and Chilton from Henry Isaacson, 1620 (Norfolk RO, GIL/1/333/717 x 4); late of St Saviour, Southwark, administration PCC 25 September 1626; married and left issue (NB his son and heir, William Andrewes (1602-1640), was Rector of Nuthurst, Sussex, and did not emigrate to America.
(8) Mary Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 23 October 1570 (PR); named in her father's will, 1593, and her mother's will, 1594; died at Lambeth Marsh, her will dated 28 February 1655 with codicil of 20 February 1656/7 proved PCC 15 October 1657; married by 1594 William Burrell, of Ratcliffe, shipwright; armiger; "one of the Commissioners for the Royal Navy for 15 years" (Vis. London, 1633-4, Vol I, p 125); died 1630; will proved PCC 1631 (87 St John); had issue, from whom descended Admiral Rooke, and Andrew Parker-Bowles
(9) Sarah Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 30 December 1571 (PR); presumably died young
(10) Thomas Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 13 March 1572/3 (PR); apprenticed to William Cotton, citizen and draper of London; inherited property at Horndon from his father, 1593; named in his mother's will, 1594; admitted Freeman of the Drapers' Company, 1597 (Roll of the Drapers' Company of London); will proved PCC 1625 123 Clarke; married by licence dated 19 September 1598 Alice Clay, and left issue.
(11) Roger Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 12 December 1574 (PR; not 1575, as usually stated, or 1576, as alleged by King); educated at Pembroke College, Cambridge; Rector of Nuthurst, Chancellor and Archdeacon of Chichester; Master of Jesus College, Cambridge (Alum. Cantab.); "overbearing and quarrelsome, (he) treated his college with contemptuous disregard and seems to have resided very little; he neglected the financial the financial affairs of the college, which were his responsibility, and finally embezzled certain sums of money; it was only due to the royal favour in memory of (his) late brother that in 1632 he was permitted to resign instead of being dismissed" ("Jesus College Cambridge, A. Gray, 1902, pp 84-90); died 10 September 1635 (Le Neve's Fasti); buried at Cheriton, Hants, 11 September 1635 (Alum. Cantab.); will proved PCC, 1635 (Prob 11/169); married Philippa Blaxton, but had no issue.
(12) Martha Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, 24 March 1576/7 (PR); named in her father's will, 1593, and her mother's will, 1594; called "now wife of Robert Salmon and late wife of Robert Princippe lately deceased, 12 July 1597 (Huntingdon RO, Con 3/5/9/13); will dated 27 May 1650, proved PCC 7 July 1653:
"Martha Salmon of London, widow, late wife of Robert Salmon, deceased; 20s to the preacher at her interment at All Hallows, Barking; to loving friend and cosen Captain John Stevens, L200 on trust for her daughter, and L5 and 40s for a ring in remembrance; to sister Mary Burrell, L20; to cosen Mr Sambrooke, 40s to buy him a ring; cozens Mrs Cator and Mrs Ireland, L3 each; to Robert Andrewes and Rebecca Andrewes, L3 each; late deceased brother's trustees, L50 for setting up young beginners in trades or handicrafts as per his will"
married firstly Robert Princep, and had a son, Thomas, baptised at St Bride's Fleet Street, 23 November 1595 (IGI); married secondly, 26 January 1597 at St Olave Hart Street (PR) Robert Salmon, Master of Trinity House, 1617; of Leigh-on-sea, Essex (East Anglian & Essex Countryside Annual, 1964, p 65). Left issue.
(13) Sarah Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, 24 March 1576/7 (PR); presumably died young.
MA-R
PART THREE: PARENTS AND SIBLINGS
Thomas Andrewes, of Thames Street, Tower Ward, London; mariner; will dated 23 June 1593; buried at All Hallows', Barking, 23 June 1593
Given the dates of his will and his burial, we may conclude that the Bishop's father died 23 June 1593. There was a virulent outbreak of bubonic plague in London during 1593; Stowe reports nearly 11,000 deaths in twelve months.
PART FOUR: GOODWIN ANCESTRY
I visited Horndon-on-the-Hill this morning; it is a very pleasant village, with various mediaeval buildings remaining in good condition. The church is open for visitors on a Tuesday and Saturday mornings, and the Bell still functions as an inn. A plaque outside commemorates Thomas Higbed, of Horndon House, who on 26 March 1555 was burnt at the stake in the courtyard for adhering to the Protestant cause.
1. ( ) Goodwin; had issue:
2a. (daughter), married as his first wife Thomas Andrewes of Horndon-on-the-Hill (died 1568), and left issue
2b. William Goodwin, of Horndon-on-the-Hill, waxchandler; left a will dated 30 May 1561, proved Archd. Essex 3 December 1561:
"to my eldest son Robert, my messuage called the Bell in Horndon; to my sons Thomas and John each L10 at 23; to Joan Goodwin my maidservant, 40s at marriage; to Lancelot Andrewes and Agnes Andrewes the son and daughter of Thomas Andrewes of London, mariner, my part of and in the ship called the Trinity of Caryte, and of and in the crayer called the Hearne of London; whereas the said Thomas by his obligation dated 23 March in the fourth and fifth years of the late King and Queen Philip and Mary [i.e. 1557/8, not 1556/7 as printed by Fitch in his edition of Essex Wills] standeth bound to me in L40 for payment of L30, i.e. L5 yearly at Michaelmas until L30 be paid, which obligation I will shall be cancelled, and that he shall stand bound to Robert my son for payment of L30 to the children of Thomas Andrewes of Horndon, i.e. to Robert L10, to John and Matthew L5 apiece, and to Agnes L10, all at 23; to John and Matthew in addition L5 each at 23; residue to Robert, whom I make my executor"
left issue:
3a. Robert Goodwin, eldest son; executor and residual benefiary of his father, 1561, from whom he inherited the Bell at Horndon; named in the will of his brother John, 1588 [infra]; dead by 1590; married Elizabeth Bretton, daughter of Robert Bretton; died a widow; her will proved Archd. Essex 4 June 1590:
"Elizabeth Goodwin of Horndon, widow: to John and Robert Goodwin, my sons, such right as I now have in three tenements, a barn, an orchard and a croft which my father Robert Bretton did give between me and my sister Hearde in Horndon; if they both die without heirs, to my daughter Susan Carter; to John and Robert, four kine and ten sheep which are let to farm to one Williams of East Tilbury; to Repent Savage, 10 shillings; to Susan my mourning gown, my best hat, 11 pieces of pewter in a spruce chest, the said chest, my best salt, two latten candlesticks, my best ***, best petticoat etc etc; to Joan Savage my daughter, my two bedsteads in the bed loft, a great chest etc etc; to my sister Heard, my warming pan and a pair of great cob- irons; residue to Robert Heard and Robert Bretton my brother, whom I ordain executors, desiring them to see my two sons brought up; my brother Heard shall have Robert, and my brother Robert shall have John".
Issue:
4a. John Goodwin, named in his uncle's will of 1588, and his mother's will proved 1590
4b. Robert Goodwin, named in his uncle's will of 1588, and his mother's will proved 1590
4c. Susan Goodwin, named in her mother's will; married Mr Carter
4d. Joan Goodwin, named in her mother's will; married Repent Savage, named in his mother-in-law's will
3b. Thomas Goodwin, named in his father's will of 30 May 1561, then aged under 23
3c. (daughter), referred to in the will of her brother John, 1588 (infra); married Mr Norden
3d. John Goodwin, named in his father's will of 30 May 1561, then aged under 23; bequeathed 4s by Robert Bretton of Langdon Hills, 1566; beer-brewer of Horndon; administration of his nuncupative will dated 26 May 1588 granted Archd. Essex, 18 June 1588:
"to brother Robert Goodwin's two sons, John and Robert, 40 shillings a piece at 21; to Susanna Hawkins, a cow at 18 or marriage; to sister Norden, a winter gown; residue to wife Margaret, son Robert and daughter Sarah, to be equally divided"
married Margaret, third wife and widow of Thomas Andrewes of Horndon, his uncle by marriage; she died his widow, 1592; will dated 19 November 1592, proved Archd. Essex, 17 February 1592/3:
"to Robert Goodwin my son, the bedstead that I lie on, with the featherbed, half dozen of my best flaxen napkins, etc etc, the Book of Acts and Monuments [Foxe], the New Testament, and the book of Latymer's Sermons; to Sarah Almon my daughter, the next bedsteadle with the new feather bed, a flaxen tablecloth, etc etc; to Agnes Gyles my daughter, a featherbed, the great kettle, etc etc; to Elizabeth Hawkins my daughter, my spice mortar, a chafer with feet, a kettle, etc etc; to Joan Bowsy my daughter, a featherbed, a dozen of pewter and a good tablecloth; to Susan Hawkins, a brass pot and a kettle; to Mistress Andrewes of Tower Hill, my bay nag with the saddle andbridle; residue to Robert, whom I make executor; witnesses: Thomas Taylor, Robert Drywood, Robert Taylor".
Issue:
4a. Robert Goodwin, named in his parents' wills, 1588 and 1592
4b. Sarah Goodwin, named in her parents' wills, 1588 and 1592; married Mr Almon [probably Thomas Almon of Horndon-on-the-Hill, will pr. Archd. Essex, 1594 112ER17].
There are a number of other Goodwin wills at Chelmsford, including some earlier (eg Thomas of Horndon, 1543; Joan of Horndon, widow, 1552) which I have not yet seen; these likely shed further light on the Goodwin family of Horndon-on-the-Hill.
MA-R
From: Brad Verity
Date: 21 Apr 2007
______________
Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626), born in the parish of All Hallows, Barking, he was a scholar at the Coopers' Free School in Ratcliff. Whilst at Coopers he came under the influence of school master Thomas Ward who played a pivotal role in young Lancelot's life. He went on to study at Pembroke College, Cambridge, and in 1580 was ordained, quickly progressing to higher offices within the church. He shone as a scholar and was said to be fluent in fifteen ancient and modern languages; Andrewes was soon noticed in royal circles by Queen Elizabeth's Chief Minister and spymaster Francis Walsingham leading to him becoming her Chaplain in Ordinary. Upon her death in 1603 Lancelot Andrewes preached the sermon at her funeral, and then went on to participate in the coronation of King James I. Under the new King his rise in the church was rapid: in 1605 he was made Bishop of Chichester and Lord High Almoner. In 1609 he became Bishop of Ely and in 1619 Bishop of Winchester and Dean of the Royal Chapel. He narrowly missed becoming Archbishop of Canterbury. Upon his death seven years later he was buried in what is now Southwark Cathedral. Amongst his many ecclesiastical achievements Bishop Andrewes oversaw the translation of the King James version of the Bible and, following the unsuccessful attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament in 1605, Lancelot was asked to prepare a sermon to be presented to the King. In his sermon he justified the need to commemorate the deliverance of The King and Country: to 'always remember the fifth of November!' He defined the celebrations which became the foundations of events that continue some 400 years later. Lancelot Andrewes remained a close confidant of the King and accompanied him on his Scottish mission to persuade the Scots that it was preferable to pay more attention to rituals like the Holy Communion through an Episcopalian approach and move away from the heavy sermons of Presbyterianism. Liverymen might be interested to know that on Saturday 14 January 1933 during the building of the Bishop Andrewes' Church in St Helier, Morden, the foundation stone was laid by the then Master of the Company, Harold Griffin JP, Great Grandfather of Liveryman and Society President Celia Campbell and Liveryman and Past President of the Society, Sharon Ashby. The above trowel was presented to him as a commemoration of the event. In June of that year the church was consecrated by the Bishop of Southwark with the company and school playing their part in the service.
____________
Lancelot Andrews' Catholicity:
On September 25th most of the Anglican Communion commemorates the day on which Lancelot Andrewes died. Monday, about 4 O'clock in the morning, died Lancelot Andrews, the most worthy bishop of Winchester, the great light of the Christian world." (Laud 3:126)
And what a light he was in his time and still is. Those who value the catholicity of the Church and the beauty of holiness in worship, also offer a big thank you on this day as he safeguarded the Catholic heritage in the English Church in its formative years of the Reformation period under Elizabeth I. One cannot read Andrewes' sermons or use his prayers without being aware of the centrality of the Eucharist in his life and teaching, as well as teaching the Catholic faith according to the Fathers in his sermons.
So it is not surprising that for many in the seventeenth century Andrewes was considered the authority on worship, and so what he practised in his beautiful chapel, designed for Catholic worship, became their standard for the celebration of the Liturgy. The 1662 Prayer Book, following Andrewes' practice, restored the rubrics for the manual acts at the offertory and consecration. In modern times Eliot referred to Andrewes as "the first great preacher of the English Catholic Church".
There is no doubt therefore that Andrewes saw himself as standing in that long line of Christian tradition embedded in antiquity, and a part of the wonder and loveliness of creation. Indeed Andrewes was a man of prayer and learning whose preaching and piety was noted as far away as Venice. Each day of his life, from 4.am to noon was spent in prayer and study.
During those fifty years Andrewes ministry touched all walks of life. He was chaplain to reigning monarchs for forty years; constant preacher at Court especially for James I.
Andrewes' began his ministry (a ministry that was to last fifty years) c.1578, a time when the Puritans were trying their hardest, especially through pamphlets and parliaments to model the English Church on the Genevan. This would have meant discarding the episcopal and apostolic ministry, the Prayer Book, downplaying the sacraments and dismantling the structure of cathedrals. However their demands were always thwarted by Queen Elizabeth. She and the Archbishop of Canterbury (Whitgift) both appointed Andrewes as one of their chaplains, and prevailed on his skills as a preacher and theologian to address many of the issues raised by Puritans in the late 16thC. So his preaching and lecturing and later on when a bishop his Visitation Articles always stressed amongst other things the observance of Prayer Book services to be taken by a properly ordained minister, the Eucharist to be celebrated reverently, infants to be baptised, the Daily Offices to be said, and spiritual counselling to be given where needed.
One cannot read Andrewes' sermons or use his prayers without being aware of the centrality of the Eucharist in his life and teaching. It had been the heart of worship in the early Church when the local bishop and people came together constantly to celebrate Christ's glorious death, and partake of His most blessed Body and Blood. That partaking fell into disuse in the mediæval church and was replaced instead by adoration of the Host at the elevation during the Canon. For Andrewes the Eucharist was the meeting place for the infinite and finite, the divine and human, heaven and earth. "The blessed mysteries ... are from above; the 'Bread that came down from Heaven,' the Blood that hath been carried 'into the holy place.' And I add, ubi Corpus, ubi sanguis Christi, ibi Christus". We here "on earth ... are never so near Him, nor He us, as then and there." Thus it is to the altar we must come for "that blessed union [which] is the highest perfection we can in this life aspire unto." Unlike his contemporary Puritans it was not the pulpit but the altar, glittering with its candles and plate, with incense wafting to God, that was the focal point for worship in Andrewes' chapel.
The reason that Andrewes placed so much importance on reverence in worship came from his conviction that when we worship God it is with our entire being, that is, both bodily and spiritually. At a time when little emphasis was placed on the old outward forms of piety Andrewes maintained, "if He hath framed that body of yours and every member of it, let Him have the honour both of head and knee, and every member else."
During those fifty years Andrewes ministry touched all walks of life. He was chaplain to reigning monarchs for forty years; constant preacher at Court especially for James I; vicar of an important London parish, St. Giles, Cripplegate; and a prebendary of St. Paul's Cathedral for fifteen years. He was also Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge for a similar period; a prebendary and then Dean of Westminster Abbey for a total of eight years; Almoner and Dean of the Royal Chapel and finally a bishop for twenty-two years. He therefore not only held influential positions but also ministered to many who held important positions of State. Yet his congregations came from all walks of life, apart from royalty, politicians and gentry, there were actors, artisans, musicians, students, common folk and clerics. Contemporaries admired his preaching and piety, and eagerly awaited the publication of his sermons. Whilst he was a prebendary of St. Pancras stall at St. Paul's he restored the ancient office of confessor. Accordingly, "especially in Lent time" he would "walk duly at certain hours, in one of the Iles of the Church, that if any came to him for spirituall advice and comfort, as some did, though not many, he might impart it to them."
So it is not surprising that for many in the seventeenth century Andrewes was considered the authority on worship, and so what he practised in his beautiful chapel, designed for Catholic worship, became their standard for the celebration of the Liturgy. As Andrewes was steeped in the teachings of the Fathers and the liturgies of both Eastern and Western churches it meant that in intention and form he followed the 1549 Prayer Book more than the 1559. His practice shaped the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637 (adopted by the American Episcopal Church in the 1789), and the reshaping of the Liturgy in the English Church in 1662. The 1662 Prayer Book, following Andrewes' practice, restored the rubrics for the manual acts at the offertory and consecration. Since then all Prayer Books compiled in various parts of the Anglican Communion are closer to the 1549 Prayer Book - a liturgy in Cranmer's eyes to be only a stop-gap, but for Andrewes it reflected the practices and beliefs of the Church for over a thousand years.
As a preacher Andrewes was highly esteemed by contemporaries and later generations. In modern times Eliot referred to Andrewes as "the first great preacher of the English Catholic Church" who always spoke as "a man who had a formed visible Church behind him, who speaks with the old authority and the new culture, whilst his sermons "rank with the finest English prose of their time, of any time." As well as teaching the Catholic faith according to the Fathers his sermons also reflected an appreciation of beauty as well as knowledge of commerce, trade, art, theatre, navigation, husbandry, science, astronomy, cosmography, fishing, nature, shipping, and even the new discoveries of the world.
But Andrewes himself would have said, as indeed he did to Sir Francis Walisingham, that his whole life and teaching were indebted to the Fathers, especially the Eastern. One has only to be reasonably familiar with the Fathers, to see how much of their teachings were preached by him. For example the Cappadocian Fathers on the Eucharist, the Trinity and Christology, Cyprian on prayer, Anselm on sin and Bernard on atonement.
There is no doubt therefore that Andrewes saw himself as standing in that long line of Christian tradition embedded in antiquity, and a part of the wonder and loveliness of creation. As Dean Church said of him: "He ... felt himself, even in private prayer, one of the great body of God's creation and God's Church. He reminded himself of it, as he did of the Object of his worship, in the profession of his faith. He acted on it in his detailed and minute intercessions." Indeed Andrewes was a man of prayer and learning whose preaching and piety was noted as far away as Venice. Each day of his life, from 4.am to noon was spent in prayer and study. It is a shame that very few Anglicans know anything about this most important divine during the Reformation period in England, or of their heritage. The period in which Andrewes lived was perhaps "the golden years" of what became known as Anglicanism.
____________
The darker side of the chief King James Bible translator, Lancelot Andrewes
One of the most amazing feats of history was the creation of the King James Version of the Bible in the years leading up to 1611. A committee of bickering scholars pulled together one of the two greatest works of English literature–great, at least, in their formative influence on the language and culture of English-speaking nations–with the other being the plays of Shakespeare.
The "lead mule" on this herculean project was perhaps the most brilliant man of his age, and one of the most pious, Lancelot Andrewes. A fascinating figure in his own right, Andrewes was not only a scholar and a spiritual man, but also a master of ecclesiastical politics. Like all people, he was not without flaws, and Adam Nicolson, author of God's Secretaries, looked unstintingly into those flaws as well as the greatness of the man. Here is some of what Nicolson discovered:
[You should know that a prebendary is a post connected to an Anglican or Catholic cathedral or collegiate church and is a type of canon. Prebendaries have a role in the administration of the cathedral. A prebend is a type of benefice, which was usually drawn from specific sources in the income from the cathedral estates.]
26 "By midsummer [1603], London under plague now looked, sounded, and smelled like a city at war. It was by far the worst outbreak England had known. Here now, grippingly, and shockingly, the first and greatest of the Bible Translators appears on the scene. It is not a dignified sight. Lancelot Andrewes was a man deeply embedded in the Jacobean establishment. [Jacobitism was a political movement in Great Britain and Ireland that aimed to restore the Roman Catholic Stuart King James II of England and his heirs to the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland.] He was forty-nine or fifty, Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge. He was also Dean of Westminster Abbey, a prebendary of St. Paul's Cathedral, drawing the income from one of the cathedral's manors, and of Southwell Minster, one of the chaplains at the Chapel Royal in Whitehall, who under Elizabeth had twice turned down a bishopric not because he felt unworthy of the honour but because he did not consider the income of the sees he was offered satisfactory. Elizabeth had done much to diminish the standing of bishops; she had banished them from court and had effectively suspended Edmund Grindal, the Archbishop of Canterbury whose severe and Calvinist views were not to her liking. Andrewes, one of the most astute and brilliant men of his age, an ecclesiastical politician who in the Roman Church would have become a cardinal, perhaps even pope, was not going to diminish his prospects simply to carry an elevated title."
26-7 "Andrewes plays a central role in the story of the King James Bible, and the complexities of his character will emerge as it unfolds—he is in many ways its hero; as broad as the great Bible itself, scholarly, political, passionate, agonized, in love with the English language, endlessly investigating its possibilities, worldly, saintly, serene, sensuous, courageous, craven, if not corrupt then at least compromised, deeply engaged in pastoral [27] care, generous, loving, in public bewitched by ceremony, in private troubled by persistent guilt and self-abasement—but in the grim realities of plague-stricken London in the summer of 1603, he appears in the worst possible light. Among his many positions in the church, he was the vicar of St Giles Cripplegate, just outside the old walls to the north of the city."
27 "The church was magnificent, beautifully repaired after a fire in 1545, full of the tombs of knights and aldermen, goldsmiths, physicians, rich men and their wives. The church was surrounded by elegant houses and the Jews' Garden, where Jews had been buried before the medieval pogroms, was now filled with 'fair garden plots and summer-houses for pleasure . . . some of them like Midsummer pageants, with towers, turrets and chimney-tops.'"
28 "Andrewes wasn't there. He had previously attended to the business of the parish, insisting that the altar rails should be retained in the church (which a strict Puritan would have removed), doubling the amount of communion wine that was consumed (for him, Christianity was more than a religion of the word) and composing a Manual for the Sick, a set of religious reassurances, beginning with a quotation from Kings: 'Set thy house in order, for thou shalt die.' And he certainly preached at St. Giles's from time to time. But throughout the long months of the plague in 1603, he never once visited his parish."
For the king to absent himself [to the country to avoid the plague] was only politic. But for the vicar of a parish to do so was another question."
28 "The mortality had spread to Westminster. In the parish of St Margaret, in which the Abbey and Westminster School both lie, dogs were killed in the street and their bodies burnt, month after month, a total of 502 for the summer. The outbreak was nothing like as bad as in Cripplegate, but Andrewes, who as dean was responsible for both Abbey and school, with its 160 pupils, was not to be found there either. He had ordered the college closed for the duration and had gone down himself to its 'pleasant [29] retreat at Chiswick, where the elms afforded grateful shade in summer and a 'retiring place' from infection'. He might well have walked down there, as he often did, along the breezy Thameside path through Chelsea and Fulham 'with a brace of young fry, and in that wayfaring leisure had a singular dexterity to fill those narrow vessels with a funnel'. He was lovely to the boys. 'I never heard him utter so much as a word of austerity among us,' one of his ex-pupils remembered. The Abbey papers still record the dean's request in July 1603 for 'a butler, a cooke, a carrier, a skull and royer' – these last two oarsmen for the Abbey boat – to be sent down to Chiswick with the boys. Richard Hakluyt, historian of the great Elizabethan mariners, and Hadrian à Saravia, another of the Translators, signed these orders as prebendaries of the Abbey. Here, the smallness of the Jacobean establishment comes suddenly into focus. Among the Westminster boys this summer, just eleven years old, was the future poet and divine George Herbert, the brilliant son of a great aristocratic family, his mother an intimate of John Donne's. From these first meetings in a brutal year, Herbert would revere and love Andrewes for the rest of his life. Meanwhile, in Cripplegate, the slum houses were boarded up, the poor died and in the streets the fires burned. Every new case of the disease was to be marked by the ringing of a passing bell down the street. Each death and burial was rung out too so that 'the doleful and almost universal and continual ringing and tolling of bells' marked the infected parishes. From far out in the fields, you could hear London mourning its dead. In the week of 16 September, the outbreak would peak at 3,037 dead. Proportionately, it was a scale of destruction far worse than anything during the Blitz."
29-30 "Was Andrewe's departure for Chiswick acceptable behavior? Not entirely. There was the example of the near-saintly Thomas Morton, one of John Donne's friends and the rector of Long Marston outside York, later a distinguished bishop, who, in the first flush of this plague epidemic as it attacked York in [30] the summer of 1602, had sent all his servants away, to save their lives, and attended himself to the sick and dying in the city pesthouse. Morton slept on a straw bed with the victims, rose at four every morning, was never in bed before ten at night, and travelled to and from the countryside, bringing in the food for the dying on the crupper of his saddle."
30 "Alongside this, Andrewes's elm-shaded neglect of the Cripplegate disaster looks shameful. While he was at Chiswick, he preached a sermon on 21 August that compounded the crime. 'The Rasor is hired for us,' he told his congregation, Hakluyt and Herbert perhaps among them, 'that sweeps away a great number of haires at once.' Plague was a sign of God's wrath provoked by men's 'own inventions', the taste for novelty, for specious newness, which was so widespread in the world. The very word 'plague' – and there is something unsettling about this pedantic scholarship in the face of catastrophe – came from the Latin plaga meaning 'a stroke'. It was 'the very handy-worke of God'. He admitted that there was a natural cause involved in the disease but it was also the work of a destroying angel. 'There is no evill but it is a sparke of God.' Religion, he said, was filled by Puritan preachers with 'new tricks, opinions and fashions, fresh and newly taken up, which their fathers never knew of'. The people of England now 'think it a goodly matter to be wittie, and to find out things our selves to make to our selves, to be Authors, and inventors of somewhat, that so we may seem to be as wise as God, if not wiser'. What could be more wicked than the idea of being an Author? Let alone wittie? Newness was the sin and novelty was damnable. 'That Sinn may cease, we must be out of love with our own inventions and not goe awhoring after them . . . otherwise, his anger will not be turned away, but his hand stretched out still.'"
30-1 "The educated, privileged and powerful churchman preaches his own virtue and ignores his pastoral duties, congratulating himself on his own salvation. The self-serving crudity of this [31] did not escape the attentions of the Puritans. If Andrewes sincerely believed that the plague was a punishment of sin and 'novelty', and if he was guiltless on that score, then why had he run away to Chiswick? Surely someone of his purity would have been immune in the city/ And if his pastoral duties led him to the stinking death pits of Cripplegate, as they surely did, why was he not there? Did Andrewes, in other words, really believe what he was saying about the omnipotent wrath of the Almighty?"
31 "In a way he didn't; and his hovering between a vision of overwhelming divine authority and a more practical understanding of worldly realities, in some ways fudging the boundaries between these two attitudes, reveals the man. Henoch Clapham, the angry pamphleteer, lambasted Andrewes in his Epistle Discoursing upon the Present Pestilence. All Londoners, Andrewes included, should behave as though plague was not contagious. Everybody should attend all the funerals. There was no need to run away. It was a moral disease. If you were innocent you were safe. And not to believe that was itself a sin. How innocent was Andrewes in running to save his own skin? Did the innocent require an elm-tree shade? Clapham was slapped into prison for asking these questions. To suggest that the Dean of Westminster was a self-serving cheat was insubordinate and unacceptable. Andrewes interrogated him there in a tirade of anger and attempted to impose on him a retraction. Clapham had to agree (in the words written by Andrewes):"
31 " 'That howsoever there is no mortality, but by and from a supernatural cause, so yet it is not without concurrence of natural causes also . . . That a faithful Christian man, whether magistrate or minister, may in such times hide or withdraw himself, as well corporeally as spiritually, and use local flight to a more healthful place (taking sufficient order for the discharge of his function).'"
31-2 "Clapham refused to sign this and stayed in prison for eighteen months until he finally came up with a compromise he could [32] accept: there were two sorts of plague running alongside each other. One, infectious, was a worldly contagion, against which you could take precautions. The other, not infectious, was the stroke of the Angel's hand. A pre-modern understanding of a world in which God and his angels interfered daily, in chaotic and unpredictable ways, was made to sit alongside something else: the modern, scientific idea of an intelligible nature. The boundary between the two, and all the questions of authority, understanding and belief which hang around it, is precisely the line which Andrewes had wanted to fudge."
32 "If this looks like the casuistry of a trimming and worldly churchman, there were of course other sides to him. Down at Chiswick, as throughout his life, the time he spent in private, about five hours every morning, was devoted almost entirely to prayer. He once said that anyone who visited him before noon clearly did not believe in God. The prayers he wrote for himself, first published after his death in 1648 as Preces Privatae, have for High Church Anglicans long been a classic of devotional literature. Andrewes gave the original manuscript to his friend Archbishop Laud. It was 'slubbered with his pious hands and watered with his penitential tears'. This was no rhetorical exaggeration: those who knew him often witnessed his 'abundant tears' as he prayed for himself and others. In his portraits he holds, gripped in one hand, a large and absorbent handkerchief. It was a daily habit of self-mortification and ritualized unworthiness in front of an all-powerful God, a frame of mind which nowadays might be thought almost mad, or certainly in need of counseling or therapy. But that was indeed the habit of the chief and guiding Translator of the King James Bible: 'For me, O Lord, sinning and not repenting, and so utterly unworthy, it were more becoming to lie prostrate before Thee and with weeping and groaning to ask pardon for my sins, than with polluted mouth to praise Thee.'"
32-3 "This was the man who was acknowledged as the greatest preacher of the age, who tended in great detail to the school children in his care, who, endlessly busy as he was, would nevertheless wait in the transepts of Old St Paul's for any Londoner in need of solace or advice, who was the most brilliant man in the English Church, destined for all but the highest office. There were few Englishmen more powerful. Everybody reported on his serenity, the sense of grace that hovered around him. But alone every day he acknowledged little but his wickedness and his weakness. The man was a library, the repository of sixteen centuries of Christian culture, he could speak fifteen modern languages and six ancient, but the heart and bulk of his existence was his sense of himself as a worm. Against an all-knowing, all-powerful and irresistible God, all he saw was an ignorant, weak and irresolute self:
33 " 'A Deprecation
33 " 'O Lord, Thou knowest, and canst, and willest
the good of my soul.
Miserable man am I;
I neither know, nor can, nor, as I ought
will it.'"
33 "How does such humility sit alongside such grandeur? It is a yoking together of opposites which seems nearly impossible to the modern mind. People like Lancelot Andrewes no longer exist. But the presence in one man of what seem to be such divergent qualities is precisely the key to the age. It is because people like Lancelot Andrewes flourished in the first decades of the seventeenth century – and do not now – that the greatest translation of the Bible could be made then, and cannot now. The age's lifeblood was the bridging of contradictory qualities. Andrewes embodies it and so does the King James Bible."
86 "At the same time, Bancroft began to hire the men for the great translation and here it was breadth and inclusiveness which dictated the choice. The first Westminster company, charged with translating the first books of the Bible, had Lancelot Andrewes, Dean of Westminster Abbey, as its director. He was known as 'the Angell in the pulpit', the man more versed in modern and ancient tongues than any other in England, who could serve, it was thought, as 'Interpreter-General' at the Day of Judgement, but he had other skills, and another track record, which confirmed him as a member of the core establishment and recommended him to Bancroft and the king."
86 "He had been used before in important political work, some fifteen years earlier when Bancroft was working for Whitgift rooting out the Separatist congregations in London. Andrewes, then in his mid-thirties and already recognized as the coming man, and as the cleverest preacher in England, could be relied on to do Bancroft's work for him. Highly detailed accounts survive of what Andrewes did for the ecclesiastical establishment: a representation, in other words, of what Bancroft would have known of him, the grounds on which he chose him as one of the principal Translators. Once again, it is not a dignified picture: his governing qualities are those of a man who knows how to exercise power."
86-7 "Through the second half of the 1580s, the more extreme Separatist puritans, who considered each congregation a self-sufficient church of Christ, became the target of a campaign led by Richard Bancroft. They were to be found in private houses all around London, holding private conventicles in which their [87] inspirational preachers were, it was reported to Bancroft, 'esteemed as godds'. Bancroft, who in another life would clearly have been an excellent detective, had his spies in place. As a central player in the Crown establishment, he would have had an array of inducements to hand: money, prospects, threats, the persuasive words of a man with access to power. Those tools gave him access to all kinds of secret meetings. 'After the Minister hath saluted everie one, both man and woman, at theire comynge into the Chamber with a kysse', one report of such a Separatist meeting described, shocked at its impropriety,"
87 " 'a large Table beinge prepared for the purpose (which holdeth fortie or fiftie persons) he taking the chayre at the end thereof, the rest sitt down everie one in order: . . . the Minister himself having received [communion] in both kyndes: the breade and the wyne which is left, passeth downe, and everye man without more a doe is his owne Carver.'"
87 "The state church could not tolerate the freedom or the priestlessness of such behavior. Many Separatists – and they were overwhelmingly young, idealistic people, a tiny minority, perhaps no more than a couple of hundred in England as a whole – fled to the Netherlands but others were arrested and, eventually, some fifty-two were held for long periods in the string of hideous London gaols [jails]: the Clink, the Gatehouse, the Fleet, Newgate, the Counter Woodstreet, the Counter Poultry, Bridewell and the White Lion, some of the prisoners shut in the 'most noisome and vile dungeons', without 'bedds, or so much as strawe to lye upon . . . and all this, without once producing them, to anie Christian trial where they might have place given them, to defend themselves'. One of them, the eighteen-year-old Roger Waters, was kept in irons for more than a year."
87-8 "Their leaders, honest, fierce men, the spiritual forebears of the future Massachusetts colonists, were to be interrogated (or 'conversed with' as Bancroft described it; the meetings were known among the Separatists themselves as 'Spanish conferences') [88] by the more brilliant and trustworthy members of the Church of England. Andrewes was at their head. Bancroft instructed him to interrogate Henry Barrow, the leading Separatist who had been arrested in 1587 and kept in the Fleet."
88 "Andrewes visited the gaol accompanied by another divine, William Hutchinson. Their descent into the Separatists' hell is a moment of sudden, film-like intensity, when the passionate realities of early modern England come starkly to life. The entire context of the King James Bible is dramatized in these prison meetings: holiness meets power, or at least one version of holiness meets another; the relative claims of society and the individual, and the legitimacy of those claims, clash; the individual conscience grates against the authority structures of an age which senses incipient anarchy at every turn and so is obsessed with order; the candid plays against the cynical, worldliness against a kind of stripped Puritan idealism; and the godly comes face to face with the political."
88-9 "With Barrow, in March 1590, Hutchinson and Andrewes began kindly. They were sitting in the parlour of the Fleet prison [89] (one of the better of the London prisons, 'fit for gentlemen')." Barrows expressed his desire " 'to obtain such conference where the Book of God might peaceably decide all our controversy'. That phrase, innocuous as it might sound, was salt in the eyes for Andrewes. It released a flood of hostile questions. All the issues of order and authority, the great political questions of the day, streamed out over his prisoner-conversant. 'Whie,' Andrewes said, 'the booke of God cannot speake, which way should that decide owr controversies?" That was the central question of the Reformation: did Christians not need a church to interpret God for them? Or could they have access to the godhead without help, with all the immediacy of the inspired? Barrow replied in the spirit of Luther: each soul could converse with God direct, unmediated by any worldly church, his thoughts and actions to be interpreted by the words of scripture itself."
89 " 'Dr Andrewes: But the spirits of men must be subject unto men, will you not subject your spirit to the judgment of men?
" 'Barrow: The spirit of the prophets must be subject to the prophets, yet must the prophets judge by the word of God. As for me I willingly submit my whole faith to be tried and judged by the word of God, of all men.
" 'Dr Andrewes: All men cannot judge, who then shal judge the Word?
" 'Barrow: The word, and let every one that judgeth take hede that he judge aright htereby; 'Wisdom is justified of her children.' (Matthew 11:19)"
89-90 "Andrewes thought he spotted error. 'This savorth of a pryvat spyrit,' he said. Nothing was more damning in his lexicon than that phrase. The privateness of the Puritan spirit was its defining sin, its arrogance and withdrawal in the face of communal and [90] inherited wisdom, treating the word of God, the scriptures, not as a common inheritance, whose significance could be understood only within the tradition that had grown and flowered around it, but as a private guidebook to a personal and selfish salvation. The heart of the Puritan error was that social divisiveness, that failure to join in, its stepping outside the necessity of order, its assumption that the Puritan himself was a member of God's elect, and the rest could look to the hindmost [look out for themselves]. How could a society be based on that predestinarian arrogance?Increasingly, for churchmen such as Andrewes [and here is the Establishment position], it seemed that the true church could only be inclusive, one in which God's grace would descend on believers not through some brutal predestinarian edict but through the sacraments, through the ceremony of the church."
[a paragraph cut out here]
90 "Barrow responded sharply. It was not a private spirit but 'the spirit of Christ and his Apostles'. They had been happy to be judged by the word of God and so was Barrow. This, for Andrewes, so crushingly aware of his own sin, was too much.
" 'Dr Andrewes: What, are you an apostle?
" 'Barrow: No, but I have the spirit of the apostles.
" 'Dr Andrewes: What, the spirit of the apostles?
91 " 'Barrow: Yea, the spirit of the apostles.
" 'Dr Andrewes: What, in that measure?
" 'Barrow: In that measure that God hath imparted unto me, though not in that measure that the apostles had, by anie comparison, yet the same spirit. There is but one spirit."
91 "That was not an unreasonable answer: God had blown his spirit into Adam, and it was acceptable to think that the life of men was a divine gift. But Andrewes, revealing himself here in a way he would rarely do later in life, curiously narrowed and harsh . . . clung to his hostility. They argued over the difference between a schism and a sect. Then, in an emblematic moment of the English Reformation, angry, impassioned, pedantic, scholarly, they called for a dictionary. The heretic and his interrogator pored together over the Greek-Latin Lexicon of Joannes Scapula (Basel, 1580) to try and sort out the etymologies of the two words, but they could come to no shared conclusion."
91-2 "Andrewes then uttered one of the most despicable remarks he ever made. Barrow said his imprisonment had been horrible. He had been there for three years and the loneliness of it, the sheer sensory deprivation, the nastiness of the conditions, had sunk him deep into depression. Andrewes's reply, witty, supercilious, a pastiche of the sympathetic confessor, is still shocking 400 years later: 'For close imprisonment', he told Barrow, 'you are most happie. The solitarie and contemplative life I hold the most blessed life. It is the life I would chuse.' It is Henry barrow, martyr to his beliefs, who emerges from this confrontation as the holy man. 'You speak philosophically,' he told Andrewes with some self-control, 'but not Christianly. So sweete is the harmonie of God's grace unto me in the congregation, and the conversation of the saints at all times, as I think my self as a sparrow on the house toppe when I am exiled thereby. But could you be content also, [92] Mr. Androes, to be kept from exercise and ayre so long together? These are also necessarie to a natural body.'"
92 "The poor man was lonely, longing for his friends and for a sight of the sky, from which the intolerance of the state had excluded him. Andrewes's breathtaking insouciance continued until the last. In conversation, he had used the word 'luck.' For fundamentalists [sic] such as Barrow, there was no such thing: all was ordained, everything from the death of a sparrow to the execution of a heretic was the working out of God's providence. Calvin had written, in a famous passage, that to believe in luck was a 'carnal' way to look at the world. Barrow told the departing Andrewes 'there was no fortune orluck. To prove luck [Andrewes] torned in my Testament to the 10 of Luke, verse 31, 'By chance there went down a certain priest that way.' And torned in a leafe upon the place, and as he was going out willed me to consider of it.'"
92 "That folded-down page of the Puritan's Bible, Andrewes's all-too-complacent knowledge of the scriptural text, 'the poor worne bodie' of the prematurely aged Barrow (he was about thirty-seven, a couple of years older than Andrewes) standing in the room, silenced by the rising self-congratulatory confidence of the young Master of Pembroke College, prebendary of St Paul's, vicar of St Giles Cripplegate, a candidate for the bishopric of Salisbury, sweeping out of the prison parlour door, with his departing quip, his patronizing flourish: could you ask for a more chilling indictment of established religion than that?"
92-3 "Three years later Barrow's life ended in execution, for denying the authority of bishops, for denying the holiness of the English Church and its liturgy and denying the authority over it of the queen. Andrewes saw him again on the eve of his death. The prisoner had been transferred to Newgate . . . and he was high on his impending martyrdom. He was reminded by one of those present of the Englishmen who had been martyred by the Roman Catholics in the reign of Queen [93 Mary for their defence of the very church which Barrow now denied. ' "These holy bonds of mine" he replied, (and therewith he shooke the fetters which he did wear) "are much more glorious than any of theirs."' Andrewes argued with him again over points in the Geneva Bible. Barrow would have none of it and he told his adversary that his 'time now was short unto this world, neyther were we to bestow it unto controversies'. He was finally executed early in the morning on 6 April at Tyburn, where the mallows and bulrushes were just sprouting in the ditches."
93-4 "Andrewes could put the knife in. What little one can judge from contemporary portraits – the Jacobean image is so much less revealing than the Jacobean word – shows a narrow and shrewd face, a certain distance in the eyes, as if the person had withdrawn an inch or two below the surface of the skin, but that surface was bien soigné [well washed, cleaned], a well-trimmed beard, a well-brushed moustache. He could look the church's adversaries in the eye, and he was clever enough to slalom around the complexities of theological dispute: not only a great scholar but a government man, aware of political realities, able to articulate the correct version of the truth. He was . . . useful for his extensive network of connections. It is clear that in 1604 he played a large part in selecting the men for his, and perhaps also for Barlow's, company. Several themes emerge: there is a strong Cambridge connection(Andrewes had been an undergraduate and fellow there and was still Master of Pembroke College); an emphasis on scholarly brilliance – more so than in the other companies; a clear ideological bent in choosing none who could be accused of Puritanism, however mild, and several who would later emerge as leading anti-Calvinists in the struggles of the 1620s; there was also a connection with Westminster Abbey, where ANdrewes had been appointed dean. . . . [94] In this marrying of leverage and discrimination, it is a microcosm of the workings of Jacobean England: the right men were chosen and part of their qualifications for being chosen was their ability to work the systems of deference and power on which the society relied."
94 "They met in the famous Jerusalem Chamber, the fourteenth-century room in what had been the abbot's lodgings at Westminster, where Henry IV had died; now it was part of Andrewes's deanery. It was where the chapter usually met, on which Andrewes had secured for his brother Nicholas the valuable post of registrar for life. Such nepotism was habitual and habitually condemned. Ten years before, Andrewes had preached at St Paul's (in Latin), lashing the indigent clergy for their corruption: 'You are extremely careful to enrich your own sons and daughters,' he had told them. 'You are so careful of the heirs of your flesh that you forget your successors.' One of the Translators, in the Cambridge company dealing with the central section of the Old Testament, was Andrewes's brother Roger. Judging by every other aspect of Roger's life we know of, he was almost certainly there on Lancelot's recommendation: when Lancelot had become Master of Pembroke, he made Roger a fellow; when he became Bishop of Chichester, he made Roger a prebendary, archdeacon and chancellor of the cathedral. When Lancelot moved on to Ely in 1609, Roger became a prebendary there and also Master of Jesus College, Cambridge, which was in the gift of the Bishop of Ely. At Jesus, Roger was not a success. He argued with the fellows, neglected the financial affairs of the college and was finally sacked in 1632 for stealing college funds. Meanwhile, when in 1616 his saintly brother was translated to Winchester, the richest see in England, Roger received another prebend there."
Works by Lancelot Andrewes
Devotions of Bishop Andrewes. Vol. I
Bishop Andrewes was one of the foremost Biblical scholars of his time. He also was one of the translators of the King James Version of the Bible and was King James' favorite preacher. The Devotions of Bishop Andrewes was originally entitled, Preces Privatae, which translates to "Private Devotions." They are the private, intimate prayers of a very public and pious man. Andrewes was not motivated to write these devotions out of a desire to publish them. These devotions were written from Andrewes' heart out of love and devotion for our Lord. Andrewes is said to have spent five hours in prayer every day. Included in the collection are devotions for the morning and evening that he employed during his time alone with God.
_________
HISTORY OF THE ANDREWS FAMILY, a Genealogy of Robert Andrews and his derscendants 1635 to 1890 by H. Franklin Andrews, Attorney at Law
Audubon, Iowa
William E. Brinkerhoff 1890
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1890. by
H. FRANKLIN ANDREWS, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
RECEIVED
JAN 17 1893
WIS. HISTORICAL SOC;
We should hardly do justice to the family history, if we omitted to refer to Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, D. D. and will quote from his biography:
Lancelot Andrews, D. D., Bishop of Winchester, one of the most illustrious of the prelates of England, was born in 1555 in Thames street, Allhallows, Barking, London. His father Thomas, was of the ancient family of the Suffolk Andrewes; in his later years he became master of Trinity House.
Lancelot was sent while a mere child to the Cooper's Free School, Ratcliff, in the parish of Stepney. From this the youth passed to Merchant Taylor's School, then under the celebrated Richard Mulcaster. In 1571 he was entered at Pembroke College, Cambridge. He was here one of the first four scholars upon the foundation of Dr. Thomas Watts, successor of the venerable* Nowell. Contemporaneously he was appointed to a scholarship in Jesus College, Oxford, at the request of the founder (Dr. Price), by Queen Elizabeth. In 1574-5, he took his degree of B. A. ; in 1576 he was chosen to a fellowship at his college; in 1578 he proceeded M. A. ; in 1580 he was ordained, and in the same year his name appears as junior treasurer; in 1581 he was senior treasurer, and on July 11 was incorporated M. A. at Oxford.
On passing M. A. he was appointed catechist in his college and read letters upon the Decalogue, afterward published causing a furor of interest far and near, as his first quaint biographer Isaacson tells. The notes of these lectures printed in 1642, authenticate themselves; later editions have been suspiciously enlarged, and otherwise altered for the worse.
The notes are historically valuable and inportant, inasmuch as with Bishops Jewell and Bilson, he teaches in them, that Christ is offered in a sacrament, that is, his offering represented and a memory of his passion celebrated.
Nothing can be more definite or emphatic than Andrewes' repudiation of a real external sacrifice in the bread and wine.
From the university Andrewes went into the North by invitation of Henry Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon, lord president of the North. In 1585 he is again found at Cambridge taking his degree of B. D. In 1588 he succeeded Crowley in the vicarage of St. Giles, Cripplegate. Here he delivered his most penetrative and striking sermons on the Temptation in the wilderness, and the Lord's Prayer—the former published in 1592, the latter in 1611. In a great sermon on April 10, Easter week, 1588, he most effectively, and with burning eloquence, vindicated the Protestantism of the Church of England against the Eomanists. It sounds oddly to have "Mr. Calvin" adduced herein and elsewhere as a new writer, with lavish praise and affection. Passing other ecclesiastical advancements, Andrewes was preferred by Grindal, at the suit of Walsingham, lo the prebendary stall of St. Pancras in St. Paul1s, London, in 1589. The prebendary had "the courage of his opinions," for Sir John Harington records that Sir Francis Walsingham his patron, having laboured to get him to maintain certain points of ultra- Puritanism, he refused, having, as the garalous knight, in his State of the Church of England, cunningly remarks, "too much of the AvSpoS. in him to be scared with a councillor1s frown or blown aside with his breath," and accordingly answered him plainly, that "they were not only against his learning, but his conscience." On September 6, 1589, he succeeded Fulke as master of his own college of Pembroke, being at the time, one of the chaplains of Archbishop Whitgift. His mastership of Pembroke was a success in every way. In 1589-90, as one of the twelve chaplains of the queen, he preached before her, a singularly outspoken sermon (March 4, 1590). In this year, on October 13, he preached his introductory lecture at St. Paul's upon undertaking to comment upon the first four chapters of Genesis. These form part of the Orphan Lectures, of the folio of 1657, than which there is no richer contribution to the theological literature of England, notwithstanding the imperfection of the notes in some cases. He was an incessant worker as well as preacher. He delighted to move among the people, and yet found time to meet with a society of antiquaries, whereof Raleigh, Sidney, Burleigh, Arundel, the Herberts, Saville, Stow, and Camden, were members. What by his often preaching testifies Isaacson, at St Gile's, and his no less often reading in St Paul's, he became so infirm that his friends despaired of his life. His charities were lavish, and yet discriminative.
The dearth of 1594 exhibits him as another Joseph in his care for the afflicted and poor of "the Israel of God." In 1595 appeared The Lambeth Articles, a landmark in our national church history. Andrewes adopted the doctrine of St Augustine as modified by Aquinas. Philosophically, as well as theologically, his interpretations of these deep things remain a permanent advance in theological-metaphysical thought. In 1598 he declined offers of the two bishoprics of Ely and Salisbury, his "noloepiscopari" resting on an intended alienation of the lands attached to these sees. On Nov. 23, 1600, was preached at Whitehall his memorable sermon on Justification, around which surged a controversy that is even now unspent. The preacher maintained the evangelical view as opposed to the sacerdotal.
On July 4, 1691, he was appointed Dean of Westminster,and his sedulousness over the renowned school is magnified by Bishop Hacket in his Life of Archibishop Williams. On July 25, 1603, Andrewes assisted at the coronation of James I. In 1604 he took part in the Hampton Court Conference, and better service, was one of the committee to whom we owe our authorised version of Holy Scripture. The Dean frequently preached before the king, and his majesty's own learning, given him by George Buchanan, made him a sympathetic hearer.
Many of these sermons are memorable from their results and place in our eclesiastical history. In 1605 he was appointed, after a third declinature, bishop of Chichester. In 1609 he published his Tortura Torti, in answer to Bellarmine's Matthceus Tortus. This work is one of many born of the gunpowder plot and related controversies. It is packed full of learning, and yet the argument moves freely. Nowhere does Audrewes' scholarship cumber him. It is as a coat of mail, strong but mobile. In this same year he was transferred from Chichester to Ely. His studiousness here was as intent as before. He again assailed Bellarmine in his Responsio ad Apol- ogiam, a treatise never answered. From 1611 to 1618 Andrewes is to be traced as a preacher and controversialist in season and out of season. In 1617 he attended the king to Scotland. In 1618 he was translated to the see of Winchester. In this year he proceeded to the Synod of Dort. Upon his return he became in word and deed a model bishop, while in every prominent ecclesiastical event of the period he is seen in the front, but ever walking in all beauty of modesty and benignity. His benefactions were unprecedented. His learning made him the equal friend of Grotious, and of the foremost contemporary scholars.
His preaching was unique for its combined rhetorical splendor and scholarly richness, and yet we feel that the printed page poorly represents the preaching. His piety was that of an ancient saint, semi-ascetic and unearthly in its self-denial, but rooted in a deep and glowing love for his Lord. No shadow rests on his beautiful and holy life. He died Sept. 25, 162(5, and the leaders in church and state mourned for him as for a father. Brittanica. ]
Walter records this of him; Neal, bishop of Durham, and bishop Andrewes were standing together behind the king's chair at dinner, when king James turned to them and said "My lords, can not I take my subjects' money when I want it without all this formality in parliament?" bishop Neal readily answered, "God forbid, sire, but you should, you are the breath of our nostrils." The king then turned to bishop Andrewes; "Well, my lord, and what say you?" "Sir," said Andrewes, "Ihave no skill to judge of parliamentary cases." The king answered, *'No put offs, my lord, answer me immediately." "Then sir," said he, "I think it lawful for you to take my brother Neal's money, for he offers it."
King James had such a veneration for this excellent prelate that he refrained from all levity in his presence. He was made a privy councilor by king James I, and was in no less esteem with king Charles I. His was a life of prayer, a great portion of five hours every day was spent in the exercise of devotion.
his last sickness he continued, while awake, to pray audibly, till his strength failed; and then by lifting his eyes, he showed that he still prayed. He was a patron of learning, being master of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, beside fifteen modern languages. He had brothers, Thomas, and Nicholas. — [Andrews Memorial. ]
This great man lived in the reigns of three sovereigns of England; queen Elizabeth, and kings James I, and Charles I, with whom he was personally acquainted. He died only two years before the organization of the Mass. Bay Company. The subject of colonization had been agitated for years prior to that time. It is very probable that one of his charitable nature would have been actively interested in the subject, which may have influenced his kindred to emigrate to America.
__________
Annals of St. Mary Overy; an historical & descriptive account of St. Saviour's church & parish William Taylor 1/1833
Lora Tatum: "According to the "Annals of Saint Mary Overy" written by William Taylor in 1833, book two of the parochial registries states that Mr. Nicholas Andrewes, "the Bishops Brother", was buried at what is now the Southwark Cathedral on August 12, 1626. In the same book is the burial record for Lancelott Andrewes, "Lord Bishop of Winton" on November 11, 1626, also at the Southwark Cathedral."
Before transcribing portions of the book, the following history of the Cathedral is helpful:
Southwark Cathedral
The Cathedral and Collegiate Church of Saint Saviour and Saint Mary Overy, Southwark
A church has stood on the site of Southwark Cathedral for over 1,000 years. In 606 a convent was established on the south bank of the River Thames at the place from which the ferry used to cross over to the City of London. In 1106 an Augustinian Priory was established under the Normans and some Norman stonework can still be seen at the west end and north side. It has the distinction of being the first 'gothic' church to be built in London and much of that early work can still be seen in the choir and retro-choir of the present church (1212). The Augustinian canons ministered to pilgrims and travellers, to the sick and the needy of the area and the Word of God was faithfully preached and the sacraments celebrated. As part of their ministry, the Hospital of St Thomas was established (now located opposite the Houses of Parliament). In 2006 the Cathedral celebrated 1400 years of Christian witness and service.
Following the Reformation, the church was sadly neglected but the gospel continued to be faithfully preached and the people of the parish cared for and taught. A parish school - now the Cathedral School - was opened in 1704 following in the work already established in schools founded from the parish under a charter from Queen Elizabeth I. A new nave was built in 1890. By the end of the 19th century, a new Diocese was needed to cater for the growing population of south London and Surrey. In 1905 the church became Southwark Cathedral, the mother church of the new Diocese of Southwark. ...
A new nave was built in 1890. By the end of the 19th century, a new Diocese was needed to cater for the growing population of south London and Surrey. In 1905 the church became Southwark Cathedral, the mother church of the new Diocese of Southwark.
The life, diversity and character of the area are revealed in the tombs and monuments within the church. Among them is that of John Gower (c. 1330-1408), poet and friend of Chaucer, whose Canterbury Tales begin in Southwark. Across the nave is a memorial to William Shakespeare, who spent much of his life in Southwark, and above it, a stained glass window depicting scenes from his plays. Edmund Shakespeare, John Fletcher and Philip Massinger are all buried in the Cathedral. Lancelot Andrewes, who translated the first five books of the Bible into English, is buried by the High Altar. He is a founding father of the Church of England. In the grounds is buried Mahomet, Chief of the Mohegan Tribe from New England and a memorial to him can be found in the churchyard. In 1607 John Harvard was born in the parish of St Saviour and on 29th November of that year was baptised in the church. These events and Harvard's subsequent emigration to the new colonies in America and the founding of what we now know as Harvard University, began a strong link between the Cathedral and the people of the United States of America that continues to develop and which was celebrated in 2007, the 400th anniversary year of John Harvard's birth. In the grounds is buried Mahomet, Chief of the Mohegan Tribe of New England, USA and in November 2006, Her Majesty The Queen unveiled a lasting memorial to him in the presence of the present day members of the Tribe.
The Cathedral today Situated on the south bank of the River Thames adjacent to London Bridge in the heart of a burgeoning business community.
THE BOOK
Annals of St. Mary Overy; an historical and descriptive account of St. Saviour's church and parish William Taylor January 1, 1833
Page 100
In this aisle are also Monuments to the memory of— "
PAGE 101
We next entered the "Ladye Chapel" where we found several persons assembled, who were examining with considerable interest the recently discovered coffin of Bishop Andrewes.
"How fortunate," said my companion, "that our visit should have been paid at so interesting a moment; admiring, as I do, the character and writings of this excellent prelate, I would not on any account have missed the opportunity of seeing this last home of his mortality. A rude casket this to contain so bright a gem! But, I have seen the velvet coffin with its glittering studs, surrounded by the costly trappings of funereal splendour, the sable plumes, and blazoned heraldry, with less emotion far, than that which now I feel."
The accompanying sketch was made at the time, together with the following memoranda:
The removal of the little chapel which stood eastward of the Lady Chapel, having been determined on, the workmen commenced their labour by taking down the monument of Bishop Andrews; entombed in which they found the prelate's coffin, in an excellent state of preservation, it having been closely bricked up in an arch, as shewn on the plate. It is formed of lead, and bears the initials " L A" on the lid ; attached to it is a massive iron frame work with large rings at the head and foot. It rested on a cross of brick-work, the foot of the coffin, on the upper part of the cross, which was placed eastward. The whole has been carefully removed and re-erected in the Lady Chapel, at the back of the altar screen.
I endeavoured to draw the attention of the Antiquary to the architectural beauty of the place, but he was too much engaged in the contemplation of the interesting object before him; let us enter into his feelings, and briefly view the illustrious character of the pious prelate.
He was born in London, A. D. 1555, in the parish of Allhallows Barking, of religious parents; his father during a large portion of his life was a mariner, but was afterwards a member and master of Trinity House. He was descended from an ancient family in Suffolk of the same name.
So great an aptitude did he evince, even in childhood, for learning, that his two first school masters, " Master Ward " and "Master Mulcaster," foreseeing the result, are said to have contended for the honour of his breeding. From Master Ward, master of the Coopers' Free School in RadclifFe, he was sent to Master Mulcaster, master of the Merchant Tailors' Free School, where he soon took the lead of all the other scholars, making such progress in the Greek and Hebrew languages, as recommended him to the notice of Thomas Wattes, D. D. prebend and residentiary of St. Pauls and arch deacon of Middlesex, who, having founded some scholarships at Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, bestowed the first upon him.
Here we soon find him contending with Thomas Dove (afterwards Lord Bishop of Peterborough), who was also eminent for his talent, for a fellowship which he gained. In the mean while, Hugh Price having built Jesus College, in Oxford, hearing of his fame, named him in his foundation as one of its first fellows. It was his custom to spend one month annually, with his parents, but even this was devoted also to the attainment of the knowledge of some language or art which he had not yet learned. He preferred, as a recreation, studying alone (or with some selected companion), the sublime beauties of creation, to participating in the ordinary amusement of his day.
PAGE 103
After he had been some time Master of Arts, he applied himself to the study of Divinity with such effect, that being chosen Catechist in the College, and purposing to read the ten commandments every Saturday and Sunday, at 3 o'Clock afternoon, that being the hour of catechising, divers persons, not only out of the other colleges, but from the country also, re sorted thither as to a Public Divinity Lecture.
Henry, Earl of Huntingdon, hearing of his fame, sent for him, and thought himself much honoured by his accompanying him into the north, whereof he was president, and where his preaching converted many, recusants, priests, and others, to the protestant religion.
Sir Francis Walsingham, Secretary of State to Queen Elizabeth, also took especial notice of his abilities, and was the means of preferring him to the Vicarage of St. Giles' Without Cripplegate, London; he was afterwards (through the interest of Sir Francis) Prebendary and Residentiary of St. Pauls, and Prebend of the Collegiate Church of Southwell. His labours at this time were incessant, preaching at St. Giles', and reading at St. Pauls, he became so infirm that his friends despaired of his life.
He was afterwards elected master of Pembroke Hall, a place of much credit but little benefit, on which he spent more than he received by it.
He was Chaplain to Queen Elizabeth, who was so much delighted with his piety and zeal, that she first made him Prebend and afterwards Dean of Westminster. Her successor, King James, selected him as his choicest advocate to vindicate his regality against his adversaries, and be stowed upon him the Bishopric of Chichester, which he held about four years, he also made him Lord Almoner, and soon after added the Parsonage of Cheam, in Surrey, to his commendam.
He was afterwards Bishop of Ely during nine years, in which time he was made Privy Counsellor, first of England, then of Scotland in his
PAGE 104
attendance upon the King thither. He was afterwards preferred to the Bishopric of Winchester and the Deanery of the King's Chapel, which pre ferments he held to his death, which happened about eight years after, in the reign of King Charles, with whom he was as great a favourite as with his father before him : all these honours having been conferred on him without any effort on his part for their attainment.
He was singularly pious and devout both in his private prayers and public services : so reverend and holy was his deportment, and that of his family, at the monthly communions held in his chapel, that those who were accidentally present at the service, often expressed a desire to end their days in the Bishop of Ely's Chapel.
He was eminently charitable during his life, clothing the poor, relieving the sick, and administering to the various wants of suffering humanity; and at his death, leaving by his will various sums for similar purposes. He left Four thousand pounds to purchase Two hundred pounds land per Ann., for ever, to be distributed by fifty pounds quarterly, as follows : — To aged poor men and decayed, especially sea-faring men, fifty pounds ; to poor widows, the wives of one husband, fifty pounds ; to the binding of poor orphans apprentices, fifty pounds ; and to the relief of poor prisoners, fifty pounds.
He also left Two hundred pounds to be distributed immediately after his decease, among maid-servants of honest report who had served one master or mistress seven years.
In all the offices which he filled, he evidently conducted himself as the steward of God, and as one who was to give an account of the important trust committed to him.
He was careful to keep in good repair the houses of all his spiritual preferments, and spent much money in that way.
PAGE 105
He was exceedingly anxious that the ministerial offices should be filled by men eminent for piety and learning, and to effect this, sought for and patronized humble merit : such persons he would send for without their knowing why, entertain them at his house and confer the preferment upon them, defraying all the incidental charges for a dispensation, or a faculty, and even of their very journey: the same principle was also observed in the election of scholars who were to be sent from the Free Schools to the University, here disregarding all letters from great personages in favour of insufficient scholars, he was careful to select the possessors of merit.
As Almoner he was remarkable for his fidelity, keeping more exact account of this trust than of his own affairs.
He was grateful to all from whom he had received benefits, particularly to those who had the care of his early education.
That he was liberal is evident from the magnificent reception and entertainment which he gave to King James, when that Prince visited him at Farnham Castle, on which occasion he spent three thousand pounds in three days. He was also eminent for his hospitality to scholars and strangers, committing to his attendants the care of making liberal provision for such, and joining them at dinner with such amiable deportment, that his guests would often profess that they never came to any man's table where they received better satisfaction in all points, and that his Lordship kept Christmas all the year round.
He was through the various periods from childhood to old age, indefatigable in study, to which with the exception of two or three hours which he cheerfully spent with his guests after dinner, he devoted his time. By his industry he had attained to the knowledge of fifteen tongues if not more; it has been jocosely said in reference to his knowledge of languages, that had he lived at the time, he might almost have served as interpreter
PAGE 106
general at the confusion of tongues. Yet he was modest withal ; let one instance of this suffice, when preferred by King James to the Bishopric of Chichester he pleaded his imperfections and insufficiency to undertake such a charge, and caused to be engraven about the seal of his Bishopric, those words of St. Paul, " et ad hcec quis idoneus ? " (and who is sufficient for these things ?)
He generally hated all vices, but three more especially, Usury, Simony, and Sacrilege. The Sanctity of his manners is said to have awed the mirth and levity of King James while in his presence.
Such was the character of this amiable prelate, that biographers appear to have exhausted the vocabulary for words to express his many virtues. As his life was exemplary so was his death ; twelve months before that event he seemed conscious of its approach, and applied himself incess antly to prayer and humiliation before God whom he earnestly longed to see. Towards the close of his life the manuscript of his " Private Devotions " was scarcely ever out of his hands ; it was found worn in pieces by his fingers and wet with his tears. He closed his useful life at Winchester House, on the 25th day of September, 1626, in the 71st year of his age.
His remains were entombed in a splendid monument which stood in a little chapel eastward of the Lady Chapel, the entrance to which is shown in the interior view of the Lady Chapel ; at his funeral, he having been a great benefactor to the Parish, the inhabitants honoured the solemnity by hanging the Church and Chancel with 165 yards of baize. The house mourners made an offering, and Mr. Archer one of the chaplains re ceived £11. 17s. 7d., which he paid to the wardens as their due, but they handsomely returned it to him and Mr. Micklethwaite (the other chaplain). It is worthy of passing remark that his lordship's steward was also buried here on the same day, as appears by an entry in the parish registry.
PAGE 107
His Funeral Sermon was preached in St. Saviour's Church, by the Right Rev. John, Lord Bishop of Ely, on Saturday the 11th of November, 1626, from Hebrews, 13th chapter and 16th verse: "To do good, and to distribute forget not : for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." This was six weeks after his death, and from an expression in the sermon we may collect that it was preached over the remains of the Bishop : it has already been stated that the coffin was found entombed in the monument, not buried ; the time necessary for preparing the monument for the reception of the remains, may probably account for the unusual length of the intervening space between the time of his death, and the preaching of his funeral sermon*
The monument of the Bishop as it now appears is in fact but a part of the original erection; there was then a fair canopy supported by black marble pillars, and an elegant epitaph written by his lordship's domestic chaplain, these were destroyed by the falling in of the roof in 1676, when the chapel received considerable injury by a fire. The restoration of the canopy and original epitaph, whether we view it as a matter of taste, or as a mark of respect for the memory of this virtuous prelate, would be highly creditable to the parish. The epitaph was as follows:
"LECTOR. SI CHRISTIANUS ES, SISTE: MORJE PRETIUM KBIT, RON NESCIBB TE, QUI VIR HIC SITUS SIT. EJUSDEM TECUM CATHOLICS ECCLESI* MEMBRUM, SUB EADEM FELICIS RESURRECTIONIS SPE, EANDEM D. JESU PR^ESTOLAXS EPIPHANIAM, SACBATISSIMUS ANTISTES, LANCELOTUS ANDREWES, LONDINI ORIUN- DUS, EDUCATUS CANTABRIGI* AVLM PEMBROCH : ALUMNORUM, SOCIORUM, PRiEFECTORUM UNUS, ET NEMIM SECUNDUS . LINGUARUM, ARTIUM, SCIENTIARUM, HUMANORUM, DIVINORUM OMNIUM INFINITUS THESAURUS, STUPENDUM ORACULUM; ORTHODOX* CHRISTI ECCLESI* DICTIS, SCRIPTIS, PRECIBUS, EXEMPLO . INCOM PARABLE PROPAGNACULUM : REGIN* ELIZABETH* A SACRIS, D. PAULI LONDINI RESIDENTIARIUS, D. PETRI WESTMONAST. DECANUS, EPISCOPUS CICESTRENSIS, ELIENSIS, WINTONIENSIS, REGIQUE JACOBO TUM AB ELEEMOSYNIS, TUM AB UTR1USQUE REGNI CONSILIIS, DECANUS DENIQUE SACELLI REGII . IDEM
______
* In Moss' History of St. Saviour's Church, it is stated that " he was buried the 27ih of Sep tember, six days after his decease," this is certainly an error; Henry Isaacson, his friend and amanuensis, who wrote his life, says he died the 25th of September, and his funeral sermon it appears was preached the 11th of November, as above stated, which agrees with the entry in the parish registry, which states that he was buried the 11th of November, 1G26.
PAGE 108
EX INDEFESSA OPERA IN STUDIIS, SUMMA SAPIENTIA IN REBUS, ASSIDUA PIETATE IN DEUM, PROFUSA LARGITATE IN EGENOS, RARA AM.SNITATE IN SUOS, SPECTATA PROBITATE IN OMNES, iETERKUM ADMI- RANDUS : ANNORUM PARITER, ET PUBLICS FAMfi SATUR, SED HONORUM PASSIM OMNIUM CUM LUCTU DE- NATUS, CC3LEBS HINC MIGRAVIT AD AUREOLAM CC2LESTEM, ANNO REGIS CAROLI II0. JETATIS SU.fi LXXI°. CHRI6TI MDCXXVI0. TANTUM EST, LECTOR, QUOD TE M(ERENTES POSTERI NUNC VOLEBANT, ATQUE UT EX VOTO TUO VALEAS DICTO SIT DEO GLORIA."
TRANSLATION
" Reader, if thou art a Christian, stay; it will be worth thy tarrying, to know how great a man lies here. A member of the same Catholic Church with thyself, under the same hope of a happy resur rection, and in expectation of the same appearance of our Lord Jesus, the most holy Bishop Lancelot Andrewes ; bom at London, educated at Cambridge, at Pembroke Hall, one of the Scholars, Fellows, and Masters of that Society, and inferior to none : an infinite treasure, an amazing oracle of languages, arts and sciences, and every branch of human and divine learning : an incomparable bulwark of the Orthodox Church of Christ, by his conversation, writings, prayers and example.
"He was Chaplain in ordinary to Queen Elizabeth; Residentiary of St. Paul's, in London; Dean of St. Peter's, Westminster ; Bishop, first of Chichester, then of Ely, and lastly of Winchester ; Almoner to King James, Privy Counsellor of both kingdoms, and Dean of the Royal Chapel. He merits eternal admiration, for his indefatigable application to his studies, his consummate experience and skill in business, his constant piety towards God, his liberality and charity to the poor, his uncommon affability and humanity to those about him, and his unshaken integrity towards all. Full of years and reputation, to the regret of all good men, he died a bachelor, and exchanged this life for a crown of glory, in the second year of King Charles^ the seventy-first of his age, and that of Christ, 1626. Reader^ farewell, and give glory to God."
He has left abundant evidence of his industrious application and study in his numerous works, among which are the following:
He has left abundant evidence of his industrious application and study in his numerous works, among which are the following:
"Ninety-six Sermons on various occasions, chiefly suited to the festivals and fasts of the Church of England.
"A Manual of Private Devotions, and Meditations for every day in the Week.
"A Manual of directions for the Visitation of the Sick. — An Exposition of the Ten Commandments. — Posthumous and Orphan Lectures preached in St. Giles* and St. Paul's Church. — Holy Devotions, with direc tions to pray. — His Opera Posthuma. Concioad Clerum pro gradu Doctoris. Ad Clerum in Synodo Provinciali coram Rege habita V° August, 1606. In discessu Palatini XIII0 April, 1613. Theologica determinatio de Jurejurando. De Usuris. De Decimis. — Responsiones ad 3 Epistolas Petri Molieni. — An
PAGE 109
Answer to the 18 and 20cc. of Cardinal Perous' reply. — A Speech in the Star Chamber against Master Thaske. — Another there concerning Vows, in the Countess of Shrewsbury's Case. — Responsio ad Forti librum, ad Apologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini.
"There are also several controversial tracts of this learned Prelate's extant. He had also a part in the translation of the Bible, from Genesis to the second book of Kings.
In the introduction to the Archaeologia is the name of Lancelot Andrews, as one of the earliest members of the Antiquarian Society, he was elected a member in 1604.
In the hall of Pembroke College, Cambridge, there is a painting of Bishop Andrewes, with his armorial bearings: date 1618, and several portraits of him have been engraved; but by far the best is that which appeared as a frontispiece to his sermons, J. Payne Fecit, 1635, the others appear to be copies of this.
Before quitting this subject, I feel it a duty to contradict a statement which appears in " Cassan's Lives of the Bishops of Winchester," and also in a modern edition of " Bishop Andrewes' Meditations, &c." it is as follows, " Not many years ago, his (the Bishop's) bones were dispersed to make room for some corpse : and the hair of his beard and a silken cap were found, undecayed, in the remains of the coffin." That remains were discovered as above described, is very probable, but certainly they were not the remains of Bishop Andrewes, whose eoffin was found undisturbed when the tomb was removed, and has been very properly replaced without mo lestation, in its little cell as before. In this Chapel stand the two Stone Coffins* engraved on the plate of " Priory Remains, SfC." figures 9 and 10. They appear to be of considerable antiquity, but as the lids are wanting, it is
PAGE 110
difficult to form an opinion as to their age, the shallowness of them would suggest the idea that the lids were hollow, so that they were probably of the prismatic form, which would carry them back to a very early period. We have no account of the discovery of them, but they were probably found when the church was paved, as they were seldom placed at any great depth. Stone coffins occur as early as the year 695, and were not quite obsolete before the reign of Henry VIII.
"Memento mori," said Antiquarius, (whose attention was arrested by the cadaverous figure represented on the plate of Sepulchral Remains, fig. 2,) " now were we not in the church, I would venture a wager that you have some marvellous legend concerning this grim personage." -
"You are right," quoth I, " for tradition says this is the veritable effigy of 0X0 3J0f)tt ©ilftg, the father of the foundress of the Church ; though unfortunately for the story, such monuments were not in fashion till some centuries after the time that gentleman lived, if such a being ever existed. There is a curious tract in the British Museum entitled ' The true History of the Life and sudden Death of Old John Overs, the rich Ferry sudden Death of Old John Overs, the rich Ferryman of London, shewing how he lost his Life by his own Covetousness. And of his Daughter Mary, who caused the Church of St. Mary Overs in Southwark to be built; and of the Building of London Bridge.' and a rare story it is, believe me." "I see" said the old gentleman "you long to tell it, so let's have it ?" and he seated himself with all the composure of a genuine antiquary, to hear it patiently. "The tract opens at considerable length with a statement of the nature of the sin of covetousness, and an exhortation to the reader to avoid that error. It then proceeds to illustrate the subject by the case of John Obers a ferry-man, who, before there was any bridge, ferryed the good folks of old 'betwixt Southwark and Church-yard alley, that being the high road way betwixt Middlesex and Sussex, and London: 'it then goes on to state how he gat marvellous riches thereby; that he kept many servants, ' yet was of so covetous a mind, that he would not even in his old age, spare his own weak body, nor abate anything of his unnecessary labour, only to save the charges.' Having described his character, it proceeds to relate that he had an only Daughter, 'of a beautiful aspect, and pious disposition, that he had care to see her well and liberally educated, though at the cheapest rate, that he would not allow any man, of what condition or quality soever, (by his good will) to have a sight of her, much less the least access to her ; that a young gallant took the advantage of the opportunity when he was picking up his penny fares, to be admitted into her company ; that the first interview pleased well, the second better, and the third concluded the match ; and how in all this interim, the poor silly old ferry-man, not dreaming of any such passages as are before spoken of but thinking all things as secure by land as he knew tliey were by water, continued in his former course, (which was as near as lean relate to you J in this manner following.' It then goes on to state a variety of his penu rious habits, such as feeding his servants on black puddings, when that commodity was sold at a penny a yard London measure, yet even begrudging that, saying when he gave them their allowance, ' Jiere you hungry rogues, you will undo me with eating,' — That he kept no cats, as the rats and mice voluntarily left the house, for there were no fragments or crumbs left by the servants to feed them, &c. — But now comes the tragedy: it occurred to him, (careful soul) that if he could for one day counterfeit himself to be sick, and the next day to die, his loving family would not, of course, be so unman nerly or unnatural as to taste any food 'till they had consigned him to his parent earth, purposing however to revive, and recover the next morning;
PAGE 112
his amiable daughter like a good child, consented to her father's scheme, and so he was laid out for dead : but alas ! how are our best plans often frustrated ; no sooner had the old gentleman screwed his countenance into a decent sort of a sepulchral aspect, and a light been placed at his head and another at his feet, as was the custom of those days, than his 'prentices and servants rejoiced at the event, began to caper and dance about the corpse ; and worse than all, that one ran into the kitchen and brought the brown loaf, a second brought the 1 Essex Cheese,' a third drew a ' Black Jack of the Four Shilling Beer,' &c— but flesh and blood could not endure all this, he rose up in his sheet with a candle in each hand, and would have rated them for their boldness, when one of them supposing it to be his ghost, or some other supernatural visitant, seized a broken oar and sent him who had so often ferryed others, himself a fate for old Charon.
" His daughter's lover who was in the country, hearing the news hastened, to come to London, but alas ! with more haste than good speed, for riding post, in his hurry he brake his neck : poor Mary, overpowered with the accumulation of ills, would fain have gone mad, but altering her plans, all the good folks being comfortably buried, (though by the way, her father was taken up again and dropt into an unconsecrated hole beneath the gallows at St. Thomas-a- Watering,) she betook herself to a religious life, and founded the famous church in which we now stand dedicating it to the honor of the blessed Virgin Mary." " Marvellous ! " said Antiquarius, " I have heard many traditions but this indeed out-herod's Herod." I begged the antiquary's pardon, as I now do that of my reader, for the intrusion of so light a subject, but really the tradition and the figure, and the church, have now become so united, that they appear to claim a passing notice even from the most rigid historian.
Page 113
This figure is probably only a part of a monument, there is a similar one in Clerkenwell Church. Mr. Lethieullier, who is quoted by Gough in his Sepulchral Monuments, says he has observed a figure of this make in almost all the cathedral and conventual churches in England, and scarcely ever more than one. There were several other monuments in this chapel, which will be described in the respective places to which they have been removed. Since the period of our visit, this beautiful portion of the church has undergone a most careful restoration, at a cost of £2,500. raised by a public subscription; the work has been conducted under the superintendence of G. Gwilt, Esq. F.S. A. whose valuable services it is but justice to record, were given gratuitously to this laudable undertaking: nothing can exceed the care bestowed on the work by that gentleman, the traces of whose mas terly hand are visible, not only in the general design, but also in the finishterly hand are visible, not only in the general design, but also in the finish of the most minute details, the whole having been conducted with that spirit which should ever characterize such undertakings, a feeling of veneration for the talent of the original designers. During the progress of this work the Piscina engraved on the plate of Architectural Fragments, fig. 8, was discovered at the N. E. corner of the chapel, where it has been before conjectured the altar for the service of " Our Ladye" probably stood, which opinion this discovery has a tendency to confirm. Under the floor of the wooden enclosure at this corner of the chapel, where the sittings of the Consistorial Court were formerly held, a slab was found on which is the following inscription rudely engraved : — " Nicholas Norman, Waterman, late Servante to the King's Maiestie, and Elizabeth his Wife, were here bvryed, hee the 25 of May, 1629, and shee the 15 of Janvarie followeinge, who lived 16 yeares together in the holie state of matrimonie, and do here rest in hope of a ioyfvll resvrrection."
PAGE 114
Near this stone, at a short distance from the surface, was discovered at the same time, a little coffin rudely formed in chalk, in which were remains of "Some happy babe, who privileg'd by fate To shorter labour, and a lighter weight, Received but yesterday the gift of breath, Ordered to-morrow to return to death." On the same spot was found the leaden seal of a Papal Bull, exhibiting (as was usual with those of latter times) the heads of St. Paul and St. Peter on one side, with the inscription " spaspe," and on the other side, which is much obliterated, appears to have been the following " innocetivs pp VI." Against one of the pillars of the chapel there is a small tablet with the following inscription, — " The Gift of Robert Buckland, Glover," it seems probable, as he was a donor to the parish, that this was placed over a tablet on which the nature of his bequests were inscribed. " In 1628, by deed, he gave to eight pensioners 9£d. per week each, payable out of Harden Farm, at Harcsfield, Kent. " In 1639, by deed, he gave to ten poor men 10s. each, on Christmas day, £100. for an annuity. " In 1647, by deed, he gave to the poor in general, a messuage or tenement at Dartford in Kent, £20. yearly, two pounds of which are payable to the Wardens for their trouble." Leaving the Chapel of " Our Ladye " we next entered the south aisle of the choir, where are monuments inscribed with the following names :* — On a very small black tablet with a gilt border, near the altar screen, " William Mayhew, who deceased the 16th of April, 1609." A plain white marble monument by Soane, with the following inscription, —
______
* To have printed the inscriptions at length would have occupied too much space, but as church histories have sometimes been produced as evidence iu courts of law, when time had obliterated the monu mental record, 1 have deemed it a duty to print names and dates.
______
PAGE 115
" In the Bishop's Vault are deposited the remains of Abraham Newland, late Chief Cashier to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, whom he served with fidelity from the year 1747, to the 17th of September, 1807, when, under the pressure of age and infirmity, he availed himself of an honourable retirement, having for thirty years sedulously employed the powers of an unusually energetic mind to the various and important duties of the office of Chief Cashier. He was born in this parish, on the 4th of May, 1730, and he died at Highbury, on the 21st of November, 1807." " John Paine, died 5th March, 1820, aged 13 months." " Richard Holditch and Ann his wife. Also, Anna Howell, daughter of the above Richard Holditch, died January 22nd, 1789, aged 42. Anna Howell died May 11th, 1799, aged 32 years. Ann Holditch died May 10th, 1817, aged 71." A very neat mural monument of marble — " To the Memory of Mrs. Betty Farmbr, died 12th May, 1808, aged 49. Mr. Richard Farmer died 9th May, 1819, aged 79. Richard Farmer their son, died 16th April, 1825, aged 38. John Farmer their eldest son, died 28th December, 1826, aged 47 years." " Mrs. Mary Richards, wife of Richard Richards, died May 11th, 1821, aged 49. Also their children : John died in infancy ; Thomas died September 22nd 1810, aged 2 years; Phoebe died August 1st, 1814, aged 21 years ; Anna Maria died December 2nd, 1814, aged 3 years ; Joseph died February llth, 1819, aged 24. Also Sarah, his second wife, died May 12th, 1830, aged 61." Painted on a framed panel, is the following inscription, — " Here lyeth buried the body of Mr. John Gawen, Citizen and Clothworker of London, who died the 4th of March, 1647, aged 71." Arms : Ermine, on a saltiere engrailed, five fleur-de-lis, Or. " Mrs. Jane Bradford, died 17th January, 1825, aged 54 years. Mr. James Bradford died 7th February, 1829, aged 45 years." On a plain white marble tablet is the following inscription, — " Sacred to the memory of William Winkworth, late Chaplain of this Parish. Pious without ostentation ; zealous with discretion ; active in the cause of distress ; humble and laborious in the ministry of the word ; he fell asleep in Jesus, a debtor to grace, August 22nd, 1804, in his 54th year." Mr. Winkworth was born at Blewberry, near Wallingford, August 22ud, 1750. O. S. He was ordained Deacon at Oxford, June 10, 1781: and Priest at Winchester House, Chelsea, the 14th of July, 1782, to the parish of Morden, in this County, the Rev. J. W. Peers, D.D. being then Rector. He was elected Chaplain to the County Gaol of Surry, in December, 1778; and to this Church, 30th of April, 1794. These appointments, together with the Lectureship of St. Paul's, Shadwell, in Middlesex, he held at the time of his death.* * Moss's History of St. Saviour's Church.
PAGE 116
A plain white marble slab — " Sacred to the Memory of Mr. Wiluam Butler; died October 17th, 1815, aged 77." Buried in the Bishop's Vault. " Joseph Devey, Esq. died March 1st, 1816, aged 64 years. Mrs. Martha Devey, died March 12th, 1827, aged 68 years." In this aisle is the entrance to the Great Vault, a murky cave, where death seems to hold his court amid solemn heaps of mouldering remains that speak volumes on mortality. A few years since two bodies were found here in a wonderful state of preservation, apparently without any attempt having been made by art to keep them from that decay which is the common lot of humankind.f It is supposed that they had lain for upwards of seventy years, but tho' time had so long spared them, he has since seized his victims, the bodies being now in a rapid state of decomposition. Attached to one of the great pillars which support the tower, is the brass plate engraven on the plate of Monumental Remains; it was formerly on the floor of the Lady Chapel, but, being the last of these interesting records, it has been placed here with a view to its preservation.^ The monuments in the South Transept next engaged our attention ; this portion of the church is rich in sculptured tributes to the memory of the dead, many of the monuments having been removed to this spot from other parts of the building in consequence of necessary alterations and repairs : f Such instances are by no means uncommon, but have occurred in several other Churches of the Metropolis; the probable cause may be some property in the wood of the coffins in which they were deposited, of rapidly imbibing the moisture of the bodies. There have been found in Poland a kind of natural mummy, or human bodies preserved without the assistance of art: these lie in considerable numbers in some of the vast caverns in that country. Mr. Hardy in his notices of Bourdeaux, says, that in the vault under the Tower of St. Michael, are nearly sixty bodies placed standing or sitting against the wall, some near three hundred years old, the skin having the appearance of leather. J The conduct of those Collectors, whose sacrilegious pilferings have removed so many of these useful links from the chain of history, cannot be too severely censured : I say collectors, for the Antiquary who studies with a view to illustrate history, knows too well the value of an arms or monumental legend to wish it anywhere bat on the tomb to which it belongs.
PAGE 117
every man of taste must feel indebted to the present Warden of the Great Account, Edward Sells, Esq. for his care in preserving them from destruction, and rendering them by the most economical expenditure highly ornamental to the fabric. In the first recess on the east side of the south transept is a most beautifully executed marble monument, removed from the Magdalen Chapel, " Sacred to the Memory of the Rev. T. Jones, A.M. late of Queen's College, Cam bridge, and Chaplain of this Parish, who died June 6th, 1762, aged 33. This monument is erected by John and Joseph Street, Gent., as a memorial of the edification they received from his faithful labours in the ministry, A. D. 1770. — Also Mrs. Jane Jones, relict of the above Mr. Thomas Jones, died, April 30th, 1782, in the 54th year of her age." The above inscription is on the front of the tomb encircled by a wreath; on the tomb is a bust of the deceased between two cherubs, one having in his left hand a book, entitled Articles of Religion, the other hand pointing to the bust ; the other holding a torch reversed : under the bust are two books, one the Holy Bible, in the other which is opened, is written "John V. 39, Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me." At the back of the monument are the arms of the family, — Gules on a fess Or, three mascles sable, between three cinquefoils argent. The Rev. T. Jones was one of the Chaplains of St. Saviour's Church, and admired for the zeal with which he enforced the gospel truths ; prefixed to a volume of his works published a year after his decease, is a brief memoir of him by his friend the Rev. W. Romaine, who says, speaking of hiin in connection with this parish, — " There is an alms-house in the parish, called the college, and some small stipend for doing duty in it. Mr. Jones thought it was not right to take the money unless he did the duty, accordingly he began to read prayers, and to expound the scripture in the college chapel, and went on for some time. The congregation used to be very large, and the success was very great. Many souls were in this place first awakened, who are now walking in the faith and fear of God, adorning the gospel of our Saviour. Bui here he was stopped and
PAGE 118
refused the use of the chapel. After this he set up a weekly lecture in his church, but he had not preached it long, before he was denied the use of the pulpit. However he was not discouraged, he went on giving away good books, some of which he carried in person to every house in the parish ; catechising the children, who came weekly to his house for that pur pose ; and paying religious visits among his parishioners, when they used to talk freely of the state of their souls. By these methods he tried to win his people to Christ, besides the stated duties of his office; in performing of which he seemed to set God always before him, and to be greatly drawn out in love to his hearers, of whom a very great number I trust did frequent his ministry, not led thither by the ease of his delivery, the sweetness of his voice, or the smoothness of his periods, but because they felt the weight and importance of the doctrines preached. Several I am myself acquainted with, who will I hope be his joy and crown of rejoicing in the day of the Lord Jesus." He was for some years afflicted with a disorder, which his bio grapher states " kept him low, and often brought him near death's door:" he died young, and to the last was anxious for the spiritual welfare of his flock, during a long illness borne with patience, he was always studying and contriving something for their welfare, and his frequent ejaculatory prayer Svas " Lord feed thy sheep, Lord feed thy sheep." His sermons were not written, as he himself states, with studied elegance of style, being frequently begun on the Saturday in the afternoon and preached on the following day, so numerous were his avocations that he had not time to embellish them with pretty conceits; in his preface to his sermons he says, " I do not desire to please the fancies, but to affect the hearts of all my readers." Over Jones' monument is placed a neat monumental tablet with the following inscription, — " Within the rails, by the communion table, lyeth interred the body of Mr. James Shaw, and his wife Mrs. Alice Shaw, who departed this life the 13th day of November, 1693, aged 84 years. Also the body of her nephew, Captain Joseph Williams, and his daughter Alice Shaw Overman, wife of William Overman, Gent., who departed this life the 28th day of December, 1697, aged 26 years and 10 days." On the frieze of the monument is the following: "Mr. James Shaw, departed this life the 18th day of February, 1670." On the base " Memento Mori."
The monument is surmounted by the family arms : (viz.) Or, a
PAGE 119
cheveron between three lozenges ermines. Crest, on a helmet and wreath of his colours, six arrows in saltiere gules, feathered and headed, or, tied of the first. The whole formerly rested on a death's head. On the left of Jones's monument is a black marble tablet with this inscription, — " Neare vnto this place lyeth the body of Mistris Margrit Maynard, the daughter of Master John Maynard, Minister of Mayfered in Svssex, who departed this life March the 14th, 1653, being aged 13 years, 10 monthes, and 14 dayes." On the right of Jones's is the curious little monument engraved on the plate of Monumental Remains, it consists of a diminutive effigy of a man in a winding sheet, an emaciated figure, lying on a marble sarcophagus, at the back is a black tablet, on which is the following inscription, in letters of gold, —
PAGE 129
The Parochial Records will next occupy our attention; among the Baptisms are the names of several children of players, a circumstance easily accounted for by the vicinity of the Globe Theatre, &c. at Bankside.
PAGE 130
Among the Burial Registries are the following, —
1572, August 17. — Mr. Randal Oge, Sergeant at Arms to the Earl of Desmond.
1579, Julye 26. — And the same daye for the buryinge of the bowells of Robt. Home, Byshoppe of Winchester, in the quire. ...... 26s. 8d. 1595,
June 13.— William Wickham, B. of Winchest.
1597, Dec. 10. — Mr. Graye, a Priest, from the olde Ladye Montacute's house.
1603, Dec— Alice Pinke buried, aged 112.
1605, October 31. — Mr. Francis Dacres, son to my Lord D acres, in the church.
1607. — Edmond Shakespear, player, in ye church. 1609,
November 16. — Richard Johnson, Gent. Coroner of his Majesty's Household and of the Verge.
1614, January 3. — Sir George Brown, Knt. 1625,
Auguste, 29. — Mr. John ffletcher a man in the church.
The above named John Fletcher, the dramatic poet, died of the Plague in 1625, his name is distinguished from the hundreds by which it is surrounded by the addition of Mr. Of his death we have the following memorandum from the Aubrey MSS. " In the great plague, 1625, a knight of Norfolk or Suffolk, invited him into the country, he staid but to make himself a suit of cloaths, and while it was making fell sick of the plague and died ; this I had/rom his Tailor, who is now a very old man and Clerk of St. Mary Overy's." Edward Philips, speaking of this author, says " he was one of the happy triumvi rate of the chief dramatic poets of our nation in the last foregoing age, among whom there might be said to be a symmetry of perfection, each excelling in his peculiar way ; Shakes- pear in wit ; Fletcher in courtly elegance, wit, and invention, qualities which he possessed
PAGE 131
in so great a degree that it is said to have been part of the business of his contemporary Beaumont, to lop the luxuriance of the branches thereof; and Ben Jonson in his elaborate pains and knowledge of authors."
1626, August 12.— Mr. Nicholas Andrewes, the Bp9 Brother.
1626, Nov. 11.— Lancelott Andrewes, Ld BisP of Winton.
Raphe Henrie, the Bisp. Stuarde.
1639, March 18. — Philip Massenger, Stranger.
This great dramatic poet, who in the opinion of several able criticks, ranks immediately under Shakespeare, died in his own house on the Bankside, he went to bed in good health (says Langbaine), and was found dead in the morning : thus as he had passed through life with but few friends to endear it, in death he had none to administer consolation or even close his eyes: he was followed to the grave by a few comedians, and the event is simply registered in the parish annals as above. His writings were perfectly free from the licentiousness and impiety of the age in which he wrote, and which were so great at that period that new regulations were constantly necessary for the restraining of them.
The registries bear awful testimony of the dire ravages of disease in this parish, during the Plagues of 1625 and 1665 : and it is a remarkable fact, that at that period (when he that wrote must have felt that in a few hours his own name might be added to the dismal list) the registries are kept with the greatest care, and the entries appear minutely accurate. In the month of August, 1625, the number buried was 764, the number in the corresponding period of the preceding years averaging about 40 ; but in the great Plague of 1665, the number of burials was 1124 in the month of September, that of the corresponding month of 1664 being but 54. " From plague pestilence and famine, good Lord deliver us."
There are a few facts yet remaining to be noticed in connection with the Church.
At page 27 mention has been made of the marriage of the Princess of Milan to Edmund Holland, Earl of Kent; from another account we add that the King himself gave away this lady at the church door,* and afterwards conducted her to the banquet at Win chester Hall. The Princess remembered the scene of her espousals in her will which was dated 2 Henry VI. bequeathing to this convent, with others, 6000 crowns for masses after her death, to be said for the souls of her husband and herself. Like most of our great churches this appears not to have been wanting in relioks; during the recent repairs a stone corbel was found with remains of a Latin inscription which has been trahslated " Relics of St. Thomas." * Formerly part of the marriage ceremony was performed at the church door, the parties did not enter the church till that part of the office where the Minister now goes up to the altar and repeats the psalm. Chancer in his prologue to the Canterbury Tales, describing the Wife of Bath, says — " Houibondei at the chucks dors had (he had five.)"
________
MEMORIES OF THE LIFE AND WORKS OF THE RIGHT HONORABLE AND RIGHT REV. FATHER IN GOD LANCELOT ANDREWES, D.D.
THE LIFE OF BISHOP ANDREWES.
MEMORIES OF THE LIFE AND WOKKS
OF
THE RIGHT HONORABLE AND RIGHT REV. FATHER IN GOD
LANCELOT ANDREWES, D.D. LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER.
BY THE KEY ARTHUR T. RUSSELL, B.C.L.
OF ST. JOHN S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
VICAR OF WHADDON, CAMBRIDGESHIRE.
CAMBRIDGE:
FOR THE AUTHOR BY J. PALMER, SIDNEY STREET.
1860.
J. PALMER, PRINTER, SIDNEY STREET.
TO THE HONOURABLE AND REVEREND
HENRY COCKAYNE GUST, M.A.,
CANON OF WINDSOR, AND RECTOR OF COCKAYNE HATLEY
IN THE COUNTY OF BEDFORD, &c.
APPENDIX.
THE FAMILY OF ANDREWES.
The name of our prelate was variously spelt, — Andrew, Andrews,
Andrewes, and Andros. The "e" in Andrewes was sometimes omitted
in the early part of the seventeenth century. Sir Robert Andrewes
of Normandy, knt., came over with William I., and married the
daughter and heiress of Sir Robert Winwick of "Winwick, Northamptonshire, and afterward of Denton in the same county.
In 1303 occurs John Andrew, Alderman of Redingate, Canter
bury. A Sir William Andrewes of Northamptonshire and Carlisle
occurs in 1234.
Thomas Andrews of Beggar's Weston, or Weston Bigard, (or
Begard) a few miles east of Hereford, was born in 1501, and died
in 1615. See the genealogy of this branch in Nichol's Leicestershire,
parish of System* From him was descended the late highly respected Gerard Andrewes, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, Rector of St. James', Westminster, and 8th November, 1809, Dean of Canterbury. He died, aged 75, on June 2nd, 1825.
In a window in St. Bartholomew the Less, London, over the
door in the passage into the church, are the arms and crest (painted
in glass) of Henry Andrewes, Alderman of London, 1636: argent,
a saltire azure on a chief gules; 3 mullets or: crest, a Moor's head
in profile.
In 1649 and 1651 Thomas, a leatherseller, son of Robert Andrewes of Feltham near Hounslow, Middlesex, and of the Fishmongers' Company, was Lord-Mayor of London.
Jonathan Andrewes was a member of the court of Merchant Taylors 1665, and Richard Andrewes, M.D., 1627—1634.
Sir Matthew Andrewes, knt., was one of the Elder Brethren of Trinity House, 1625.
Our prelate in his will makes mention of William the son of his deceased brother Nicholas; Thomas, Nicholas, and Roger the sons of his deceased brother Thomas, and their eldest sister Ann, married to Arthur "Woollaston ; also her younger sister Mary. His brother Nicholas was born in 1567, and died in 1626. His brother Thomas was named after his father, who appears as a benefactor to All
Hallows', Barking, " 1593, towards repairs of the church, £2; to the poor £5;" probably bequeathed. Our prelate's mother, Mrs. Joan Andrewes, left in 1524 a bequest of £10. He also makes mention of his sister Mary Burrell. One Alexander Burrell, B.A., Trinity College, Cambridge, 1706, M.A. 1710, was Yicar of Buckden, July 5, 1717, which he resigned in 1721, being made in 1720 Rector of Adstock near Winslow, Bucks., by Dr. Gibson, then Bishop of Lincoln, and also Rector of Puttenham, Herts, by the same patron.
His father was also of Trinity College, B.A. 1666, M.A. 1670. There have been about twenty members of the University of Cambridge of that name. The name is also spelt Burwell; Mr. Samuel Burwell was at our prelate's funeral. Of this name was Thomas, LL.D. of the University of Cambridge, 1661; Thomas, M.B. of the same University per Literas Regias, 1662 ; Francis, A.M. of the same University per Literas Regias, 1675 ; Thomas, M.B., King's College, 1677; and Charles, M.B., Pembroke College, 1717. The name Burwell appears to have merged into Burrell. The children of the Bishop's sister, Mary Burrel, were Andrew, John, Samuel, Joseph,
James, Lancelot, Mary Rooke, and her daughter Martha. His sister Martha, born in 1577, married first to Robert Princep, by whom she had a son Thomas. Charles Robert Princep (probably a descendant) was B.A. St. John's College, Cambridge, 1811, M.A. 1813. At Oxford was John Princep, B.A., BaUiol College, Oct. 12,
1738. Martha was married secondly to Mr., probably Peter, Salmon, by whom she had two sons, Peter and Thomas. The Rev. Thomas Peter Dod Salmon was B.A. St. John's College, Cambridge, 1782, M.A. 1786, Fellow of that College, B.D. 1793, and was living in 1811. Mr. Salmon had a sister Martha and a daughter Anne Best. The Bishop also makes mention of his cousin Anne Hockett. John Hockett was B.A. of Trinity College, Cambridge, 1662, M.A. 1666, and a Fellow of that society. Another of the same name was B.A. of that College 1696. He names another cousin, Sandbrooke; also his cousin Robert and his two children; his cousin Rebecca; his father's half-sister Joan; her first husband's name was Bousie. Also his godson Lancelot Lake, son of Sir Thomas Lake. There was a Lancelot Lake, B.A. Catharine
Hall, Cambridge, 1666, M.A. 1670. Also his two godsons Robert and Charles Barker, son of Mr. Robert Barker, " latelie the King's printer." His principal executor was Mr. John Parker, citizen and Merchant Taylor, of London, to be assisted by Sir Thomas Lake, Sir Henry Martin, and Dr. Nicholas Styward or Steward. His will was witnessed by Robert Bostock, Prebendary of Norton Episcopi in the church of Lincoln, and afterward Archdeacon of Suffolk, and (if not in 1626) Prebendary of Chichester; Joseph Fenton, probably our prelate's physician; John Browning, Rector of Buttermere near Hungerford, whom he had preferred to that living in 1624, author of Six Sermons concerning Public Prayer and the Fasts of the Church (Lond. 1636); Thomas Eddie and "William Green, two of the Bishop's servants. Archdeacon Wig-
more also signed the three several codicils to the will.
The family of Andrew or Andrewes has seated itself in Gloucestershire; Plymouth, Devon ; Bisbrook, Rutlandshire ; Norfolk, Suffolk, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, Lancashire, "Wilts, Bucks, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Surrey, and Hants. In Cambridgeshire it is still represented by the Rev. Thomas Andrew of Pembroke
College, Cambridge, Yicar of Triplow ; and by another descendant, a respectable yeoman at Litlington in the same county. In Hertfordshire, by the father of this latter, a yeoman in the parish of Buckland near Barkway. In Suffolk, by George W. Andrewes, Esq., Sudbury, Suffolk. In Surrey, by the Rev. William Gerard Andrewes, M.A., Magdalen Hall, Oxford, curate of Morden near Mitcham, and grandson of the late Dean of Canterbury. The Rev. Thomas Andrew of Triplow is descended of a Northamptonshire branch of this family. Erom Northamptonshire a branch of this
family migrated about the beginning of the seventeenth century to the neighbourhood of Canterbury. Thence Henry Andrews removed to London, and was cut off with his whole household, except one infant, in the Great Plague in 1665. This infant lived to a considerable age, and having acquired some fortune by merchandise, thought it right to take out arms afresh in 1729. He died in 1730.
His grandson Joseph was at a very early age appointed Paymaster to the Forces serving in Scotland 1715. His son Joseph was created a Baronet in 1766. His brother, James Pettit Andrews, born at Shaw House near Newbury, 1737, was the author of a miscellaneous collection entitled Anecdotes, Ancient and Modern, fyc. Lond. 8vo. 1789. A supplement to this volume in 1790; History of Great Britain, 1794, vol. I., from CaBsar's invasion to the death of Richard I. 4to. Lond. In 1795 appeared a second part, to the accession of Edward VI. The plan of this work was founded on that of Dr. Henry. He appears to have discontinued it for the purpose of completing Dr. Henry's history, which, in 1796, he brought down to the accession of James I. He translated The Savages of Europe; a popular French novel now forgotten. In 1798 he published The Inquisitor, a Tragedy in five Acts altered from the German, in conjunction with his friend H. J. Pye, the Poet Laureate. He was a contributor to the Archceologia and the Gentleman's Magazine. On the establishment of the London Police Magistracy in 1792, he was appointed Magistrate for Queen's Square and St. Margaret's "West minster. He died in London August 6th, 1797. He had married Anne daughter of the Rev. Rumney Penrose, Rector of Newbury. He survived her twenty years. The present excellent Master of the Grammar School, Stamford, the Rev. Erederic E. Gretton, B.D., late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, and author of some valuable Parochial Sermons, is descended from Bishop Andrewes both on the mother's and father's side. His father married a Clay, and his grandfather a Pigott, the granddaughter and daughter respectively of Catharine and Ellen Andrewes, whose father died and
was buried at Southwell in or about 1717. Mr. G. "W. Andrews of Sudbuiy is a younger brother of the Rev. Robert Andrews, B.D., who was ninth Senior Optime, Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and B.A. 1821, of Middleton near Sudbury. The eldest brother is Lieut. Colonel Andrews, residing at 57, Ecclestone Square, London; and the youngest, the Rev. "William Nesfield Andrews, of Jesus College, Cambridge, M.A. 1832, Rector of Chilton near Sudbury 1853.
A.D. 1600.
Five days after the death of Hooker, Andrewes wrote to Dr. Parry, afterward Bishop of Worcester:
" SALTJTEM IN CHRISTO.
"I cannot choose but write though you do not; I never failed since I last saw you, but daily prayed for him till the very instant you sent me this heavy news. I have hitherto prayed Serva nobis hunc; now must I Da nobis alium. Alas, for our great loss! and when I say ours, though I mean yours and mine, yet much more the common: with [which?] the less sense they have of so great a damage, the more sad we need to bewail them ourselves, who knew his works and his worth to be such as behind him he hath not, that I know, left any near him. And whether I shall live to know any near him, I am in great doubt that I care not how many and myself had redeemed his longer life, to have done good in a better subject than he had in hand, though that were very good. Good brother, have a care to deal with his executrix or executor, or (him that is like to have a great stake in it) his father-in-law, that there be special care and regard for preserving such papers as he left, besides the three last books excepted. By preserving, I mean, that not only they be not embezzled and come to nothing, but that they come not into great hands who will only have use of them quatenus et quousque, and suppress the rest, or unhappily all; but rather into the hands of some of them that
unfeignedly wished him well, though of the meaner sort, who may upon good assurance (very good assurance) be trusted with them; for it is pity they should admit any limitation. Do this and do it mature ; it had been more than time long since to have been about it, if I had sooner known it. If any word or letter would do any good to Mr. Churchman, it should not want. But what cannot yourself or Mr. Sandys do therein? For Mr. Cranmer is away; happy in that he shall gain a week or two before he know of it.
Almighty God comfort us over him, whose taking away, I trust
I shall no longer live than with grief remember; therefore with
grief because with inward and most just honour I ever honoured
him since I knew him.
"Your assured poor loving friend,
" L. ANDREWES.
"At the Court, Nov. 7, 1600."
About a month after this letter was written the Archbishop sent Andrewes to Mrs. Hooker to enquire after the MSS. He did not however succeed in obtaining any information. Upon this the Archbishop sent for her to London, when she confessed that Mr. Chart, a Puritan, and another minister of the same bias, had destroyed some of his papers as being in their opinion not such as should see the light. However the rough drafts of the three last books of the Eccl. Polity were discovered and delivered by Whitgift to Dr. Spenser, who drew up as perfect a copy as he could, a transcript of which was given to Andrewes amongst others. — Strype's Whitgift, ii. 441.
THE BOOK
MY DEAR SIR, The following pages, designed as a tribute to the memory of one of the most eloquent and munificent Prelates that ever adorned the Church of England, will, I trust, form also no unfitting memorial of my grateful regard for yourself, to whose kindness I was indebted for the second Vicarage which I have held under Her Majesty's Free Chapel of St. George, Windsor. I trust it will be seen by every candid reader that my aim has been to represent the subject of this volume as he was, neither exaggerating nor depreciating his...
CHAPTER I.
LANCELOT ANDREWES was born A.D. 1555, in Thames street, in the parish of Allhallows, Barking, London, of religious parents, who, besides his education, left him a fair estate which descended to his heir at Eawreth, a little village between Chelmsford and Rayleigh. (Morant professes that lie was unable to discover what this property was. ) His father Thomas in his latter time became one of the Society and master of Trinity House, and was descended of the ancient family of the Andrewes in Suffolk. Lancelot was early sent to the Coopers' Free School, KatclifF, in the parish of Stepney. This school was founded in the reign of Henry the Eighth by Nicholas Gibson, grocer, who in 1538 served the office of Sheriff. It was intended for the education of sixty children of poor parents, under a master and usher, and to it were attached an almshouse and chapel. Here Andrewes was
placed under Mr. Ward, who, discovering his abilities, persuaded his parents to continue him at his studies and to destine him to a learned profession. His young scholar did not prove unmindful of his kindness, but when raised to the see of Winchester, promoted his son Dr. Ward to the living of Bishop's Waltham. At this place, which is a small market-town ten miles north-east of Southampton, the Bishops of Winchester had a residence from the time of Bishop Henry de Blois, brother of king Stephen. This place was the favorite resort of the famous Wykeham. The palace was destroyed in the civil wars. From Mr. Ward Andrewes
was sent to the celebrated Richard Mulcaster, then master of Merchant Taylors' School. Mulcaster was a strict disciplinarian, having been trained under the stern Udal at Eton. Thence he went to King's College, Cambridge, in 1548, but removed to Oxford, where his learning was so highly esteemed that in 1561 he was appointed the first master of Merchant Taylors' School, which was founded in that same year by the munificent Sir Thomas White. Here Mulcaster continued until 1596, and was appointed master of St. Paul's School, from which he was preferred by the Queen to the rich rectory of Stanford Kivers, near Ongar, 1598. In 1609 he was deprived by death of a beloved wife, with whom he had lived happily fifty-six years. He did not long survive, but died April 15, 1611. Amongst Andrewes contemporaries at Merchant Taylors' were Giles Thompson, afterwards Bishop of Gloucester, Thomas Dove, afterwards Bishop of Peterborough, and Ralph Hutchenson, who was president of St. John's College, Oxford, from 1590 to his
death, January 17, 1605. On his leaving Merchant Taylors' School in 1571, Andrewes was entered at Pembroke College, Cambridge. On 9th September in this same year Dr. Thomas Watts, of Christ's College, Cambridge, (who in 1560 was
appointed archdeacon of Middlesex, in the place of the venerable Alexander Nowell,) being then prebendary of Totenhale in St. Paul's, and in 1571 also dean of Bocking, founded seven scholarships at Pembroke College, called Greek scholarships. The four first scholars upon this foundation were Andrewes and Dove, Gregory Downhall, and John Wilford. About the same time Andrewes was, with Dove, Wilford, and William Plat, appointed to a scholarship in Jesus College, Oxford, at the request of the founder, by Queen Elizabeth. It would appear that he was nominated to a scholarship at Oxford previously to his admission, or at least residence, at Cambridge. He left Merchant Taylors' School on St. Barnabas Day, June 11, 1571, and the royal charter of foundation whence Jesus College dates its institution, is dated 27 June, 13 Eliz. 1571. By this charter Dr. Hugh Price, or Ap Rice, (LL.D., of Oxford, 1525, and supposed to have been educated at Oseney Abbey), Treasurer of St. David's, was permitted to settle estates on the said college to the yearly value of £160., for the sustentation of eight fellows and eight scholars, all appointed in the first instance, according to Dr. Price's mind, by Queen Elizabeth.
" What he did when he was a child and a schoolboy, it is not now known," says his grateful biographer Isaacson, "but he hath been sometimes heard to say, that when he was a young scholar in the University, and so all his time onward, he never loved or used any games or ordinary recreations, either within doors, as cards, dice, tables, chess, or the like ; or abroad, as bats, quoits, bowls, or any such; but his ordinary exercise and recreation was walking either alone or with some companion with whom he might confer and recount his studies." To the last he took great delight in those meditations that are, as it were, inspired by the
beholding of the works of God.
His custom was, after he had been three years at the University, (when he took his degree of B.A. in 1574-5,) to come up to London once a year to visit his parents, always about a fortnight before Easter, and to stay with them about a month, never intermitting his studies. And, until he was a bachelor of divinity, he even used to perform these journies on foot.
In October 1576 he was chosen to a fellowship at his college, and Dove, the unsuccessful candidate, was continued as a tanquam-socius by a liberality not unusual in those times. In 1578 he took the degree of M.A.1 In 1580 he was ordained, and the same year his name appears in the College books as Junior Treasurer. In 1581 he was Senior Treasurer, and on July 11 was incorporated M.A. of the University of Oxford, on the same day with William Pemberton of Christ College, afterwards the incumbent of High Ongar.
After he had been some time Master of Arts he was appointed catechist in his college, and read his lectures upon the decalogue at the hour of catechising (three in the after noon) every Saturday and Sunday; and such was his reputation as a student and a divine, that many came to the chapel, now (since the chapel founded by Bishop Wren) the College library*; and these not only from other colleges, but even from the country. So report both his biographer Isaacson and Jackson the editor of these very lectures. They were put forth from notes in 1642, and entitled, The Moral Law expounded; and in the same volume were reprinted his Sermons on the Temptation in the Wilderness, and on Prayer. The lectures were a second time edited in 1650, and again in 1675, in a comparatively modern style, and with many enlargements and additions. The edition of 1675 is by no
means so accurately printed as that of 1642. Of the substance of the work there can be no doubt that it is the production of our prelate. John Jackson the first editor was probably one of the Assembly of Divines, Preacher of Gray's Inn and of the University of Cambridge. Sparke was a Puritan, and has introduced his own likeness in an engraving of Laud's Trial.
We have witnessed in our own times an extreme jealousy of all summaries of the Gospel. Not so Bishop Andrewes, who, in his introduction to these lectures, observes, in defence of catechising by the help of summaries, that "our Saviour
catechising Nicodemus made an epitome or abridgement of the Gospel under one head: So God loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him might not perish, but have everlasting life."
After an introduction vindicating the practice of cate
chising, Andrewes proceeded to speak of the spirit in which
the catechized should come to this exercise; and in this,
which forms the second chapter, the later is more copious
than the earlier edition. But both appear to be taken
from notes, and neither can claim to be the original, for
each edition possesses its peculiar marks of the style and
learning of our author. In the third chapter the catechist
proves with great variety of classical and patristical illus
tration, that true happiness is to be found only in God.
Then he proceeds to shew that the surest way to come
unto God is by faith. Nor is there fear of credulity when
we believe God, who neither can deceive nor be deceived.
Now faith is grounded, says Andrewes, upon the word of
God, though published and set forth by man.1 We cannot
come to God by reason, for God transcends reason, nor
can we know anything of the essences of things. And as
to credulity, the endless differences of philosophers upon
the nature of the chief good shew that the uncertainty of
the way of reason is most favorable to credulity. And so
in the things of common life there is likewise frequent and
inevitable necessity for faith.2
But faith doth not exclude reason as corroborative of
revelation. So St. Paul appeals to natural reason in the
first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. And, adds our
catechist, " having thus submitted ourselves to belief, and
strengthened it with reason, we must look for an higher
teacher. For though faith be a perfect way, yet we being
imperfect walk imperfectly in it ; and therefore in those
things which transcend nature and reason, we must believe
God only, and pray to Him, that by the inspiration of His
Holy Spirit, we may be directed and kept in this way."
And " because this inspiration cometh not all at once at
the first, we must grow to perfection by little and little,
and come up by degrees till it please Him to send it in
full measure to us. He that believeth shall not make haste."
Excellently then does he treat of the proofs of the being
of a God, especially from the existence of moral sentiments
and of a conscience in man.1 Next are summed up the proofs
of a particular providence, in which chapter he affirms the
principle, that God is his own end, and that he wills all
things for his own honour.2 Then follow very elaborate
discourses upon Heathenism, Judaism, Mahometanism, and
the evidences of Christianity. He then proceeds to treat
of the rule of interpretation, and does not, as do some
who make use of his name, treat the Scriptures as practically
useless until a meaning is assigned to them out of the Fathers
or by the Church. He does not refer us either to the one
or to the other as the rule of interpretation, but will have
us seek the literal meaning of each passage, consult the text
in the original tongues, compare Scripture with Scripture,
learn the intent of those expressions or idioms that are peculiar
to Scripture, as the crucifying of the flesh, the mortifying
of concupiscence, &c. ; consider the scope of the passage,
as, what was God's intent in setting down the law, in
giving a prophecy, in working a miracle, &c., as St. Paul to
Timothy reasoneth from the end of the law, against those
that made evil use of the law; and lastly, have regard to
the context. These rules he prefaces with a quotation from
St. Augustine, " Let us ask by prayer, seek by reading,
find out by meditation, taste and digest by contemplation."
It may be observed that in this part of the lectures we
meet with a very plain proof that the latter edition was not
taken from the bishop's own manuscript, and that it does not
deserve the high commendation it gives itself in the titlepage.
Thus in p. 54 we read (Rule) 4. " To be acquainted with the
phrase of the Holy Ghost, and this is to be gotten by the
knowledge of the dialect, idiom, or style of the Holy Spirit,
as the apostle speaks, by use to discern it, 'as the crucifying of
the flesh, mortifying the concupiscence, &c., for sometimes the
Holy Ghost in Greek sends us to the Holy Ghost in Hebrew.
Holy Ghost useth divers idioms that are not to be found in
other writers ; as, the crucifying of a man's flesh, the mortify
ing of his concupiscence, &c. Therefore we must be perfect in
these ; and as Heb. 5, ver. last, have our senses exercised, that
we may know the Holy Ghost when he speaketh. Often we
shall meet with TOVT earl ^eOep^vevofjievoVj this is being
interpreted; the Holy Ghost in Greek referreth us to the
Holy Ghost in Hebrew."
The second editor has endeavoured to incorporate his own
with Bishop Andrewes' doctrine. It is to be observed more
over, that whereas the larger additions to the author are dis
tinguished as such by the editor, he has also inserted glosses
and limitations which are indeed put in italics; but neither are
these the only additions, for it is owned in the preface that
there are some additions left by mistake in the same character
with the rest. Very remarkable is our author's reason for
the introduction of the new covenant ; it is in perfect harmony
with the great principle of his theology, that God is all in all :
"The reason of this second covenant was, that now Adam
having lost his own strength by breach of the first, all power
and strength should be new from God in Christ, and all the
glory be given to him. For if Adam had stood by his own
strength in the first, howsoever God should have had most
glory, yet Adam should have had some part thereof for using
his strength well and not abusing it when he might, but kept
his standing. But that God might have all the glory, he
suffered the first covenant to be broken, and permitted man to
fall, for which fall he was to make satisfaction, which he could
not do but by Christ, nor perform new obedience but by the
grace of God preventing us, and making us of unwilling
willing, and of unable able to do things in that measure that
God will require at our hands." He discourses of the order
that should be observed in preaching. He will have the law
preached first because by it alone men are humbled ; then he
will have them brought to that covenant by which they can
be saved. ..
In his traces of the moral law amongst the heathen' he
notices their observance of the number seven as the number
of rest, and the number most pleasing to the gods, and their
practice of mourning seven days, of naming their children on
the seventh day, &C.
Under the exposition of the first commandment are most
learnedly and piously treated all the religious affections, faith,
hope, love, humility, patience, reverence also prayer, thanks
giving, obedience, integrity, and perseverance; and their contraries, unbelief, despair, pride, love of the world, self-love, &c.
Under the second commandment he derives the use of
pictures in churches from the Gnostics in Irenasus, and gives
the four causes of the introduction of images, condemning it
at the same time as the beginning of great abuses. These
causes are the policy of heretics aiming by their imitation of
the heathen to conciliate them ; secondly, desire to preserve
the memory of the dead ; so the people had the likeness of
Malesius, Bishop of Constantinople, in their rings, and in
their houses. Thirdly, wealth, by reason of which they desired to please their eyes and to have their churches as rich as themselves. Lastly, the idleness, absence or ignorance of their pastors. Paulinus, Bishop of Nola in Campania,
having occasion to travel into Syria and Egypt, and having
none to preach to his people till his return, thought good
(because he would have something to teach them in his
absence) to paint the whole history of the Bible on the walls
of his church, so that their preachers were none other but
painted walls. But this is no way to be commended in him,
and the effect proved accordingly. For it fell out that for
want of better teachers the people became ignorant, and be
cause their pastors became but dumb images, therefore dumb
images became their pastors."
Our author charges upon the second council of Nice the
paying supreme worship to images themselves. The later editor of his lectures inserts a correction, affirming that
the council was misrepresented to the councils of Frankfort
and Paris. But the reader will find this point fully treated
of in Bishop Stillingfleet upon the Idolatrous Practices of the
Romish Church* and Andrewes fully justified.
Under this commandment Andrewes discourses of all
the parts of divine worship, preaching, prayer, thanksgiving,
sacraments, and discipline. " St. Paul," he tells us, " not only
preached, but made it an ordinance of God, to save them that
believe."2 Upon the sacraments and discipline the later is far
more copious than the earlier edition, which, from its extreme
brevity, was probably taken from notes very defective them
selves upon these particulars. If this part of the work be
our author's, he decides that children are believers " by their
godfathers and godmothers and parents who present them
and desire to have them baptized in the faith of Christ."
The sacrifice of the Eucharist he does not make a repetition of
Christ's sacrifice, but an oblation of ourselves to God and
a sacrifice of thanksgiving. The only other sense in which
our author ever calls the Lord's Supper a sacrifice is as
a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice. He disclaims in
his Easter-day Sermon for A.D. 1612, the application of
the term sacrifice in the strict and literal sense. He saith,
" by the same rule that theirs [the passover] was, by the
same may ours be termed a sacrifice. In rigour of speech
neither of them : for (to speak after the exact manner of
divinity) there is but one only sacrifice veri nominis properly
so called ; that is Christ's death, and that sacrifice but once
actually performed at his death, but ever before represented
in figure, from the beginning; and ever since repeated, in
memory, to the world's end." And a little after, in the same
sermon : lt So it was the will of God, that so there might
be with them a continual foreshewing, and with us a con
tinual shewing forth the Lord's death till He come again.
Hence it is, that what names theirs carried, ours do the like, and the Fathers make no scruple at it ; no more need we." We
do not find here that theological confusion of language which
would lead us to suppose that the Eucharistic elements them
selves were a sacrifice available to the forgiveness of sins;
a confusion into which those have fallen perhaps unwittingly,
yet really, who have sought to make of the Eucharist a real
sacrifice and not a commemoration of a sacrifice. These
contend for a real; Bishop Andrewes, Bishop Jewel, Bishop
Bilson for a figurative sacrifice, a memorial of Christ's death,
in which the offerers were as much the people as the priests ;
so Bishop Bilson : " Christ is offered daily but mystically,
not covered with * qualities and quantities of bread and wine,
for those be neither mysteries nor resemblances to the death
of Christ: but by the bread which is broken, by the wine
which is drunk, in substance creatures, in signification sacra
ments, the Lord's death is figured and proposed to the
communicants, and they for their parts, no less people than
priests, do present Christ hanging on the Cross to God the
Father, with a lively faith, inward devotion, and humble
prayer, as a most sufficient and everlasting sacrifice for the
full remission of their sins and assured fruition of His
mercies." And again, he explains Peter Lombard in his
fourth book and twelfth distinction, saying, " Christ is offered
in a sacrament," by these words, u that is, his offering is
represented, and a memory of his passion celebrated." And
so Dr. Field (who has nevertheless been alleged to prove
the doctrine of Johnson, Hickes, and their followers) sums
up all in this, " The sacrifice of the altar is only the sacrifice
of praise and thanksgiving, and a mere representation and
commemoration of the sacrifice once offered on the Cross."
Equally careful is Buckeridge, Bishop of Ely, to guard
against all idea of a real external sacrifice, denying in plain
terms that the Eucharist is an external proper sacrifice.
CHAPTER II.
Andrewes on the Fourth Commandment — Of holy places — Of the
Church's deposit — Of Circumcision — Of the fear of God — Of grace.
— Andrewes goes into the north with the Earl of Huntingdon —
Sir Francis JValsingham becomes his patron — He is made Vicar
of St. Giles', Cripplegate — Preaches at the Spital in 1588 — His
censure of highmindedness — His honourable notice of Augustine
and Calvin — Vindication of Protestant munificence — Censure of
simony and sacrilege — Of Justification — He preaches before the
Queen in 1589 — Is made Prebendary of Southwell and of St.
Paul's, and Master of Pembroke College — His Clerum.
IN the sixth chapter our author exposes the excuses of the
Romanists in regard of image-worship, and herein follows the
very same course that is taken in the Homily upon Peril of
Idolatry. In his exposition of the fourth commandment he
observes that men would probably have neglected worship
altogether, "if God had not provided a particular day for
himself and settled it by a special commandment ; as we see
in those that talk of a perpetual Sabbath, who come at length
to keep no day at all." His judgment did not suffer him to
be led away with the presumptuous folly of those who dis
covered that, Adam had no need of a Sabbath. He regarded
the fourth commandment as partly moral and partly cere
monial, which appears to be virtually admitted by Bishop
White himself, who says that "the common and natural
equity of the commandment is moral."1 Andrewes derives
the Lord's Day, with St. Augustine, from Holy Scripture; this is the day that the Lord hath made. And so St. Athana-
sius affirms that u the Lord changed the Sabbath to the Lord's
Day."1 " So," observes our author, "though the Sabbath or
seventh day from the creation be ceased, yet there is another
day still remaining, because the end of keeping a day is
immutable from the beginning, to wit, that God might be
honoured by a solemn and public worship." But the whole
of this subject is more fully considered and more accurately
recorded in his Lectures preached in St. Paul's: "Of all the
days in the week we shall see the seventh day to be the fittest
to retain and keep in memory the commendation of this
benefit and work of creation. When God had performed this
great work of creation, he took order also, because it was the
greatest benefit which as yet the world had or knew of, that
the seventh day should be always had in remembrance, be
cause he had fully perfected all the work in it ; and the very
same reason which made the Jews' Sabbath on the seventh
day, doth now also move Christians to keep it on the first day
in the week ; for it is God's will that the lesser benefit should
surcease and give place to the greater, Jer. xxiii. 7, and that
the benefit of creation as the lesser, should yield and give
place to the work of redemption, which is the greater benefit."
But the Sabbath of Sinai, adds our author, had three other
accessory ends : first, political, which was bodily rest, Exod.
xxiii. 12; secondly, ceremonial, that is commemorative of the
creation, and typical of Christ's rest in the grave, of our rest
from sin, and of eternal rest in heaven: thirdly, an end
peculiar to the Jews, the commemorating of their deliverance
out of Egypt, Deut. v. 15 ; wherefore the Jews say that they
have a double right and interest in the Sabbath.
In regard of the sanctification of the day, he condemns all
labor, pastimes, journeyings, and such agricultural works as
are forbidden in Exodus xxxiv., bounding these rules by
that of our Saviour, God will have mercy and not sacrifice.
The eighth chapter treats of the duty of fasting, a duty unhappily for the most part altogether neglected, or magnified
as an end instead of a way to an end.
Again, if the love of ease will condemn fasting, so the
love of money will as easily condemn all care of the house
of God as superstitious. But justly does our author satirize
this desecrating sort of religion. " The Sabbath is the day
of rest, and when we hallow it, we call it the Lord's rest.
So Psalm cxxxii. 14, we see the Lord will give the same
name to the place, This is my rest ; concerning which, as
the Apostles took order, as that the exterior part of God's
worship might be performed decently and in order ; so on
the other side, that the place of God's worship should be
so homely and so ordered, that the table of the Lord's Supper
where, one saith well, the dreadful mysteries of God are
celebrated, were fitter to eat oysters at, than to stand in the
sanctuary of the Lord ; this is so far from pomp that it is
far from decency. And it is a thing that would be thought
of: it is not the weightier matter of the law, yet not to be
neglected. As our working, travelling, &c. shew that we
esteem not that day, so the walls and windows shew that we
are not esteemers of his sanctuary."
From holy things he proceeds to treat of 'holy persons,
and of that power which is in the law of God alone to hold
communities together by checking those sins that cannot,
from their very nature, be restrained by human enactments ;
sins which nevertheless have been the destruction of empires.
Here he speaks of the great mischief which the corruption
of law and oppressive delays, &c. had brought upon our
own country.
In the later edition, which is much more ample upon
the subject of ceremonies than the earlier, having a whole
page by way of introduction which that has not, Andrewes
calls the Scriptures, the volume of both covenants, the
depositum committed to the Church.
Circumcision he calls here and elsewhere a sacrament
affirming that to the sacraments of circumcision and of the
passover succeeded baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Of the fear of God lie saith, tl The reason why though
we may and ought to obey God out of love, yet it hath
pleased him to command fear, is threefold: 1. to overthrow
the vain speculation of some erroneous people, that dream
of an absolute perfection in this life. The wise man saith,
Blessed is the man that feareth alway. And either there
is no perfection in this life, or fear is superfluous; he that
cannot fall need not fear. 2. Inasmuch as the children of God
often feel in themselves a feebleness in faith, a doubt in hope,
coldness in prayers, slowness in repentance, and weakness
in all the other duties, in some more, in others less, according
to the measure of the Spirit communicated to them, as it was
in king David ; therefore fear is necessary to recover them
selves, and he that loseth it not, his heart shall never be
hardened, nor fall into mischief. Though all other duties
fail, yet if fear continues, we shall never need to despair.
3. Because the excellent duty of love, the effect of fear, might
not fail and grow careless. In the Canticles the spouse
fell asleep with her beloved in her arms, and when she awoke
her beloved was gone : in her bed she sought him but found
him not. So that if there be not a mixture of fear with love,
it will grow secure and fall asleep and lose her beloved.
Therefore that we may be sure to keep our love awake, when
we think we have Christ in our arms, there must be a mixture
of fear with it. So for these three reasons fear is necessary,
even for them that think themselves in a perfect state. And
withal Solomon tells us, the fear of the Lord is the beginning
of wisdom : so did his father before him. And the same
Solomon concludes his book of the Preacher with, Fear God
and keep his commandments, for this is the end of all and
the whole duty of man. And in another place he saith, The
fear of the Lord is the fountain of life to avoid the snares
of death. As faith is the beginning of Christian religion,
as the first principles in every science are of things to be
believed, so is fear the first work or beginning of things
to be done : and as servile fear is the first work, so a reverend
and filial fear is the last work and conclusion of all things."
He thus speaks of the grace of God. tl As Nebuchad
nezzar ascribed the building of great Babel to his own power,
and made his own glory the end of it ; so, on the contrary,
we also say of hope, it makes God the author of all the
good it looks for, and makes His glory the end of all. For
first, it makes us go out of ourselves and trust only in God,
and wholly rely upon Him as the sole efficient cause of
good to us. We must wholly depart out of ourselves • we
must not conceive that there is any sufficiency in ourselves,
but that all our sufficiency is of God, not so much as to
think a good thought, therefore much less to have a will
to do it; but that it is God that works the velle [willing]
and consequently the perficere [perfecting] both the will and
the deed in us. We must not ascribe any part or help
to ourselves : for our Saviour saith, Without Me ye can do
nothing. Upon which place St. Augustine noteth, it is " not
any great thing, but nothing at allj and not that we can
perfect nothing, but do nothing at all. And as it makes
God the cause and first beginning, so the last end too, by
giving the glory of his graces in us to him : and the reason
is plain in the Apostle, That no flesh should glory in his
presence, but as it followeth, that he that glorieth should glory
in Him. (\ Cor. i.)"1
The same pious doctrine is contained and vindicated very
fully in his sermon upon 2 Cor. iii. 5, Not that we are sufficient
of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency
is of God? There he saith, " If we begin to do any good
thing, it is God who began a good work in us. Phil. i. 6.
In consideration of which place Augustine saith of the Pela
gians, Audiant qui dicunt, i a nobis esse cceptum, a Deo esse
eventum] the beginning is from us, the completion is from
God. Here let them learn of the Apostle, that it is the
Lord that doth begin and. perform the good work."
And thus much of his catechetical lectures, the value
of which is by no means exaggerated in Jackson's Dedication
to Parliament, where they are called and said to have been
reputed "a very library to young divines, and an oracle
to consult at, to laureate and grave divines."
From the University Andrewes went into the north on the
invitation of Henry Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon and Lord
President of the North. Whilst with him he is said "both by
Isaacson and Bishop Buckeridge to have had great success in
converting several both priests and laymen to the Protestant
religion.
"After this," adds Buckeridge in his funeral sermon for
our prelate, "Mr. Secretary Walsinghame took notice of him,
and obtained him of the Earl, intending his preferment, in
which he would never permit him to take any country
benefice, lest he and his great learning should be buried in
a country church. His intent was to make him Reader of
Controversies in Cambridge, and for his maintenance he as
signed to him (as I am informed) the lease of the parsonage of
Alton in Hampshire, which after his death (in 1590) he returned to his lady, which she never knew nor thought of.
In 1583, November 27, Nicholas Felton, afterward Bishop
of Ely, and, like Andrewes, one of the most upright and
popular prelates of his time, was elected to a fellowship
at Pembroke College. In 1585 Andrewes took his degree
of B.D., and in 1588 appears to have succeeded Robert
Crowley (Veron's successor in 1563) in the vicarage of
St. Giles', Cripplegate. Crowley died on June 18, and was
buried in the chancel.
Andre wes, on April 22, 1585, read his Thesis de Usuris1
as his exercise for the degree of B.D. His Sermons on
the Temptation in the Wilderness, first published in 1592,
and those on the Lord's Prayer, first published in 1611, were
probably delivered, not at Cambridge as a recent editor of
Isaacson's Life of Andrewes conjectures, but at St. Giles',
Cripplegate. Dr. Hopkins, Bishop of Deny, also published
a very valuable series of Sermons on the Lord's Prayer
towards the latter end of this century. Amongst other
eminent divines who have written upon it, are John Smith,
1609, Dr. John Boys, 1622, Perkins of Cambridge, Dr.
Henry King, 1638, Joseph Mede, 1658, and William Gouge.
In 1586 appeared A Choice of Emblems and other Devises
for the most part gathered out of sundry writers, Englished
and Moralized, and divers newly devised by Geoffrey Witney,
&c. Imprinted at Leyden in the house of Christopher Plantyn,
by Francis Baphelengius, 1586. Dedicated to Robert Earl
of Leicester, with his arms opposite the dedication. In the
second part, p. 224, Matth. xxiv. To M. Andrewes, Preacher.
The Martyrs. " Sic probantur." And under it the Pharisee
giving alms and blowing his trumpet at the same time.
Others are:
p. 217, to Mr. Elcocke, preacher.
to Mr. Rawlins, preacher.
to Mr. Knewstubs, preacher.
to Mr. James Jonson.
to Mr. Howlte, preacher.
Andrewes, whilst at Cambridge, united, it is said, with
the Rev. John Knewstubs, B.D., a native of Westmoreland
and fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, Dr. Chaderton,
afterwards first master of Emmanuel College, Mr. Culverwell,
(Ezekiel Culverwell) of Emmanuel College, vicar of Felstead
in Essex, author of a Treatise of Faith, 1633, also A ready
Way to remember the Scriptures, 1637 ; also John Carter,
A.M. of Clare Hall, and some others, in weekly meetings
for prayer and expounding the Scriptures. Mr. Carter,
afterwards rector of Belstead in Suffolk, wrote A Commentary
of Christ's Sermon upon the Mount. He died, aged 80 years,
February 22, 1634. " At their meetings," says Samuel
Clarke in his Lives of Thirty-two English Divines, p. 133,
"they had constant exercises : first they began with prayer,
and then applied themselves to the study of the Scriptures.
One was for the original languages ; another's task was
for the grammatical interpretation ; another's for the logical
analysis; another's for the true sense and meaning of the
text ; another gathered the doctrines ; and thus they carried
on their several employments, till at last they went out, like
Apollos, eloquent men and mighty in the Scriptures : and
the Lord was with them, so that they brought in a very
great harvest unto God's barn."
On Wednesday, April 10, in Easter-week 1588, Andrewes
preached from 1 Tim. c. vi. 17—19, at the Spital. This discourse is in many respects inferior to none of the ninety-six
sermons with which it is embodied. In all the great and
essential features of a Christian sermon it is perfect, and abounds
with that fertility of illustration, and that witty and at times
satirical wisdom which marked its author. But indeed truth
is a continual satire upon the world; and he who would
faithfully portray men's passions and set them before their
own eyes must pass for a satirist. But all is here delivered
with an affection not less evident than that fearlessness which
shines so nobly in this most faithful of preachers. How
does he hold up to view all the meanness of pride, all the
folly of covetousness, all the cruelty and oppression of the
proud rich man! How does he urge his authority as a
messenger from God, upon the rich and the great !
He delivered not an essay but a discourse, written not
with a view to reading but to delivery. He therefore raises
up and meets the objections of his hearers, and answers to
the supposed charge of personality in a manner that those
indeed do not need who are always careful to destroy the
force of particular precepts by unmeaning generalities. And
at least he reminds his congregation that they must one
day give an account of the use to which they shall turn that
which they have heard at his mouth.1 He calls God to
witness that he has delivered his own soul/ and with all
this holy earnestness is nothing but truth in all sobriety and
gravity, as it is drawn from the all-searching and all-powerful
word of God.
After instancing the highmindedness of Nabal, Abner,
and Mieaiah, he adds, " These were, I dare boldly affirm,
highminded men in their generations. If any be like these
they know what they are. If then there be any that refuse
to be pruned and trimmed by the word of God ; who either,
when he heareth the words of the charge, Uesseth himself
in his heart and saith, Tush, he doth but prate; these things
shall not come upon me, though I walk still according to
the stubbornness of mine oivn heart;3 either in hearing the
word of God, takes upon him (his flesh and blood and he)
to sit on it and censure it; and say to himself one while,
'This is well spoken,' when his humour is served; another
while, 'This is foolishly spoken, now he babbleth,' because
the charge sits somewhat near him; either is in the Pharisee's
case, which, after they have heard the charge, do (as they
did at Christ) eK/jbVKrrjpl^eLVj jest and scoff, and make them
selves merry with it, and wash it down with a cup of sack,
and that because they were covetous; if in very deed the
word of God be to them a reproach,5 and they take like
delight in both, and well were they if they might never
hear it ; and, to testify their good conceit of the word, shew
it in the account of the ephod, which is a base and con
temptible garment in their eyes, and the word in it and ,
with it, (this is Michal's case) : whosoever is in any of these
men's cases, is in the case of a highminded man, and that
of the highest degree, for they lift themselves up, not against
earth and man, but against heaven and God himself. 0 be
loved, you that be in wealth and authority, love and reve
rence the word of God. It is the root that doth bear you;
it is the majesty thereof that keepeth you in your thrones,
and maketh you be that you are : but for Ego dixi Dii estis
(a parcel-commission out of this commission of ours) the mad
ness of the people would bear no government, but run head
long, and overthrow all chairs of estate, and break in
pieces all the swords and sceptres in the world ; which you of
this city had a strange experience of in Jack Straw and his
meiny,1 and keep a memorial of it in your city-scutcheon, how
all had gone down, if this word had not held all up. And
therefore honour it, I beseech you; I say, honour it. For
when the highest of you yourselves which are but grass, and
your lordship's glory and worship which is the flower of this
grass, shall perish and pass away, this word shall continue
for ever. And if you receive it now with due regard and
reverence, it will make you also to continue for ever."2
Touching upon the words, the rich in this worldy he re
marks, " Sure it is thought of divers of the best writers both
old and new (I name of the new Mr. Calvin, and of the old
St. Augustine^} that this addition is a diminution &c. — for
being of this world, they must needs savour of the soil ; be as
this world is, (that is) transitory, fickle, and deceitful."3
In this sermon he most amply vindicates the Protestantism
of the Elizabethan age from the false accusations of the
Romanists, who gave out that it was a faith without good
works. After commending the liberality of the city of London,
he proceeds, " I will be able to prove, that learning, in the
foundation of schools and increase of revenues within col
leges ; and the poor, in foundation of alms-houses and increase
of perpetuities to them, have received greater help within this
realm in these forty years last past, since (not the starting up
of our Church, as they fondly used to speak, but since) the
reforming of ours from the errors of theirs, than it hath, I say,
in any realm Christian not only within the selfsame forty
years (which were enough to stop their mouths), but also
than it hath in any forty years upward, during all the time of
Popery: which I speak partly of mine own knowledge, and
partly by sufficient grave information to this behalf. This
may be said and said truly."1
To simony and sacrilege he thus alludes. Treating of the
good that might be done to the Church by the rich men of the
city whom he likens to Tyre, called a cherub stretching its
wings over the ark to signify what protection it should yield
to the Church, he says : " And much good might be done, and
is not, in this behalf, and that many ways. I will name but
one, that is, that with their wings stretched out, they would
keep the filth and pollution of the sin of sins (whereof you
heard so bitter complaint both these days) of simony and
sacrilege, from falling on the ark, and corrupting and putrify-
ing it, which it hath almost already done : that seeing the
Pope do that he doth (howsoever some have alleged the
Papists' great detestation of this sin and of us for this sin, for
a motive ; it is all but dissembling ; their hand is as deep in
this sin as any man's) ; I say, seeing the Pope doth as he doth,
that is, as he hath dispensed with the oath and duty of subjects
to their prince, against the fifth commandment: with the
murder, both violent with daggers and secret with poison, of
the sacred persons of princes, against the sixth ; with the un-
cleanness of the stews and with incestuous marriages, against
the seventh ; so now, of late, with the abomination of simony,
against the eighth; having lately (as it is known by the
voluntary confession of their own priests), by special and ex
press warrant of the see apostolic, sent hither into this land
his license dispensative to all patrons of his mark to set up
simony, and to mart and make sale of all spiritual livings
which they have or can get to the uttermost penny, even (if
it were possible) by the sound of the drum ; and that with
a very clear conscience (so that some portion thereof be sent
over to the relief of his seminaries, which by such honest
means as this come to be now maintained). Seeing thus do
the Papists, and we (loth to be behind them in this gain of
blood) make such merchandize with this sin, of the poor
Church and her patrimony, as all the world crieth shame of
it : to redeem the orderly disposing them to the Church's
good, were a special way for you rich men to do good in these
days. Neither as these times are do I know a better service,
nor which (I am persuaded) will please God better than this,
or be better accepted at his hands."
Towards the end he answers the sophism of the Ehemist
translators, who from the text would deduce that good works
are a foundation. This they insert in a note, without any
reason, and to insinuate an untruth, namely, that they are the
foundation of justification. tl The ground whereon every
building is raised, is termed fundamentum. The lowest part
of the building immediately lying on it is so termed too. In
the first sense, Christ is said to be the only foundation : yet
the apostles, because they are the lowest row of stones, are
said to be foundations in the second. So, among the graces
within us, faith is properly in the first sense said to be the
foundation; yet in the second do we not deny, but as the
apostle calleth them, as the lowest row next to faith, charity
and the works of charity may be called foundations too.
Albeit the margin might well have been spared at this place ;
for the note is here all out of place. For, being so great
schoolmen as they would seem, they must needs know it is
not the drift of the apostle here in calling them a foundation,
to carry our considerations into the matter of justifying, but
only to press his former reason of uncertainty there, by a con
trary weight of certain stability here : and so their note comes
in like Magnificat at matins." Afterwards he thus dis
tinguishes : " But if you shall have grace to make choice of
God's plot which he hath here levelled for you to raise upon,
0 quantum dignum pretiof that will be worth all the world
in that day: the perfect certainty, sound knowledge, and
precious assurance you shall then have, whereby you shall be
assured to be received, because you are sure you are Christ's,
because you are sure you have true faith, because you are sure
you have framed it up into good works. And so shall they
be a foundation to you-ward, by making evident the as
surance of salvation : not naturd to God-ward, in bringing
forth the essence of your salvation."1
On the 19th May, 1589, Lancelot Andrewes was admitted
to the prebendal stall of North Muskham, in the church of
Southwell, in the place of John Yonge, D.D., at this time
Bishop of Eochester. Yonge was B.A. of Pembroke Hall,
Cambridge, 1551, M.A. 1555, B.D. 1563, and D.D. 1569.
On May 3rd, 1564, he was made Prebendary of Cadington
Major, in St. Paul's, London, which stall he held until 1579.
From a fellowship he was chosen to be Master of his college
in the place of Whitgift, that year preferred to the mastership
of Trinity College, where he had been educated. On the
26th April, 1572, Yonge was promoted to the 10th stall in
Westminster Abbey, in the place of Edmund Freke, Bishop
of Kochester. This stall he was permitted to keep in com-
mendam with his bishopric of Eochester, to which he was
consecrated March 16th, 1578, on the translation of Dr. John
Pierse to Salisbury. He died at Bromley in Kent, the
ancient seat of the Bishops of Eochester, in his 72nd year,
on the 10th April, 1605, and was buried at Bromley. Dr.
Christopher Sutton, the pious author of Disce vivere^ &c.,
succeeded to his stall at Westminster.
North Muskham is about three miles north of Newark.
This stall was founded probably by Thomas II. Archbishop
of York from 1109 to 1114, and endowed with a part of the
great tithes of North Muskham, with the great tithes of
Caunton (between Newark and Worksop), and with certain
temporals in North Muskham and Caunton.2 Andrewes re
tained this stall until he was raised to the see of Ely, when it
was conferred upon his brother Dr. Eoger Andrewes, after
wards Master of Jesus College, Cambridge.
On the 29th May Andrewes was, on the death of Dr.
Thomas Sampson, the Puritan Dean of Christ Church (where
he was succeeded in 1565 by Thomas Godwyn), preferred by
Grindal, Bishop of London, at the suit of the same patron
who had obtained for him his stall at Southwell, Sir Francis
Walsinghame, to the prebendal stall of St. Pancras, in St.
Paul's, London, which he also held until his translation from
Chichester to Ely in 1609, when he was succeeded by his
friend and fellow-collegian the very pious and learned Dr.
Eoger Fenton, also one of the translators of the Bible with
himself and his brother, and afterwards preferred by himself
to the parsonage of Chigwell, in Essex. Fenton was regarded
in his college as only inferior to Andrewes himself.1
Andrewes acknowledged these favours in a letter to Sir
Francis Walsinghame, as follows :
"I do in humble manner crave pardon of your Honour, in that
I have not myself attended in the re-delivery of the enclosed, to
render to your Honour my bounden duty of thanks for the contents
thereof. Being, besides mine exercise tomorrow, on Monday morn
ing, at the feast of my father's company, to preach at Deptford,2
I promised myself from your Honour a favourable dispensation for
the forbearing of my presence till then, what time I shall wait on
your Honour, as well in regard of your Honour's great bounty to
me these years past, which, while I live, I am bound to acknow
ledge, as now for the instant procurement of these two prebends,
the one of them no sooner ended, than the other of them straight
begun. They are to me both sufficient witnesses of your Honour's
care for my well-doing, and mindfulness of me upon any occasion.
My prayer to God is, that I may not live unworthy of these so
honourable dealings, but that in some sort I may prove serviceable
to your Honour, and to your Honour's chief care, this Church of
ours. What your Honour hath, and farther shall vouchsafe to
promise in my name, in this or aught else, shall be, I trust, so satis
fied, as shall stand with your Honour's liking every way. So
recommending to your Honour the perfecting of your Honour's own
benefit, with my very humble duty I end.
"The Lord Jesus, of his great goodness, grant unto this realm
long to enjoy your Honour. Amen. May 24 [1589]. Your
Honour's in all humble duty and service, so most bound, "L. ANDREWES."
Sir John Harrington relates that Sir Francis Walsinghame
had previously laboured to bring Andrewes to maintain some
state points of Puritanism. "But," he adds, "he had too
much of the av&pos in him to be scared with a councillor's
frown, or blown aside with his breath, and answered him
plainly that they were not only against his learning but his
conscience."
He further mentions that Andrewes' stall at St. Paul's
was that of the Confessioner or Penitentiary ; and that while
Andrewes held this place, his manner was especially in Lent
to walk at stated times in one of the aisles of the cathedral,
that if any came to him for spiritual advice and comfort, as
some did, though not many, he might impart it to them.
On the 28th August died Dr. William Fulke, Master of
Pembroke Hall, and previously fellow of St. John's College,
Cambridge. His refutation of the notes appended to the
Rhemish Translation of the New Testament forms a storehouse
of patristic learning and of sound theology. He was buried
at Depden, near Bury, in Suffolk. Andrewes, who was about
this time chaplain to Archbishop Whitgift, was chosen to the
vacant headship. Strype, in his Life of Whitgift, relates that
Andrewes was, for his well-known adherence to ecclesiastical
conformity, denied his grace of D.D. in the first congregation
of Dr. Preston's admission of him. This Dr. Preston, then
Vicechancellor, was not the celebrated Puritan, but Thomas
Preston, LL.D., Master of Trinity Hall.2 On this occasion
he delivered the thesis 'Decimae non sunt abrogandse,' pub
lished in the collection of his posthumous works. On Sep
tember 6th he was admitted Master of Pembroke College, and
on taking his degree preached ad Clerum from Prov. xx. 25,
It is a snare to the man who devour eth that which is holy ; a
passage of holy scripture which is altogether disallowed by
multitudes as utterly inapplicable under the Christian dis
pensation. It was indeed in the time of Charles the First,
when almost the whole nation was given to extremes both in
religion and politics, a fashionable doctrine with all pseudo-
patriots that either sacrilege had ceased to be a sin, or that
there was nothing holy, no kind of property of which it could
be said that it belonged to God, and was inalienable.
The bidding prayer was doubtless Andrewes' own compo
sition, full of antithesis. tl May God," he prays, il preserve
to it [the Church militant] his truth so lately recovered from
the thickest clouds of error : may he restore it when it shall
seem good to him, its unity now well-nigh lost through the
dissensions of the Christian world."
He begins his sermon with observing that whereas the nine
first chapters are evidently connected, the remainder appear to
be a collection taken down from Solomon's mouth by others
without regard to the order of subject. He touches upon the
free-will offerings of the people in the days of David and Saul,
1 Chron. xxvi. 27, 28. This proverb, he notes, might have
been the reply of Solomon to some of his courtiers, who like
those in Haggai might think that the house of God needed
not a roof (i. 4), or who might ask with Judas, l to what is all
this waste f He remarks, as he might have justly done in
our times, " We daily enlist soldiers many, brave and good,
but provision for them we find not. We are ever saying
much of the diffusion of light, nothing of the supplying of the
oil." He then treats — 1. of sacred things, 2. of those who
devour them, 3. of their guilt and punishment. Under the
first he shews that sacred revenues both by way of oblation
and tax are included. The Church both under the old and
new covenant had the same liberty granted it of accepting
property. This is clear from the last chapter of Leviticus, and
from the liberty which the apostles recognized, of the first
Christians laying at their feet whatsoever offerings they
thought fit. Acts iv. 35. Then as to revenues by way of
impost, there is a sacred portion in every man's property. So
Abraham the father of the faithful, guided in this (we may
not doubt) by the Holy Ghost, and an example wheresoever
justly imitable, bound himself to the giving of tithe. The
Old Testament Church had a power of taxing itself, (see
Nehem. x. 32), and, by parity of reasoning, the Christian.
Thus in Acts xxiv. 17, we read not only of alms but of
offerings, the offerings being things devoted to religious not
to eleemosynary uses. He quotes St. Augustine : u God may
thus speak, Thou, 0 man, art thyself mine ; mine is the earth
thou tillest; mine the seeds thou sowest; mine the beasts
thou makest to labour ; mine the showers 5 mine this heat of
the sun ; all are mine ; thou who only puttest to thine hand,
deservedst only the tenth, but to thee my servant I give thee
nine parts ; give to me the tenth." He notices the unwilling
ness of the people to give as proceeding in no small degree
from the springing up of the abuse of impropriations. He
refers to the complaints of the Scotch Church preferred to
the Parliament in 1565.
In speaking of persons he blames the clergy themselves as
guilty, through their own negligence and sloth, of being ac
cessory to such sacrilegious alienations. The punishment of
sacrilege he instances in both profane and sacred history ; in
the former, from Cambyses, Brennus, and Crassus • in sacred
history, from the fate of Dathan, Achan, Belshazzar, Athaliah,
and Judas. He enlarges upon the sure destruction which
sacrilege entails upon the state, and upon its injurious conse
quences as discouraging learning in the Church.
His biographer Isaacson relates that when he became
master of his college, a he found it in debt, being of a very
small endowment, then especially, but by his faithful provi
dence he left above eleven hundred pounds in the treasury of
that college, towards the bettering of the estate thereof."
CHAPTER III.
Dr. Andrewes preaches before the Queen in Lent 1589-90 — His
Lectures on the Creation and Fall — Udal, the Puritan, 1591 —
Thesis on the Oath ex officio — Of the worshipping of imaginations,
1592 — Convocation Sermon, 1593 — Greenwood and Barrow — The
Dearth of 1594.
ON March 4, 1590, Ash- Wednesday, we find Andrewes,
being now one of the Queen's twelve chaplains, preaching
before the Queen at Whitehall, from Psalm Ixxviii. ver. 34,
When Tie slew them they sought him, and they returned, and
enquired early after God.
This sermon contains many striking illustrations of the
sin and folly of delay in the things of God, and of the
power of religion as it is seen in the fears of such as have
yet all their life boasted themselves in a fancied independence
of God. u They^ that a little before, grievously provoked the
most high Gody with speeches little better than blasphemy :
Can God do this ? Is there a God amongst us ? or is there
none? And so, instead of qucerebant Deum, qucerebant an
Deusj made a question whether there were any to seek:
that is, even the very wicked, and (of all wicked the worst)
the profane atheists, they sought even at last, they sought.
This is the triumph of religion: the riotous person, the
hypocrite, the atheist, all shall seek."
Andrewes again preached before the Queen at Greenwich
on the following Wednesday, March 11, from Psalm Ixxv.
ver. 3, The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved:
I bear up the pillars thereof; discoursing upon the two pillars
of a state, religion and justice, and illustrating his subject
from the history of Saul and David. He did not with some,
who yet feign reverence of his memory, set up prayer against
preaching, which he included in the sublime duty of praise,
as the proclaiming of God to his creatures; but with the
devout George Herbert would have prayer and preaching
go hand in hand. ft So that not only Moses and Paul by
calling on the name of God, but Elias and Jeremie by
teaching the will of God (not by prayer only, but by
preaching) are, the one an iron pillar, the other the chariot
and horsemen of Israel in his time."
He reads 2 Kings xi. ver. 12, with the Vulgate, making
the ceremony of the coronation there spoken of to be the II putting not only the diadem imperial, but the book of
the law also, upon the King's head," to remind them that
"that book should be as dear to them as their crown, and
they equally study to advance it."
Andrewes, on the 6th of April, lost his faithful friend
and patron, Sir Francis Walsinghame, who died at his house
in Seething-lane, Great Tower-street, about midnight and
was buried at St. Paul's the next evening, about ten, without
pomp or publicity.
On October 13, he preached his introductory lecture at
St. Paul's, upon undertaking to comment upon the four first
chapters of Genesis. These he continued to the 12th February, 1592, upon which day he delivered that upon Gen. iii. 13,
And the Lord God said unto the woman, What hast thou
done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and
did eat. The remaining lectures1 to the end of the fourth
chapter were preached in his parish church at St. Giles',
Cripplegate, where he resumed them on the 18th June, 1598,
and completed them on February 17, 1600. These were
published in 1657 with the following title, " Apospasmatia
sacra: or, a Collection of posthumous and orphan Lectures :
delivered at St. Paul's and St. Giles' his Church, by the Eight
Honourable and Reverend Father in God Lancelot Andrews,
Lord Bishop of Winchester. Never before extant." It may
be observed that our prelate himself did not write his name
Andrews as in this title page, but Andrewes. Some of these
lectures are from very sparing, others from very copious notes.
They abound in learning and in pious applications of the
history of which he treats. Here we have the same zeal
against sacrilege, the same honest denunciation of faction
and schism which we find in his convocation sermon, the
same delight in the works of God which made his solitary
walks his most pleasant recreation when a youth, the same
familiar knowledge of the Fathers, the same doctrine of the
grace of God, sanctifying all that came from his lips.
Treating of the divine rest spoken of in Genesis ii. 2, he
saith, We say then, that he rested not from preserving and
governing, though he did rest from making.
" Hermes, by the light of reason, could say that it were
very absurd to think that God should leave and neglect the
things he had made; and God imputeth it as a fault to
the ostrich, Job xxxix. ver. 18, 19, to leave her eggs without
care and regard in the sands; therefore God himself will
be free from that blame and blemish which he condemneth
in others. As we say of the Father, so we say of the Son,
which is the Word of God, Psalm xxxiii. ver. 9, He commanded
and they were made; there is creation : He said the word and
stood fast; which is the second work of preservation
and guiding. Also Psalm cxlviii. ver. 5, 6, He first made them
with his word, which is the first work of creation long since
ended, and he gave them a law which they should not break,
which is the other work of establishing and governing things
made. So Col. i. ver. 17, Paul speaking of Christ, saith,
By Him all things have their being, or existence ; and Heb.
i. ver. 3j By Him all things have their supportance, and are
held up.
"If God had his work six days before he rested in
creation, and if Adam had his work in the state of innocency,
then it is much more meet now, that man should go forth
to his labour until the evening, Psalm civ. ver. 23. They
which are not in the works of men. Psalm Ixxiii., but lie on
their beds imagining mischief, they shall not rest in the
Lord, because God made them for good works to walk in
them, Ephes ii. ver. 10.
"There are a number of superfluous creatures, as one
calleth the idle ones, of whom if we should demand, what
is thy calling or work? they cannot say, we are exercised
in the works of men; neither do they work in the will
of God. Therefore if they do anything, they busy themselves
in meddling about other men's matters.
"It is strange to see how busy we are in taking in hand
evil things, and how earnest we are in doing them, and how
constant in not giving them over, or ceasing from such
works. Judas can watch all night to work his treason; but
Peter and the rest could not watch one hour to pray with
Christ.
"Husbandmen in their works for earthly things are
earnest; they follow his counsel (Eccles. xi. 6) not to cease
sowing from the morning until the evening, but will make
an end. But in the works of God we cannot follow his
counsel, to do all that thou takest in hand with all thy power
and strength.
"The last use which we are to make of this is, that which
the Apostle gathereth out of the Hebrews (iv. 10). As
God did rest from his works, so let us from ours. We must
esteem our righteousness and best works as filthy rags,
yea as very dung, Phil. iii. 8, and say as Job did, 1 feared
my own works. Job ix. 28, Vulgate. Thus we must rest
from our own works because there is no safety or quietness
in them, but leave our own righteousness, that we may rest
in Christ and in the works he hath wrought for us."
These lectures Dr. Andrewes continued at St. Paul's
through the months of January, February, April, May, June,
July, August, October, and November, 1591.
On January the 8th in that year we find him not only
one of the witnesses, but appointed one of the executors
of Dean Nowell's will (most providently made by that
venerable man now ten years before his decease). As guard
ian of John Dean, in whose education No well had been at
great expense, Nowell was in the receipt of the interest
of £2,600, lent upon bonds to different companies of merchants in London, of which income, amounting to £135 per annum, it was Nowell's desire that no part should be applied to the emolument of his widow, but the whole laid out in
deeds of charity. Of £100, half to be sent to Oxford, half
to Cambridge. Of that sent to Cambridge, Dr. Andrewes,
master of Pembroke Hall, Dr. Neville, master of Trinity
College (tutor to George Herbert, and in 1597 dean of
Canterbury), Dr. Tyndale, president of Queens' College, and
this same year dean of Ely, and Dr. Chaderton, master
of Emmanuel College, were to dispose ; £4. being annually
reserved to Alexander Whitaker, scholar of Trinity College,
and £4. to his brother Samuel of Eton College, sons of Dr.
Whitaker, master of St. John's College, deceased.
Alexander Nowell was admitted scholar of Trinity College,
Cambridge, April 16, 16023 : he was admitted to the degree
of B.A. in 1604, and of M.A. in 1608. He was not elected
to a fellowship. The registers make no mention of his
brother Samuel.
Under January 21, 1591, the following register is entered
in the registry of St. Olave's, Hart-street : "Master Walter
Devereux, second son to the Earl of Essex, in my lady
Walsinghame's house; Sir Thomas Parrot [Perrot] and Sir
William Knollys, Knts., and my lady, the mother, were wit
nesses. Mr. Doctor [Andrewes] preached and baptized the
child."
Sir William Knoilys, or Knowles, was afterwards treasurer
of the household to King James, by whom he was created
Baron Knowles, May 3, 1603, Viscount Wallingford 1616,
and by Charles I., in the first year of his reign, Earl of
Banbury. His mansion was Greys Kotherfield, (whence
the name of his barony EotJierfield) to the west of Henley-
on-Thames; a house which in times past Walter Grey
the archbishop of York [1216—1256] gave freely unto
William Grey his nephew, the inheritance whereof by the
Baron of D'Eincourt was devolved upon the Lovels.
In the baptismal register of St. Olave's, Hart-street, is
the following, dated January 22, 1591 : " Kobert Devereux
Viscount Hereford," (afterward General of the Parliament)
"son and heir of Robert Earl of Essex, in my Lady Walsing
hame's house" (in Seething-lane4) mother to the countess;
Sir Francis Knollys and the Lord Rich, with the Countess
of Leicester," (daughter of Sir Francis Knollys, and widow
of Walter Earl of Essex as well as of Robert Earl of
Leicester, and grandmother to the infant,) witnesses. Dr.
Andrewes preached and baptized the child.
Sir Francis Knollys was a Knight of the Garter and
treasurer to the Queen's household. He had been an exile
in Germany in the reign of Queen Mary. He was descended
from Sir Robert Knollys who greatly signalized himself in
the wars with France under Edward III. Sir Robert also
assisted in the suppression of Wat Tyler's rebellion, and
was of a spirit as munificent as heroic. He contributed
to the building of Bochester-bridge, founded a college at
Pontefract, where Constance his lady was born, and was
a great benefactor to the White Friars in London, in whose
church he was buried in August 1407, being then at least
ninety years old.
The first lord Kich was Lord-Chancellor for five years in
the reign of Edward VI. He was well descended and allied
in Hampshire, and was much employed under Cromwell in
the suppression of abbies; umost of the grants of which
lands," says Fuller, "going through his hands, no wonder if
some stuck upon his fingers."
On St. Matthias-Day, February 24th, Andrewes preached
at Greenwich before the queen, from Psalm Ixxvii. 20, setting
before her the pattern of the divine government, the gentle
ness with which the great Shepherd of Israel led his flock.
He treated very tenderly, and in the true pastoral spirit, of the
value of the flock committed to her royal charge, all alike by
nature given to disobedience, but God's flock and people, and
the lowest and meanest of them dear to Christ. He quoted
those impressive words of St. Augustine upon Inasmuch as
ye did it to the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me;
u Thou nearest the least, and thou despisest them ; hear also
these words, my brethren, and, believe me, the saving of the
least of these is no small glory." He reminded the queen
that the office of princes is to lead their people to God, and
urged the necessity of a public ministry as well of religion as
of civil justice ; the hand as well of Aaron as of Moses.
In May Dr. Andrewes was, together with Nowell, appointed by archbishop Whitgift to confer with Udal, then in prison.
Udal had been convicted under a very large interpretation
of the 23 Eliz. cap. 2, which was enacted for the punishment
of seditious words against the queen. His offence was a passionate invective against the bishops in a work entitled The
Demonstration of Discipline which Christ hath prescribed in
his Word, for the government of his Church in all times and
places until the world's end. The preface gave especial
provocation, and a virulent specimen of it was inserted in the
indictment. " Who can deny you without blushing (he
writes to the bishops) to be the cause of all ungodliness,
seeing your government is that which giveth leave to a man
to be anything saving a sound Christian?" and more in a still
severer strain. Udal was treated with much injustice, and
after a somewhat turbulent trial and much overbearing, was
convicted on July 23, 1590; but his learning and reputation
were such that Whitgift is said to have interceded for him
and to have delayed judgment. He was however, in March
1591, brought to the bar at South wark and condemned to die
as a felon. Whitgift is said to have procured his reprieve.
In prison he wrote a Hebrew grammar, and was visited by
several of his friends. Andrewes conferred with him upon all
the points then in controversy between the Church of England and the maintainers of the new discipline, but without
success. He appears however to have respected both An
drewes and Nowell, and to have been regarded by them with
unfeigned sympathy if not esteem. Great efforts were made
in his behalf, and his friendly visitants themselves promised
him their kind offices, but he was disappointed of all his
hopes, and at last died broken-hearted in prison. Great
numbers attended his funeral at St. George's, Southwark.
Andrewes is said to have been a member of a Society
of Antiquaries, to which belonged Sir Walter Kaleigh, Sir
Philip Sidney, Lord Burleigh, Henry Earl of Arundel, the
two Herberts, Earls of Pembroke, Sir Henry Saville, John
Stowe, and William Camden. It began in the earlier
part of the reign of queen Elizabeth, and its great object
was the preservation of MSS. dispersed by the suppression
and dissolution of monasteries. They met first at the house
of Sir Robert Cotton, under the patronage of archbishop
Parker. So Dr. Moore, p. 2, The Gentlemans Society at
Spalding. (Pickering, 1851.)
In July 1591, Dr. Andrewes read in the Divinity School
at Cambridge his Theological Determination upon the law
fulness of the oath ex officio on the ground of Scripture.
He maintained the affirmative as implied in the very authority
of the magistrate, which was over the soul as well as the
body, Rom. xiii. 1. If it was lawful in Abraham to make
his servant take an oath, in the case of Jacob and Joseph,
and of Jacob and Esau; much more in causes of a weightier
kind, and by the authority of greater persons. This power
he urged was involved in Exodus xxii. 8, If the thief be
not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto
the judges to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. He alleged also Numbers v. 19, Levit. vi. 3,
and 1 Kings viii. 31. In cases involving the life or death
of the party he makes an exception, instancing the case
of Jeremiah (xxxviii. 14). But where the public weal is
concerned, whether in church or state, recourse may be had
to extraordinary modes of discovering guilt. Thus Joshua
proceeded by lot, and so Achan was taken and punished.
(Josh. vii. 16.) Amongst other reasons and illustrations
he adduced Levit. v. 1, and Ezra x. 11. Micaiah answered
when thus put upon his oath (1 Kings xxii.), and our Lord
himself (Matth. xxvi. 63).
Of the limits of an oath or of that which determines its
equity, he remarks, that Scripture lays down a threefold rule,
(1) " in truth, in righteousness, in judgment" (Jer. iv. 2), that
is, "I will speak nothing but the truth in the name of
the Lord; (2) concerning those things which fall within my
knowledge (things possible) and according to the requirements of the law itself; (3) not hastily, but with deliberation.
In January and February 1592, Dr. Andrewes proceeded
with his lectures on the third chapter of Genesis at St. Paul's,
but does not appear to have resumed them until June 18, 1598,
and then at his church of St. Giles', Cripplegate. On
January 9, 1592, he preached there his sermon entitled
Of the worshipping of imaginations, from Acts ii. 42, as
one of a series upon the Commandments. Here he refutes
the pleas of the Puritans pretending in everything to follow
the Apostolic model, and yet no man thinks himself bound
(says Andrewes) to abstain from eating things strangled and
blood. And so of their love-feasts and their celebrating
their sacrament after supper. He here defends the reading
of the Apocrypha from St. Jude's quoting the apocryphal
book of Enoch. He declares for the Apostolic origin of
episcopacy, and disputes against that of lay-elders, citing
St. Chrysostom, that in his time only the wiser of the
presbyters were suffered to preach, the simpler sort to baptize. The distinction between elders and doctors he shews
to have had no existence at least in the minds of the antient
commentators Chrysostom, Jerome and Augustine. He
shews how the Popish mass is an imagination, since, contrary
to the text (as the Syriac translates it), in their sacrament
there is no breaking of bread, inasmuch as after consecration
there is, according to them, no bread to break, and the body
of Christ is now impassible. He calls the Eucharist a sacrifice,
as it is the renewing of covenant with God in virtue of Christ's
sacrifice. The partaking of the bread he calls the partaking
of Christ's true body. Lastly he animadverts upon the
long and extemporaneous prayers of the Puritans, with their
tautology and incoherence. This and another are the only
two of his many parochial sermons which Laud and Buckeridge seem to have thought worthy of preservation.
In the course of this year, 1592, Andrewes' Seven Sermons
on the Temptation were first printed, with the following
title: tl The Wonderful Combat (for God's glory and man's
salvation) between Christ and Satan opened, in seven most
excellent, learned, and zealous Sermons upon the Temptations
of Christ in the Wilderness. Seen and allowed. London:
printed by John Charlwood for Richard Smith: and are
to be sold at his shop at the west door of St. Paul's, 1592.
This edition was called in as soon as printed, as appears
from a notice of it in p. 1324 in Herbert's Ames. They were
reprinted in 4to. in 1627 for J. Jaggard and Michael Sparke;
the latter reprinted them, with Robert Milbourne, Richard
Cotes and Andrew Crooke, in his edition of Andrewes' Lectures
on the Decalogue.
The other parochial discourse is from Jer. iv, 2, on the
third commandment, and was preached at St. Giles', Cripple-
gate, on June llth. He interprets our Lord as designing
to free the divine law in his Sermon on the Mount from
the false glosses of the Pharisees, not as giving a new law.
He observes that an oath may be lawfully made without
including an express mention of the name of God. "Howbeit
yet the Fathers (well weighing that speech of St. Paul's,
1 Cor. xv. 31, where he speaketh on this wise, By our rejoicing
which we have in Christ Jesus our Lord, &c., wherein his
oath is not immediately by the Name of God, but by a
secondary thing issuing from it,) have thought it not abso
lutely necessary that in every oath the Name of God should
be mentioned, but sufficient if reductive. It is ruled in
divinity, that such things as presently are reduced to God,
will bear an oath." This he instances in swearing by the
Holy Gospel
The first edition of Andrewes' Sermons on the Temptation -
has an epistle dedicatory to Sir John Puckering, Knt, Lord-
Keeper of the Great Seal of England.
This volume contains the bidding prayers used by Andrewes before his parochial sermons.
"Two most excellent Prayers which the preacher commonly
used before his exercises.
"That the name of God may be glorified by this our
assembly, and his holy Word blessed to the end he hath
ordained it: let us in all humbleness present ourselves before
the mercy-seat of God the Father, in the name and mediation
of Christ Jesus his dear Son, through the sanctifying of
his Holy Spirit, with our unfeigned humble acknowledgment both of our own unworthiness to receive any of his
graces, and unableness when we have received them to make
right use of them. And both these by reason of our manifold
sundry sins and offences, amongst the rest, of this one (as
a chief one) that we divers times have been hearers of his
divine and precious Word, without care or conscience to
become the better thereby: let us beseech him, in the
obedience of the life and sacrifice of the death of Christ Jesus
his dear Son, to receive both us and this our humble confession; to pardon both this and the rest of our sins, and
to turn from us the punishments deservedly due unto them
all; especially that punishment which most usually he doth
exercise at such meetings as this, which is, the receiving
of his Word into a dead and dull heart, and so departing
with no more delight to hear nor desire to practise than
we came with; that so, through the gracious assistance of
his good Spirit, inward, adjoined to the outward ministry
of his Word at this present, the things which shall be spoken
and heard may redound to some glory of his everlasting-
blessed name, and to some Christian instruction and comfort
of our own souls, through Jesus Christ our only Lord and
Saviour."
This prayer ended he proceedeth again in this manner:
a And as the Church of Christ, wheresoever it is at this
present assembled and met together, is mindful of us that
be here, so it is our parts and duties in our prayers to
remember it, recommending unto the majesty of Almighty
God the prosperous and flourishing estate thereof: beseeching
God the Father, for Christ Jesus his Son's sake, to be merciful
to all his servants, even his whole militant church, scattered
far and wide over the face of the whole earth : both preserving
it in those truths that it hath recovered from the sundry gross
and superstitious errors of the form erage, and restoring it
also unto that unity (in his good time) which it hath almost
lost and daily loseth through the unchristian and unhappy
contentions of these days of ours.
11 And in this Church let us be mindful of that part thereof
which most especially needeth our remembrance, that is,
the poor afflicted members of Christ Jesus, in what place,
for what cause, or with what cross soever: that it would
please God to minister into our hearts the same spirit of
compassion and fervency, now in the time of their need,
that we would wish should be ministered into theirs in
the time of our need, for them to become suitors for us.
And let us wish them all from the Lord (in his good time)
the same joyful deliverance, and till his good time be, the
same measure of patience that we would wish unto our own
souls, or would have them entreat and pray for at his hands
for us, if ever our case shall be as theirs is at this present.
" And forasmuch as those churches or members of churches
which enjoy the outward benefits of the Lord, as of health,
plenty, peace and quietness, do many times as much and (for
the most part) much more need the prayers of Christ his
faithful congregation, than those that are under his hand in
the house of affliction, let us beseech him for them also, that
he will give unto each and every of them a thankful receiving
of those his benefits, a sober using of them, and a Christian
employing of them, to his glory that hath sent them.
u And in these our prayers let us be mindful also of the
Church and country wherein we live, yielding first and fore
most evermore, our unfeigned and hearty thanksgivings for
all his mercies and gracious favours vouchsafed this land of
ours : and namely, for our last no less gracious than marvellous
deliverance from our enemies, and for all those good signs and
tokens of his loving favor which ever since and daily he
sheweth towards us.
tl And together withal let us beseech him, that whilst these
days of our peace do last, he will open our eyes to see and in
cline our hearts to seek after those things which may make
for the continuance and establishing of this peace long
amongst us.
"And (as by especial duty we all stand bound) let us
commend unto his Majesty his chosen servant Elizabeth our
Sovereign by his grace, of England, France, and Ireland
Queen, Defendress of the Faith, and over all estates and per
sons within these her dominions (next and immediately under
God) supreme Governess : let us beseech God (daily more and
more) to persuade her Highness' heart that the advancement
and flourishing of this kingdom of hers consisteth in the ad
vancement and flourishing of the kingdom of his Son Christ
within it; that it may be therefore her Majesty's special care and
study, that both her Highness in that great place wherein God
hath set her, and every one of us in the several degrees wherein
we stand, may be as careful to testify unto the whole world
a special care and endeavour that we have for the propaga
tion of the gospel of his Son, as Christ Jesus hath shewn
himself by many arguments both of old and of late (and
that of weight) that he hath carried and still carrieth a special
care of the preservation and welfare of us all.
" Let us commend also unto God the several estates of
the land, for the right honourable of the Nobility and of
her Highness' Privy Council, that they may be careful (from
the Spirit of the Lord) to derive all their counsels ; that
so God which sendeth the counsel may send it good and
happy success also, and may confound and cast out the
counsels of the enemy.
lt For the estate of the clergy, the right reverend Fathers
in God, in whose hand the government of the Church is,
and all other inferior ministers, that he will give unto
each and every of them sufficient graces for the discharge
of their functions, and together (with the graces) both a faith
ful and a fruitful employing of them.
" For the estate of magistracy, and namely for the gover
nors of this honourable city, that they together with the
rest, according to the trust that is reposed in them, may
be no less careful speedily without delay, than incorruptly
without partiality, to administer justice to the people of God.
u For the estate of the commons, that they all, in a Christian
obedience towards each and every of their superiors, and in
a godly love, with the fruits and duties thereof one towards
another, may walk worthy of that glorious calling whereunto
they are called: and that the blessings of the Lord may
not only be with us for our times, but successively also
be delivered to our posterity, let us beseech God that he
will visit with the Spirit of his grace the two Universities,
Cambridge and Oxford, all schools of learning and places
of education of youth; that they being watered with the
dew of his blessing, may yield forth such plants as may
both serve for a present supply of the Church's need, and
also in such sort furnish the generations that are to come
that our posterity also may be counted unto the Lord for
a holy seed and a Christian generation as we ourselves are.
li And thus recommending ourselves unto the prayers of
Christ his Church, as we have commended Christ his whole
Church by our prayers unto the majesty of Almighty God,
reposing our trust and confidence neither in our own prayers
nor in the Church's prayers, but in the alone mediation of
Christ Jesus our advocate, let us unto him as unto our
sole intercessor offer up these our supplications, that he
may present them to God his Father for the effectual obtaining of these and whatsoever graces else he knoweth needful for his whole Church and for us, calling upon him as himself in his Gospel hath taught us, Our Father, &c."
Isaacson informs us that Andrewes read the lecture at
St. Paul's three times a- week in term time. " And indeed,"
he adds, " what by his often preaching at St. Giles', and
his no less often reading in St. Paul's, he became so infirm
that his friends despaired of his life."
Of his charities in his parish of S. Giles', Cripplegate,
Buckeridge says, in his funeral sermon, "The first place he
lived on was S. Giles', there I speak my knowledge; I do not
say he began — sure I am he continued his charity: his
certain alms there was ten pound per annum, which was
paid quarterly by equal portions, and twelve pence every
Sunday he came to church, and Jive shillings at every
Communion.'' As prebendary of St. Pancras he built the
prebendal house in Creed-lane, and recovered it to the
church.
On February 20, 1593, Dr. Andrewes preached the Convocation sermon at St. Paul's, from Acts xx. 28. He refers to the notice of this passage in the 14th chapter of the 3rd book of Irenseus against Heresies, as shewing that he
held the distinction of the episcopate and of the presbytery.
Towards the beginning of his discourse he reprobates the
great abuse of preaching by the idle and unlearned in those
times ; he also admonishes his audience of the need they
have to look well to their flocks, and remarks that the narrow
scrutiny of their lives and manners so common amongst
the laity is the effect of their remissness in their pastoral
charge. Nobly does he urge the consideration that (l this
congregation which we call the Church and which so many
amongst us so lukewarmly and slothfully tend, are, if we
believe Peter, partakers of the divine nature, (2 Pet. i. 4);
if John, citizens of heaven ; if Paul, the future judges of
the angels," 1 Cor. vi. 3. Towards the end of this discourse
he animadverts upon the boldness of some who at that time
ventured to impugn the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Next
he speaks, and that in the very strongest terms, of the Romish
emissaries, and of the unaltered spirit of Rome still thirsting
for blood. After this he notices the factious spirit of the
Puritans, more ready to give laws to the Church than to
receive them. He speaks of some who made light of the
Sacraments and treated them as superfluous, proscribed the
Apostles' Creed, would not use the Lord's prayer, and sought
to introduce a state little better than anarchy itself. He
predicts that if these evils are not restrained our Sion will
soon be turned into Babel.
He next faithfully reproves the evil custom of admitting
unfit persons to the ministry, men whose lives are a scandal
to the Church, and the cause, as he admits, of loud complaint,
and that not without foundation. Nor does he spare the
bishops themselves, but alludes very openly to the iniquitous
and impious practice of that age, of bishops, on their advancement to their sees, impoverishing their bishoprics by in equitable exchanges of estates for great tithes,1 &c. Indeed, queen Elizabeth first strove to deteriorate by this kind of
temptation the whole prelacy, and then punished the natural
effect of her own misconduct, the popular contempt that was
cast upon her prelates, and that tended more perhaps than
any other cause to strengthen the Puritans. This very year
Dr. Marmaduke Middleton, Bishop of St. David's, was suspended by the High Commission Court.
Of the Convocation, Collier relates that, "excepting the
grant of two subsidies little or nothing was done. On the
11th of April, the day after the dissolution of Parliament, the
Convocation was dissolved by the queen's writ."
On March 21, Dr. Andrewes, with Dr. Parry, afterwards
Bishop of Worcester, Dr. Philip Bisse, Archdeacon of Taunton, and Dr. Thomas White, Prebendary of Mora and Canon
Kesidentiary of St. Paul's, was sent to Mr. Henry Barrow
to exhort him to recant his errors. This conference took no
effect, and so on April 6th, Barrow and John Greenwood, the
one a layman the other in holy orders, were executed at
Tyburn. These men, from the enumeration of their delinquencies as recorded by their judges, deserved rather to be sent to Bedlam than to Tyburn. They held that "the Church of England was no true church, and that the worship in this
communion was downright idolatry; that praying by a form
was blasphemous, and that all those who make or expound
any printed or written catechisms, are idle shepherds." Their
more venial offences were the maintaining that every parish
should choose its own pastor, that every lay elder is a bishop,
with other points of 'schismatical and seditious doctrine,' as
their indictment ran.
On Friday,5 March 30th, Dr. Andrewes preached before the queen at St. James's, from St. Mark xiv. 4, 6. Andrewes
here uncritically follows the conjecture of St. Augustine that
this Mary was Mary Magdalene, and the penitent woman
mentioned in the 7th chapter of St. Luke's Gospel. He re
flects in this sermon upon the prodigality of that age in
sumptuous feasting, in princely apparel, in burdensome reti
nues, in magnificent houses. Alluding to the complaint of
Judas, To what end is this waste? he says, "The case is
like, when they that have wasted many pounds, complain of
that penny waste which is done on Christ's body the Church.
Or when they that in their whole dealings (all the world sees)
are unreformed, seriously consult how to reform the Church."
Again he observes, "The kindliest way to have Judas' complaint redressed, is to speak and labour that Mary Magdalene's example may be followed."
The following year was a time of dearth, as we find from
li The renewing of certain Orders devised by the, special commandments of the Queers Majestic for the relief and stay of the present dearth of grain within the Realm in the year of our Lord 1586, now to be again executed this year 1594, dfcc., published by Christopher Barker. It was probably for a collection on account of this dearth that Andrewes preached in the Court at Richmond, from the parable of Dives and Lazarus, on Tuesday, March 5, 1594.2 This is indeed one
of the most profitable of his discourses, and contains many
topics and illustrations worthy of special observation.
On the following day he preached before the queen at
Hampton Court on Remember Lot's wife. He spoke much
of the frequency of such relapses, and very ably treated of
the peculiar nature and heinousness of her sin and greatness
of her punishment. He concluded with a high commendation
of the perseverance of the queen as one who had from the
beginning of her reign to this time been faithful to the true
religion; one who (like Zorobabel) first by princely magnanimity laid the corner-stone in a troublesome time; and since, by heroical constancy, through many both alluring proffers and threatening dangers, hath brought forth the
headstone also, with the prophet's acclamation 'Grace, grace
unto it.' "
In November the queen, to satisfy the complaints of her
parliament, issued a commission to examine into the state
of the ecclesiastical courts. For the diocese of London, Dr.
Richard Fletcher, bishop of Worcester, Dr. Andrewes, and
Dr. Stanhope, a civilian, were appointed commissioners.
CHAPTER IV.
The Lambeth Articles, 1595.— Dr Andrews' Review of them.— He
adopts the Augustinian doctrine as modified by Aquinas.
THE late eminently learned and candid bishop of Lincoln,
Dr. Kaye, has observed of St. Augustine, that the high
estimation in which his authority was held may be traced
equally in the writings of the Reformers and in the discussions
of the theologians at the Council of Trent. Of the state
of our nature after the fall, he observes, that the framers
of our Articles not only adopted the opinions, but in the
concluding paragraph (of the 10th Article) have used the
very language of Augustine.
Neither is there any adequate proof that any of the Reformers departed from the doctrine of St. Augustine, or differed from one another upon the peculiar and essential tenets of that father, whose theology entered even into all the forms
of devotion that had been used in our own country and over Western Christendom from the fifth century. It may be seen from the Formula Concordise itself, which was promulgated and subscribed in 1579, that the original doctrines
of Luther were at that time recognized as the unaltered faith
of the Lutheran Communion. Melancthon himself in 1551
subscribed to the doctrine of St. Augustine on Original Sin,
which doctrine was affirmed in the Saxon Confession, a Confession drawn up by Melancthon himself. He had previously maintained the same in his Apology of the Confession of Augsburg. Yet Weismann and others have claimed Me-
lancthon as a dissentient from St. Augustine even in the lifetime of Luther.
The opinions of Cranmer as early as 1537 are easily
discernible in the Institution of a Christian Man, and in
his annotations upon the king's proposed corrections of that
book, in which it is obvious that the king with Gardiner
dissented from St. Augustine. Indications are not wanting
in the history of the English Reformation that the same
diversity of bias marked the two great parties of that age,
the friends of the Reformation herein adhering to the antient,
of the Papacy to the modern church of Rome, even when
abroad this mark of severance was not so observable.
The year before Cranmer with Ridley drew up the forty-
two Articles, since reduced to thirty-nine, and which were
placed in the hands of Knox, Grind al, and others previously
to publication, he thus expressed himself in his Answer
to Dr. Smith:
"And yet I know this to be true, that Christ is present
with his holy church, which is his holy elected people , and
shall be with them to the world's end, leading and governing
them with his Holy Spirit, and teaching them all truth
necessary for their salvation. And whensoever any such be
gathered together in his name, there is he among them,
and he shall not suffer the gates of hell to prevail against
them. Nor although he may suffer them by their own
frailty for a time to err, fall, and to die ; yet finally, neither
Satan, hell, sin, nor eternal death shall prevail against them.
But this holy church is so unknown to the world, that no
man can discern it but God alone, who only searcheth
the hearts of all men, and knoweth his true children from
other that be bastards. This church is the pillar of truth
because it resteth upon God's Word."
In the following year appeared the Articles. There can
be no doubt respecting the mind of their framers as regards
their interpretation of them. Enough has been adduced to
justify the assertion of the late Bishop of Lincoln, that a if
they can be said to have followed the guidance of any uninspired teacher, that teacher was Augustine, who for more than ten centuries had exercised through his writings an unbounded influence over the Western Church." That influence continued to prevail in both our universities to the time of Andrewes, and after his decease. It is alike visible in the works of Whitaker, and in Andrewes' Judgment of the Lambeth Articles. But Andrewes pleaded for the modification of the Augustinian doctrine which had been introduced by Aquinas, maintaining at the same time that it introduced no essential variation, and did not affect the cause but the order which the Almighty observes in the act of predestining.
The first indication of a departure from the received doctrine
was on the part of Dr. Baro, the Lady Margaret's Divinity
professor at Cambridge. He was a learned Frenchman,
Peter Baro Stempanus, a licentiate of Civil Law in the
university of Bourges, admitted to his professorship in 1575,
having the great lord Burleigh for his patron; D.D. of
the university of Cambridge 1576. He gave offence to
the university by some antipredestinarian opinions delivered
in his lectures upon Jonah. And upon this occasion Dr.
Whitaker drew up the Lambeth Articles in November 1595.
That same year, on the 5th May, William Barrett, a fellow
of Caius College, was cited to appear before the Heads of
Houses for an Act sermon for his degree of B.D. preached
on the 29th April. He had maintained that no man could
be assured in this life of his own salvation but by revelation,
that the faith of all men could fail, that therefore the assurance
of final perseverance was both proud and wicked; that there
was no distinction in faith (such as between a true and living
and a dead faith), but in the persons believing ; that no man
could or ought to believe that his sins were forgiven; that
sin is the first cause of reprobation; that Calvin lifted up
himself above Grod; adding contumelious language against
Peter Martyr, Beza, Zanchius, Junius and others, and calling
them Calvinists. He was compelled to read a retractation,
but evinced symptoms of unwillingness immediately after so
doing departed the university, joined the Church of Rome,
and returned to England, where, adds Fuller, in his History
of the University of Cambridge, he led a layman's life until
the day of his death.
To settle these contentions Dr. Whitaker drew up nine
Articles, and these were laid before Whitgift the primate,
to whom the university deputed Whitaker and Dr. Humphrey
Tyndall, president of Queens' College and dean of Ely, to
represent the state of the controversy. Whitaker was admitted in his own age to be inferior in learning and acumen to none of his contemporaries. Bellarmine himself so respected his learning that he placed his portrait in his study.
He was born in 1547, the first year of Edward VI., at
the manor of Holme in the parish of Burnley. Holme is
situated between Burnley and Todmorden, and to the east
of Blackburn. Having been first educated probably at
Burnley, he was sent for to London by his maternal uncle,
that accomplished scholar and theologian, Alexander Nowell,
the composer of the smaller and also of the greater Catechism
of the Church of England, recently edited both by the present
able Regius Divinity professor at Oxford, Dr. Jacobson,
and by the Parker Society. Dean Nowell placed his nephew
at St. Paul's School. Thence he was sent to Trinity College,
Cambridge, and was elected to a fellowship in that noble
foundation. He translated his uncle's larger catechism into
Greek. He now applied himself to the study of theology,
and his voluminous works bear ample testimony to the depth
of his patristic and general erudition. He was accordingly
appointed at the early age of thirty-three to succeed Dr.
William Chaderton, bishop of Chester and afterwards of
Lincoln, as Regius professor of Divinity in his university.
When the mastership of St. John's College, Cambridge,
became vacant by the promotion of Dr. John Howland to
the see of Peterborough, who was consecrated at Lambeth
February 7th, 1585, Whitaker was, by special mandate from
the queen, admitted to the mastership on the 25th February,
1586, Rowland being permitted to retain the mastership
a year after his consecration.
Whitgift wrote to Dr. Matthew Hutton, Archbishop of
York, and formerly a fellow of Trinity (Whitgift's) College.
Hutton hereupon drew up a Latin summary of Predestination,
taken especially from St. Augustine. On November 10th,
Dr. Fletcher, Bishop of Worcester, and now Bishop elect of
London, Dr. Eichard Vaughan, Bishop elect of Bangor, trans
lated two years after to Chester, and thence, on Bancroft's
promotion to the primacy, to London, and some other divines
met Whitaker, Tyndall, and Whitgift at Lambeth, and the
bishops agreed upon the Articles after some few alterations.
It was designed to enforce subscription to them, but the queen
resented it as a violation of her prerogative.
In 1651 a brief history of these Articles was published,
and annexed to them two minor treatises purporting to be the
judgment of Andrewes upon them and his censure of the
censure of Barrett. Dr. Andrewes had been for some years
chaplain to Whitgift, and was doubtless already known as
one of the most learned theologians of the age.
In his review of the nine articles he first remarks, "The
four first articles are concerning predestination and reprobation,
of which it is said by the Apostle, 0 the depth, and by the
Prophet, a great deep. (Rom. xi. 33, Psalm xxxvi. 6.)" Here
we may observe that Andrewes follows St. Augustine, who
in like manner refers that wonderful conclusion of the 11th
chapter of the epistle to the Romans to these mysteries.
Then Dr. Andrewes acknowledges that he has followed
the counsel of St. Augustine, and abstained from the time
of his ordination (sixteen years) from disputing and from
preaching upon these points. And considering the great
danger of abuse, and that but few of the clergy can skillfully
handle these subjects, and that very few are competent to
hear of them with profit, he would advise that silence should
be enjoined on both sides.
The first article affirmed that God from all eternity had
predestinated some to life, and had reprobated others. Upon
this he notes : "That there are in the mind of God, in that
his eternal (whether one may call it foreknowledge or) know
ledge by which he sees those things which are not as though
they were, some who are predestinate, others who are reprobate, I think is beyond all doubt. They are the words of Scripture, before the foundation of the world, that is, that God chose us from eternity, and, when he had chosen, predestinated us, Ephes. i. 4, 5 ; and that he chose us out of the
world, John xv. 19; wherefore, he chose not all that are
in the world, but some. Otherwise there would be no election."
Here we may observe that whereas in the antipredestinarian sense all are predestinate alike, though to different ends, Andrewes uses the term of the elect alone. Secondly, in John xv. 9, he supposes that Judas was excluded, which
is certain indeed, for the words were not spoken until after
he had left the Apostles. Thirdly, he applies this place
to predestination unto life, in which again he follows St.
Augustine, but not so those who here leave that father and
accuse him of being tainted with Manichasism.
Then Andrewes proceeds to justify from Scripture the
use of the term reprobate, but advises that it should be
expressed that these are predestinated through Christ, those
reprobate on account of sin. And here there has arisen
a strife of words, it having been sometimes objected to
Calvin and to Augustine that they deny that sin is the
cause of reprobation, and resolve all into the mere pleasure
or decree of God. The truth is that if there were no sin
there could be no rejection; and again it is equally true
that if God had determined to include all in the number of the elect, there had been no rejection. Both Calvin and Augustine therefore teach that men are reprobated as sinners, and that reprobation follows naturally upon a decree of election. And so Dr. Andrewes adds, "But those whom he chose not and by choosing approved (as the nature of election carries with it) he reprobated. And scripture uses the words rejecting (Rom. xi. 2), reprobating (Heb. xii. 15)."
The second article is: "The moving or efficient cause
of predestination unto life, is not foresight of faith, or of
perseverance, or of good works, or of anything that is in
the person predestinated, but only the good-will and pleasure
of God."
Dr. Andrewes advised the addition "of God in Christ";
for that first God had respect to his beloved Son, "but
not to us first (as some think) and to him last, and that
for our sakes. For we could not be predestinated to the
adoption of sons but in his natural son, nor could we be
predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, unless
first the Son be ordained to whose image we are to be conformed. Wherefore I would also add to this article l the good- will of God in Christ.' ''
Next he expresses his disapproval of the separation of
the divine prescience from the divine predestination. This
indeed sounds to modern ears antipredestinarian; but let
the explanation be received, and the proposition that the
will of God includes bold foreknowledge and fore-ordination
will be seen to be at once perfectly compatible with the
belief of predestination.
"Next it may be enquired in the second place, whether
this sole will of God's good pleasure includes or excludes
his foreknowledge. I at least think that these two, namely
foreknowledge and fore-ordination, are by no means to be
severed, but to be joined (as do the Apostles). Neither do
I here dare presumptuously to advance my own opinion,
or to condemn the Fathers, who for the most part affirm
that we are elected and predestinated according to foreknowledge of faith, as Beza himself confesses on 11 Horn. 2 ed., f Here the Fathers are by no means to be heard who refer this to foresight.'' But in this (as it always appeared to me) they speak rather of the series and order which God observes
in the act of predestinating, than of the cause of predestination. But the chain some are wont to form in this way, others in that, as seems best to them. The Fathers seem to me to have been of this opinion, that there could be no
election if it were not thus connected : first that God loves
Christ, then us in Christ which the Apostle saith, that
he accepts us in the beloved (Ephes. i. 6); secondly, that
he confers on us so accepted grace and faith thirdly, that he
elects us thus endowed and thus differenced (discretes) from
the rest* fourthly, that he predestinates us who are elect."
Certainly the nature of election requires this, as it
cannot be nor can be conceived, where there is no difference
whatsoever between him who is chosen and him who is rejected. So Gecumenius, after the opinion of the Greeks, p. 323: When he saith) according to election, he shews that he distinguished between them, for no person chooses one from
another unless there is some difference in him. So Augustine
to Simplician, 1, 2: But election does not precede justification
(foreseen) but justification election. For no one is chosen
unless already differing from him who is rejected whence
I cannot see how God can be said to have chosen us before
the foundation of the world but by foreknowledge.
"Nor otherwise the schoolmen: Thorn. 1st, Q. 23, Act 4.
'Predestination presupposes election, and election love? That
is, first he made them to be chosen, then he chose them;
he loved them that he might endow them; he chose the gifts
that he conferred. And this seems to me to be the opinion
of the most reverend archbishop of York [Mr. Button], For
thus he: * What did God love from eternity in Jacob when
as yet he had done no good thing? certainly that which
was his own, that which he purposed to give him.
Certainly the Apostle himself does not doubt to join
in this article the purpose and the grace given, and that
from all eternity, since the grace given could only exist
in the divine foreknowledge: that is together with the eternal
purpose of God, he foresaw before all time the grace itself
also which he would give.
Nor does any inconvenience result hence (as I can see)
if God, that he may crown his own gifts in us, thus chooses
his own gifts in us, to wit the things which he gave first
by loving us, that afterward he might choose them thus
given. And so both love, which is the act of grace by which
God makes a difference, and election, which is the act of
judgment by which he chooses those who are thus distinguished, are preserved. And thus election will remain.
"For the chain of the moderns plainly takes away all
election, by which chain God is made to appoint these
to salvation and those to eternal perdition by the first act
and that absolute, together and at once, neither considered
as existing together in any similar condition [nee in ulla
massa] nor in any way distinguished one from another by
his own gifts: after which destination, what place there
is for election I cannot understand, or how this destination
itself can be called election.
"But this whole question, as I said, is rather of the
order in which God proceeds, in our conception of things
who know but in part, than of the cause as respects the
act itself, which is in God one and that perfectly simple;
or if of the cause, it ought not to be understood of the cause
of the first act, but of the cause as respects the integral effect
in predestinating (as it is called).
It is enquired also whether the integral act (in our
conception) is made up of several acts, or whether the first
is the sole act? and if they are many and diverse, what
is the order, what the chain of acts?
"Predestination, which cannot be without foreknowledge,
is not but of good works. (Aug. de Proudest. Sanctorum, c. 10.)
They are elect before the foundation of the world by that
predestination in which God foresaw his own future acts.
(c. 17, § 34.)"
Here we must remark that the first quotation is equivalent
to what goes a little before in the chapter from which it
is quoted: 'Predestination is the preparation of grace,' i.e. the
providing for its being given, 'but grace is the giving itself.'
"Will any one, dare to say that God did not foreknow
to whom he would grant that they should believe?" — De Dono
Perseverantise, 14, § 35, and c. 17 passim.
The third article is, that the number of the predestinate
is certain, and can neither be increased nor diminished. Dr.
Andrewes here only notes that they are the very words
of St. Augustine at the beginning of the third chapter of
his Book De Correptione et Gratia, and adds to these
a passage from Prosper de Vocatione Gentium, but citing it
under the name of St. Ambrose, to whom it was sometimes
but erroneously attributed.
The fourth article is: "Those who are not predestinated
to salvation shall be necessarily condemned for their sins."
He would have the word necessarily as being a new mode
of expression changed to without doubt.
The fifth article is: "A true, living, and justifying faith
and the Spirit of God sanctifying is not extinguished, does
not fail and come to naught in the elect either totally or
finally."
Andrewes remarks upon this: " No one ever said (I believe) that faith fails finally in the elect. It does not then fail. But that it does not fail, arises, I think, from the nature of its subject, not from its own ; from the privilege of the person, not of the thing. And this on account of apostates, who ought not to be condemned on the ground of their falling away from a faith which was never a true and living faith.
"But whether the Holy Spirit can be taken away or extinguished for a time, I think may yet be enquired into. I confess that I am in doubt.
"Or FAITH.
Thou standestly faith: Be not highminded, but fear;
otherwise thou also shalt be cut off, Rom. xi. 20, 22. Is not
this an unmeaning precept, if faith cannot fail?
"1. Beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the
wicked, fall from your own steadfastness, 2 Pet. iii. 17.
"2. Look that no man fail of the grace of God, Heb. xii. 15.
Ye are fallen from grace who are in the law, Gal. v. 4. (Some of these passages are not quoted accurately.)
"3. Take not thy Holy Spirit from me. Psalm li. 13.
"4. Quench not the Spirit, 1 Thess. v. 19.
"On what ground can it be shewn that these prayers and
precepts are not a mere mockery, if we can in no way fall
from the firmness of our faith, or fail of grace, if the Spirit
could in no way be taken away or extinguished?
Although I am not ignorant that this [cannot be lost
totally] can be so interpreted, as that it cannot be utterly
altogether or entirely, although it may be lost as a whole, that
is, so lost as that no room shall be left of returning thither
whence they have fallen."
Bivetus, who was contemporaneous with the Synod of
Dort, thus expressed himself in his thesis on Final Perse
verance — that those who once had true faith could not become
enemies to God, or utter infidels.1 The same is the explica
tion which Hooker gives of the indefectibility of faith, in his
second sermon, in which he observes: "Directly to deny the
foundation of faith is plain infidelity; where faith is entered,
there infidelity is for ever excluded : therefore by him which
hath once sincerely believed in Christ, the foundation of
Christian faith can never be directly denied." The Synod
of Dort, if candidly judged by its own admissions, will be
admitted to intend no more than that which was affirmed by
Hooker, however it may use greater ambiguity of expression
when it speaks of the predestinate not falling from the grace
of adoption, the condition of justification."3 Its meaning is
that God still deals with them as his children he does not
utterly take his lovingkindness from them, but as he did not
leave Peter to himself after he had denied him, so neither does
he leave them. To say that he sees no sin in them in their
departures from him, is not less contrary to the Synod of Dort
itself than it is to both reason and religion.
And thus understood we see that Andrewes himself allowed
the Lambeth article maintaining that the elect never totally
fall from grace. And this is clearly consistent with both
those exhortations and prayers which are adapted in Holy
Scripture to the weakness of our mortal nature, by reason of
which we cannot always stand upright, as we confess in the
Collect for the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany a collect derived
from Gregory the Great, himself a follower of St. Augustine.
If indeed it is but just to admit an opponent to explain his
own terms, we may see from Bishop Morton's reply to Dean
White in the Conferences concerning Montague's works, that
the falling from the grace of justification (itself a sufficiently
ambiguous term) was intended to denote, the total and irreversible loss of the divine favour.
The sixth article was, Of the assurance of salvation:
"A truly faithful man, that is, one who is endowed with
justifying faith, is certain, with the conviction [plerophoria] of
faith, of the remission of his sins, and of his eternal salvation
through Christ." Andrewes would have substituted for the
assurance of faith the assurance of hope, on the ground that
we had not the same certainty of a conditionate as of a purely
categorical proposition. To this however may be opposed
St. Paul's conviction of security in the approach of death, in
the fourth chapter of his Second Epistle to Timothy, Hence
forth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness. Neither
is less certainty implied in his Epistle to the Philippians,
when he writes, I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire
to depart and to be with Christ which is far better, (i. 23.)
The seventh article, On the conferring of grace, is as
follows:
"Saving grace (gratia salutaris) is not given, communicated, and granted to all men by which, if they will, they can be saved."
The observations attributed to Andrewes oppose to this
that some previous dispositions are not only offered but conferred upon all men, and that saving grace would be conferred upon all, were they not wanting to it. And to this effect is cited an earlier work of Augustine upon the Creation against
the Manichgeans, written in A.D. 390, the year before he was
ordained priest. These remarks are in harmony with the
known opinions of Andrewes' learned contemporary Bishop
Overall.
Bishop Andrewes, in his Whit-Sunday Sermon 1612, thus
speaks of the operation of the Holy Spirit : "And this (of
blowing upon one certain place) is a property very well fitting
the Spirit. Ubi vult spirat. To blow in certain places, where
itself will; and upon certain persons, and they shall plainly
feel it, and others about them not a whit. There shall be an
hundred or more in an auditory; one sound is heard, one
breath doth blow : at that instant, one or two and no more;
one here, another there; they shall feel the Spirit, shall be
affected and touched with it sensibly: twenty on this side
them and forty on that shall not feel it, but sit all becalmed,
and go their way no more moved than they came. Ubi vult
t) is most true."
This certainly is not consistent with these anonymous
remarks which long after the death of Andrewes were put
forth in his name. The Remonstrants indeed were desirous
of his patronage, and said that they had letters of his which
he challenged them to produce. He is supposed to have
alluded to these strictures on the Lambeth articles in a conversation in 1617, but we know nothing of their history, only that they were published by some person or persons who retained neither the doctrine of Andrewes nor of Overall, but wholly favoured that of the Remonstrants.
The eighth article is : "No man can come unto Christ
unless it shall have been given him, and unless the Father
shall have drawn him. And all men are not drawn by
the Father to come to the Son."
Andrewes, or whosoever the author of these strictures is,
adds, "not drawn so as that they come"; and would have
it added, "that the cause of their not being drawn or so
drawn is the depraved will of man, not the absolute will
of God." This indeed is in harmony with the remarks upon
the seventh article.
The ninth article is: It is not placed in the will or power
of every man to be saved."
The suggested form is, lt It is not placed in the free will of
any man, saving when made free by the Son, to be saved,
or in the power of any, unless it be given him from above."
Then, after observing that every one will explain the words
in his own sense either by addition or subtraction, the writer
recommends silence on both sides, and ends by submitting
both himself and his opinions to the judgment of the queen.
Having now given a full view of the scope of the Judgment
of the Bishop of Winchester on the Lambeth Articles^ I leave
it to the reader to decide upon the authenticity of the Judgment. It is singular that in the preface to these minor treatises of Andrewes and Overall (if indeed they are theirs), no allusion is made to them, no account is given of the
manner in which they were transferred to the hands of the editor; only they are annexed to Ellis's Defence of the Thirty-nine Articles ; the theology of which is not even that of Overall, as it observes, and truly according to the doctrine of St. Augustine, that men are said to cooperate in respect of subsequent, not of preventing grace.
The Judgment upon the Lambeth Articles is followed by
the Censure of the Censure of Barrett. It relates simply
to one point, the question whether the justified ought to
feel certain of their salvation, or in other words, that they
shall persevere to the end. Andrewes probably was not
the author of this censure. It is written with a degree of
warmth in favour of Barrett which Andrewes was not likely
to have evinced. Neither does it embrace more than one
of many points for which Barrett was censured. It is questionable whether Andrewes would have denied that to some at least the Spirit gave an assurance that he would abide with them for ever. Of his so abiding and working in
the soul to the end, he thus speaks in his Whit- Sunday Sermon 1620, above twenty years after the date of these pieces published iu 1600. "How take we notice of the Spirit? How knew they the angel was come down into
the pool of Bethesda, but by the stirring aud moving of
the water? So by stirring up in us spiritual motions, holy
purposes and desires, is the Spirit's coming known. Specially
if they do not vanish again. For if they do, then was it
some other flatuous matter which will quiver in the veins,
(and unskilful people call it the life-blood), but the Spirit
it was not. The Spirit's motion, the pulse, is not for a while
and then ceaseth, but it is perpetual, holds as long as life
holds, though intermittent some time for some little space."1
That the Holy Spirit never utterly forsakes the elect,
but that they "have that grace which excludeth sin from
reigning, and that this grace once had by them is never
totally nor finally lost," is affirmed by Field in his Book
of the Church, and, after his manner, explained with a clear
ness and minuteness that will enable the reader to judge
fully of the grounds of his opinion, and to see the working
of the more scholastic minds in that age of intense theological
investigation.' Field moreover shews that these are at least
no new opinions, but to be found in the works of the celebrated Hugo de Sancto Victore in the twelfth century, and in those of John Duns Scotus in the fourteenth. Even some amongst the members of the Romish communion have confessed that Calvin and Augustine were substantially agreed, as may be seen in the 399th chapter of the fourth book of John James Hottinger's Fata Doctrine de Prcedestinatione et Gratia Dei salutari?
Dr. Andrewes Sermon on the Love of Souls, Good Friday 1597. —
Andrewes refuses two Bishoprics, 1598 — Preaches before the Queen
on Ash- Wednesday. — Sermon on the Eucharist — On Justification —
St. Paul and St. James — On the power of Absolution — Ontance.
THE learned Whitaker on his return from Lambeth took cold
which turned to fever and brought him speedily to his happy
and peaceful but early end, on the 4th of December 1595,
in his forty-seventh year. He was buried on the 10th, Dr.
Goad the Vice-chancellor, provost of King's College, preaching
the funeral sermon at the university church, and Eobert,
afterwards Sir Eobert, Naunton, the Public Orator, delivering
a funeral oration in Latin. Dr. John Overall, fellow of
Trinity College, was elected to his professorship.
Overall had maintained a middle way between the theology
of his times and that of the Antipredestinarians. He taught
that God vouchsafed a certain measure of grace to all men,
but secured salvation to the elect by a still more abundant
measure. He taught that some had true faith and grace for
a time and then fell away, but that those who are believers,
who are included in the divine decree of election, cannot
either totally or finally fall or perish, but by a special and
efficacious grace so persevere in a true and lively faith, that
at length they are brought to eternal life. This he maintained
at the Hampton Court Conference.1 He complained that some
had exaggerated the doctrine of the indefectibility of faith,
and had denied that the elect upon the commission of the
greatest sins were ipso facto subject to the divine wrath and
in a state of damnation until they repented. Overall was
neither altogether a follower of Augustine nor of Calvin, but
partly borrowed from Ambrose Catharinus, who taught that
some were saved by special, others by their right use of
common grace. Catharine of Sienna, archbishop of Conza,
maintained at the same time in the Council of Trent, and
afterwards in his writings, that the righteous might be certain
of their justification. He also maintained that the inward
intention of the minister was not requisite to the validity of
the Sacraments. Overall's system has been given from two
of the Harleian MSS. in the British Museum, by the Rev.
Wm. Goode, in his Effects of Infant Baptism? Overall and
others after him have adduced St. Augustine as teaching that
some have true faith and grace for a while, and yet fall away,
whilst to the elect salvation is secured by the gift of final
perseverance. There are a few passages in his works which
favour this opinion, but of the principal of these the authen
ticity is not universally admitted, and it is certain that in his
Tractatus in Joannem and some other of his Treatises he
maintains the contrary. The reader may see these passages
fully given by Dr. John Forbes, in the 20th chapter of the
eighth Book of his Instruction's Historico-TJieologicce?
On Sunday April 4, 1596, Andrewes preached before
the court at Greenwich. This sermon, from 2 Cor. xii. 15,
is upon the love of souls, ( soul-love,' and upon the love
of Christ to us. Nothing can excel the fervour, the tenderness, and the truly Christian charity that distinguish this truly apostolical discourse. O that all who profess to admire this venerable father and prelate of our Church would read,
and that not once but often, the divine instruction, the paternal
charge which he here has left to posterity, a savour of holy
love never to fail. He shews how it was the love of Christ
that kindled in St. Paul such a love of souls, a love indeed
copied from his. This love, a love not to be overcome by
unkindness, this he reminds us is the only true Christian
love; and what is all to that love of Christ which loved
us not as but more than his own life? He hath changed
the rule of the law ; no longer is it, Thou shalt love thy neighlour as thyself, but, as I have loved you. " And if St. Paul
were loved when he raged and breathed blasphemy against
Christ and his name, is it much if, for Christ's sake, he
swallow some unkindness at the Corinthians' hands? Is
it much, if we let fall a duty upon them, upon whom God
the Father droppeth his rain, and God the Son drops, yea
sheds his blood,— upon evil and unthankful men?"
On the 14th October died the bishop of Salisbury, Dr.
John Coldwell. He was the first married bishop of Salisbury
after the Reformation. His name was also spelt Gold well.
He was B. A. of St. John's College, Cambridge, 1554 ; M.A.
1558, and M.D. 1564. He was in 1571 made archdeacon
of Chichester whilst Curteis the late dean was bishop of
that see. He resigned this dignity in 1575. On the death
of Dr. Thomas Willoughby^ean of Rochester and prebendary of Canterbury, he was preferred to the deanery, and installed 26th September, 1582.
After the see of Salisbury had been kept vacant three
years, on the translation of Dr. John Piers to York, Coldwell
was consecrated to Sarum, December 26th, 1591, at Lambeth
by Whitgift, assisted by Aylmer bishop of London, Cowper
bishop of Winchester, Fletcher bishop of Bristol, and Under
bill bishop of Oxford. Dying October 14, 1596, he was
buried in Salisbury Cathedral, in the same grave where
bishop Wyville had been buried in 1484. Andrewes declined the vacant see, as he would not impoverish it.
On Good-Friday, March 25th, 1597, Dr. Andrewes
preached before the court, from Zech. xii. 10, And they shall
look upon me whom they have pierced; and set forth our
Saviour's sufferings in a discourse never perhaps surpassed
but by himself.
There have not been wanting some who have ventured
to affirm that our Lord endured suffering equal to what the
redeemed would otherwise have endured; that in short he
suffered the pains of hell itself. Others again have gone
into" a contrary extreme, and have explained away our Lord's
words on the cross, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken
me? More piously and cautiously our learned and devout
preacher: "It is the soul's complaint ; and therefore, without
all doubt, his soul within him was pierced and suffered,
though not that which (except charity be allowed to ex
pound it) cannot be spoken without blasphemy; not so much,
(God forbid!) yet much, and very much; and much more
than others seem to allow, or how much, it is dangerous
to define."
He was invited to attend the annual election and examination at Merchant Taylors' School, but did not go. There was present its venerable patron, Dr. Gabriel Goodman, dean of Westminster. Mr. William Juxon, afterward archbishop Juxon, made a Latin oration.
Juxon was born at Chichester of a good family. He was
the son of Richard Juxon of^hat city. From Merchant
Taylors' School he succeeded to a fellowship at St. John's
College, Oxford. He applied himself to the law, and was
a student of Gray's Inn about 1603 ; but afterwards, taking
orders, was in 1609 instituted to the vicarage of St. Giles'
Oxford, in the gift of his College. Buckeridge was at that
time president of St. John's College, and Laud was electee
to succeed Buckeridge in that office 10th May, 1611, Bucke
ridge being then bishop elect of Rochester. With Lauc
Juxon contracted an intimate friendship. He was also
sometime rector of Somerton to the south-east of Deddington
in Oxfordshire, where his coat-of-arms was, if it is not still
in the east window of the chancel. When Laud was made
bishop of St. David's in 1621, Juxon was elected president o
St. John's on the 29th December, appointed to the deanery
of Worcester in 1628, when Dr. Joseph Hall was made bishop
of Exeter, and in 1633 was bishop elect of Hereford, but
consecrated to the see of London. Laud was his friend with
the king, who made him in 1632 Clerk of the closet. In
1635 he was constituted Lord High Treasurer. This pro
duced great envy amongst the courtiers, as no ecclesiastic
had held that office since the reign of Henry VII. He resigned it in 1641. He attended his sovereign on the scaffold, and afterward retired to his manor of Little Compton in Gloucestershire, but close upon Oxford and Worcestershires.
He was raised to the see of Canterbury in 1660, and died
at Lambeth June 20th, 1663, aged 81. He was a most
munificent prelate, of great patience and moderation.
Bishop Buckeridge relates in his funeral sermon for
Andrewes, that "when the bishoprics of Ely and Salisbury
were void, and some things were to be pared from them, some
overture being made to him to take them, he refused them
utterly. If it please you," adds Buckeridge, "I will make
his answer for him, Nolo episcopari, and I will not be made
a bishop, because I will not alienate bishops' lands." This
was probably in A.D. 1598, when Dr. Henry Cotton was pro
moted to the see of Sarum, .and not long after Dr. Heton to
that of Ely, who in 1609 was succeeded by Andrewes at that
time bishop of Chichester. On June 16th Andrewes, as
prebendary of St. Pancras, presented Harsnet, also of Pem
broke Hall, to the vicarage of Chigwell in Essex.
In June he resumed his lectures on the third chapter of
Genesis at St. Giles', Cripplegate, after an interval of about
seven years.
On Sunday, October 1, before the administration of the
Holy Communion, he preached at St. Giles', from Isaiah vi. 6,
applying the passage as typical of Christ by whom alone our
iniquities are taken away, and especially to the Holy Eucharist
in which the remission of sins is dispensed; wherefore, as he
observes, in the ancient church at the celebration of the Communion, the priest stood up and said as the seraph doth here, 'Behold this hath touched your lips ; your iniquity shall be taken away, and your sin purged.'1 And here he does not deny, as do some who speak much of him, the assurance of
forgiveness of past sins to those who come with true faith to
this holy sacrament. It was his custom to speak most
patristically of the Eucharist, but he calls the participation
a spiritual feeding.
On October 15th he preached from Matthew vi. 1, against
desire of vainglory. He said excellently, " God hath given
us the joys and use of all his creatures, but reserveth the
glory of them to himself. Therefore the apostle saith, Do all
to the glory of God; for though he giveth us the use of all
things, yet, My glory will I not give to another".
On Sunday, December 3rd, he preached from 2 Peter i. 9.
In this sermon he thus treats of justification. "At the first
the doctrine of faith in Christ was hardly received; for men
thought to be saved only by works: and when they had once
received it, they excluded the doctrine of good works. All
the difficulty that St. Paul found in the work of his ministry
was to plant faith, and to persuade men that we are justified
before God by faith in Christ without the works of the law.
But St. Peter and St. James met with them that received the
doctrine of faith fast enough, but altogether neglected good
works. But because both are necessary, therefore St. Paul in
all his Epistles joins the doctrine of faith with the doctrine of
works. This is a faithful saying, and to be avouched that
they which believe in God, be careful to shew forth good works?
Therefore with the doctrine of the grace of God, he joins the
doctrine of the careful bringing forth of good works. The
saving grace of God hath appeared, and teacheth us to deny
ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly and right
eously and godly in this world. The doctrine of grace is not
rightly apprehended, until we admit of the doctrine of good
works. Wilt thou know, O man, that faith is dead without
works? Was not Abraham our father justified by works,
when he offered his son Isaac? Therefore St. Peter saith,
that is no true faith which is not accompanied with virtue and
godliness of life. It is true that good works have no power
to work justification, because they do not contain a perfect
righteousness. And inasmuch as they are imperfect, there
belongs the curse of God unto them: Cursed is he that con-
tinueth not in all things, &c. (Gal. iii.) So far are they from
justifying, but yet they are tokens of justification. God had
respect unto Abel and to his sacrifice. (Gen. iv.) God first
looked upon his person, and then upon his sacrifice. For
before the person be justified, his works are not accepted in
God's sight. The best works if they proceed not of faith are
sin. Our Saviour saith, No branch can bring forth fruit of
itself, except it abide in the vine. Therefore if we do any
good works, they proceed from our incision and engrafting
into Christ, by whom they are made acceptable unto God.
"Paul saith, Abraham was justified by faith before works,
not when he was circumcised, but when he was uncircumcised.
But James saith, Abraham our father was justified by works.
To reconcile the apostles we must know, that the power of
justification which is spoken of in Paul is effective, but that
which James speaketh of is declarative. It -was Abraham's
faith that made him righteous, and his works did only declare
him to be justified. Therefore Paul saith, that albeit good
works have no power to justify, yet they are good and profit
able for men. For they declare our justification which is by
faith ; and by them we make ourselves sure of our calling and
election."
On the Sunday after Christmas-day, December 31, he
preached from John viii. 56, Your father Abraham rejoiced to
see my day, and he saw it, and was glad. From the same
words he preached before king James on Christmas-day 1613.
Whosoever will carefully compare the two discourses will find
that although the earlier is divided similarly with the latter,
and some passages are common to both, yet they are far from
being the same, and the parochial is by no means inferior to
the court sermon, nay has some advantage over it ; although of
it we have but notes, those notes however very copious.
On the Sunday after Epiphany, January 7, 1598, he discoursed learnedly and with a fertility of illustration peculiarly his own, upon Psalm xlvii. 10, The princes of the people are gathered together, even the people of the God of Abraham: for
the shields of the earth belong unto God: he is greatly exalted.
The Epiphany he calls Christ's second nativity ; "for as he
was born at Bethlehem of his mother the Virgin, so hath
he another birth foretold by the prophet, I will think of
Eahab and Babylon; behold Palestina, Tyrus, and Ethiopia,
lo! there is he born, Psalm Ixxxvii. 4.
"This," he saith, " God hath from all times revealed, that
the gate of faith should be opened to the Gentiles to enter
into the flock of Christ. This was shewed by Abraham's
matching with Keturah a Gentile ; by Moses matching him
self with Zipporah a Midianite and a Gentile; by Solomon
matching with Pharaoh's daughter; as in the genealogy of
Christ's birth Solomon is matched with Eahab, Boaz with
Kuth, to signify that Christ should save both Jews and
Gentiles. The same was shewed by the stuff whereof the
tabernacle was made; by the first temple which was built
upon the ground of Araunah a Gentile, with timber sent by
Hiram a Gentile; and by the second temple which was
founded by Cyrus and Artaxerxes, heathen princes."
On March 23, 1598, Andrewes succeeded Bishop Bancroft
in the eleventh stall at Westminster.
On Friday, February 2, 1599, being the festival of the
Purification of the Blessed Virgin, he preached at his parish-
church of St. Giles', from the history of Hannah, 1 Sam.
xxvii. 28. The presentation of Samuel, and Samuel himself,
he regards as typical of our Lord; and indeed the great
similarity of the song of Hannah and of that of the Virgin,
the miraculous birth as of Christ, so in a manner of Samuel,
and the meeting of the triple office of prophet, priest, and king
in Samuel, together with the singular inoffensiveness and
purity of his character, and his love to the unthankful, all
most amply vindicate the typical application of this history to
our Lord as the fulfilment, the true Samuel of the Israel of
God.
On the following Sunday, being the administration of the Holy Communion, he preached excellently upon our conflict with the old serpent, from Rev. ii. 7, To Mm that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the
Paradise of God.
On the 21st of the same month, being Ash- Wednesday,
and the time that the earl of Essex was setting out on the
Irish expedition, Dr. Andrewes, being one of the Queen's
chaplains, preached before her at Richmond from those most
seasonable words, When thou goest out with the host against
thine enemies , keep theefrom all wickedness? Having treated
of the justifiableness of war both offensive and defensive,
quoting to this purpose the Septuagint version of the text,
and alleging Jacob's war to win from the Amorite with
his sword and bow,3 he shewed the folly of trusting in
human power, from the defeat in the valley of Achor; he
urged the need of the prayer of the prophet and of the priest,
from the intercession of Moses whereby Israel prevailed over
Amalek; and the utter inconsistency of those who were
themselves in rebellion against God going forth to punish
rebels. Nor did he fail to point out most plainly how peace
was the blessing, war the scourge of God. Towards the
end he adduced the exemplary fidelity of Uriah as an ex
ample to all in like manner to forbear, now of all times
especially, from sin.
On Friday, August 24, St. Bartholomew's day, he preached
at his own church, Cripplegate, on the assurance of hope;
nor can any one who is familiar with his writings fail to
recognize him throughout.
We find him, according to his custom on all holy days,
preaching at his parish-church on St. Michael's day, Saturday,
September 29, from Eev. xii. 7, 8; a sermon displaying,
as we have seen in some former instances, his eminent
patristic learning. He shews that Christ cannot be the
Michael of the heavenly host, for that he is called 'one
of the first princes,' but Christ is the King of Kings.
He notices, and very largely, the conjecture of the Fathers,
that the fallen angels would not submit to adore Christ
in our nature, and to see our nature exalted above their
own. He forgets not to remind his congregation of the
war in which they themselves ought to be engaged, assured
that the enemy shall not prevail over those who faithfully
resist him. He touches also upon that reverence we ought
to have of the presence of the angels as well in the house
of God as at other times.
On Sunday, October 7, being the celebration of the holy
Eucharist, he preached from those most gracious and divine
words of our Lord, All that the Father giveth me shall come
to me and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
"Howsoever," he saith, "a man may know himself to be
a sinner, that is, to have an unclean soul, yet he is not
to despair, because Christ, by the confession of his enemies,
is such an one as doth not only receive sinners, but eats
with them; yea, he not only receiveth them that deserve
to be cast out as unworthy to inherit the kingdom, but
doth also wash, sanctify, and justify them in his own name
and by the Spirit of God."
Such was the diligence of Dr. Andrewes, that besides
preaching on the Festivals and Sundays, he also delivered
many of his lectures this year upon Genesis on other
week-days.
In A. D. 1600, on March 30, Low-Sunday, he preached
at Whitehall his well-known discourse upon the power of
absolution, from John xx. 23. He maintained from these words
a ministerial power of absolution granted to the Apostles, not as
apostles but as ministers of Christ, and from them derived to all
others; "yet not so that absolutely without them God cannot
bestow it on whom or when he pleaseth; or that he is bound
to this means only and cannot work without it. For gratia,
Dei non alligatur mediis [i. e. the grace of God is not tied
to means], the grace of God is not bound but free, and can
work without means either of word or sacrament; and as
without means so without ministers, how and when to him
seemeth good. But speaking of that which is proper and
ordinary, in the course by him established, this is an ecclesi
astical act committed as the residue of the ministry of re
conciliation to ecclesiastical persons. And if at any time
he vouchsafe it by others that are not such, they be in that
case ministri necessitatis non officit, in case of necessity
ministers, but by office not so." To shew the previous
existence of a like power he refers to Job xxxiii. 23, to the
priest's being ever a party in sacrifices, and to the prophet
Nathan's being commissioned to declare to David the remission
of his sin in God's name. He observes that besides this
there are divers acts instituted by God and executed by us,
which all tend to the remission of sins, namely, the two
sacraments, the Word of God itself, and prayer. The word
he interprets of the word preached.
He also treats of the need of the key of knowledge to
open to men the true nature of repentance and the works
of repentance, which is not only sorrow for sin, but a holy
revenge upon ourselves for it, with works of restitution, &c.
His doctrine of repentance may indeed be most fully and
practically learnt from that little volume which alone might
have obtained for his name the veneration of all ages of
the Church, his Manual for the Sick.
He is said to have been called upon to explain himself
to the Secretary of state in regard of this sermon, his doctrine
being unusual for that time and strange in the ears of his
audience. It is observable that it is confessedly imperfect,
and deals very much in generalities. His quotation from
St. Augustine belongs not to private but to public confession,
as both Fulke remarks in his Confutation of the Notes
in the Rhemish New Testament, and also Dr. John Gerhard
in his Confessio Catholica. Fulke farther refers his readers
to his Confutation of Dr. Aliens Books, Pt. I., from c. 10 to
the end.
Some would explain the words, Whosesoever sins ye remit
they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain
they are retained, as though they had been, whosesoever sins
ye declare forgiven, when ye preach pardon to the penitent,
they shall be forgiven; and whosesoever sins ye declare
still unforgiven, because of their unbelief, heaven shall con
firm your words. Thus, indeed, Jeremiah and the prophets
are said to do what they declare shall be done, (Jer. i. 10),
See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the
kingdoms to root out and to pull down, and to destroy and
to throw down, to build and to plant, compared with c. xviii.
ver. 7.
Andre wes was present on St. Barnabas' Day, June llth,
at the annual election and examination at Merchant Taylors'
School, and with three other (London?) clergymen, Dr. Grant
of the university of Cambridge, master of Westminster
School, and Drs. Montford and Hutchinson of the university
of Oxford, was appointed to nominate four persons to the
Merchant Taylors' Company for the living of St. Martin's,
Outwich. A minute account of the proceedings may be found
in Dr. Wilson's History of Merchant Taylors' School, in
which he has done ample justice to the memory of Andre wes,
and that with no small industry and ability.
Dr. Thomas Montford, or Mountfort, was the son of John
Mountfort of Norwich. He was of the university of Oxford,
was admitted to the rectory of Anstey near Barkway, Jan. 25,
1584. On May 26, 1585, he was made prebendary of the first
stall, Westminster, took the degree of D.D. at Oxford July 4,
1588, and on March 24, 1596, was admitted to the stall
of Harleston in St. Paul's, and became a canon residentiary
on the presentation of the queen. On May 7, 1602, he was
collated to the vicarage of St. Martin-in-the-fields by bishop
Bancroft, and in 1612 appears to have been also rector of
St. Mary-at-hill near St. Dunstan's in the East. He died
Feb. 27, 1631, and was buried in the chancel of Tewing near
Welwyn, of which also he had (according to Newcourt) been
rector. His son John succeeded to the rectory of Anstey on
the presentation of Charles I., having before been made prebendary of Sneating in the church of St. Paul by bishop
King, 14 Nov. 1618. He was presented by Trinity College
to the vicarage of Ware, Herts. 1633, but held it only for
about a year. He was ejected from Anstey in 1643.
Dr. Edward Grant was master of Westminster School,
prebendary of the sixth stall at Ely 1589, rector of Barnet
in Middlesex and Tatsfield near Godstone in Surrey, vicar
of Benfleet in Essex and Foulsham in Norfolk, prebendary
of the twelfth stall at Westminster, 27 May, 1577. He
died in October 1601, and was buried in the abbey, but
no memorial was erected for him there.
Dr. Kalph Hutchinson was archdeacon of St. Alban's.
CHAPTER VI.
Andrewes Sermon on Justification, 1600.
ON November 23rd Dr. Andrewes preached at Whitehall
his celebrated sermon on Justification, for a more copious
notice of which no apology will be required.
This sermon is a very ample dissertation upon Jer. xxiii. 6.
This is the name whereby they shall call him, the Lord our
Righteousness. First he shews how this is the chief of names
in the account of God himself. God is salvation and peace,
but both these are branches of this name and effects of it.
He then remarks that this name is peculiar to our Lord.
Others are said to do, he alone to be righteousness. "Nor is
this (he adds) a question of names merely. The name of God
has virtue in it. By the name of Christ we are justified, so
St. Paul (1 Cor. vi. 11); forgiven, so St. John (I Joh. ii. 12);
saved, so St. Peter (Acts iv. 12). Now this name is compounded of three words, Jehova, Justitia, Nostra.
Because his righteousness and only his righteousness is worth
the remembering; and any other's besides his is not ment
to be mentioned. For, as for our own righteousness which
we have without him, Esay telleth us, it is but a defiled
cloth, and St. Paul that it is but dung; two very homely
comparisons, but they be the Holy Ghost's own, yet nothing
so homely as in the original, &e.
"Our own then being no better, we are driven to seek
for it elsewhere. He shall receive his righteousness, saith
the prophet (Psalm xxiv. 5), and the gift of righteousness,
saith the apostle (Eom. v. 17). It is then another, to be
given us and to be received by us, which we must seek
for. And whither shall we go for it ? Job alone despatcheth
this point. Not to the heavens or stars; for they are unclean
in his sight. Not to the saints; for in them he found folly;
nor to the angels, for neither in them found he any steadfast
ness. Now if none of these will serve, we see a necessary
reason why Jehova must be a part of this name. And this
is the reason why Jeremie, here expressing more fully the
name given him before in Esay, Immanuel, God with us,
instead of the name of God in that name (which is M),
setteth down by way of explanation this name here of
Jehova. Because that El and the other names of God are
communicated to creatures; as the name of El to angels,
for their names end in it ; Michael, Gabriel, &c. And the
name of Jah to saints, and their names end in it; Esaiah,
Jeremiah, Zechariah. To certify us therefore that it is
neither the righteousness of saints nor angels that will serve
the turn, but the righteousness of God and very God, he
usetli that name which is proper to God alone ; ever reserved
to him only, and never imparted by any occasion to angel
or saint, or any creature in heaven or earth.
"Righteousness. Why that? If we ask, in regard of
the other benefits which are before remembered, salvation
and peace, why 'righteousness' and not salvation nor peace?
it is evident. Because (as in the verse next before the
prophet termeth it) righteousness' is the branch; and these
two, salvation and peace, are the fruits growing on it. So
that, if this be had, the other are had with it."
"Jehovah, Righteousness. For except justice be satisfied,
and do join in it also [the counsel of salvation], in vain
we promise ourselves that mercy of itself shall work our
salvation: which may serve for the reason why neither
Jehova potentia or Jehova misericordia are enough, but it
must be Jehova justitta, and. justitia a part of the name."
But if he be righteousness, and not only righteousness, but ours too, all is at an end; we have our desires. . . . For if he be, as the Apostle saith, factus nobis,
made unto us righteousness, and that so as he becometh ours, what can we have more? What can hinder us, saith St. Bernard, but that we should ' use him and his righteousness; use that which is ours to our best behoof, and work our salvation out of this our Saviour.'
And more significant it is by far to say Jehovah our
justice, than Jehovah our Justifier. I know St. Paul saith
much; that our Saviour Christ shed his blood to shew his
righteousness, that he might not only be just, but a justifier
of those which are of his faith, Rom. iii. 26. And much
more again in that when he should have so said, To him
that believeth in God, he chooseth thus to set it down, To him
that believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly ; making
these two to be all one, God, and the justifier of sinners.
Though this be very much, yet certainly this is most forcible,
that he is made unto us by God very righteousness itself.
(1 Cor. i. 30.) And that yet more, that he is made righteousness to us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. v. 21. Which place St. Chrysostom well weighing, this very word righteousness, saith he, the Apostle
useth to express the unspeakable bounty of that gift, that he hath not given us the operation or effect of his righteousness, but his very righteousness, yea his very self unto us. Mark, saith he, how everything is lively and as full as
can be imagined. Christ, one not only that had done no sin, but that had not so much as known any sin, hath God made (not a sinner, but) sin itself; as in another place (not accursed, but) a curse itself; sin in respect of the guilt, a curse in respect of the punishment. And why this? To the end that we might be made (not righteous persons; that was not full enough, but) righteousness itself; and there
he stays not yet — and not every righteousness, but the very righteousness of God himself. What can be further said? What can be conceived more comfortable? To have him ours, not to make us righteous but to make us righteousness,
and that not any other but the righteousness of God ; the
wit of man can devise no more. And all to this end, that
we might see there belongeth a special Ecce to this name,
that there is more than ordinary comfort in it ; that therefore
we should be careful to honour him with it, and so call
him by it, Jehovah our righteousness.
There is no Christian man that will deny this name, but
will call Christ by it, and say of him that he is Jehova justitia
nostra, without taking a syllable or letter from it. But it is
not the syllables, but the sense that maketh the name. And
the sense is it we are to look unto; that we keep it entire in
sense as well as in sound, if we mean to preserve this name of
justitia nostra full and whole unto him. And as this is true,
so is it true likewise that even among Christians all take it
not in one sense ; but some, of a greater latitude than other.
There are that take it in that sense which the prophet Esay
hath set down: In Jehova justitia mea, that all our righteous
ness is in him, (Isaiah xlv. 24) ; and we to be found in him,
not having our own righteousness, but being made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor. v. 21.) There are some other, that though in one part of our righteousness thay take it in that sense, yet in another part they shrink it up, and in that make it but a proposition causal, and the interpretation thereof
to be, l from Jehova is my righteousness.' Which is true too,
whether we respect him as the cause exemplary, or pattern,
(for we are to be made conformable to the image of Christ); or whether we respect him as the cause efficient. This meaning then is true and good, but not full enough ; for either it taketh the name in sunder, and giveth him not all, but
a part of it alone, or else it maketh two senses, which may
not be allowed in one name.
"For the more plain conceiving of which point, we are to be put in mind that the true righteousness (as saith St. Paul) is not of man's device, but hath his witness from the law and the prophets ; which he there proceedeth to shew out of the
example first of Abraham and after of David. In the Scrip ture then there is a double righteousness set down; both in the Old and New Testament.
"In the Old, and in the very first place that righteousness is named in the Bible, Abraham believed, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness: a righteousness accounted. And again (in the very next line) it is mentioned, Abraham will teach his house to do righteousness: a righteousness done. In the New likewise. The former, in one chapter (even the fourth to the Eomans), no fewer than eleven times, Eeputatum est illi adjustitiam: a reputed righteousness. The latter in St. John: My beloved, let no man deceive you; he that doeth
righteousness is righteous: a righteousness done, which is nothing else but our own just dealing, upright carriage, honest conversation. Of these, the latter the philosophers themselves conceived and acknowledged; the other is proper
to Christians only, and altogether unknown in philosophy.
The one is a quality of the party; the other an act of the
judge declaring or pronouncing righteous : the one ours by
influence or infusion ; the other by account or imputation."
Then he proceeds from the context to fix upon the term
the forensic and imputative sense, and observes that the
tenor of the Scripture touching our justification all along
runneth in judicial terms to admonish us still what to set
before us. The usual joining of justice and judgment continually all along the Scriptures shew it is a judicial justice we are to set before us. The terms of a judge, It is the Lord that judgeth me, 1 Cor. iv. 4. A prison: kept and shut up
under Moses, Gal. iii. 23. A bar : We must all appear before the bar, 2 Cor. v. 10. A proclamation : Who will lay any thing to the prisoner's charge? Rom. viii. 33. An accuser: The accuser of our brethren, Eev. xii. 10. A witness : Our
conscience bearing witness, Horn. ii. 15. An indictment upon
these : Cursed is he that continueth not in all the words
of the law to do them, Deut. xxvii. 26. And again, He that
breaketh one is guilty of all, James ii. 10. A conviction:
That all may be guilty, or culpable, before God. Yea, the
very delivering of our sins under the name of debts; of the
law under the name of a handwriting; the very terms of an
advocate, 1 John ii. 2; of a surety made under the law;
of a pardon, or, being justified from those things which by
the law we could not; all these wherein for the most part
this is still expressed, what speak they but that the sense of
this name cannot rightly be understood, nor what manner
of righteousness is in question, except we still have before our
eyes this same cor am regejustojudiciumfaciente?
"For it is not in question, whether we have our inherent
righteousness or no, or whether God will accept it or reward
it, but whether that must be our righteousness coram rege
justo judicium faciente ; which is a point very material and in
nowise to be forgotten. For without this, if we compare our
selves with ourselves, what heretofore we have been, or, if we
compare ourselves with others, as did the Pharisee, we may
take a fancy perhaps, and have some good conceit of our
inherent righteousness. Yea, if we be to deal in schools by
argument or disputation, we may peradventure argue for it
and make some shew in the matter. But let us once be
wrought and arraigned coram rege justo sedente in solio, let us
set ourselves there, we shall then see that all our former con
ceit will vanish straight, and righteousness (in that sense) will
not abide the trial.
"Bring them hither then, and ask them here of this name,
and never a saint nor father, no, nor the schoolmen them
selves, none of them but will shew you how to understand it
aright. In their commentaries, it may be, in their questions
and debates they will hold hard for the other ; but remove it
lither, they forsake it presently, and take the name in the
right sense."
Then he adduces the examples of Job, David, Daniel,
[saiah, Paul, and amongst the fathers, of Ambrose, Augus
tine, and Bernard.
He then touches upon the devotional writings of the school
men, and the half admissions of Bellarmine and Stapleton,
conceding an imputation of the sufferings, but excluding the
imputation of the obedience, or as it is sometimes called, the
active righteousness of Christ.
Next he proceeds upon abstract grounds, the finite nature
of our righteousness, its disproportion to our infinite reward,
" especially if we add hereunto that as it cannot be denied but
to be finite, so withal, that the antient fathers seem further
to be but meanly conceited of it ; reckoning it notv to be full
but defective, not pure but defiled ; and if to be judged by
the just judge, districts, or cum districtione examinis (they be
St. Gregorie's and St. Bernard's words), indeed no righteous
ness at all." Here Bishop Andrewes adduces that remarkable
passage from St. Chrysostom, which Mr. Faber has also given
at full length in his work upon Justification, from his eleventh
homily on the second Epistle to the Corinthians, where that
father declares that a justifying righteousness must needs be
without spot, and that therefore the righteousness of God by
which we are justified is not of works but of grace.
Adducing an admission of Stapleton's, that our righteous
ness needs indulgence, he observes, ll Now indulgence (we
know) belongeth unto sin, and righteousness, if it be true,
needeth none."
Bellarmine is then shewn to destroy his own doctrine by
qualifying it first, and next by entirely setting it aside, which,
remarks our reverend preacher, "is enough to shew, when
they have forgot themselves a little out of the fervor of their
oppositions, how light and small account they make of it
themselves, for which they spoil Christ of one half of his
name."
Then he insists upon the jealousy of God in regard of this
name, that He will not give his glory to another. " As we are
justified in this name, so we are to glory in it, according to
the prophet. For this very purpose the apostle asks, where is
boasting then f as if he should admonish us, that this name
is given with express intent to exclude it from us and us
from it. And therefore in that very place where he saith, ' He
is made unto us from God righteousness,' to this end (saith
he) he is so made, ut qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur [that
he who glorieth might glory in the Lord]. All which I put
you in mind of to this end, that you may mark that this
nipping at this name of Christ is for no other reason but that
we may have some honour ourselves out of our righteousness."
Then he gives an instance of this in the confession of
Bellarmine, who makes justification to be on the title of merit,
because it is more honorable so to receive it than simply on
the title 6f inheritance ; " So that it seemeth he is resolved,
that rather than they will lose their honour, Christ must part
with a piece of his name, and be named Justitia nostra only
in the latter sense: which is it, the prophet after (in the
twenty-seventh verse of this chapter) setteth down as a mark
of false prophets; that by having a pleasant dream of their
own righteousness, they make God's people to forget his name ;
as indeed by this means this part of Christ's- name hath been
forgotten."
Such is the doctrine of good and learned Bishop Andrewes :
they must be blind indeed who see not at once how unlike
and opposed to the teaching of Mr. Newman and his ad
vocates, as also of Jeremy Taylor, Archbishop Sharpe, Bishop
Bull, Bishop Tomline, and others who have stumbled at this
stone, and have, with all their talents, only laboured to ob
scure that great and most essential article of Christian faith,
which our prelate, believing with his heart, knew so well
how to defend.
CHAPTER VII.
The election at Merchant Taylors' School, WQl—Andrewes is made
Dean of Westminster — His Sermon on giving to C(esar his due —
Oversees Westminster School — Preaches before the Queen for the last
time in 1602 — Coronation of King James — Sermon on the Plague,
1603 — He is at the Hampton-court Conference — Is appointed a
translator — His famous Good-Friday Sermon, 1604, and 1605 —
He is made Bishop of Chichester.
ON St. Barnabas-day, June 11, 1601, we find Dr. Andrewes,
with his old schoolmaster Mulcaster, and Dr. Goodman, dean
of Westminster, Dr. Hutchinson, president of St. John's
College, Oxford, Dr. Eoger Marbeck, and Sir Eobert Wroth,
knt., attending at the election and dinner at Merchant
Taylors' School. It was at this time that Dr. Andrewes
first patronised Matthew Wren, afterwards bishop of Norwich
and Ely. Wren was born in St. Peter's Eastcheap, 1585.
His father Francis was a citizen and mercer of London.
Wren lost his election to St. John's College, Oxford, upon
which Dr. Andrewes procured his admission at Pembroke
College, Cambridge, on the 23rd of the same month.
This election was the last public occasion at which Dr.
Goodman appeared. He died on June 17, and Andrewes
was appointed to succeed him as dean of Westminster July 4,
and Dr. Adrian Saravia was presented to the stall which
Andrewes vacated, and installed on July 5.
In this year the learned Andrew Willet, prebendary of
the fourth stall at Ely (July 22, 1584), in which he succeeded
his father, Thomas Willet, M.A., as he did also in the
rectory of Barley, Herts., was, amongst many excellent col
leagues (ten in number), of whom were Dr. Downame, bishop
of Derry (who wrote the most complete work that has ever
appeared upon Justification, and also a very learned and
elaborate work upon Antichrist), Dr. George Meriton (dean
of York in 1617) that famous preacher, and others of no
mean note, chosen to answer the Divinity Act in the Com
mencement House, Cambridge : ll An. 1601, Publicis Comitiis,
Eespondente Dre. Willet, Quasst.
" Peccatum sola causa damnationis.
" Decimse jure divino debentur."
Meriton, Downame, Milburne, &c., S.T.P., eodem anno."
Milburne was B.A. of Queens' College, Cambridge, 1581,
elected fellow July 7, 1582, before he had completed twelve
terms, and perhaps migrated from Trinity College. He was
made M.A. 1585, treasurer of the College, 1589. He was of
a Pembrokeshire family, but born in London and educated
at Westminster School. He was rector of Cheam in Surrey,
and of Sevenoaks in Kent in 1611, chaplain to prince Henry,
precentor of St. David's according to Anthony Wood, but
his name does not occur in Hardy's Le Neve's Fasti. On
the death of Dr. Thomas Blague (by a mistake in Hasted's
Kent said to have been master of Clare Hall) he was made
dean of Rochester 4th December 1611, and consecrated to the
see of St. David's by Abbot, assisted by Andrewes, King,
bishop of London, Buckeridge, bishop of Rochester, and
Overall, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, July 9th, 1615.
Thence he was translated to Carlisle on the death of Dr.
Robert Snowden, llth September, 1621. He died in 1624,
and was buried in the churchyard of Carlisle cathedral.
Richard Senhouse, dean of Gloucester, was his successor at
Carlisle, as Laud, a previous dean of Gloucester, had succeeded
him at St. David's.
In the llth volume of Bishop Andrewes' works, printed
at Oxford in 1854, is given for the first time, A Discourse
written by Doctor Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, against second
Marriage, after Sentence of Divorce with a former Match, the
party then living. In Anno 1601. Besides the two copies
in the British Museum (Birch MSS. 4149, art. 38, p. 320,
and Lansdowne MSS. 958) there is a third in the University
Library at Cambridge. This last has been marked probably
by its original owner as unworthy of Bishop Andrewes.
However, in the Articles of Visitation for the years 1619 and
1625, immediately following the Discourse, the question is
asked, "Do any being divorced or separated, marry again,
the former wife or husband yet living?" (p. 120.)
The author of the Discourse, after giving that interpretation
which is usually pleaded in behalf of this view to Matth. xix. 9,
Rom. vii. 2, and 1 Cor. vii. 11, alleges the 9th Canon of the
Council of Eliberis, the 17th Canon of the Council of Milevum,
Origen's 7th Homily upon St. Matthew, St. Jerome's Epistle
to Amandus (torn i. col. 296 A.), St. Ambrose on 1 Cor. vii.
(or rather Hilary the Deacon), Op. torn. ii. Append, col. 133,
the Epistle of Innocent I. to Exuperius (§ 6. Cone. torn. ii.
col. 1256 C.), and to St. Augustine de Adulterinis Conjugiis,
1. 2, c. 4.
The author, towards the conclusion, alleges that otherwise
an encouragement is held out to the adulterer, if he is at
liberty, having broken his vows, to marry again. He refers
to St. Jerome on Matth. xix. 9, and to St. Ambrose on
Luke xvi. 1, 8, § 4, though, observes the editor, the meaning
appears to be mistaken. The decision of the Reformers,
both English and Continental, was in favour of the validity
of the second marriage of the innocent and injured party after
divorce on the ground of adultery. The Eeformatio Legum,
a noble monument of the high spiritual aims and apostolic
simplicity of Cranmer and his associates in that great work,
permitted such marriages. That they but walked in the steps
of primitive antiquity is avouched by the authority of the
most learned and impartial student of the fathers whom the
present century has seen, the late bishop of Lincoln. In his very
valuable work upon Tertullian he observes, " that the Roman
Catholic notion of the indissolubility of marriage was then
unknown. Tertullian on all occasions affirms that it may be
dissolved on account of adultery: and though his peculiar
tenets would naturally lead him to deny to either party the
liberty of marrying again, yet he admits that such marriages
actually took place in the church."1
In 1821 was republished by the late munificent dean of
Westminster, Dr. Ireland, Nuptice Sacrce, or, an Enquiry into
the Scripture Doctrine of Marriage and Divorce, addressed to
the Two Houses of Parliament. First published in 1801, and
now reprinted by desire. In this very able and elaborate
treatise, its learned author traces this notion of the indis
solubility of marriage to the Shepherd of Hermas. For
the history of this apocryphal writing the reader may consult
the Dissertation of Ittigius de Patribus Apostolicis, § 55 — 65.
Ittigius is opposed to the opinion advocated in Dr. Burton's
Lectures,2 that the works bearing the name of Hermas were
written by a brother of Pius, bishop of Rome, in A.D. 141
or 142. The late venerable Dr. Routh observes its con
demnation by all the Councils of the Catholic Church, as
affirmed by Tertullian de Pudicitid, c. 16. See Routh's
Scriptorum Eccles. Opusc. torn. i. p. 176, Oxon. 1832, and
'Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, 3rd ed. p. 242.
A second marriage, upon divorce on account of adultery,
was allowed the innocent party to the time of archbishop
Bancroft, who was swayed by some divines in the opposite
direction. Amongst these perhaps was Edmund Bunney,
who wrote very zealously against such marriages, but did
not make good his claim to the general authority of the
fathers on his side. This Edmund Bunney added the
arguments of the books and chapters to the London edition
of Calvin's Institutes in 1576. He was, like Bernard Gilpin
the apostle of the north, an indefatigable preacher, travelling
about the north of England to supply as far as possible
the then great lack of preachers. He was B.D. and fellow of
Merton College, Oxford, rector of Bolton Percy, prebendary
of Oxgate in St. Paul's, March 20, 1564, subdean of York
1570 ; he resigned the subdeanery in 1575, and was made
prebendary of Wistow in St. Peter's, York, October 21, 1575.
On July 2, 1585, he was admitted to the first stall in Carlisle,
which he resigned in 1603. The village of Bunney, seven
miles south-east of Nottingham, took its name from his
family. He sometime before his death, which occurred
Feb. 6, 1612, gave up his paternal inheritance to his brother
Richard. His effigy and monument are against the wall of
the south aisle of the choir in York-minster, near the monu
ment of archbishop Lamplugh.
But by far the most learned treatise that has appeared
upon this subject, is the posthumous work of that prodigy
of learning, Dr. John Rainolds, sometime dean of Lincoln
and afterward president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford,
in the reign of James the First. There antiquity is clearly
shewn to be far more in favour of the permission of a second
marriage after divorce on the ground of adultery than against it.
Heylyn, in his Life of Laud, calls the prohibiting of such
marriages the Romish doctrine. The Greek Church has
on the other hand always allowed them.
Of the authorities cited in the Discourse ascribed to An-
drewes, the Council of Eliberis forbids the remarriage of the wo
man, but makes no mention of the man. Origen, in Tract. 7 in
c. 19 MattL, spoke of divorces not granted for adultery, but for
lighter reasons after the custom of the Jews : St. Jerome, with
Athenagoras and the so-called Apostolical Constitutions, con
demned all second marriages : St. Ambrose, on Luke xvi., did
not refer to these marriages, but reproved men for marrying
after they had put away their chaste wives : St. Augustine
himself, in his Retractations, acknowledged his partial dis
satisfaction with what he had previously advanced upon this
subject : ' Scripsi duos libros de conjugiis adulterinis, quan
tum potui secundum scripturas, cupiens solvere difficillimam
qusestionem. Quod utrum enodatissime fecerim nescio, imb
verb non me pervenisse ad hujus rei perfectionem sentio,
quamvis multos sinus ejus aperuerim, quod judicare poterit
quisquis intelligenter legit.' (1. 2, p. 83. Lugd. 1563.)
To this should be added his concession in his book De Fide
et Operibus, c. 19, p. 98, torn. iv. Et in ipsis divinis sententiis
ita obscurum esty utrum et iste cui quidem sine dubio adulterant,
licet dimittere, adulter tamen habeatur si alteram duxeritj ut
quantum existimo, venialiter ibi quisque fallatur '.
It should be borne in mind that for a long time in the
Western church, where Scripture was regarded as leaving
every liberty of opinion, there St. Augustine's opinion was
received as the rule.
St. Chrysostom is plain for the dissolubility of marriage,
Horn. 19, in 1 Cor. 7 : tl The marriage is dissolved by fornica
tion, neither is the husband a husband any longer." This
testimony is allowed by Covarruvias in 4 1. Decretal, Part 2,
c. 7, D 6.
Theophylact, on St. Luke c. xvi., says expressly that our
Lord's words here must be supplied from St. Matthew.
Bellarmine has recourse to a chapter fathered on the
Council of Basle by Pope Eugenius IY. St. Basil's Canons
9 and 21, approved by General Councils (Cone, in Trullo,
Canon 2), authorize the man to marry again after divorce
from an adulterous wife, and check the custom that would
forbid the same liberty to a woman divorced from an adult
erous husband.
The reader may find many other authorities in Dr. Kai-
nolds ; he may also consult the 14th chapter of the seventh
book of the Theologia Moralis of Dr. John Forbes, and the
2nd chapter of the third part of the second book of Dr.
John Gerhard's Confessio Catholica.
On November 15th the Dean of Westminster preached at
Whitehall, upon giving to Caesar his due, instancing out of
both the Old and New Testament the duty of obedience to
princes be they good or bad ; for it is not to Tiberius but to
Cassar that the tribute is due, (not to the person but to the
office). The gospel recognizes the doctrine that every man
must regard his property as belonging of right to God and to
Csesar, himself being interested in it but as a third person •
a doctrine consonant enough to reason and revelation, but
not very acceptable to the philosophy of covetousness, which
would misrepresent it as subversive of the laws of property,
whereas it is the only true foundation of them. Certain
it is that in proportion to the prevalence of more selfish
principles, property has been rendered insecure by the natural
revulsion that always follows the oppression of covetousness.
Whilst dean of Westminster, Dr. Andrewes frequently
superintended the school in person ; but bishop Hacket shall
relate in his own words the sedulousness with which he
fostered that school, and the delight which he took in en
couraging the studious. In his Life of Archbishop Williams
Hacket says : " He had heard much what pains Dr. Andrewes
did take both day and night to train up the youth bred
in the public school, chiefly the alumni of the college so
called. For more certain information he (Williams) called
me from Cambridge, in the May before he was installed,
to the house of his dear cousin Mr. Elwes Winn in Chancery-
lane, a clerk of the Petty Bag, a man of the most general
and gracious acquaintance with all the great ones of the land
that ever I knew. There he moved his questions to me
about the discipline of Dr. Andrewes. I told him how strict
that excellent man was to charge our masters that they
should give us lessons out of none but the most classical
authors ; that he did often supply the place both of the head-
schoolmaster and usher for the space of an whole week
together, and gave us not an hour of loitering time from
morning to night : how he caused our exercises in prose and
verse to be brought to him, to examine our style and pro
ficiency ; that he never walked to Chiswick for his recreation
without a brace of this young fry; and in that wayfaring
leisure had a singular dexterity to fill those narrow vessels
with a funnel. And, which was the greatest burden of
his toil, sometimes thrice in a week, sometimes oftener,
he sent for the uppermost scholars to his lodgings at night,
and kept them with him from eight till eleven, unfolding
to them the best rudiments of the Greek tongue and the
elements of the Hebrew grammar; and all this he did to boys
without any compulsion of correction, nay, I never heard
him utter so much as a word of austerity among us."
Hacket adds, after a rapturous eulogy, that this good
and great prelate was the first that planted him in his tender
studies, and watered them continually with his bounty. It
is recorded of Duppa, bishop of Winchester, on his monument
in Westminster Abbey, that he learnt Hebrew of Lancelot
Andrewes, at that time dean. Dr. David Stokes was also
at Westminster School at this time.
On Ash- Wednesday, 1602, dean Andrewes preached be
fore the queen at Whitehall, February 17, from Jer. viii. 4 — 7,
a very ingenious and forcible sermon against neglecting and
delaying of repentance. Towards the conclusion he notes
how the very season of Lent, coming earlier in the year,
is an intimation of the duty of an early return to God.
On St. Barnabas' Day, June 11, we find him, with his
old schoolmaster Mulcaster and Dr. Friar, as an examiner
at Merchant Taylors' School.
On Thursday, March 24, 1603, died queen Elizabeth,
the prosperity of whose reign, the wisdom of whose councillors,
the security of whose subjects raised her memory upon an
imperishable basis, and deeply rooted her name in the affections of all ranks. Her remains were followed to the tomb
by fifteen hundred persons in deep mourning, and this a
voluntary attendance. Fuller observes, that most of the
London and many of the country churches had pictures or
models of her tomb. Under these were inscriptions which
may be seen in Stow's Survey of London.
On St. James's Day, July 25, Dr. Andrewes, as dean,
assisted at the coronation of king James. The plague was
meanwhile raging in London, and carried away thirty thou
sand inhabitants. Andrewes probably retired to Chiswick
to the prebendal house, and preached in the church there on
August 24, from Psalm cvi. 29, 30. Very excellently does
he urge that if not a sparrow falleth to the ground without
our heavenly Father, much less can such a visitation as
the plague be attributed to chance. He inveighs against
inventions in religion, and new modes of luxury in common
life. He enumerates the causes of plagues (or sicknesses)
mentioned in Holy Writ, namely, fornication, the sin of Peor;
pride, the sin of David;1 blasphemy, the sin of Balshakeh ;
and neglect and profanation of the Sacrament, the sin of the
Corinthians. Some in our day have, amidst their other
superstitious scruples (unscrupulous enough in points of
greater moment) been forward to censure the common appli
cation of this term 'the Sacrament' to the holy Eucharist.
Nevertheless we here find one, who is a giant in comparison
of them all, using the term without hesitation, as being
in truth not likely to lead men into error, nor inappropriate
to that sacrament which is confessedly the highest part of
Christian worship.
On the 26th of August he was put in a commission with Dr.
Eichard Field, archbishop Whitgift, the earl of Nottingham,
many of her ministers were eminently distinguished. In every season of alarm
and danger, the greatness of her mind and the dignity of her character were
strikingly displayed ; and although she ruled with absolute sway, — although she
pressed severely upon some of her conscientious subjects, who could not conform
to the ceremonies which she introduced, or which she retained in the services of
the Church, she was beheld with veneration by her people, and regarded
throughout Europe as the strenuous defender of the Protestant faith." — Dr.
Cooke's Hist, of the Church of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 128. Edinb. 1815.
1 2 Sam. c. xxiv.
Lord Admiral, the bishop of Winchester, Sir John Herbert,
Knt, Second Secretary, Sir Thomas West, Knt, Sir Julius
Caesar, Knt., a master of Requests, Sir David Dunn, Knt.,
also a master of Requests, Sir Thomas Fleming, Knt., solicitor,
Sir Edward and Sir George Moore, Sir Richard Mill, Sir
Richard Norton, Sir William Uvedale, Sir Benjamin Tytch-
borne, Knts., the Chancellor of the bishop of Winchester,
the Dean and Archdeacon, and others, for visiting the diocese
of Winchester for the punishment of recusancy, nonconformity,
fornication, adultery, misbehaviour in the church or church
yards, &c., &c.
On Saturday, January 14, 1604, he was appointed to be
present at the Hampton-court Conference, held between the
Conformists and the Puritans. The dean of the chapel, Dr.
Montague, also dean of Worcester (afterwards bishop of Bath
and Wells and then of Winchester), Dr. Thomas Ravis, dean
of Christchurch (afterwards bishop of London), Dr. Overall,
dean of St. Paul's (afterwards bishop of Norwich), Dr. Barlow,
Dr. Bridges, dean of Sarum, and Dr. Giles Thompson, dean
of Windsor (afterwards bishop of Gloucester), were summoned
with Andrewes, and were in the presence-chamber ; but only
Montague, dean of the chapel, Andrewes, Overall, Barlow and
Bridges were called in on the first day. Andrewes does not
appear to have taken any part, except that on the second day,
Monday the 16th, upon the king's making inquiry into the
antiquity of the use of the cross in baptism, Andrewes made
answer, " It appears out of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen,
that it was used in immortali lavacro".
This conference was followed by the appointment of a Com
mittee who were entrusted with the preparing the present
version of the Scriptures. Both Dr. Andrewes and his brother
Roger, a fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge, were ap
pointed translators, and besides Andrewes, four other Merchant
Taylors, Tomson, dean of Gloucester, Perin, who on November 24th was made a canon of Christchurch, Dr. Ravens, vicar of Dunmow, Essex, and Spenser, chaplain to the king,
and (on the death of the very learned Dr. Kainolds) president
of Corpus Christ! College, Oxford, and also a fellow of the
Koyal Controversial College of Chelsea. Andrewes was in that
division to which was allotted the Old Testament from Genesis
to the end of the books of Kings. Previously to the appoint
ment of the Committee of Translators, Dr. Andrewes discovered
his wonderful eloquence to the king by a sermon such as hath
never been equalled in an age of greater fastidiousness but
not of greater strength.
On Good Friday, April 6th, he preached before him at
Whitehall, from Lam. i. 12, Have ye no regard, 0 all ye that
pass ~by the way ? . Consider and behold, if ever there were
sorrow Wee my sorrow, which was done unto me, wherewith the
Lord did afflict me in the day of the fierceness of his wrath f
If any discourse could ever be said to be at all worthy of the
subject, the unspeakable mystery of the love of Christ in our
redemption, this is it. Bishop Home, a great admirer of our
prelate, but not for a moment to be put in comparison with
him, is said to have delighted in using the substance of, or
preaching this sermon in a more modern style ; but indeed the
great simplicity of Bishop Andrewes is amongst his greatest
perfections. Bishop Home was too ornate and polished to be
powerful, but to Andrewes both the king and the peasant
might have listened with unequal, but both with great profit.
This passage in Lamentations, and that of Hosea, Out of
Egypt have I called my Son, with many more of the like kind,
he regarded as typical, and most perfectly applicable to our
Saviour ; a rule in accordance with the spirit of scripture and
Christian antiquity, and that tends to the more complete
understanding of the scripture testimony to Christ— an inter
nal evidence of its correctness.
In regard of the sermon itself, it is a very full and glowing
declaration of the great doctrine of our redemption accom
plished in that day of the wrath of God when the innocent
suffered for the guilty, the lamb as a sacrifice, who could not
justly suffer merely as a lamb.
"The cause then in God was wrath. What caused this
wroth? God is not wroth but with sin ; nor grievously wroth
but with grievous sin. And in Christ there was no grievous
sin, nay, no sin at all. God did it (the text is plain), and in
his fierce wrath he did it. For what cause ? For God forbid
God should do as did Annas the high-priest, cause him to be
smitten without cause. God forbid (saith Abraham) the Judge
of the world should do wrong to any ; to any, but specially to
his own Son, that his Son of whom, with thundering voice
from heaven, he testifieth all his joy and delight were in him,
in him only he was well pleased. And how then could his
wrath wax hot, to do all this unto him?
" There is no way to preserve God's justice and Christ's
innocency both, but to say as the angel said of him to the
prophet Daniel, The Messiah shall be slain, Vb^NI ve-en-lo ;
shall be slain, but not for himself. Not for himself? for
whom then? For some others. He took upon him the
person of others ; and so doing, justice may have her course
and proceed.
" Pity it is, to see a man pay that he never took : but
if he will become a surety, if he will take on him the person
of the debtor, so he must. Pity to see a silly poor lamb
be bleeding to death, but if it must be a sacrifice (such
is the nature of a sacrifice) so it must. And so Christ,
though without sin in himself, yet, as a surety, as a sacrifice,
may justly suffer for others, if he will take upon him their
persons; and so God may justly give way to his wrath
against him.
"And who be those others? The prophet Esay telleth
us, and telleth us seven times over for failing : He took upon
him our infirmities, and bare our maladies : He was wounded
for our iniquities, and broken for our transgressions. The
chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes
were we healed. All ive as sheep were gone astray, and turned
every man to his own way : and the Lord hath laid upon him
the iniquity of us all. All, all ; even those that pass to and
fro, and for all this, regard neither him nor his passion."*
The king was from the very first anxious to effect a legis
lative union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and England.
But the jealousy that arose in consequence of the king's
partiality for his Scottish courtiers defeated his intentions,
intentions that were commended to the consideration of
Parliament as early as May 19, 1603, soon after his accession.
We find his very learned and excellent kinsman John
Gordon, of the noble house of Huntley, and whom he had
made dean of Sarum in the preceding February, preaching
before him at Whitehall on the 28th of October, the 21st
Sunday after Trinity (the 7th Nov. N. s.) in favour of the
Union of Great Britain. This sermon is entitled, Henoticon,
or, A Sermon of the Union of Great Brittannie, in antiquitie
of language, name, religion, and kingdom. It was printed
by Geo. Bishop, London, 1604. This sermon, consisting
of above fifty pages, is written in an excellent style, simple,
clear, and vigorous, full of sound maxims and sound theology,
and abundantly illustrated by examples from history, both
civil and ecclesiastical. We are not to look indeed for
critical acumen. The legendary account of Joseph of Ari-
mathea, and the sway of Lucius over the whole of Britain,
are introduced into his account of our early Christianity.
For his notices of the dispersion of mankind after the flood
he refers to the Anchoratus of Epiphanius* a work the
principal object of which was indeed to set forth the doctrine
of our Lord's divinity against the Arians, and of the Holy
Ghost against the Macedonians. Gordon shewed how Divine
Providence ever favoured those kingdoms that discountenanced
idolatry and maintained the true worship of God. He
unreservedly condemned the Romish worship of the host
and of images as Gentilism under the profession of Christi
anity. He had in the preceding year, 1603, written : Asser-
tiones theological pro verd verce ecclesice nota, quce est solius
Dei adoratio, contra falsce ecclesice Creaturarum Adorationem.
Theological Theses in maintenance of a true mark of a true
Church, namely, the worship of God alone, against the false
Churctis adoration of the Creatures. Rupell, 1603, 8vo.
Gordon was of Balliol College, Oxford, but had first received
a very extensive education both in Scotland and France,
and especially in the Eastern languages. He derived the
names of Britain, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland from the
Hebrew, and commented upon them accordingly in his sermon
upon Union. He had been gentleman of three Kings' cham
bers in France, namely, Charles IX., Henry III. and IV. ;
and, adds Anthony Wood, " whilst he was in the flower
of his age he was there assailed with many corruptions as
well spiritual as temporal, and in many dangers of his life,
which God did miraculously deliver him from. At length
K. James the first of England did call him into England,
and to the holy ministry, he being then 58 years of age,
and upon the promotion of Dr. John Bridges to the see
of Oxon in the latter end of 1603, he made him Dean of
Salisbury in February 1604."1 Lord-Chancellor Egerton
gave him, in June 1608, the rectory of Upton Lovel near
Heytesbury, close by the road to Salisbury.
On the following Good-Friday, March 29, 1605, Dean
Andrewes preached before the King at Greenwich, from
Heb. xii. 2. It is difficult to say which is the more in
comparable of his three Good-Friday sermons. In this there
is not a sentence that could be spared, there is not a passage
but deserves to be studied. Truly did he live in the con
templation of his heavenly Master's love and in the view
of his cross; of looking to which he saith here, "blessed are
the hours that are so spent." The reading of these pages
makes us regret the loss of those discourses which he most
probably delivered either in his college chapel or his abbey
church at Westminster upon Christmas and Easter Day.
For truly St. Chrysostom himself was, in naturalness and
in setting forth the love of Christ, nay altogether as a divine,
far his inferior. Here we have not the undue austerity of
that age, not the unmeaning pomp of words, not the occasional
bursting forth of Christian light ; but the heart speaks from its
fulness, of that love which passeth knowledge, which despised
both pain and shame, which bowed itself to the death of
a slave, a malefactor, a derided person. Here both our love
and hope are fed; as he himself saith, "if either of these
will serve us, will prevail to move us, here it is. Here is
love, love in the cross ; who loved us and gave himself for us
a sacrifice on the cross. Here is hope, hope in the throne :
To him that overcometh will I give to sit with me in my throne.
If our eye be a mother s eye, here is love worth the looking
on. If our eye be a merchant's eye, here is hope worth
the looking after. I know it is true, that verus amor vires
non sumit de spe. (It is Bernard.) Love, if it be true indeed,
as in the mother, receiveth no manner of strength from hope.
Ours is not such, but faint and feeble and full of imperfection :
here is hope therefore to strengthen our weak knees, that
we may run the more readily to the high prize of our calling.
Early in the reign of James the plague broke out in
Oxford, so that although he received Dr. Abbot, Master of
University College and Dean of Winchester, Vicechancellor
of the university, with the proctors (of whom Laud was one)
and several doctors and other members of the university
at Woodstock, in September, he did not then venture to visit
Oxford. He was presented with the Holy Scriptures in the
name of the university, and then promised that when the
plague had abated he would visit the university.
The King however resolved on visiting the university
in August 1606, taking in his way Havering-atte-bower to
the north of Eomford, where he remained two nights, July,
Tuesday 16th and Wednesday the 17th. This Havering
had been a royal seat from the reign of Edward the Confessor,
and was frequently visited by his illustrious predecessor
Elizabeth. Thence he proceeded to Loughton Hall, westward
below the east side of Epping Forest, another resort of the
late Queen. On Saturday the 20th, the King came to the
Earl of Salisbury at Theobald's, a little to the west of Wal-
tham Abbey. Here he and the Queen remained three days.
Theobald's had been the seat of the great Lord Burleigh, where
he was often visited by Queen Elizabeth. James received it of
the Earl of Salisbury in exchange for Hatfield, frequently re
tired hither, and in 1625 here breathed his last. Charles I.
sometimes came to this place, and in 1642 the petition of both
houses of parliament was presented to him here ; and hence
he withdrew to put himself at the head of his army. During
the commonwealth the greater part was taken down, and sold
to pay the troops. James II. greatly enlarged the park.
In 1689 it was given by William III. to the Earl of Portland,
whose descendants sold it in 1702 to Mr. Prescot. Every
vestige of the ancient palace was removed in 1765, and
a new house erected about a mile from the site.
On Tuesday the 23rd, the King and Queen went to
Hatfield palace, where they stayed three days. Here the
Bishops of Ely had formerly a palace, which was conveyed
to Queen Elizabeth by Bishop Cox. James, in the fourth
year of his reign, exchanged it for Theobald's with Sir Eobert
Cecil, whom he had in 1603 made Baron of Essendine in
Rutlandshire, and in 1604 Viscount Cranborne in Dorsetshire,
and whom, on May 4, 1605, he raised to be Earl of Salisbury.
He erected the present noble mansion. Hence he went one
day to visit Sir Goddard Pemberton at Hertford Bury, of
an ancient family in Lancashire, and, some years after, sheriff
for Hertfordshire.
On Friday the 26th, the king visited Mr. Sandy, afterward
Napier, whom in 1612 he made a baronet. He had purchased
about this time the capital manor of Luton, with the fine
seat and park there called Luton Hoo, from the ancient
family of Hoo, and which since came into the hands of the
Marquis of Bute. The Queen went to Sir John Kotheram's,
a mansion on Farley Green in the parish of Luton. At Mr.
Sandy's Sir George Peryam, of Oxfordshire, received the
honour of knighthood. On the same day, Thursday the
27th, the King proceeded to Houghton Bury in the parish
of Houghton Conquest, the seat of Sir Edward Conquest,
by whom he was entertained five days. The little that now
remains of the mansion is a farm-house of brick and timber.
The male line of this family became extinct in Benedict
Conquest, esq., father of Lady Arundel (1828). The manor
was purchased by the Earl of Upper Ossory in 1741.
The Queen was entertained by Sir Robert Newdigate at
Hawnes. The house has been modernised and mostly rebuilt
by Lord Carteret, whose family has possessed the manor from
1667. Sir Roger Newdigate, the last who bore the title,
died in 1806, leaving by his will the annual prize at Oxford
for the best English verses on ancient sculpture, or painting,
or architecture.
On the 28th, it being the feast day at Houghton, the King
with his court, consisting of the Duke of Lenox, the Earls
of Northampton, Suffolk, Salisbury, Devonshire, and Pem
broke, the Lords Knowles, Wotton, and Stanhope, and Dr.
Watson Bishop of Chichester, his almoner, attended divine
service at the parish church.
On the 30th the King visited the Queen at Hawnes, and
there attended divine service. The rector of Houghton
Conquest, the Rev. Thomas Archer, preached from the Song
of Solomon, ii. 15, Take us the foxes, the little foxes which
destroy the grapes, for our vines have small grapes. Some
of his MSS. (and amongst them this sermon) were in the
possession of a late rector, Dr. Pearce, Dean of Ely and
Master of Jesus College, Cambridge. Archer was immediately
sworn one of the King's chaplains in ordinary.
During this visit the King devoted himself to his favourite
field sports in the parks of Houghton and Ampthill.
On Thursday, August 1st, the King went from Houghton
to Thurleigh, the seat of Sir Wm. Hervey, between Bletsoe
to the west and Bolnhurst to the east, above Bedford. He
had amply deserved the honours to which he afterwards rose,
by numerous acts of unparalleled valour in the memorable
1588, and on many subsequent occasions. He had been
knighted by Queen Elizabeth, and was made a baronet by
James, May 13, 1619, and in 1620 Lord Eoss in the county
of Wexford, and finally by Charles I. a baron of this realm
by the title of Lord Hervey of Kidbrook in Kent, February 7,
1628. His title became extinct on his death in 1642. He
was buried, July 8th, in Westminster Abbey with great
solemnity.
On the same Thursday, August 1st, the Queen went
from Hawnes to the seat of Oliver third Lord St. John at
Bletsoe, "the residence in times past of the Pateshulls,
after of the Beauchamps, and now of the honourable family
of St. John (1610), which long since by their valour attained
unto very large and goodly possessions in Glamorganshire,
and in our days," says the more ancient editor of Camden,
" through the favour of Q. Elizabeth of happy memory, unto
the dignity of barons, when she created Sir Oliver, the second
baron of her creation, Lord St. John of Bletnesho, unto
whom it came by Margaret Beauchamp on inheritance, wedded
first to Sir Oliver St. John, from whom these barons derive
their pedigree, and secondly to John duke of Somerset, unto
whom she bare the Lady Margaret Countess of Kichmond,
a lady most virtuous and always to be remembered with
praises; from whose loins the late Kings and Queens of
England are descended." At Bletsoe, overlooking a country
of considerable extent to the south around and beyond
Bedford, was Lady Margaret the mother of Henry VII. born.
Vestiges of the old castellated mansion were discernible some
years ago near a farm-house, the remains of the more modern
quadrangular mansion of the St. John's. This family held
lands in Oxfordshire in the reign of Henry I.
Oliver the third Lord, who had the honour of entertaining
the king, succeeded to the title in 1596, and died in 1613.
His son Oliver, the fourth baron, was in 1624 advanced
to the title of Earl of Bolingbroke. The earldom became
extinct in 1711. The barony devolved to the posterity of
Sir Kowland St. John, a younger son of Oliver the third
baron. But the family residence is a few miles northward near
Eisely at Melchbourn. In the north aisle of the venerable
and cruciform church of Bletsoe, which is the burial-place
of the noble family of St. John, is a monument with the
effigies of a knight in armour, with his lady, intended for
Sir John St. John, father of Oliver the first Lord. This son
was created Lord St. John Jan. 13, 1559. His father married
Margaret daughter of Sir William Waldegrave, of a noble
Saxon family, and by her had two daughters, Margaret who
was married to Francis second Earl of Bedford, one of the
greatest ornaments of his house.
On Saturday the 3rd of August, the King and Queen
were received for three days, at the noble mansion of Drayton
to the west of Daventry on the borders of Northamptonshire,
by Henry Lord Mordaunt. His son was created Earl of
Peterborough in 1628. On the following Tuesday the 6th,
the King, accompanied by the Queen, renewed the pleasure
he had received on his former visit to Sir Anthony (son to
Sir Walter Mildmay the founder of Emmanuel College, Cam
bridge,) at Apthorp, where he had dined in April 1603,
on his way from Scotland to London.
Apthorp is in the neighbourhood of Kingscliffe, the resi
dence for some months of the truly venerable Archdeacon
of Lincoln, the early friend of the late ever to be revered
Bishop of that see, Dr. Kaye.
Sir Walter Mildmay has been very gratefully memorialized
by the eccentric but kind-hearted George Dyer, himself
of Emmanuel College, in his interesting History of the
University of Cambridge.
Sir Walter, fifth son of Thomas Mildmay of Little Baddow
below Chelmsford, was a student of Christ's College. Fuller
observes of him, tl Sir Robert Naunton, in his Fragmenta
Regalia, did leave as well as take, omitting some statesmen
of the first magnitude, no less valued by than useful to Queen
Elizabeth, as appears by his not mentioning of this worthy
knight. True it is, toward the end of his days he fell into
the Queen's disfavour, not by his own demerit, but the envy
of his adversaries. For he being employed by virtue of his
place to advance the Queen's treasure, did it industriously,
faithfully, and conscionably, without wronging the subject,
being very tender of their privileges, insomuch that he once
complained in Parliament that many subsidies were granted,
and no grievances redressed. Which words being represented
with his disadvantage to the Queen, made her to disafFect
him, setting in a court cloud, but in the sunshine of his
countiy and a clear conscience."
" Coming to court after he had founded his college,"
(1584) the Queen told him, tf Sir Walter, I hear that you
have erected a Puritan foundation." " No, Madam," saith he,
" far be it from me to countenance anything contrary to your
established laws; but I have set an acorn, which when it
becomes an oak, God alone knows what will be the fruit
thereof." « Sure I am at this day," adds Fuller (1634), " it
hath overshadowed all the University, more than a moiety
of the present Masters of Colleges being bred therein."
Sir Anthony was son to Sir Walter. He was knighted
by Queen Elizabeth and sent over to France on an embassy
to Henry IV. in 1596. " He was at Geneva," says Fuller,
" when Theodore Beza their minister was convened before
their consistory and publicly checked for preaching too elo
quently : he pleaded that what they called eloquence in him
was not affected but natural, and promised to endeavour more
plainness for the future. Sir Anthony, by Grace coheir to Sir
Henry Sherington, had one daughter Mary, married to Sir
Francis Fane, afterwards earl of Westmoreland."
In Apthorp chapel, within Nassington park, both Sir
Anthony and his lady Grace, " one of the coheirs of Sir Henry
Sherington, knt., of Lacock in the county of Wilts, who
lived fifty years married to him, and three years a widow
after him," lie buried. He died September llth, 1617, and
his lady Grace July 27th, 1620.
The present mansion, the seat of the Earl of Westmoreland,
is neatly built of freestone, and consists of a quadrangle with
open cloisters. On the south side is a stone statue of James L,
who gave the timber for building the east and south sides.
There are chambers still called the King's and the Duke's
chamber. Among several good portraits are a quarter piece
by Vandyke, in the king's chamber, of the first Earl of West
moreland, and a full-length portrait of Frances Howard,
Duchess of Richmond and Lenox, daughter to Thomas Lord
Howard of Bindon. In the ceiling are the arms, crest, and
supporters of England in fretwork. On the staircase is a full-
length portrait of James, created Duke of Richmond in 1641,
May 8th, the faithful friend of Dr. Thomas Fuller, and a
faithful servant of Charles I., at whose interment at Windsor
he was present. Here are also portraits of the Mildmay
family here mentioned, and of Philip and Mary, supposed
to have been painted by Holbein.
The King, after enjoying his favourite sport around Ap-
thorp, went on Friday the 9th to Rockingham Castle, the
mansion of Sir Edward Watson, and the Queen to Kirby,
the seat of Sir Christopher Hatton, in the parishes of Gretton
and Bulwick, thus going southward on their way to Oxford.
Sir Edward Watson had been high-sheriff of Northampton
shire in 1591, and was knighted by the King at the Charter
house May 12, 1603. He died in 1617. The mansion and
castle are now the property of Lord Sondes, descended of Lady
Margaret, youngest daughter of Sir Edward's son, Sir Lewis
the first Earl Rockingham.
Kirby, the seat of Sir Christopher, a godson of the Lord-
chancellor Hatton, was celebrated for its gardens. Sir Chris
topher sold Holdenby to the King in 1608, resided at Kirby,
and died in 1619.
On Monday the 12th August, the King and Queen visited
Mr. Edward, brother of Sir Thomas Griffin, at Braybrooke
Castle. Scarcely any remains of the castle now exist. On
the death of Sir Thomas in 1615, he succeeded to the family
estates at Braybrooke and Dingley. His son Edward was
created Lord Griffin of Braybrooke by James II. in 1688.
The title became extinct in 1742, but revived August 3rd,
1784, in favour of John, son of Anne, sister of the last Lord.
He took the title of Lord Howard of Walden. The title
of Baron of Braybrooke was revived September 5th, 1788,
in the person of Richard Neville Aid worth, esq., on the death
of John Lord Howard of Walden. He was descended from
the ancient family of Aldworth1 of Stanlakes in Berkshire,
and in the female line from the Nevilles of Billingbear near
B infield in Berkshire, contiguous to which is the park with
the old mansion of the Lords Braybrooke.
In the afternoon their Majesties left Braybrooke Castle for
Harrowden, the seat of Lord Vaux, some miles to the south
west of Braybrooke Castle, and about two miles above Well-
ingborough. The ancient manor-house has long been de
molished. Edward the fourth Lord Vaux succeeded his
grandfather William in 1595. The first Lord was Sir Nicholas
Vaux, captain of Guisnes in Picardy, created by Henry VIII.
Lord Vaulx of Harrowden.
On Tuesday the 13th, the king and queen visited Castle
Ashby, the princely seat of Lord Compton,4 a little to the north
of the road from Northampton to Bedford. The old mansion
was enlarged in the seventeenth century under the direction
of the famous Inigo Jones. Within the stone balustrade is
wrought in open-work in Latin, Except the Lord build the
housej they labour in vain that build it.
Here they remained until Friday the 16th, when the King
proceeded to Grafton Lodge, then an honour of the King's,
but in the fifteenth century the mansion of the Widvilles or
Woodvilles. It was once the residence of the renowned
George Clifford, Earl of Cumberland. This heroic and dis
interested nobleman died October 30 this same year. But
little remains of this venerable mansion.
The Queen on the same day went to Alderton, which was
annexed to the manor of Grafton. In the reign of Queen
Elizabeth it was in the hands of William Gorges, esq., who,
dying without issue in 1589, left it to Frances, his only
daughter and heir, the wife of Thomas Heselrige, esq.
William, the Queen's host, was the son of Sir Thomas, who
had been knighted by Queen Elizabeth in 1577, and died in
1600. The son entertained the King at Alderton in August
1608, when he was knighted. He was sheriff for Leicester
shire in 1613, knight of the shire in 1614 and 1623, and was
created a baronet July 21, 1622. He died January 11, 1629,
aged 66.
On Tuesday the 20th, the King and Queen passing west
ward into Oxfordshire came to Hanwell, within four miles of
Banbury, the seat of Sir Anthony Cope, now, like so many
more of the mansions they visited, reduced to a shadow of its
former greatness. Sir Anthony, who had been knighted by
Elizabeth, is said to have been a mirror of integrity and
hospitality. His first wife was Frances, daughter of Sir
Kowland Litton of Herts. This family, becoming connected
with Hampshire in the last century, was seated at Bramshill
Park in that county, where the upright Primate Abbot met
with that unhappy casualty, July 24, 1621, whilst on a visit
there to Lord Zouch.
On the same day the King visited Sir William Pope of
Wilcote, at Wroxton Park, about a mile nearer Banbury,
"probably," says Warton, "in the old abbey house, where
he entertained the King with the fashionable and courtly
diversions of hawking and bearbating. As the King was on
a visit to Sir Thomas Watton at Halsted in Kent, near
Sevenoaks, his granddaughter Anne1 was presented to the
King, holding the following humorous epigram in her hand,
with which his Majesty was highly pleased.
See this little mistress here
Did never sit in Peter's chair,
Or a triple crown did wear,
And yet she is a POPE.
No benefice she ever sold,
Nor did dispense with sins for gold;
She hardly is a sevennight old,
And yet she is a POPE.
No King her feet did ever kiss,
Or had from her worse look than this ;
Nor did she ever hope
To saint one with a rope,2
And yet she is a POPE.
A female Pope you'll say; a second Joan.
No, sure; she is Pope Innocent, or none.
It is supposed, says Warton in his Life of Pope, to have
been written by Kichard Corbet, then a student at Christ-
church, afterwards Bishop of Norwich. His poems, with a life
of him prefixed, were edited with many additions by Octavius
Gilclirist in 1807.
Wroxton Abbey stood in the garden on the east side of the
present house. It was a priory of Augustine Canons, founded
early in the reign of Henry III. It was granted by Henry
VIII. to Sir Thomas Pope, who bestowed the site and lands,
or great part of them, on his new foundation of Trinity, which
he grafted on to Durham College, a great part of which still
remains under the appellation of Trinity College, Oxford. Sir
William, the King's host, built from the ground the present
mansion. The chapel he caused to be decorated with painted
glass by Van Ling in 1623. Wroxton Abbey is engraved
in Skelton's Antiquities of Oxfordshire.
Sir William's lady was Anne, daughter of Sir Owen Hop-
ton, lieutenant of the Tower, and relict of Henry Lord Went-
worth, Baron of Nettlestead. She died at Wroxton 1625.
On Wednesday the 21st, the King and Queen left Wroxton
for their ancient palace of Woodstock, where they remained
three nights. Woodstock was a royal residence from the reign
of Henry I.
The Earl of Dorset, the Chancellor of the University of
Oxford, had sent his instructions to the Heads of houses as
early as the month of June.
On Thursday the 22nd, on which day Philip Stringer,
Fellow of St. John's college and Solicitor to the University of
Cambridge, M.A. 1571, and some years esquire bedell, pro
bably from 1568 to 1591, came to Oxford in the afternoon,
bringing with him from the King's Attorney-general a book
ready for his Majesty's signature, for the endowing of the
regius divinity professorship of Cambridge with the livings of
Somersham and Colne in Huntingdonshire ; the Earls of Wor
cester, Suffolk, and Northampton, with Lord Carey, were in
Oxford surveying the preparations making at Christchurch
and elsewhere for the royal visit.
Edward Earl of Worcester, descended of Sir Charles
Somerset, natural son to Henry Duke of Somerset, was Master
of the Horse, and, " amongst other laudable parts of virtue
and nobility," is said to have highly favoured " the studies of
good literature."1 He was a knight of the garter, and ancestor
to his grace the Duke of Beaufort. He was one of the most
complete gentlemen of his time, and excelled in those manly
exercises, a proficiency in which then constituted so material
a part of the character of an accomplished courtier, particularly
tilting and horsemanship. He possessed abilities which quali-
fied him for the highest public offices, but avoided politics,
and chose to shine at the court and in his own house. He
died March 3rd, 1627, aged 84.1
The Earl of Suffolk, on the death of Henry Howard Earl
of Northampton in 1614, was elected Chancellor of the Uni
versity of Cambridge. He was ever in high favour with
the King, who, on his entry into England, made him his
Lord-chamberlain and afterwards Lord-treasurer. He erected
the once more than royal mansion at Audley End.
The Earl of Northampton was a scholar and a man of the
world, versed in the art of dissimulation, without honour
and principle, an accomplished and successful criminal, im
plicated in the darkest tragedy of this period, the death
of Sir Thomas Overbury ; but a contemporary speaks of him
thus : u Lord Henry Howard, brother to the last Duke of
Norfolk, a man of rare and excellent wit, and sweet, fluent
eloquence, singularly adorned also with the best sciences,
prudent in council, and provident withal."2 Thus wrote
Camden of this talented but worthless person. He was
born at Shottesham, about eight miles south of Norwich.
He was first of King's College, Cambridge, and afterwards
of Trinity Hall, where he took the degree of M.A. He was
incorporated M.A. of Oxford, April 19, 1568. His learning has
procured him a place in Lord Orford's Royal and noble Authors?
He was unable to obtain the countenance of Queen Elizabeth,
but sought to rise through the Earl of Essex, paying court at
the same time to his inveterate enemy, secretary Cecil, whose
correspondence with James passed through his hands, which
paved the way for his promotion by that monarch. Though,
as Anthony Wood says, a papist,4 he was chosen on Cecil's
death to the Chancellorship of the university of Cambridge,
in 1612. He died in 1614, June 15th, not long before
the full discovery of the crimes that succeeded upon the divorce
of his great niece the Countess of Essex with Carr, Earl
of Somerset. On his death the king conferred the earldom
of Northampton on the Lord Compton.
Lord Carey, also called Carew, was called Baron Carew
of Clopton, close upon Stratford-upon-Avon, having married
into the family that owned the manor of Clopton. He had
distinguished himself in 1595 at the siege of Cadiz, was
a favourite of Queen Elizabeth, who appointed him president
of Munster and master of the Ordnance in Ireland. In 1603
he was made governor of Guernsey, and being now vice-
chamberlain to the Queen, was created Baron Carew of Clopton
in the county of Warwick, and in 1625 Earl of Totness. He
died without issue March 27, 1629, aged 73.1 " He was,"
says Camden, " a most affectionate lover of venerable an
tiquity." Thus a similar taste united these noblemen, the
earls of Worcester, Suffolk, and Northampton, and Lord
Carey.
On Saturday the 23rd, very late in the evening, the
Chancellor of the university and Lord-Treasurer of England,
the Earl of Dorset, came to Oxford. He was welcomed at
Christchurch with an oration, and took up his lodgings at
New College. Never was Oxford graced with a more ac
complished and unsullied Chancellor. It has enjoyed indeed
one unrivalled in the field, but in the arts of peace none
ever shone with a serener brightness than this star of the
Elizabethan era. Thomas Sackville, Earl of Dorset, was
born at Buckhurst in the parish of Withiam in Sussex,
1536. He was admitted of Hart Hall, Oxford, but removed
thence, before he had taken a degree, to St. John's College,
Cambridge. As a poet he is regarded as the model of Spenser.
His life was one of vicissitude although of honour. He was
a diligent and eminent student of the law, served in parlia
ment for the county of Westmoreland in the reign of Queen
Mary, and for that of Sussex in the first parliament of
Elizabeth. He suffered a short imprisonment at Kome. On
his return he found himself in possession of a most ample
fortune by the death of his father, but his magnificence of
living brought him into difficulties, from which however
he recovered himself, having been wounded by the incivility
of an alderman who had greatly enriched himself by his
purchases of him, and who kept him sometime waiting, when
he was once obliged to apply to him. His father died in
1566. He was in the following year created Lord Buckhurst,
and in 1571 sent ambassador to France. In 1572 he was
one of the peers who sat in judgment on the Duke of Norfolk.
He was in 1586 one of the commissioners for the trial of
Mary Queen of Scots. In 1587 he was sent to the states
of Holland upon their complaints of the Earl of Leicester's
proceedings, in order to examine that affair and to compose
the differences that had arisen out of it. Although he per
formed his office faithfully, Leicester's interest with the Queen
prevailed so far as that he was confined to his house above
nine months. Upon the death of the Earl he was restored
to the favour of his sovereign, and soon after made a knight
of the garter. Sir Christopher Hatton dying on the 20th
November, 1591, Lord Buckhurst was chosen Chancellor of
the University of Oxford in preference to the Earl of Essex,
who was supported by the favourers of Puritanism. In 1598
he was appointed Lord High-Treasurer of England, and in
1601 Lord High-Steward for the trial of the Earl of Essex,
and conducted himself with remarkable candour and humanity
towards that nobleman, whose sentence of death he was
compelled by his office to pronounce. He married Cecily
daughter of Sir John Baker. His son Kobert succeeded to
his honours. His daughter Jane married Anthony Viscount
Montagu, grandson of Antony Browne who was created first
Viscount in the reign of Queen Mary, whose grandmother
was a daughter of John Neville Marquess Montacute, from
Montacute in Somersetshire, who was slain at Barnet in
1472. His daughter Mary married Henry Neville, seventh
Lord Abergavenny. King James advanced Lord Buckhurst
to the dignity of Earl of Dorset on March 13, 1604. He
died suddenly at the council-table April 19th, 1608, and
was buried with great solemnity in Westminster Abbey.
He was kind and hospitable, and generous to his tenants.
His household consisted of one hundred and twenty persons.
He was zealously pious, and an unbending upholder of the
Protestant religion.
On Saturday the 24th, the King removed to Langley,
some miles to the west of Woodstock. Some remains of the
palace were visible here in the last century. It stood near
the village of Shipton-under-Whichwood. Here the royal
party continued until their coming to Oxford on the 27th.
The Chancellor, Vicechancellor, Dr. Abbot, and the doctors
following two by two, attended at St. Mary's, it being St.
Bartholomew's Day. The preacher is said to have been
a Mr. Gryme or Graham. The church was already prepared
for the acts and sermons of the ensuing week with a raised
throne to the back of the chancel, double galleries on the
north and south sides, seats rising one above another at
the west end, and forms in the mid-space of the nave for
bachelors in divinity, &c., and masters of arts.
Doctor Gordon, who had been recently created doctor
in divinity, preached before the court on the following day,
being Sunday, and thither went the Chancellor of the uni
versity, not to Langley, but to Woodstock.
On Monday, at seven in the morning, there was an English
sermon at All Saints, and so every morning at the same hour
to Friday inclusive. This church, in the twelfth century, was
given or confirmed to the Canons of St. Frideswide. Thence
it came into the hands of the Bishops of Lincoln, in the 20th
year of Edward II., until Richard Fleming Bishop of Lincoln,
early in the fifteenth century, appropriated it to Lincoln Col
lege, of which he was the founder in 1427. The old church
was so much injured by the fall of the spire in 1699 as to
render the rebuilding of the whole indispensable, which was
accordingly done after a design from Dean Aldrich. At eight
all public lectures were read in their several schools, and from
nine till eleven they continued their disputations on Quod-
libets in the schools of arts. These disputations were between
masters and bachelors. And in the same schools from one to
three disputations were continued by bachelors and sophisters.
This day the Earl of Suffolk, Lord Chamberlain and several
other Earls and Lords came to Oxford, and reviewed the King's
and Queen's lodging in Christchurch, and the Prince Henry's
lodging in Magdalene College, and dined with the Chancellor
in the Warden's lodge at New College, with whom dined also
Dr. Abbot the Vice-Chancellor, with some other Doctors and
the Bedells.
On Tuesday the 27th of August, in the forenoon, all things
were performed as on the day before. At one in the afternoon
the Vice-Chan cellor and Doctors went to the Chancellor at
New College, and thence presently to meet the King in the
following order. First three esquire Bedells rode on footcloths,
in fair gowns, with gold chains, in velvet caps, carrying their
staves as at other times, but bare-headed, as did the Serjeant
of the Mace, who rode next behind them. Immediately after
them rode the Chancellor talking with the Vice-Chancellor,
the Vice-Chancellor bearing back about half the length of his
horse. After them six or eight Doctors also in scarlet, two by
two upon the footcloths. Then the two Proctors in their
civil hoods, upon the footcloths, riding two by two. These
were some of them heads of halls, and some of them ancient
bachelors in divinity. All these university men did wear
square caps. They stayed first at a place called Aristotle s
Wel^ being about a mile from the city. "Aristotle's Well,"
says Hearne in his Diary, " is in the midway between Oxford
and Wolvercote. Before we come to it, is another way called
Walton Well, from the old village of Walton now destroyed.
I have mentioned both these wells in my preface to John
Eowse. Aristotle's well was so called from the scholars,
especially such as studied his philosophy, going to it, and re
freshing themselves at it, there being an house for these
occasions just by it."1 But as it was a narrow place much
annoyed with dust, the Lord-Chamberlain sent word to them
to come a little forward into a fair meadow, where they all,
saving the Serjeant of the Mace, alighted from their horses,
and stayed a little while beside the highway expecting the
King. In the meantime the Mayor of the city, twelve alder
men in scarlet, and some six score commoners in black coats
guarded with velvet and laid on with Bellament lace, passed
forward by them some forty score. The Vice-Chancellor and
Doctors acquainted the Chancellor with this circumstance, who
sent his Serjeant-at-Arms to them, upon which they turned
back behind the Chancellor some twenty score.
And now the King came up on horseback, with the Queen
on his left-hand, and the Prince before them, the Duke of
Lenox carrying the sword. Esme Stuart, or (as formerly
spelt) Steward, Duke of Lenox, was son to John Lord
D'Aubigny younger brother to Matthew Earl of Lenox
upon whom Henry VIII. bestowed his niece. From this
marriage with Margaret daughter of King Henry's sister,
Margaret Queen-dowager of Scotland by her second husband
the Earl of Angus, sprang Henry Stuart Lord Darnley, father
of James I. The Chancellor first accosted the King, and
kneeled down at his feet with the rest, and kissed the
sole of his stirrup. The Vice-Chancellor accosted him with
a speech in honour of both the University and the King. As
was the custom of that age, it was mixed up with mythological
allusions. The speech is given by Sir Isaac Worke, from
which it would appear that Stringer has not recorded the
substance of it with exactness. Probably any other uni
versity would have rivalled Abbot in his praises of his Alma
Mater. Oxford had, some centuries previously, been reckoned
inferior only to Paris. But Abbot did not claim absolute
precedency for Oxford above every other university. The
Vice-Chancellor then presented the King with a splendid and
splendidly bound copy of Stephens' New Testament, which
the King looked into again and again with evident admira
tion, observing that it was a present worthy of the University
to give, and of a Prince to receive. Oxford was then famous
for its gloves : so the Vice-Chancellor also presented to the
King two pairs of Oxford gloves with a deep fringe of gold,
the turnovers being wrought with pearl. There were also
presented two pairs to the Queen, and one to the Prince. So
they went on a little forward, the Bedells preceding the King,
as also after them three Serjeants-at-Arms, and the Duke of
Lenox, sword-bearer. So they came next to the Mayor and
his brethren in office. The Town-Clerk, in the absence of
the Recorder, made a long speech in English, highly extolling
the late Queen and her government, not without dutiful al
lusions to the hopes entertained of happiness under her suc
cessor. The Mayor meanwhile laid his gold mace at the
King's feet, and afterwards presented him, in the name of the
city of Oxford, with a gold cup, having £50 of gold in it,
another to the Queen, gilt and covered, worth £40, and to
the Prince another worth £30 ; so Stringer ; but Wake, who
is rather to be followed, speaks only of a richly embossed cup
given to the King, a purse adorned with Indian pearls pre
sented to the Queen, and a smaller cup with gold coin in it
(as was also in the others) presented to the Prince.1
The procession to Oxford was headed by the Lieutenant
for the County. After the company that attended him, the
royal guard in their glittering habiliments ; then the trumpet
ers ; after them the royal herald, called after the most noble
order of the Garter ; at his right the Vice-Chancellor, at his
left the Mayor of Oxford, then the Vice-Chamberlains of
the King and Queen, Lord Stanhope of Harrington, Vice-
Chamberlain to the King, and Lord Carey of Clopton, to the
Queen : then the most noble the Earl of Dorset, High-
Treasurer of England and Chancellor of the University. On
his left Thomas, Earl of Suffolk, Lord-Chamberlain to the
King: next came the Duke of Lenox bearing the sword; then
the King, Queen, and Prince Henry on horseback. Around
them the Earls of Arundel, Oxford, Northumberland, Wor
cester, Rutland, Cumberland, Southampton, Pembroke, Essex,
Nottingham Lord High Admiral, Devon Lord-Lieutenant of
Ireland, Northampton, Salisbury Secretary of State, Mont
gomery, and Perth.
Most of these have been already noticed. Thomas, Earl
of Arundel, conformed to the Protestant religion in this reign.
He was one of the greatest patrons of the fine arts of this
period. A part of his collection is still at Oxford. Charles
created him Earl of Norfolk.
Henry Vere, Earl of Oxford, whose family was originally
from Zeeland in the Netherlands, was the eighteenth of his
race in lineal descent. He died at the siege of Breda, 1625.
Roger Manners, fifth Earl of Rutland, succeeded his father
February 24th, 1588. He was early sent to the university of
Cambridge, where he took the degree of M.A. He was an
eminent traveller and good soldier. In 1595 he visited
France, Switzerland, and Italy; was Colonel of foot in the
Irish wars in 1598. In that year, July 10th, he was incor
porated M.A. of Oxford. He was appointed Constable of
Nottingham Castle, and Chief-Justice in Eyre of Sherwood
Forest in 1600, and in 1603 was honoured with a visit from the
King. He was in that same year made Lord-Lieutenant of
Lincolnshire, and was sent ambassador into Denmark to the
christening of the King's eldest son, and to invest the King
of Denmark with the order of the Garter. He was made
Knight of the Bath at the coronation of James in 1603, and
that same year Steward .of the manor and soke of Grantham.
He married Elizabeth only daughter and heir of the famous
Sir Philip Sidney. He died without issue June 26, 1612,
and was buried at Bottesford. His Countess survived him
little more than two months. He was succeeded in his titles
and estates by his brother Francis.
Henry Percy, the most generous Earl of Northumberland,
a great friend to learning and learned men, especially of
mathematicians. He died 5th November 1632, and was
buried at Petworth in Sussex.1
The famous Bevis, whence Bevis Mount near South
ampton, is said to have been the first Earl of Southampton,
and the only one until Henry VIII. created William Fitz-
william, descended from the daughter of Marquess Montacute,
both Earl of Southampton and Admiral of England in his
old age. He married Mabel daughter of Henry Lord Clifford,
but left none to inherit his honours. He was the son of Sir
Thomas Fitz-Williams, of Aldwarke near Easingwold in
Yorkshire. He was in 1512 made one of the esquires of the
body to Henry VIII., and in 1513 had the command of
the fleet which fought the French off Brest ; and though
very severely wounded, distinguished himself in 1514 at
the siege of Tournay. After having fulfilled the office of
Vice- Admiral in the absence of the Earl of Surrey, and
that of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in 1520, he was in 1537
appointed Lord High-Admiral and Earl of Northampton, and
soon after Lord Privy-Seal, being succeeded in the Admiral-
ship by John Lord Russell. He died at Newcastle as he was
on his way to Scotland to assist in the expedition sent
against that country under the command of his friend the
Duke of Norfolk.
Next, Edward VI., in the first year of his reign, conferred
the Earldom of Southampton upon Thomas Wriothesley,
Lord Chancellor. This the King did not of his own will, but
as a minor, Wriothesley being left one of his father's executors ;
but he was very early compelled to resign the Chancellorship.
He had rendered himself execrable by taking part himself
in applying the rack to Anne Askew previously to her
martyrdom.
His grandson Henry was now Earl of Southampton. He
having taken part with the Earl of Essex in 1599, was
brought to trial and found guilty. His life was spared, but
he remained in the Tower until his release by King James,
April 10th, 1603. On the 21st of July following he was
restored to his title by a new patent. He was a nobleman
of great courage, and henceforth high in favour with his
sovereign and his court. He was a patron of learning. In
1614 Richard Brathwayt dedicated to him The Scholar s
Medley. In 1617 he, with other munificent patrons of learning,
contributed to relieve the distress of Minsheu, the laborious
author of the Guide to Tongues. He was a great promoter
of the first Virginia Company. He was sworn a Privy-
Councillor on the 19th August 1619. He made a successful
motion against illegal patents in Parliament 162 1.1 At the
sitting on the 14th March he had a dispute with the Marquess
of Buckingham which was moderated by the Prince of Wales,
but was put under restraint for some time after the adjourn
ment of Parliament. He did not however desist from serving
his country in the Parliament of 1624, but lost his life at
Bergen-op-zoom on the 10th November that year, together
with his eldest son. His son Thomas was the last Earl
of Southampton, the Lord High-Treasurer, whose name has
been commended to posterity by the pen of Clarendon.
William Herbert, third Earl of Pembroke, was son of
Henry Earl of Pembroke and of Mary the famous sister
of Sir Philip Sidney. He was bom at Wilton April 8, 1580,
and was educated at New College, Oxford. He succeeded
to his father's title January 19th, 1601, and was made E.G.
by James in 1603. In 1604 he married Lady Mary one
of the three daughters and coheirs of Gilbert Talbot, Earl
of Shrewsbury. He was in 1610 appointed Governor of
Portsmouth, and in 1616 Lord-Chamberlain of the King's
household, and that same year Chancellor of the University
of Oxford, on the death of Egerton Lord-Chancellor Ellesmere.
He was opposed to the Spanish interest. He died April 10th,
1630, at his house, Baynard's Castle, on the banks of the
Thames.
The Earl of Essex was the restored son of the late Earl
who was beheaded in 1601. He was of Merton College,
Oxford. He, after having been appointed Lord-Chamberlain
to Charles I., went over to the Parliament. He was sworn
of the King's Privy Council in 1641, when indeed the King
was endeavouring to make himself popular. The King
however took all by demanding the six members of the House
of Commons to be delivered up to him on a charge of treason,
the Lord Kimbolton, Denzil Hollis, Sir Arthur Heselrige,
Pym, Hampden, and Strode, on January 3, 1642. These
were followed by as unconstitutional acts on the part of the
Commons.1 The King now tempted Essex to disloyalty, by
requiring of him and the Earl of Holland to resign the staff
and key of their offices. So he accepted in the course of
this year the command of the Parliamentarian army. The
Earl laid down his command on the 2nd April 1644, which
was taken up by Sir Thomas Fairfax. He was unwelcome
to Cromwell and all the more violent of the popular party;
the more moderate lost a firm friend by his death, September
14, 1647.
Charles Howard, son of Lord William Howard Baron of
Effingham, was bora in 1536, and early served at sea under
his father. He was highly serviceable in putting down the
insurrection in the north under the Earl of Warwick, against
the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland. He suc
ceeded to his father's title on his death in 1572, having been
elected to represent Surrey in Parliament in the preceding
year. He was made Chamberlain of the Household in
1573, and K.G., and in 1585 Lord High-Admiral. He
signalized himself and did immortal service to his country
in the memorable year of the Armada, 1588, and again
chastising the Spanish in 1596, he was in 1598 created Earl
of Nottingham. He was as humane as he was valorous.
In 1590, a time of renewed apprehension from the Spaniards,
he was made Lord-Lieutenant of all England. In 1600 he
quelled the insurrection of the Earl of Essex, but shewed
his magnanimity by treating the Earl with the greatest
kindness possible. He was employed at the Spanish court
by James, and received with the greatest respect. He was one
of the greatest of that age of great men, and lived to enjoy
his honours and the veneration of his country for an unusual
period. He died December 14th, 1624, aged 88.
Charles Blount the eighth Lord Mount] oy, created after
wards Earl of Devonshire, was born in 1563, being the second
son of James Lord Mount] oy. He was of the University
of Oxford, M.A. June 16th, 1589.1 He studied also at
the Inner Temple. He was early a favourite at court, and
was one of the volunteers who engaged in pursuit of the
Armada with ships at their own charge. He served in the
House of Commons until 1594, when he succeeded to his
brother's title of Lord Mountjoy, and was made Governor of
Portsmouth. In 1597 he was made K.G., and was employed
in the expedition to the Azores. In 1599 he was made
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, which was subdued to order
under his government. He was continued in this office by
James I., appointed one of his Privy Councillors, and on
July 21, 1603, created Earl of Devonshire. He died in the
prime of life at the Savoy, April 3, 1606, and was buried
with great pomp in St. Paul's chapel in the Abbey.
Philip Herbert Earl of Montgomery was younger brother
of William Earl of Pembroke. Antony Wood is unsparing
in his attacks upon his memory, as one so intolerably choleric,
quarrelsome and offensive while he was Lord-Chamberlain to
Charles I., ll that he did not refrain to break many wiser
heads than his own."
The Earl of Perth was James Baron Drummond, whom
the King had advanced to that Earldom. Drimein Castle,
on the banks of the Earn in the old district of Strathern, was
the ancient seat of this family, tc advanced to highest honours
ever since that King Robert Steward the third took to him
a wife out of that lineage."
With these noblemen were Lord Knowles Treasurer of
his Majesty's household; Lord Wotton Comptroller of his
Majesty's household; Lord Erskine Captain of the yeomen
of the guard; the learned Lord Buckhurst son of the Earl
of Dorset ; and Lords Monteagle and Haddington.
Sir William Knowles (formerly Knolles) resided at Greys
Rotherfield, near Henley-on-Thames. He was created Baron
Knowles May 3, 1603, Viscount Wallingford 1616, and Earl
of Banbury by Charles I. in 1626. He had been of Magda
lene College, Oxford.
Sir Edward Wotton had been Comptroller of the household
to Queen Elizabeth, was of the Wotton family of Boughton
Malherb near Lenham in Kent, and had been created by
James Baron Wotton of Merlay, or Marley. His son and
heir Thomas Lord Wotton died in the sixth year of Charles I.,
leaving four daughters his coheirs, of whom Catherine the
eldest married Henry Lord Stanhope. So the title became
extinct.
Lord Erskine, originally Sir Thomas Erskine, was second
son of Sir Alexander Erskine of Gogar or Gogyr in Edin-
burgshire, an ancient parish now included in that of Costor-
phine. He was born in 1566, the same year with the King,
and was brought up with him from his childhood. The
King, who was not insensible to kindly affections, appointed
him one of the gentlemen of his bed-chamber 1585. He had
charters of Mitchellis, Eastertown and Westertown in the
county of Kincardine, 17th October 1594, of Windingtown
and Windingtown Hall, June 1st, 1598, and of Easterrow in
Perthshire, 15 January, 1599. He was one of the happy
instruments in the rescue of the King from the treasonable
attempt of the Earl of Gowrie and his brother Alexander
Ruthven of Perth, August 5th, 1600, and killed Euthven
with his own hand. For this signal service he had the third
part of the Lordship of Dirleton, belonging to Gowrie, conferred
on him by charter dated 15th November 1600, and in warran-
dice thereof the King's barony of Corritown in Stirlingshire.
In that charter he is designated eldest lawful son of the
deceased Alexander Erskine, Master of Marr. He accom-
panied the Duke of Lenox in his embassy to France in
July 1601. Attending James into England, he was in 1603
constituted Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard in the room
of Sir Walter Raleigh, and held that command until 1632.
He was created a Knight of the Bath at the King's coronation,
raised to the peerage with the title of Lord Dirleton, and
admitted a Privy Councillor. In 1606 he was appointed
Groom of the Stole, and created Viscount Fentown or Fenton,
18th May, being the first who was raised to that order of
nobility in Scotland. In 1615 he was made K.G., and
on March 12, 1619, Earl of Killie, a district of Fifeshire,
and formerly called Kellieshire. He had charters of Ey croft
16th July 1622, and of the barony of Restersrioth May 13th,
1624. He married Anne daughter of Gilbert Ogilvie, of
Powrie, esq., by whom he had one son and one daughter.
He died in London, June 12th, 1639, in his 73rd year, and
was buried at Pittenweem in Fifeshire. His descendants
suffered greatly for their loyalty to both Charles I. and II.
William Parker Lord Monteagle was eldest son of Edmund
Parker Lord Morley, who married the sole daughter and
heir of William Stanley Lord Monteagle, fifth son of Thomas
Earl of Derby. Lord Morley lived at a house at Mile End
Green, died at Stepney April 1, 1628, and was buried in
Stepney church. He had a grant of £200. a-year in land,
and a pension of £500. per annum for life, as a reward for
discovering the letter that led to the detection of the Gun
powder Plot in 1605. On his father's death in 1618 he
succeeded to the barony of Morley. He married Elizabeth
daughter of Sir Thomas Tresham, by whom he had three
sons and two daughters. Catherine married John Savage
Earl Rivers, from whom descended George Pitt, created
Baron Rivers 1776, who was coheir to the baronies of Morley
and Monteagle. However they were not revived in him,
but the title of Monteagle was conferred upon the Rt. Hon.
T. S. Rice in 1839, as a descendant of Sir Stephen Rice,
Chief Baron of the Irish Exchequer, created Lord Monteagle
by James II.
Lord Monteagle died at Haslingbury Morley in Essex,
the residence of the Barons Morley, now called Hallingbury
near Hatfield Broad Oak.
Viscount Haddington had as Sir John Ramsey defended
the King in the Gowrie conspiracy.
Of the ladies who graced the procession, Sir Isaac Wake
is most lavish in his praises of the beautiful and accomplished
Arabella Stuart, who afterward, as being descended from
Henry VII. , suffered so severely from the jealousy of King
James. Next are recounted Lucy Countess of Bedford, " dear
to the Muses." As servants of the Muses both Donne and
Daniel have transmitted her name to posterity. She was
daughter of John Lord Harrington of Exton in Rutlandshire,
to whom and to her mother, brother, and sister she erected
a costly tomb at Exton, sculptured by Nicholas Stone,
statuary to the King, at the cost of £1020.
With her are mentioned the Countesses of Suffolk, Not
tingham, and Montgomery. The Countess of Suffolk was
celebrated for her beauty and also for her rapacity. Pennant,
in his Journey from Chester to London,lidiS given an engraved
portrait of her from a painting at Gorhambury.
The Countess of Nottingham was the Earl's second wife,
a young Scotch lady, Margaret daughter of James Stuart
Earl of Murray, by Elizabeth daughter and coheir of James
Earl of Murray natural son to James V. of Scotland.
The Countess of Montgomery was the Lady Susan Vere,
daughter of Edward Earl of Oxford, the poet, by his first
wife Anne the daughter of Lord Burleigh. She was born
26 May 1587, and married to Philip Herbert Earl of Mont
gomery on St. John the Evangelist's Day, December 27th,
1604.
And now they approach the suburb of St. Giles, and see,
says Sir Isaac Wake, how fitly this ancient city was termed
Bellositum, a name however of comparatively modern date,
perhaps suggested by the name of the palace of Henry I.,
Beaumont, the birthplace of the valorous Richard Cceur de
Lion. Camden delights to record the beauty and salubrity
of the situation of this venerable and interesting city: a fair
and goodly city, whether a man respect the seemly beauty
of private houses, or the stately magnificence of public
buildings, together with the wholesome site or pleasant
prospect thereof. For the hills beset with woods do so
environ the plain, that as on the one side they exclude the
pestilent south wind, and the tempestuous west wind on the
other, so they let in the clearing east wind only, and the
north-east wind withal, which is free from all corruption."
It was an important city in the times of the Saxons, in
fact, one of the chief cities of England. Of fourteen of the
present churches, the majority was represented by eight
churches before the Conquest, namely, St. Peter' s-in-the-East,
St. Mary's, Carfax, St. Aldate's, St. Ebb's, St. Peter's-le-
Bailey, St. Mary Magdalene, and St. Michael. There were
also formerly several other churches, as another St. Michael,
near the South-gate, St. George since represented by the recent
church of St. George, an excellent specimen of the decorated
or curvilinear style as revived in the nineteenth century, a
monument of the good taste of the architect, and of the
munificence of the Kev. Jacob Ley, the present incumbent
of St. Mary Magdalene's. Add to these St. Budoc's, St.
Edward, St. Mildred,1 and St. Frideswide, now the Cathedral.
Down to 1771 the North and East gates were still standing,
the north joining the old church of St. Michael with its
Saxon tower, the east a little to the east of Coach-and-Horses-
lane leading to King-street, in which stand St. Alban Hall,
Merton, Corpus Christi, and Oriel Colleges. The South and
West gates, as also Little-gate, had been removed by the
middle of the last century. The West gate stood at the junc
tion of St. Ebbe's and Castle-street, in the neighbourhood of
the Franciscan Monastery or Grey Friars. In their church
was buried the celebrated Roger Bacon in 1292. Paradise
Garden, once the garden of the monks, still remains to the
south of the Castle. The site of Little-gate below St.
Ebbe's still retains its name. And just below Christ Church
Almshouses formerly stood the South-gate, and near it another
church dedicated to St. Michael.2
When the royal party entered Oxford by the road to the
west of which stand the Observatory and Infirmary, they
found the way lined on each side with the students in their
several university habits. Now might St. Giles, says Sir
Isaac Wake, have looked for the restitution of its ancient
honours. For there was a tradition that there was once
another church, of which this took the place although nearer
or within the city, which had the honour of being the Uni
versity Church before that privilege was divided between
St. Mary's and St. Peter's-in-the-East.3 The whole line of
street from St. Giles' to the Bocardo, even to the South-gate,
hard by which the King was to enter Christ Church, was
graced with members of the University, Doctors, Bachelors of
Divinity, Law, &c., all in their proper habits, all exulting at
the presence of their royal patrons. At St. John's College
fifty of the members, with the President, Ralph Hutchinson,1
came forth to congratulate their sovereign. Three youths
apparelled as three sybils came forth out of the quadrangle,
and recited, each having his several part, some Latin verses
annexed by their author Dr. Gwynne to his Vertumnus,
printed in 4to. 1607.2 These are founded upon the legend
of Macbeth and Bancho, who are said to have been met by
three sybils, who foretold that Macbeth should be a king, but
without any to succeed him, and that from Bancho, who
should not be a king himself, should descend a race of Princes.
When the King had passed through North-gate and had
come to Carfax (Quatre Vois), so called from the four prin
cipal streets meeting at that point, where on the east side of
St. Martin's stood Pennyless Beach, chiefly known to modern
readers by T. Warton's humorous description of it in his
Companion to the Guide, and Guide to the Companion. At
this point Dr. John Perin of St. John's College, who had the
year previously resigned the College living of Wartling in
Sussex (not Watling, as in Wood's Fasti, vol. i. p. 273), but
now no longer in the hands of that Society, and who was now
Greek Professor and Canon of Christ Church, addressed the King
in Greek in a brief and apposite oration. And now the King
entered the great gateway of Christ Church, not as yet adorned
with that light and lofty tower which now evinces the origi
nality of the great classical architect Sir Christopher Wren.
Sir Christopher was B.A. of Wadham College March 18,
1650, and afterwards Fellow of All Souls. He erected the
tower, with the upper parts of the two turrets which flank the
entrance, in 1682. The father of the celebrated Dr. Henry
Hammond was present on this occasion. He was Dr. John
Hammond, M.D. of the University of Cambridge, and Phy
sician to the King and to Prince Henry. He commended
Perin's oration as being in good familiar Greek. The King
heard him willingly, and the Queen still more so, as she said
that she had never heard that language before. At the foot
of the hall stairs thrones were erected for the King, Queen,
and Prince, and Mr., afterwards Sir, Isaac Wake made a Latin
oration. He was of Merton College, and had been elected
Orator in the preceding year. In 1609 he travelled in France
and Italy, and on his return became secretary to Sir Dudley
Carleton, at that time Secretary of State. He was after
wards ambassador to Venice, Savoy, and elsewhere. He was
knighted April 19, 1619, before proceeding to Savoy. In
1623 he was elected M.P. for the University of Oxford.
Some few years after this Anthony Sleep, M.A., of Trinity
College, Cambridge, was Deputy Orator in that University.
The King is said to have often remarked upon the two Orators
Wake and. Sleep; that Wake had a good Ciceronian style, but
his utterance and matter were so grave, that when he spake
before him he was apt to sleep; but Sleep the Deputy Orator
of Cambridge was quite contrary, for he never spake but he
kept him awoke, and made him apt to laugh.1 In his
oration Wake commended the King as being after Plato's
mind, a lover of wisdom,2 whence the title of his very amusing
and learned narration of this royal progress, Rex Platonicus.
He also took this opportunity of returning thanks as Public
Orator for the favour which the King had shewn the Univer
sity by conferring upon it the right of sending two repre
sentatives to Parliament.3
The King with a benignant smile evinced his readiness
to encourage the genial eloquence of the Public Orator, which
was followed up by loud and universal acclamations, im
ploring long life, glory, and eternal happiness for the King,
the Queen and Prince. The King was then conducted to
the venerable Cathedral. Before the doors splendid cushions
were placed, upon which the King offered his devotions
previously to entering in. The royal party proceeded up
the nave toward the choir under a rich canopy of crimson
taffety, carried on six staves gilt with silver, surmounted
with great silver knobs and pikes, borne by six Doctors of
Divinity in their scarlet costume. Stringer says that they
were six out of the eight canons of the Cathedral.
On each side of the nave stood the members of the College
in surplices and hoods, and the younger nobility, members
of the University, Thomas Lord Wentworth, of Nettlestead
to the north-west of Ipswich, O'Bryen Lord Thomond, de
scended of the ancient kings of Ireland, the two brothers
Somerset, and the two Stewarts, the Seymours and Sack-
villes, and the Lords Dudley and Grey.1
Just as the King was about to enter the choir Dr. King
the Dean, who was six years after raised to the see of
London, presented the King on his knees with a little book
of congratulatory verses ; the Latin verses to the King are
given by Sir Isaac Wake in his Rex Platonicus? The two
other addresses in English he presented to the Queen and
Prince. Dr. John Bridges, formerly a Fellow of Pembroke
Hall, Cambridge, afterward Dean of Salisbury, and with
Cooper Bishop of Lincoln a defender of the Church against
Martin Mar-Prelate, and now Bishop of Oxford, with the
Dean and Canons, assembled with the rest of the procession
in the choir, where the King heard divers anthems, probably
far superior to the popular adaptations of Mozart, Beethoven
and Mendelssohn now in use in our Universities. It was
the age of true Church musicians, when the marvellous Dr.
Bull3 was the King's chief Organist, and Morley, Dowland,
and the gifted family of the Tomkyns, and the brothers
Weelkes, and the other madrigalists who celebrated the
Triumph of Oriana, were rivalling the continental composers.
At this time William Stonard was organist of the Cathedral,
some of whose works remain in the Music School at Oxford,
sent by Walter Porter" (son of Henry Porter of Christ
Church, and gentleman of the Royal Chapel to Charles I.,
and Master of the Choristers, Westminster Abbey) lt to his
kinsman John Wilson, Doctor of Music and the public
Professor of the praxis of that faculty in Oxon, to be reposed
and kept for ever in the archives of the said school." Stonard
composed certain divine services and anthems, the words of
some of which are in Clifford's Collection of Divine Services and
Anthems, 1663. Of Dr. John Wilson, u now," says Anthony
Wood, of 1644, t( the most noted musician of England,"
Wood gives an account in his Fasti under that year, from
which we learn that by the mediation of Mr. Thomas Barlow,
then Lecturer of Churchill, Oxfordshire, afterward Provost
of Queens' (his) College at Oxford and Bishop of Lincoln,
with Dr. John Owen then Dean of Christ Church, he was
made Professor of Music in 1656. He had rooms allowed
him in Balliol College, was an industrious composer of music
both sacred and secular, and died, aged 78 years, Feb. 22nd,
1674, at his house at the Horse Ferry within the liberty
of Westminster. He was buried in the Little Cloisters of
the Abbey.
At Magdalene College, Richard Nicholson, B. Mus. and
Professor of 'Music, was organist. He was a madrigalist
and a contributor to the Triumphs of Oriana.
And now, after the Dean had officiated in the liturgy,
in the course of which other instruments were used in addition
to the organ, the King and Queen retired to their lodgings
at the Deanery. The Prince was accompanied through the
High-street and the Eastgate to Magdalene College. Thither
he was attended by the Earl of Worcester and Lord Knowles,
the Earls of Oxford and Essex, William Viscount Cranborne,
son and heir to Cecil Earl of Salisbury, Sheffield, Har
rington, Howard and Bruce, with the other flower of the
nobility, and with his honorary guardian Sir Thomas Cha-
loner,1 who had himself been educated at Magdalene College.
At the College gate the Prince was received by Dr. Nicholas
Bond, the President, who was Kector of Brightwell, Berks,
May 3, 1586, Chaplain to the Queen, and Prebendary of the
fifth stall at Westminster, 1582. He was constituted Presi
dent of Magdalene College by the Queen, by lapse, against
the will of the College.1 He died February 8, 1608, and
was buried in the College chapel.
The Rev. James Mable, a noted wit and orator, who was
afterwards made Prebendary of Wells, accosted the Prince
with an elegant oration. Verses were affixed to the
walls in honour of his arrival. Thence he was conducted
to the cloistered quadrangle, the most beautiful and truly
collegiate court of any university. Having surveyed these
incomparable structures and the hieroglyphical figures, the
statue of Moses whereby is represented Theology, with those
of the lawyer, the physician, the schoolmaster, the fool
making a mock of learning, the lion, the pelican, indicating
the duty of masters and teachers sternly to set themselves
against the evil-disposed youth, and to nourish the good
as parents, the Prince is conducted to his apartments in
the President's lodge. No sooner does the lodge receive
him than the College entertains him with the academic fare
of scholastic disputations. William Seymou*, second son
of Edward Lord Beauchamp and grandson of Edward Earl
of Hertford, performed the part of respondent. The opponents
were Charles Somerset sixth son of the Earl of Worcester,
Edward Seymour eldest son of the Lord Beauchamp, Mr.
Robert Gorge son of sir Thomas Gorge by the Marchioness
of Northampton, two sons of Sir Thomas Chaloner, and
Mr. William Borlace son of a Knight; to all of whom, in
testimony of his approbation, the Prince gave his hand to
kiss. The Prince then returned to the King at Christ Church,
in the hall of which a Latin Comedy, entitled Vertumnus,
was acted by the students of that College. It began between
nine and ten, and ended at one. Its tediousness and other
uninviting features are said to have wearied the royal party.
But this is on the authority of the Cambridge critic given
in NicholFs Progresses. A more favourable account is given
by Sir Isaac Wake, to whom we remit the reader.
On Wednesday, the 28th of August, the bell rang at
seven to an English sermon at All Saints. About nine
the King came in great state to St. Mary's ; the Earl of
Southampton was sword-bearer for this day. In St. Mary's
the Prince sat on the King's right hand, and on his left
Christopher de Harlay Count de Beaumont, ambassador
from the court of France, and Nicolo Malino, ambassador
from that of Venice.
The two theses for the disputants were, Saints and Angels
have no knowledge of the thoughts of men's hearts, and,
The Pastors of the Church are not bound to visit the sick
whilst a pestilence is raging. The respondent was Dr. John
Aglionby, Principal of St. Edmund Hall. Dr. Aglionby
was of Cumberland, had taken his degrees as a member and
Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford, and had been admitted
to the Principalship of St. Edmund Hall, April 4, 1601,
being at that time chaplain to the Queen. James continued
him as one of his chaplains, and appointed him one of the
translators of the Bible, for he bore a high character for
the vastness of his theological learning. He died Feb. 6,
1610, and was buried in the chancel of Islip church near
Oxford, of which church he had been Kector. His son
I George was educated at Westminster School and at Christ-
| church, where he was entered in 1619. Lord Falkland,
(when he visited Oxford, especially sought the company of
(George Aglionby. He was appointed tutor to George the
Duke of Buckingham, after he had taken his B.A.
at Christclmrch in 1623. In 1638 he was made a Preben
dary of Westminster, and in 1642, whilst attending the court
at Oxford, was nominated Dean of Canterbury, but never
installed. He died not long after, in November 1643, in his
40th year, and was buried in Christclmrch Cathedral, near
Bishop King's monument in the south aisle, but without
any memorial.
The opponents were :
1. Dr. Thomas Holland, who, when Fellow of Balliol Col
lege, had been appointed Eegius Professor of Divinity in 1589,
on the death of the celebrated Lawrence Humphrey of Magda
lene College. He took all his degrees at Balliol College, and
was elected Rector of Exeter College on the death of Thomas
Glasier, LL.D., late of Christchurch, by virtue of the Queen's
letters written in his behalf April 24, 1592. He died
March 17, 1612, and was buried in the chancel of St. Mary's,
Oxford. Wood says of him, " He was esteemed by the
precise men of his time, and after, another Apollos mighty
in Scriptures, and so familiar with the Fathers, as if he
himself was a Father ; and in the schoolmen, as if he had
been the Seraphical Doctor"1 He is said by Wood to have
been a predestinarian of the higher or supra-lapsarian kind,
as was his predecessor Humphrey. In this respect Wood2
distinguishes them from the pious and learned Abbot after
ward Bishop of Salisbury, and, like Holland, of Balliol
College. In Fuller's Abel Eedivivus he is by a mistake said
to have been educated at Exeter College. It is reported
of him that when he went any journey, he would call the
Fellows of his College together, and commend them to the
love of God, and to the hatred of Popery and superstition.
He spent all his time in his declining health in fervent prayers
and heavenly meditations, and when his end drew near, often
sighed out, Come, 0 come, Lord Jesus f I desire to be dissolved
and to be with thee. He died in his 74th year.3
2. Dr. Giles Thompson, Dean of Windsor, and in 1611
Bishop of Gloucester. He was B.A. of University College,
Oxford, July 5, 1575, and B.D. of All Souls' College, March 21,
1591 ; Bp. Andre wes assisted at his consecration to Gloucester
June 9, 1611. Andrewes, now Dean of Westminster, came
to Oxford, but probably on the Thursday, for Buckeridge
relates in his Funeral Sermon, that " when he came to Oxford
attending King James in the end of his progress, his custom
was to send fifty pound to be distributed among poor scholars."1
3. Dr. Field, Chaplain to the King. He was first entered
at Magdalene College, but was B.A. of Magdalene Hall,
November 8, 1581, M.A. June 2, 1584, B.D. January 14,
1593, D.D. of Queen's College, December 7, 1596. No
divine of his own or of any age rendered a greater theological
service to the Church than did Dr. Field, by his comprehensive
Treatise on the Church of Christ. It first appeared in 4to.
A copy of the volume in 4to. is to be seen in the library
of Magdalene Hall. The next was a much enlarged edition.
The third was published at Oxford in 1635. But as he took
a more hostile view of the Church of Kome, and one more
agreeable to the faith of his own Church than that of the
courtiers in the following reign, his work fell for a while into
unmerited neglect. It has been more than once reprinted
in the present century, and is a library of itself. James was
not insensible to his merits. He admired his preaching, and
appointed him Dean of Gloucester 1609, as he had also been
previously appointed Canon of Windsor 1603, having had
a grant from Elizabeth, 30th March 1602, of the next vacant
prebend. He was born at Hemel Hempstead, Herts. He
spent his time partly at Windsor, partly on his living in
Hampshire. He died November 20, 1626, and was buried
in St. George's, Windsor.
4. Dr. John Harding, Kegius Professor of Hebrew, to
which Professorship he was appointed whilst Fellow of Mag
dalene College, 21 September 1591. He resigned in 1598.
and was succeeded by William Thorne, A.M., Fellow of New
College, 27 July 1598.2 Thorne resigned in 1604, and
Harding had the Professorship conferred upon him a second
time.1 Harding was Proctor in 1589. He was a native
of Hampshire, and succeeded Dr. Bond in the Presidentship
of Magdalene College, February 22, 1608. He was one
of the translators of the Old Testament. He died in 1610.
5. Dr. George Byves, Warden of New College December
1599, on the resignation of Dr. Cole or Culpepper, Dean of
Chichester and Archdeacon of Berkshire. He held, as did his
two predecessors Whyte and Colepepper, the rectories of
Staunton St. John's Oxfordshire, and of Colerne (Wilts) near
Chippenham. He was preferred to the fourth stall at Win
chester, November 17, 1598, on the promotion of Dr. Cotton
to the see of Salisbury. He died May 31, 1613, and was
buried at Hornchurch, Essex, without any memorial.
6. Dr. Henry Airay, Provost of Queen's College, where
he had taken all his degrees. He was born in Westmoreland
1560, and educated under the apostolic Bernard Gilpin, by
whom he was sent at the age of nineteen to Oxford. He first
studied at St. Edmund Hall, but removed thence to Queen's
College before he took his B.A. which was on June 19,
1583. He succeeded Dr. Henry Kobinson, Bishop of Carlisle,
as Provost of his College, March 9, 1599. Laud was con
vened before him for his sermon in 1606, in which year
he was Yice-Chancellor.
He was himself of Puritan tendencies, and wrote against
bowing at the name of Jesus. His name still survives as
a commentator upon the Epistle to the Philippians.2 He
died October 10, 1616, aged 57, and was buried in his college
chapel. Christopher Potter, a Fellow of his college, erected
a monument to his memory in the old chapel. The old
chapel was begun before 1355; the new chapel on February 6,
1714, the anniversary of Queen Anne's birthday. Dr. Airay
bequeathed lands in the parish of Garsington, Oxfordshire,
to his college. Christopher Potter was much his junior,
being B.A. of Queen's College August 30, 1610. He suc
ceeded Barnabas Potter (Array's successor), Bishop of Carlisle,
as Provost of his college, June 17, 1626. He was appointed
Dean of Worcester 1635, and of Durham 1645, but died the
3rd of March following, before his installation. He was
Kector of Blechingdon, Oxfordshire, which belongs to Queen's
College.
7. Dr. Gordon Huntley, Dean of Sarum, who has been
previously noticed. He was now actually created a Doctor
of Divinity, with the ancient ceremonies of putting on the
hood, the square cap, the gold ring,1 the boots,2 the delivering
the Holy Scriptures into the Doctor's hands ; then the Yice-
Chancellor kisses his son, as the newly created Doctor is
styled, and concludes with giving him his solemn benediction.
A trumpet is now sounded, and Dr. Holland calls forth the
disputants. The respondent proclaims the theses aloud in
Latin verse. He then proceeds to maintain the first thesis,
quoting 1 Kings viii. 39, Whose heart thou Jcnowest; 1 Cor.
ii. 11, For what man Jcnoweth the things of a man, save the
spirit of man tvhich is in him? and Jer. xvii. 9, 10, The
heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked : who
can know it ? I the LORD search the heart; I try the reins.
That the dead (the saints) have no knowledge of men's
hearts, Dr. Field confirms out of St. Augustine, in the 22nd
chapter of the Appendix to his third Book. Bellarmine
indeed, after the manner of Komish controversialists, charged
Melancthon with falsehood for having asserted in his Loci
Theologicij that the papists attributed to the saints the power
of knowing the thoughts of men's minds ; yet in his answer
to the third argument, in the 20th chapter of his first Book
on the Blessedness of the Saints, he himself expressly affirmed
such a power, as Dr. John Gerhard shews in his Confessio
Catholica.3
Holland, Gordon, Field, and Ryves were the opponents
in the first; Thompson, Harding, and Airay in the second
thesis. The King himself, with the Scriptures in his hand,
took part in these exercises, examining the quotations and com
menting upon the arguments. Wake has given his obser-
vations upon the second thesis, which was maintained in the
negative. Bishop Andrewes, in his Parochial Circulars,
expressly exempted his clergy from visiting in a time of
pestilence. The King answered the passage in St. James,
Ts any among you sick, let him call for the elders of the
churchj &c.j that those who were called in that age were
called not only to pray, but also to heal. Finally, Dr. Abbot
the Vice-Chancellor gave his own learned determination upon
the two questions.
After the King had dined he came again about two, with
the Queen and Prince, to hear two disputations in the Civil
Law. The questions were, first, Whether in giving judgment
a judge is invariably bound by the legal proofs in opposition
to the truth, of which he is privately assured ? And secondly,
Whether covenants are of the nature of good faith or strict
law ? The first was affirmed ; the second was decided in
favour of sincere intention and candid, in contradistinction
to legal, interpretation. The moderator was Dr. Alberic
Gentilis,1 who, after he had been created D.C.L. at Perugia
in 1572, came over to England on account of his religion,
and obtained permission in 1580 to reside at Oxford. Queen
Elizabeth appointed him Eegius Professor of Civil Law
8th June 1587. His learned writings were all the fruit of
his tranquil studies at Oxford. He died in the beginning
of 1611, and was buried in the Cathedral.
The respondent was Dr. Anthony Blencoe, Provost of
King's or Oriel College or Hall Royal, for all these names
have been applied to Oriel. He had held the Provostship
from February 4, 1573, having previously served the office
of Proctor in 1571 and 1572. He died January 25, 1618, and
was buried in St. Mary's church, which belongs to his
college.
The opponents were :
1. William Bird, D.C.L., of All Souls1 College, son
of William Bird of Walden in Essex. He was D.C.L.
February 13, 1588, and afterwards principal Official and Dean
of the Arches, a Knight, and Judge of the Prerogative Court
of Canterbury. He died without issue, and was buried
in Christ Church, Newgate Street, London, 5 Sept. 1624.
His nephew, William Bird, D.C.L. of All Souls' College
July 4, 1622, was son of Thomas Bird of Littlebury near
Saffron Walden, was Master of the Prerogative Court of
Canterbury, and died on the 28th November 1639, aged 51,
and was buried in Littlebury church.
2. John Weston, of Christ Church, the only son of Robert,
who was Chancellor of Ireland, D.C.L. 1590. His father
Robert was D.C.L. of All Souls' July 8, 1556. He con
formed to the Protestant religion, and was made Dean of
Wells 1570. He was for six years Chancellor of Ireland,
died there 20 May 1573, and was buried in St. Patrick's
Dublin.1 John Weston was first M.A., and on July 14,
1590, D.C.L. of Christ Church, Oxford. He was installed
Canon of the sixth stall of Christ Church September 3, 1591,
and was eighteen years Treasurer of that church. He died
July 20, 1632, being about eighty years old. His epitaph
records his virtues worthy of his descent, his Ciceronian
eloquence, his aptness in casuistry, his truly Christian life,
and the painful disease that carried him to his grave.2
3. Henry Martin, of New College, D.C.L. 1592, being
at that time an eminent advocate at Doctors' Commons, as
afterwards in the High Commission Court. He became
successively Official of the Archdeacon of Berkshire, King's
Advocate, Chancellor of London, Judge of the Admiralty
Court, twice Dean of the Arches, a Knight Dec. 21, 1616,
and in 1624 Judge of the Prerogative Courts. Bishop An-
drewes left him a mourning ring. He died in 1641, aged 81. 3
4. James Hussey of New College, D.C.L. 1600, Principal
of Magdalene Hall 1602, having been previously a Fellow
of New College and Registrary of the University. He after
wards became Chancellor of Salisbury, was knighted Nov. 9,
1619, and made a Master in Chancery. He died of the
plague at Oxford the day after his arrival, July 11, 1625,
and was buried late at night in St. Mary's Church without
any funeral rites. He died in New College, and shortly after
Dr. Chaloner, Principal of St. Alban Hall, who had supped
that night with him, died also.
5. John Budden, D.C.L., B.A. of Trinity College, Oxford,
Oct. 19, 1586, but M.A. of Gloucester Hall (now Worcester
College) June 27, 1589. He was B.C.L. of Magdalene
College July 8, 1602. He became Philosophy Reader at
Magdalene College, was made Principal of New Inn Hall
June 28, 1609, there being then neither gentleman-commoner
nor commoner at New Inn Hall. He was son of John
Budden of Canford in Dorsetshire. He was admitted at
Merton College at the Michaelmas Term 1582, and thence
to a scholarship at Trinity College May 30, 1583. He was
D.C.L. 1602 5 in 1611 was appointed Regius Professor of
Civil Law, then Principal of Broadgate's Hall, to which
Pembroke College has succeeded. He died there June 11,
1620, and was buried in the chancel of St. Aldate's Church.
6. Oliver Lloyd, D.C.L. 1602, of All Souls. He was
afterwards Chancellor of Hereford, Canon of Windsor 1615,
May, 20, Dean of Hereford 1617, in which city he died
in 1625.
The second question is thus put in Wake : lt Whether
a stranger and an enemy detained by contrary winds in an
enemy's port beyond the time of an armistice, may be lawfully
killed by the inhabitants of that port ? The respondent held
the negative. The King interposed in this dispute, alleging
the saying of one, that he who judges against his conscience
builds for hell. He instanced in the unjust judgment passed
upon our Lord himself, and thus, as Wake remarks, con
firmed the words of another, who asked, What shall become
of the good citizen when the evil spirits shall have carried
away the bad man to hell f
In regard of the second question the King said, that
a prisoner detained unawares should be remitted by the
judge to the King, who can and ought to save his life. Alas
that the King did not always exemplify his own wise dicta,
but forgot both law and equity when he was tempted to
forfeit the life of a subject, as in the case of Sir Walter
Raleigh.
The evening drew on as Gentilis concluded the Act. In
the course of the Act the scholars gave & plaudits; the graver
men cried out Vivat Rex, and on the King speaking a third
time there was a general acclamation. After supper the
Ajax flagellifer was acted in the Hall of Christ Church. The
stage was varied thrice, and the actors were all clad in
suitably antique apparel. The name alone was borrowed
from Sophocles.
On Thursday the 29th, the Physic Act commenced at
nine at St. Mary's, and lasted until noon. The two questions
were: 1. Whether the dispositions of nurses were imbibed
with their milk? 2. Whether the frequent use of tobacco
was good for persons in health? The moderator was Dr.
Bartholomew Warner of St. John's College, Regius Professor
of Medicine 1597, and in 1617 superior Reader of Linacre's
Lecture. He died January 26, 1619, and was buried in
St. Mary Magdalene's Church, Oxford.
The respondent was the munificent Sir William Paddy,
M.D. of Oxford and Leyden, President of the College of
Physicians, of St. John's College, Oxford, and Physician
to the King, whom he attended on his death-bed. He was
of the county of Oxford. He was a great, and one of the
first benefactors to the Bodleian Library, although by an
oversight not mentioned as such in Dr. Ingram's very valuable
Memorials of Oxford. He has, however, not omitted to
commemorate his bounty to his college, where on the south
wall of the chapel is his monument, with an epitaph recording
his legacy of £2800. (a great sum in those days) for the
endowing of the choir, after having provided the college with
an organ. He left also £150. for the encouragement of
learning. His will, says Dr. Ingram, is dated Dec. 10, 1634,
in his 81st year, in which year he died.
The opponents were:
1. Dr. Matthew Gwinne, B.A. of St. John's College
May 14, 1578, M.A. May 4, 1582, Proctor April 17, 1588,
B.M. July 17, 1593, and M.D. on the same day. He was
the author of Vertumnus. He was Physician to the Tower
of London, the first Professor of Medicine at Gresham Col
lege, and a member of the College of Physicians. He died
in 1627.
2. Anthony Aylworth, M.D. 1582, of New College, Phy
sician to Queen Elizabeth, and Regius Professor of Medicine
in the University of Oxford, 29th June, 1582. He resigned
his Professorship to Dr. Warner of St. John's College 1597.
He was of an ancient family in Gloucestershire, born in London,
educated at Winchester School and New College. He " died
happily in the Lord" April 18, 1619. He had disputed
before Elizabeth in 1592. His two sons, Martin the elder
and Antony the younger, survived him. Martin erected
a memorial to him in New College Chapel, and was D.C.L.
of All Souls' College, Nov. 27, 1621.
3. John Gifford, also M.D. of New College, December 7,
1598, a member of the College of Physicians. li He died in
a good old age in 1647, and was buried in the parish Church
of Hornchurch in Essex, near to the body of his wife."1
4. Henry Ash worth, M.D. of Oriel College August 13,
1605. He rose to eminent practice in Cat-street, (to the
east of the present Eadcliff Library) where his son Francis
was born.2
5. John Cheynell, M.D. of Corpus Christi College
August 13, 1605. Cheynell extolled the virtues of the ob
noxious weed above all others, and with his pipe in his hand
suited the action to the word, not however omitting to vindi
cate in the sequel the royal aversion to tobacco. Wake, who
was one of those serious men who could enjoy if he could
not make a joke, has not lost this opportunity of enlivening
his narration by ample notes of the King's facetiousness
as well as the Professor's. Warner, in his peroration, ex
horted both sexes to wreak their vengeance on their pipes
by every term of reprobation which he could bring together.3
The Act concluded, the King went to New College, then
more faithfully displaying the consummate skill of its munifi-
cent architect and founder than now, when it has lost so
many of its ancient features, and has been enlarged in a more
modern style, yet venerable and majestic, and adorned as
much by nature as by art, owing more than can be expressed
to its beautiful gardens, the most impressive, although not
the most extensive in the University. At New College the
noble Chancellor kept open house daily during the King's
visit. Verses were attached to 'the walls of the college. Dr.
Kyves, the Warden, congratulated his Majesty in a Latin
speech, in the name of the Chancellor and of the members
of New College, and was on the following day added to the
number of the royal chaplains. The King sat in the hall
beneath a canopy ; Prince Henry at some distance on his right
hand ; the Queen on his left, and at the other end of the table,
opposite to the Prince, the two ambassadors. There was a
magnificent show of plate, and the Chancellor's private musi
cians played during the banquet. But the whole university
contributed to this hospitality. The King, before he rose from
the table, called the Chancellor to him, returned him his
thanks, and bade him drink out of the royal goblet.
From the banquet the King returned to St. Mary's to
hear the following disputations : the first, Whether gold can
be produced by artificial means ? Secondly, Whether imagina
tion can produce real effects ?
The moderator was Roger Porter, of Brasennose College.
The respondent was Richard Andrewes, of St. John's College,
M.B. June 1, 1607, M.D. June 1, 1608. He improved
himself by foreign travel, and was esteemed amongst the
literati of that age.
The opponents were :
1. Simon Baskerville, B.A. of Exeter College July 8,
1596, Proctor in the year following the royal visit, M.D.
1611, knighted by King Charles. He was of an ancient
Herefordshire family. He was eminent in his profession.
He died July 5, 1641, aged 68 years, and was buried* in
the north aisle of old St. Paul's.
On the same day with him was the celebrated Robert
Vilvaine, of Exeter College, also created M.D. in 1611. He
was B.A. of Exeter College May 9, 1597, M.A. July 11,
1600. Vilvain was also a theological author and student.
He, with Mr. Richard Sandy, alias Napier, Mr. William
Orphord, and Mr. William Helme, fellow-students, was
a benefactor to Exeter College, all assisting in rebuilding the
kitchen. At their expense also was the old chapel (superseded
by Dr. Hakewill's, the late chapel) turned into a library
in 1624.1 He was son of Peter Vilvain, steward of the city
of Exeter, was born in All Saints' parish, Exeter, in Gold
smith Street, and was a Fellow of Exeter College in 1599.
He resigned his fellowship in 1611, and returned to Exeter.
About 1644 Fuller's acquaintance with Dr. Vilvain com
menced. They spent much of their time together so long
as Fuller remained at Exeter. Dr. Vilvain gave a library
to the Cathedral there, and endowments, in the way of ex
hibitions, to the Grammar School. He wrote Theoremata
Theologica,) 1654, 4to., a Compendium of Clironography , 1654,
4to., and some other pieces. He died in his 87th year, Feb.
21, 1663, and was buried in the Cathedral of Exeter.
Baskerville attracted the especial notice of the King.
After he had disputed, the King, who had himself prolonged
the time of his disputation beyond what the Proctor would
have granted, said to the nobles about him, " God keep this
fellow in a right course ; he would prove a dangerous heretic ;
he is the best disputer that ever I heard."
2. Edward Lapworth, M.D., of Magdalene College (where
he had been educated) 1611, on the same day with Basker
ville and Vilvaine and Clayton of Balliol College, but pre
viously of Gloucester Hall. Lapworth was in 1618 appointed
the first Professor of Natural Philosophy at Oxford, by the
will of the founder, Sir William Sedley, Knt. and Bart. He
usually practised in the summer at Bath, where he died
May 23, 1636, and was buried in the Abbey church.
3. Thomas Clayton, of Gloucester Hall. He removed
to JBalliol College, and succeeded Dr. Warner as Regius
Professor of Medicine March 9, 1611. He was the last
Principal of Broadgates Hall 1620, and the first Master
of Pembroke College 1624. In 1607 he had been chosen
Professor of Music in Gresliam College, which place he re
signed November 17, 1610. He died in 1647, and was
buried in St. Aldate's church July 13. His son, Sir Thomas,
was also Eegius Professor of Medicine, and in 1661 Provost
of Mcrton College. He died October 4, 1693.
4. Eichard Mocket, B.A., of Brasennose College Feb. 16,
1596, M.A. of All Souls' College 1600, B.D. 1607, D.D. 1609,
Warden of All Souls' April 12, 1614, domestic Chaplain to
Archbishop Abbot, Eector of St. Clement's, East Cheap,
London, Dec. 29, 1610, which he resigned in December 1611,
when he was Eector of St. Michael's, Crooked-lane. He was
Eector of Monks Eisborough, Bucks, and of Newington,
Oxfordshire. He died July 5, 1618, aged 40, and was buried
in the college chapel, where his relation, Sir Thomas Freke,
erected a monument to his memory. His monument was
removed into the ante-chapel in 1664.
5. Eobert Pinke, born at Wenslade, Hants, 1572, Proctor
1610, M.B. 1612, B.D. 1619, D.D. 1620, Warden of New
College July 17, 1617. James, who gave himself a Latin
determination on the first question, admired his disputing.
He was seized at Aylesbury for his loyalty in raising the
University militia, and was for a time imprisoned in the
Gate-house, Westminster. He died November 2, 1647.
Dr. Brideoak, Bishop of Chichester, erected a monument
to him in his college chapel.1
6. Eobert Bolton, B.A., of Brasennose College Dec. 2,
1596, M.A. July 1602, B.D. 1609. Bolton was born at
Blackburn in Lancashire 1572. He removed from Lincoln
College to Brasennose College, of which he was made Fellow.
He was brought to true repentance and seriousness of mind
by his college tutor, Thomas Peacock, who was B.D. 1608,
a native of Cheshire. Peacock died in 1611, and was buried
in December in St. Mary's Church. He was incumbent
of Broughton in Northamptonshire, and there devoted himself
most exemplarily to his duties. He had a fluency and elo
quence truly Chrysostomian, with as great energy, so that
his sermons are to this day far from antiquated or unworthy
of perusal. He died aged 60 years in 1631. There is an
account of him in Fuller's Abel Eedivivus.
The King resolved upon hearing a second Act after but
a short interval, upon two questions appointed by himself:
Whether it be a greater object to preserve than to extend
the bounds of a kingdom ? and, Whether the origin of right
and wrong is to be sought in law or in nature ?
The moderator was Kichard Fitzherbert, of New College,
Senior Proctor. He was installed Archdeacon of Dorset
August 27, 1620, and died probably some time after 1640.
The respondent was William Ballow, of Christ Church.
He had been Senior Proctor in 1604. He was created D.D.
November 29, 1613, and died in December 1618. He was
Rector of Milton Bryant, near Woburn, Bedfordshire, Canon
of the first stall at Christ Church January 3, 1615, and dying
in 1618 was buried in the Cathedral without any memorial.
He is highly commended by Wake as a most polished scholar
and of a most courteous disposition.
The opponents were :
1. Thomas Winniff, B.A. of Exeter College July 12, 1592,
M.A. May 17, 1601, B.D. March 27, 1610, D.D. July 5, 1619.
He was born at Sherborne in Dorsetshire, was Rector of
Lamborne and Willingate Doe near Chipping Ongar, Essex,
Dean of Gloucester November 20, 1624, of St. Paul's April 18,
1631, consecrated Bishop of Lincoln February 6, 1642, but
he had no enjoyment of that dignity, but retired to Lamborne
where he had purchased both the advowson and an estate,
and there died September 19, 1654, in his 78th year. He
was raised to the see of Lincoln on account of the blameless-
ness and popularity of his character, when Charles sought
but too late to conciliate the nation by this and similarly good
appointments.
2. Simon Jux, (or perhaps Jukes) D.D. of Christ Church
1618. One probably of the same family was a benefactor
to the present chapel at Brasennose College, Rowland Jucks,
Esq.
3. Richard Thornton, Vicar of Cassington and Rector of
Westwell near Burford, Canon of the first stall of Christ-
church, July 13, 1596, Prebendary of the ninth stall at
Worcester, March 20, 1612. He died January 2, 1615, and
was buried on the 6th in the Cathedral at Oxford without
any memorial.
4. John King, D.D. of Merton College, July 6, 1615,
Canon of the twelfth stall, Westminster, on the death of
Dr. Barlow, Bishop of Lincoln 1613, and Canon of Windsor
November 23, 1616, on the decease of Murdoch Aldem. He
died August 7, 1638, and was buried in St. George's,
Windsor. Murdoch (in Wood Mardochay) Aldem succeeded
another John King, Fellow both of Peter House and of
Exeter College. Dr. King of Merton College was nephew
to King of Peter House.1 Dr. King was some time Fellow
of Merton College. He was uncle to Dr. George Aglionby,
already mentioned as the friend of Falkland, and as designated
in 1643 for the Deanery of Canterbury.2 He succeeded Dr.
King in his stall at Westminster 1638.
5. William Langton, President of Magdalene College
November 19, 1610, on the death of Dr. Harding, already
mentioned amongst those who disputed in the Divinity Act.
He was born at Langton in Lincolnshire near Wragby, of
an ancient and celebrated family. He was as conspicuous for
his modesty as for his learning. He died Oct. 10, 1626,
aged 54 years. His monument with his effigy, after the
manner of that age, is in his college chapel, with an inscrip
tion of no common character for its reality and force of
expression.3
6. John Barkham, of Corpus Christi College, is said to
have applied himself in his earlier years to heraldry, and to
have suffered his collections to be published with Gwillim's
name as the author. He was born in the parish of St. Mary
the Greater, Exeter, in 1572, entered at Exeter College,
Oxford, 1587, and removed thence to Corpus Christi College
in 1588. He wrote the life of King John published in
Speed's History, and wholly or chiefly that of Henry II.
His account of Becket is supposed to have been designed
as an answer to one written by Bolton, a Papist. Gwillim's
Heraldry was printed in folio, London, 1610. Barkham was
successively Chaplain to Bancroft and Abbot. He was
Rector and Dean of Bocking 1615, the other Dean being
Dr. Thomas Goad, Precentor of St. Paul's. Of Goad,
elsewhere mentioned, a posthumous work appeared, entitled,
Stimulus Orthodoxus, sive Goadus Redivivus. A disputation,
partly theological, partly metaphysical, concerning the necessity
and contingency of events in the world, in respect of God's
eternal Decree, written above twenty years since ~by that reverend
and learned Divine Thomas Goad, Doctor of Divinity, and
ftector of Hadleigh in Suffolk. London, for Will. LeaJce,
1669, 4&, with a Preface ~by J. G. He wrote also, Eclogce
et Musce virgiferce acjuridicce. Dr. Barkham was Prebendary
of Brownswood in St. Paul's, London, and died at Bocking
on March 25, 1643. At the conclusion of the Act the King,
in a brief speech, engaged to continue, as he had ever been,
a patron of learning and of learned men. He promised in
particular his patronage and encouragement to the University
of Oxford. He bade them continue to maintain the setting
forth of the pure Word of God, to fly from and to put to flight
all Romish superstitions, and to avoid and reject all schisms
and innovations in religion; to advance in their peculiar
studies both in theory and practice, that so their lives might
agree with their profession, God's glory, and his own
expectation be fulfilled, himself augmented in honour, and
abundant fruit meanwhile redound to themselves.1
The King and nobility were attended with acclamations
and by torchlight (for the evening had closed upon them)
to Christchurch. Others of the nobility attended Prince
Henry to Magdalene College. He occupied the middle seat
at the high table. Down the middle of the hall the noblemen
were seated, and along the sides the Fellows and other
members of the foundation. The Prince graciously bade
them keep their square caps on their heads. He drank their
healths, to which they responded, all standing. He more
than once called Magdalene his college, and himself of
Magdalene. William Grey, the younger son of Arthur
Lord Wilton, at the command of Dr. Bond the worthy
President, presented the Prince with a richly-bound MS.,
the Apologues of Pandulf Colinucius, the binding set with
pearls and enriched with ornaments of gold. Arthur Lord
Grey de Wilton was son of William Lord Grey de Wilton,
a brave soldier, who being Captain of the Castle of Guisnes
after the surrender of Calais 1558, was at length obliged to
deliver it up and yield himself a prisoner, and afterwards
to pay a ransom of 24,000 crowns, which much weakened
his estate.1 In 1560 he was made a Knight of the Garter,
and died 1562, leaving issue by Mary, daughter of Charles
Somerset, Earl of Worcester, a daughter Honora, married to
Henry Denny (who had issue by her Edward, created by
James L Earl of Norwich), and two sons, Arthur Lord Grey
de Wilton and William Arthur, the father of William at
Magdalene College in 1605, died in 1593. Edward, the son
of Sir Thomas Chaloner, presented the Prince with a pair of
splendid gloves in the name of the whole College, and an
illustrious youth, Kichard Worsley, presented him with a
volume of verses in various foreign languages. Edward
Chaloner was B.A. of Magdalene College July 8, 1607;
May 15, 1610, M.A. He removed to All Souls' College,
where he was B.D. May 30, 1617, and D.D. November
6, 1619. From his fellowship at All Souls' College he was
raised to be Principal of St. Alban's Hall December 29, 1624,
and died of the plague July 25, 1625. He had on the
evening of 10th July supped with his friend Dr. Hussey of
New College, who is supposed to have brought the plague
with him from London. He was buried in St. Mary's
churchyard.
Richard was second son of Sir Richard Worsley, the first
Baronet of that name, and Frances, daughter of Sir Henry
Neville. The family took their name from their lordship in
Lancashire, Workeseley or Workedeley.
After supper the King and Prince met again at St. John's
College, where a comedy, but in tragic measure, says Sir
Isaac Wake, representing the revolving year, was acted by the
members of that College. The scene was made in the form
of the zodiac, with the sun passing through all the twelve
signs. All kinds of allegories were introduced into this piece.
It began with the sun entering the ram, it ended with the
fishes broiled by the heat of the sun.
On Friday morning, the day of the King's departure, a
pastoral by Samuel Daniel was acted at Christ Church, and
was highly applauded. It was published shortly after with
the following title, " The Queen's Arcadia, a Pastoral Trago-
Comedie, presented to Her Majestie and her Ladies by the
University of Oxford in Christ's Church in August last
1605. At London : printed by G. Eld, for Simon Waterson.
1606." A copy of this edition is among Garrick's Plays in
the British Museum. It was reprinted in 1611, in 12mo. It
is also to be found in the edition of Daniel's Poems in 1620.1
At the same time a Convocation was held at St. Mary's.
The Bedell appears at this time to have fulfilled his office in
the old fashion to the letter, making oral proclamation of the
Convocation. The nobles began to assemble at eight. The
Earl of Northampton was the first that went in with Abbot,
Master of University College and Yice-Chancellor, and sat
on his right hand upon a form, for there was but one chair,
on which the Vice-Chancellor sat. He went in a black gown
and a regent's hood, having been before incorporated there.
And first there passed a grace for the Earls of Northum
berland, Oxford, Essex, and others, to which consent was
asked of the Doctors by the Proctors, and then the Proctors
turning to the House gave their consent by general acclama
tion, saying Placet ; so the Earl was presented, as were most
of the nobility, by Sir William Paddie. Then the Earl was
sworn to observe the privileges and statutes of the University.
The Vice-Chancellor admitted the noblemen to their degrees
standing, but remained seated whilst he admitted the knights
and others. Sir John Davies2 presented the knights and
courtiers, the Prince's servants, and others. Doctors presented
the Doctors and Bachelors of Divinity from Cambridge, and
Masters of Arts the Masters of Arts. Of Cambridge were
incorporated Dr. John Hammond, one of the King's Phy
sicians, father of the learned Henry Hammond ; George
Kuggle, first of Trinity College, then Fellow of Clare Hall,
and author of the celebrated comedy Ignoramus ; the Bishop
of Oxford, Dr. Bridges, who was of Pembroke Hall, Cam
bridge; Alexander Serle, LL.B., Thomas Howard, Earl of
Suffolk; Kobert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury; and Dr. Bar
nabas Gooch, Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge, and
highly regarded by Williams when Lord Keeper. Amongst
those who were honoured with degrees were, Esme Stuart,
Duke of Lenox, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke ; his
younger brother Philip, Earl of Montgomery ; William
Cecil, Viscount Cranbourne, who succeeded his father Robert
Cecil as Earl of Salisbury ; Theophilus Howard, Lord
Walden, Earl of Suffolk on the death of his father, the
wealthy builder of Audley House; Charles, son of the
famous Lord High Admiral ; Thomas West, Lord de la
Warr ; Grey Bridges, Lord Chandos, commonly called King
of Cotswold from the great number of his attendants when
he went to court ; William Compton, afterwards Earl of
Northampton ; Edward Bruce, Master of the Rolls and
Baron of ^Kinloss in Scotland,1 father of Thomas, Earl of
Elgin and Baron of Whorlton in Yorkshire ; Lord Erskine,
Sir Henry Neville, Sir Thomas Chaloner, John Egerton,
Knight, afterwards Earl of Bridgewater ; Sir Thomas Monson,
of Magdalene College, of Burton Hall, near Lincoln ; David
Foulis, Knight ; George More, Knight ; 2 John Digby, Esq.,
of Magdalene College, afterwards Earl of Bristol.
About nine the King went to the Bodleian Library, the
noble foundation of Sir Thomas Bodley, of the ancient family
of the Bodleighs of Dunscombe near Crediton. He was born
at Exeter March 2, 1545. His father removed with his
family to Geneva to avoid the Marian persecution, but
returned in 1558 and settled in London. In 1559 or 1560
Bodley was admitted at Magdalene College, whence he
removed to Merton College, where he took his B.A. July 26,
1563, and M.A. July 5, 1566. He was chosen to a fellowship,
and having studied under the most learned professors at
Geneva, he was appointed to read a public lecture on the
study of Greek literature in the hall of his College. In 1569
he was Junior Proctor. From 1576 to 1580 he travelled on
the Continent, then returned to Merton College, but was
afterwards employed by Elizabeth both at home and abroad
till 1597. He afterwards lived in London or at Parson's
Green, Fulham. From 1597 he employed himself in re
storing and supplying the University Library. On the 8th
of November, 1602, there was a solemn procession from St.
Mary's to the Library, for the purpose of opening it and
devoting it to the use of the University. More than two
thousand choice volumes had been deposited in it by that
time. Sir Thomas Bodley was assisted in his noble under
taking by Sir Henry Saville and Sir John Bennet. Sir
Henry was also B.A. of Merton College, Sir John Bennet of
Christ Church. The latter fell under the displeasure of the
House of Commons in 1621, was imprisoned for a short time,
fined £20,000, and deprived of his office of Judge of the
Prerogative Court. He died in the parish of Christ Church,
Newgate Street, in the beginning of 1628. The original
founder of the Library was indeed Humphrey, the good Duke
of Gloucester, son of Henry IV. about 1445. * Sir Thomas
Bodley 's work is the eastern wing of the present Library.
This was finished in 1613, the year after his death. The
western was added between 1630 and 1640. The Divinity
School, over which the original Library was built, was
founded about 1427, but not completed until 1480. The
Proscholium was a part of the work of Sir Thomas Bodley.
The remainder of the square rose from 1613 to 1619. The
effect was doubtless far superior before the removal of the
transoms from the windows of this venerable quadrangle.
The architect was Thomas Holt of York, who died Sept. 9,
1624, and was buried in Holy well churchyard.1 The King,
upon casting his eyes round the Library, expressed his
satisfaction upon seeing whence these stores of learning had
been drawn which had recently yielded him so much
satisfaction, and looking upon Bodley's effigies said, he
should rather be called Godly. Amongst other MSS. of
that kind he was shewn the Ethiopic version of the Scrip
tures, and that monument of impurity under the garb of piety,
Gaguinus de Puritate Conception** B. M. V. Paris, 1497.2
The King promised himself to become a benefactor to [the
Library. The Earl of Salisbury and Charles Lord Effingham,
son of the Lord High Admiral, seconded the King's expres
sions of good will. The King further said, that were he not
king he could have lived as an academician ; and, alluding to
the chains with which the books were then fastened to their
shelves, added that should it ever be his fate to be led
captive in chains, if his choice were given him, he would be
shut up in this prison, bound with these chains, and pass his
time with these captives for his companions. From the
Library the King went into the Divinity School, and visited
all the other schools in the quadrangle.
Next the King visited Brasenose College, of whose huge
brazen nose on the great gate Sir Isaac Wake does not fail to
remind his reader. Dr. Thomas Singleton, the Principal, at
the head of all the members of his house, accosted the King.
Dr. Singleton had been presented by Lord Keeper Egerton
to the Rectory of Whitchurch, Oxfordshire, in 1596 ; he
was made Prebendary of Bromesbury in St. Paul's, London,
10th May, 1597. Thomas Powell, B.D. of his College,
dedicated to him a sermon upon Exod. xxviii. 34, preached
at St. Mary's in 1613. He died November 29, 1614, and
was buried in the chancel of St. Mary's ; for, until the
consecration of their present chapel, which was founded
June 26, 1656, and consecrated November 17, 1686, by the
Bishop of Oxford, the Society had only a small oratory over
the buttery on the south side of the quadrangle. The King
entered into discourse with the Principal respecting Friar
Bacon, of whose brazen head a tradition went that the
prodigious nose aforesaid was a part. Koger Bacon is said
to have lectured in Little University Hall, one of the
Halls since swallowed up in Brasenose College, and once
occupying the north-east angle near the lane. Adjoining to
this was the ancient hostel called Brasenose Hall as early
as 1278, whence the College, founded in 15091 by William
Smyth, Bishop of Lincoln, took its name. The brazen head
of Koger Bacon, with its portentous nose, brings to Sir
Isaac Wake's mind a pleasant story of Thomas Aquinas
and his master Albertus Magnus. Albertus had made an
image which, by the help of machinery, could articulate a
few sounds, nay words — so the story ; and Aquinas was sent
into the room utterly unprepared for his strange companion,
whom, when he began to speak, he in his terror broke to
pieces with a staff; whereupon Albertus said, Pol, triginta
annorum opus uno momenta contrivisti; In one moment you
have dashed to pieces the work of thirty years.2 The quad
rangle of Brasenose was then beautified with flowers and
shrubs, (probably in the antique style, as once was that of
Peterhouse at Cambridge,) which the King failed not to
observe with approbation. His Majesty next visited All
Souls' College. There he was accosted by Dr. Kobert
Hoveden the Warden, who had been elected to the warden-
ship in his 28th year, 12 Nov. 1571. He was Eector of
Newington near Oxford, and had been Chaplain to Arch
bishop Parker, of whose diocese he was a native. Under
Grindal he was made Prebendary of the fourth stall at
Canterbury in 1580. The next year he was also Prebendary
of Wells, and in 1570 or 1571 of Clifton, in the Cathedral of
Lincoln. He wrote the life of Chichely, the founder of All
Souls' College.3 He died in his 69th year, March 25, 1615,
and was buried in his college chapel.
Thence passing down the High Street by the ancient
Colleges of University and Queen's, both now replaced by
more modern edifices, the King enters his son's adopted
College of St. Mary Magdalene. There Douglas Castilion
made him an oration, probably of the same family with John
Castilion, Dean of Eochester in the reign of Charles II.
and of Francis Castilion, Knight, who had been created M.A.
this same morning. The King thence returned to dinner at
Christ Church, where Dr. Edmund Lilly, who had been of Mag
dalene College and was at this time Master of Balliol College
and Archdeacon of Wiltshire, made another and valedictory
oration. His wonderful patristic knowledge made him the
admiration of his age. At the stairs' foot, where the King
entered into the Court, John Hanmer, of All Souls' College,
the Junior Proctor, made a short oration. He rose to be
Bishop of St. Asaph 1624. Upon this the Chancellor
delivered to the King his Majesty's grant of the Eectory of
Ewelme to the Regius Professor of Divinity, which the King
took and returned to the Vice-Chancellor. Then both the
King and Queen presented their hands to the Vice-Chancellor
and the Doctors to kiss, and bade them farewell, and to leave
him to take his departure without farther state. Then the
King, Queen, and Prince went all into one coach, and passed
through the town, the Mayor and other civic officers of the
city in scarlet preceding the King through the town to the
farther end of Magdalene Bridge. The Lord Treasurer
stayed till Monday next after the King's departure. He
sent to the disputers and actors £20 in money, and five
brace of bucks ; so he sent to every College and Hall venison
and money after this proportion ; to Brasenose College five
bucks and ten angels; to St. Edmund's Hall four red deer
pies and four angels. The King slept the evening of his
departure at Rotherfield Grey's near Henley, the mansion of
Lord Knowles, and on Saturday, proceeding by Bisham
Abbey, the seat of the Hobies, returned to Windsor.
On Nov. 3rd Andrewes, who had thrice nobly refused
a mitre, was consecrated to the see of Chichester1 on the
decease of Dr. Anthony Watson. He was consecrated by
Archbishop Bancroft, assisted by Dr. Eichard Vaughan,
Bishop of London, Jegon, Bishop of Norwich, Dr. Thomas
Kavis, Bishop of Gloucester, and Dr. William Barlow, Bishop
of Rochester, afterwards of Lincoln. His elevation was owing
to the King's especial regard for him.2 The King also
appointed him his Almoner, and at the same time granted, in
augmentation of the King's alms, all the goods, &c. of all
who were felones de se, as well as all deodands in England
and Wales, exempting Andrewes also from rendering an
account of his receipts from these sources.3 Andrewes re
signed the mastership of Pembroke Hall on the 5th, on which
day Wren was elected a Fellow of that Society, Andrewes
voting for him by his deputy, the President. In his
mastership Andrewes was succeeded by a far inferior person,
Dr. Samuel Harsnett, who was afterwards compelled to resign
in consequence of the complaints of the Fellows, headed by
Wren, who was himself a devoted friend of both Peter House
and Pembroke Hall.
1575; and B.D. 1582. He was made Dean of Bristol 16th April, 1590, and
installed 21st July. He was (in the place of Thomas Manton, M.A., who
succeeded Dr. Roger Goad in that preferment,) made Chancellor of Wells, and
installed 15th July, 1592, and at the same time made also (in the place of
Manton) Prebendary of Wedmore Secunda, in that Church. He was nomi
nated to the see of Chichester 1st June, 1596, elected by the Chapter on the
14th, confirmed August 14th, and the temporalities were restored to him 13th
September. He had been previously consecrated August 15th by Whitgift,
assisted by Dr. John Young, Bishop of Rochester; Richard Vaughan, Bishop
of Bangor (afterwards translated successively to Chester and London) ; and
Bilson, who on June 13th this same year was consecrated to the see of Worcester,
having been previously Fellow of New College, Oxford, and Warden of Win
chester College. Bishop Watson lived in celibacy, was Almoner to King James,
and died at his house at Cheam 10th September, 1605. He was buried in his
church there on the 19th. His will is in the Prerogative Office, London. He
left £100 to Christ's College, Cambridge, where he had been educated, and whence
he was chosen to a fellowship at Corpus Christi College. Bishop Hacket was
afterwards Rector of Cheam. On March 14th, 1606, Abbot granted a license to
Andrewes, now Bishop of Chichester, to demolish sundry ruinated and super
fluous buildings attached to the episcopal houses at Chichester and Aldingbourne
near Chichester. " Upon the house belonging to the bishopric of Chichester he
expended above £420." So his biographer Isaacson.
CHAPTER VIII.
Bishop Andrewes* Sermon on Christmas Day, 1605 — King James's
policy in regard to the Scotch Church — Bishop Andrewes' Sermon
on the anniversary of the King' s Accession, 1606 — His commenda
tions of the King — Sermon on Easter- Day — On Whit- Sunday —
Of the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit's operations — Sermon at
Greenwich before King James and the King of Denmark — His
notice of the Jesuits — The Scotch Conference and Sermons at
Hampton Court — Bishop Andrewes* Sermons on the right of
Kings to call Councils — On 5th November — On Christmas Day
— Of the merits of Christ — Sermon on Easter Day, 1607 —
On leing doers of the Word — Sermon at Romsey on 5th August
— On 5th November at Whitehall — On Christmas Day on the
mystery of Godliness — On Easter Day, 1608 — On Whit- Sunday
— At Holdenby on August 5 — Consecration of Bishop Neile —
Dr. John King, Bishop of London.
ON Christmas Day 1605, Tuesday, our prelate preached
before the King at Whitehall from Heb. ii. 16, in the then
version : For he in nowise took the angels / but the seed of
Abraham he took. In page 5 he observes, " And emergent or
issuing from this are all those other apprehendings or seisures
of the persons of men (by which God layeth hold on them,
and bringeth them back from error to truth, and from sin to
grace,) that have been from the beginning, or shall be to the
end of the world. That, of Abraham himself, whom God
laid hold of and brought from out of Ur of the Chaldeans,
and the idols he there worshipped. That, of our Apostle St.
Paul, that was apprehended in the way to Damascus. That
of St. Peter, that in the very act of sin was seized on with
bitter remorse for it. All those, and all these, whereby men
daily are laid hold of in spirit, and taken from the bye-paths
of sin and error, and reduced into the right way, and so their
persons recovered to God and seised to his use j — all these
apprehensions (of these branches) came from this apprehension
(of the seed) : they all have their beginning and their being
from this day's taking, even semen apprehendit" [he took the
seed]. " Our receiving His spirit for His taking our flesh.
This seed, wherewith Abraham is made the son of God, from
the seed wherewith Christ is made the son of Abraham."
Of the word used in the original he notes that it is the
same word that was used of St. Peter, when, being ready to
sink, Christ caught him hy the hand and saved him, and of
Lot and his daughters1 in the like danger.
lt And," he proceeds, " it may truly be said — (inasmuch as
all God's promises, as well touching temporal as eternal
deliverances, and as well corporal as spiritual, be in Christ
Yea and Amen ; Yea in the giving forth, Amen in the
performing) — that even our temporal delivery from the dangers
that daily compass us about, even from this last [the 5th of
November], so great and so fearful as the like was never
imagined before, all have their ground from this great appre
hension, are fruits of this seed here, this blessed seed, for
whose sake, and for whose truths sake, that we (though
unworthily) profess, are by him caught hold of, and so
plucked out of it."
Having set down St. Augustine's reason why more mercy
might have been shewn to us than to the angels, that they
had no tempter ; and Leo's, that not all the angels fell, but
that all fell in Adam, he adds : "And thus have they travailed,
and these have they found why he did apprehend us rather
than them. It may be not amiss; but we will content
ourselves for our inde nobis hoc — whence cometh this to us ?
with the answer of the Scriptures, whence, but from the tender
mercies of our God, whereby this day hath visited us?
Zelus Domini (saith Esay), The zeal of the Lord of hosts
shall bring it to pass. Propter magnam charitatem [for his
great love wherewith he loved us], saith the apostle. Sic
Deus dilexit [God so loved the world], saith he, he himself.
And we are taught by him to say, Even so} Lord, for so it
was thy good pleasure thus to do."
King James set the example to his son Charles of
endeavouring to effect a conformity in Scotland to the
established discipline and ritual of the Church of England ;
nor was the indiscretion of the royal father less than that
of the misguided son. In England James was as fulsomely
flattered as in Scotland he had been undutifully browbeaten.
The boldness of the Scottish clergy was at times rash and
intemperate, and could not but have been most offensive to
him ; yet to that body did Scotland owe much of its security
from the plottings of Komanism on the one hand, and of civil
despotism on the other. Those who can see nothing in the
kirk of those days to admire, are as intolerantly blind as
those who would condemn them in nothing. But the
impolicy and insincerity of James frustrated his own designs,
and laid the foundation for those troubles which afterwards
fell upon King Charles. It was insincere in him, who had
not privately alone, but publicly declared for the discipline
of the Kirk, to force upon it episcopacy. His impolicy is
repeatedly admitted by one who has spared no pains for the
most part to exculpate him.
In 1606 James early in the year proceeded to an act of the
most consummate injustice in procuring the condemnation of
six of the Presbyterian clergy upon a false charge of treason.
This took place on the 10th of January. Others were some
time hence commanded to London, apparently to hold con
ferences, really to be inquisitor! ally examined and for a while
detained, and some of them to be banished from their native
land. But we shall find them in London in the month of
August ; so we return to our prelate, whom we find, from the
31st March to the 22nd June inclusive, engaged in his par
liamentary duties in various committees ; first, on a committee
for the repeal of an Act of the 14th Eliz. concerning the length
of kersies, which forbade their being made above the length of
eighteen yards ; the committee to meet on Thursday, April
3, by eight A.M. in the Little Chamber near the Parliament
presence ; and also for the relief of John Eoger, gent, against
Kobert, Paul, and William Taylor. The House of Commons
desired a conference on the 5th of April on the silencing of
ministers, the multiplicity of ecclesiastical commissions, the
manner of citations, and on excommunication. The Bishop
was one of the Lords appointed to confer with them. The
conference was appointed to be on Monday the 14th April, at
two in the afternoon. The day was changed to the 17th. The
prelates were Abbot, Andrewes, Bilson, still Bishop of Bath
and Wells, and Rudd, Bishop of St. David's. Eeport was
made on the 28th of April.
On Easter Day April 6, he again preached before the
King at Whitehall, on Rom. vi. 9 — 11, in a manner worthy
of himself. This sermon, indeed, abounds with most pious
and profitable passages. In it he cites that saying of Bernard,
" Christ, although he rose alone, yet did not all rise ; that is,
we were a part of him. He is but risen in part, and that he
may rise all, we must rise from death also." Again, he sets
forth the true doctrine of the Church, that Christ's death was
an exhibition of Divine justice, and that his person was that
which gave virtue to his sacrifice. Of living according to
God he saith, "Then live we according to him, when his
will is our law, his Word our rule, his Son's life our example, his Spirit rather than our own souls the guide of our actions."
On the 28th of April he was appointed to meet on a com
mittee on the annexation of certain honours, castles, forests,
manors, &c. &c., and of certain diadems, jewels, crowns, &c.,
to the throne of England for ever.
On the 5th of May he made report touching the oath
ex officio which was appointed to be handled by him in
respect of the sickness of Dr. Still, Bishop of Bath and Wells.1
On the 12th May our prelate was appointed to meet on
a Bill read a second time on the 10th of that month, for the
more sure establishing and continuance of true religion.
On Whitsunday, June 8, he preached before the King at
Greenwich from Acts ii. 1 — 4. " It pleased Christ," he
saith, u to vouchsafe to grace the Church, his queen, with
like solemn inauguration to that of his own, when the Holy
Ghost descended on him in the likeness of a dove, that she
might, no less than he himself, receive from heaven like
solemn attestation."
Of the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit's operations he saith :
" And this (of blowing upon one certain place) is a property
very well fitting the Holy Spirit, He bloweth where Tie listeth.
To blow in certain places where itself will, and upon certain
persons, and they shall plainly feel it, and others about them
not a whit There shall be an hundred or more in an auditory ;
one sound is heard, one breath doth blow. At that instant
one or two and no more, one here, another there, they shall
feel the Spirit, shall be affected and touched with it sensibly ;
twenty on this side them and forty on that side shall not feel
it, but sit all becalmed, and go their way no more moved
than they came. Ubi vult spirat [He bloweth where he
listeth] is most true."2
When Christern IV. King of Denmark came on a visit to
the Queen his sister, Bishop Andrewes preached in Latin
before the two Sovereigns at Greenwich on August 5th, the
anniversary of the Gowrie conspiracy. His text was the 10th
verse of the 144th Psalm. He spoke of the Jesuits as amongst
the strange children in v. 11, Their mouth speaketh a lie, their
right hand is a right hand of iniquity. " And are not these
of ours just like them ? Only except what David calls lying
they call equivocation.'" Andrewes alludes in this sermon to
their various plots in which, by the use of poisons and powders
(not omitting the gunpowder), and of the sword, they had
plotted against our own and other Princes. In the latter
part he gives a detailed account of the Gowrie conspiracy.
This sermon was printed with his posthumous works, and in
English in the folio edition of his Sermons in 1661.
On September 7th he assisted, with Toby Matthews, the
pious and witty Archbishop of York, Dr. Thomas Eavis, the
deservedly popular Bishop first of Gloucester then of London,
and one of the translators of the Bible, and Dr. William
Barlow, Bishop of Rochester and afterwards of Lincoln, at
the consecration of Dr. William James, Dean of Durham and
President of University College, Oxford, to the see of Durham.
He thus succeeded Dr. Toby Matthew both in the deanery
and bishopric. He obtained permission to be consecrated
within the province of Canterbury.1
William James was a native of Sandbach in Cheshire. In
1559 he was admitted student of Christ Church, and took the
degrees in arts. He afterwards entered into holy orders, and
became Divinity Eeader of Magdalene College. Thence,
being at that time B.D., he was elected to the mastership of
University College, Oxford, June 12, 1572. On August 27,
1577, he was admitted Archdeacon of Coventry by Bishop
Bentham. Being appointed Dean of Christ Church he, on
September 14, 1584, resigned the mastership of University
College, On June 5, 1596, he was installed Dean of Durham,
whence he was promoted to the bishopric. He died on the
12th May, 1617, and was buried in his Cathedral. The
reader will find more in Wood's Athence Oxonienses and
Surtees' invaluable History of Durham.
li The commotions," says the late Bishop of Glasgow (Dr.
Eussell), a which continued to disturb the Scottish Church,
suggested to the King the propriety of holding a conference
with the leading members of the two parties. For this
purpose he summoned to London the Archbishops of Glasgow
and St. Andrew's, and the Bishops of Orkney, Galloway,
and Dunkeld, to represent the episcopal interest ; while, as
advocates for the Presbyterian cause, he named the two
Melvilles and five others, than whom there were none better
qualified both by talent and courage to support the tenets
of the Genevan school, whether in doctrine or discipline."
To these seven, namely, Andrew and James Melville, James
Balfour, William Watson, William Scott, John Carmichael,
and Adam Cole, the King addressed a circular letter, ex
pressing therein his anxiety to preserve that peace in the
Church which had been established when he left Scotland.
He further enumerated the measures which he had taken for
that purpose, dwelt upon the opposition which he had en
countered from the clergy, opposition which had been such
as to compel him to a severity contrary to his inclination,
and concluded by telling them that, being influenced by
this and various other weighty reasons, he saw good to
command them without fail to come to London before the
15th of September, that on that day he might begin with
them, and such others of their brethren as he knew to be learned
and experienced, and whom he had also ordered to attend,
to treat concerning the peace of the Church of Scotland, and
to make his constant and unchangeable favour to the members
of that Church so manifest, that they might be bound in duty
and conscience to conform to his godly meaning. In his usual
style he took great praise to himself for his condescension,
and plainlv intimated what consequences would follow, if the
conference did not terminate agreeably to his royal pleasure.
The learned and experienced brethren whom they w%ere to
meet were the aforesaid Bishops, not that they had been
otherwise ordained than themselves. They had the title
of Bishops, but they were not as yet canonically consecrated
as a separate order. The canonical consecration of the
Scottish Prelates did not take place until A.D. 1610. The
King had been known, notwithstanding his many public
professions of fidelity to the Kirk, to be favourable to
episcopacy. In June, 1606, he settled upon his titular
Bishops so much of the episcopal estates as had been hitherto
annexed to the crown, legalizing at the same time the
immense plunder of church property which the nobility had
secured to themselves by way of rewarding their godly zeal
for reformation. Very many of the ministers who were
favourable to the Presbyterian discipline protested, but in
vain, against this attempt to pave the way for another form
of church government.
The seven whom the King had summoned arrived in
London before the end of August.1 " To clear the ground,"
says Dr. Russell, "for the amicable contest in which the
Scottish champions were about to engage, James had pro
vided that they should all go to church and listen to a series
of discourses on the several points at issue." They had warn
ing given them to attend at Hampton Court on the 20th.
Barlow, now Bishop of Rochester, preached on the superiority
of Bishops to presbyters; then followed Dr. Buckeridge,
President of St. John's College, Oxford, and afterwards
successively Bishop of Rochester and Ely, who handled the
King's supremacy in causes ecclesiastical, often ranking the
Romanists and Presbyterians together in the matter of
rebellion. On Sunday, September 28, Bishop Andrewes
preached from Numbers x. 1, 2, upon the King's right to
call assemblies, both civil and ecclesiastical, instancing in
both the Old Testament and Apocryphal histories, and
copiously also from the ecclesiastical history for the first
eight centuries from the Christian era. He noticed the
inconsistency of those who disputed this power only upon
despairing of its being exerted on their side. After him
Dr. King, Dean of Christ Church and Abbot's successor
in the see of London, preached from the Canticles (chap. viii.
verse 11), against the Presbyterian institution of lay-elders.
Neither the sermons nor the conference produced the desired
effect. So the ministers were now examined relating to pro
ceedings which had not been specified in the letter. James
Melville had rendered himself especially obnoxious to the
King by his opposition to his policy on various occasions.
He was now, after an exhibition of intemperate zeal, committed
first to the care of the learned Dr. Overall, Dean of St. Paul's,
and then to the Tower. After about four years he was
restored to his liberty, but not to his country ; that he never
revisited, but was permitted in 1611 to accept the Divinity
Professorship at Sedan, whither he was invited by the Duke
of Boulogne. He died in 1621. His nephew James
Melville was ordered to reside in Newcastle, but was after
wards removed to Berwick, where he died. The rest were
detained awhile, but at last suffered to return to such places
in Scotland as were specified by the King.1
On 5th November Andrewes preached before the King
at Whitehall, from Psalm cxviii. 23, 24 : This is the Lord's
doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. This is the day which
the Lord hath made^ let us rejoice and be glad in it. On this
the first anniversary of that horrible and all but incredible plot,
which the Jesuits of our own day would have the world, if
possible, discredit,2 he set forth the plot and the deliverance in
language that must have thrilled the hearts of his auditors.
The court of Kome had openly rejoiced at the success of the
sanguinary plot of Charles IX. against his Protestant subjects
in 1572. He did not on this occasion spare either the Church
of Rome, which, had this plot succeeded, would, as he observed,
have canonized it, nor the Jesuits. Taking up our Saviour's
words, he spoke of it as an abomination that was to have
brought desolation. Every abomination doth not forthwith
make desolate. This had. If ever a desolate kingdom upon
earth, such had this been after that terrible blow. Neither
root nor branch left, all swept away. Strangers called in;
murtherers exalted; the very dissolution and desolation of
all ensued.
"But this, that this so abominable and desolate a plot
stood in the holy place, this is the pitch of all. For there it
stood, and thence it came abroad. Undertaken with an
holy oath; bound with the holy sacrament (this must needs be
in a holy place) ; warranted for a holy act, tending to the
advancement of a holy religion, and by holy persons called
by a most holy name, the name of Jesus. That these holy
religious persons, even the chief of all religious persons (the
Jesuits] , gave not only absolution but resolution , that all this
was well done ; that it was by them justified as lawful,
sanctified as meritorious, and should have been glorified (but
it wants glorifying, because the event failed, that is the grief;
if it had not, glorified) long ere this, and canonized as a very
good and holy act, and we had had orations out of the Conclave
in commendation of it."1 Let the reader but peruse this
discourse and carry himself back to the day when it was
delivered, the audience assembled to hear it. the presence of
the King who was to have been, with all the flower of his
own house and of his kingdom, so ruthlessly destroyed, and
he will receive an impression, it may be hoped, indelible, of
that truly marvellous interposition of the Almighty in behalf
of our religion and nation. He will, too, feel that so memo
rable an occasion could not have been left in the hands of a
more eloquent divine than our prelate. Ungrateful indeed
and insensible must have been the heart of James, who, in
spite of even that deliverance, could not rest until he had
endangered the stability of his throne and unsettled the
affections of his subjects, by seeking to unite his son, his
ill-fated son, to a Komish family.
On the 14th November Andrewes preferred to the vicarage
of Chigwell one of the greatest ornaments of his own college,
Koger Fenton, B.D., Hector of St. Stephen's, Walbrook, and
Prebendary of St. Paul's, and one of the translators of the
Bible. He was the friend of Thomas Fuller, Eector of
St. Peter's, Aldwinckle, and father of the famous Thomas
Fuller, and of the excellent Dr. Felton, Andre wes's successor
in the see of Ely. He died January 16, 1616, and was
buried in St. Stephen's, Walbrook.2
On 24th November Andrewes was on a committee upon
the Union, and again on 8th December, to restrain the multi
tude of inconvenient buildings in and about the metropolis.
On Christmas-day, Wednesday, our prelate preached
before the King at Whitehall, from Isaiah ix. 6, vindicating
this illustrious prophecy from the forced interpretation of the
Jews who apply it to Hezekiah, the vain subterfuge also of
modern Unitarianism. But, as Bishop Andrewes remarks,
u how senseless is it to apply to Hezekias that in the next
verse, Of his government and peace there should be none end •
that his throne should be established from thenceforth for ever ;
whereas his peace and government both had an end within
few years."
Here, as elsewhere, he does not confine the mediatorial
character and saving merits of our Lord to the time and
works of his public ministry, but includes therein all that
he did and all that he suffered. " If the tree be ours, the
fruit is ; if he be ours, his birth is ours ; his life is ours ; his
death is ours ; his satisfaction, his merits, all he did, all he
suffered is ours."
Bishop Andrewes served on various committees of the
Lords in February and March, 1587.
On Tuesday, March 24, being the anniversary of the
King's accession, Andrewes preached before him at Whitehall,
from Judges xvii. 6 : In those days there was no Jcing in
Israel, but every man did that which was good in his own eyes.
He spoke of the excellence of an hereditary monarchy, as
leaving no interregna, no seasons of confusion. He urged
the duty of kings, to whom God gives commission (I said ye
are gods] to take under their charge the things of God, to put
down idolatry, and to provide right instruction for their
subjects. He animadverts upon the disposition of many
of the laity in his time to intermeddle with ecclesiastical
things and persons, the people that strive with the priest.
Hos. iv. 4. Andrewes appears too courtly in this discourse.
Was it altogether true of James that he was the opposite to
Andrewes's picture of Eehoboam, one that was full of great
words, but so faint-hearted as not able to resist ought?
On April 5, Easter-day, he preached before the King at
Whitehall, from 1 Cor. xv. 20, observing how our Lord's
resurrection was the day of the feast of first-fruits.1 Very
felicitious is his observation in p. 400 : " There was a statute
concerning God's commandments, Qui fecerit ea, vivet in eis,
He that observed the commandments should live by that his
obedience. Death should not seize on him. Christ did
observe them exactly, therefore should not have been seized
by death ; should not, but was ; and that seizure of his was
death's forfeiture."
Towards the end of this sermon, as elsewhere, he speaks
in general terms of baptism as our regeneration in which we
receive the first-fruits of the Spirit, and of the constant
renovation of grace and of pardon in the Lord's Supper ;
and here he does not introduce the quasi- Romanism of some
who (like the Pharisees in regard of the prophets) speak much
of him, but do not teach the same doctrine. He does not
tell his hearers that there are but two times of absolute
cleansing, baptism and the day of judgment.2
It was in this year, and probably on May 10th, the fifth
Sunday after Easter-day, when the text occurs in the epistle
for the day, that our prelate preached before the King at
Greenwich one of his best and most ingenious discourses upon
the " doing of the Word," from St. James i. 22 ; noting one
of the great diseases of his day, the placing of all religion
in the going to hear sermons, and at the same time neglecting
to be so much as present at the prayers. And in exposing
this absurd kind of religion (so to call it), he does not with
some vilify preaching, nor teach with these that the hearers
should equally follow whatsoever they are taught from the
pulpit. He would have all that is heard to rest on the
authority and to be tried by the rule of holy Scripture. He
notes that " not so few as twenty times in the Gospel is the
preaching of the word called the Kingdom of Heaven, as a
special means to bring us thither. It is that of which St.
James in the verse before saith, It is able to save our souls;
the very words which the angel used to Cornelius, that, when
St. Peter came, he should speak words by which he and his
household should be saved."1
On Whit-Sunday, May 24th, Andrewes preached before
the King at Greenwich a sermon erroneously assigned to the
year following in the folio edition. This, which is the second
of the Whit-Sunday series, abounds more in the faults of
his style than most of his discourses. He does not proceed
far before he pours out his wit upon the Puritans. " I wish
it were not true this, that humours were not sometimes mis
taken, and mistermed the Spirit. A hot humour flowing from
the gall, taken from this fire here, and termed, though untruly,
the Spirit of zeal. Another windy humour proceeding from
the spleen, supposed to be this toind here, and they that [are]
filled with it (if nobody will give it them) taking to them
selves the style of the godly brethren. I wish it were not
needful to make this observation, but you shall easily know
it for an humour : non continetur termino suo, its own limits
will not hold it. They are ever mending churches, states,
superiors ; mending all save themselves j alieno non suo is the
note to distinguish an humour."1
Observing that the gifts for which we are to thank God on
our celebration of this day are the pastors of his church, he
says, u Must we keep our Pentecost in thanksgiving for these ?
are they worth so much, I trow ? We would be loth to have
the prophet's way taken with us (Zach. xi. 12) that it should
be said to us, as there it is, If you so reckon of them indeed,
let us see the wages you value them at; and when we shall see,
it is but eight pound a year^ and having once so much, never
to be capable of more. May not then the prophet's speech
there well be taken up ? A goodly price these high gifts are
valued at by you. And may not he justly (instead of Zachary
and such as he is) send us a sort of foolish shepherds; and send
us this senselessness withal, that, speak they never so fondly,
so they speaJc, all is well ; it shall serve our turn as well as the
best of them all ? Sure, if this be a part of our duty this day
to praise God for them, it is to be a part of our care, too,
they may be such as we may justly praise God for. Which
whether we shall be likely to effect by some courses as have
of late been offered, that leave I to the weighing of your wise
considerations."1
On 12th July he, with Dr. Eavis, Bishop of London, and
Dr. Barlow, Bishop of Eochester, assisted Archbishop Ban
croft at the consecration of Dr. Henry Parry, Dean of Chester,
to the see of Gloucester, then vacant by the translation of Dr.
Eavis to London.
Dr. Parry was the son of Henry, son of William Parry,
gentleman, of Wormbridge, about ten miles south-west of Here
ford, but was himself a native of Wiltshire, 1561. He was a
scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 13th Nov. 1576,
and Fellow and Greek Reader in that college. He was Eector
of Bredon in Worcestershire, Chaplain to Queen Elizabeth,
installed Dean of Chester 1st August, 1605, which he resigned
on his consecration at Croydon to the see of Gloucester. He
was translated to Worcester 13 July, 1610, died 12 December,
1616, and was buried in the Cathedral there. He was as
a preacher an especial favourite with King James. The
King of Denmark gave him a very rich ring for a sermon
preached before him and James the First at Eochester in
1606. He was very charitable to the poor. He built the
pulpit that was standing in the nave of Gloucester Cathedral
in the last century, but has since been removed. He pub
lished two Latin discourses, translated into English ; The Sum
of a Conference between Jolin Eainolds and John Hart touching
the head and faith of the Church, Oxford, 1619, folio; and
translated from Latin into English a Catechism of contro
verted questions in Divinity, Oxford, 1591, 8vo., which was
written by Zachary Ursinus, a Silesian, and Caspar Olevian,
commonly called The Heidelberg Catechism.1
In August Bishop Andrewes was with the King at Eomsey
in Hampshire, probably at Broadlands near Eomsey. His
Majesty's host there appears to have been Edward St. Barbe,
Esq., who, being previously of Ashington near Ilchester,
Somersetshire, married Frances, daughter and heiress of
William Fleming, Esq., of Broadlands, who died in 1606.
Edward was grandfather of the first baronet of his name.
Here Bishop Andrewes preached before the King on the
5th of August, the anniversary of the Gowry conspiracy, from
2 Sam. xviii. 32 ; shewing that it was not for Jews only,
but for Christians also, to denounce and curse the enemies
of God, of mankind, and of the church. In this sermon he
noticed the rise of the Independents, and the levelling prin
ciples of the Anabaptists of those times.
" Of the first sort of these risers (against kingly powder) are
the Anabaptists of our age, by whom all secular jurisdiction
is denied. No lawmakers they but the evangelists : no courts
but presbyteries : no punishments but church-censures. They
rise against the very state of kings : and that should they find
and feel, if they were once grown enough to make a party.
"A second sort there be (the Independents) that are but
bustling to rise ; not yet risen, at least not to this step ; but
in a forwardness they be ; proffer at it, that they do. They
that seek to bring parity not into the commonwealth by no
means, but only into the church. All parishes alike, every
one absolute, entire of itself. No dependency, or superiority,
or subordination. But, this once being had, do we not know
their second position ? — have they not broached it long since ?
The church is the house} the commonwealth but the hangings.
The hangings must be made fit for the house, that is, the
commonwealth fashioned to the church, not the house to the
hangings. No, take heed of that. And when they were
taken with it and charged with it, how sleightly in their
answer do they slip it over ! These, when they are thus got
far may rise one step higher ; and as Aaron now must not, so
perhaps neither must Moses then exalt himself above the con
gregation, seeing that all Gods people are holy no less than he"
On the 8th October Andrewes, as one of the residentiaries
of St. Paul's, presented the erudite Arabic scholar, William
Bedwell, to the Kectory of Tottenham, Middlesex. He was
one of the translators of the Bible, and had been educated
at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was B.A. in
1585, and M.A. in 1588. In 1601 he was made Kector of
St. Ethelburga, London. He was Chaplain to Sir Henry
Wotton in his embassy to Venice, where he is said to have
assisted Father Paul in his history of the Council of Trent.
He published Kalendarium Viatorium Generate, The Traveller's
Kalendar, serving generally for all parts of the world, 8vo.
1614. Also Mohamedis Imposturce: that is, a Discovery of
the manifold Forgeries, Falsehoods, and horrible Impieties of
the blasphemous seducer Mohammed / with a demonstration of
the Insufficiency of his Law, contained in the cursed Alkoran.
Delivered in a Conference had between Two Mohametans on
their Return from Mecha. Written long since in Arabick, and
now done into English by William Bedwell. Whereunto is
annexed the Arabian Trudgman, interpreting certain Arabic
Terms used by Historians : together with an Index of the
Chapters of the Alkoran , for the understanding of the con
futations of that Book. London. Imprinted by Richard Field,
dwelling in Great Wood-street, 1615. It purports to be a
translation of a work at that time 600 years old. Mr. Gough
says that Bedwell translated the Koran into English. He
was an early friend and patron of Henry Jacob, son of Henry
Jacob, one of the earliest Independents. He recommended
the younger Jacob to the notice of William Earl of Pembroke,
at whose recommendation he was admitted B.A. of Oxford,
1629. He found a patron in Laud, and adhered to him in
his troubles. He was intimate with Selden, who befriended
him in his own troubles. He died 1652. Bedwell also
published^! Brief Description of the Town of Tottenham High
Cross, 4to. 1631. In this he gave a copy of a very ancient
ballad, The Tournament of Tottenham; or, the Wooing,
Winning, and Wedding of Tibbe the Reves Daughter. This
poem, says Warton, in his History of English Poetry, is a
burlesque on the parade and fopperies of chivalry. It was
reprinted in Percy's Reliques of Antient Poetry, in Kobinson's
History, (fee., of Tottenham, 1828. He died May 5, 1632,
aged 78, and is buried in Tottenham Church.
On 5th November he preached before the King at White
hall, from the first four verses of Psalm cxxvi., enlarging upon
the greatness of that wonderful deliverance which is com
memorated on that day.
On Friday, Christmas-day, he again preached before the
King at the same place, upon the mystery of godliness , and its
manifestation in our Lord's incarnation, discoursing excel
lently upon the great humiliation and love by which this
manifestation of God was distinguished.
On Easter-day, March 27, 1608, Bishop Andrewes preached
most eloquently upon the history of our Lord's resurrection,
from St. Mark xvi. 1—7, at Whitehall.
On April 17 he assisted at the consecration of the truly
noble Dr. James Montague to the see of Bath and Wells.
On August 5, the anniversary of the Growry conspiracy, we
find Bishop Andrewes preaching before the King at Holdenby,
the once magnificent but now ruined mansion first of Sir
Christopher Hatton. His sermon, full of his usual ingenuity,
was upon David's most noble and pious answer to Abishai
when Abishai counselled him to put Saul to death. The King
on the same day rode to Bletsoe, the seat of Oliver Lord St.
John, whose third and fourth sons, Antony and Alexander,
he there knighted, as also Sir Thomas Tresham, of Newton
in Northamptonshire. On August 6 he knighted Sir Eichard
Harpur of Derbyshire, of a family now represented by Lord
Crewe.
On October 9 Bishop Andrewes with Dr. Thomas Ravis,
now Bishop of London, and Dr. James Montague, the truly
munificent Bishop of Bath and Wells, assisted Archbishop
Bancroft at Lambeth Chapel on the consecration of Dr.
Richard Neile, Dean of Westminster, to the bishopric of
Rochester. Dr. Neile owed his rise to the great Lord Bur-
leigh and to his son Robert Earl of Salisbury, to both of
whom he was successively Chaplain. He was himself the
great patron of Archbishop Laud, whom this year he made
his Chaplain, and in 1609 introduced him to the notice of the
King, before whom he preached at Theobalds.
On November 5, Dr. John King, Dean of Christ Church,
who appears as a preacher to have been esteemed next to
Andrewes, preached before the King at Whitehall.1 His
text was Psalm xi. 2 — 4. u Cruelty," he truly said, " is the
ensign and badge of that Church" [the Church of Rome].
u The habit of the harlot is according to her heart, scarlet and
purple ; her diet the diet of cannibals. * / saw her drunken,
saith the Apostle, ' with the blood of saints.' I wondered to
see her so wonderfully drunk \davp,a fjieya. Rev. xvii. 6].
The city was first founded in blood, the blood of a natural
german brother ; and the Papacy also founded in blood, the
blood of a natural liege lord and emperor."2
And again : u But from the 5th of November was three
years ; henceforth, till time shall be no more, let the name of
Nero, with the rest, rest in peace, and be buried in silence,
and instead of Syllan, Marian, Scythian, Tartarian, Barbarian,
Turkish, Spanish, let Romish, Popish, Antichristian, Catholic,
Catacatholic cruelty be a proverb, astonishment, hissing, for
all nations and ages to come."3 Towards the conclusion he
urges the King to put in execution the laws against Ro
manists.4 This sermon was published by the King's com
mand, and Dr. King was in three years advanced to the
see of London.
This very eloquent preacher and resolute and upright
prelate was born about 1559, at Wormenhall, a small village
in Buckinghamshire near Thame, being the son of Philip
King (who was nephew to the first Bishop of Oxford), and
of his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Edmund Conquest, of
Houghton Conquest, Bedfordshire. He was educated at
Westminster School and at Christ Church, Oxford. He was
elected a student of Christ Church in 1576, and in 1580 was
preferred to the Church of St. Anne's and St. Agnes, Alders-
gate. Dr. John Piers, who from 1570 to 1576 was Dean of
Christ Church, and in 1588, after having been successively
Bishop of Rochester and Salisbury, was raised to the Arch
bishopric of York, made him his private Chaplain. This most
pious and truly Christian Archbishop made him in 1590
Archdeacon of Nottingham, and probably procured his being
added to the Queen's Chaplains. Archbishop Piers died in
November, 1594, and the Queen in 1597 presented King to
the Church of St. Andrew's, Holborn, on the promotion of
Bancroft to the see of London. He had already, by his
sermons upon Jonah preached at York, proved himself the
Chrysostom of his times, but with more depth of piety and
with a more accurate theology than is to be found in the
homilies of that most earnest and ingenious father. He is
in some respects indeed far superior to Bishop Andrewes,
although in his court sermons he displays similar faults, and
spoils his own more natural method. In 1599 he was collated
to the prebendal stall of Sneating, in the place of Dr. William
Cotton, the Queen's godson, now raised to the see of Exeter.
That truly noble-minded and uncorrupt favourite of the Queen
and of his country, Egerton, the Lord Keeper, made him his
Chaplain, and in 1605 he succeeded Dr. Ravis as Dean of
Christ Church, and was for some years Vice-Chancellor of
the University. When Dr. Ravis was to be promoted to the
see of Gloucester, several of the students of Christ Church
petitioned of the King that he might succeed in the Deanry,
which request the King, a great admirer of his preaching,
graciously granted. His oratorical talent was such that Sir
Edward Coke was wont to call him the best speaker in the
Star Chamber. On September 8, 1611, he was consecrated
to the bishopric of London. But delighting in his office, and
esteeming the preaching of God's word the highest dignity,
he preached constantly in one and another church in his
diocese every Lord's Day. He died on the 29th or 30th
of March, 1621.
On November 11 we meet with the following notice of
Bishop Andrewes in a letter from John Chamberlain to
Dudley Carleton :
" I thank you for your remonstrance of the French clergy,
which will give me occasion perhaps to visit the good Bishop
of Chichester, though I doubt he be not at leisure for any
bye-matters, the King doth so hasten and spur him on in this
business of Bellarmin's, which he were likely to perform very
well (as I hear by them that can judge) if he might take his
own time, and not be troubled nor entangled with arguments
obtruded to him continually by the King, who is somewhat
pleased with a late accident fallen into Scotland, where one
Sprott, being to be executed for some other matter, confessed
somewhat touching Gowry's conspiracy that makes it hang
more handsomely together." Of Sprott and his confessions,
and of the Gowrie conspiracy, the reader may obtain sufficient
information and impartially conveyed in the 40th chapter of
Sir Walter Scott's History of Scotland, vol.. ii., 1830.1
Of our prelate's Tortura Torti mention is also made in a
letter from Dudley Carleton, Esq., to Sir Thomas Edmunds,
London, June 8th, 1609 : " The Bishop of Chichester's book is
now in the press, whereof I have seen part, and it is a worthy
work ; only the brevity breeds obscurity, and puts the reader
to some of that pains which was taken by the writer. Dr.
Morton comes after with a large volume; and Sir Edward
Hoby (who by the way is a sad mourner for his mother)
comes in like an entremets with a work of his dedicated to
the relapsed ladies ; so as Paul's churchyard is like to be well
furnished."
CHAPTER IX.
Plots of the Papists against King James — The King treats them
favourably — Duplicity of Pope Clement Till. — Watson's con
spiracy — The Gunpoivder Plot — Grounded on the Pope's Breves —
The plot referred to the Pope for his opinion — Garnet fearful lest
he should encourage recourse to arms — Greenwell and Hall —
Garnet — Lingard's plea for Garnet — Concealment of sins not yet
perpetrated formerly not allowed under the plea of confession —
Martin del Rio — Abstraction of documents from the State Paper
Office — -Abbot's Antilogia — N~ot the Jesuits alone to be blamed —
Oath of allegiance — The King's Premonition to Christian Princes
and States — His Confession of Faith — His dissertation on Anti
christ.
BEFORE the accession of King James in 1603, Pope Clement
VIII. had put Garnet, the superior or head of the English
Jesuits, in possession of epistles or breves directing the
Roman Catholics to prevent the accession of James, or of
any but a Roman Catholic, whenever the demise of Queen
Elizabeth should occur. The Romish historian, Dr. Lingard,
himself acknowledges that Garnet had these breves ; that
in 1602 Thomas Winter, afterwards one of the Gunpowder
conspirators, had arranged with the ministers of Philip III.,
King of Spain, a plan for the invasion of England,1 that the
death of Elizabeth disconcerted the project, and that " Garnet
had thought it prudent to burn the breves in favour of a
Catholic successor."2 Thus did the court of Rome and the
Jesuits plot against James even previously to his accession,
but opportunities did not favour their schemes, and so they
did what they could to conceal them. Dr. Lingard says that
the Catholics (or, as they are more appropriately designated,
Romanists) almost unanimously supported the right of James ;
and, but for their religion, their loyalty probably would have
been unanimous ; and Dr. Lingard admits that the King felt
inclined to grant them some partial indulgence. The open
toleration of their religion the country would not have en
dured. Thousands were still alive who remembered that
reign of horror which some of their degenerate posterity have
taken such pains to bury in oblivion. The nation was
imbued with too deep a spirit of unfeigned attachment to the
great truths of Christianity itself, to look upon Romanism
with the lukewarmness of the present age. It was therefore
boldly impolitic in the King to shew them so much regard
as he is acknowledged to have done. He invited them to
frequent his court ; he conferred on several the honour of
knighthood ; and he promised to shield them from the penal
ties of recusancy, so long as by their loyal and peaceable
demeanour they should deserve the royal favour. This
benefit, though it fell short of their expectations, they ac-
cepted with gratitude.1 By most it was cherished as a pledge
of subsequent and more valuable concessions ; and the Pontiff
Clement VIII., now that Elizabeth was no more, determined
to cultivate the friendship of the new King. Thus Dr.
Lingard would, as it were, introduce his reader to Pope
Clement VIII. ; but it is well inserted, a now that Elizabeth
was no more," for had her life been spared, the Pope's breves
in the hands of Garnet were to have operated to the depriva
tion of King James of his right. Dr. Lingard gravely informs
his reader that the Pope also sent strict commands in two
breves directed to the arch-priest and the provincial of the
Jesuits, to the intent that the missionaries (for this is the
name given by the Romish Church to her clergy in this most
benighted kingdom) should confine themselves to their spiri
tual duties, and discourage every attempt to disturb the public
tranquillity. These breves he should have sent earlier, for
he knew full well that his missionaries were used to such
plots and conspiracies as those which had so often endangered
the life of Elizabeth. These breves too were sent to Garnet,
the same to whom had been entrusted those treasonable breves
to keep James out of the throne of this kingdom.
Already one plot had been discovered in which two priests
were engaged, one of whom confessed that the Jesuits who
betrayed him, and that when he and they were in a state
of mutual hostility, had first led him into the crime. The
priest Watson, at the gallows, alluding to the former disputes
between himself and the Jesuits, said, " he forgave and desired
to be forgiven of all, namely, that the Jesuits would forgive
him if he had written over-eagerly against them ; saying also
that it was occasioned by them, whom he forgave, if they had
cunningly and covertly drawn him into the action for which
he suffered.1 Watson himself had his accomplices, of whom
it is not clear that all were brought to justice. So did
Romanism attempt to overturn the government when the
King had been scarcely three months upon his throne.
Thus rendered insecure by those who turned religion into
rebellion, and faith into faction, his person and kingdom were
guarded in his first Parliament by additional fences to protect
our country against the insidious policy of Rome. Fresh
cautions were framed against the missionary-priests, and
legal disabilities were attached to those who studied in the
foreign universities.2
The second plot was that of 1605, which the reader may
find palliated in Dr. Lingard's History, who is followed to
some extent by the anonymous continuator of Sir James
Mackintosh's History of England?
On May 1, 1604, the five Gunpowder conspirators, Robert
Catesby, Thomas Winter, Thomas Percy, a distant relation
and steward to the Duke of Northumberland, John Wright,
and Guido Fawkes, after having sworn each other to secresy,
received the host at the hands of John Gerard a Jesuit. The
only two who survived (for Catesby, Percy, and Wright were
slain resisting their pursuers) declared that Gerard had no
knowledge of the conspiracy. This was but a pretext. Their
assembling was itself an extraordinary proceeding. Catesby
and Winter were well-known agitators. After Catesby had
once escaped the block, he attached himself, says Dr. Lingard,
to the Spanish party amongst the Bomanists, and bore a
considerable share in their intrigues to prevent the succession
of the Scottish monarch.1 Such were the communicants • no
wonder that they made choice of a Jesuit for their celebration
of these mysteries.
We have heard Dr. Lingard in one place speaking of the
pacific disposition of Pope Clement VIII.;2 in another, he
owns that Catesby, the originator of the plot, defended it to
Garnet on the ground of the two breves of Clement VIII.
for the exclusion of the Scottish King from the succession.
"If," he argued, "it were lawful to prevent James from
coming in after his promise of toleration, it could not be
wrong to drive him out after his breach of that promise."
Thus does Dr. Lingard himself bear witness to the Pope's
duplicity. It is observable, too, that Garnet, instead of
condemning the conspirator on the simple ground of the
atrocity of his design, opposes to his plans two letters of the
Pope advising him (Garnet) to discourage all attempts against
the state ;3 letters, the sincerity of which Catesby, no inex
perienced politician, could appreciate at their real value.
But the guilt of both parties is sufficiently clear from the
result of their most conscientious conference. In conclusion,
a sort of compromise was accepted, that a special messenger
should be despatched to Borne with a correct account of the
state of the English Catholics, and that nothing should be
done on the part of the conspirators till an answer had been
received from the Pontiff."4 Thus the Jesuit and the con
spirator were both agreed that the plot might proceed with
the Pope's permission. Nay, Garnet himself, who had just
pleaded the Pope's pacific letters, was (according to Dr.
I Lingard) fearful that his Holiness would countenance the plot.
If he had not such apprehensions, why should he secretly add
a request that the Holy Father would prohibit under censure
a recourse to arms? Such was the casuistry of the Pope
and of Garnet. Garnet was but an ill teacher of loyalty
who had been judged by such a Pope traitor enough to be
the keeper of breves denying the right of James to his crown.
Dr. Lingard concedes that his martyr Garnet, who he says
was only guilty of misprision of treason, constantly practised
equivocation and falsehood when examined touching the
conspiracy, nay, even justified the confirmation of equivo
cation by the taking of oaths, or by the receiving of the
sacrament.
Bates, Catesby's man, was sent to a Jesuit by name
Tesmond, and revealed to him the whole plot in confession.
Tesmond highly applauded the design, and gave him the
host to confirm him in his purpose. So Bates confessed, as
Bishop Andrewes has recorded in his Tortura Torti* Our
prelate appears to affirm that Gerard himself administered
to the five conspirators the oath of secresy.
A third Jesuit, Oldcorn (alias Hall), after the detection of
the conspiracy, justified it.
Twice was Garnet consulted with respect to the guilt
of involving the innocent in any fatal calamity in a case of
necessity when some great end called for it. Dr. Lingard
notices but one such occasion. On the first occasion Green-
well (Dr. Lingard' s Greenway} was present with Catesby.
The second time the same question was put on Moorfields,
and a more direct answer returned, lt that] the innocent might
lawfully be blown up with the guilty, and that it would be
highly meritorious if it should bring any great advantage
to the Catholics."1
Garnet confessed that from Catesby he knew that a plot
was in agitation before he knew it in detail, and that he was
guilty both for concealing it and not preventing it.2 Nay,
Garnet said prayers and offered up masses for the success
of the plot,3 and an order was issued to all the Jesuits to use
certain special prayers for the furtherance of an object that
was in the mind of their superior (Garnet), and which was
to be a great benefit to the Catholic cause. Scarcely four
days before that memorable one in which the plot was to
have been executed, Garnet was at Coughton in Warwick
shire (the very place whither the other conspirators were to
have gathered to him, if the plot had not failed), and there
enjoined his auditors to pray for the success of the act which
was then about to take place.4
So much for the innocence of Dr. Lingard's and his
Church's martyr, Garnet.
The excuse that Dr. Lingard urges and that Bellarmine
urged in his behalf was, that he had only kept that secret
which had been delivered under the seal of confession ; but
the Komish historian admits that Garnet was brought to
some concessions even on this point, only after his trial.1 Dr.
Lingard does not enlighten his readers by telling them that
the excuse of the seal of confession was one that would not
have been allowed in France, and one on which there existed
a diversity of opinion at least at that time in his own com
munion. It is true indeed that in Ireland, if not in England,
this profane doctrine of the inviolability of treason when
communicated in confession is maintained by the Eomish
priesthood, a proof that Eomanism is as little to be trusted
now as in the darkest ages of its supremacy.
Cardinal Bellarmine, whose pen was equally ready to
write books of devotion and treatises of rebellion, affirmed
that his Church did not permit any other conduct than that
of the holy and incomparable martyr Garnet, for so this
traitor was esteemed at Kome. Bishop Andrewes adduces
various examples of the revealing of treason communicated in
confession by priests in France.2 He remarks that Bellarmine
says truly, ( permits not] for that it is certain that formerly it
did permit such disclosures. uWho," asks Bishop Andrewes,
lt is ignorant of that verse, Hceresis est crimen, quod nee confessio
ccelat?" Heresy is a crime which not even confession conceals.
The secresy for which Bellarmine pleads, and which Dr.
Lingard does not condemn, is disapproved by Alexander de
Hales, the master of whom both Bonaventura and Aquinas
learnt. It is also disclaimed utterly by Angelus & Clavasio,
an Italian who lived about A.D. 1480. He affirms that the
priest is bound to reveal any evil that is in meditation against
the state and that he shall have heard in confession. The
same is the equally decided opinion of Sylvester Prierias,
master of the Pope's Palace, who wrote against Luther.
Nicholas of Palermo, one of the greatest canonists of the
15th century, reports also that the same was the opinion of
Pope Innocent the Fourth, who died in 1254. And so Domi-
nicus a Soto, confessor to the Emperor Charles V., and present
at the Council of Trent in 1545. * But a new doctrine arose
after the time of the Reformation, and probably only with
a view to its extinction and to the concealment of the multi
plied conspiracies by which Protestant princes were assailed,
at the instigation more especially of the still tolerated and
flourishing order of Jesuits.
Garnet equivocated not only in regard of facts but of
doctrine. Upon his trial, defending himself upon the ques
tion of the Pope's deposing power, he who had been the
keeper of breves to prevent the accession of King James,
pretended that although the Pope had power to depose
Catholic princes, he made a difference in the matter of
excommunicating and deposing of princes, betwixt the con
dition and state of our king and of others, who having
sometimes been Catholics, did or shall afterwards fall back.2
Afterwards the Earl of Salisbury put the question to him,
Whether in case the Pope, per sententiam orthodoxam, should
excommunicate the King's Majesty of Great Britain, his
subjects were bound to continue their obedience? To this
Garnet denied to answer.3
The Attorney-General observed that Garnet might and
ought to have discovered the mischief for preservation of the
State, though he had concealed their persons.4 It may be
added that he might have both done this and secured the
lives of the conspirators, who, upon timely warning, might
all have fled, and would certainly have been protected by
the King of Spain in his dominions, the fomenter himself
of rebellion and treason. Dr. Lingard must have been aware
of this, who yet evidently sympathizes with these incen
diaries.
Garnet died a true Romanist, imploring the Virgin Mary
to receive him at the hour of his death, using these words
of their idolatrous hymn —
"Maria mater gratise,
Mater misericordiae,
Tu me a malo protege,
Et hora mortis suscipe." x
The atrocity and almost incredible viciousness of Garnet's
private life is set forth by Dr. Abbot (afterwards Bishop of
Salisbury) in the preface2 to his Antilogia. Bishop Andrewes
alludes in plain terms to his unlawful attachment to the female
who was permitted to converse with him when in the Tower.
Such was the man whose piety is commended by Bellarmine,
and who was regarded by some of his own communion as a
martyr, and one whose innocence was attested by a miracle.
In 1674 appeared A Discourse concerning the Original of
the Powder Plot, together with a Relation of the Conspiracies
against Queen Elizabeth^ and the Persecutions of the Protestants
in France to the Death of Henry the Fourth, &c. This work
consists of two parts, the first by the editor, the second a
translation from De Thou of his account of the Parisian
massacre in 1572, and of the Gunpowder Plot.
The author observes that " this was not the first time that
this means hath been proposed by confederates of that party,
for the destruction and murder of our princes, for it had been
long before proposed by one Moody to be laid under Queen
Elizabeth's bed and secretly fired."
But there is a passage of the Jesuit Martin Del Rio
(otherwise Delrius} in his Disquisitiones Magicce^ printed
about five years before the conspiracy, in which it is actually
anticipated and resolved that, being revealed in confession
as a thing not yet executed but resolved upon, it is most
agreeable to the sanctity of confession that it should not be
revealed. And for this resolution of this case of conscience
the Jesuit refers to the opinion of the then Pope, Clement VIII. ,
the same who conspired against the accession of King James
by sending breves to England with a view to raise to the
throne Arabella Stuart. This book of the Jesuit Del Rio,
printed about five years before the plot was discovered, may
be seen in the Bodleian Library, and after the discovery
of the plot the book was reprinted in 1617 with the same
passages retained.2 The opinion that sins deliberately intended to be committed should be revealed by the priest Del Rio condemns as dangerous and tending to withdraw men from confession ; and therefore he concludes that the
contrary opinion is altogether to be followed, that it is not
lawful to detect even treason against the State. He puts
the case, " A malefactor confesses that himself or some
other hath put powder or something else under such an
entry (or groundsel), and except it be taken away the house
will be burnt, the Prince destroyed, and as many as go into
or out of the city will come to great mischief or hazard ;" and
then resolves for the negative, that the priest ought not to
reveal this confession, owning that herein he differed from
others of his communion, but alleging that this seems to
be the mind of Pope Clement VIII. himself. Then he
proceeds to justify the concealing of such crimes by equivocation and falsehood ; nay, he must not reveal such even to the Pope. This carries with it a great air of consistency.
And here it may be observed that the Romish religion
itself is a religion of subtleties, equivocations, and evasions.
Thus both Bishop Andrewes, and after him Bishop Abbot,
in his Antilogia, expose the shuffling of Bellarmine with
respect to the Pope's deposing power over princes. Thus
the Romish distinctions respecting image- worship, and the
mediation of Christ and of the saints, and the higher and
inferior worship, the one due to him, the other to them.
Garnet was not the first equivocator ; it had grown into
a system and had been frequently practised by others before
him. And not only the Jesuit Garnet, but Black well, the
head or arch-priest of the secular or parochial clergy of that
communion in England, sanctioned a book recommending
equivocation.
The second volume of Criminal Trials, published in 1835
in the Library of Entertaining Knowledge, and printed by
Charles Knight, Ludgate Street, is entirely occupied with
the Gunpowder Plot, and is the fullest account of it that
has hitherto appeared. It professes to be for the most part
taken from the collection of original documents respecting
the plot, preserved in the State Paper Office, and arranged
and indexed some years ago by Mr. Lemon. The writer
of the preface observes that, " although it was not thought
expedient by the Privy Council of James I. to publish to
the world much information respecting the plot, it is clear
from the existence of this mass of evidence, that they were
in possession of full knowledge of its minutest details.
Perhaps no conspiracy in English history was ever more
industriously inquired into. For nearly six months the
inquiry almost daily occupied the earnest attention of the
commissioners appointed by the King to examine the
witnesses and prisoners, during the whole of which time
their labours were zealously aided by Chief Justice Popham,
Sir Edward Coke, Sir Francis Bacon, and several others of
the most acute and experienced lawyers of the day. More
than five hundred depositions of witnesses and real or sup
posed confederates were taken, a large proportion of which,
together with numerous contemporary letters and papers
relating to the transaction, are still in existence at the State
Paper office."
This writer informs us, in the next page that, " for many
years previously to the passing of the Catholic Belief Bill,
whilst the propriety of that measure was the subject of
animated discussion in every session of Parliament, proposals
for the publication of these papers were discouraged from just
and laudable motives, under a reasonable apprehension that
such a publication, sanctioned as it must have been in some
measure by the Government would have tended to prejudice
that great question" The writer who can justify such conduct
may at least be trusted in the witness which he unwillingly
bears to the reasonableness of the remaining prejudices of his
Protestant fellow-countrymen, and such witness this publi
cation does bear.
But a little after this he adds that the papers of this
collection most materially concerning Garnet and the Jesuits
are now missing. " Although the documents upon the subject
of the Gunpowder Plot preserved at the State Paper Office are
very numerous, and constitute a body of evidence of incalculable
value to the historical inquirer, the collection is not by any
means complete. Many important papers, which were par
ticularly mentioned and abstracted1 by Bishop Andrewes, Dr.
[afterwards Bishop] Abbot, Casaubon, and other contemporary
writers, and some of which were copied by Archbishop Bancroft
from the originals so lately as the close of the 17th century,
are not now to be found. It is remarkable that precisely those
papers which constitute the most important evidence against
Garnet and the other Jesuits are missing ; so that if the merits
of the controversy respecting their criminal implication in the
plot depended upon the fair effect of the original documents
now to be found in the State Paper Office, impartial readers
might probably hesitate to form a decided opinion against
them." The advocate of the Jesuits, Dr. Lingard, is silent
upon this most remarkable incident. Our author proceeds :
" The papers of particular importance upon this part of the
subject are the minutes of an overheard conversation between
Garnet and Oldcorne in the Tower, dated the 25th February,
1605-6 ; an intercepted letter from Garnet addressed to " the
Fathers and Brethren of the Society of Jesus," dated on
Palm Sunday, a few days after his trial ; and an intercepted
letter to Greenway [Green well], dated April 4, 1605-6. That
all of these papers were in the State Paper Office in 1613,
when Dr. Abbot wrote his Antilogia, is evident from the
copious extracts from them published in that work; and a
literal copy of the first of them, made by Archbishop Bancroft
many years afterwards from the state papers, is still in existence.
The originals of these documents, and many others mentioned
by Dr. Abbot and Bancroft, are, however, not to be found in
the proper depository for them; and it is undoubtedly a
singular accident that, amongst so large a mass of documents,
precisely those should be abstracted upon whose authenticity
the question so hotly disputed between the Catholics and
Protestants mainly depended."1
Dr. Lingard builds considerably upon three Jesuits, two of
them, if not all three, friends o/"as well as to the conspirators,
Gerard, Greenwell,2 and a third who wrote under the name
of Eudsemon.3 The author of the account in Knight's
Criminal Trials (Mr. Jardine) notices that his real name
was L'Heureux, that he was a native of Candia, and a very
learned Jesuit who taught theology at Padua, and was
appointed by Pope Urban VIII. Eector of the Greek College
at Koine.* And the controversy to which this Eudsemon
gave occasion, affords us an incidental proof of the authen
ticity of the papers now missing. For, says our author of
Abbot — who undertook his Antilogia in 1613, in answer to
Eudsemon-Joannes (who, having first been answered ably
and candidly by Isaac Casaubon in his Epistle to Fronto
Duceeus in 1611), rejoined in 1612 that " it is manifest from
the contents of this work (the Antilogia) that during its
composition Dr. Abbot had free access to all the docu
mentary evidence against Garnet which was in the pos
session of the government. This he would readily obtain
through his brother the Archbishop of Canterbury ; and
indeed there is a memorandum still existing in the State
Paper Office, which records that on the 9th of October, 1612,
a great number of the documents relating to the plot, together
with the Treatise of Equivocation found in Tresham's desk,
were delivered to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that on
the 1st of July, 1614, they were again returned by him to
their proper depository."1
On the night of the 5th of November there was to be a general
meeting of the friends of the conspirators at Dunchurch in War
wickshire, under the pretence of hunting on Dunsmoor Heath,
from which place, as soon as they received notice that the
blow was struck, a party was to be despatched to seize the
Princess Elizabeth at the house of Lord Harrington, near
Coventry.2 With a view to this arrangement Sir Everard
Digby (one of the conspirators) removed Lady Digby and
his family, and with them Father Garnet, to Coughton Hall,
near Alcester, in the same county, which then belonged to
Mr. Thomas Throckmorton.3 On Saturday the 26th of
October the plot was discovered by the letter to Lord
Monteagle. On Sunday the 3rd of November Sir Everard
Digby rode from Coughton to Dunchurch. Some of the
conspirators were at Ashby St. Legers, the residence of
Lady Catesby, mother of Catesby the conspirator.4 About
six o'clock in the evening, just as the conspirators Robert
Winter and his companions were about to sit down to supper
with the lady of the mansion, Catesby, Percy, the two
Wrights, and Eookwood, fatigued and covered with dirt,
arrived with the news of the apprehension of Fawkes and the
total overthrow of the main design of the plot. After a
short conference, the whole party taking with them all the
arms they could find, rode off to Dunchurch. There they
found the house (Coughton Hall) filled with a large party of
anxious and excited guests ; for, though only a few were
informed of the specific nature of the intended atrocity, all
were aware that some great and decisive blow was about to be
struck in London for the Romish cause, the intelligence of
which they were that night to receive.1
Thus, besides the conspirators, many there were that
consented ; and what were the consciences of this large
party of anxious and excited guests ? and in what rank and
condition of life were they? Gentlemen, as was the boast
of Fawkes and Greenway.2 And there is little doubt but
that the conspirators would have been joined by many, if
the plot had not so suddenly and providentially failed. But
where they expected to be received they were, after the
detection of their schemes, repulsed for having brought ruin
on the cause they had purposed to restore.3
We are told that the Romanists as a body abhorred the
plot ; yet we find one conspirator, Greenway or Greenwell,
in favour with the Pope, and others safe under the protection
of Komish Sovereigns. " Baldwin, a Jesuit in Flanders, and
Hugh Owen had been implicated in various previous plots
against the English government, and the suspicions of their
acquaintance with the Powder Plot were confirmed by the
statements of Fawkes and Winter. A requisition was
therefore made to the Archduke in Flanders to deliver up
these individuals to the English government, and also to
secure the person of Sir William Stanley, upon which much
negotiation and correspondence passed through Sir Thomas
Edmondes the English ambassador at Brussels ; and Lord
Salisbury states to Sir T. Edmondes that the object was to
confront them with the other conspirators, whose trials were
delayed for that purpose. Eventually the Archduke, after
referring to the King of Spain, refused to comply with the
requisition.
Such was the spirit of Komanism that it led foreign princes
to shelter this conspiracy and to open their arms to these
men of blood, to become partakers of their guilt, and, by
withholding from James the means of detecting the con
spirators, proving to the world that their religion sanctioned
every kind of injustice towards those who did not embrace it.
In like manner one and another of the English Romanists
secreted the Jesuit Greenway, and thus gave him oppor
tunities of escape from justice.1 There was abundant testi
mony that both Greenway and Garnet, with full knowledge
of what had happened in London, joined the conspirators at
Haddington while they were in arms against the government.2
The author of the second volume of Criminal Trials
regards the plot as a purely Jesuit plot. He writes, " It
ought to be remembered that all the avowed conspirators
belonged to the Jesuit faction."3 But this little avails to
clear the character of the Romish laity. The Treshams, the
Winters, William Lord Vaux of Harrowden, the Abingdons,
and others, are incontestable indications of the facility with
which the Romish religion enables her priesthood to corrupt
the loyalty of her laity. The Romish faith was in truth
practically indebted to the Jesuits, and hence, as it owned
them, it unavoidably partook, and ever will partake, of their
disgrace.
The very fact of the recognition of a body who justified
doing evil that good might come, who taught a system of
equivocation and perjury, and solemnly maintained the piety
of such practices, has branded the Komish Church with a
stigma that can never be erased. This was the true cause
of the severe enactments touching recusancy, resorting to
Popish worship, harbouring seminary priests, &c. The state
was never safe whilst there were Jesuits in the country. And
as every kind of disguise was resorted to by them, it only
remained for the state to treat with suspicion every individual
who taught, and to watch narrowly every individual who
professed, the Romish religion.
But, on the other hand, the whole blame of treason and
disloyalty must not be laid upon the Jesuits. They have
truly said in their own behalf, that the doctrine of the Pope's
power of deposing princes, and if so, by consequence, the
papist's duty to rebel against the deposed, was not peculiar
to them. They were the deepest politicians, the most
unscrupulous, the most conscientiously unconscientious ; but
the religion itself, which, in not disavowing the Popes who
were the authors of these treasonable doctrines, gave them
advantages in promulgating it, the religion itself is to blame.
Since the publication of the second volume of Criminal
Trials another edition of Dr. Lingard' s History has appeared,1
in which he admits the genuineness of the letter of Garnet
1 to his beloved fathers and brethren.' This letter Dr.
Lingard had previously declared a forgery, but fresh light
has broken in upon him. In this letter he confessed to his
beloved fraternity that he had implicated Greenwell or
Greenway, which he should not have done, but that he
understood that he was safe upon the continent. It was well
for Dr. Lingard to withdraw his attack upon this letter, for he
had given to his readers a misrepresentation of the contents of
the letter itself, which was detected by the author of this
second volume. " Garnet is made to say," says Dr. Lingard
'that had he not known that Greenway was in the tower,
he would have invented some other fiction.' What Garnet
is really represented to have said is the reverse of this."1
Other misconceptions (to call them by no severer a name)
Dr. Lingard has continued to indulge, misconceptions most
ably removed by the author just cited in the concluding
pages of his most interesting volume.
This author bears impartial testimony to the fidelity and
ability both of Bishop Abbot's Antilogia and of Bishop
Andrewes' Tortura Torti? A most remarkable circumstance
it is that two men could have been found zealous to palliate
a traitor such as Garnet, one a layman, the other a clergyman
of the Church of Rome, Mr. Butler and Dr. Lingard. Both
of these could not but be aware that if Garnet had but for
one week instead of for five months a previous knowledge
of the plot, he might have given notice of it, and by so doing
have gained as great a reputation for that most plotting of
all societies, as now he has obtained for them an infamy
which they will never survive.
How little sympathy with true patriotism can be tolerated
by the Eomish communion, or can consist with a zealous
adherence to that system, may be seen from the fact that in
the Circle of the Seasons — a work full of interest in a variety
of points, and recommended to the general reader by the
most plentiful interspersion of poems and quotations — it is
more than insinuated that there was no such plot as that
of 1605.
King James, notwithstanding this fresh proof of the
insecurity to which he and his kingdom stood exposed, was
inclined to lenient measures. Doubtless the firm adherence of
his royal mother to the Church of Home was the ground of
that undue regard for the Romanists which he evinced to the
very last, to the loss of his popularity, and to the ruin of his
posterity. But the kingdom, more than ever awake to the
true character of the Church of Rome, which now looked upon
Garnet as a martyr whose innocence was attested by miracles,
demanded that the public security should be protected by
greater restraints tupon the Romish party, and amongst these
restraints was the new oath of allegiance.
"That James," writes Dr. Lingard, "in the proposal
of the last measure, had the intention of gradually relieving
one portion of his Catholic subjects from the burden of the
penal laws, is highly probable ; but whether those to whom
he committed the task of framing the oath, Archbishop Abbot
and Sir Christopher Perkins, a conforming Jesuit, were ani
mated with similar sentiments, has been frequently disputed.
They were not content with the disclaimer of the deposing
power ; they added a declaration that to maintain it was
impious, heretical, and damnable." And why, it may be
asked, should Dr. Lingard object to this? What should
hinder the Pope's making use of the deposing power, if that
power was lawful and admitted to be so on religious grounds ?
But if every soul is to be obedient to the higher powers (the
civil magistrate), and that by the Word of God, why should
a Christian believe other of the Pope's assumed deposing
power, than that it is damnable in him to exercise it, or in
others to give heed to it? What worse heresy than that
which merges all power in the ecclesiastical; a heresy that
would represent the religion of nature and of revelation as
diametrically opposed? What more impious than thus to
set the ministers of the Church above the Word of God ?
There was moreover an especial reason for framing the
oath in such decided terms. The Romanists were taught
that although equivocation was a duty when priests were
to be screened and other good ends maintained, it was not
lawful to deny the faith. Thus Satan, even as a teacher
of falsehood, was careful to appear as an angel of light. But
it would have been a denial of their faith for the Jesuits
and those of the Romanists who thought as highly as they
did of the Pope's authority, to have declared that the exercise
of that power or the admission of it to the deposing of princes
was impious, heretical, and damnable.
Of these fresh restraints and of this oath King James
himself thus speaks in his Premonition to all Christian
Monarchs, Free Princes, and States: "The never enough
wondered at and abhorred Powder Treason (though the
repetition thereof grieveth, I know, the gentle-hearted Jesuit
Parsons), this treason, I say, being not only intended against
me and my posterity, but even against the whole House of
Parliament, plotted only by Papists, and they only led
thereto by a preposterous zeal for the advancement of their
religion, some of them continuing so obstinate that even at
their death they would not acknowledge their fault, but in
their last words, immediately before the expiring of their
breath, refused to condemn themselves and crave pardon
for their deed, except the Romish Church should first
condemn it : and soon after, it being discovered that a great
number of my Popish subjects of all ranks and sexes, loth
men and women, as well within as without the country, had
a confused notion and an obscure knowledge that some great
thing was to be done in that Parliament for the weal of
the Church, although, for secresy's cause, they were not
acquainted with the particulars ; certain forms of prayer
having likewise been set down and used for the good success
of that great errand ; adding hereunto, that divers times, and
from divers priests, the archtraitors themselves received the
sacrament for confirmation of their heart and observation of
secrecy ; some of the principal Jesuits likewise being found
guilty of the foreknowledge of the treason itself, of which
number some fled from their trial, others were apprehended
(as holy Garnet himself and Oldcorne were) and justly
executed upon their own plain confession of guilt ; if this
treason now, clad with the'se circumstances, did not minister
a just occasion to that Parliament House, whom they thought
to have destroyed, courageously and zealously at their next
sitting down, to use all means of trial, whether any more
of that mind were yet left in the country ; I leave it to you to
judge whom God hath appointed his highest depute judges
upon earth : and amongst other things for this purpose, this
oath of allegiance, so unjustly impugned, was then devised and
enacted. And in case any sharper laws were then made
against the Papists, that were not obedient to the former
laws of the country, if ye will consider the time, place, and
persons, it will be thought no wonder, seeing that occasion
did so justly exasperate them to make severer laws than
otherwise they would have done. The time, I say, being the
very next sitting down of the Parliament after the discovery
of that abominable treason : the place being the same where
they should all have been blown up, and so bringing it
freshly to their memory again : the persons being the
very Parliament-men whom they thought to have destroyed.
And yet so far hath both my heart and government been
from any bitterness, as almost never one of those sharp
additions to the former laws have ever yet been put in
execution.
"And that ye may yet know further, for the more con
vincing of these libellers of wilful malice, who impudently
affirm that this oath of allegiance was devised for deceiving
and entrapping of Papists in points of conscience j the truth
is, that the lower house of Parliament, at the first framing of
this oath, made it to contain that the Pope had no power to
excommunicate me, which I caused them to reform, only
making it to conclude that no excommunication of the Pope
can warrant my subjects to practise against my person or
state, denying the deposition of kings to be in the Pope's
lawful power, as indeed I take any such temporal violence
to be far without the limits of such a spiritual censure as
excommunication is. So careful was I that nothing should
be contained in this oath, except the profession of natural
allegiance and civil and temporal obedience, with a promise
to resist all contrary uncivil violence."1
The oath was as follows : tl I A. B. do truly and sincerely
acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare in my conscience
before God and the world, that our Sovereign Lord King
James is lawful king of this realm, and of all other his
Majesty's dominions and countries : and that the Pope
neither of himself nor by any authority of the Church or
see of Rome, or by any other means with any other, hath any
power or authority to depose the King, or to dispose of any of
his Majesty's kingdoms or dominions, or to authorize any
foreign prince to invade or annoy him or his countries, or to
discharge any of his subjects of their allegiance and obedience
to his Majesty, or to give license or leave to any of them to
bear arms, raise tumults, or to offer any violence or hurt to
his Majesty's royal person, state, or government, or to any of
his Majesty's subjects within his Majesty's dominions. Also
I do swear from my heart that, notwithstanding any declara
tion or sentence of excommunication, or deprivation made
or granted, or to be made or granted, by the Pope or his suc
cessors, or by any authority derived or pretended to be derived
from him or his see, against the said King, his heirs or suc
cessors, or any absolution of the said subjects from their
obedience ; I will bear faith and true allegiance to his Majesty,
his heirs and successors, and him and them will defend to the
uttermost of my power, against all conspiracies and attempts
whatsoever which shall be made against his or their persons,
their crown and dignity, by reason or colour of any such
sentence or declaration, or otherwise, and will do my best
endeavour to disclose and make known unto his Majesty,
his heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous con
spiracies which I shall know or hear of to be against him
or any of them. And I do further swear that I do from my
heart abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical, this
damnable doctrine and position, that princes which be ex-
communicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or
murthered by their subjects or any other person whatsoever.
And I do believe, and in conscience am resolved, that neither
the Pope nor any other person whatsoever, hath power to
^absolve me of this oath, or any part thereof, which I acknow
ledge by good and full authority to be lawfully ministered
unto me, and do renounce all pardons and dispensations to the
contrary. And all these things I do plainly and sincerely
acknowledge and swear, according to these express words
by me spoken, and according to the plain and common sense
and understanding of the same words, without any equivo
cation, or mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever.
And I do make this recognition and acknowledgment
heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a
Christian. So help me God."1
This oath was condemned by the Pope (Paul the Fifth)*
who in his bull dated at Rome ' at S. Mark, under the sign
of the fisherman, the 10th of the calends of October,2 1606,
the second year of our Popedom,' 3 decided that such an oath
could not be taken without hurting of the Catholic faith
and the salvation of souls, tl seeing it contains many things
which are flat contrary to faith and salvation. Wherefore we
do admonish you that you do utterly abstain from taking this
and the like oaths," &c.
The English Eomanists not being all of the mind of the
Jesuits, were divided respecting this bull. Many of them
treated it as a forgery, and amongst them Blackwell, the
head or arch-priest of the seculars.4 Upon this the Pope
drew up a second brief or bull, dated the 10th of the calends
of September,5 1607. This disobedient spirit the Pope in
this brief attributed to the suggestions of the Devil, to the
"subtlety and craft of the enemy of man's salvation;" and
he assured them that it was not without mature deliberation
that he wrote to them his first letter.6
And now the disloyalty of the English Eomanists being
thus tested, many of them bade adieu to their native country
sooner than deny this article of their faith, that the Pope is
supreme over kings and princes, to set up and to pull down
at his pleasure. Some indeed would rather dare the Papal
fulminations than commit themselves to his treasons. The'
missionaries (so Dr. Lingard calls the Romish priesthood in this
country1) were divided in opinion. Some followed Blackwell,
some the Pope. The Jesuits in general condemned the oath.2
And now observe the effect of that servile submission of
the understanding which is the very foundation of the Eomish
faith: a priest, by name Drury, thought the oath admis
sible, but " dared not prefer his private sentiments before
those of the Pope," and would rather be executed than
take the oath. If such was the effect of this Papal impiety
upon a priest, what probably would be its effect upon the
laity? Dr. Lingard all but canonizes Drury, and would
seem to intimate that the disloyalty of the priesthood was
very general. Drury tl dared not prefer his private sentiments
before those of the Pope, and of many among his brethren,
and chose to shed his blood rather than pollute his conscience
by swearing to the truth of assertions which he feared might
possibly be false."3 Thus jesuitically does this acute his
torian write about conscience. One can plainly perceive
that Romanism is not yet purified from the subtlety of
Garnet and his brethren. To Blackwell Cardinal Bellarmine
addressed a long and laboured epistle, expostulating with
him for his loyalty in regard of the oath, and pretending
that the oath struck at the Pope's spiritual supremacy.4
In 1608 the King published his Apology for the Oath of
Allegiance, against the two Breves of Pope Paulus Quintus,
and the late Letter of Cardinal Bellarmine to G. Blackwell
the Arch-priest. To this was afterwards prefixed A Premonition
to all most mighty Monarchs} Kings, Free Princes, and States
of Christendom.
Bellarmine had in his letter affirmed, with the usual
effrontery of Jesuit controversialists, that " from the beginning
of the Church's infancy even to this day it was never heard
that ever a Pope either commanded to be killed, or allowed
the slaughter of, any prince whatsoever, whether he were an
heretic, an heathen, or persecutor." The King reminds
Bellarmine of the panegyrical oration made by Pope Sixtus
the Fifth in praise and approbation of the friar that murdered
King Henry the Third of France ; and " besides that vehement
oration and congratulation for that fact, how near it scaped
that the said friar was not canonized for that glorious act,
is better known to Bellarmine and his followers than to us
here."1 " But sure I am," adds the King, " if some Cardinals
had not been more wise and circumspect in that errand than
the Pope himself was, the Pope's own calendar of his saints
would have sufficiently proved Bellarmine a liar in this case.
And to draw yet nearer unto ourselves, how many practices
and attempts were made against the late Queen's life, which
were directly enjoined to those traitors by their confessors,
and plainly authorized by the Pope's allowance. For
verification whereof there needs no more proof than that
never Pope either then or since called any churchman in
question for meddling in any of these treasonable con
spiracies; nay, the Cardinal's own S. Sanderus, mentioned
in his letter, could well verify this truth if he were alive ;
and who will look (into) his books2 will find them filled with
no other doctrine than this. And what difference there is
between the killing or allowing the slaughter of kings, and
the stirring up and approbation of practices to kill them, I
remit to Bellarmine's own judgment."
Then follows a curious list of Bellarmine's theological
contradictions, the King observing that it is the less surprising
that he should contradict himself in matters of fact, who
contradicts himself so frequently in matters of doctrine. In
the latter part of his Apology the King exposes Bellarmine's
anarchical positions respecting the regal authority, as that
obedience due to the Pope is for conscience' sake, but the
obedience due to kings is only for certain respects of order
and policy; people may for many causes depose kings, but
no flesh hath power to judge the Pope ; and that the obe
dience - of ecclesiastics to princes is not by way of any
necessary subjection, but only out of discretion and for
observation of good order and custom.1
In the Premonition the King notices the answers of the
Jesuit Parsons and of Bellarmine (under the name of Mat-
thceus Tortus) to his Apology, and having animadverted upon
Parsons in a style sententiously suited to his deserts,2 returns
to Bellarmine, and lays before his readers the insolence and
scurrility of that unprincipled advocate of the Papal su
premacy.3 He then shews the authority which the earlier
Christian kings and emperors exercised over the Popes.
The Popes depended upon the emperors for their confirm
ation, and were in a manner tributary to them to about
the end of the seventh century.4 The Emperor Otho
deposed Pope John XII. for divers crimes, and especially
for impurity.5 The Emperor Henry the Third in a short
time deposed three Popes, Benedict the Ninth, Sylvester
the Third, and Gregory the Sixth, as well for the sin of
avarice as for abusing their extraordinary authority against
kings and princes.6
The King proceeds with the history of the right of
investiture : " As Walthram testifieth that the Bishops
of Spain, Scotland, England, Hungary, from ancient insti
tution till this modern novelty, had their investiture by
kings, with peaceable enjoying of their temporalities wholly
and entirely."
He mentions how the Queen his mother would not have
the ceremony of spittle used at his baptism, and the last
message she sent to him, that although she was of another
religion than that wherein he was brought up, yet she would
not press him to change except his own conscience forced
him to it.1
The King next clears himself of the charge of heresy. " I
am such a Catholic Christian as believeth the three Creeds,
that of the Apostles, that of the Council of Nice, and that
of Athanasius, the two latter being paraphrases to the former.
And I believe them in that sense as the antient Fathers and
Councils that made them did understand them, to which three
Creeds all the ministers of England do subscribe at their
ordination. And I also acknowledge for orthodox all those
other forms of Creeds that either were devised by Councils
or particular Fathers against such particular heresies as most
reigned in their times.
el I reverence and admit the first four general Councils as
catholic and orthodox. And the said four general Councils
are acknowledged by our Acts of Parliament, and received for
orthodox by our Church.
11 As for the Fathers, I reverence them as much and more
than the Jesuits do, and as much as themselves ever craved.
For whatever the Fathers for the first five hundred years did
with an unanime consent agree upon to be believed as a
necessary point of salvation, I either will believe it also, or at
least will be humbly silent, not taking upon me to condemn the
same. But for every private Father's opinion, it binds not my
conscience more than Bellarmine's, every one of the Fathers
usually contradicting others. I will therefore in that case
follow St. Augustine's rule in judging of their opinions, as
I find them agree with the Scriptures. What I find agree
able thereunto I will gladly embrace, what is otherwise I will
(with their reverence) reject."
To the Virgin Mary the King yields the title of Mother
of God, ll since the divinity and humanity of Christ are
inseparable." "And," he adds, " I freely confess that she is
in glory both above angels and men, her own Son (that is
both God and man) only excepted."1
The worship of reliques and images the King calls without
reserve " damnable idolatry."
The Jesuits he calls Puritan-Papists, and declares that
for himself he was always inclined to episcopacy. And
whatsoever protestations of fidelity to the discipline of the
Kirk the King ever made, he probably spoke the truth when
he affirmed that his heart was at least Episcopalian ; and he
appealed to his erecting of bishoprics, in 1584, and to his
Basilicon Doron, especially to the preface to the second
edition of that work.
The remainder of the Premonition is for the most part
taken up with a dissertation proving that Rome is the Babylon
and the Pope the Antichrist of the Book of Revelation ; thus
also applying St. Paul's prophecy in the second chapter of
his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. The Church of
Rome he describes as " full of idolatries," and " so bloody
in the persecution of the saints, as (that) our Lord shall be
crucified again in his members."2
The two witnesses clad in sackcloth the King inclines to
interpret of the Old and New Testament. " And now whether
this book of the two testaments or two witnesses of Christ
have suffered any violence by the Babylonian monarchy
or not, I need say nothing. The thing speaks for itself.
I will not weary you with recounting those commonplaces
used for disgracing it, as calling it a nose of wax, a dead
letter, a leaden rule, a hundred such-like phrases of reproach.
But how far the traditions of men and authority of the Church
are preferred to these witnesses doth sufficiently appear in the
Babylonian doctrine. And if there were no more but that
little book [by Cardinal Perron] with that pretty inscription,
Of the Insufficiency of Holy Scripture, it is enough to
prove it."
CHAPTER X.
Bishop Andr ewes' " Tortura Torti" — Of the Pope's deposing power
— Of excommunication — Of binding and loosing — The Bulls against
Queen Elizabeth — The words of commission — The Gunpowder Plot
undertaken only from blind zeal — Origin of recusancy — Sacri
legious nature of Romish worship — Rome Babylon — Lord Eal-
merino — The First General Lateran no Council — Pope Innocent
III. — Uncertainty of the doctrine of the Papal supremacy —
Historical accusations against the Church of Rome — Assassination
of Henry IIL — Bellarmine's contradictions — Image worship —
Fisher and More.
IN 1609 Bishop Andrewes followed the King in his con
troversy, and replied to Bellarmine's Matthceus Tortus in
his Tortura Torti. Our author adduces a multitude of
Romanists who denied the Pope's deposing power; John
of Paris, James Almain, Johannes Major, Cardinal Zabarella,
Alberic de Rosate, Antony de Rosellis,1 the Doctors of the
Sorbonne in 1561 and 1591, the Jesuit James Bosgrave,
Blackwell the arch-priest, and others. He follows Bellar-
mine through all his evasions, as that the Pope cannot as
Pope by his ordinary jurisdiction depose princes, but as a
spiritual prince. He refutes Bellarmine's pretence that to
deny the Pope's deposing power is to deny his power to
excommunicate. The former is not included in the latter,
and so not one with it. Theodosius was under the censure
of Ambrose eight months, but none of his subjects withheld
their allegiance to him on that account. Henry the Fourth
of France had been lately crowned, and the oath of allegiance
taken fry his subjects, whilst he was under the Pope's excom
munication.1 By the greater excommunication instituted by
Christ in those words, "If he hear not the Church, let him be
to thee as a heathen man" (Matt, xviii.) that power is en
trusted to the Church, not to St. Peter only. "As an
heathen man" has its limits. It is not lawful to despoil an
heathen of his goods, or to disinherit him, much less to take
from his crown. Heathen kings are certainly exempt from
this power of deposition, but it is absurd that Christian
princes should be in a worse condition. Church censures are
founded on the law of charity, and must not be destructive
of it. Many, too, are the exceptions allowed amongst
Komanists by which the Papal excommunication itself is
nullified. So the Venetians took no notice of the Pope's
censures, and the Council of Tours in 1510 cleared King
Louis the Twelfth of them.
As to the threefold command to Peter, "Feed my sheep"
both Cyril and Augustine teach that the intent of our Lord
appears to have been, by Peter's threefold confession, to wipe
off as it were the stain of his threefold denial. Nor is it safe
to insist upon the Pope's succession from St. Peter ; neither
was the office of feeding Christ's sheep committed to him
alone. The form of election, too, has been repeatedly varied,
and is not sanctioned by Christ himself.6 And certainly
" Feed my sheep" is not the same as uslay the leaders of
my sheep, drive my sheep out of the fold, scatter my sheep,
let their pastures be trodden down and their waters troubled."
1 Keceive the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' and with them
shut out from the kingdoms of the earth ' whatsoever thou shalt
bind,' that is, whatsoever part of guilt or of treason thou shalt
bind the more closely ; 'whatsoever thou shalt loose] that is,
whatsoever bond of law, duty, faith, and oath thou shalt
loosen. There is a great gulph betwixt these.
Our prelate then shews the inconsistency of the Cardinal,
who in one place denies that King James is a Christian, and
in another affirms that he belongs to the Pope's fold, for
neither is he a judge of kings, says Bellarmine, but as they
are Christians.
From the Pope's binding he proceeds to the Pope's loosing
power, that is, as the Cardinal himself has it, his power of
dispensing with censures, laws and oaths, vows, sins, and
punishments. And here again he wittily exposes his con
fusion of words and things. " For sin, censures, and penalties
are wont to be loosed, but laws, oaths, and vows to be bound,
and to be more closely bound ; and if the Pope looseth these
also, what is it that remains for him to bind? Men have
no need to be loosed from their duty, nor from the bond of
their duty; but they are loosed from their duty when they
are loosed from law, and from the bond of their duty when
they are loosed from their oath. Nay, what is more wonderful,
he looses in the same way the law itself and offences against
the law, and both with the like facility. Be it law or be it
an offence against the law, it is all one with him. It is as
easy a thing with the Pope to loose laws as sins. But it
can scarcely be that with one key both these doors, the door
of the commandment and the door of sin, can be opened.
Perchance then there are two keys ; one for opening sins, penal
ties, censures; the other for opening laws, vows, oaths. But
certainly both these cannot be the keys of the kingdom of
heaven. But if the keys for the loosing .of sins are the keys
of the kingdom of heaven, it behoved that the keys of hell
were given for the loosing of laws and the commandments of
laws."3 So no man can be under any obligation either to
God or man, but the Pope may forthwith loose him from it !
"On this ground what shall be sure upon earth? what shall
become of all compacts, treaties, bonds of society whatsoever?
how shall we ever be hereafter sure of any man's faith or
promise?"4 Then with a pun does Bishop Andre wes loosen
the whole fabric of Jesuitical casuistry, saying, ft Potestas
haec quidem solvendi dicenda non erat, sed dissolvendi
omnia." "But surely Bellarmine," says Bishop Andrewes,
"intended to limit the Pope's power of loosing laws. He did
not intend a power to loose the laws of nature upon which
yet the duty of civil obedience is founded ; nor the laws of
the ten commandments, which are, according to Aquinas,
indispensable ; nor yet the evangelical laws, of which that
of St. Peter is one, Be ye subject to the King as supreme:
for this is the will of God. What does your Pope in this
case? Does he loose this law of Peter, and say, 'Be not
subject to the King, although he is supreme ; for this is the
will of the Pope'? I conceive not. He will not put Paul
the Fifth on a par with Peter"*
"But as to oaths David said, / am sworn and am steadfastly
purposed to keep Thy righteous judgments. Peter, if he had
lived at that time, could he have absolved David of this
oath ? Suppose any one binds himself by oath to keep the
seventh commandment, not to commit adultery, can any Pope
absolve him of this oath ? But if a man in like manner bind
himself under the fifth commandment to civil subjection,
what power has the Pope to absolve him in the one case
more than in the other? The Popes dissolve obligations to
fealty, but not to treason ; they loose what ought to be bound,
they bind what ought to be loosed. They acted the part
of jugglers in Queen Elizabeth's reign, playing fast and
loose with their own bulls. In the eleventh year of the
Queen's reign Pope Pius the Fifth published a bull excom
municating and deposing the Queen, and cursing all those
who should yield any obedience to her. Before that time the
Komanists had attended the Protestant service, but now they
absented themselves, and open rebellion broke out in the
northern counties. 'Now truly,' said Sir Edward Coke at
the trial of the traitor Garnet, ' most miserable and dangerous
was the state of Komish recusants in respect of this bull ; for
either they must be hanged for treason in resisting their
lawful sovereign, or cursed by the Pope for yielding due
obedience to her Majesty. But of this Pope it was said
by some of his own favourites, that he was a holy and
learned man, but over-credulous, for that he was informed
and believed that the strength of the Catholics in England
was such as was able to have resisted the Queen. But when
the bull was found to take such an effect, then there was a
dispensation given, both by Pius Quintus himself and Gregory
the Thirteenth, that all Catholics here might procure quiet
and peace by shewing outward obedience to the Queen, but
with these cautions and limitations ; firstly, l Rebus sic stan-
tibusj things so standing as they did; and secondly, c Donee,
publica lullce executio fieri posset, that is, until they should
grow into strength and become able to resist and overcome."1
aA wonderful workman" (says Bishop Andrewes of
Pope Gregory the Thirteenth), "with one and the same
bull he binds and he does not bind. He binds heretics, he
binds not the Catholics ; and the Catholics he binds not, and
yet he does bind. Of a truth the Pope did not redeem the
souls of men, who by perjury makes such a sport of them."2
But Bellarmine fences round this power with " when it is
expedient for the glory of God, or for the salvation of souls."
Then consult history and see whether the theory and the
practice agree. tl This power is exercised not when souls are
hazarded, but when tenths are refused, provision made against
' provisions ,' and sales of indulgences forbidden. This power
is exercised when the Pope's revenue is to be increased,
whilst so many grosses are paid for such a vow solved, so
many florins for such an oath broken, so many gold pieces for
such a law transgressed ; in all which not the glory of God,
but the dishonour of princes ; not the salvation of souls, but
the wasting of their substance is the aim. So long as his
interest is consulted, the glory of God, the salvation of souls
may go where they please."3
Our prelate then returning to the words of commission,
interprets Matt. xvi. by John xx., Whosesoever sins ye remit,
&c.4 This interpretation he supports by Augustine, Theophy-
lact, Pope Adrian the Sixth, Cardinal Hugo, Anselm, Drith-
mar, and Duns Scotus. The promise in Matt. xvi. was
fulfilled in the grant in John xx. Secondly, the promise
was to Peter, not for himself but as representing the Church.
So Origen on Matt, xvi., Jerome in his first book against
Jovinian, Augustine on the 12th chapter of St. John, as also
in other parts of his works, Ambrose on the Dignity of the
Priesthood, Leo the Great in his third sermon on the assump
tion of the Blessed Virgin, Euthymius Zigabenus1 on St.
Matthew, Rabanus Maurus in the Catena of Aquinas on
Matthew, and Hugo a Sto Victore on the Sacraments, with
others of more recent date.2 But as to the oath of allegiance
it did not enter upon the general question of the Pope's
power to dispense with oaths ; it confined itself to his power
of dispensing with this particular oath.3 From the nature
of the oath, which is not for the most part promissory but
assertory, it is plain that he has no power over it. Add to
this the inherent voidness of absolution from civil obedience,
as had been before made manifest.4 He then exposes the
sophistry of Bellarmine in his attempt to shew that the
taking of the oath involves the denial of the Pope's spiritual
supremacy,5 and animadverts upon the assertion in the
Pope's first bull, l that the oath contained many things
plainly contrary to faith and salvation.'6 He then shews
the dishonesty of Bellarmine in mixing up the oath of
supremacy imposed by Henry VIII. with this oath of
King James.7
Bellarmine professed l not to excuse' the conspiracy : ' to
accuse' Bishop Andrewes observes would have been too severe
a word for the Cardinal to use. But how does execration of
the conspiracy consist with sheltering of the conspirators G.
and G.?8 (Greenway and Gerard). This question neither Bel
larmine could then, nor can Dr. Lingard answer now, and yet
the palliator of the Jesuits and of the plot need not be believed
to execrate it more than Bellarmine. Both Lingard and Bel
larmine in some measure justify the exasperated feelings which
they say led to the plot, by representing the Eomanists as
disappointed by the King and as enduring heavy persecution.
''But the King would be safe if he only tolerated the
Komanists." That was by no means certain. Henry the Third
suffered all his subjects to enjoy the free exercise of the Romish
religion, and yet he was assassinated.1 ' No one can deny/ said
Bellarmine, ' that occasion of desperation was given.' c With
what intent,' replies Bishop Andrewes, ' was this said by you,
but to excuse it ? But what though occasion had been given ?
You know what your master saith, l( Occasion doth neither
physically nor morally work anything."2 With him, God
ministers occasion of sinning, but not thereby of excusing
sinners. He exposes the hypocrisy of Clement VIII.,3 which
has before been pointed out. As to the occasion of desperation
he proves that there was none. The plot was contrived in the
very first year of King James's reign.4 No fines were levied
for recusancy until the fifth month of the second year. No
man suffered death, or the loss of all his goods. Yet before the
King was crowned, the priests Clarke and Watson conspired
against him, and the latter on his execution affirmed that the
Jesuits had then acknowledged that they had a great design of
their own on foot, no other than that famous plot of 1605.5 The
fines for recusancy began to be gathered in July, 1604. But in
the following November, when some of the Eomanists presented
a complaint to the King, that at the beginning of his reign,
before his royal intention of not demanding the fines due in
Elizabeth's reign was known, heavy contributions had been
levied upon them, the King ordered that those sums should be
returned to them by the same persons who had collected them,
and so they recovered to the amount of 52,000 florins; and yet
in the very next month were the conspirators engaged in digging
under the walls of the parliament-house.
The reader must not expect to find suck facts recorded by
the veritable historian who has in our day so elaborately
pleaded for the pseudo-martyr Garnet. Again, the confessions
of the conspirators had attested that in some it was zeal, in
others private friendship ^ that induced them to act their detest
able part.1 Some learned men beyond sea had filled them
with the idea that their design was " not only pious, but (as
you are wont to call it) meritorious" As for the oath of al
legiance, it was expressed in the very preamble that it was
for the detecting of those who were in heart disloyal and ready
to join in such plots and conspiracies!2
The bull was false in charging persecution upon the King
and representing the Komanists as martyrs.3 It was a mis
nomer to speak of Apostolical Briefs. He might as well
have called the ink with which they were written, apostolical
ink-, or the lead with which they were sealed, apostolical lead*
Bishop Andrewes returns to speak of the insincerity of the
Popes. They do not desire to cause disobedience to princes,
but they will not suffer men to be bound to obedience. But
Paul the Fifth is willing that obedience should be rendered
to princes according to the Holy Scriptures :5 " where, if
Matthew [Tortus] speak truth, there is good hope. For this
is a new thing in the Pope, that he should define the Holy
Scriptures to be the rule of obedience." Our wish it is that
all these questions should be referred to this rule, the questions
of the Pope's deposing power, &c.6 With great force does he
afterwards observe that this power leaves all princes in pos
session of subjects who are only ' hypothetically faithful.'7
He shortly after lays before the reader the penal laws enacted
in the parliament immediately after the Gunpowder plot.8 He
then relates that in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign
there were not many besides gfcme of the Romish clergy who
absented themselves from our worship and sacraments. They
were so few that the term recusant was not then known, nor
did the law recognize it for ten years. Hence it was plain
that the bull of Pope Pius the Fifth was the cause of recusancy.
Hitherto they had been of the same religion as now, when of
a sudden they became recusants, or refused to attend the
established worship. It was not then a matter of religion, or
why did they not absent themselves from the very first ?
Why then did they cease in the eleventh year of the Queen
from attending our worship ? But what was the effect of the
bull? It introduced at once and in one mass, treason and
recusancy, and gave occasion to the state to regard them as
identical. And the effect of the bull was manifestly both.
For now came both recusancy and the northern insurrection.
Not before faith was discovered to be mixed up with perfidy,
were any penal laws devised ; laws rather fines than punish
ments.1 It is plain then that the laws and fines appointed for
recusancy are not purely laws touching religion, but of a
mixed nature; touching religion mixed up with disloyalty
towards the prince^ touching persons whose civil obedience is
determined ly the Pope's lulls. Such recusants were in the
eye of the laws, and surely without any injustice such might
be punished.2 The Romanists complained of these laws, but
Bellarmine might soothe himself, and answer his own enquiry,
' what greater punishment can be conceived ? ' if he would call
to mind the variety of deaths, even burning to death by slow
fires, which were inflicted in the reign of Queen Mary.3
" But with what colour of truth could you call our sacred
rites sacrilegious? In them is nothing sacred taken away.
Look to it, that that term suit not yours rather, in which the
letter part of the sacred prayers, namely, the mind and under
standing of the person pray ing , and the sacred cup, to wit, the
half of the Eucharist, is by a sacrilegious daring taken away ;
in which a part of divine honor and that which is sacred to
God is given to a wooden image, and stamped bread is? not
without the height of sacrilege, adored for Gfod"1
How must Tortus have writhed beneath this ecclesiastical
scourge! "And equally absurd it is in you to call it an
oath of perfidy, which was made as well for the branding of
past as for the providing against future perfidy ; which is at
this time administered against perfidy, and which will be both
in books and in our laws an eternal memorial to perfidy, and
to the perfidy of your men who bound themselves by a double
obligation to perfidy against their country itself, and against
the father of their country. But ye who dissolve faith, and
oaths the bonds of faith, to the end that men may be per
fidious ; ye who say that faith is not to be kept, that is, that
perfidy is lawful and right, do ye dare mutter anything about
perfidy, or even to name the word to your own disgrace?"2
To the objection of Queen Elizabeth's supremacy he re
turns the spiritual jurisdiction of the abbess, which is more
strictly ecclesiastical. Nay, Aquinas did not confine the
exercise of the power of excommunication to the priesthood.3
The mendacious Sanders, whom Bellarmine had highly lauded,
had the shamelessness to publish to the world that Queen
Elizabeth exercised the ministerial calling.4 But nothing
was too mendacious for the Church of Rome. There was
published an account of the (fabled) persecution in England,
in which it was affirmed that the Catholics were sown up in
the skins of beasts and given to be devoured by dogs j others
were represented as bound to mangers and left to feed upon
hay, others as having their entrails eaten out by dormice.5
It was fit that a doctrine of devils should be maintained by
such devilish means, and that false miracles should be ac-
companied with false legends. Bishop Andrewes cites in
allusion to them the second chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to
the Thessalonians, that God had sent upon them strong de
lusion that they should believe lies.1
In order to vindicate the turbulence and anarchy which
must needs follow the Pope's deposing power, Bellarmine
had ventured to represent Gregory the Great as yielding but
a forced submission to the Emperor Maurice. Our prelate
shews that Gregory taught another and a better doctrine,2 and
severely animadverts upon the opposition of these Papal prin
ciples to those which ennobled the sufferings of the Primitive
Church.3
Cardinal Bellarmine wTas possessed of the same measure of
controversial integrity with Dr. Wiseman and the Jesuit
Harding. This the reader may gather as from his larger
works, so abundantly from his Matthew Tortus*
Our prelate quotes at full length from the acts of the
various Councils5 convened by Charlemagne, and appealed to
by King James in his ' Apology,' and adduces the submission
of Pope Leo the Great (in the point of convening Councils) to
the Emperors Theodosius, Yalentinian, and Martian.6 He
refutes Bellarmine by himself, convicting him of alleging an
epistle to Damasus from the Second General Council, which
epistle Bellarmine had, in his Eecognitio or Censure of Ms own
looks, admitted to be spurious.7 When the Pope's power
waxed great, then were General Councils held in Italy, but
no General Council until nearly the completion of eleven cen
turies. Bellarmine thought no authority too great for the
Pope. He openly avowed that he could make articles to be
received "with Catholic faith."8
Bellarmine would have Rome Babylon sooner than not
have a scripture-proof that St. Peter had been there. Bishop
Andrewes retorted that he might as well have made Mark an
allegorical person as Babylon an allegorical place.1 He then
proceeds at some length to shew that Rome is the Babylon
of the Apocalypse.2 This and the whole question of Anti
christ he discusses at large in his Answer to Bellarminds
Apology.
Cardinal Bellarmine was not afraid to affirm that the
breves entrusted to that very innocent and holy martyr
Garnet, were rather favourable than unfavourable to King
James.3 Bishop Andrewes remarked that Garnet knew other
wise.4 Indeed, had they been for the King, they would have
been boasted of by him and his fraternity. But, said Bel
larmine, the Romanists had hope of King James. This was
not enough for the Pope, who in his breves forbad the
Eomanists to advance the cause of any but of such as would
not only tolerate but promote with all possible earnestness
the cause of their religion.5 Bellarmine appealed to the
King's correspondence with the Pope. This was answered
by the tl Declaration and Confession of the Lord Balmerino,
one of his Majesty's Privy Councillors, concerning some letters
which he caused to be sent without the King's knowledge
and as in his name, to Rome, to Pope Clement the Eighth,
1598.6 A question has been raised whether the King was
not insincere in this business, sacrificing his secretary to screen
himself.7
Our author gives his reason for suspecting the Council
called the first General Lateran Council, A.D. 1215, to be
a forgery. Cochlseus was the first who published it, and that
not before 1538, £ from an old manuscript,' but without adding
a word touching the way in which it came into his hands, or
anything to establish its authority. In 1535 James Merlin
published the Councils, but not a word of this. A Council
was indeed called; nothing was decreed at it. Pope Inno-
cent himself condemned the book of Abbot Joachim; he
himself condemned Almeric, and so Matthew Paris.1
Bishop Andrewes writes satirically of Pope Innocent ex
communicating King John and robbing him of his kingdom,
" 0 virum sanctum ! 0 speculum innocentise !"2 Mr. F. W.
Faber has appeared too late in the world to chastise the good
bishop's irreverent treatment of the holy Father. " We read
the history," says this writer, in a spirit worthy of Bellarmine,
" we read the history of John and his Barons j and, while we
think we are carrying away a clear view of the bigoted,
haughty, secular prelate, how unlike the original is the rude
image we have hewn from the coarse materials of Protestant
history."3 Holy man, he is cursing and anathematizing,
and tumbling the world upside down ; but, good reader, look
into his soul ; it is as clear as the azure vault of heaven.
Only a cloud of penitential sorrow is seen to pass across the
surface of that heavenly breast. He is taking away that
which is another's, and stirring up bloodshed and confusion,
but at the same time (it is Mr. Faber who writes it) he is
" full of godly fear lest his height should make him proud ;
and so, as a penitential safeguard, composing a book on the
seven penitential psalms"! How admirable a piety ! behold
him breathing out his threats against the King, and with
the same breath uttering holy meditations ; spoiling a
monarch of his crown, and glorifying the heavenly grace!
This encomium of Pope Innocent (with whom Laud is
deemed worthy to be placed) was written by one who has,
since he penned the praises of Innocent, gone over wholly
to Rome. Let him erase with his tears, if he can, the 219th
and 220th pages of the Tortura Torti. There he may read
of the Papissa,) John the Eighth, a history, be it remembered,
not of Protestant but of Romish origin, and attested by
monuments, memorials, and traditions still extant.
Bishop Andrewes shews, and principally from Bellarmine's
own writings, the uncertainty of the doctrine of the Papal
supremacy, and that it is hypothesis upon hypothesis.1 He
observes of the very first link in the succession, " As though
God would not have us to depend upon your succession, he
determined that the subject should be uncertain concerning
the first succession of all, concerning the very first successor
of Peter. You yourself know that was made twelve hundred
years and more upon Clement,
Nutat adhuc mundus, sit quartuSj sit ne secundus?
Consider the schisms and heresies of the Popes (as honest
Fuller says, three sitting down at once, Peter's chair was like
to have been broken). Alphonsus a Castro saith, Although
we are bound to believe of faith that Peter's true successor
is the supreme pastor of the whole Church, yet we are not
bound to believe with the same faith that Leo or Clement
is the true successor of Peter, since we are not bound to
believe with Catholic faith that any one of them was rightly
and canonically elected."3 One Pope, John Picus Mirandula
tells us, doubted the immortality of the soul.4
It was weakness in Bellarmine to provoke a contest which
should call forth the testimony of history. Protestant con
troversialists had only to renew the attacks of Jewel in his
Apology and Defence of his Apology, and Eome at once stood
unmasked as the universal traitor, the conspirator as well
against the thrones of the kingdoms of this world as against
truth, the throne of the eternal kingdom of God. He that
will now speak with contempt of Jewel (much more easy it is
to revile him than to refute him) must also enter the lists
with Bishop Andrewes, who follows in his track, and verifies
his historical accusations of the Church of Rome.5
Most admirable is our prelate's exposure of Bellarmine's
sophistry, by which he would even commend the oration
(panegyrical) of the assassination of Henry the Third of
France. This controversial king-killer asks, " And what
will you find in it (the Pope's speech) but praises and
admiration of the wisdom and providence of God?"1 " And
what," retorts Bishop Andrewes, tl is that work of wisdom
which he so singularly admires? That a simple monk in
his usual habit, armed with neither sword nor shield, should
have found free access to the King. But this surely is not so
very marvellous. It would have been more so if the monk,
being armed with sword and shield, had found his way to the
King. For in that he was unarmed he excited no suspicion ;
had he been armed I do not believe that he would have found
his way so readily through the midst of the King's attendants.
There was nothing in this wondering of Sixtus worthy of
admiration."2
Bishop Andrewes asks, "If it was admiration of the
divine retaliation upon the King, why, if God so avenges
the death of Cardinals, was no assassinator raised up against
Pius the Fourth, who ordered Cardinal Caraffa, and him
a most near relation to Paul the Fourth, to be strangled in
prison? or against Urban the Sixth, who had five cardinals
put into a sack and drowned in the sea, and the bodies of
two more whom he had ordered to be slain, dried in a furnace
and placed upon mules, and so borne in procession on his
journies, with the paraphernalia of their dignities?"3
Several pages are ably expended on an exposure of
Bellarmine's theological contradictions, which were but
pointed out in the King's Apology.
1. Of justification, where our author justly complains of
his 'wretched wavering.'4 Bishop Andrewes contends that
Bellarmine's doctrine of justification by an inherent, will
not stand with justification by an imputed righteousness.
Herein he is opposed by the pseudo-patristic divines of our
own age, but with as little discretion as consistency. He
calls the Eomish teachers of justification by Christ's presence
manifested in us, and of the identity of justification and
sanctification, false prophets. They tell us, tacitly charging
falsehood upon our prelate, " Truth as well as charity require
us to be very careful how we cast suspicion on others [pious
Romanists, such as the most pious and veracious Bellarmine]
in this point, in which the Church Catholic has not authori
tatively pronounced, lest we be found false witnesses against
our brethren."1 It is nothing to writers of this kind that
the Church of England has authoritatively pronounced upon
this point. What the Scriptures have been made in the
Church of Rome, the Thirty-nine Articles are made in our
own, a nose of wax. Hence u justification by faith" is made
to stand for justification by obedience, and justification by
Christ's merits for justification by Christ dwelling in us, and
justification by Christ's name for justification by the Holy
Ghost, and justification for double justification. Such are
the lucid explanations, or rather casuistical wrestings, of Mr.
Newman in his Lectures on Justification.
Bellarmine, in his book upon the Loss of Grace and State
of Sin, had fallen into a flat contradiction, affirming first,
" God does not move or incline to evil morally;" then, aGod
does move or incline to sin morally." This could only be
reconciled by being explained away, as indeed Bellarmine
found, for so he explains himself: li God does not move
to evil morally, that is, by commanding; he moves to evil
morally, that is, by ministering the occasion to it." He
should have said, as Bishop Andrewes remarks, u God does
not move by commanding." As it is, he in the first place
applies that to the genus "to move," which is true only
of the species " by commanding."
His third contradiction was doubtless to secure the Papal
primacy. First, in his book De Clericis he admitted " that
bishops succeed the apostles, and priests the seventy disciples;"
but when he comes to treat of the supreme ecclesiastial power
in his church, then " bishops do not properly succeed the
apostles." But if it were so, it would not make the more for
the Pope, for neither does he succeed the apostles as an
apostle, going throughout the world to preach the Gospel,
writing canonical books, working miracles, more than other
bishops.1
The fourth contradiction is, u Judas did not believe;"2
but in the 14th chapter of his third book on Justification,
"Judas was just and certainly good." To this Bellarmine
replied, " Make a distinction of the times." Bishop Andrewes
retorted that there was no need to do this if Judas never
believed. But so affirmed St. Chrysostom on those words of
St. Peter, " For we have believed and have known that thou
art the Christ, the Son of the living God. When Peter had
said, And we have believed, Christ excepts Judas from that
number." And so verse 64 of the 6th chapter of St. John,
For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that
believed not, and who should betray him. " Our Alcuin,"
saith Bishop Andrewes, tl clearly expresses it in these his
words upon this place, " Judas was one of the twelve not in
faith but in number, not in truth but in hypocrisy."3
The fifth contradiction was a similar absurdity with the
second. The substance of a work is its moral quality, as in
alms, that we should give our own, that we should give
to him that needeth, that we should give from the motive
of compassion. Yet Bellarmine had improperly said that
a man might perform the substance of a commandment, and
yet with sin ; a manifest contradiction.4
The sixth is that Peter never lost a saving faith, and yet
fell into deadly sin.
The seventh is, Antichrist shall be a magician and shall
secretly worship the devil, and yet he shall hate all idolatry
and rebuild the Temple. This, as he observes, can only
be reconciled by equivocation. " Perchance the Fathers of
the Society [the Jesuits] thus say, Odi diabolum, that is,
I feign that I hate him."
The eighth is, " The oblation is made by the words of
consecration," yet not by them but by the oblation of the
thing itself. The oblation is to be understood here of the act
of oblation, not of the thing offered ; of the act of sacrificing,
not of the thing sacrificed. The true action of offering is in
the words of consecration ; that is the first proposition. The
placing upon the altar ; that is the second. But the second
is not done until after the completion of the first.
The ninth is, that the end of the world cannot be known,
but that after the death of Antichrist there shall be but
five-and-forty days to the end of the world. Here Bellar-
mine was so bold as to reply, "If this be a contradiction, it is
in Holy Scripture itself, for both are found there." "The
words," said Bishop Andrewes, " are perhaps in the Apocalypse,
the meaning is in the Apocrypse of your brain. For he
revealed not that to the servant which he revealed not to the
Son; nor doth John contradict Christ."4 He proceeds to
quote against him the Jesuit Blaise de Yiegas on the 13th
chapter of the Book of Kevelation.
The tenth is, that the ten kings shall burn Rome, the
mystic Babylon ; but that Antichrist shall hate Rome, and
fight against, and burn it. But it is not so, not Antichrist,
but God shall put it into their hearts?
The eleventh is a denial that all bishops are only the
Pope's vicars, followed by the affirmative, that all their
ordinary jurisdiction is from him immediately, and in him,
and so derived to them.
In a later stage of the work our prelate very ably discusses
the guilt of Garnet and of the other Jesuits as respects the
Gunpowder Plot, beginning with the arch-incendiary, the
Pope himself, who, he observes, cannot but be suspected,
together with Claud Acqua Viva, of being long privy to the
plot.
There are some who tell us that the abuses of image-
worship have lessened in the Romish Church. In this
instance as in others false liberality is but the charity of
ignorance. So long as the Roman breviary remains, so long
will the worship of images be countenanced by the Church
of Rome. Then we have speaking and wonder-working
images recorded, and doubtless for no other end than to
uphold a superstitious and idolatrous veneration of them.
The Church of Rome professes to be unchangeable. Hear,
then, how by the mouth of her greatest oracles she vindicates
and covers the guilt of idolatry, and unblushingly makes God
a liar. "They are not idolaters," said Bellarmine, "they
do not worship idols, because they worship images of things
that exist ; but those images are not idols, for an idol is only
the image of a thing nowhere existing." Bishop Andrewes
does not omit to point out to him how plainly he contradicts
God, and commands that to be done which God threatens to
punish. u According to the novel theology of TortuSj pro
vided only a thing has existence in heaven, in earth, in the
waters, or under the earth, though it be an evil demon, a man
can bow himself before it and worship God in it."1 Thus
Bellarmine went about to prove King James nearer to Julian2
the apostate than was his own communion, a communion
which, had it not been content to patronise blasphemy, would
never have tolerated such a patron of idolatry.
Alluding to the excuse that their missionaries indeed came
over into this country, though forbidden by law, to preach
the Gospel, Bishop Andrewes reminds them that they came
not to preach Christ, but to set up as the chief article of the
faith the power of the Pope; hence their need of going in
disguise that in their doctrine they might mix up sedition,
and in religion find a hiding-place for treason. te Your gospel
is not the gospel of peace ; yours is not the conversion but the
perversion of the Gentiles ; nor is it so much the edification
of the Church as the laying of the State in ruins."1
In this work, a very storehouse upon the subject of the
Pope's supremacy, our prelate argues at considerable length
from the Epistles of Gregory the Great, removing all the
cavils of the Jesuitical Leviathan.2 He afterwards proceeds
to shew that the four later as well as the four former General
Councils were convened by Emperors independently of the
Pope.3
The King in his Apology had singled out for reprobation
the mutilation of the eucharist, private masses, and the imper
fection of the words of consecration, which are not in the
canon of the mass taken from St. Luke and St. Paul, where
alone they appear in a complete form, but from the other
Evangelists, thus neglecting altogether our Lord's words,
"given for you"* The King animadverted upon three
points. Bellarmine, by a summary method of proof, would
conclude the King to be in error in all three points by proving
him so only in one ! 5
Bellarmine had in his letter to Blackwell reminded him
that Fisher and More died martyrs for this one head of
doctrine, the Pope's headship. Bishop Andrewes draws a
comparison between John Fisher and John the Baptist.
The one said to Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have her
(his brother's wife) ; but Bishop Fisher said the reverse, i It
is lawful for thee to have her.'6 In the course of treating upon
the cause of the deaths of Fisher and More, he discovers the
number of the beast out of PaVLo Y. VICe Deo.1
In the remainder of this very able volume, and one that
so truly answers to its title. Bishop Andrewes accurately
states the doctrine of the ecclesiastical prerogatives of
Christian princes, and replies to the objections of the Bo-
manists. Nowhere can the reader find this topic more clearly
illustrated.
Our prelate concedes to the sovereign whatsoever power
was exercised by the Jewish Kings in the Old Testament,
agreeably to the Divine will, for the reformation and mainte
nance of true religion. tl Quodcunque in rebus religionis Eeges
Israel fecerunt, nee sine laude fecerunt, id ut ei faciendi jus
sit ac potestas. Leges auctoritate Regia ferendi, ne blasphe-
metur Deus, non negabitis, fecit Rex Babel (Dan. iii. 29) : ut
jejunio placetur Deus, fecit Eex Ninive (Jon. iii. 7) : ut festo
honoretur, fecit Ester, cum Purim, Machabseus cum Encaenia
promulgaret (Est. ix. 26 ; 1 Mace. iv. 56, 59). Denique iis
omnibus rebus de quibus in Codice, in Authenticis, in Capitu-
laribus a Constantino, Theodosio, Justiniano, Carolo magno,
leges latse leguntur.
..." Whatever the Kings of Israel did in the department of
religion, and did not without commendation, that to "be his
right and privilege. The power of making laws by royal
authority, that God be not blasphemed ; such, ye will not deny,
the King of Babylon made (Dan. iii. 29) ; that God might be
propitiated by a fast, the King of Mneve made (Jon. iii. 7) ;
that he should be honoured by a festival, Queen Esther
made, when she proclaimed the Feast of Purim ; Judas
Maccabeus, when he proclaimed the Feast of Dedication
(Est. ix. 28 ; 1 Mace. iv. 56, 59) ; lastly, in regard of all
those things concerning which laws were enacted by Con-
stantine, Theodosius, Justinian, Charlemagne, in the Code,
the Authenticse, and the Chapters.
" Also the power of delegating such as should pronounce
judgment concerning the law so given, which power Jeho-
shaphat exercised (2 Chron. xix. 8) ; also of binding subjects
by an oath not to violate the law so made, which power both
Asa (2 Chron. xv. 14) and Josiah (ibid, xxxiv. 32) exercised.
" But if any do anything against laws so made, though it
be for the sake of religion, as the false prophets, it is a
criminal action (Deut. xiii. 10) ; or as idolaters (ibid. 15),
or as blasphemers (Levit. xxiv. 23), or as a sacrilegious
person (Num. xv. 35), he shall have the power of punishing
such by his royal authority.
" Also the power of calling Councils by his own authority ;
even upon bringing back the ark and putting it in its own
place, which David did (1 Chron. xiii. 3) ; also concerning
the recalling the people to the worship of God, which Jeho-
shaphat did (2 Chron. xix. 4) ; also concerning dedicating
the Temple, which Solomon did (1 Kings viii. 64) ; also
i concerning its restoration when it had fallen into ruin, which
iJoash did (2 Chron. xxiv. 4) • also concerning its purifi-
Ication after it had been profaned, which Hezekiah did
\(ibid. xxix. 5).
But although he may not think that he is in vain com-
manded by God to write out for himself a copy of the law,
to have it always by him, to read it diligently, to meditate
upon it day and night, to learn out of that the worship
of God, to ceremonies themselves ; nor that this is enjoined
him, yet so that he should altogether hang upon the lips of
another, and himself in fact decide nothing as of himself, yet
nevertheless he should in these things not unwillingly consult
the mouth of Eleazar (Num. xxvii. 21), and require the law
of those whose lips keep knowledge (Mai. ii. 7) ; he should,
in making laws regarding religion, apply to those to whom
it is but just that he should apply, and whom reason points
out as the best advised in such things, and as capable of
giving the best answer concerning them. And in those
things that pertain to God, he will command Amariah the
priest, not Zebadiah the commander, to preside (2 Chron.
xix. 11).
lt As regards persons, the right of giving laws to all orders
of persons, who is (to speak in the style of Scripture) the
head, of the tribe of Levi (1 Sam. 15, 17) not less than of
the other tribes, nor less the king of the clergy than of the
laity. On the other hand, if any Abiathar carry himself
proudly, he has the right to restrain him by his edict
(Deut. xvii. 12), and even to depose Abiathar himself from
the priesthood if he deserve it.
"As regards things, he has the power to pull down the
high places, that is, of abolishing foreign worship, not only
of breaking the golden calf cast by Aaron, as did Moses,
but also the brazen serpent erected by Moses, as Hezekiah
did, and of grinding both to powder, whether it be the golden
calf leading to idolatry, or the brazen serpent leading to
superstition.
"For as relates to the regulation of those things which
respect the beauty of the house of God, which are wont to
be called things indifferent, which Joash did (2 Chron.
xxiv. 12), and which are usually those points on which
schism is grounded; as also the right of setting at rest
needless and unprofitable questions by his authority, as
Constantine did (see his Epistle to Alexander and Arms;
Socrates' Eccl Hist. 1. i. c. 7, pp. 16—18, Cantab. 1720), you
yourselves will not deny his authority.
u Lastly, if you would rather an instance from Christians,
such precedent requires that he be the overseer of them that
are without, as was Constantine (Eusebius in his Life of
Constantinejl. iv. c. 24, p. 638, Camb. 1720), and the director
of religion, which not only Charlemagne was, but also Louis
the Pious.
tl These are with us the rights of the royal supremacy,
jure divino"
CHAPTER XI
Andrewes translated to Ely, 1609 — Bishop Heton — Bishop Harsnet
— Christmas — Easter, 1610 — Andrewes at Holdenby in August —
Consecration of the Scottish Bishops — J. Casaubon — Andrewes1
ON Easter-day, 16th April, 1609, Bishop Andrewes
preached before the King at Whitehall from John xx. 19.
Very simple and ingenious to edification, very touching by
the extreme naturalness of its pathos, is this most pastoral
discourse on Christ's salutation and benediction, Peace be
unto you.
"When you hear men talk of peace," saith our most
fatherly bishop, "mark whether they stand where they
should. If with the Pharisee, to the corners, either by
partiality one way or prejudice another, no good will be
done. When God will have it brought to pass, such minds
he will give unto men, and make them meet to wish it,
seek it, and find it."
In the course of this year he published his famous answer
to Bellarmine, entitled Tortura Torti; and on September 22
was, on the death of Dr. Martin Heton, elected to the see
of Ely. There were present at the election Dr. Humphrey
Tyndall, Dean of Ely and President of Queens' College, Cambridge, and Dr. Thomas Nuce, Dr. Andrew Willet, that most laborious commentator ; John Hills, Edmund Barwell, and James Taylor, Prebendaries. Dr. Martin Heton was son of
George Heton, Esq., and Joan, daughter of Sir William
Bowes, Knight. His father was of a Lancashire family, but
himself was born in London in 1553. His father was Master
of the Merchants' House at Antwerp, and caused it to be
free for the refugees in the reign of Queen Mary. Martin
Heton was educated at Christ Church, Oxford, and in 1582
was made a Canon of the Cathedral there. In 1588 he
served the Vice-Chancellorship, and in 1589 succeeded Dr.
Laurence Humphrey as Dean of Winchester. He was consecrated on February 3, 1599, to the see of Ely at Lambeth.
Dr. Andrewes declined the bishopric, not willing to be a
gainer himself to the loss of his see, and so he made way for
Dr. Heton, and now Dr. Heton by death for him.
On November 5 the Bishop of Ely preached before the
King at Whitehall from the Gospel for the day ; a topic that
came too near to that of this day's commemoration not to
minister to our prelate abundant opportunity of comparison
and contrast, of which he availed himself with great felicity.
On the day following he was confirmed in the temporalities
of the see of Ely ; and on the 13th he, with Buckeridge, Bishop
of Rochester, assisted Archbishop Bancroft at the consecration
of Dr. George Abbot to the see of Lichfield (afterward Arch-
Willis also gives his epitaph. It relates that his wife is buried near him, and
that they had five sons and seven daughters, and thus concludes,
"To the world they living died, So dying living they abide."
Page 232
... On Christmas-day Bishop Andrewes preached a sermon
before the King at Whitehall, that is reported to have given
him especial satisfaction. Mr. Chamberlain wrote to Sir
Kalph Winwood, "The King with much importunity had
the copy delivered to him on Tuesday last, before his going
towards Eoyston, and says he will lay it still under his
pillow." This sermon is from Gal. iii. 4, 5: "When the
fulness of time was come, God sent his Son} made of a
woman, made under the law, that he might redeem them
that were under the law that we might receive the adoption of sons. Here he saith that Christ was made under the law to become our surety, made under the law when he was circumcised. Then, as St. Paul saith, he became a
debtor to the whole law; then was his name of Jesus given him, St. Luke ii. 21. To get us from under the law it was not a matter of intercession but of redemption. So were verified as in a double sense his words at his passion, If you
lay hold on me if I must discharge all, let these go their way, let the price I pay be their redemption, and so it was."
So let us rejoice with fulness of joy, " with the joy of men
that have come out of prison, have 'scaped the law, with the
joy of men that have got the reversion of a goodly heritage."1
Well worthy indeed is this joyous discourse of that most
joyful occasion which it celebrated out of so cheerful a heart.
But what an Easter2 followed, when our good prelate
descanted so fervidly upon Job's gospel, upon his triumphal
monument, and on death's epitaph : tc I am sure that my
Redeemer livethj and he shall stand the last on the earth , (or,
and I shall rise again in the last day from the earth). And
though after my skin worms destroy this body, (or, as in the
Liturgy of King James, and shall be covered again with my
skin,) I shall see God in my flesh, whom I myself (or for
myself] shall see, and mine eyes shall behold, and none other
for me, though my reins are consumed loithin me (or, and this
hope is laid up in my bosom)."3
So, he observes, St. Jerome himself applies this place
as a plain prophecy both of Christ's and of our resurrection.
Do we ask how Job came by this knowledge ? "We shall
not need to trouble ourselves to know how he knew it; not
by any Scripture. He had it not from Moses, but the same
way that Moses had it; he looked in the same mirror Abraham
did, when he saw the same person and the same day, and
rejoiced to see it." 'Shall stand? He notes, "It is well
known it is the proper word for rising and not standing.
The LXX. so turn it ; the Fathers so read it. Nee dum
natus erat Dominus (saith St. Jerome) et athleta ecclesice
redemptorem suum videt a mortuis resurgentem. He was not
yet born, and the Church's champion Job saw his Redeemer
rising from the dead."5 Whoso will meditate upon mortality
and immortality, and seek to rekindle his faith and his hope,
let him come hither for comfort, and keep this Easter with
Bishop Andrewes.
On June 4th he was commissioned to be present at the
creation of Henry Prince of Wales, which took place in the
House of Parliament on that day. On the preceding Sunday
there was a creation of Knights of the Bath, and that was
preceded on the Saturday by an aquatic spectacle, all which
the curious reader will find amply detailed in the second
volume of Nichols's Royal Progresses of James I. Within
little more than two years was this noble Prince taken away.
He died in December 1612, our prelate being present at his
funeral on the 7th of December. Thus was our country to
learn wisdom through the severe struggles of the next half
century, in which the principles of arbitrary misrule on the
one hand, and the dangers of a military despotism on the
other, were to pave the way for the more constitutional
government and the more stable and decided Protestantism
which succeeded.
In singular harmony with his Easter was his Whitsuntide,
full of ' holy comfort.' Then at Whitehall, on May 27, he
preached upon our Saviour's promise, his covenant, and con
dition : If ye love me^ keep my commandments , and I will
pray the Father , and he shall give you another Comforter , that
he may abide with you for ever.1 He who could lay open
their graves to the rich, and compel them to look down and
learn from Dives on his bed of fire to avoid that place of
torment, could as tenderly revive the disconsolate, and as
affectionately animate men to the love of Christ. But at
all times a spirit of holiness shewed in his discourses, as the
good George Herbert directs in his Priest for the Temple.
Thus Bishop Andrewes : " As Christ is our witness in heaven,
so is the Spirit here on earth, witnessing with our spirits that
we pertain to the adoption, and are the children of God;
evermore, in the midst of the sorrows that are in our hearts,
with his comforts refreshing our souls ; yet not filling them
with false comforts, but, as Christ's advocate here on earth,
soliciting us daily, and calling upon us to look to his com
mandments and keep them, wherein standeth much of our
comfort, even in the testimony of a good conscience."2
On August 5th Bishop Andrewes preached at Holdenby
in Northamptonshire, upon the divine right of kings, from
Touch not mine anointedj animadverting upon Bellarmine
and Mariana, and noticing the late assassination of Henry IV.
of France.1 He observes that u the Pope saith he can make
the Christ the Lord himself: if he could do so indeed, it
were not altogether unlike he might make the Lord's
Christ," — set up kings who can make the King of kings.2
Hitherto episcopacy had in Scotland been upon a parity
with the presbyterate in regard of ordination. The King
had already restored to the Bishops their civil jurisdiction,
which after the Reformation had been transferred to the
supreme court of justice. He now determined to bring them
nearer to the model of the English Church, and on the 15th of
October summoned Spottiswoode, Archbishop of Glasgow,
Lamb, Bishop of Brechin, and Hamilton, Bishop of Galloway,
to London, and appointed Dr. Abbot, Bishop of London,
Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, Dr. Henry Parry, Bishop of
Worcester, and Montagu, Bishop of Bath and Wells, to
give them episcopal consecration. The consecration took
place in the chapel of London House on the 21st of the
same month. Andrewes stated the necessity of ordaining
them deacons and priests before they should be elevated to
the episcopate, on the ground that they had not been canoni-
cally admitted to holy orders in Scotland. Spottiswoode
relates that Archbishop Bancroft, who was present, main
tained that this was not requisite, because where there were
no bishops, ordination by presbyters must be esteemed valid ;
and that otherwise it might be doubted whether there was
any lawful vocation in most of the reformed churches. Our
prelate acquiesced in this answer, and so the consecration
proceeded. Isaac Casaubon had arrived in this country not
long before, and was present at this ceremony.3
Heylyn asserts that Bancroft overruled the objection of
Bishop Andrewes by reminding him that the higher order
included the lower, and that there were instances of bishops
being made by one single ordination ; and herein he is
followed by Bishop Skinner, and Collier inclines to him.
But Bishop Hussell, in his History of the Church in Scotland,
very impartially remarks that the authority of Spottiswoode
on this occasion cannot be set aside, as he was not only
present, but deeply interested in the discussion.1
In the course of this year appeared our prelate's Responsio
adApologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini quam nuper edidit contra
Prcefationem Monitoriam Jacobi Dei gratia M. Britannice etc.
Regis. He observes that Bellarmine's zeal for the Pope's
deposing power had only made the foreign princes jealous
of his principles and of his works/ and that he had now found
it convenient to come down from this high ground, and to
fill his book with patches of his commonplaces, already before
the world in a controversial and theological form ; and
accordingly we find the Bishop's Answer assuming through
several chapters the character of theological theses.
In the first chapter he shews with various illustrations the
uncertainty of the worshipping of the host, and refutes the
answers of Eomanists who defend, as he says, a hypothetical
worship. Formerly it was always provided that the condition
was understood, i If thou art Christ I adore thee / but faith is
not an hypothesis but an hypostasis, not a supposition but
a substance. He shews that there was a time when con-
substantiation was allowed in the Church of Rome. Thus
he quotes with approbation the words of Biel on the Canon
of the MasSj who says that the canon of Scripture does not
define whether the body of Christ is in the Eucharist by
transubstantiation or by consubstantiation. To the same effect
he. brings in Durandus, Peter de Alliaco, Cardinal of Cam-
bray, and John Picus Mirandula, who was nevertheless
cleared from all imputation of heresy by Pope Alexander
the Sixth himself. The mode of the mystery we do not,
says Bishop Andrewes, presumptuously define. We leave it
with the mystery of the Incarnation. We shall hear him
again speak more explicitly on this topic.
Bellarmine had alleged the mendacious authority of
Maurice Cheneys, who wrote of The Life and Martyrdom of
the Carthusians, and had aspersed the Lord Protector Crom
well. Bishop Andrewes vindicates his memory, and eulogizes
his great judgment and abilities.1 He proceeds to give a
sample of the lying legends of the Carthusian. He checks
and overthrows the Cardinal's boast of the universality of
his Church, and of the multitudes of converts made especially
in America, referring him to Acosta. Of the converts of the
Jesuits in Japan, he says that they are only made hypocrites
twofold more the children of hell than themselves.2 Touching
upon the Scotch reformation, he highly lauds the memory of
the martyrs Hamilton and Wishart, but with King James
withholds all commendation from John Knox and those who
acted with the same uncourtly spirit.3
As to the intercession of saints, he quotes Origen who
places it amongst the hidden things of God, a thing probable
but uncertain.4 Thence to nearly the end of the chapter our
prelate discusses the arguments and authorities adduced by
Bellarmine for the invocation of saints.
The second chapter proves that the cause of the King
contending against the Pope in regard of the duty of his
subjects to swear to him civil allegiance, is not one peculiar
to him but equally affecting the interests of all Catholic and
orthodox princes.
In the third he returns to treat of Papal power, opposing
St. Paul's What have we to do to judge them that are without?
to Thomas Aquinas, who attributes to the Church a power of
deposing infidel sovereigns.5
In the fourth chapter he overthrows Bellarmine's com
parison of kings and cardinals. The priest blesses the king,
the king benefits the priest. Which is greater, a good word
or a good deed ? David and Solomon blessed the whole Church,
in which the priesthood himself was included, whom Hezekiah
called his sons. The King in holy writ deposed the high-
priest, not the high-priest the king. He gives the history of
the rise of the Cardinals, and everywhere lays open the
unfaithful manner of Bellarmine in ecclesiastical history.
In the fifth chapter he vindicates his Sovereign from the
various charges of Bellarmine. Bellarmine had not been
altogether misinformed respecting the partiality of King
James for his E-omish subjects in Scotland. It is true indeed
the insurgent lords were in 1594 banished the kingdom and
their houses destroyed, but they would not have had oppor
tunity to rise in arms and to renew their treasons had not the
King shielded them in the preceding year from their just
deserts.1
Bishop Andrewes speaks with the utmost candour of the
Puritans, and in a language and spirit wholly unknown to
Wren, Laud, Montagu, and Heylyn. With him they are
not men more in error than the Komanists, as a living divine
writes of those whom he calls Zuinglians, that they are in
greater error concerning the Eucharist than those who believe
transubstantiation.
" Puritanorum ea religio non est, quorum nulla est religio
sua atque propria: disciplina est. Quod ipsum tamen de
Puritanis generatim dictum volo, deque iis inter eos, qui
prseterquam quod discipline suse paulb magis addicti sunt,
ccetera sobrie magis sapiunt ; qui, quantum vis formam illam
perdite depereant, in reliqud tamen doctrind satis orthodoxi
sunt. Nee enim nescius sum, censeri, adeoque esse, eo in
numero (non minus quam in societate vestra) cerebrosos
quosdam, pronos in schisma nimis. Etiam non deesse, qui
quoad religionis capita qusedam, vix per omnia sani sunt.
Quos ego hie, quos ubique exclusos volo. Mihi ab exteriori
regiminis format Puritani sunt, non autem a religions, quce
eadem et est et esse potest, ubi facies externa non eadem."
"The King (in his Basilicon Doron) does not mean there
the religion of the Puritans, for they have no distinct and
peculiar religion, but discipline. And this I would have
applied (not to the Scotch only but) to the Puritans generally,
and to those among them who, except that they are too
violently addicted to their order of church government, are
in other things sufficiently sober-minded ; and these, however
infatuated in their devotedness to their * platform? are yet
sufficiently orthodox in the rest of their doctrine. For I am
not ignorant that there are numbered, and indeed are amongst
them, some unreasonable men (as in your society) over-
inclined to schism ; nay, that there are not wanting some who
are scarcely sound in all things as regards some points of
religion. And these I would exclude in this my mention
of them here and in every other place. But with me they
are Puritans from their exterior form of discipline, but not
from their religion, which both is the same and can be, where
the external face of discipline is not the same."1
In the sixth chapter he vindicates the historical passages
of his Tortura Torti, and defends Rufus in the case of Anselm,
and Henry the Second in the case of Thomas a Becket? He
denies the saintship of St. Hugh of Lincoln, who opposed
the raising of money to aid Richard the First.
St. Augustine's De Mirabilibus Sacrce Scriptures is by
Bellarmine, in his book of ecclesiastical writers, on the
authority of Aquinas, denied to be his. Bishop Andrewes
referred to it to prove out of Augustine that that Father
placed the Maccabees amongst the Apocryphal books...
Erasmus indeed early ranked this work with those that had been erroneously ascribed to St. Augustine, and it has accordingly been placed amongst
the spurious works that go by his name in the Benedictine edition, and in the 47th section of the 4th chapter of Walchii Bibliotheca Patristica, p. 275.
Bishop Cosin has, in his Scholastical History of the Canon
of Scripture, reprinted at the Clarendon Press, fully met all
the pleas, deduced by the Romanists from the writings of
St. Augustine in favour of the First and Second Book of
the Maccabees and the other Apocryphal books retained by
their Church.
Certain passages of St. Augustine appear at first sight to
favour their cause, and are always alleged by them for the
sake of proving the equal authority of the Apocryphal
with those books to which modern usage restricts the term
canonical, a term formerly applied more indefinitely than
at present, and so applied, it is admitted, by St. Argustine
himself, in these passages, namely, in the 8th chapter of his
second book De Doctrind Christiana, and in the 36th chapter
of his 18th book De Civitate Dei.
But it is evident from other passages in his works that as
the Canon Fidei, the Eule of Faith , St. Augustine allowed
only the Jewish canon. Thus, in one of his treatises
against the Donatists, his second book against the Epistle
of Gaudentius (c. xxiii), he says : " Et hanc quidem Scrip-
turam quse appellatur Maccabseorum, non habent Judsei
sicut legem et Prophetas et Psalmos quibus Dominus
testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus, suis dicens, Oportebat
impleri omnia quce scripta sunt in lege et PropJietis et Psalmis
de me : sed recepta est ab ecclesia non inutiliter, si sobrie
legatur vel audiatur, maxime propter illos Maccabseos qui pro
Dei lege, sicut veri martyres a persecutoribus tarn indigna
atque horrenda perpessi sunt," &c. — Op. torn. vii. Pars Prior,
p. 436, Lugduni, 1562. " And this Scripture which is called
(the book of) Maccabees, the Jews regard not as the law, the
Prophets, and the Psalms, to which the Lord bears testimony
as to his witnesses, saying, All things must le fulfilled which
were written in the law and in the Prophets and in the Psalms
concerning me (Luke xxiv. 44) ; but it is received by the
Church not unprofitably if it be read or heard with caution,
especially on account of those Maccabees who endured such
undeserved and dreadful sufferings at the hands of their
persecutors, as true martyrs for the law of God." So in
citing Ecclesiasticus he says, " Quse non tanta firmitate
proferuntur quse scripta non sunt in canone Judseorum." —
De Civ. Deij 1. xvii. c. 20. " Which passages are not brought
forward with such a weight of authority, not being in the
Jewish canon."
Besides Bishop Cosin's Scholastical History of the Canon
of Scripture, the reader may refer to the first chapter of the
second book of Dr. John Gerhard's Confessio Catholica, Dr.
John Eainold's Censura Apocryphorum Vet. Test. 1611,2 vols.
4to., Dr. Field's Boole of the Church, book iv. c. 22, 23, 24,
and the Preface to the third part of L. Joh. Gottleb Carpzov's
Introductio ad Libros Canon. Vet. Test. Lips. 1721.
That laborious collator of manuscripts, but most dogmatical
judge of them, Dr. Tregelles, in his Account of the Printed
Text of the Greek Testament^ a work extremely superficial
in its notice of the history of the textus receptus, affirms
amongst other paradoxes that " we reject the Apocrypha in
spite of tradition." There is no one article forced upon the
Church of Rome more clearly in opposition even to her own
tradition, than the reception of the Apocryphal Books into
the Old Testament canon. Upon this ground we stand.
In consequence of the tradition of the Jewish Church, con
firmed by our Lord himself ; in consequence of the tradition of
the Primitive Church ; in consequence of the tradition of the
whole Church to the Council of Trent, we reject the Apocrypha.
But of all such evidence as must needs enter into such questions,
Dr. Tregelles has proved himself a most incompetent judge from
the uncritical and inconsistent decisions he has in so many
instances affirmed in his critical works. In these he con
stantly selects his evidence, passes over numerous and weighty
allegations of his predecessors in the field of sacred criticism,
and commends the most improbable, and those not always the
most ancient, readings, by way of illustrating Bengel's rule,
which is accordingly given in the larger and more inelegant
type of the most modern printers, " proclivi scriptioni prcestat
arduum."z Griesbach, however, more fearlessly followed out
his own rule than Dr. Tregelles has had the boldness to do.
Our prelate defends the Protestant interpretation of the
words of institution in the Eucharist. Bellarmine had said
that they (the Protestants) involved the words This is my
body in a thousand figures. He retorts after the usual, and
indeed unanswerable manner, that neither can the Romanists
without a figure reconcile to their interpretation the words,
This is the cup which is poured out.
In the eighth chapter he unfolds the legendary impiety of
Rome respecting the mother of our Lord. He urges against
the Jesuitical Bellarmine the hymns that are sung to her;
he returns to the topic of the invocation of saints ; he treats
of the innovation of private masses and of the mutilation
of the Eucharist; he exposes the folly of the Cardinal's
evasions, one of which is, that St. Luke in the Acts only
speaks of breaking of bread, therefore they took (he
argues) the Lord's Supper only in one kind. So then,
when in the 14th chapter of his Gospel he relates that our
Lord went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees
(according to the Hebrew idiom) to eat bread, we must
suppose that they drank nothing.1 But subterfuge and dis
honesty of every kind are allowed to Romish controversialists,
who are always understood to wage war upon the human
understanding. Hence Bishop Andrewes proceeds again to
transubstantiation2 and its concomitants, adoration and pro
cession. He points out the absurdity of the very term works
of supererogation, when applied to those who have not paid
to God that entire and unsinning obedience which they owe
to Him.3 He suffers not Bellarmine to escape touching the
baptism of bells. Nay, they are blessed, not baptized, says
Bellarmine. Not so Stephen Durantus in his book of the Rites
of the Church then lately published at Rome ; there we read
they are u baptized but not for the remission of sins." It is a
holy dedication, which, as Bishop Andrewes observes, is also
the end of baptism. But in the Pontifical the bell is exorcised.
No, he was too great for Bellarmine the pious Cardinal, the
admiration of the more moderate and enlightened children
of the Church in England. " But if in any places," writes
Bellarmine, " it is called baptism, it is from this that names
are given to the bells." More than this, we have in the
Pontifical, tinctum in aqua — washed in water. The water
is hallowed. It is said, ll this commixture of salt and water
is made a salutary sacrament in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But in the new Pon
tifical of Clement VIII. the words " efficiatur salutare sacra-
mentum" are omitted, and in their stead is read, u pariter
fiat /" " quid autem fiat" continues Bishop Andrewes, " cogi-
tandem relinquitur."1 Nay, there are even sponsors on this
solemn occasion ; and as a child, so is the bell clad in robes
of white : " nugse quidem sed preciosae sunt has : calumnies
non sunt. Neque nugse tamen ; vera enim gravamina Ponti-
ficis legato in Comitiis Norimbergse, 1522, exhibita : Pontifici
quoque ipsi transmissa, Germanise totius nomine."
From the baptism of bells we return to the worship of
images. Bishop Andrewes reminds Bellarmine that Hezekiah
himself was an iconoclast. Hence we pass on to Purgatory,
which Bellarmine finds at least implicitly contained in Genesis,
where it is written, " surrexit Abraham a facie mortui" (in
the Vulgate u ab officiofuneris"2), from the Burial office, that is,
from prayers for the good of her soul now in Purgatory.3
Thus was Scripture not only called, but treated as a nose of
wax. Bellarmine waxed warm upon Purgatory, and roundly
affirmed that hell awaited those who believed not purgatory.
" This," replies our prelate, a savours more of Tortus, and is
a more fit speech for some evil Tortus than for a holy cardinal,
and one in which is much less of charity than of faith."
" There is juster reason that no purgatory should remain for
them that believe it not ; but that as they believe in heaven,
so they should prepare for that place ; as they believe a hell,
so they should seek by all means to avoid it. But they that
believe a purgatory, let them very carefully take heed lest,
being deceived by the position of the ways, they should go to
hell instead of purgatory ; for they are places very near each
other, if we believe the Cardinal. The Pope, whilst he
deludes many of your religion with his indulgences, with the
hope of going only to purgatory, hath brought them to hell,
who, perchance, if they had feared only hell (and they would
have feared if that expectation had not utterly blinded them),
might have avoided it."1
The remainder of this chapter consists of a most able
refutation of the Pope's supremacy — the pride, as purgatory
embodies — the avarice of Eome.
From the ninth to the end of the twelfth chapter our
prelate treats of the prophecies in the New Testament relating
to Antichrist; first, in the second chapter of St. Paul's
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, then in the Book of
Revelation. Bishop Andrewes all along regards the Pope
as Antichrist, Eome as Babylon ; the name of Antichrist he,
following Irenseus, conceives to be Latinus. How pitifully
did Mr. Newman deal with the memory of Bishop Newton,
because, with Bishop Andrewes, he maintained a view of
Antichrist so little in accordance with the system he then
favoured.2
Bishop Andrewes vindicates Wicliff and his followers
from the charge of sedition, and imputes to the calumnious
spirit of his opponents the anarchical doctrines ascribed to
him.3 Thus did he differ in spirit from that zealous reformed
Catholic De Heylyn, who all but anathematizes Wicliff as
an uucatholic heresiarch. Our prelate proceeds to vindicate
Luther from similar charges.
I know not what to say to our prelate's words, " But no
man sought the life of the King in Scotland." Certainly his
own words at another time appear the contrary to these. In
his first sermon on the Gowrie Conspiracy he describes the
actors as bloody-minded, and as no better than assassins.
" Said not Absalom to his assassins, When I give you a sign,
see you smite , kill him, fear not, have not I commanded you ?
Said not they the same to him whom to that end they had
armed and placed to do that wicked act?"4 Here then he
must needs acquit that conspiracy of the intent of assassina
tion. Yet in his sermon four years after the publication of
this work, when in 1614 he preached the anniversary of the
Gowrie Conspiracy again, after an interval of four years, he
attributed to the conspirators the design of no less a hurt than
the loss of his Majesty's life.1 I fear there was in the mind of
our prelate, whilst at this point of his controversy, some subtle
distinction that would have fitted rather Bellarmine than his
own candour and simplicity.
Most worthy of him indeed are these golden words : tl Thus
is the Church the pillar of truth, not as that on which the truth
rests, but which herself rests upon the truth. But this pillar
does not hang in the air; it has a base and a foundation, and
where but in the Word of God? When it sets forth that
(Word) unto us, we know that it hath a good foundation, and
rest upon it fearlessly and with a willing mind."2
The remainder of the Eesponsio is a confirmation of the
charges which the King had brought against Bellarmine, of
falsifications of history, &c., a minute and detailed account
of which would of itself form a volume.
In October Isaac Casaubon came to England. He was
born at Geneva February 18th, 1559, where he was made
Professor of Greek, and married Florence, daughter of Henry
Stephens, the celebrated printer. He removed to Moritpelier
as the Greek Professor there, and in 1603 was made Librarian
to Henry IV. After the assassination of his Prince, he on
the 16th October this year arrived here with Sir Henry Wotton.
James had previously invited him to England, and became
his cordial patron. On October 26th he spent some hours,
to his great delight, with Bishop Andrewes.
CHAPTER XII.
Archbishop Allot — Bishops Buckeridge and Thompson — Isaac Casaubon, Cardinal Perron, and King James — Christmas 1611.
ON the death of Archbishop Bancroft, November 2, 1610,
Dr. George Abbot, who had sufficiently proved his learning
by his works and by his sermons at Oxford, where he was
elected Master of University College in September 1597, and
had been made Dean of Winchester in 1599, Bishop of Lich-
field and Coventry 1609, and of London January 20th this
same year, was raised to the see of Canterbury in consequence
of the King's promise to his late able and energetic minister
and favourite, the Earl of Dunbar. This motive is assigned
as the ground of Abbot's promotion in a letter from George
Calvert (afterwards Lord Baltimore) to Sir Thomas Edmunds,
March 10th, 1611. The King at the same time bore testi
mony to Abbot's learning, wisdom, and sincerity. It has
been surmised that had Andrewes succeeded Bancroft, the
Church of England would have been saved the storms that
followed. But both Abbot and Andrewes lived to be super
seded by Laud, whose ambition was as unrivalled as his
impetuosity, and whose secularity predominated above that
of all his contemporaries. Andrewes had not the firmness of
Abbot, whose integrity appeared in repeated instances, to the
honour of the age in which he lived and of the Church over
which he presided. He nobly stood forth on the side of
justice against the suit instituted by the Lady Frances
Howard for a divorce from her husband the Earl of Essex.
This first brought upon him the King's displeasure. His
influence declined as that of Villiers and Laud increased. In
1618 he would not suffer the Boole of Sports to be read in
his parish-church of Croydon. To the last he promoted the
Protestant interest. In the summer of 1627 he again nobly
withstood the unconstitutional course of his sovereign, by
refusing to license Dr. Sibthorpe's sermon, preached at North
ampton, in vindication of the compulsory loan. This led to
his being most illegally deprived of his power, which was
handed over by a commission to Laud and four other prelates.
While living in forced seclusion in his house at Ford, which,
with Lambeth, Croydon, Bekesbourne, and Canterbury, alone
at this time remained to his see, (the other twelve had been
taken from it since the Reformation,1) about Christmas he
was released from restraint and invited to court, but only to
suffer hereafter further indignities, Laud still reigning supreme,
and being selected in his stead to baptize the infant Prince,
Charles II., in May 1630. He died in his seventy-first year,
at Croydon Palace, August 4th, 1633. Dr. Hook has taken
from Fuller whatsoever makes against Abbot as to the charge
of undue severity toward the clergy, and omitted all thai;
Fuller added in his commendation. He has however survived
the censures of Clarendon himself; neither will his memory
suffer from the more recent attack of that abortive undertaking,
the Biographical Dictionary of the Society for the Diffusion
of Useful Knowledge, in which he is described as " a zealous
Calvinist and a furious Protestant." Of the intemperance of
his zeal, or of any indication of his furiousness, history is silent.
Antony Wood himself, the historian of his University, is
more just to his character.
In answer to the charges of remissness brought against
Abbot, the testimony of Racket, in his Life of Williams, may
suffice. He says that with regard to the High Commission
Court the Lord Keeper was not satisfied in two respects ; first
in the multiplicity of causes brought into it, secondly in the
severity of its censures. Archbishop Abbot was rigorously
just, which made him shew less pity to delinquents. Sentences
of great correction, or rather of destruction, have their epochs
from his predominancy in that court. And after him it
mended, says Hacket, like sour ale in summer. It was not
so in his predecessor Bancroft's days, who would chide stoutly,
but censure mildly. He considered that he sat there rather
as a father than as a judge.
On November 13 Andrewes was, for the first time since
his translation to Ely, included in a committee, with all their
lordships then present, for a conference with the Commons on
the following day at 3 p.m. in the Painted Chamber.
We return to Casaubon. On Wednesday the 14th No
vember Casaubon, with Overall, Dean of St. Paul's, with
whom he was taking up his abode at this time, dined with
our prelate, probably at Ely Palace in Holborn. The Bishop
had not yet published his answer to Bellarmine. Andrewes
read his work to his guests, and had Casaubon with him
again on the 15th and 17th, and on the Monday and Tuesday
following. On the Monday he again consulted with Casau
bon on his forthcoming treatise. Andrewes entrusted him
with the manuscript to peruse at his leisure. He commends
the Bishop's learning and his agreement with Christian
antiquity, and expresses his wish that his method and spirit
were followed by the divines of his own native land, in a
letter to Mountague, Bishop of Bath and Wells.1
On Tuesday, December 25th, Christmas-day, Andrewes
preached before the King at Whitehall from the gospel for the
day, Luke ii. 10, 11. He speaks of the angels' sermon, and
after that the hymn Glory le to God on high. It was the custom
after the Restoration, if not before it, to have a second anthem
after the sermon. It might be that this might suggest to
Andrewes his remark, uthe whole service of this day, the
sermon, the anthem, by angels all." The anthem thus
concluded both the morning and evening service at St. Paul's,
according to the Eev. James Clifford's Divine Services and
Anthems. This little manual was published in 1660, the
second edition in 1663, another in 1664, being compiled by
the Kev. James Clifford, a Minor Canon of St. Paul's, who
died in 1700. The order of the Cathedral service as there
observed is extracted from this rare and interesting little
volume in the Preface to the Kev. John JebVs second volume
of Choral Responses and Litanies of the United Church of
England and Ireland. This very valuable collection contains
two sets of Preces by Amner of Ely, whom Andrewes ordained
deacon, with a large body of Cathedral music composed by
Henry Molle, Robert Ramsay, and Loosemoore, the incom
parable organists of Peterhouse, Trinity, and King's Colleges
about 1630. The common Cathedral chants in use in Clif
ford's time are given in the Appendix,1 and in the earlier
and more ancient part of the volume are several elaborate
chants, the memorials of a more noble, enriched, and varie
gated kind of chant in use before the Restoration, far worthier
of the divine compositions to which they were so carefully
and appropriately adapted.
To return to our prelate. His genuine piety shines forth
conspicuously in this sermon upon the need and nature of
salvation, and the universal neglect of it. There is indeed
in his sermons very generally, although there are occasional
exceptions, the same glow of devotion which has made his
Prayers so valuable, prayers which have, after the Liturgy,
perhaps met with more general acceptance than any others.
That his sermons should be in some measure open to the
exceptions of such critics as the late Archdeacon Hare, is only
what might be expected from a mind so fancifully exuberant
as that of Andrewes.
We may, however, be justly thankful for the late Arch
deacon Hare's vigilance in regard of the recent edition of our
prelate's Sermons. But in his remark in p. 499 of the Notes to
his Mission of the Comforter he was not aware that in the
second edition we have the reading of which he doubted " in
the very next words." Archdeacon Hare indeed, as a theo
logian, was not the best qualified to sit in judgment on Bishop
Andrewes. Hare's note on Inspiration, written in a flippant
spirit and throwing no light upon the subject, but rather
heightening its inevitable mysteriousness, is but one of various
symptoms that Archdeacon Hare was at times led away with
a love of bewilderment, the not unnatural effect of his foreign
predilections.
On January 17th, 1611, Isaac Casaubon was, upon the
death of Dr. Nicholas Simpson, of Corpus Christi College,
Oxford, (whose son John was of the same College and Preben
dary of the seventh stall in 1614,) preferred to the eighth
stall in Canterbury Cathedral ; he was a layman at this time.
After this the King granted him, on the 19th, a pension of
£300 per annum during pleasure.1 His son Meric, who was
confirmed by Bishop Andrewes, was born at Geneva 1599.
He was educated at Christ Church, Oxford. Bishop An
drewes preferred him to Bledon in Somersetshire. He was
afterwards Vicar of Minster and Monkton in the Isle of
Thanet, the latter of which he resigned for the rectory of
Ickham, a few miles to the east of Canterbury. He was
made Prebendary of the ninth stall there June 19, 1628,
survived the Restoration, and died July, 1671, aged 75 years,
and was buried in the newer south transept.
On Easter-day, March 24, 1611, Bishop Andrewes
preached again before the King at Whitehall, from Psalm
cxviii., The stone which the builders re/used, the same
stone is become the head of the corner. The latter part of
this sermon has been largely quoted for its quaintness f the
former and more excellent has been suffered to rest in the
folio edition. It abounds indeed with beauties, but the pun
ning upon the text, and the making the King the head, not
of one angle but of three, England, Scotland, and Ireland, is
but little suited to that whereto it is annexed. Admirable,
however, as are very many passages in this discourse, it is
not as a whole comparable to that upon the same occasion
in the preceding year, nor is that in point of eloquence equal
to those that treat of the narrative of the resurrection.
And so his Whitsunday sermon for this year, had it been
less diffuse and less singular in its illustrations, which to our
ears at least sounds sometimes trivial, sometimes jocular, would
have deserved very considerable commendation. But there
are passages in it that should scarcely be quoted, and which
are only equalled for impropriety in his sermons upon the
Temptation in the wilderness, where presumption is likened
to gunpowder. This sermon, upon the Sending of the Holy
Ghost, was preached before the King at Windsor on Whit
sunday May 12.
On June 9th Bishop Andrewes assisted at Lambeth at the
consecration of Dr. Buckeridge to the see of Rochester, and of
Dr. Giles Thompson, his old schoolfellow at Merchant Taylor's,
to that of Gloucester. Dr. Buckeridge was born at Shinfield,
near Beading, was President of St. John's College, Oxford, 1606,
where he was succeeded by Laud in 1611, Rector of North
Fambridge near Maldon, and of North Kilworth, Leicester
shire (near Rugby), Vicar of St. Giles' Cripplegate, Preben
dary of Rochester 1587, of Hereford, and Archdeacon of
Northampton on the same day, March 23, 1604, Canon of
Windsor 1606. On the death of Bishop Felton he was
translated from Rochester to Ely, April 17, 1628, having
meanwhile preached Bishop Andrewes' funeral sermon in
1626. He died May 23, and was buried May 31 in Bromley
church, Kent, without any memorial.
Giles Thompson was born in London, educated at Merchant
Taylor's School, an exhibitioner of University College, Oxford,
1571, Fellow of All Souls' College 1580, Proctor 1586,
Divinity Reader at Magdalene College, Chaplain to Queen
Elizabeth, Canon Residentiary of Hereford May 23, 1594,
Rector of Pembridge, Herefordshire (near Leominster), Dean
of Windsor February 2, 1603. He died the year following
his consecration, without ever having visited his diocese, June
14, 1612. He was buried in St. George's Chapel, Windsor.
• He was one of the translators of the Bible.
On June 22 Andrewes was appointed one of the first
Governors of the Charterhouse.
Casaubon had very favourably represented to the King
the learning of Cardinal Perron, and had presented him with
some of the Cardinal's poems. This favour Perron acknow
ledged in a letter to Casaubon, in which he artfully laid the
ground of the controversy which now forms the second volume
of his works. He withheld from King James the name of
Catholic, upon which Casaubon replied in the King's name
that his Majesty was much surprised thereat, seeing that he
believed all that the ancients believed with unanimous consent
to be essential. To this Perron replied in a long and laboured
epistle dated Paris, July 15, 1611. This letter is prefixed to
his longer controversy, and is to be found in the translation of
the first four books of the Cardinal's Reply, printed at Douay
in folio, by Martin Bogart, 1630, and dedicated to ' Henrietta
Maria of Bourbon, Queen of Great Britain? Casaubon was
appointed by the King to answer Perron's letter of the 15th
of July, and to give in Latin the mind of the King himself
upon it. Casaubon' s Answer was put into the hands of
Andrewes and Overall, then Dean of St. Paul's, if not also
of Morton, then Dean of Winchester, and Montagu, Bishop of
that see. Isaacson, Bishop Andrewes' secretary, appears to
have acted as Casaubon' s amanuensis.1
Soon after Casaubon had completed his Epistle to. Fronto
Ducceusj he accompanied Andrewes out of town on the 20th
June. They returned together to town on the Saturday, and
on Sunday, June 30th, were honoured with an invitation to
the King.
On July 3rd Andrewes, Overall, Casaubon, and others
dined with the Lord Mayor.
On the 16th Andrewes set out for Cambridge with
Casaubon. After halting probably at Royston or at Ware
for that night, they arrived on Wednesday the 17th at Cam
bridge, and were lodged at Peterhouse by Dr. John Richard-
son the Master. The Master's lodge at that time consisted of
several apartments between the library built by Dr. Perne,
and the hall, which then retained a handsome oriel, with a
high-pitched roof and lantern. The present lodge on the
opposite side of Trumpington-street belonged to Dr. Charles
Beaumont, Fellow of Peterhouse, and son of Dr. Joseph
Beaumont, Eegius Professor of Divinity in the place of
Bishop Gunning, and Master of Peterhouse 1662, in the
room of the pious and munificent Bernard Hale, Archdeacon
of Ely. Dr. Charles Beaumont, his son, dying March 17,
1726, left this house to the Masters of the College for ever.
He left also a large sum for the purchase of advowsons, and
many valuable MSS. to the library.
Dr. John Bichardson was born at Linton on the south
confines of Cambridgeshire, bordering upon Essex. He was
brought up at Clare Hall,1 of which College he was B.A. in
158J, or, as we write, 1582. He was thence elected to a
fellowship at Emmanuel College, where he proceeded M.A.
in 1585, and D.D. 1597. He succeeded Dr. Overall as Kegius
Professor of Divinity at Cambridge in 1607. He was ap
pointed one of the translators of the Bible in the same class
with Lively, Chaderton, Dillingham, Andrewes, Spalding, and
Bynge. To these were deputed the historical books from
1 Chronicles inclusive, and the Hagiographa, namely, Job to
Ecclesiastes inclusive. In 1609 he was made Master of Peter-
house, having been previously made Fellow of Emmanuel
College by the founder himself, Sir Walter Mildmay. On
Saturday, May 27th, 1615, he was, between 3 and 5 P.M.,
admitted to the mastership of Trinity College, Cambridge.
He was also Bector of Upwell, a parish with the church
mostly in Norfolk, partly in Cambridgeshire. He resigned
his professorship in 1617, and was succeeded by Dr. Collins.
In the mastership of Peterhouse he was followed by Thomas
Turner, B.D.
Thomas Turner was born at Burnby in Yorkshire, three
miles south-east of Pocklington, between York and Beverley.
He was B.A. of Peterhouse 1596, chosen a Fellow there,
M.A. 1600, B.D. 1609, and D.D. 1616. He was also Hector
of Stokehammond in Buckinghamshire, three miles south of
Fenny Stratford, and was installed Prebendary of Leicester
St. Margaret's, August 23rd, 1612. He died in 1617.
Our prelate was lodged at Peterhouse, as being one of the
two Colleges in which the Bishops of Ely have a special
interest, as having been founded and endowed by various
occupants of that see. To this day the Master and Fellows
of Peterhouse, now called St. Peter's College, are admitted
to the mastership and fellowships, as the clergy of the diocese
are to their spiritual preferments, by the Bishops of Ely.
Peterhouse existed as a corporate society as early as 1274,
for in that year a charter recognises their existence as the
Warden and Scholars of Peterhouse.1 It has been objected
that Hugh de Balsham, Bishop of Ely, the founder, left at
his death 300 marks for new buildings. He however had
previously placed his scholars in two hostels in Trumpington-
street. He also assigned to it the advowson of Triplow,
which, although the presentation has been of late in the
hands of the Bishop of Ely, was in the last century appro
priated to Peterhouse. The College found benefactors in
Thomas de Insula, Bishop of Ely 1345, and his predecessors
Hotham and Montacute, or Montague, who gave the advowson
of Cherryhinton to Peterhouse in 1344. The rectory, to
which a manor was annexed, was appropriated to the College
in 1395 by Bishop Fordham. Dr. Richardson was doubtless
known to Andrewes, as being in the same company of trans
lators of our present incomparable version of the Scriptures.
He was also, like Andrewes, of a most munificent spirit:
he gave £100 u towards the building of a new court, front,
and gate towards the street, now finished," says Fuller, in his
History of the University of Cambridge. Probably Andrewes
would also find himself more at home at Peterhouse than at
his own College, where Harsnet was now Master, who was
compelled some years after to resign in consequence of an
opposition headed by Andrewes' own favourite Matthew
Wren, who was at this time a Fellow of Pembroke Hall.
Wren was an undoubted and invaluable benefactor to both
Pembroke Hall and to Peterhouse. He carefully catalogued
the muniments of the latter College, a benefit that has been
both felt and owned very recently by that venerable founda
tion.
On Thursday July 18 Casaubon dined with Dr. Kichardson,
and after that arrived at Ely with the Bishop, who forthwith
went to the Deanery to pay his respects to Dr. Tindall the
Dean, also President of Queens' College, Cambridge. He
was of a noble Norfolk family. He was son to Sir Thomas
Tindall, of Hockwold near Brandon in Norfolk. Sir William
was made Knight of the Bath by Henry VII. at the creation
of Arthur Prince of Wales, and was then declared heir to the
kingdom of Bohemia in right of Margaret his great grand
mother, niece of the King of Bohemia, and daughter to the
Duke of Theise. Dr. Humphrey Tindall, or Tyndale, was
great-grandson of this Sir William.1 He was at this time
very infirm, and died October 12th, 1614, and was buried in
the Cathedral. He had been made Chancellor of Lichfield
and Archdeacon of Stafford both on the same day, February
21, 1586, by Bishop Overton, and retained these preferments
to his death. He was also Vicar of Soham.
On Sunday July 21st Casaubon attended with Andrewes
at the Cathedral. He informs us that the Bishop daily
attended divine service there whilst he was in residence.
On the 24th July, Wednesday, Casaubon took a survey of
Ely itself and of the Cathedral, especially admiring the
octagon lantern.
On the following Wednesday, July 31 (our 9th August),
the Bishop accompanied him to the Cathedral very early
in the morning, and they together took especial notice of the
lantern tower. At that time the choir was immediately
under it.
On the 4th August, being the first Sunday in the month,
the holy Sacrament was administered, the Bishop and Casau
bon being present.
On Monday, 5th, the anniversary of the Gowrie Conspiracy
was observed at the Cathedral. The Dean and the other
clergy met the Bishop at the great west door, and psalms
were chanted as they proceeded up the nave. After morning
service the Bishop himself preached, and a few worshippers
remained to receive the holy Communion.
On Tuesday, August 6th, the Bishop took Casaubon with
him, on his way to Wisbeach, to his palace at Downham1
]fa]i.di, which was his favourite residence, and in the chapel
of which it was his frequent practice to hold his ordinations.
On Wednesday the Mayor and ten burgesses, with a
company of about one-hundred-and-fifty on horses, met the
Bishop at his entering into Wisbeach.
On Thursday a sermon was preached at the church, the
beauty of which Casaubon did not fail to observe. He went
afterwards to the Castle where some Jesuits and recusants
were confined.
On Friday the 9th the Bishop and Casaubon went on
horseback to inspect the dykes on the other side of Wisbeach
from that by which they entered. After going four or five
miles at a walking pace they lost their way. On their return
the Bishop's horse threw him, but the good providence of
God so ordered it that he received no hurt either from his fall
or whilst between the horse's feet.1
On Saturday the 10th, after having read some Psalms
together, as was the Bishop's custom, they went to the
Assizes, at which the Bishop presided. They then returned
to Downham Market.
On Wednesday the 14th Casaubon and his wife went to
the quarry near Ely.
On Monday the 19th the Bishop accompanied him on his
horse to see the country around and beyond Ely.
On Wednesday the 21st the Bishop gave a great dinner
to the nobility and gentry of the neighbourhood.
On Thursday the 29th Casaubon returned to London.
On the 22nd September Andrewes held an ordination in
the chapel of his palace at Downham Market. He ordained
Deacons Samuel Stubbin, B.A. of Emmanuel College 1609,
and M.A. 1612, and William Bawley, M.A., Fellow of
Corpus Christi College, chaplain to Lord Bacon, and Eector
of Landbeach near Cambridge, where he died, aged seventy-
nine years, June 18, 1667. Bacon valued our prelate's
learning, and sent to him the MS. of his Cogitata et Visa for
his remarks upon it, as he had done upon previous occasions.
In another letter, addressed to King James October 12,
1620,1 Bacon mentions that the Bishop was acquainted for
nearly thirty years with his intention of writing the Novum
Organon.
After his retirement he also dedicated to Bishop Andrewes
his Advertisement touching a Holy War, concluding in these
words: "This work I have dedicated to your lordship in
respect of our ancient and private acquaintance, and because
amongst the men of our times I hold you in special rever
ence."2 Andrewes usually spent July, August, and Sep
tember in his diocese, and so he, soon after this ordination,
returned to London.
On the 13th October, Saturday, he took Casaubon with
him from London to Ware, and on Saturday the 19th they
reached Koyston, and were the King's guests at his house
there in Armingford-street. It is still to be seen, with the
private garden, in which is a mulberry-tree from one which
the King himself is said to have planted, which fell down
about twelve years since. They remained two days with the
King.
On the 4th of November Casaubon was again with
Andrewes.
On the 14th they again set out together to Eoyston, spent
the greater part of Friday the 15th with the King, and
returned.
, Casaubon was with Andrewes again on the 25th.
On the next day he wrote to Daniel Heyne. He relates
that on October 22nd the King commanded him to attend
him to London. There were present Archbishop Abbot and
Bishop Andrewes. Andrewes begged of Heyne through
i Casaubon to make his house his home when he was not
: under Casaubon' s roof. Casaubon relates how he was con-
.stantly with Andrewes about this time, and that this great
I prelate supplied to him the place of De Thou, such was his
[profound learning, and so great his affability.3
On Monday, December 2nd, he again went to the King at
Royston with Andrewes, and remained with him there the
next day.
He was again in attendance upon Andrewes on the 7th
on account otf a letter from Mountagu, Bishop of Bath and
Wells, written for the King respecting the returning of the
papers with which he and Andrewes had been entrusted.
These related to the letter to Cardinal Perron, which Casau-
bon was than preparing under the King's direction.1
Toward the end of this year (1611) was printed at London
by Robert Barker the King's printer, Elenchus Eefutationis
Torturce Torti pro Reverendissimo in Christo Patre Domino
Episcopo Eliensi (Andrewes) adversus Martinum Becanum
Jesuitam. Author e Richardo Tlwmsonio Cantabrigiensi : A
Confutation of the Jesuit Martin Becaris Refutation of Bp.
Andrewes 's Tortura Torti. This little volume is a 12mo of
104 pages, dedicated to the author's friend, Sir Thomas
Jermyn. It is written with much point, spirit, and ability.
The author animadverts upon the misrepresentation of Becan,
who for the King's supremacy substitutes primacy?
Becan would have his readers imagine that Andrewes and
King James were at variance respecting the Pope's being
Antichrist. We have already seen the opinion of both upon
that topic. The King only conceded, that whilst he held
to his own opinion respecting Antichrist, he would not place
his opinion thereon amongst articles of faith.3 Thomson
alleges the remarkable coincidence with Rev. xvii. of the
name long engraven on the Papal tiara, mystery. This most
remarkable circumstance, admitted by Lessius, himself a
zealous partisan of the Romish see, was denied by Bossuet,
who was exposed by M. Christian Gotthilf Blumberg in his
Exercitium anti-Bossueticum^ 1695, and again farther esta
blished in his Mysterium Papali coronce adscriptum, 1702,
against Dr. John Louis Hanneman, Professor of Medicine
at Kiel.
Thomson objects to Bellarmine the fact that the King
of Spain was by hereditary right invested with the entire
authority of a legatus a later e in the kingdom of Sicily, having
power to absolve, excommunicate, forbid appeals to Rome,
&c. This he proves by the very words of Ascanius Colonna,
one of the College of Cardinals, in p. 161 of his work upon
the kingdom of Sicily against Baronius.1
The author, Richard Thomson, was Proctor in 1612 of
Clare Hall, in which year occur also as Proctors, Stephen
Haget of Queens' College, and Henry Bird of Trinity Hall.2
This Thomson or Thompson is said to have been the same
with the author of another Latin treatise (unless indeed that
was a posthumous treatise), which was published at Ley den
in 1618, Ricardi Thomsonis Angli Diatriba de Amissione et
Inter cisione Gratice et Justifications , 1618. The author who
wrote in defence of Andrewes was incorporated of the Uni
versity of Oxford July 1, 1596, according to Wood, who at
the same time concludes his account of him with this obser
vation : u One of both his names was as a M. of A. of Cambr.
incorporated in this University 1593, which I take to be
the same with this," namely, the author both of the Elenchus
and of the Diatriba. However, our author, the author of
the Elenchus, is doubtless truly described by Anthony Wood
as a u Dutchman born of English parents," for he was an
eminent tutor at Clare Hall in 1604, prior to which the pious
Nicholas Ferrar was entered at that College. In a life
abridged from one written by Dr. Turner, Bishop of Ely, and
published in the Christian Magazine for July 1761 (p. 356),
we have the following notice of him and of Clare Hall at that
time. " In his (Ferrar' s) thirteenth year Mr. Brooks himself
(who kept a school near Newbury, Berkshire,) would needs
carry his young scholar to settle him in the University,
declaring that he was more than ripe for it, and alleging his
i loss of time if he staid any longer at school. He placed him at
• Cambridge at Clare Hall, famous for a set of the most eminent
men of their times in their several faculties ; Dr. Butler for
i physic, Mr. Lake, who was after advanced to be Secretary of
State, Mr. Kuggle (the celebrated author of Ignoramus] for his
exquisite skill in all polite learning, Dutch Thomson, as we
quote him still at Cambridge, Mr. Parkinson, and Dr. Austin
Lindsell, afterwards Lord Bishop of Peterborough, and at
last of Hereford, for their profound knowledge in divinity.
The last of these, who was the general scholar, was pleased
to receive a youth of such great hopes into his own tuition."1
The other Thomson, incorporated M.A. at Oxford in
1593, was Eichard Thomson of Trinity College, Cambridge,
B.A. 1587-8, M.A. 1591.
The Jesuit Becan was this year answered also by the
Rev. Hobert Burhill, of Corpus Christi College, Oxford,
whom Bishop Andrewes afterwards rewarded with the rectory
of Snailwell, in the county of Cambridge, and about three
miles north of Newmarket. Burhill's vindication of the
Bishop is entitled, Pro Torturd Tortij contra Martinum
Becanum Jesuitam^ Responsio Roberti Burhilli Angli. Lon-
dini : Excudebat Eobertus Barkerus, serenissimce, Regice Ma-
jestatis Typographus. Anno Dom. 1611. It is dedicated to
Prince Henry. In his epistle to the reader he mentions that
his references are to the Cologne edition of Tortus, 1608, and
to the London edition of the Tortura, 1609.
Becan had displayed the usual arts of his fraternity, and
in so doing sometimes contradicted Bellarmine whom he
professed to defend, by assuming a liberality inconsistent
with the ultramontanism of the Cardinal. He also dealt in
Pembroke Hall 1563, and M.A. 1566. He was born at Ipswich, and was the
most eminent physician of his age. Dyer in his account of Clare Hall has made
him the same with another benefactor to that foundation, noticing him as " John
Freeman Butler, Esq."* He attended Prince Henry in his last illness November
1612. He gave a chalice of solid gold for the divine service, and a handsome
carpet to cover the Communion-table, and also left by his will two curious
flagons, the one of crystal, the other serpentine tipped with silver, and all his
books in folio. There is a mural monument to his memory, with his bust, on
the south side of the chancel of Great St. Mary's, Cambridge. He died January
9th, 1618, in his 83rd year.
the popular misrepresentations of the royal supremacy, and
continually laboured to pervert the meaning of his oppo
nents. Burhill reminded him that whilst he had boasted of
having refuted both the King and the Bishop in regard of the
oath of allegiance, he had passed over a third author, George
Blackwell; whom not very long before Clement VIII. had
appointed arch-presbyter of England. Blackwell had written
to demonstrate both the equity of the oath, and the falsity of
the Papal claim to depose princes.
Becan studied insolence and invective, treating both the
King and our prelate with disrespect, and professing to
depreciate the learning and talent of the latter in his very
title-page, which ran as follows, Refutatio Torture Torti, seu
contra Sacellanum Regis Anglice quod causam Regis sui negli-
genter egerit, ' A Refutation of the Tortura Torti, or against
the Chaplain of the King of England because he had slight
ingly handled the cause of his King.' Burhill objects to him
the inconsistency of this charge of negligence on the Bishop's
part with his own admission, Si verba spectem satis cultus et
elegans es / si laborem ac diligentiam, non culpo otium: at
multa alia sunt quce non ceque probem? 'If I look to the
style, you are sufficiently ornate and elegant; if to the pains
and diligence, I have not to blame want of care. But there
are many other things which I cannot equally approve.'
Burhill justly charges Becan with making common cause
with those traitors, Nicholas Sanders and the proto-pseudo
martyr of the Jesuits in England, Edmund Campian. He
proceeds to remind Becan that not only the Gallican and
Venetian divines, but amongst the Spanish, Francesco de
Victoria, Dominic Bannes, Medina, Ledesna, and Sotus
denied that the clergy were jure divino exempt from the
I civil power, (p. 62). He maintains the royal supremacy on
I the now, alas, deserted doctrine that the end of Christian
government is somewhat higher than the advancement of
mere secular prosperity. The Church of Kome he does not
hesitate to charge with spiritual adultery as the scarlet whore
of the Apocalypse (purpurata meretrix). (p. 85.) He takes
notice of the perversion of Scripture by Baronius, who, stirring
up Pope Paul V. against the Venetians, admonished him that
the Apostle Peter's was a twofold office, to feed and to slay,
because it was said to him, Rise Peter , kill and eat. Acts x. 13.
(p. 85.) He claims for the Sovereign the right as well of dis
solving as of calling together ecclesiastical assemblies, and of
interposing to set aside useless controversies, and for the sup
pression of religious factions, (p. 106.) Also the power
of annulling unjust censures, and of nominating in eccle
siastical elections, (pp. 106, 107.) He denies to the Sove
reign the right of imposing canons by his sole authority,
or of condemning as heretical that which has not hitherto
been pronounced heretical, (p. 108.) He notices the extra
vagant claims of the Pope in the 7th section (p. 85) of the
Book of Ceremonies, to " all power in heaven and in earth."
(p. 109.) He recognizes the Augustinian idea of the invisible
church, namely, those who through internal grace are members
of the body of Christ, (p. 134.) He objects to Becan that
there is no unity in his Church in regard of essentials if
Bellarmine is to be followed, who repeatedly affirms that the
Pope's power of deposing princes is an article, nay, one of the
chief articles of the Catholic faith, (p. 145.) He refers to
various Komish writers who had taught the contrary, and
here he makes use of that great storehouse of Protestant
evidence, Flacii Illyrici Catalogus Testium Veritatis. (p. 146.)
Becan, he says, must needs confess that there are three preva
lent opinions respecting the Pope's dominion over princes, that
of Baronius and the Canonists, that the Pope is directly lord
of the world and judge of kings ; that of Bellarmine and of
the Jesuits, that he is so not directly but indirectly ; and that
of the Ghibelines and those who hold with them, that he has
no such lordship and authority either directly or indirectly,
(p. 147.) He exposes the historical falsehoods of Bellarmine
in the 21st chapter of his book upon the Sacraments in his
polemical works, and of Binius, at p. 1494 of the third volume
of the Councils, respecting the pretended submission of the
Greeks to the Church of Rome in the Council of Lateran 1215,
(by a mistake printed 1195, p. 152), and at the Council of
Lyons 1274, and thirdly at that of Florence in 1439.
Toward the end of this the 15th chapter Burhill with his
Sovereign applies the Apocalypse to the Church of Kome,
and in the great diminution of the revenues of that church
which ensued upon the Reformation, sees the commencement
of the punishmet predicted against that apostate communion
in the 16th verse of the 17th chapter, (p. 161.) In the 12th
chapter Burhill exposes the sanction which both Popes and
Jesuits had given to the assassination of Henry III. of France,
and the democratic doctrine of Bellarmine that kings derived
their rights from the people, the Pope from God alone, and
further illustrates the tenet that no faith is to be kept with
heretics, (p. 204.) He here takes occasion to expose the in
consistency of Becan, who in one place had admitted that
the Council of Constance had granted John Huss a safe-
conduct, and in another had denied that the Council had
made any promise to him. Burhill unveils the fallacies
by which Becan would with others blind the public to the
reality of this obnoxious tenet, and cites numerous autho
rities of the Romish Church who had insisted upon it:
Simanca, Conrad Brunus (1. iii. De Hcereticis, c. 15, n. 6, et seq.
in Tractatibus illustrium Jureconsultorum de Judiciis crimi-
nalibus sanctce Inquisitionis] , Francis Burchardt (in Autonomid,
parte iii. c. 13), Joh. Paul Windeck (in Deliberatione deHcere-
sibus extirpandw) , Ayala (De Jure Belli, 1. i. c. 6, n. 8), Molanus
(De Fide Hcereticis Servandd, 1. iv. c. 7) ; and so Cardinal
Hosius, in his Epistles to Henry King of Poland, " Never suffer
yourself by any consideration to be bound to the fulfilment of
those things that you have promised, because an oath ought
not to be an obligation of iniquity."
In the 20th chapter Burhill lays open the impious secret of
the whole history of Jesuitism, the utter prostration of mind
and conscience to the will of the superior, which forms the basis
of the Jesuit's preparation for his career of perfidy and crime.
So the Jesuit of old went forth to subjugate the world to
the Pope, as in after times he has been seen endeavouring to
subjugate Popes themselves to the greatness of his own order.
Our author, in an earlier section of his work, refers with the
highest commendation to Dr. Thomas Morton's Catholic
Apology for Protestants, 1. i. c. 9. Morton was then Dean of
Winchester, and was in 1615 consecrated to the see of
Chester, translated to Lichfield and Coventry 1618, and thence
to Durham in 1632.
On Wednesday, Christmas-day, our prelate preached be
fore the King at Whitehall, from John i. 14. Excellently
does he instance the force of the term flesh, as implying our
nature. So St. Augustine of holy Scripture, in the 2nd
chapter of the 14th book On the City of God: Scepe etiam
ipsum hommenij id est naturam hominis carnem nuncupat,
modo locutionis a parte totum significans? Nothing can be
more perspicuous than the manner in which Andrewes here
makes use of his learning, applies the Nicene Creed, and sets
forth the doctrine of the Church on this great article, the
union of the two natures in one person intended by the ex
pression, ' the taking of the manhood into God?
Beyond all praise is the simple pathos of his transition
from the doctrine viewed in itself to the doctrine in its relation
to us and to our nature, the wonderful humiliation which it
manifested in Christ, all that in the mystery of the incarnation
which is not simply the object of our faith but of our love.
It is perhaps true that the very faultiness of the style, the
continual mixture of English and Latin, yet frequently, as
here, adds to the point of those antitheses which are so touch-
ingly brought into our prelate's discourses.
Certainly the rejection of that simplicity, which in Bishop
Andrewes is always eifective because it spurns all elaborate
ness of construction and expression, gives to the best of our
modern sermons a comparative coldness and ineffectiveness
that cannot be too deeply regretted. Men scorn as over-
prettinesses what is too simple to be natural to them or to
the vitiated taste which they profess to esteem it their duty
to pamper. Upon such, with whom a preaching next to
foolish has the greatest attractions, the works of Bishop
Andrewes would be thrown away; they could not appreciate
that fertility of the imagination, that combination of simple
imagery, which, like the parables of our Saviour, is of uni
versal adaptation. Let the reader study the point so promi
nent in almost every sentence of this discourse. We may
read and hear many long and overstrained compositions, out
of which none shall be able to carry away so complete and
so concise a lesson as this of the grace and truth of the Word:
il Grace is to adopt us, truth to beget us anew ; for, of his own
will he hath begotten us, by the word of truth."
What are many of our sermons to this one paragraph?
tl Good hope we now have, that he being now flesh, all flesh
may come to him, to present him with their requests. Time
was when they fled from him, but ad factum carnem jam
veniet omnis caro. For since he dwelt amongst us, all may
resort unto him, yea, even sinners ; and of them it is said,
Hie recipit peccatores et comedit cum eis, He receiveth them,
receiveth them even to his table."
And here we will conclude this chapter. It is brief, and
comprises but one year of the life of our prelate; but we
cannot better end than with the mention and memorial of His
incarnation, who, by taking our flesh, assured us of his love,
that love in which is bound up our true, our eternal good.
For now " He seeth us daily in himself; he cannot look upon
his flesh but he must think upon us. And God the Father
cannot now hate the flesh which the Word is made."
CHAPTER XIII.
The Version 0/1611— Dr. Gell— Bishop Marsh — Luther— Tyndale—
Coverdale — Cranmer's Bible — Geneva Bible — Dr. Whitaker on
the Old Testament — Tregelles — Matthcei — Valla's Collations —
Complutensian New Testament — Erasmus — Stephens — His MSS.
of the New Testament — Beza.
IT was in the course of this year, 1611, that the present
Version of the Holy Scriptures appeared. I cannot pass over
this opportunity of attempting, however briefly and inadequately, to pay my passing tribute to this noble work, a work destined to abide the shock of peradventure one and another coming attack; a work well able to abide every effort of the innovating spirit of our own or future generations that may
be directed against it. The Rev. Frederick Henry Scrivener, M.A., who has now established his reputation for accuracy and completeness as a collator of the Biblical MSS. preserved in our own country, in his Supplement to the Authorized English Version of the New Testament* remarks of King James's version of the Bible: "I hardly need observe that it has received the highest panegyrics from Biblical scholars of every shade of theological sentiment, from the date of its
publication to the present time. For more than a century after its completion almost the only person of respectable acquirements and station who wrote against it, was Dr. Robert Gell, whose twenty discourses or sermons on this subject
(London, 1659, folio) I have not been able to meet with.
They are not in the British Museum nor in Sion College
Library. Judging from Lewis's description of the book,
my loss has not been great. Gell had taken up a foolish
and very unfounded notion that the Calvinistic bias of some
of the translators had a prejudicial effect on the version: but
Gal. v. 6 is the only text I can discover to which he objects
on this ground.2 The New Testament he thought to be
worse rendered than the Old, and he complains that the
order of the words in the original is wholly neglected (Heb.
x. 34). Lewis also mentions Matt. xx. 23, 1 John iii. 20, as
passages which Dr. Gell thought capable of improvement;
but if he gives us any" thing " approaching to a fair analysis
of the contents of these sermons, they never could have endangered the reputation of the translation which they as sailed."
[PARAGRAPHS OMITTED]
Dr. Dobbin published in 1854 a collation of this MS.
throughout the Gospels and Acts with the Greek text of
Wetstein and with certain MSS. in the University of Oxford.
Mr. Scrivener, whose accuracy is now established beyond
question, observes, from a careful comparison of this and the
celebrated Leicester MS., that we can hardly resort to the
Codex Montfort, as Tregelles suggests (Home's Introduction
to the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 216), for the readings of the
Codex Leicestrensis in those parts of the Apocalypse which
are defective in the latter MS."3
CHAPTER XIV.
Easter 1612 — Andrewes a Governor of the Charterhouse — His speech
concerning Vows — His Whitsunday sermon — Ordination at Down-
ham — His 5th of November sermon — And on Christmas-day —
Casaulorfs Answer to Cardinal Perron — Dr. Collins.
WE find Casaubon again with Andrewes on the 3rd of
February, 1612, in company with Overall, the only two
Englishmen with whom he says in his diary he was on terms
of intimacy.
On Maundy Thursday, April 9th, he dined at Ely House,
Holborn, with our prelate. He after dinner was present with
his wife at the washing of the feet of some poor men, quce fit,
he says, in hdc ecclesid egregie. In 1639 Charles is said to
have kept this day at York, where Wren, Bishop of Ely,
washed the feet of thirty-nine poor old men in warm water,
and dried them with a linen cloth. Afterwards Curie, Bishop
of Winchester, washed them over again in white wine, wiped,
and kissed them.
Our prelate, on April 12, Easter-day, 161 2, preached before
King James at Whitehall Chapel, from 1 Cor. v. 7, 8, on the
Christian Passover, deriving from this place the Easter
festival. He cites 2 Sam. xii. 13, according to the Vulgate,
The Lord hath transferred, or passed over thy sins, that is, to
another : and so the Septuagint. The death of the firstborn
passed over to the Lamb. Our souls are dearer to us than
our firstborn, and both our sin and curse pass over from us to
Christ.
The Passover was both sacrificed and eaten. But in rigour
of speech neither the Passover nor the Eucharist is a sacrifice ;
there is in the latter no immolation.1
And here Bishop Andrewes speaks explicitly against the
real presence of the present Via Media. He denies all eating
of Christ's glorified body. Let us keep the feast he refers to
the participation of Christ, not as glorified but as suffering.
" He, as at the very act of his offering, is made present to us,
and we incorporate into his death, and invested in the benefit
of it. If an host could be turned into him now glorified as
he is, it would not serve. Christ offered is it. Thither we
must look. To the serpent lift up, thither we must repair, even
ad cadaver" [to the dead body]. Thus a spiritual, not a real
corporeal presence was the doctrine of Bishop Andrewes.
Nothing can be more severe than his allusion to the mass ; he
calls it Anti- Christ's goat? Nor can this surprise us when
we reflect that he regarded that service as idolatrous, and
therefore antichristian.
Our prelate was appointed one of the first governors of
the Charterhouse, and one of the overseers of the founder's
will, in which capacity he attended his funeral in the chapel
of the Charterhouse May 28th. He also addressed a letter to
Button's executors, directing them to pay the sum of £10,000
for the repair of Berwick-bridge, in fulfilment of the provisions
of his will, which directed a certain sum to be applied to
charitable uses.1 Thomas Button, Esq., the founder, was born
at Knaith, near Gainsborough in Lincolnshire. About seven
years before his death he purchased the manor of Castle
Camps in Cambridgeshire, and resided there, and left it with
the advowson of the living to the Charterhouse. Dr. Nicholas
Grey, the first Master of the Charterhouse, was appointed to
the rectory. It is at present held by the Kev. George
Pearson, B.D., who after having taken his degree at Em
manuel College was chosen to a fellowship at St. John's, and
was made Christian Advocate in 1834.
In the Trinity term 1612 he delivered his speech in the
Star Chamber concerning vows, in the Countess of Shrews
bury's case. Elizabeth Cavendish, Countess of Shrewsbury,
was sent to the town on a charge of having been adviser to
Arabella Stuart, to whom she was aunt. She answered every
question that related to .herself only, but begged to be excused
answering to anything that could implicate her unfortunate
relative. The King ordered her to appear before certain
commissioners, who fined her to the amount of £20,000, and
moreover condemned her to discretionary imprisonment. The
Countess pleaded that she had made a vow not to answer.
Our prelate maintained its unlawfulness. A lawful vow he
defined l a deliberate promise to God made of something ac
ceptable to him.' The Countess had vowed thus, said Bishop
Andrewes, l 0 Lord, I promise thee that being never so law
fully examined, I will not answer,' but l if all should make the
like, not to answer any, then were justice quite overthrown and
could not proceed. The overthrow of justice can be no matter
of vow.' Such examination as that in question was warranted
by the law of God in Dent. xiii. 14, and xvii. 4. Again, God's
own practice was designed as a pattern to judges. He asked
Adam of his sin in Paradise. Herod and Jephtha both vowed
unlawfully. A vow ought not to be indefinite. David vowed
the like, to be the death of Nabal ; but upon better advice
(being put in mind by Abigail, it would be no scruple nor
upbraiding to his conscience if he shed no blood, and so kept
not his heady vow) he did not keep it.
He concludes, in the quaint manner of the age, with an
assurance that the Countess may safely vow never to make
any such vow more.
Upon May 31 he took his turn at the chapel on Whit
sunday, and preached from Acts xix. 1 — 3, upon the divinity
of the Holy Ghost, against the Socinians who were about that
time agitating their controversies in this country. Excellent
are his remarks upon the true Christian motives in distinction
from the merely political, moral, and philosophical. Whatsoever
is done from a selfish end, and from no higher, is not reli
giously done, but only that of which God is the centre, which
is done to his glory, and not for our own but for his name.
He quotes Isa. xxvi. 18, according to the Septuagint, and
Psa. li. 10 as it stands, not in the text but in the margin of
our authorized version, ' constant? The great impediments
to the coming of the Holy Spirit to us he sums up thus —
pride, lust, and malice, that is, every form of uncharitableness.
To invite the Spirit to us, he exhorts to the frequenting of
the sanctuary, to prayer, to the preached word and meditation
upon it, and to the sacraments. Of the Word he saith, " The
Holy Ghost is Christ's Spirit, and Christ is the Word. And
of that Word, the Word that is preached to us is an abstract.
There must needs then be a nearness and alliance between
the one and the other. And indeed (but by our default) the
Word and the Spirit, saith Esay, shall never fail nor ever
part, but one be received when the other is."
We find our prelate, at his palace at Downham on the 27th
July, writing as follows to Sir Thomas Lake :
"SIR, — Since my coming hither to Downham I have
received information from Mr. D. Felton, that the Bishop of
Chichester, waxing weary of his mastership of Pembroke
Hall, intendeth very shortly to make it over to one who, save
that he hath for (e) bid his turn (a man may say it in charity),
that many years hath (and this year especially) shewed himself
unworthy of such a place ; one Muriell, concerning whom the
Sub- Almoner can very well inform you. I wish the House
well, as I am bound. I know that wish well to D. Felton.
And his Majesty hath freely been pleased to signify his good
liking of him, and to wish him some preferment, and even
this place itself (if it like you to remember so much), upon
some occasion heretofore in this kind. The better sort of
Fellows do wish for him, and, as now it standeth, I might
say, the greater. But it is certainly intended by the Bishop
to make an election of fellowships before he gives over, that
shall be brought in only on condition to give their voice after
ward as he shall appoint them. I write you for no end but
only to set you about good works. And a blessed deed would
you do if you shall help the College (hitherto of good report)
and a worthy Master, such as I hope D. Felton would be ;
which otherwise is like even to sink and come to nothing if it
light not in the better hands. Sir, I desire you for his sake,
for mine, but specially for the College's, to add this to the
number of the rest of your good deeds, and prevent this evil,
and be a means that a good House may have a good head,
which I much desire, because then I shall be in hope once
more to see that College, which otherwise I am not like.
I prescribe nothing, neither doth it become me : but if his
Majesty please to interpose his authority or commendation,
there is conceived good hope, which in what sort it may best
be, none can better devise than yourself, to whom therefore
I leave it ; this being my desire that it may appear I have
not been wanting to my motion for the good of that poor
College. You shall, as for many others, so for this, look for
your reward at the hand of God, to whose blessed keeping
now and ever I commend you. From Downham in the Isle
of Ely, the 27th July, 1612, where I yet am in expectation
that from Gaines. I shall see you and my Lady. Utinam.
tl Yours ever to my power,
Very assured,
"L. ELIENSIS."
In August Bishop Andrewes was attacked with an aguish
fever, from being in the open air too late in the evening. To
this illness Isaacson, his first biographer, alludes where he
says, "He was not often sick, and but once till his last sickness in thirty years before the time he died, which was at Downham in the Isle of Ely, the air of that place not agreeing with the constitution of his body. But there he seemed to
be prepared for his dissolution, saying oftentimes in that
sickness, It must come once, and why not here? And at other
times before and since he would say, The days must come
when, whether we will or nill, we shall say with the Preacher,
I have no pleasure in them." To this illness Andrewes him
self alludes in his Latin letters to Isaac Casaubon, dated the
Vigil of St. Bartholomew, i. e. August 23rd, and the Nativity
of the Virgin, September 8th.
In the first Andrewes invites Casaubori to come with his
wife and revive his spirits, and exchange the great heat of the
metropolis for the cooler air of Downham. He cannot forego
a pun, a semi-double pun upon this subject, Nam Dunamias
mira caloris dSwafjula, nee sestus, quod sciam, ullus restate hac
tot&. He then refers, for a proof of his comparison, to his
illness occasioned by too late exposure to the evening air.
He urges him to devote his principal attention to his Exerci-
tationes in Baronium, and to pass over the tribe of inferior
writers whom Home had, as the Bishop observes, jesuitically
set on him to draw him off from his great work against Baro-
nius. He alludes by name to Erycius Puteanus, who, as the
editor of the eleventh volume of our prelate's works observes
in a note, had just published his Strictures in Casaubonum.
He makes no very favourable mention of Peter de Moulin,
and speak of his sirenlike influence with the King. He condemns the controversy then in agitation, as likely to lead to nothing but the introduction of new distinctions in the language of theology. I would rather, he adds, two or three
lines from antiquity than as many books of these men, which
savour of nothing but the love of novelty. He then expresses
his hope that the King may not intermeddle with these disputes, which in his opinion threatened to break out into a disease. He concludes with a cordial invitation to Casaubon to come now and see on his way Stourbridge Fair, the most
celebrated in all England ; or, if that will not induce him, the Hebrew copy of St. Matthew in the library of Corpus Christi College. He holds out to him the enjoyments of the country, the trial of his skill in deer-shooting, and promises
to detain him but a few days.
In his second letter, also from Downham, he expresses his
regret that Casaubon could not accede to his request, and says,
"I shall owe to London what I cannot have at Downham."
He again urges him respecting his work against Baronius,
and again advises him not to lose too much time amidsl
chronological questions of only secondary importance. He
alludes to Eichard Thompson of Clare Hall, and to his being
proctor that year ; Thompsonus valet, et novum magistratum
meditatur, in eoque totus est. He was in the same company
with Andrewes as one of the translators of the Bible. He was
intimate with Casaubon. Peter du Moulin, a French refugee
on account of religion, was collated by Archbishop Abbot to
the fourth stall at Canterbury in 1615.
On September 20th Andrewes ordained the following
deacons in the chapel of the Palace at Downham:
Theodore Bathurst, M.A., Fellow of Pembroke Hall.
Alexander Bolde, M.A., Fellow of Pembroke Hall.
Walter Balcanqual, M.A., Fellow of Pembroke Hall,
Dean of Eochester 8th March, 1625, and of Durham May 13,
1639. He was sent by the King to the Synod of Dort, died
on Christmas-day 1645, and was buried at Chirk in Denbigh
shire.
Bathurst was B.A. 1606, M.A. 1608, B.D. 1615, D.D.
1620. Bolde was B.A. 1607, M.A. 1610, and B.D. 1618 ;
chosen Fellow of Pembroke Hall 1610. Balcanqual was B.D.
1616, D.D. 1620. His supplicat for B.D. says, " 7 years after
M.A.," but no record exists of his B.A. or M.A. degree.
John Martin, Queens' College, Cambridge, B.A. 1609,
M.A. 1612.
On November 5 the King and Queen were absent from
the chapel at Whitehall on account of the illness of Prince
Henry. Our prelate discoursed excellently, but not without
some quaintnesses, from Lam. iii. 22, It is the Lord's mercies
that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
With no small skill does he by comparison illustrate the
greatness of this our national deliverance. He makes nume
rous allusions to the history of the plot, allusions such as may
for ever set at rest the artful misrepresentations which the Jesuits
of former and of the present time have invented to palliate this
truly Eomish atrocity. Thus he reminds his audience that
the conspirators were " bound" by oath, bound secondly "by
their sacrament of penance. Thither they went in an error, as
if it had been some fault ; but they found more than they went
for : went/or absolution, received a flat resolution. It was not
only no sin, but would serve to expiate their other sins ; and
not only expiate their sins, but heap also upon them an
increase of merit. In effect, that our consumption would
become their consummation. Bound last with the sacrament
of the altar and so made as sure as their Maker could
make it."
Andrewes attributes the unriddling of the celebrated letter,
to the King under the special guidance of God.
On the following day, November the 6th, between seven
and eight in the evening, Prince Henry died of an epidemic
fever.
On December 7th Bishop Andrewes was present at the
funeral of the Prince at Westminster Abbey. Archbishop
Abbot preached the funeral sermon from Psa. Ixxxii. 6, 7 :
/ have said ye are gods ; and all of you are children of the
Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of
the princes.
We find Andrewes preaching again at Whitehall on
Christmas-day from the Epistle for the day, and most chris-
tianly setting forth the condescension of the Son of God in
visiting our world, "as if a great prince should go into an
hospital to visit and look on a foul diseased creature."
Towards the end of this year appeared Casaubon's Answer
to Cardinal Perron. It was published in Latin, in quarto, by
John Norton, 1612, either in November or December. This
was a further exposition of his Majesty's faith, in answer to
the Cardinal who had withheld from him the name of Catholic.
The King professes to believe one Catholic Church made up
of many communions. He maintains an unity of faith and
doctrine, of charity and hope; but if any depart from the
integrity of Christian doctrine, he leaves Christ. From such
the Scriptures bid us depart. Cardinal Perron had quoted
largely from St. Austin. The King replies that the Church is
much changed from what it was in St. Augustine's days. Then
there was an unity of faith by which error could be easily
detected. But after the division of the empire the Church itself
also was divided. The King affirms that to be doctrine
necessary to salvation which is drawn from the fountain of the
Scriptures through the channel of the consent of the ancient
Church. Our Church has succession both of persons and
doctrines. The Church of England would willingly prove
before any free Council that her intent in the Reformation
was to restore the primitive model. We have departed from
the innovations of Rome, but not from the old Catholic
Church. We had a long time borne an intolerable yoke of
exactions which alone would have justified separation ; and
the Church of Rome had used against us both secret and
open violence, and received in her bosom and still cherished
the most manifest traitors and called them martyrs, and con
tended for their innocence daily against all laws human and
divine. The King notices Bellarmine's personal favours to
the conspirators, as indeed has been already observed.
The King animadverts upon the addition of auricular con
fession to the essentials of religion, and upon the enforcement
of celibacy, and traces the self-flagellation of the more religious
members of the Church of Rome to the custom of the priests
of Baal. He maintains the distinction of essentials and non-
essentials, and points out agreement in the few points that are
truly essential as the only way to unity. Those, he says, are
simply necessary which the Word of God expressly commands
to be believed, or which the ancient Church has elicited by
necessary consequence from the Word of God.
The King highly commends unforced and voluntary
celibacy, and here fails not to express his detestation of the
doctrine advanced by some of the Romish jurists and theo
logians, that concubinage and fornication are more tolerable
in a priest than marriage. The King had often said that, for
his part, he would never have dissolved monasteries if he had
found them faithfully abiding by their proper regulations.
With respect to what should be considered primitive
antiquity, the King is willing to have the first five centuries
after the Christian era so regarded, and the rule of Vincent
of Lerins admitted. But with respect to all appeals to
antiquity, his Majesty will nevertheless have the Scriptures
to be the sole foundation of faith, and only source from which
things necessary to salvation are to be drawn. The Fathers
he admits in the next order as expositors of what is in the
Scriptures, not as propounders of independent articles of
belief.
Upon the Keal Presence the authority of Bishop Andrewes
(before alluded to) in his second work against Bellarmine is
adduced as declaration of his Majesty's faith. Concerning the
sacrifice of the mass there is no proper sacrifice ; the Eu
charist is, as St. Chrysostom explains in his Homilies on the
Epistle to the Hebrews, not a sacrifice, but a commemoration
of one.
Touching prayers for the dead, praying for the rest and
peace of the departed was an early practice. This the King
confesses. So the ancient Church signified its belief in the
resurrection. li But although the English Church," adds the
King, " does not condemn this observance in the former ages,
it does not conceive itself bound now to retain it, and that for
many and most special causes : first, because it is persuaded
that the custom began without any precept from Christ. Again,
it cannot le proved to have been as old as the Apostles. Neither
were they such prayers as are now offered for the dead.
Lastly, the custom soon introduced superstition."
Of invocation of saints the King observes, that men have
been brought to repose more on the saints than in Christ, and
to fear to comply with his call, but first they must go to his
holy mother. So, instead of the Psalms men used the Hours
of the Blessed Virgin Mary^ and the Legends. Here his
Majesty takes occasion to condemn the Psalter of the Virgin.
The King firmly believes that the saints pray for us, but that
the practice of the Church of Eome in the point of invocation
is the highest impiety. The worship of saints the King dates
from the fourth century. His Majesty then in conclusion,
having answered Perron, objects to him and his communion,
the saying the divine service in an unknown tongue, the half-
communion, solitary masses, and the worship of images.
Under the first head he notices the opposition of the Eomish
Church to the translation of the Scriptures, the trouble into
which Benedict Kenatus was brought by his labours in that
way, and the confession of the Douay translators that they
undertook their version, "being forced by the importunity of
heretics.
Such is the King's answer to Perron, prepared indeed
probably in the preceding year, but delayed until the latter
end of 1612. It does not profess to enter upon the whole or
even upon the greater part of the Komish controversy. It is
full of deference to Christian antiquity, but that deference
is bounded by the true Protestant principle, that the Holy
Scriptures are the sole foundation of faith, and it is broadly
admitted that corruption of doctrine justifies departure from
the communion to which we might have before belonged.
Towards the end of this year appeared Increpatio Andrece
Eudcemono-Johannis Jesmtce} de infami Parallelo^ et renovata
assertio Torturce Torti, pro clarissimo Domino atque antistite
Eliensi. Auctore Samuele Collino, Etonensi, S. Theol. Doctorej
Eeverendissimo Patri ac Domino Arcliiepiscopo Cantuariensi
a Sacris. Excudebat Cantrellus Legge, inclytce Academics
Cantabrigiensis Typographus. Anno Salutis 1612.
The Parallelus of Eudsemon Johannes (L'Heureux) has on
the title-page this motto :
Cypr. 1. ii. Epist. 6, ad Martyres.
Steterunt Torti Torquentibus fortiores.
It is written in a virulent and abusive spirit. Its allegations
from history are minutely examined and exposed with that
combination of vivacity and learning for which Dr. Collins
was distinguished.
Dr. Collins maintained indeed, as Jewel had done before,
that Augustine was himself implicated in the destruction of
the British monks, as having counselled the war against them.
He observes that if even this is disclaimed, it is admitted that
as a prophet he foretold their massacre with approbation.
This cannot be denied, unless we conjecture that the predic
tion was but one of the many legends which Venerable Bede
credulously inserted in his Church History. It appears that
the reading now followed had been altered in some MSS. to
soften down the bitterness of spirit implied in this account
of Augustine. Ab hostibus was read by some, by others
ab eisdem, which Dr. Collins gives as the reading of two
MSS. in the library of Balliol College. The recent editor of
Bede, the Rev. Joseph Stevenson, Vicar of Leighton Buzzard,
gives A.D. 613 as the year of the massacre of the monks, upon
the authority of the Annals of Munster, according to Ussher.
Collins in his preface expatiates on the excellencies of his
patron Archbishop Abbot, and bears testimony to his having
reconciled many of the opposite party to episcopacy. He
describes his course as one of fidelity and integrity in every
diocese to which he had been promoted, and speaks of his
popularity as having been earned without descending to any
base expedients. He justifies the commendation of his sove
reign, who said of Abbot that it had not repented him that he
had made that man. It would indeed have been better for
James had he always retained the same regard for the Arch
bishop, or rather had his regard been more consistent.
CHAPTER XV.
Page 364
Casaubon — Daniel Heyn — Andrewes's Comparison of the Churches of
England and Rome — Whitsunday Sermon 1613 — The two Sacra
ments — The Nullity — Divine Right of Kings — Easter-day Sermon,
1614 — Rev. Norwich Spaceman — The Earl of Northampton — Of
the Royal anointing — Of the Jesuits — Archdeacon Wigmore —
Andrewes's Sermon on the name Immanuel.
ON the first Sunday of the new year, 1613, we find
Casaubon amongst those who received new-year's gifts from
the King, with whom he was upon the following Tuesday the
5th January. He was also with the King upon the following
Sunday, the 10th. On Saturday the 16th he saw the book of
Andreas Eudaemon Johannes (L'Heureux) against him, "a
book," he notes, " sufficiently worthless." On Sunday the
last day of January he was again with the King. On Tuesday
he was in great trouble, being unable to obtain from a friend
his MS. upon Baronius. From this trouble he was freed the
next day, when his papers were returned to him. On that
Tuesday also he was with the King. On Sunday the 7th
February he received the Holy Communion at the French
Church with his wife and daughter Joanna. This day brought
him to the close of his 54th year. On the 13th he was present
at the naval spectacle exhibited in honour of the marriage
of the King's daughter Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia, of which
he was also a spectator on the following day, Sunday the 14th.
He was again with the King on Sunday the 21st.
About this time he was engaged in preparing a treatise
upon the holy Eucharist and on transubstantiation, which was
to have been inserted into his Exercitationes in Baronium?
Upon the various subjects connected with the doctrine of the
Eucharist his mind appears from his diary to have been still
in an unsettled state. He seems to have imagined that the
doctrine of the Fathers considerably differed both from the
transubstantiation of the Church of Kome and from the
several systems of the Eeformed Churches. The probability
is that he had never devoted his time so uninterruptedly to
the study of theology, as to have had the opportunity of tran
quilly considering the whole controversy in all its length and
breadth. Of the Fathers he seems never to have made
himself at home with St. Augustine. He was a more
constant student of St. Chrysostom, an admirer of St. Basil's
Epistles, and read in Theodoret. His diary2 contains remarks
upon St. Ambrose on certain of the Psalms. He commends
the treatise of Augustine, De utilitate credendi. Dr. Morton,
Dean of Winchester, afterwards raised to the see of Durham,
cautioned Casaubon on one occasion of the injury he might
bring upon himself by his freedom of speech respecting the
presence of Christ in the Eucharist.3 Some on this account
suspected that he held with Eome, others with Luther. Mon
tague, Bishop of Bath and Wells, had animadverted upon his
conversation. However, his mind does not appear to have
been thoroughly convinced at any time upon this subject.
Thus toward the end of 1613, within a year of his death, he
notes in his diary, " To-day I read the Dialogue of (Ecolam-
padius on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and admired his
learning and expertness in the Greek Fathers. I would by
no means have missed reading it. Thanks to the Lord Jesus.
Amen." He moreover was anxious that his son Meric should
not disown the Reformed French Church, but communicate as
well with that as with the Church of England.4 He was, not
withstanding some manifest waverings even after his coming
to England, attached to the cause of the Eeformation, and
especially to the Church of England. But his reverence for
patristic learning alienated him from Du Moulin and many of
the French Protestants. He was too ready to magnify the
obscurity of Scripture, and gathered rather too precipitately
from Cyprian and Tertullian, that which did not exist in their
days, auricular confession.1 In short, he addicted himself to
no system.
On the 24th February 1613 we find Bishop Andrewes
thus addressing the Right Hon. Sir Dudley Carleton, then
Ambassador at Venice.
" MY VERY GOOD LORD, — The speech which hath passed
between Mr. Chamberlain and me was but matter of ordinary
talk, such as might very well have received satisfaction on
my part without this trouble of your Lordship. But since it
hath liked your Lordship to vouchsafe it so much pains,
I cannot but be glad, for by this means I am honoured by
letter from you. As it falleth out when new things happen
(such as this was) enquiry is made into the occasions of them.
Howbeit, of this partie I think no man, surely myself never
made the reckoning, as I hold it, for any great matter, whether
it were won or lost. There be some other there where your
Lordship is, whom I hold for other manner" [of] "men, of
whom I would have been glad seriously to have understood
the course, if I had been so happy as to have had speech with
the gentleman your Lordship's Secretary more than once, or
yet with Mr. Chamberlain, whom I see nothing so often as
my desire is. And as for that he hath lately written, I think
it will not be thought much ever to see the light, unless upon
some matter (as they use to term it). The revising of the
Council of Trent were a matter of much better consequent,
being performed as it is hoped, there to be. God certainly,
and to man's reason under him, Princes must take up this
business, and by other means than by the pen. Whereunto
happy shall the Embassador be that shall be the minister and
otherwise co-operate to it. My Lord, the less hable I am,
and more am I bound to thank you for your honourable and
kind offers. I found great courtesy at your Secretary's hands
with all due respect. But the times will require much at
tendance, and he, I know, will be loth to omit any that may
the leastwise hinder the affairs in his trust. Were mine
ability higher ought,1 or of any moment, I would most
willingly offer it to be disposed by your Lordship ; and such
as it is, I do offer it, if it may be in any ways fit to be used
by you. Praying your Lordship to accept these poor lines in
pledge thereof, I so, with my very loving remembrance, com
mend you to the blessed keeping of God, who send you that
honor and reputation that is meet there, and that happie
return hither which you desire.
" At my house in London,
" 24 Feb. 16 jf styl. Anglic.
" Your Lordship's
" Ever very assured,
"L. ELIE."
On Thursday the 12th of March Casaubon called on the
French Ambassador, Bishop Andrewes, and others.
On the 20th he was agreeably occupied with the reading
of Pacian.2
On the 23rd March he was invited by the Prince, the son
of the Margrave of Baden, and was afterwards detained for
some time from his studies in most agreeable conversation
with Grotius.
The 1st of April Casaubon was in consultation with An
drewes.
On the 4th April, and not on the 8th (as it is by a mistake
in the folio edition), being Easter-day, Bishop Andrewes
preached excellently before the Court at Whitehall from the
Epistle for the day, Col. iii. 2, upon the spiritual resurrec
tion that must, in this life, precede the resurrection of the
body. We must cry to him who rose this day to draw us
after him, and not leave us still in our graves of sin. The
soul must first rise, and then draw the flesh upward with it.
" For, as well observeth Chrysostom, these two were not thus
joined (the spirit and the flesh I mean) that the flesh should
pull down the spirit to earth, but that the spirit should exalt
the flesh to heaven."1
He reminds his courtly audience how all are ready to seek
on earth the things above, as the sons of Zebedee sought a
place on earth at Christ's right hand, " not so much as good-
wife Zebedee' s two sons (that smelt of the fisher-boat), but
means was made for them to sit there."
In the following we meet with his own peculiar force and
ingenuity : " And if Nature would have us no moles , Grace
would have us eagles to mount where the body is. And the
Apostle goeth about to breed in us a holy ambition, telling us
we are ad altiora geniti, born for higher matters than any
here : therefore not to be so base-minded as to admire them,
but to seek after things above. For, contrary to the philo
sopher's sentence, Quce supra nos nihil ad nos. Things above
they concern us not ; he reverses that ; yes (and we so to
hold), Ea maxime ad nos, They chiefly concern us." The
things, he says, we chiefly seek, are with Christ above ; rest
and glory. Most felicitously does he observe that it is only
in heaven that these are found in union. Here rest is in
glorious, and glory is restless. There they dwell together,
and that for ever and ever.
The 5th and 6th April Casaubon was with the King. On
Wednesday the 7th he dined with Overall at the Deanery,
St. Paul's, with his wife and Grotius. Much conversation
passed between them. On Thursday the 8th Grotius called
upon Andrewes at Ely House. There were present Dr.
Steward, about this time Fellow of All Souls' College, having
been a Commoner of Magdalene Hall, Oxford, in 1608, Dr.
Kichardson, Master of Peterhouse, the Kegius Divinity Pro
fessor at Cambridge, and another divine. Archbishop Abbot,
who mentions this meeting in a letter to Sir Ealph Winwood,
adds that Grotius surprised them all by his freedom and
loquacity.2
On Friday the 9th Casaubon was at court, and complains
that he lost part part of the day. On Sunday the llth he
was at the Royal Palace at Greenwich with the King, to
gether with his wife and part of his family.
On the 12th we find Casaubon writing to Daniel Heyn,1
and making mention of the admiration in which both the
King and Bishop Andrewes held the learning of Grotius.
He entreats that Heyn will not be in London in the months
of July, August, and September, during which Andrewes
was from the metropolis. Our prelate had expressed his
earnest desire to see Heyn.
In Wolf's Casauboniana we have the following remi
niscence of his conversations with Andrewes and Overall.
The Bishop of Ely and Dean of St. Paul's often told me that
he (the learned Dr. Whitaker) at the beginning held the
Fathers and the ancient Church in great esteem, and approved
that doctrine which was based upon their unanimous agree
ment. But when upon his marriage into the leading family
of the Puritans he wholly cultivated their intimacy, he all of
a sudden began to confine his admiration to Calvin ; and I
have often heard the Dean of St. Paul's affirm, that when
serious disputes arose at Cambridge amongst the theologians,
some defending the new, others the old doctrine, he more than
once went to Whitaker and asked him the reason why he
preferred the opinions of Calvin alone to the consent of the
ancient Church, he at length had proceeded so far as to say
expressly that he was prepared to defend all the opinions of
Calvin, and that it was his purpose to take an opportunity of
so doing."2
Whitaker, according to Gataker in Fuller 'sAbelRedivivus,
was twice married. Both his wives were women "of good
birth and note." One was of the Thoresby family, descended
from an uncle of Ralph Thoresby, the antiquary of Leeds.3
We have seen that Overall took a middle course between the
teaching of Whitaker on the one hand and the Semi-Pelagians
on the other. The reader will find a reference to this topic in
the 5th chapter of this volume.
There have been those who looked upon Casaubon as but
comparatively ill employed upon theological controversies.
He could not, with his bias to classical learning and devoted-
ness to it, do equal justice to the vast fields of ecclesiastical
history and dogmatic theology. In his diary he frequently
complains of the difficulties in which he found himself involved.
A remarkable instance we have in p. 1018,1 " In Cypriani loco
una ecclesia, una Cathedra, haesi, et conatus sum lucem afferre,"
I was in difficulty respecting that place of Cyprian, 'one
church, one see,' and endeavoured to obtain that which would
throw light upon it.
This passage, taken from Cyprian's Epistles, was alleged by
Cardinal Bellarmine in the 16th chapter of his second book
of Controversies, and is fully treated of in the 36th chapter of
Field's Book of the Church.
" There is," saith he, tl one God, one Christ, one Church,
one chair founded upon Peter by the Lord's own voice. No
other altar may be raised, nor other new priesthood appointed,
besides that one altar and one priesthood already appointed.
Whosoever gathereth anywhere else scattereth. (Cyprian's
8th Ep. 1st book.) Surely it is not possible that the Cardinal
should think, as he pretendeth to do, that Cyprian speaketh of
one singular chair ordained by Christ for one Bishop to sit in,
appointed to teach all the world. For the question in this
place is not touching obedience to be yielded to the Bishop
of Kome, that Cyprian should need to urge that point, but
touching certain schismatics which opposed themselves against
him ; and therefore he urgeth the unity of the Church and of
the chair, to shew that against them that are lawfully placed,
with consenting allowance of the pastors at unity, others may
not be admitted ; and that they who by any other means get
into the places of ministry, than by the consenting allowance
of the pastors at unity amongst themselves, are in truth and
in deed no Bishops at all. So that Cyprian, by that one chair
he mentioneth, understandeth not one particular chair ap
pointed for a general teacher of all the world to sit in, but the
joint commission, unity and consent of all pastors, which is
and must be such as if they did all sit in one chair."1
On Tuesday, April 13, Bishop Andrewes preached at
Greenwich previously to the departure of Prince Frederic, the
Count Palatine, and his consort Elizabeth. His text was
Isaiah Ixii. 5. He contends against our present Version that
it should be thus read, And the bridegroom shall rejoice over
the bride, and thy God shall rejoice over thee. In the Bidding
prayer which follows the introductory portion of the sermon
he includes the Churches that are in Great Britain and
Ireland, and the two Palatinates. In the sermon itself he
deduces the worship of the Romish Church from Samaria*
Not so certain in our day who profess a most inconsistent
veneration for our prelate. In treating of the espousals with
Sion, he draws a brief sketch of the Church of England and
contrasts it with that of Rome, and in language at which those
who advocate the recently cast up Via Media would shudder.
Of Jewel's Apology he remarks, ' En ecclesiae nostrae Apolo-
giam vere gemmeam? He proceeds, u Go round about Sion
and survey her. One canon reduced to writing by God
himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils,
five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period, the
three centuries that is before Constantine and two after,
determine the boundary of our faith. Those whom the old
Catholic Church without the new patchwork of the Romish
does not suffice, those whom the aforesaid (bounds) do not
suffice, without drinking to the very dregs the abuses and
errors, to say nothing of fables and frauds which afterward
began to possess the Church, let them enjoy them."
Bishop Andrewes proceeds : " Let them espouse themselves
to God by a faith not written ; Sion (it is certain) was not so
espoused. Let them adore they know not what in their reliques,
and so in their hosts. This comes from the mount of Samaria,
not from Mount Sion. Let them pray, let them perform their
rites in a language they know not, without understanding,
without edification (if the Apostle had a right understanding
of the matter). Not thus did Sion pray ; these are not the
songs of Sion. Let them call upon him in whom they do
not believe ; let them resort more assiduously and frequently
to saints in whom they do not believe, than to Christ. It was
not thus in Sion. Let them prostrate themselves and bow
themselves before a painted or a graven likeness. Sion would
have rent her garments at this. Let them halve the Eucha
rist ; in the supper of Sion it was never thus taken, but only
whole. Let them there adore the divinity concealed under
the species and made from the bakehouse [de pistrino factum].
Sion would have without doubt shuddered and started back
from this."
" What when they adore their Pope placed and sitting
upon the altar ? when they set up a man (to use the mildest
terms) encompassed with infirmities, often illiterate, often
unclean, very often and at this time a mere canonist,1 when
they set up such an one for a pillar of faith and religion, as
one who is, to wit, infallible. Would Sion have endured
this?"
On Sunday the 18th Casaubon, after attending the Frencl
Church with his family, was first with the King and after
wards with his " most beloved Grotius." Casaubon appears
to have concealed from the King his partiality for Bertiu
and Arminius and their party ; a partiality perceptible in hi
diary, in which in 1611 2 we find, "To-day I was much en
gaged in reading the treatises of Arminius, a subtle theologian
and, as I have heard, an excellent man." And again at page
896, " I saw the epistle written by King James to the State
against Vorstius, Arminius, and Bertius, full of the stronges
invective. Arminius he calls the enemy of God, and him anc
Bertius lost heretics. I commend the zeal of the illustriou
Sovereign in the cause of religion, but we know that grav
and most learned men by no means think thus of Bertius anc
Arminius."
On Monday the 19th he spent some hours with Overal
and with Grotius. Grotius supped with him. On Tuesday
he was again with Grotius and the French and Dutch Am
bassadors.
On Monday the 26th April he dined with the genial and
kind-hearted Morton, who had been promoted from the
Deanery of Gloucester to that of Winchester in 1609, when
Abbot, afterwards Archbishop, was raised to the see of
Lichfield and Coventry. He notices in his diary the erudition
displayed in Morton's works against both the Puritans and
Papists. Morton shewed him the art of preparing potable
gold, a liquor distilled from beaten gold, or elixir. The
principal ingredients, says Casaubon, which they use are
white salt, the most pungent vinegar, and some third sub
stance. The elixir was drunk before dinner, diluted in wine.
Casaubon tasted it, and found it not ungrateful to the palate.
On Tuesday the 27th Casaubon was again with the King.
On the following Sunday he and his children with him were
with the King, after he had taken the holy Communion with
his family.
On Tuesday the 4th of May he went to the King and to
Archbishop Abbot and other friends to take his farewell
previously to leaving London for Oxford. On Thursday he
went to Eton to the learned Provost, Sir Henry Savile, who
on the Friday took him to Oxford in his carriage. On the
same day he went over most of the Colleges and Halls,
" admiring the piety and magnificence of our ancestors."
On Saturday he completed his survey of the Colleges, and
after dinner heard a disputation in the schools, at which Dr.
Abbot presided, whom he describes as a man of the most
eminent learning.
On Sunday the 9th he heard two learned discourses as
far as his imperfect knowledge of our language could gather.
He dined with Dr. William Goodwin, Dean of Christ Church.
Dr. Goodwin or Godwyn had been made Prebendary of Bole
in the church of York, by that excellent prelate Archbishop
Piers, September 7, 1590, which stall he resigned on being
promoted to the Chancellorship, October 25, 1605, by his
learned and pious successor, Archbishop Hutton. He was
installed Dean of Christ Church September 13, 1611, and
was by the eloquent Dr. King, Bishop of London, made
Archdeacon of Middlesex September 23, 1616. After serving
the office of Vice-Chancellor four times he died June 11, 1620,
in the 65th year of his age, and was buried in the chapel
immediately to the north of the choir of Christ Church. He
had succeeded Bishop King in the Deanery.
Casaubon was Sir Henry Savile's guest at Merton College
until Monday the 10th, when the Dean received him at the
deanery, Saville leaving Oxford the same day.
On Tuesday Casaubon visited the Bodleian Library, and
there perused and made some extracts from ChoniateV
Thesaurus Orthodoxies.
On Wednesday he resumed his perusal of Choniate in the
Bodleian, and was present at a Latin sermon and some dis
putations in the divinity school. He devoted some hours
also to Hebrew with a very learned Jew whom he found
there. "So," he writes, "I console myself for the absence
of my wife, of whom I have yet received no intelligence. But
do thou, 0 Lord, keep her and my whole house in the fear of
thy name." Casaubon was a man of the most affectionate
spirit. He had a most congenial partner in his wife, and his
life appears to have been bound up in hers.
On Thursday he heard the discourse of a very learned
man, but with regret that he could not perfectly understand
it. Afterward he dined with the Vice-Dean and several other
very eminent persons in the hall of Christ Church. This
forenoon he gave to the reading of the Talmud. After dinner
he completed his perusal of Choniate. He looked through Leo
& Castro on Isaiah. This author, who flourished in the 16tl
century, undertook to set up the text of the Septuagint above
the Hebrew. Casaubon also looked through the Comments
of St. Basil upon Isaiah, with which he was much pleased,
remarking that it extended only to the 16th chapter, and
observing that it was not however to be compared with that
by St. Chysostom, also imperfect. He had completed the
perusal of this latter in July 1611. In his diary he remarks
that in this work Chrysostom has surpassed himself. The
Friday was taken up with the study of Hebrew and with
Basil on Isaiah.
On Saturday he was again in the divinity school, and says
that nothing ever gave him such satisfaction upon the subject
of faith and works as did Abbot, afterwards Bishop of Salis
bury. In his Casauboniana we have the following, Thomse
distinctio vera \fides justificat causative, opera justificant osten-
sive, "Faith justifies as a cause, works as giving evidence."1
And as Cranmer defended the language of the Reformation
upon justification from the Fathers, whom he had carefully
and deeply studied, so does Casaubon derive from them the
tQim justification by faith only, which he observes rests upon
similar passages of the ancients, in Ambros. Rom. iii., Basil,
Sermon on Humility, Chrysost. on Rom. iii. 26, Hilary on
Matt. viii.
Sir Henry Savile's edition of Chrysostom in eight folios
appeared this year. Casaubon vindicates St. Chrysostom on
the doctrine of justification, and refers to his discourses on the
Epistles where he gives his interpretation of our Lord's giving
himself a ransom for us, 1 Tim. ii. 6. Estius refers to the
commentaries of Hesselius for the doctrine of Augustine, Leo,
Chrysostom, and other of the Fathers on the mediatorship of
Christ. Suiceri Thesaurus and Petavii Dogmata Ecclesiastica
will also assist the enquirer into this head of patristic theology.
Wolf, in his notes to his Casauboniana , also refers for the
doctrine of St. Chrysostom on justification, to Du Pin, and
to Dr. Mayer's Chrysostomus Luther anus 1680, which he
maintained in a second and apologetic treatise in 1686 against
John Francis Hack a Jesuit. For a general collection of
patristic testimonies, Wolf refers to Menzer's Exegesis Augus-
tance. ConfessioniSj art. 4; Dr. John Gerhard's Loci Communes
Tlieologici; and Helvicus in Vindicatione Locorum Vet. Testa-
mentij p. 181.
On Sunday the 16th Casaubon attended at the University
Church both morning and afternoon, and dined in the hall of
Magdalene College, where the day was observed with a
sumptuous entertainment. The President of that noble
College was Dr. "William Langton, who had succeeded Dr.
John Harding November 19th, 1610.1
On Monday the 17th Casaubon was engaged upon the
first volume of the Councils edited at Home, and dined with
Dr. Abbot at Balliol College, who gave a splendid banquet
to his guests. After dinner Casaubon devoted some hours to
the perusal of some of the works of Claude D'Espence. This
celebrated author, who died in the 60th year of his age in
1571, incurred censure by maintaining that the primitive
Church paid no worship to images. His commentaries on the
Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, and his writings
on the Eucharist, obtained for him no small celebrity in the
Romish communion.
On Tuesday the 18th Casaubon gave a part of his MS.
into Abbot's hands, and another portion to the Dean of
Christ Church, that he might have the benefit of their judg
ment and revision.
On Wednesday he was unwell, and was attacked with
dizziness in the morning on his way to the Bodleian Library.
He however heard a Latin sermon and an act in the divinity
school.
On Whitsunday the 23rd May he received the holy Com
munion at the Cathedral from the hands of the Dean, attended
the two sermons preached before the University, and bade
farewell to his friends.
Upon Whitsunday Bishop Andrewes, preaching at White
hall, discoursed upon Eph. iv. 30. He familiarly illustrates
the words from the six men in the 9th chapter of Ezekiel, sent
to set a mark upon the foreheads of those who sighed and cried
for all the abominations of Jerusalem, and from the angels in
the Apocalypse who were not to execute their awful commission
until the chosen number had been marked with the seal of the
living God. And so of the Passover he observes, u The
Lamb slain, there is redemption ; the posts stroken with
hyssop dipped in the blood, there is the signature.
Bishop Hall and the inimitable Dr. Richard Sibbes have
also written upon this memorable passage, Grieve not the
Spirit.
Andrewes quaintly speaks of some who are but label-
Christians, u content with a label without any seal to it all
their life long. And of those label-Christians we have meetly
good store. As the Spirit of God they like him well enough
to have their breath and life and moving from him, yea,
arts and tongues too if he will ; but as the Holy Spirit, not
once to be acquainted with him."
The seal of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper he declares
to be supplementary of the defect of the seal of Baptism, that
where that can be set to but once and never repeated more,
this other should supply the defect thereof, as whereby if we
have not preserved the former figure entire and whole, we
might be as it were new signed over again."
On Monday the 24th of May Casaubon left Oxford and
arrived at Sir Henry Savile's, Eton. Upon Tuesday he left
Eton for London. On Wednesday he dined with the French
Ambassador. On Trinity-Sunday, the 30th, after attending
service at 7 A.M., he waited on the King, who received
him, as was his wont, very graciously. In the evening he
supped with the Lady Killigrew and some other friends. On
Sunday the 6th of June he waited on the King again, as he
was accustomed on that day, and so on the 13th. On the
16th his Exercitationes against Baronius began to appear in
print. On the 19th and on Sunday the 20th he was again
with the King. On the 23rd the Jewish teacher left him
whom he had brought with him from Oxford. On July 6th
he was the whole day in the College, Westminster, with the
Dean of Christ Church. On July 9th he spent some hours
with two eminent persons from the Netherlands, Relbe and
Scholiers, who narrated the sufferings of their countrymen
from Jesuit tyranny. On July llth he was with the King at
Theobald's. July the 13th his little daughter Mary met with
a sad casualty. But amongst the many domestic cares that
weighed upon his mind in the absence of his beloved partner
at this time, he was refreshed with the sight of his infant son
James. The reader will bear with me for recording, though
occasionally, instances of Casaubon's domestic life and depth
of affection. Those are traitors to learning and science who
will not bend to the amenities of social life, and evince no
sympathy with that humanity, which is ever less ennobled by
knowledge than by love. On the 24th, by command of his
royal master, he made choice of some volumes from the library
of the late Prince Henry. On the 31st he paid his respects to
Prince Charles.
On the 1st of August he with his daughter received the
holy Communion. On the 2nd he resolved to return to his
treatise on the holy Eucharist (which he had laid by for some
time), with the hope of inserting it in this edition. On the
4th he laid aside again all thoughts of resuming that treatise
for the present.1
On the 1st of September he was cheered by the return of
his wife. On the 5th they happily received the holy Com
munion together with their daughter Gentilis. On the 7th
he was with Archbishop Abbot, and learnt from him the
apostacy of his friend Charrier to the Church of Kome. Dr.
Benjamin Charrier had been chaplain to Archbishop Whitgift,
and composed the epitaph on his monument in Croydon
church. When Dr. William Barlow was raised to the see
of Lincoln, Dr. Charrier or Carrier succeeded him in the
seventh stall of Canterbury. On the 19th he waited on the
King and had much and important conversation with him
upon various subjects.
On September 19 Andrewes ordained at Downham Edmund
Topcliffe, M.A., deacon, and John Martin, M.A., priest. Top-
cliff and Martin, both of Queens' College, Cambridge, were
both B.A. 1609, and M.A. 1612.
In the course of this year (1613) T. F., i. e. Thomas
Fitzherbert, a Jesuit, attacked our prelate's Answer to Bel-
larmine in a sophistical and scurrilous Adjoinder to the Sup
plement of Father Parsons Discussion, quarto, to which he
annexed his attack upon the Bishop, in which he refused him
his episcopal title, entitling it A Reply to Dr. Lancelot
Andrewes' Absurdities in his Answer, &c. This truly Jesu
itical writer was born at Swinnerton, between Stone and
Eccleshall in Staffordshire, and was son of William, fourth
son of Sir Anthony Fitzherbert, of Norbury near Ashbourn,
the celebrated lawyer. His parents were zealous Papists.
He was called home from Oxford when the Pope forbad those
of his communion to attend the established worship. In
1572 he was imprisoned for recusancy. After his release he
absconded, went to London, and there entertained Father
Parsons and Father Campian, whom he assisted with all
conveniences on their arrival in England 1580. He retired
with his lady into France in 1582, and there pleaded for
Mary Queen of Scots with the King of France. There his
wife died. He went into Spain to serve the interests of his
Eomish countrymen at the court. He attended the Duke of
Feria in his tours. At Rome he studied for the priesthood
at the English College, and being ordained priest, was made
agent for the English clergy, and so continued twelve years to
1609. He joined the Jesuits in 1614, the year after he had
written against Bishop Andrewes, and was answered in 1617
with great learning and ability by the deeply erudite Dr.
Collins, Provost of King's College, Cambridge, and Regius
Professor tof .Divinity. In 1621 Fitzherbert wrote his 01-
tumesce of T. F. to the Epphata of Dr. Collins, who also took
up his pen against Fitzherbert in his Pseudo-Martyr in defence
of the Oath of Allegiance. Lond. quarto, printed by John
Donne. He died in 1640,1 Master of the English College at
Rome.
On September 25 sentence of divorce was pronounced by
which a separation ensued between the Earl of Essex and the
Lady Francis Howard, daughter of the Earl of Suffolk. This
affair had occupied the commission about four months, the
King meanwhile repeatedly complaining of the delay, and
interesting himself in the progress of the investigation in a
manner that reflected little honour upon him. It was but
too evident that the whole was a device to indulge the lawless
passion of the royal favourite Kobert Carr. Much was
expected from Bishop Andrewes from his known learning
and skill in casuistry, but he was extremely reserved and
seldom appears to have given an opinion during the whole
period of the enquiry. But it was ever observed of him that
he was slow in answering and resolving questions, being wont
to defend himself with those words of St. James, Let every
man be slow to speak, slow to wrath.1 The pliant Neile was
constantly upon the watch for opportunities of recommending
himself to the favour of the King, and of injuring the primate
Abbot, whose integrity shone forth from first to last. The
part which both Neile and Buckeridge, Neile' s creature, took
in this most undignified and unpopular affair, doubtless tended
in no small degree to confirm in their disaffection to the Church
such of the laity as were inclined to the Puritans, and was a
great stumblingblock in the way of the more thoughtless and
irreligious of the courtiers. These especially made sport of
the subservient Neile, whose folly appears to have been as
highly estimated by the King as all the wisdom and learning
of Bishop Andrewes.2 Abbot relates how on one occasion the
latter would have absented himself, but the King commanded
his attendance.3 The primate still urged that a reconciliation
of the parties should be set on foot ; but Andrewes spoke
against it on the ground that it was now too late, and might
only give occasion to some deadly practices of the one against
the other. The Countess proved herself in the event equal to
any atrocity. Thus far our prelate was almost prophetic;
but the advice of Abbot, though perhaps less politic, was
more in accordance with his character as a Christian and his
office as a bishop.
Twofold evidence exists to shew that at the first Andrewes
was disinclined to the Nullity, and it was at the very time
attributed to the endeavours of his royal master that he
altered his judgment.1 Archbishop Abbot observes, "My
Lord of Ely for a great while was in dislike of the separation,
(as I have credibly heard he opened himself to Sir Henry
Savile) until such time as the King spake with him, and then
his judgment was reformed. But truth it is that amongst
us he said nothing."
At the last there were found for the divorce Andrewes,
Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, Neile, Bishop of Lichfield and
Coventry, Buckeridge, Bishop of Kochester, Sir Julius Cassar,
Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Parry, Attorney-General,
and Sir Daniel Donne, Master of the Requests. These met
and pronounced the sentence of Nullity September 25. The
remaining Commissioners not agreeing to the sentence ab^
sented themselves, namely, Archbishop Abbot, Dr. King,
Bishop of London, Sir John Bennet, Dr. Francis James, and
Dr. Thomas Edwards. Fuller in his Worthies notes that an
intimate friendship subsisted between his father (for some time
a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,) and Bishop Overall
(of the same College). Hence probably he learnt the anec
dote which he has inserted in the tenth book of his Church
History, and which is corroborated by Abbot's Narrative
touching the Divorce : lt Bishop Overall discoursing with
Bishop King about the divorce, the latter expressed himself
to this effect : ' I should never have been so earnest against
the divorce, save that because persuaded in my conscience of
falsehood in some of the depositions of the witnesses on the
lady's behalf.'"2
The divorce was effected : the guilty parties were united
in adulterous bonds with great solemnities. The murder of
Sir Thomas Overbury by poison soon discovered that profli
gacy was not their only guilt. They were spared the utmost
severity of the law, but lived in mutual hatred and disgust,
an exemplary punishment to each other. Thus ended the
career of Kobert Carr, Earl of Somerset. Pitiable it is to
find the name of Andrewes in any way connected with that
of individuals so unworthy of the ill-placed regard of his and
their royal master. But it is not my object to erect an idol.
It cannot be justified that so upright as Andrewes un
doubtedly was in many respects, he should have given his
sanction to the Nullity.
On October 16th Casaubon was again with Andrewes.
On November 5 he preached upon the divine right of
kings, from the words of Solomon, or rather of God by him,
By Me kings reign. Usurpers he excepts from the kings
here spoken of, adducing the 4th verse of the 8th chapter of
ffosea, They have set up kings, but not by Me : they have made
princes, and 1 knew not."1' He fails not to condemn in the
most pointed language the pretended power of the Pope to
loose this Scripture, By Me kings reign, and after his custom
makes a personal address to the King. His style sometimes
betrays him into mere verbal arguments, and he so handles
his text as to leave out of sight that it is he who removeth as
well as setteth up kings.1 A commission was given for the
setting aside of Jehoram, and even for his death.
Upon Christmas-day our prelate preached at Whitehall
from our Lord's words, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see
my day, and he saw it, and was glad; but a sermon upon the
same words, and less broken, may be seen in his Orphan
Lectures.
These lectures have not been reprinted in the Library of
Anglo- Catholic Theology. In the concluding volume of that
edition of Andrewes it is alleged that there does not appear
sufficient evidence to justify me in ascribing the sermons, at
least in their present form, to Bishov Andrewes. (p. Ixxvii.)
No reason is given by the editor for this remarkable assertion.
I believe that this is the first time that these remains of
Bishop Andrewes have been called in question. A careful
perusal of the whole volume would have led the editor, if
indeed he was capable of sympathizing with his author, into
the full conviction that the substance of the volume was
attributable only to Andrewes ; neither is there any reason to
doubt that the sermons are given as accurately as a taker of
notes could have given them.
The author of the Preface, T. P., supposed to have been
Dr. Thomas Pierce, who at the Kestoration was made Presi
dent of Magdalene College, Oxford, fully admits the genuine
ness of these fragments and their excellence, although he
would have it believed that the Bishop was not always of the
same mind in theology, but changed, as we know did some of
his contemporaries. He professes to reprove the printer for
publishing that which he nevertheless recommends to the
perusal of the reader.
There is however no ground for admitting that Bishop
Andrewes ever changed his theological principles. Neither
is there in these posthumous Lectures any contrariety to the
teaching of those discourses which were put forth by Laud
and Buckeridge. There is not less patristic learning, not
less variety of imagination and illustration in this volume
than in the greater folio. There are the same excellencies
and the same defects, yet the latter are perhaps not so per
ceptible or so frequent in the posthumous fragments, as they
are in his more finished compositions.
Dr. Pierce would undoubtedly have withheld his services
altogether from the publishers of this volume, had it not been
known to him as the work of Andrewes. He calls the lectures
" these sacred fragments." " But having said thus much in
veneration of the author, to whom the printer hath offered
this well-meant injury, I have something to allege by way of
apology for the printer, by whose devotion of care and cost
these sacred fragments were thus collected. He knew the
fame of the author was so transcendently high, and placed so
far out of the reach of spite or envy, defamation or disgrace,
that he supposed it a lesser crime thus to communicate these
lessons as now they are, than to deprive posterity of their
advantage. He looked not so steadily upon the name and
credit of the author, as upon the interest and good of souls.
He thought the reader would esteem it, not only as an excus
able but as a commendable transgression, which being no
way injurious to more than one, will redound to the benefit of
many thousands."
Andrewes, on March 20th, 1614, admitted both to deacon's
and priest's orders on the same day the celebrated Joseph
Mede, M.A., at Ely Chapel, Holborn. Dr. Worthington, the
excellent Master of Jesus College, Cambridge, in the time of
Cromwell, relates that Mede, by his Latin tract De Sanctitate
relativd, &c. so gained the esteem of our Bishop, that Mede
shortly after having need of the King's favour concerning his
election to a Fellowship, Andrewes stood his firm friend, and
not only maintained his right then, but afterwards desired
him for his household chaplain. Mede declined this honour
that he might more fully enjoy his beloved retirement in
Christ College, Cambridge. It was reserved to a late Master
of that College, the late Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Kaye, to erect
a memorial in the College chapel, of Mede, More, and Cudworth
Very excellent is his Easter-day sermon, April 24, 1614
from the second chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Philip-
pians, on the voluntary humiliation of Christ and his exaltation
But it may well be questioned whether he does not fall into
error in regard of the words, u and hath given him a name,'
which he explains after the schoolmen, of the grace of union
or of Christ's human nature being united or assumed into the
Godhead. Well does he observe that this very name of Jesus
is one of the names of God, for beside him is no Saviour.
This whole passage is well illustrated in Dr. Waterland's
Lady Moyer's Lectures.
Upon the following Sunday the Kev. Norwich Spackman
preached before the King at Whitehall, from those words of
our Lord, But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have
mercy and not sacrifice, for I am not come to call the righteous
but sinners to repentance. The preacher, who was educatec
at Christ Church, Oxford, was chaplain to the Hon. Dr. James
Montagu, the munificent Bishop of Bath and Wells ; was foi
some years Vicar of Mitcham, and twenty-six years Kector
Merstham in Surrey, where he died July 1617, and was
buried in the chancel.1
Upon this Sunday, May 1st, Casaubon's son Meric received
the holy Communion, for the first time after the order of
the Church of England, at the hands of Bishop Andrewes,
who had previously examined and confirmed him. Casaubon
received with his son, and admired the adherence of Bishop
Andrewes to the ancient pattern. Probably he means his
mixing water with the wine, and breaking of the bread,
according to his own Consecration Service.
On Thursday May 5th Andrewes was appointed to meet
at eight A.M. in the Painted Chamber on a committee upon
an Act for the preservation and increase of wood and
timber.
On Sunday May 22nd Andrewes wrote as follows to the
Hon. Sir John Ogle, Knight, Lord Governor of the Forces at
Utrecht :
" MY LORD, — It happened that your letter with the book
came unto my hands at such time as the Parliament or Con
vocation began ; busy times, as you may easily conjecture.
There needed no excuse concerning the sending thereof. I
do esteem both of them (but especially your letter) as a singular
courtesie, and a great honor done unto me, and therefore do
remain, and will continue, much beholding unto you for the
same. I have read over the book with such diligence as time
would permit me. In the mean time it happened that Sir
George Douglas, of himself and of his own accord making
both acquaintance and the conference, began to discourse of
the book and the binding and the contents thereof, further
adding, that it was sent to be presented to his Majestic as
soon as I had read it over, and so insinuating himself as if
before he had known that such a book was delivered, but was
remaining in my hands. Wherefore as soon as I thought
myself able to give a sufficient reason unto his Majestic con
cerning my reading of it over, if in case it should be enquired,
I presented the same unto his Majestic (yet not without the
knowledge and consent of Mr. Latham), in whose hands it is
still, and hath been for the space of fourteen days. But I
think that the businesses of this present Parliament are so
troublesome that he hath had very little or no leisure for the
reading thereof; for as yet he never spoke anything thereof
unto me in all my service and attendance upon his Majestic,
which if he had leisure, I make no doubt but he would have
spoken of it. Neither do I think that as yet there will be any
leisure for the reading of anything of. that subject. Although
otherwise of himself he is wonderfully inclined thereunto,
yea, more than any Prince else in the world. And if, may
be, at any time he shall declare himself hereafter, and speak
his meaning concerning that book, I shall not fail (with the
first occasion that shall present itself) to acquaint you there
with. And peradventure your meaning is that I should tell
you my opinion thereof. Indeed Uitenbogard is well known for
a very learned man, as are most that are in those parts, and has
shewed himself no less herein ; and Mr. Douglas, his translator,
for his part (if I give any judgment) is not behind him with the
same. But yet to the end I deal plainly with you, for I know
that it is your desire that I should do so ; I deny not but that
there are divers passages in the book which I should not
lightly approve, or can condescend thereunto, but yet with
such a dissent as may be between Christians and brethren,
which at this present I cannot fully express myself. Like as
Mr. Latham lately for me and can sufficiently declare unto
you, for now at this present it is in the heat of the business
which until this present have gone forward but slowly wherein
my presence and attendance is so required, besides other
accidents, that I scarcely had leisure (being spoken unto by
Mr. Latham before his departure) to write this letter. I hope
hereafter to have better occasion. Until then and ever I will
be ready to perform any acknowledgment that shall be in my
power, and to shew with how great and hearty kindness I
attempt this same, in that it hath pleased you after such a,
manner to write unto me, and so to begin the first foundation
of our acquaintance, which I wish may never end so long as
life shall last. Thus very heartily recommending you with
all yours unto the protection of the Most High, I take my
leave.
" From the Court at Whitehall this 22nd May, 1614.
" Your Lordship's
" Very faithful
" LANG. ELIE."
Uitenbogardt (Johannes Vytenbogardus) was Professor of
theology and preacher at Leyden. He died in his 49th year
in 1609. The work alluded to in this letter was De Officio
Magistrates circa Sacra. This brief notice of him is taken
from Henning Witte's Diarium Biographicum, 1688.
On the 23rd Casaubon, at this time a sufferer from
strangury, dined at Ely House with Andrewes.
Upon Monday the 30th of May Andrewes was appointed
to meet at eight A.M. in the Painted Chamber with King,
Bishop of London, Neile, Bishop of Lincoln, Bridges, Bishop
of Oxford, and Montagu, Bishop of Bath and Wells, upon a
Bill which had been read a second time on the 26th for
punishing divers abuses committed on the Sabbath-day called
Sunday.
On Whitsunday, June 12th, he preached before the King
an excellent sermon at Greenwich, from Thou art gone up on
high, Psa. Ixviii., one of the best of his Whitsunday sermons,
full of the vitality of Christian doctrine. Let the reader
observe how weightily he describes our captivity under sin ;*
how touchingly he passes on to the gifts of this day.2 Of
that captivity he says, in a manner utterly foreign to those
who are content to learn but one or two instead of the thousand
lessons they might gather out of his works, t( If any have felt
it, he can understand me, and from the deep of his heart will
cry. Turn our captivity, 0 Lord"
He alludes in this sermon to God's wonderful deliverances
of our nation in 1588, and afterwards from the Popish Plot :3
the fruits of this deliverance have outlived our national
memorial of it.
At the breaking up of the Parliament the peers agreed
among themselves to give their best piece of plate, or the value
of it, in a present of money as a speedy benevolence to supply
the King's wants. The Archbishop of Canterbury began with
a basin and ewer, and redeemed it with £140 ; Bilson, Bishop
of Winchester, gave as much ; Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, £120.
This year died that most unprincipled and hypocritical
nobleman, Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton. He lived
a concealed Papist, was extremely forward in conducting the
trial of the Gunpowder conspirators, and prosecuted a man in
the Star Chamber who had called him a Papist. Archbishop
Abbot is said to have stayed the prosecution by producing
a letter of the Earl's to Bellarmine, owning his secret ad
herence to Popery. In the old family mansion at Compton
Wingates is a curious chapel in the roof, partitioned off for
the celebration of Romish worship. Mr. Howitt, in his Visit
to Remarkable Places, appears ignorant of its origin, as
he has overlooked the history of this time-serving individual.
It might have been erected by him. How remarkable
a sign of the times is it that the work here alluded to, the
work of one professing himself to be a member of the
Society of Friends, should yet laud the ages of superstition,
and commend even Romanism itself in some of its external
seductions, seductions of an openly antichristian character !
Such is the inconsistency of false liberality.
Casaubon had been informed on the 13th of December
that he was in danger of strangury. From that time his
health was in a state of perpetual fluctuation. The 23rd,
24th, and 25th of March this year he was confined to his bed.
On the 27th he revived, but was again a great sufferer on the
30th. He was on the 29th of May obliged again to consult
his friend and physician, De Maierne. Again on the 18th of
May he was compelled to betake himself to his bed. At
length from the 14th of June his complaint gradually pre
vailed, until on the 1st of July it terminated his earthly
career. Bishop Andrewes has left us a brief notice of his
last illness.
The ten days preceding his death he gave entirely to
spiritual things, and after signing his will his soul was alto
gether engaged upon God and heaven. He felt within himself
the harbingers of death. He died on Friday July 1st, after
he had received the Eucharist in the morning at the hands of
Bishop Andrewes. He then desired the Nunc Dimittis to be
recited, and took part himself, although his voice was failing
and the effort was a trial to him. Although he suffered much
the two last days, nothing escaped his lips but what was in
harmony with his profession as a Christian. Finally he gave
his blessing to his children and all his household. He then
composed himself to rest, and scarcely spoke afterwards. He
expired after five at noon. His remains were deposited in
Westminster Abbey before the entrance to Henry VII. 's
chapel, and were followed to their last resting-place by six
Bishops, two Deans, and almost all the clergy of the metropolis.
The sermon was preached by his faithful friend Dr. John
Overall, who had on the 3rd of April been consecrated to the
see of Lichfield.
Bishop Andrewes wrote the above narrative for the infor
mation of their mutual friend Daniel Heyn, whom he instructed
to deny the false reports of Heribert Rosweyd the Jesuit, who
gave out that he wavered in regard of his religion to the last.
He had published, shortly before Casaubon's death, a book
entitled Lex Talionis Duodecim Tabularum — The Law of
Requital of the Twelve Tables. It was intended as a reply
to his work against Baronius, and to destroy the influence of
Casaubon's name by taxing him with insincerity, dwelling
amongst other things upon the allegation that he had promised
Cardinal Perron that he would join the Church of Eome at
Whitsuntide 1610.1
On August 5th, the anniversary of the Gowrie Conspiracy,
Bishop Andrewes was in attendance upon the King at
Burleigh-on-the-Hill near Okeham. Here the King was
entertained in his first journey into England. It was then
the seat of Sir John (afterwards Lord) Harrington. His son
succeeded to his title and estates in 1613, but died in 1614.
It was afterwards purchased of the heirs by the favourite
Villiers.2 Our prelate in his anniversary sermon made the
following quaint but ingenious allusion to the first words
of his text : lt I have found David my servant ; with my holy
oil have I anointed him." " The colours of the crown are
not water colours to fade by and by ; they be laid in oil to
last and hold out all weathers. So in oil, not in water.
" And in oil, not in wine ; that is, no acrimony, nothing
corrosive in it. It is gentle, smooth, and suppling, all to teach
them a prime quality of their calling, to put in oil enough to
cherish that virtue, that the streams of it may be seen, and
the scent to be felt of all. For that will make David to be
David, that is (as his name is) truly beloved.
" Oil, and holy oil ; holy, not only to make their persons
sacred, and so free from touch or violating (all agree of that),
but even their calling also. For holy unction, holy function.
Now this holy oil troubles the Jesuit shrewdly and all those
that seek to unhallow the calling of kings. For if the holy
oil be upon them, why should they be sequestered quite from
holy things more than the other two that have but the same
oil?"
He proceeds to say that his holy oil is more than material
oil in the prophet's horn or in the priest's phial : " his drops
immediately from the true olive, the Holy Ghost." But
would he have said that all kings were so anointed? Cer
tainly not. Yet is there great significance in the application
of the emblem which we know is divinely appointed, and has
continued to this day, and not without that very design and
moral and spiritual mystery so well insisted on by our
prelate.
On the 25th of September Bishop Andrewes ordained
Richard Fletcher, M.A., and Humphrey Tovey, M.A. deacons,
and Edmund Topcliffe, M.A. priest, at Downham, in the chapel
of the palace there.
Richard Fletcher was of St. John's College, Cambridge,
B.A. 1608, M.A. 1611 ; Tovey was Fellow of Trinity College,
Cambridge, 1611, M.A. 1614, B.D. 1626, and died May 1st,
1640.
In his sermon on Saturday, 5th of November, on My son,
fear thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with them
that are given to change, he condemns both the policy of the
Romanists who put into their martyrology such as attempt
the life of kings, and the over-boldness of the Presbyterians
who observed but little modesty in their intercourse with
princes. Toward the end he thus satirizes the Jesuits : " Will
ye hear some new divinity, how some Fathers here with us
counselled their ghostly children ; the Fathers of the Society,
their sons of the Society, the wicked society of this day?
You shall see the text turned round about clean contrary,
* My sons, fear God and the Pope, (so is the new edition) ; and
as for those that would fain change things here, do meddle
with them, say Solomon what he list. Lo, a greater than
Solomon; you know where. He (as yet it stands in the gloss
to be seen) made this book of Proverbs authentical by citing
it ; and as he made it, can unmake it again at his pleasure.
Nothing in it shall bind you.' Here is the counsel crossed.
u But then how shall we do with the latter verse ? For
that take no thought. Where he tells you (this Solomon) of
destruction, it is nothing so. On with your Powder Plot
notwithstanding. You shall be so far from this (he tells you)
that if aught come to the plot or you otherwise than ye wish,
it shall be no destruction : no, but a holy martyrdom. And
guis scit f Who knows the blessed estate you shall come to
by these means ? But martyrs you shall be straight upon it
in print. And who knows whether there may not be wrought
a straw miracle to confirm as much, if need be ?
" But to put you clean out of doubt for your meddling,
you shall have of us the Fathers of the Society to meddle in
it as well as you, to make up this holy medly with you ; to
confess you, to absolve you, to swear you, to housel you, to
say mass for you, and to keep your counsel in all holy equivo
cation. You see what work was made ; how the matter was
used with this Scripture when time was ; how the Fathers of
the Society took this Father by the beard, and affronted him
and his counsel in every part of it."
On November 26 Bishop Andrewes preferred Daniel
Wigmore,1 B.D. of Queens' College, Cambridge, to the first
stall in his church at Ely. He had been ordained deacon and
priest on the same day by Bishop Heton at Downham Decem
ber 28, 1602, was made a minor canon of Ely (Dr. Tyndale
being then Dean and also President of Queens' College) in
1605, Master of the Grammar School in 1609, and in 1611
Divinity Lecturer of the Cathedral, an office most probably
conferred in those days only upon individuals well qualified
by their theological erudition to discharge its duties. It is
remarkable that he held his minor canonry together with his
prebendal stall. The first stall he quitted for the second in
March 1616, exchanging with the learned Dr. John Boys.
In that same year he was doubly preferred by Bishop An-
drewes, being made by him Archdeacon of Ely, and on the
3rd of December Rector of Northwold, between Thetford and
Downham Market.1 He was also for some time Eector of
Snailwell near Newmarket, and in the troublous times retired
to his estate at Little Shelford near Cambridge, where he
died, and was buried in 1646. He had purchased the manor
of Little Shelford of the son of Sir Toby Pallavicini.2 Gilbert
Wigmore, D.D. by royal mandate in 1661, was Eector of
Little Shelford early in the following century, and one Daniel
Wigmore appears as B.A. of St. John's College, Cambridge,
in 1702.
Upon Sunday December 18 Andrewes, being then at his
palace in Holborn, consecrated Walter Balcanqual, M. A., James
Wedderburn, M.A., and Richard Fletcher, M.A., priests in Ely
Chapel. Wedderburn was born at Dundee. He was one year,
says Antony Wood, at Oxford, for the benefit of the University
Library there. On August 26, 1615, Bishop Andrewes collated
him to the Vicarage of Waterbeach, which he exchanged in
1616 for that of Harleston or Harston, between Cambridge
and Royston. He was after this Vicar of Mildenhall, Suffolk,
and in 1626 Prebendary of Ely.1 On May 26, 1631, also
Prebendary of Whitchurch in the church of Wells, which
stall he retained till his death. That at Ely he resigned.
He was made Professor at the Scotch University of Aberdeen.
He was chosen to the see of Dumblane March 28, 1635, but
not consecrated until February 11, 1636. His abode in
Scotland was of no long continuance. He appears to have
been unfavourably received there, and is charged with inno
vating in the Semi-Pelagian direction. He therefore returned
to England. He died probably at Canterbury September 23,
1639, and was buried in the Cathedral in St. Mary's, now
called the Dean's Chapel, a very elegant addition to that
Cathedral, built by Prior Goldstone who died in 1468. His
epitaph is as follows : u Reverendissimus in Christo Pater,
Jacobus Wedderburnus, Taoduni in Scotia natus ; sacelli regii
ibidem Decanus; denique Dunblanensis sedis per annos iv
episcopus; vir antiques probitatis et fidei magnumque ob
excellentem doctritfam patrise sues ornamentum H. S. E.
Obiit An. Dom. MDCXXXIX. 23 die Sept. ^Etatis Liv."2
Upon Sunday, Christmas-day, Bishop Andrewes preached
before the King at Whitehall his truly Christian discourse
upon the name Immanuel. Here he saith : tc I shall not need
to tell you that in nobiscum (with us) there is mecum (with
me). Out of this generality of with us in gross may every one
deduce his own particular with me, and me, and me. For all
put together make but nobiscum (with us)." Then citing the
first verse of the thirtieth chapter of Proverbs, according to the
Vulgate, he adds, " The wise man out of Immanuel, (that is)
God with us, doth deduce Ithiel, (that is) God with me, his
own private interest. And St. Paul, when he had said to the
Ephesians, of Christ, l Who loved us and gave himself for us
might with good right say to the Galatians, ' Who loved me
and gave himself for me.'" He proceeds to observe that we
cannot estimate the force of these words with us aright, unless
we consider what we should have been without him ; also that
he is a sign both from above and from beneath, from above as
God, from beneath as man. He is with us not in nature only
as man, but even as sinful man. Though not like us in sin,
he is by unity of person with us even here. So St. Paul said,
he was made sin.
li With us to eat butter and honey seemeth much, and it is
so for God. What say ye, to drink vinegar and gall ? This
is much more I am sure ; yet that he did. I cannot here say
with uSj \\\ifor us ; even drank of the cup with the dregs of
the wrath of God, which passed not from him that it might
pass from us, and we not drink it.
" This, this is the great with us ; for of this follow all the
rest. With us once thus, and then with us in his oblation on
the altar of the Temple ; with us in his -sacrifice on the altar
of the cross ; with us in all the virtues and merits of his life ;
with us in his satisfaction and satis-passion both of his death;
with us in his resurrection to raise us up from the earth ;
with us in his ascension to exalt us to heaven ; with us even
then when he seemed to be taken from us, that day by his
Spirit as this day by his flesh."
Thus full of devout affection, the true spirit of holy elo
quence, was this good bishop and reverend father of the English
Church : if that name be at all applicable to mortal pastors,
then rarely better bestowed than upon him.
CHAPTER XVI.
Page 395
Bishop Andrewes with the King at Cambridge 1615 — His Easter
Sermon — Bishop Wren — Andrewes' Sermon on our Lord's Bap
tism — j)r. John Bois, Prebendary of Ely — Bishop Andrewes'
Sermon on the 5th of November — Dr. Balcanqual — Bishop An-
Sermon on Micah v.
THE first transaction in which we find our prelate engaged
in 1615 was an ordination on the 25th of February (probably
at Ely Chapel, Holborn) when he ordained William Beale,
M.A., deacon, and Christopher Wren, M.A., afterward Dean
of Windsor, and Thomas Macarness, M.A. of King's College,
priests. William Beale was B.A. not of Pembroke but of
Jesus College, Cambridge, 1610, M.A. 1613, B.D. 1620, and
D.D. 1627. He has been said, but probably without authority,
to have been Archdeacon of Caermarthen, and to have been
collated to that preferment 3rd January, 161f , but he was not
ordained at that time. The name is given in Le Neve as
Beale or Beeley. He was brother to Jerome Beale, Fellow of
Pembroke Hall 9th October, 1598, and Master in 1618. He
was born in Worcestershire, perhaps at Beoley in that county,
whence we find his name spelt both Beale and Beeley.
As his brother had been removed from Christ College to
Pembroke Hall, so had he from Trinity to Jesus College.
He was a native of Oxfordshire (according to Sherman), and
was admitted a Fellow of Jesus College in 1611. As a tutor
he was celebrated for the many pupils of illustrious rank
whom he had brought up. He was made Master of Jesus
College July 14, 1632, by Dr. Francis White, Bishop of
Ely, in the place of his unworthy successor, Dr. Eoger
Andrewes, who for his misrule was the aversion of his College,
and whom nevertheless we find loaded with preferments by
his brother the Bishop ; a point which as it cannot be com
mended, so neither ought it to be concealed.
In 1633 Dr. Beale was removed hence to the Mastership
of St. John's College. He was made Eector of Cottingham
near Buckingham in Northamptonshire, and on October 31st,
1637, of Paulerspury near Towcester, on the presentation of
the King, being in high favour with Laud, and accounted an
Anti-Predestinarian. He was deprived of his Mastership
March 13, 1644, and nominated to the Deanery of Ely 1645,
but never put in possession. Having taken part in gathering
and conveying the plate belonging to the University to the
King, he was, with Dr. Sterne, Master of Jesus College, and
Dr. Martin, Master of Queens' College, carried prisoner to
London. After having been in prison some time, but under
three years, the period assigned in Carter's History of the
University of Cambridge, he fled to Madrid in company with
Lord Cottington, the King's Ambassador. He is there said
to have lived in his family. He died at Madrid October 1st,
1651, and being denied Christian burial, was privately buried
in the Ambassador's garden.
Thomas Macarness was B.A. 1610, M.A. 1614, of King's
College, Cambridge.
The King in very disadvantageous weather visited Cam
bridge with the Prince of Wales, afterward King Charles I.
fl The King made his entry there/' wrote Mr. Chamberlain to
Sir Dudley Carleton then at Turin, " the 7th of this present
[in March] with as much solemnity and concourse of gallants
and great men as the hard weather and extreme foul ways
would permit. The Prince came along with him, but not the
Queen, by reason, as it is said, that she was not invited,
which error is rather imputed to their Chancellor than to the
scholars, that understood not these courses." The Chancellor
was Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, Lord Treasurer. He
had been elected 8th July, 1614, on the death of Henry
Howard, Earl of Northampton, and held that office till his
own death, May 28th, 1626. He was Thomas Lord Howard
of Walden before he was advanced to the title of Earl of
Suffolk by James the First in 1603. He was the son of
Thomas, fourth Duke of Norfolk, (who was beheaded on
Tower Hill in 1573), by his second wife Margaret, daughter
and sole heir of Thomas Lord Audley of Walden, K.G.
and Chancellor of England. He was restored in blood by
Act of Parliament in 1584, and in 1588, being in that
memorable engagement of the Spanish Armada, was by the
Lord High Admiral knighted at sea for his good services
therein, and made by Queen Elizabeth Lord Howard of
Walden. In the neighbourhood of Saffron Walden he built
the very noble and once extensive mansion called Audley
End. James made him first his Chamberlain, and afterwards
Lord High Treasurer. He built Audley End, designing it
for a palace for his sovereign ; and when it was completed with
all the taste and elegance of that magnificent period, the King
was invited to see it, and as he passed to Newmarket he took
up a night's lodging there ; when, after having viewed it with
great astonishment, he was asked by the Earl how he approved
of it. He answered, "Very well, but troth, man, it is too
much for a King, but it may do for a Lord High Treasurer;"
and so left it upon the Earl's hands, who is reported to have
had then an estate of £50,000 per annum. However Charles II.
purchased it, and so it became and continued a royal palace
until the reign of William III., who, finding that there was
great truth in the remark of King James, regranted it to the
family of its founder. Henry Earl of Suffolk hereupon pulled
down the greater part of it. The Earl died at Suffolk House
(which occupied the site of the present Suffolk Street) in
Westminster, May 28, 1626.
To return to the royal visit. The Lord Treasurer is said
to have expended a thousand pounds a day on this occasion.
His family appear to have constituted no small part of the
spectacle, there being few or no noble ladies present but such
as were of his own kindred ; as Alethsea the Countess of
Arundel, youngest daughter and coheir of Gilbert Talbot,
seventh Earl of Shrewsbury, married to Thomas Howard
Earl of Arundel j1 her sister the Lady Elizabeth Grey, the
Earl of Shrewsbury's second daughter, married to Sir Henry
Grey, Lord of Kuthin, son of Charles Grey, Earl of Kent ;2
the Countess of Suffolk (the Earl's second wife), Catherine,
eldest daughter and coheir of Sir Henry Knyvett of Chorlton
in Wilts, Knt. ;3 with her daughters, namely, Frances her second
daughter, not long after too well known by her divorce from
the Earl of Essex and subsequent marriage with Robert Carr,
Earl of Somerset ; and Catherine, Countess of Salisbury, the
third daughter of the Countess of Suffolk f together with the
Lady Walden, Elizabeth, daughter and coheir to George,
Lord Hume, Earl of Dunbar ;5 and lastly, Elizabeth, daughter
and sole heir of William Basset, Esq., after whose death she
was married to William Cavendish, Duke of Newcastle.6
Fuller relates that the King's entertainment at Cambridge
cost the Earl of Suffolk five thousand pounds and up
wards ;7 and Chamberlain that the Earl spent twenty-six tun
of wine in five days. He lodged and kept his table at St.
John's College, but his lady and her retinue at Magdalene
College, of which her grandfather Audley, Lord Chancellor,
was a kind of second or co-founder. To him the College owes
its present name, having been previously called Buckingham
Hall (1519) from Edward Stafford, third Duke of Bucking
ham. The King and Prince Charles lay at Trinity College,
where the plays were represented. The hall was so well
ordered for room, that above two thousand persons were
accommodated.
On the first day, Tuesday the 7th of March, the King
attended a Divinity Act which was kept by Dr. Davenant,
Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity and President of
Queens' College. He disputed on three questions. Nulla
est temporalis Papce potestas super Reges in ordine ad bonum
spirituale. The affirmative had been maintained by Bellar-
mine (lib. v. De Rom. Pont. cap. 6), who professed to mode-
rate the doctrine taught up to his time respecting the power
of the Pope, by changing his dominion over all things into an
indirect instead of a direct power. Augustinus Triumphus,
of the order of Eremites of St. Augustine, of the country of
Ancona, and who was present at the Second Council of Lyons
in 1274 (called the Fourteenth General Council, when a
forced union of the Greek and Latin Churches took place
under Pope Gregory X. and the Emperor Michael Palgeologus,
and which lasted but a few years owing to the imperiousness
of Pope Martin IV.), had taught without reserve the direct
dominion of the Roman Pontiff over the whole world in
things both political and ecclesiastical. In this he had been
followed by Alvarus Pelagius, a Spaniard of the Friars
Minorites, Penitentiary to the Pope and Bishop of Corunna,
early in the next century, and many others. Bellarmine indeed
only threw a veil over the monstrosity of the papal claims by
asserting an indirect in the place of a direct dominion. Others
however continued to affirm the Pope's dominion in the more
undisguised form, as Augustinus Steuchus of Eugubium or
Gubbio (at the foot of the Apennines above Perugia), who
died in 1550, and a host besides, whose names are given in Dr.
John Gerhard's Confessio Catholica.1 Bellarmine, whilst he
learnedly refuted the older opinion, as Dr. Field shews at
length in the 44th chapter of his 5th book Of the Church, gave
back to the Pope with his left hand all that he appeared to
take from him with his right ; grounding his power to depose
princes and to dispose of their kingdoms on his right in
or dine ad lonum spirituale, " that is, in a kind of reference to
the procuring and setting forward of the spiritual good."
This claim the learned Dr. Field exposes and refutes in the
45th and 46th chapters of his 5th book.2
In this Act the eminently learned and pious Davenant,
afterward Bishop of Salisbury, was answerer, and the muni
ficent and very able Eegius Divinity Professor and Master of
Peterhouse, Dr. John Richardson, one of the opposers. In
behalf of the excommunicating of kings, Dr. Kichardson
vigorously pressed the practice of St. Ambrose, who excom
municated the Emperor Theodosius. The King with some
warmth replied, Profecto fuit hoc db Ambrosio insolentissime
factum; upon which Dr. Richardson answered, "Responsum
vere regium et Alexandro dignum; hoc non est argumenta
dissolvere sed dissecare," (a truly royal answer and worthy of
Alexander, "this is not to untie but to cut arguments"), and
sitting down desisted from any further dispute.
The second thesis was, Infallibilis fidei determinatio non est
annexa cathedrae, Papali. Dr. Field states the general opinion
in the Romish Church at this time to have been, that the Pope
whether he might err personally or not, yet could not tl define
for falsehood," i. e. could not err as Pope. Bellarmine main
tained, but as Field proved, falsely, that all "Catholics" con
sented that the Pope with a General Council could not err.1
The third thesis was, Gceca obedientia est illicita. This
was against that doctrine of implicit and unquestioning obe
dience which is the foundation of the Jesuit system, and
which makes it therefore an essentially dangerous, irreligious,
and immoral institution, namely, that the mind, will, and con
science of the members of that Society should be one and the
same with the mind, will, and conscience of their superior.
So Ignatius Loyola, in the epistle De Virtute Obedientice at the
end of the Rules of the Society : " Obedience comprehends not
only the execution, that one should do what he is commanded,
and the will, that he should do it willingly, but also the
judgment, that whatsoever the superior thinks and enjoins,
the same should appear true and right to his inferior, in so far
as I have said the will can bend the understanding by its
own power."2
The first night's entertainment was a comedy made and
acted by St. John's men. It is but slightingly alluded to by
Chamberlain in that letter to Dudley Carleton from which so
much of our information respecting the royal visit is drawn.
A Law Act was moderated by Dr. Henry Mutlow, first
Gresham Professor of Civil Law. He had been a Fellow of
King's College, was Proctor in 1589 and 1593, a Burgess of
Parliament, many years Public Orator ; he died 1634, aged
eighty years, and was buried at St. Mary's.
The second night, March 8, the celebrated comedy of
Ignoramus was acted to the great entertainment of the King,
who was the more pleased as the whole was a satire upon the
professors of the common law, for which his imperial bias
would gladly have substituted the civil law as more in unison
with his favourite theoiy of absolute monarchy.
The author was the Kev. George Euggle, whose family
name was derived from Eugely in Staffordshire. He had
been educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was
B.A. 1594, and M.A. 1597. He was thence transferred to a
fellowship and tutorship at Clare Hall 1598, a time when
that foundation was favoured with a constellation of genius
and learning, as we have noticed elsewhere. He was born at
Lavenham in Suffolk. He was Taxor of the University in
1604, went to Oxford when the King visited that University
in 1605, and was there incorporated M.A. He resigned his
fellowship in 1620, and died about a year after. His Igno
ramus was not published until some years after his death,
first in 1630, then in eight editions to one at Dublin inclusive
in 1736, and lastly, with ample notes and a valuable life of
Euggle by Sir J. S. Hawkins, in 1787. A translation by Eobert
Codrington, M.A. of Magdalene College, Oxford, appeared in
1662, and a mutilated one in 1678, under the title of The
English Laicyer, a Comedy acted at the Royal Theatre;
written by Edward Ravenscroft, Gent., in 1678. The play was
acted by (amongst others) several members of the University
in holy orders, which was not overlooked at Oxford, where a
more discreet course had been observed in 1605. Amongst
them were Towers, afterwards Bishop of Peterborough, Bar-
grave, Dean of Canterbury, Love, Dean of Ely, and Mason
of Pembroke Hall, Dean of Sarum. Spencer Compton, then
a youth only thirteen years of age, only son of Lord Compton,
and of Queens' College, Cambridge, attracted especial observa
tion. He personated three several characters in this comedy.
Mr. John Holies, of Christ College, eldest son of Sir John
[Holies, whom he succeeded as second Earl of Clare in 1637,
was another of the actors. He was a man of honour and
courage, and remarkable for his moderation in the troubles of
the ensuing reign. He died January 2, 1665, and was
succeeded by his son Gilbert. Love, afterwards Dean of Ely,
was also with Bargrave of Clare Hall.
In the Physic Act the King's Physician, Sir Edward
Radcliffe, distinguished himself. He was brother of Dr.
Jeremiah Radcliffe, one of the Senior Fellows of Trinity
College, and also one of the translators of the Bible. He
some time lived at Orwell, where his brother was Rector,
and erected a monument to his memory. He was grandson
of Ralph, a celebrated schoolmaster at Hitchin.1 He died
September 1631, aged 78. The family still reside at the
Priory near Hitchin.
On the third night, March 9th, a comedy, Albumazar, was
acted before the King. Its author was Mr. Tomkis, scholar
of Trinity College 1594, and B.A. 1598. The comedy was
published in quarto in 1615, and again in 1634. It is re
printed in the ninth volume of Dodsley's Collection. Tomkis
was in part indebted, as was also Ruggle, to John Baptist
Porta, an Italian dramatist of the preceding century.
The last evening Melanihe, a Latin pastoral composed by
Mr. afterwards Dr. Brook,2 was acted.
Chamberlain, who did not exercise the good feeling of the
witty Corbet,3 who being asked to criticise the performances
of the University, answered that he had left his malice and
judgment at home, and came thither only to commend, admits
that the Philosophy Act was excellently kept.
After it was concluded Bishop Andrewes sent the mode
rator, the answerer, the varier or prevaricator, and one of the
repliers, who were all of his College, twenty angels each.
Wren was answerer or respondent ; Preston, tutor of Queens'
College, the celebrated Puritan, was first opponent ; Dr. Reade
of Pembroke Hall was moderator.
Alexander Eeade, B.A., was chosen to a Fellowship at
Pembroke Hall November 5th, 1605, whilst Harsnet was
Master ; Humanity Lecturer (the first of Mr. Farr's founda
tion) 1616. Mr. Farr was Henry Farr, Fellow 3rd November
1570, whilst Dr. John Young, afterward Bishop of Rochester,
was Master; he was M.A. 1574, and Junior Proctor 1586.
Reade held the same office in 1617, had a testimonial for
orders in 1618, was made D.D. and President,^, e. next to the
Master or Vice-Master, in 1624, and Perpetual Curate or
Minister of Yately, a small preferment in the gift of the
Master of St. Cross' Hospital, on the northern border of
Hampshire, east of Bramshill Park. He died about 1628.
" Their moderator was no fool ;
He far from Cambridge kept a school."
For this last information we are indebted to " A grave
poem, as it was presented in Latin by certain divines before
his Majesty in Cambridge, by way of interlude, styled Liber
novus de adventu Regis ad Cantabrigiam. Faithfully done
into English with some liberal advantage ; made rather to be
sung than read. To the tune of Bonny Nell" It is inserted
in Corbet's poems, and has been reprinted by Sir J. S. Hawkins
in his edition of Ignoramus, and by Nichols in his Royal
Progresses.
The question was whether dogs could make syllogisms,
suggested by a passage from Chrysippus in Sir W. Raleigh's
Sceptic, in which the position is affirmed. Wren, whose
abilities had early recommended him to the kind patronage of
Andrewes, pleaded a kind of divine right for the King's
hounds. Fuller in his Worthies has in his own way per
petuated this Act. After identifying him from his arms with
the worshipful family of the Wrens in Northumberland, he
adds, l He was bred Fellow of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge,
where he kept the extraordinary Philosophy Act before King
James. I say, kept it with no less praise to himself than
pleasure to the King, where, if men should forget, even dogs
would remember his seasonable distinction, what the King's
hounds could perform above others by virtue of their pre
rogative.11
On Easter-day, April 9, Bishop Andrewes preached before
the King at Whitehall a sermon of the most unparalleled
ingenuity upon those words of our Lord, Destroy this Temple,
and within three days I will raise it up again. His prose
continually reminds us throughout of Herbert's verse, the
same fertility of invention, the same facility of application.
He notes how the sign our Lord gave the Pharisees was far
greater than that which was in their thoughts. The Temple
men could raise again, but not this temple the body.
He takes occasion to condemn the avaricious sacrilege of
his times, that will leave nothing standing of the house of
God, not even the roof if it be of lead. He briefly touches on
the typical character of the Temple and its furniture, adducing
St. Ambrose, saying, " that is truly a temple wherein is. the
purification of our sins."
Toward the end he observes that we make our bodies
anything rather than temples, or if temples, temples of Ceres,
Bacchus, Venus. " But if this be the fruit of our life, and we
have no other but this, to fill and farce our bodies, to make
them shrines of pride, and to maintain them in this excess, to
make a money-change2 of all besides, Commonwealth, Church,
and all, 1 know not well what to say to it. I doubt at their
rising they will rather make blocks for hell-fire than be made
pillars in the temple of God, in the holy places made without
hands."
In the course of this year Bishop Andrewes added Matthew
Wren (afterward Bishop of Ely) to the number of his chap
lains. He had been Fellow of Pembroke College from 1605,
and on January 20, 1610, had been preferred by the same
patron to the Vicarage of Harston, and on March 26, 1614, to
that of Barton. These he resigned, Harston in November
1615, and Barton in the year following, being instituted on
the gift of Bishop Andrewes to the Rectory of Teversham this
same year, in which he was also made his chaplain, on May
15. His learning was such as to rank him amongst the first
scholars of the University ; and by his application to whatsoever
affairs concerned the interest of the Colleges to which he suc
cessively belonged, Pembroke and St. Peter's College, he has
been deservedly regarded by those societies as one of their
principal benefactors. Such merits could not fail to attach
Andrewes to him, who was himself unrivalled as a promoter
of learning and of learned men. Thus Wren was brought
into the royal presence, and all courtly favours from that time
flowed in upon him, if not in rapid yet in sure succession.
In 1621 he wras made Chaplain to Prince Charles, and accom
panied him in that imprudent and unsuccessful journey to
Spain. On his return he was in May 1624 made Eector of
Bingham in the county of Nottingham. The town itself, still
of no great size, owed what little importance it possessed to
a noble collegiate church, now no longer collegiate, but highly
interesting for its architectural features. This preferment was
of considerable value. Not long before, on the preceding 10th
November 1623, he was installed in the first stall of Win
chester through Andrewes, then Bishop of that see. On July
26, 1625, he was elected Master of Peterhouse, and in 1628
was made Dean of Windsor and Registrar of the Order of
the Garter. Some time after he was made Clerk of the
Closet, and attended the King to Scotland. In 1634 he was
promoted to a prebend in the abbey-church of Westminster,
in the room of Dr. John Wilson, and the same year was
consecrated to the see of Hereford on the death of the learned
Dr. Augustine Lindsell. In the following year he was trans
lated to Norwich on the decease of the poetical Bishop Corbett.
On the death of Bishop White he was removed to Ely.
Whilst Master of Peterhouse he collected contributions and
built the college chapel, which was dedicated March 17, 1632.
With the same liberality, on his restoration to his see after an
unjust imprisonment of eighteen years in the Tower, he built
a new chapel to Pembroke College, elegantly designed by the
famous Sir Christopher Wren, and gave to the College the
manor of Hardwick near Cambridge, to keep it in repair. The
chapel of Pembroke College cost him above £5000. The
first stone was laid on May 13, 1663, by Dr. Mark Frank,1
who had in the preceding year succeeded to the Mastership in
the place of Dr. Benjamin Laney, Bishop of Peterborough.
Bishop Wren himself consecrated it upon St. Matthew's-day,
September 21, 1665. He died at Ely House, Holborn, April
24, 1667.
As a prelate and theologian Wren possessed neither the
prudence nor the sound and solid piety of his great patron
Andrewes. He professed to adhere to him as a ritualist, but
in regard of that great practical point, the observance of the
Lord's-day, he departed from the doctrine of Bishop Andrewes.
That prelate maintained the divine institution of the day and
the sanctification of the whole of it. Not so Bishop Wren,
who although not guilty in so many instances as were objected
to him, yet acknowledged that he had excommunicated some
of his clergy for not publishing the King's declaration of the
Book of Sports?
He was very rigid in confining his clergy to the form of
the bidding prayer, which form itself was continually varied
and accommodated to the occasion in the time of Bishop
Andrewes, as may be seen in the Bidding Prayers inserted in
his Posthumous Works. Bishop Wren was not therefore
justified in the use which he made of his name in his defence.8
George Herbert used his own form,4 and the 55th canon itself
permits each minister and preacher to frame his own prayer
upon the model of the canon, unrestrained as to the very form
itself.
Wren was also over-zealous for the custom of bowing to
the altar, for which in his defence he alleged without any
ground Jewel's Defence of his Apology. There in page 203
(ed. Lond. 1565) Jewel has not one word of bowing to the
communion-table, but only, " kneeling, bowing, standing up,
and other like are commendable gestures and tokens of de
votion, so long as the people understandeth what they mean."
He more pertinently appealed to Bishop Morton on the
Institution of the Sacrament^ who however is entirely silent
upon the mystical meaning of bowing as it is now understood
by some, and as it was perhaps in the mind of Laud himself.
11 The use of bowing toward the Lord's table hath in it no
other nature or meaning than Daniel his kneeling with his
face towards Jerusalem and the Temple. For as this was a
testification of his joint society in that religious worship which
had been exercised in the Temple and altar thereof at Jeru
salem, so ours is a symbol of our union in profession with
them who do faithfully communicate at the table of the Lord."
He again has recourse to the name of Andrewes in behalf of
bowing to the holy table. But Andrewes at least, as Dr. Fuller
has left on record, did not impose upon any in any of the dio
ceses which he governed, unauthorized ceremonies. No wonder
that Wren incurred the displeasure of those who felt that from
his hands they had suffered unjustly, and who saw clearly
that overmuch zeal for such external points was incompatible
with purity of doctrine and with the maintenance of the
reformed faith. It was indeed a sort of Pharisaism that
punctiliously bowed at the altar, and the next moment
looked on with satisfaction at the congregation released from
church to dance around the maypole. This was to set up
human institutions (the Book of Sports) practically and
imperiously above divine, 'the day which the Lord hath
made.'
On April 16th the Council wrote to the Bishop to request
him to supervise the priests to be sent to Wisbeach Castle,
and to appoint learned divines to converse with those who
might desire it. Letters were sent to the neighbouring
justices cautioning them against any attempt at escape or
rescue. Orders were sent at the same time for the better
government of the said priests to Matthias Taylor, Keeper of
the Castle.
Amongst these seem to have been Alexander Faircloth,
Richard Cooper, George Muskett, and John Ainsworth.
On May 24th the Bishop wrote to the Keeper the answers
of the Council to divers points of the requests made by the
priests. Their breviaries were to be restored to them, and
they permitted to see or write to friends who wished to relieve
them without the names being known. He wrote further
that he could not allow his own house to be used for the
prisoners, as it had been during the vacancy of the see.1
The Romish historian Dod highly eulogizes George Mus
kett alias Fisher, which latter he regards as his true name.
He says that he had a brother at Attlebridge in Norfolk near
Repham in the hundred of Taverham. He was educated at
the English College at Rome, and was ordained priest there.
He resided mostly in London, and was very zealous in prose
lytizing to his communion. He and the Jesuit Fisher were
engaged for two days, April 21 and 22, 1621, in controversy
with Drs. Goad and Featly. He was in prison in 1635, being
then 53 years old. He was condemned to die, being convicted
of saying mass, but remained twenty years a prisoner under
sentence. But all this time, says Dod, he found means to
exercise his functions with the same success as if he had
enjoyed his liberty. He remained a prisoner until 1641,
having been reprieved by the Queen's intercession. He was
chosen to succeed Dr. Kellison as President of the English
College at Douay. Again the watchful zeal of Henrietta,
directed by those about her, found an opportunity of for
warding the plans of Rome and the interests of the Romish
Church. The Queen prevailed to have his imprisonment
exchanged for exile. He arrived at Douay November 14th,
1641. He died of consumption December 24th, 1645. In
his presidentship he was succeeded by Dr. William Hyde.
Muskett was called at Rome, Flos cleri Anglican* — The
flower of the English clergy.
On May 28th1 Andrewes preached before the King at
Greenwich upon our Lord's baptism. Here the peculiar gift
of his prolific genius appeared to great advantage, in illus
trating from analogy the design of our Lord's baptism as our
federal head ; the character of his baptism as the sanctification
and pattern of ours ; and the dovelike spirit of true Chris
tianity and of the true Church in contradistinction to the
vulturelike nature of the Church of Eome. " The Holy
Ghost is a dove, and he makes Christ's spouse the Church a
dove, a term so oft iterate in the Canticles and so much stood
on by S. Augustine and the Fathers, that they make no
question, no dove no Church. St. Peter," he adds, " was Bar-
Jona, the son of a dove, and without such a dovelike spirit
there is no remission of sins, no Holy Ghost in the Church."2
Upon July 9th our prelate assisted at the consecration of
Dr. Richard Milbourne to the see of St. David's. The other
prelates were Archbishop Abbot, Dr. John King, Bishop of
London, Buckeridge, Bishop of Rochester, and Dr. John
Overall, who had in April 1614 been raised to the see of
Lichfield and Coventry. Dr. Richard Milbourne was of a
Pembrokeshire family but a native of London. He was
educated at Winchester School and at Queens' College,
Cambridge, was successively Rector of Sevenoaks, Chaplain
to Prince Henry, Precentor of St. David's, and Dean of
Rochester. This last preferment he resigned in the following
year, and was succeeded by Dr. Robert Scott.3 In 1621 Dr.
Milbourne was translated from St. David's to Carlisle, and
Laud was consecrated to the former see. He died in 1624,
when Dr. Richard Senhouse was raised to his see of Carlisle.
Dr. Senhouse was also of the University of Cambridge, of
Trinity and then of St. John's College, and Chaplain first to
the Earl of Bedford and afterward of Prince Charles.
On Saturday August 5th our prelate being in attendance
upon the King, preached before him in Salisbury Cathedral,
from the four first verses of the 21st Psalm. This sermon,
preached before a concourse of people and of considerable
length, must have lost much of its effect from the unhappy
custom, for which nevertheless our prelate himself contended,
of interspersing every ten lines with Latin.
On the 25th of this month Bishop Andrewes preferred the
learned John Boys to the second stall in his cathedral of Ely.
"At the vacancy of the prebend he was sent for to London,"
writes his biographer Anthony Walker, u by Lancelot An
drewes, then Lord Bishop of Ely, who bestowed it upon him
unasked for. When he had given him, as we commonly say,
joy of it (which was his first salutation at his coming to him),
he told him ' that he did bestow it freely on him without any
one moving him thereto ; though,' said he, l some pickthanks
will be saying they stood your friends herein.' Which pre
diction proved very true."1
Under the patronage and probably at the request of Bishop
Andrewes, Boys began his comparison of the Vulgate with
the modern versions of the New Testament by Beza and
others, to point out where the moderns had needlessly varied
from the Vulgate. This work he completed to the end of the
Acts of the Apostles, but upon the death of Bishop Andrewes
desisted from his undertaking, having then entered but a little
way into the Epistle to the Romans.2 These notes, to the
end of the Acts, appeared in 1656, entitled, Veteris Interpretis
cum Beza aliisque Eecentioribus Collatio in Quatuor Evangeliis
et Apostolorum Actis. In qua annon scepius absquejustd satis
causa hi ab illo discesserint disquiritur , &c.
Thus closely connected as is the name of Boys with that
of Andrewes, it may not be out of place to add a brief notice
of him, taken from the memoirs from which has been drawn
the anecdote relating to his promotion at Ely.
His grandfather John Boys was an inhabitant of Halifax
in Yorkshire, where also his father William was born. His
father was sent to Cambridge and lodged in Michael House
(afterwards swallowed up in Trinity College), but went to
lectures to St. John's College to Mr. John Seaton, afterward
D.D. and Prebendary of Winchester, and author of a com
pendium of logic for the use of junior scholars. Mr. William
Boys entered into holy orders, but becoming a convert to the
doctrine of the Reformers, withdrew himself from the Uni
versity and took a farm at Nettlestead, between Hadleigh and
Needham Market, and married a gentlewoman named Mirable
Pooley, of an ancient and respectable family. Her son, the
learned translator, records of her that she had read the Bible
over twelve times, and the Book of Martyrs twice, besides
other books not a few.1 When Queen Elizabeth came to the
throne he took upon him to serve the cure of Elmset, between
Nettlestead and Hadleigh ; and on the death of the incumbent
was presented by the Lord Keeper to the Rectory, and not
long after to the Rectory of West Stow by his brother Mr.
Pooley, a small parish between Bury St. Edmund's and
Mildenhall. He died in his sixty-eighth year, and his widow
survived him about ten years, dying about her seventy-eighth
year.
His son John was born January 3, 1560, at Nettlestead.
His father taught him to write Hebrew when he was but six
years old, and took great pains himself in his education,
sending him also daily to school at Hadleigh, two miles from
his house at Elmset. There commenced his acquaintance
with the learned Dr. John Overall, Dean of St. Paul's and
afterwards Bishop of Norwich. He was admitted of St.
John's College under the tuition of Mr. Henry Coppinger on
the 1st of March, 1675.2 He was of the ancient family of
the Coppingers of Buxhall, between Stow Market and Laven-
ham. To St. John's College he was sent to be under Dr.
Still,1 who on the 21st of July in the preceding year had
been raised to the Mastership, being also Kector of Hadleigh.
In 1576 Dr. Still was made Archdeacon of Sudbury, and in
1577 advanced to the Mastership of Trinity College, Cam
bridge. His good management of the revenues of the latter
foundation is memorialized by Dr. Fuller in his Holy and
Profane State; and Walker, himself a Fellow of St. John's,
says of him at that College, " This is he who procured the
alteration of the College statutes, before which few Masters
continued seven years ; which gave occasion to the then
common merry saying, viz. c that the College was a good
horse, but that he would kick till Still went to court and got
new girths.' "
There were then in St. John's three Greek lectures read.
In the first grammar was taught, as is commonly now in
schools. In the second an easy author was explained in a
grammatical way. The third was of a more advanced kind.
A year was usually spent in attending upon the first course
of lectures, and two upon the second. Within six weeks,
however, Boys being a fair Greek scholar at the time of his
admission was remitted to the third and higher lecture.
Andrew Downes (in 1585 Eegius Greek Professor) then
lectured at St. John's five times a week with great diligence,
but took such delight in this young scholar as to read over to
him privately twelve of the more difficult Greek authors,
both in prose and verse. Boys was in his first year elected
to a scholarship.
York. This stall he resigned to Ambrose Coppinger, whom Dr. Toby Mathews
collated June 2, 1619. The Earl of Oxford being patron of Lavenham presented
Coppinger to it, and after resolving to keep back from him all tithe of his park
(almost half the land of the parish), on Coppinger' s offering rather to resign
than be a party to such sacrilege, retracted his ill-made resolution. But the
Earl's successor being a minor, his agent iniquitously put this exemplary person
to the cost of £1600 before he could recover the rights of the Church. He was
for forty-five years the very laborious and charitable incumbent of Lavenham,
where he died on St. Thomas' s-day, 1662, in his seventy-second year.— See
Fuller's Church Hist. b. x. c. 6.
In 1577 his tutor Henry Coppinger was advanced by the
Queen to the Mastership of Magdalene College, whereupon
he left his Fellowship and went to Magdalene and took his
pupil Boys along with him. This stretch of her prerogative
however was not suffered to pass without animadversion, for
the appointment belonged to the Earl of Suffolk. Coppinger
therefore resigned, and lost both his Mastership and Fellow
ship. Boys was readmitted to his scholarship, and in due
time chosen a Fellow, having the small-pox upon him at the
time of his election. Whilst a Fellow he continued his
studies in the summer in the University Library from four
in the morning till eight at night. He resided upon his
Fellowship, and delayed receiving holy orders the full time
that the College statutes permitted him. On Friday, June 21,
1583 (having been eight years a member of St. John's Col
lege) he was ordained deacon, and on the following day,
by dispensation, priest by Dr. Edmund Freake, Bishop of
Norwich. Such was the esteem in which Boys was held by
Dr. Whitaker (who, on the elevation of Dr. Richard Howland
to the see of Peterborough, was made Master of St. John's
on St. Matthew's-day, February 25, 1586,) that every Friday
evening he came to Boys' chamber to hear his pupils declaim.
This may be observed as an instance also of the forgiving and
kind spirit of that famous controversialist, for Boys had voted
against his election. However as he acknowledged to Walker
his sorrow afterward for the part he then took, so he probably
evinced to Whitaker, after his better knowledge of him, the
deference and regard that were his due. Dr. Whitaker died
December 4, 1595. Robert (afterwards Sir Robert) Naunton,
Fellow of Trinity College and University Orator, was ap
pointed to deliver the oration at Great St. Mary's, and Boys
in his own College. He has testified in his notes, to the
commendation of Whitaker, that under his governance learning,
if at any time, flourished and increased, but that after his death
the College was augmented in its buildings but declined in
letters. Mr. Boys was afterwards made Philosophy Lecturer,
and in the course of one year commented upon the greater
part of Plato's Timceus. These lectures were held in the
schools, the Vice-Chancellor and a great concourse of auditors
flocking to him. He was for ten years chief Greek Lecturer
in his College, and besides the College lecture read a Greek
lecture at four of the clock in the morning in his own chamber,
which was frequented by many of the Fellows. At the death
of his father, his mother by request commanding him that it
might be continued to her for a place of abode, he asked Mr.
Pooley for the living of West Stow, which he promptly gave
him, but resigned upon Mr. Pooley 's taking his mother under
his own roof.
About 1596 the Earl of Salisbury made Boys one of his
chaplains, who the same year thus became possessed of the
rectory of Boxworth in the county of Cambridge. lt When he
was about thirty-six years old Mr. Holt, Kector of Boxworth,
dying, left the advowson of that living in part of a portion
to one of his daughters, requesting of some of his friends
that, if it might be by them procured, Mr. Boys of St. John's
might become his successor by the marriage of his daughter.
Whereof when he was advertised he went over to see her, and
soon after, they taking a liking to each other, he was pre
sented to the parsonage, and instituted by Archbishop Whit-
gift, it being then the great vacation of the see1 of Ely." He
was instituted October 13, 1596. "The College at his
departure gave him £100, though I must confess," adds
Walker, " that was then custom more than courtesy."
From Boxworth he came constantly into the University to
hear the lectures of the Greek and Hebrew Professors,
Downes and Lively (the former of St. John's, the latter of
Trinity College), as also of the Regius Divinity Professor,
his friend Dr. Overall. Meanwhile he fell into debt and was
obliged to part with his library, a rare collection of classical
authors. He was, moreover, unhappy for a while in his
domestic relations, but a reunion of affection ensued, and
those affections were but the more confirmed. About twelve
of the neighbouring clergy met every Friday at each other's
house to dinner, amongst whom Boys was one. Then they
gave an account of their studies, and discussed and resolved
such questions as might be propounded.
He was employed in tuition and kept some young scholars
in his house, as well for the instruction of his own children
and those of the gentry who were entrusted to him, as of the
poorer children of his parish.
When the present translation of the Bible was commenced,
he, with Dr. Duport, Master of Jesus College, Dr. William
Branthwayt, Master of Gonville and Caius College, Ward,
afterward Master of Sidney College, Dr. Jeremiah Kadcliffe,
one of the Senior Fellows of Trinity College, Professor
Downes, Mr. afterward Dr. Ward, Fellow of Queens' College,
Prebendary of Chichester, and also by the same patron, his
old scholar, Bishop Andrewes, Rector of Bishop's Waltham,
was appointed to undertake the Apocrypha. But having
finished his portion, he also relieved another of another
College, whither he went and lodged during the week until
that second portion was finished. The several companies of
translators were engaged upon the work four years, after
which two of each company were selected to review the whole
work, and to put it to the press. Of his company Boys
himself and his friend Downes were appointed to this second
labour. These (six in all) went daily to Stationers' Hall, and
in three quarters of a year finished their task. Whilst thus
engaged the Company of Stationers paid them 30s. per week.
Boys alone, it is said, took notes of their proceedings, and
these he kept till his dying day.
Coming to the knowledge of that lay-bishop, Sir Henry
Savile, as Walker pleasantly calls him, he read over for his
edition of St. Chrysostom the greater part of that voluminous
Father in the MSS., besides the supervising of both Sir
Henry's and his friend Downe's notes. It is probable that
but for the death of Sir Henry he would have been rewarded
for this labour with a Fellowship at Eton. He was indeed
nominated to a Fellowship in the projected Theological Col
lege at Chelsea, but the College and with it his Fellow
ship soon came to nothing. Bishop Andrewes rewarded his
labours as a translator, as we have seen, in 1615. He lived
however still at Boxworth till 1628 when he removed to
Ely, not sparing himself even in his old age, but preaching
not only in his own turn, but frequently for his friends, some
times only at an hour's warning. He was often called upon to
preach funeral sermons. Twice a year he went from Ely to
his living at Boxworth to administer the holy Communion, and
preach to his parishioners. At Ely he went twice, sometimes
thrice, a day to prayers in the Cathedral to his very death,
for he survived the suppression of the Liturgy by the Kebels
only five days. In his extreme old age he would study eight
hours a day. He read walking, and in his youth often walked
from college to his mother's house at West Stow to dinner,
which was above twenty miles. This he did doubtless between
about four and twelve at noon. Such were the primitive habits
of our literary giants. Not only to Sir Henry Savile but also
to that industrious patristic antiquary, Augustine Lindsell,
Bishop of Hereford, he rendered very considerable assistance.
He was very temperate, very charitable, very devout. To
the poor of Boxworth he sent annually forty shillings at
Christmas, besides the relief he gave them at his going to
them. Some poor person he feasted for some years on the
Lord's-day at his own table. He visited the prisoners, and
often sent or carried them money. He seldom began any
thing without invoking the blessing and help of God. He used
very many rather than very long prayers. He never carried
any book into the pulpit with him but his Bible, and though
a prodigy of learning, sought nothing so much as to be under
stood by the least instructed of his congregation. His wife
departed this life May 16, 1642, and after a most painful
illness which he endured with great resignation, entreating of
his children and all who were about him that if at any time
he expressed anything which savoured of impatience they would
tell him of it, he died upon Sunday, January 14, 1643, being
eighty-three years and eleven days old. He was buried on
February 6th, Mr. Thurston of St. John's College preaching
his funeral sermon.1
Return we now from this most worthy person, well worthy
of so great and renowned a patron to the patron himself, whom
we find on the 5th of November discoursing at Whitehall
very admirably upon the divine mercy : The Lord is good to
allj and his mercies are over all his works. Here indeed
he proceeds so far as to say that the very angels have some
need of mercy. " The very seraphim have somewhat to
cover. As for the cherubim they will set mercy a seat upon
the top of their wings." He accommodates a passage of St.
Chrysostom from his Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans :
" Great is the deep of my sins, but greater the abyss of the
mercy of God ;" and adds, " Great is the whirlpool of my
wicked works, but greater is the Bethesda, the wide and deep
gulph of the mercy of God that hath no bottom. And
indeed it were not truly said, It is above all his works (all his,
and much more then above all ours,) if any of all our works
were above it. No more then there is a Lamb that taketh
away the sins of the world if there were any sin of the world
he takes not away."
On November 29th Bishop Andrewes preferred Walter
Balcanqual, Fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge, to the
Vicarage of Harston (in the place of Wren). Balcanqual
was M.A. of Pembroke College 1609, elected to a Fellowship
there September 8, 1611, B.D. 1616, and in that year was
preferred to Waterbeach near Cambridge. In 1617 he was
made Master of the Savoy, and in 1618 was sent as the
representative of the Scotch Church to the Synod of Dort,
being at that time one of the King's Chaplains. The
Mastership of the Savoy he resigned in 1618, in favour of
the rapacious and unstable Mark Antony de Dominis. In
1621 that remarkable person left this kingdom, and Balcanqual
was reinstated in the Mastership of the Savoy. In 1624 he
was made Dean of Eochester, and in 1639 of Durham. He
escaped from the siege of York and took refuge at Chirk
Castle in Denbighshire, but sinking under the fatigue died
there on Christmas-day 1645. He was buried in the church,
and Sir Thomas Middleton of Chirk Castle erected a monu
ment to his memory. Bishop Pearson wrote his epitaph.
On December 3rd Bishop Andrewes, King, Bishop of
London, and Neile, Bishop of Lincoln, assisted Archbishop
Abbot at the consecration of the incomparably learned and
indefatigably laborious Dr. Eobert Abbot, Master of Balliol
College, and Kegius Professor of Divinity in the University
of Oxford, to the see of Salisbury, on the decease of Dr.
Henry Cotton of Magdalene College in that University.
Kobert Abbot was the eldest brother of the Archbishop,
and was born at Guildford in 1560. They were both edu
cated at the Free School there, founded by Edward VI. He
was sent to Balliol College, Oxford, 1575, and upon an
oration made by him the 17th of November, the day of Queen
Elizabeth's accession, was chosen a scholar of that famous
foundation. His brother George became a student there in
1578. Eobert took his degree of M.A. in 1582. At Oxford
he first distinguished himself by his eloquence as one of the
lecturers at Carfax Church in the High Street. He officiated
also for a time at Abingdon. He was, upon the first sermon
he preached at Worcester^ admitted to a lectureship in that
city, and was soon after, in 1588, appointed Hector of All
Saints, between Bridge Street and the Cathedral. John
Stanhope, Esq., hearing him preach at St. Paul's Cross, ap
pointed him Eector of the rich benefice of Bingham in
Nottinghamshire. He was made D.D. in 1597, and on the
accession of James I. one of his Majesty's Chaplains. On
the death of Dr. Edward Lilly, late of Magdalene College
but Master of Balliol, he was elected to succeed in the Master
ship March 5, 1610, in which year the King, who greatly
esteemed him, appointed him one of the Fellows of his new
Controversial College at Chelsea. On the 2nd of November,
1610, he was collated, and on the 27th admitted, to the pre-
bendal stall of Normanton in the church of Southwell. This
was one of the three original prebends of that church.
Abbot first published A Mirror of Popish Subtleties, written
against a Cavilling Papist, in the behalf of one Paul Spence,
dedicated to Whitgift, 1594. 2. The Exaltation of the King
dom and Priesthood of Christ, being a Commentary upon the
110th Psalm , dedicated to Gervase Babington, Bishop of
Worcester. Lond. 1601. 3. Antichristi Demonstratio} dedi-
cated to the King, printed at London in 1602 and 1608. The
second edition was, by the King's command, accompanied
with his own comment upon the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th verses
of the 20th chapter of the Revelation. 4. A Defence of the
Reformed Catholic of Master William Perkins , lately deceased,
against the Bastard Counter Catholic of Dr. Bishop , Seminary
Priest, dedicated to King James, 1st part, quarto, Lond. 1606,
the 2nd part 1607, the 3rd part 1609. 5. The True Ancient
Roman Catholic, dedicated to Prince Henry, Lond. 1611 ; but
previously to this a single sermon at St. Mary's, entitled The
Old Way, quarto, Lond. 1610, translated into Latin by
Thomas Drax. It was preached on July 8th, Act Sunday,
and dedicated to Archbishop Bancroft.
On the death of Dr. Thomas Holland, also of Balliol
College, Abbot was preferred by the King to be Eegius
Professor of Divinity March 25, 1612. In the following year
appeared his able work, already referred to in these pages,
Antilogia adversus Apologiam Andrece Eudcemon Johannis
Jesuitce pro Henrico Gfarnetto proditore, dedicated to the
King. L'Heureux's Apology for Garnet, under the as
sumed name of Andreas Eudsemon Johannes, had appeared
at Cologne in 1610. His noblest work, his Commentary
on the Epistle to the Romans, lies still in MS. in the
Bodleian Library. He preached a sermon (also in MS.) at
St. Mary's, on the notes to the Geneva Bible, and clearing
Calvin from Arianism. This was against Dr. Howson, of
whom Sir Thomas Bodley makes no very honourable mention
in his Letters. Howson, however, who was more of the
courtier than of the divine, by command of the King tl turned
his edge," says Dr. Featly, tl from Geneva to Eome, and in
the next sermon he preached at St. Mary's fell fierce and foul
upon the Pope himself, threatening to loose him from his
chair though he were fastened thereunto with a tenpenny
nail."1 Howson had been educated at Christ Church, and
had been appointed Prebendary of Hereford July 15, 1587,
and of Exeter May 29, 1592, and Canon of the second stall
at Christ Church May 15, 1601. He was also Rector of
Brightwell and one of the Yicars of Bampton. He was
consecrated to the see of Oxford May 9, 1619, and translated
to Durham in 1628. He died in his seventy-fifth year, Feb
ruary 6th, 1632, and was succeeded by that illustrious prelate
Dr. Thomas Morton.
Preaching on the afternoon of Easter-day, 1615, at St.
Peter's-in-the-East before the University, Dr. Abbot attacked
Laud, Howson, and their partisans, saying that there were
men who, under pretence of truth and preaching against the
Puritans, struck at the heart, and root of that faith and religion
now established amongst us, which was the very practice of
(the Jesuit) Parsons' and Campian's counsel, when they came
hither to seduce young students, who, afraid to be expelled
if they should openly profess their conversion, were directed
to speak freely against the Puritans as what would suffice ; so
these do not expect to be counted Papists, because they
speak only against Puritans ; but because they are indeed
Papists they speak nothing against them, or if they do, they
beat about the bush, and that softly too, for fear of disquieting
the birds that are in it."
At length his all but incredible diligence in the University
was rewarded by his elevation to the see of Sarum. He was
accompanied to the borders of the diocese of Oxford to North
Hinksey by the heads of houses and many others, all lamenting
his departure. At Salisbury he was as heartily welcomed, and
on the Sunday following preached in the cathedral from Psalm
xxvi. 8 : Lord, 1 have loved the habitation of thy house, and
the place where thine honour dwelleth. And soon did he shew
the sincerity of this profession ; for finding that the cathedral
had been greatly neglected, he used his authority and influ
ence with the chapter, which led to an expenditure of £500,
a great sum in those days, upon the building.
It appears that his elevation to the episcopate was opposed
by a party at court favourable to the Church of Home ; for the
King said to him, soon after his consecration, Abbot, I have
had very much to do to make thee a Bishop, but I know no
reason for it, unless it were because thou hast written against
one, an allusion to his defence of Perkins' Reformed Catholic,
against Bishop the Seminary Priest. Abbot visited his whole
diocese in person, and preached every Lord's-day whilst he
enjoyed his health, either in the city or in the churches in its
vicinity. He was engaged in his last illness upon a Latin
reply to Eichard Thompson, commonly called Dutch Thomp
son (noticed in this volume), on falling away from grace and
justification. Thrice a-week this Prelate sent provisions to
the prison at Salisbury, and at Christmas feasted all the poor
of the city. He suffered very greatly from that most painful
complaint the stone, which brought him to his end. The
judges being then on their circuit visited him during this
illness. His last words were, Jesu, come quickly ; finish in me,
the work that thou hast begun. Then he added in Latin, Into
thy hands, 0 Lord, I commit my spirit, for thou hast redeemed
me, 0 God of truth. Save thy servant who hopeth and trusteth
only in thee. Let thy mercy , 0 Lord, be upon me. 0 Lord,
in thee have I trusted, let me never be confounded. He died
between 7 and 8 in the evening of March 2, 1618.
He was buried in his cathedral on the following Thursday
in the choir over against the Bishop's throne.
Bishop Abbot was twice married, the second time, after he
became a bishop, to Mrs. Bridget Cheynell. He left one son
and two daughters. Of these, one married Sir Nathaniel
Brent, Warden of Merton College, Oxford, whose daughter
Margaret married Dr. Edward Corbet, Hector of Haseley in
Oxfordshire, who presented some of this Prelate's MSS., in
cluding his Commentary on the Romans, to the Bodleian
Library.
Abbot was succeeded in his Professorship by a divine who
ably upheld the same theology which he had maintained,
Dr. John Prideaux, Hector of Exeter College. Dr. Prideaux
was B.A. of that College January 31, 1600. He succeeded
Dr. Holland as Eector of Exeter College April 4, 1612, and
Abbot as Eegius Professor of Divinity December 8, 1615.
He was installed Canon of the fifth stall at Christ Church
March 16, 1617, was consecrated Bishop of Worcester De
cember 19, 1641, and on August 3, 1642, resigned the Eec-
torship of his College. He died July 20, 1650, in his
seventy-fourth year, and was buried at Bredon in Worcester
shire. His Fasciculus Controversiarum was published at
Oxford in 1649, and dedicated by him to William Hodges,
Henry Button, Rowland Crosby, Edward Best, Eleazar
Jackson, Emanuel Smith, William Lole, and other his
brethren in the ministry in his diocese.
At Salisbury succeeded Dr. Martin Fotherby, the author of
Atheomastix, published in folio in 1622, of Grimsby in Lincoln
shire, a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Prebendary
of Canterbury. He died March 12, 1620.
Bishop Fotherby 's Atheomastix was published two years
after his death, but then only two out of four books saw the
light. The work, a small folio, abounding in classical and
other learning, was entitled, "Atheomastix, clearing Four
Truths against Atheists and Infidels :
1. That there is a God.
2. That there is but one God.
3. That Jehovah our God is that one God.
4. That the Holy Scripture is the word of that God.
All of them proved by natural reasons and secular authorities.
Lond. 1622." It was dedicated to the Right Hon. Sir Robert
Naunton, Secretary to the King.
Bishop Andrewes had upon last Christmas-day treated of
the first prophecy cited in the New Testament. He now took
the second, namely, that of Micah, foretelling the birthplace
of Christ, Bethlehem (the house of bread) Ephrata (fruitful).
He enlarged upon the twofold sense of the word rendered
ruler , as implying both guidance and protection. His whole
discourse he, as his manner was, drew out of his text with a
facility peculiarly his own, but doubtless much assisted by his
patristic studies. Thus, as Christ came forth from eternity,
so he is our guide, leader, and shepherd to bring us thither.
The words themselves raised this association of ideas in the
mind of the preacher. Very many would meditate upon
them a thousand times and not light upon a similar combi
nation. Excellently does he enforce humility as the grace
which the comparative obscurity of the place, and all the
circumstances of our blessed Redeemer's birth, was designed
to teach us. Alluding to Ephrata (fruitful) he well remarks :
"We fall still upon one extreme or other: if fertile, then
proud ; if humble, then barren." There is much contained in
this, not that true humility will be unfruitful, but a mere
sentimental self-abasement will ever excuse itself the works of
obedience.
The King was disabled by the gout from attending at the
Royal Chapel, but heard the sermon and received the Eucha
rist in private.
CHAPTER XVII.
Page 424
Cosin — Drusius — Whitsunday 1616 — The King at Burleigh-on-the
Hill — Andrewes a Privy Councillor — Thomas Earl of Arundel —
Amner — Beale — The King's Progress to Scotland — Andrewes at
Durham 1617.
JOHN COSIN, at the Restoration Bishop of Durham, one of
the most diligent ecclesiastical antiquaries of his age, was in
1616 invited both by Bishop Andre wes and by Overall, Dean
of St. Paul's, to become his librarian. He attached himself
to the latter. The Deanry of St. Paul's offered facilities of
literary intercourse with the learned both of our own nation
and of the Continent, perhaps above any other ecclesiastical
residence.
On February 12 died the learned John Drusius, one of
those eminent foreigners who are said both by Bishop Bucke-
ridge and by Isaacson to have enjoyed the patronage and
munificent friendship of Andrewes. He came over to
England from Flanders in 1567, was admitted of the Uni
versity of Cambridge August 3, 1569, and on his return
from France 1572, was entered at Merton College, Oxford,
and read lectures on Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriac at Merton
and Magdalene Colleges, and afterward in the Public Schools ;
but in 1576 he left Oxford for a Professorship at Leyden, and
thence removed to the University of Franeker, in Friesland.
At Franeker Sixtus Amama succeeded to some share of his
reputation.
Andrewes was called upon as usual to preach before the
King at Whitehall on Easter-day, March 31. His sermon on
this occasion is not so remarkable as many that preceded it.
But whatsoever is his subject it is sure to be amply illustrated
in his hands.
Upon Whitsunday, May 19,1 he preached before the King
at Greenwich, upon our Lord's words to his Apostles, Receive
the Holy Ghost. In the introduction he says, u Now what is
here to do, what business is in hand, we cannot but know, if
ever we have been at the giving of holy orders. For by these
words are they given, Receive the Holy Gfhostj whose sins y6
remit j &c., were to them, and are to us even to this day, by
these and by no other words. Which words, had not the
Church of Rome retained in their ordinations, it might well
have been doubted (for all their Accipe potestatem, &c., Receive
thou authority to sacrifice for the living and for the deadj)
whether they had any priests at all or no. But, as God
would, they retained them, and so saved themselves. For
these are the very operative words for the conferring this
power, for the performing of this act." He next refutes the
Eomish tenet that holy orders are a sacrament, denying that
it confers grace, the grace being but in office or function.
Again, Christ alone instituted sacraments, but this ceremony
he instituted with breathing upon the parties, which ceremony
hath since been changed to laying on of hands. But such a
change is inadmissible in a sacrament.
Very full of meaning is his unfolding the symbol of wind
and of breath as betokening in Scripture the Holy Ghost.
" For as for this let it not trouble you, that it is but breath,
and breath but air, and so, one would think, too feeble 5 as
indeed what feebler thing is there in man than it ? The more
feeble, the more fit to manifest his strength by. For, as weak
in appearance as it is, by it were great things brought to pass.
By this puff of breath was the world blown round about.
About came the philosophers, the orators, the emperors.
Away went the mist of error ; down went the idols and their
temples before it."2
With equal beauty does he apply in the patristic manner
to the Apostles the words of the 8th Psalm, Out of the mouth
of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained praise.
In this sermon, as elsewhere, he removes the gross notion
of the real presence, insisted on even now by not a few.
Christ's body is received, he says, even as the Holy Ghost
was, that is, not the substance but the virtue of it. Both are
tl truly received in the same sense." So too Jeremy Taylor
on the Eeal Presence. He also notes how this passage con
demns those who are sent only by themselves, who take that
to them which none ever gave them.
The Spirit of Christ, he observes here as elsewhere, is not
an artificial but a constant principle and power working upon
the will: " Of ourselves to move: not wrought to it by any
gin, or vice, or screw made by art. Else we shall move but
while we are wound up for a certain time till the plummets be
at the ground, and then our motion will cease straight. All
which1 (but these last especially) are against the automata ,
the spectra, the puppets of religion, hypocrites. With some
spring within their eyes are made to roll, and their lips to
wag, and their breast to give a sob. All is but Hero's pneu-
matica} a vizor, not a very face ; an outward show of godli
ness, but no inward power of it at all."
The grace of apostleship he interprets to be the office itself,
for it is a grace to be a conduit of grace any way. The
anointing was no inward holiness, " but the right of ruling
only. So here it is no internal quality infused, but the grace
only of their spiritual and sacred function. Good it were and
much to be wished, that they were holy and learned all ; but if
they be not, their office holds good though." These again as
conduits may, by transmitting the water, make the garden to
bear both herbs and flowers, though themselves never bear
any. Those who built the ark were yet drowned themselves.
In the month of August our prelate was in attendance
upon the King at Burleigh-on-the-Hill, and on Monday the
5th, the anniversary of the Gowrie Conspiracy, preached
before him from the 2nd chapter of Esther. Ahasuerus
Bishop Andrewes takes to be the same with Artaxerxes
Longimanus. He notes in this discourse how contrary the
Komish doctrine of the seal of confession is to the 1st verse
of the 5th chapter of Leviticus, and altogether unchristianizes
the Komanists.
But though this may by some "be condemned in him as
inconsistent with some passages in his works, and as against
certain favourite opinions respecting the essential nature of
the Apostolical succession, it is no more than the Holy Ghost
doth, when by St. Paul he asks, " What agreement hath the
temple of God with idols ?" 1 So Bishop Andrewes, speaking
of Bellarmine and King James, a The King in die hoe (in
this day) neither heathen, I am sure, nor that can have the
least touch of idolatry fastened on him. He that shamed not
to say i No Christian] and hath been fain since to eat his
word; he durst not say an idolater, that would soon have
rebounded back upon himself. And no idolater is a Christian,
nor Christian an idolater, I am sure."2
This is one of many instances in which the truth will force
itself a way out of the pulpit, however it may be racked or
fettered in the Schools. Even Laud (according to Stilling-
fleet in his preface to his work on The Idolatry of the Romish
Communion) held the Eomanist to be an idolater. Idolatry
excluded from the Jewish Church, and it is incumbent for
those who maintain that the practice of it is compatible with
Christianity to shew their warrant out of the Holy Scriptures.
On the following day the King knighted at Burleigh Sir
Francis Bodenham.1
On September 2nd Bishop Andrewes ordained Edward
Catherall, M.A., deacon, and William Beale, M.A., and
Humphrey Tovey, M.A., priests, in the chapel of Downham
Palace. Catherall was B.A. of Jesus College 1614.4 One
William Tovey, B.D., occurs as Prebendary of the first stall
at Worcester October 15, 1586.1 He was also Prebendary of
Hereford March 17, 1588. He died in 1598.2
On September 29 Bishop Andrewes was admitted into the
King's Privy Council/ but his custom was always to with-
1 Hardy's Le Neve, vol. iii. p. 79. 2 Ibid. vol. i. p. 503.
3 Bilson, Bishop of "Winchester, had died June 18th (he was buried by night
in "Westminster Abbey), and had been succeeded by the King's not unworthy
favourite the pious and munificent Dr. James Montagu, Bishop of Bath and
Wells. He was brother of that most loyal and Christian patriot Edward, first
Lord Montagu of Boughton in Northamptonshire, whose third brother Sir Henry
was first Earl of Manchester, father of Edward, Earl of Manchester in the suc
ceeding reign, and ancestor of the Dukes of Manchester. Our prelate was edu
cated in Christ College, Cambridge. " He was afterwards Master" [the first]
"or rather nursing father" (says Fuller) "to Sidney College" [1595—1608]
" for he found it in bonds to pay 20 marks per annum to Trinity College for the
ground whereon it is built, and left it free, assigning it a rent for the discharge
thereof." Fuller records, both in his Worthies and in his History of the University
of Cambridge, how this prelate expended a hundred marks to bring running
water into the King's Ditch, to the great conveniency of the University.
On the death of Dr. George Boleyn, Prebendary of Canterbury and Chichester,
and Dean of Lichfield, Montagu was preferred to that Deanry, and installed
July 16, 1603. On the death of Dr. Eedes, Dean of Worcester, he was presented
to that Deanry, December 20, 1604, being succeeded at Lichfield by Dr.
"William Tooker, of whom see an account in Bliss's Wood's Athence Oxonienses.
On the death of Bishop Still, Master of Trinity College and Bishop of Bath and
Wells (B.A. 1561, M.A. 1565, of Christ College, Cambridge), known not only
by the memory of his talents in his several offices, but as the author of the
second English comedy in point of time, Gammer Gurton's Needle, Montagu
was, on April 17, 1608, consecrated to the see of Bath and Wells, Andrewes
with four other prelates assisting Bancroft at his consecration. Whilst Bishop
of that see he completed the abbey at Bath, the west part of the nave of which
was still uncovered. He was now, on the death of the learned Bishop Bilson,
translated to Winchester, which was said to have been the occasion of Andrewes
being appointed a Privy Councillor to compensate in some measure for his
disappointment. "This honour was done the bishop to put him in heart upon
the distaste he had in missing the bishopric of Winchester ; but, for aught I
hear, he is yet as silent as Mr. Wake's nuncio, the new cardinal." — Chamberlain
to Sir Dudley Carleton, October 12, 1616. (Birch's Court of James /., vol. i.
p. 429.) Lloyd in his State Worthies says of Andrewes, "He did not concern
himself much with civil politics. He would say when he came to the council-
table, ' Is there anything to be done to-day for the Church ? ' If they answered
* Tea,' then he said, ' I will stay ;' if ' No,' then he said, ' I will be gone.' '»
The flippant John Chamberlain will not have our prelate to have preached at
court this Christmas, but confined to his house, " being surprised by a sudden
surfeit of pork that had almost carried him away."
draw as much as possible from all state affairs. No greater
proof could he give of his freedom from ambitious motives. It
is true that a courtier's life was in those days a dangerous
one and that was sure to make enemies ; but ambition always
calculates upon labours and adventures, and is generally of a
subtle if not intriguing nature.
On November 4th Andrewes was present at the creation
of Charles, Prince of Wales.
Our prelate's 5th of November sermon is one of the most
remarkable of that series, abounding however with pleasantries
and witticisms, well deserved indeed by those at whom they
were pointed. Irony, though forbidden by some moderns, is
confirmed by precedents from both the Old and New Testa
ment.
On December 8th Bishop Andrewes assisted at the conse
cration of the very pious and learned Dr. Arthur Lake to the
see of Bath and Wells, and that excellently devout author,
Dr. Louis Bayley, to that of Bangor.
His Christmas-day sermon, taken from the 85th Psalm,
is excellent throughout, and is probably one of the best known
of all his discourses. His personifying of the divine attributes
and the reconciling of them all in the sacrificial death of the
Lamb of God, these render this sermon as favourite an illus
tration of the doctrine of the atonement, as Hooker's cele
brated sermon from Hdbdkkuk i. 4 (The wicked doth compass
about the righteous] is of the doctrine of justification.1 This
same day Thomas Earl of Arundel, who had been educated in
the Eomish religion, and had lately travelled through Italy,
seeing that religion in all its deformity, abjured it, and
received the holy Communion in Whitehall Chapel. The
same day also Montagu, now Bishop of Winchester (upon
the death of Bilson), preached before the King ; and in the
afternoon Dr. King, Bishop of London, preached at St. Paul's ;
Buckeridge, Bishop of Eochester, also in his own church of
St. Giles', Cripplegate, was much commended.
Thomas Earl of Arundel was the son of Philip Howard,
son of the daughter of Henry Fitzalan, the eleventh and last
Earl of that surname. He, " not able to digest the wrongs
and hard measure offered unto him, by the cunning sleights
of some envious persons, fell into the toil and net pitched for
him, and being brought into extreme peril of his life, yielded
up his vital breath in the Tower. But his son Thomas, a most
honourable young man (in whom a forward spirit and fervent
love of virtue and glory most beseeming his nobility, and the
same tempered with true courtesy, shineth very apparently),
recovered his father's dignities, being restored by King James
and Parliament authority."1 Thus Holland in his edition of
Camden. Thomas was restored to his titles in 1603.
It has been remarked, probably with justice, that the great
and repeated reluctance which Elizabeth evinced, previously
to the final condemnation of his father the Duke of Norfolk in
1572, may relieve her memory of the charge of hypocrisy so
recklessly urged against her by the advocates of her rival the
Queen of Scots.
On the 1st of March, 1617, Andre wes ordained John
Amner, Bachelor of Music, Deacon at Ely Chapel, the chapel
of the noble palace of the Bishops of Ely, Holborn. Amner
was organist of Ely Cathedral and master of the choristers.
He had been admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Music at
Oxford in May 1613.2 He composed and published sacred
hymns of three, four, five, and six parts, for voices and viols.
Lond. 1615, quarto. He set the 6th Psalm, old version, as
an anthem. The words are given as the 141st anthem in
Clifford's Collection, published soon after the Eestoration.
On the 16th of March Andrewes collated his friend Jerome
Beale to the third stall in Ely Cathedral, vacant by the death
of Dr. Kobert Tinley, Prebendary and Archdeacon of Ely.
To the Archdeaconry Andrewes preferred his friend Daniel
Wigmore, who held that dignity to his death in 1646, and to
whom he had given the second stall in his cathedral in 1615.
Wigmore was also Rector of Northwold in Norfolk and Snail-
well in Cambridgeshire. He was probably of a Somersetshire
family. He purchased the manor of Little Shelford of Sir
Toby Pallavicini, and dying in 1646, was buried at Little
Shelford. One of his family, Dr. Gilbert Wigmore, was Eector
of Little Shelford after the Bestoration, and living to a great
age was Eector there in 1709.
Beale was born at Gloucester, and educated first at Christ
College, Cambridge, and on October 9, 1579, was elected to
a Fellowship at Pembroke College, being then B.A. An-
drewes on September 25, 1616, preferred him to the Vicarage
of Barton near Cambridge, and on July 13, 1615, to the
Eectory of Willingham. He was also Eector of Nuthurst
near Horsham in Sussex, probably by the favour of the same
patron. When Dr. Nicholas Felton, Bishop of Bristol and
Master of Pembroke College, was translated to the see of Ely,
Beale was elected to succeed him in the Mastership, February
21, 1619. He was amongst the most eminent scholars in his
University, in great favour with the King, who made him his
chaplain and sub-almoner, and appears as a constant corre
spondent of Isaac Vossius.1 Like Andrewes he was a great
student of patristical learning. Doublet makes honourable
mention of Beale and Balcanqual as amongst the most devoted
friends of Vossius.2 In the collection of epistles to Vossius is
one from Pembroke Hall by Beale, April 2, 1628, highly
commending Vossius's History of Pelagianism. For this
Vossius received the unbounded thanks of Laud,3 and due
acknowledgments, but with some animadversions from the
pious and learned Dr. Ward, Master of Sidney Sussex Col
lege.4 In a letter of Andrew Colvin's to Vossius, Wren,
Beale, and Creighton are memorialized as the most learned
individuals belonging at that time (1629) to the University of
Cambridge.5 Creighton succeeded George Herbert as Public
Orator, and was in his old age raised to the see of Bath and
Wells.6 Dr. Beale died in 1630, being succeeded in his
Mastership by Dr. Benjamin Laney, successively Bishop of
Peterborough, Lincoln, and Ely.
In this same month1 (March 1617) Andre wes with Dr.
Valentine Carey, Dean of St. Paul's and Master of Christ
College, Cambridge, and Laud, now Dean of Gloucester and
Chaplain to the King, attended his Majesty upon his visit to
Scotland. On Sunday March 30,2 the King being at Lincoln
attended divine service at the cathedral, being met at the great
west entrance by Andrewes, his old servant Montagu, Bishop
of Winchester, and his most humble of servants and entirely
devoted of courtiers, Dr. Neile, Bishop of Lincoln, who
preached before him. After the sermon the King (we read)
healed fifty persons of the King's evil. He dined at the
Bishop's palace, formerly one of the most elegant specimens
of both late and early Gothic in this kingdom.3 After dinner
the King went in his carroche in private to St. Catherine's.
On Tuesday April 1 Chancellor Eland preached before the
King in his chamber of presence.4
From Lincoln the King went to Newark, and thence
to Worksop, Doncaster, Pontefract, and York, where on
April 11 he attended service at the Minster. On the
12th he rode with his train to Bishopthorpe, and dined
with the aged but most sprightly and cheerful Toby Mathew,
Archbishop.1
On Sunday the 13th Dr. Mathew preached a learned
sermon before him, after which there were brought to him
seventy persons to be cured of the King's evil. This day
the King and all his court • dined with the Lord Mayor, and
after dinner knighted Sir Robert Ayscough the Lord Mayor,
and Sir Richard Hutton the Eecorder. This same year Sir
Richard was made a judge of the Common Pleas.2
On Monday the 14th the King rode to Sheriff Hutton
Park, and there knighted Sir Richard Harper of Derbyshire,
Sir John Hippisley, and Sir William Bellassis of Durham.3
On Tuesday April 15 Dr. Phinehas Hodson, of the Uni
versity of Cambridge, who had in September 1611 been made
by Toby Mathew Chancellor of York, preached before the
King at the Manor House.4 Probably it was through the
Archbishop that Dr. Hodson was either now or before Chaplain
to the King.
On Wednesday April 16 the King was entertained at
Aske Hall in the parish of Easby, the seat of Talbot Bowes,
Esq.5 On the skirts of the high country and looking down
the fertile vale of Gilling, with swelling lawns in front, and a
long sweep of rising woods beyond, Richmondshire has not
perhaps a single residence which surpasses Aske in point of
situation.
On the 17th the King was received at the palace Bishop
Auckland by Dr. William James, successor to Toby Matliew
in the see of Durham. There he spent Good Friday, and on
Saturday the 19th entered Durham. The 20th being Easter-
day Bishop Andrewes preached in the cathedral on the sign
of the prophet Jonas, with his usual ingenuity laying open
the whole scope and force of the words. First he exposed
the hypocrisy and impenitent hardheartedness of the Phari
sees, worshippers of their own imaginations, literally an
adulterous generation, contradicting themselves with a mali
cious mind in asking yet another after so many signs.
But u the worse the men, the more importune ever, and
the harder to satisfy."1 Yet Christ in his goodness gives
them a sign, and the greatest of all signs. Other prophets
had raised the dead, none had raised themselves. Christ
would compare himself to the prophet Jonah, that prophet
who was a sinner and a fugitive. He came in the simili
tude of sinful flesh, and accordingly would make sinful
flesh his similitude. Jonah was sent to the Gentiles, and
sent the first in order of time of all the sixteen, the four great,
the twelve less. So Jonah was every way a sign of salvation
to us sinners of the Gentiles. Jonah and none but he had
the honour to be a kind of expiatory sacrifice, when by his
being cast out the ship was saved. And he alone gave a type
of the resurrection. He came forth the third day by special
grace, not by the course of nature. Incomparable is our
prelate's comparison of Jonah in the whale to the security
of the state of death. " There he was, but took no hurt there.
1. As safe, nay more safe there than in the best ship of
Tharsis : no flaw of weather, no foul sea could trouble him
there. 2. As safe, and as safely carried to land: the ship
could have done no more. So that upon the matter he did
but change his vehiculum [carriage], shifted but from one
vessel to another ; went on his way still. 3. On he went, as
well, nay better than the ship would have carried him ; went
into the ship, the ship carried him wrong, out of his way clean
to Tharsisward ; went into the whale, and the whale carried him
right, landed him on the next shore to Ninive, whither in
truth he was bound, and where his errand lay. 4. And all
the while at good ease as in a cell or study, for there he
indited a psalm, expressing in it his certain hope of getting
forth again. So as in effect where he seemed to be in most
danger, he was in greatest safety. Thus can God work. And
the evening and the morning were Jonah's second day."
We may add, how great a proof is here of the faithfulness
of God's protection and the omnipotence of his providence.
What darkness should bring us into the deep of despair who
are commanded to trust in such a God, whose miracles in the
world of spirits never cease, and whose tender pity is as great
toward the meanest and poorest of his children now as once
toward the prophet Jonah? This is a sign as well for the
comfort of his children as for the conviction of his enemies.
But how triumphantly did our prelate pursue the com
parison : Jonah but given up for dead, Christ really so, taken
down from his cross, laid in, sealed up in his grave, a stone
rolled on him, a watch set over him. The whale, not Jonah,
delivered the prophet, but Christ by his own power broke
the bars of death and loosed the sorrows of hell, of which it is
impossible he should be holden. Jonas rose but to the same
state, mortal still. Christ rose never to die more. Jonas
was but cast out upon the dry land, but Christ was received
into glory. And in sign of it the place whereon Jonas was
cast was dry land or cliffs, where nothing grows. The place
wherein Christ rose was a well-watered garden, wherein the
ground was in all her glory, fresh and green and full of
flowers at the instant of his rising this time of the year.
And yet behold a greater than all these. For Jonas when
he came forth, came forth and there was all, left the whale as
he found it. Christ slew the whale that devoured him • he
was the death of death.
Our good bishop fails not towards the conclusion to teach
that lesson of faith in God's providence touched upon above,
and to speak of the great deliverance of all from the power of
Satan the spiritual Leviathan.
CHAPTER XVIII.
Page 436
The King's progress to Scotland — Whitsunday 1617 — Carey and
Laud — Grotius " Delmperio Summarum Potestatum circa Sacra"
— Felton, Bishop of Bristol.
THE King's visit to Scotland was professedly to discharge
some points of his kingly office in reforming abuses both in
the church and commonwealth. But in attempting these
changes he outran the zeal and prudence of the Scottish
Bishops, who themselves with great moderation interposed,
and prevented consequences that the Sovereign himself was
too disinclined to provide for, ever as ready to exalt his
prerogative as he was unable to maintain his claims. Hence
his visit was ineffectual, and served only to increase mutual
prejudice and aversion.
On June the 8th, being Whitsunday, Bishop Andrewes
preached before him in Holyrood chapel, saying many ad
mirable things upon our Lord's first sermon upon his com
mission; dwelling much upon the guilt of assuming the
ministry without being sent, since Christ himself went not
before he was sent ; highly commending the ancient Fathers
as those who were endued with a greater measure of the
Spirit than men in later ages (which, had he confined it to the
apostolic age, might peradventure have been true), and excel
lently unfolding the design of our Saviour's commission to
bind up the broken-hearted, to deliver us from captivity, and
to bring with him the true year of jubilee. " On this day of
salvation the sun never goes down." Our Lord's commission,
he observed, was only to them that are of a broken spirit.
Elias healed none but the poor widow of Sarepta ; Eliseus,
only Naaman after his spirit came down ; Christ, none but
such as were of a contrite spirit.
" The right hammer," he remarks, tl to break the heart is
the sight of our sins. And I will say this for it, that I never
in my life saw any man brought so low with any worldly
calamity as I have with this sight. And these I speak of
were not of the common sort, but men of spirit and valour,
that durst have looked death in the face. Yet when God
opened their eyes to see this sight their hearts were broken,
yea, even ground to powder with it, contrite indeed."
Toward the end of this sermon he notes that the " jubilee
ever began with no other sound but even of a cornet made of
the horns of a ram. Of which horns they gave no other
reason but that it was so in reference to the horns of that ram
that in the thicket was caught by the horns and sacrificed in
Isaac's stead, even as Christ was in ours, to shew that our
jubilee has relation to that special sacrifice so plainly pre
figuring that of Christ's."
On June 21 Mr. Chamberlain thus wrote to Sir Dudley
Carleton : " Our churchmen and ceremonies are not so well
allowed of, the rather by an accident that fell out at the
burial of one of the guard who died there, and was buried
after the English fashion ; and the Dean of St. Paul's [Valen
tine Carey] preaching, desired all the assembly to recommend
with him the soul of their deceased brother to Almighty God,
which was so ill taken that he was driven to retract it openly
and to confess he did it in a kind of civility rather than
according to the perfect rule of divinity. Another exception
was taken to Dr. Laud's putting on a surplice when the corpse
was to be laid in the ground.1 So that it seems they are very
averse from our customs, insomuch that one of the bishops,
Dean of the chapel2 there to the King, refused to receive the
Communion with him kneeling."
On the King's return Dr Morton, then Bishop of Chester,
preached before him at Hoghton in the hundred of Blackburn,
Lancashire, August 17. About 10 or 11 in the evening there
was a mask of noblemen, knights, gentlemen, and courtiers
before the King in the middle round in the garden of Hoghton
tower.1 Very frequent instances occur of the Sovereign's
profanation of the Lord's-day in his progresses, even in this
his tour of ecclesiastical reformation.
On August 26 Mr. Thomas Dod (uncle to the pious Non
conformist, usually called Dod the decalogist,) preached before
the King, who was so pleased with him that he made him
one of his chaplains in ordinary.2
Upon July 9 (N.S.) we find Grotius writing to Isaac
Vossius, commending to him his book De Imperio Summarum
Potestatum circa Sacra, and requesting him to shew it to
those of whom he thinks highly, especially to Bishop An-
drewes.3 The same year he wrote to Overall, referring to his
judgment his book against the Socinians, and touching at
some length upon his book De Imperio Summarum Potes
tatum, expressing at the same time his fears that it will not
be altogether satisfactory to Andrewes and others in England.
In this work he sets the authority of the chief magistrate in
religion sufficiently high, and enters with his usual learning
upon various topics relating to the discipline and government
of the Church in the earlier ages. He establishes the power
of princes in matters of religion. They have authority to
restrain and punish evil of every kind, authority over every
soul, over both clergy and laity ; he is the minister of God to
thee for good, good of every kind without limitation. He is
appointed that we may live a quiet and peaceable life, not
only in all honesty but in all godliness. For the true happi
ness of a state is that it love God and be loved of him ; that
it acknowledge him for its king, itself for his people, as
St. Austin excellently says/ who also adds, that those kings
are happy who make their power subservient to his majesty,
to the entire promotion and advancement of his worship. So
the Emperors Theodosius and Honorius in their epistle to
Marcellinus, i For we seek no other end by the toils of war,
we purpose nought else by the counsels of peace, than that
the people of our empire may with full affection observe the
true worship of God.' So Theodosius in his epistle to Cyril,
1 It is the office of the emperor to provide that his subjects
live not only peaceably but piously.' And therefore Isidore
of Pelusium saith that the same is the end both of the priest
hood and of the kingly power, namely, the salvation of their
subjects. Aristotle, reasoning only by the light of nature,
comes to a similar conclusion. But to proceed to the Scrip
tures, kings are commanded as kings, in their office, to observe
the whole law of God, to serve the Lord, to salute his
Christ. As St. Augustine saith, ' Kings then fulfil the divine
command when they enjoin good and forbid evil, not only in
its relation to human society but also to true religion.'2 And
Isidore of Seville, * Let the princes of this world know that
they must render an account to God for the Church which is
entrusted by Christ to their protection. For whether the
peace and order of the Church be strengthened by faithful
princes, or whether it be brought to nought, he demands of
them an account who hath committed the Church to their
power.3 With regard to the practice of the Church, the
ecclesiastical historian Socrates has summed it up in those
words of his, ' From the time that the emperors became Chris
tian all ecclesiastical affairs depended upon their authority.'4
Constantine is called on an old inscription the patron of
religion and of the faith. The Emperor Basil, calling the
Church the ship universal, saith that the guidance of it is by
God entrusted to him. And so in the epistle to Lucius,
ascribed to Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome, the king is called
ecclesiastically the Vicar of God. To this doctrine agreed
the reformed Confessions of Belgium, of Switzerland, of Basle ;
to this the Church of England, to this the writings of
Musculus, Bucer, Jewel, Whitaker, Rainolds, and more lately
of King James, of Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, of Burhill, Tooker,
Casaubon, and Paroeus. The same was asserted in the volu
minous works of Melchior Goldastus.
Again, the very nature of religion, which inclines men to
peace, obedience, the true love of their country, and of justice
and equity, commends it to princes as a fit object of their care
and protection. The very enemies of Christianity have testified
to its great moral efficacy, and to the purity of its precepts.
Add to this, that doctrine and worship themselves have no
small influence upon the manners and happiness of mankind.
This is obvious in the doctrine, for instance, of the spirituality
of the divine nature. From the all-seeing presence of God it
follows at once that we should do nothing offensive to him.
From the fulness of his knowledge and prescience flows this
consolation, that nothing can happen to the good but for their
good. Nor said Plato without cause that it was not to be
endured that any should teach that God was the author of
evil actions. Had Silius Italicus, instead of
Heu primse scelcrum causse mortalibus segris
Naturam nescire Deum,
written Dei, he had written truly enough.
Amongst inferior reasons for the ecclesiastical supremacy
of the civil power may be placed the great influence of the
priesthood, and the danger of the more ambitious part of
them. Curtius himself bears witness that the multitude will
sooner follow their priests than their generals. Add to this,
that all changes in religion, if not by general consent and
manifestly for the better, are always dangerous to the state. For
these two last reasons even those confess that the actions of
the priesthood should be subjected to the supreme power, who
deny such subjection where inconsistent with the due exercise
of their spiritual function. So John Paris, Francis Victoria,
and Roger Widdrington.1
In the second chapter he gives the history of the union and
disjunction of the spiritual and civil power, and shews that they
are not naturally opposed, but were for a long time joined in
the same person, as in the patriarchal age, but severed both
under the Mosaic and Christian dispensations. This however
he would so restrict as that it should not be understood that
every business of a secular kind is inconsistent with the exercise
of the spiritual function. On the other hand, the Christian
Emperors took to themselves ecclesiastical titles, not assuming
them officially but in a wider sense, to signify their general
overseership and care of the Church.
In the third chapter he considers the power of the civil
magistrate to oblige, and to what actions it extends ; also of
the lawfulness and unlawfulness of resistance. Passive obe
dience is due where the chief magistrate is neither bound by
law nor created by it ; so the Roman Emperors were obeyed .
by the early Christians • so David did not lift up his hand
against Saul, who, though a tyrant, was a king by a positive
and unconditional ordinance. But where the chief magistrate
is rather primus than summus, the first not the absolute head,
the nobles may, upon just cause, take up arms against him.2
He then condemns the doctrine that the chief magistrate
may make laws in opposition to the Word of God, a necessary
error of those who would mould all institutions anew upon the
principle that wealth alone is to legislate, wealth alone to be
had in honour, wealth to draw all things to itself.
So the civil magistrate cannot lawfully forbid preaching
and the administration of the sacraments, or alter the divinely
instituted form or substance of the sacraments, or the law of
marriage, or innovate, that is, make new articles of faith, or
essentially new kinds of worship, or new sacraments. But
his power does extend to the circumstantials of religion, as to
the age that shall qualify for the episcopate, the laws relating
to residence and non-residence ; also that the priest shall utter
the canon of baptism and of the holy Communion with an
audible voice, &c. He may also take away whatsoever
ministers occasion to the violation of God's commandments.
So Hezekah removed the high places and ground to powder
the brazen serpent. So Josiah abolished idolatry and the
idolatrous priesthood. So the Christian Emperors shut up the
Pagan shrines and temples. He may also punish profane-
ness, as Nebuchadnezzar ordered those to be punished who
should speak against the God of the Hebrews.1 So too
Grotius decides against the Puritans that the laws of the civil
magistrate can bind in all things not contrary to Scripture, and
make that binding which before was not so. This he ratifies
by the Augustan and Bohemian Confessions.2 These positions
he defends against objectors, and further explains in the
three following chapters, after which he proceeds to treat of
the history, origin, and limits of the power of Councils.
In his ninth chapter he gives his opinion upon absolution
and the power of the keys, and denies that the acts concerning
them are properly acts of jurisdiction. He follows Peter
Lombard,3 who defines the power of absolution to be the
power of shewing to men that they are, or declaring that they
are, bound or loosed, as the priest pronounced who were
leprous and who free from the leprosy.4 He adduces Cyprian,
Ambrose, and Augustine.5 The same appears to be the
doctrine of Jewel in the early part of his Apology. On the
history of absolution let me refer my reader to the 24th
chapter in Field's Appendix to the third book Of the Church,
and to the ninth book of Forbes' Instructiones Historico-
Theologicce.
In his tenth chapter he treats of the election of pastors,
and here he regards the Apostles themselves as presbyters.
In the eleventh chapter he discusses at large the name and
office of the bishop, pleading for its apostolic origin, but
denying it to be of divine right, since many appointments
were equally apostolical for which no such high distinction is
claimed. He shews that episcopacy cannot be repugnant to
Scripture, from the 12th chapter of the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, God appointed in the Church first apostles,
secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers. So it is plain that
distinction and disparity of ranks is not antichristian. And
here he affirms that he truly follows Zanchius, Chemnitz,
Hemmingius, Calvin, Melancthon, Bucer, and Beza. Jerome
he treats more fairly than does Saravia, who with much
special pleading endeavours to disprove that Father entirely
in his celebrated Epistle to Evagrius. He says truly enough,
that when the Fathers speak of custom they do not exclude
apostolical institution. So Augustine, i Whatsoever the whole
Church observes, and that though not set up by Councils, has
been always retained, is most rightly believed to have been de
livered by no other than apostolical authority.'1 Epiphanius
himself attests that some places were suffered to remain with
out bishops, but adds that in such places none could be found
worthy of the episcopate. Even in the case of ordination the
concurrence and cooperation of presbyters were required.2
^ Meanwhile," observes Grotius, u I see not how it can be
refuted that where there are no bishops, ordination may be
validly conferred by a presbyter, as William of Auxerre, the
school divine, has long since admitted."3 He proceeds to
vindicate the foreign churches who did not perpetuate epis
copacy, and treats also fully of lay elders, proving, as in the
case of bishops, that they are not of divine right, but that
they are not contrary to the Holy Scriptures. This work was
translated in 1651.
In a letter from John Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carleton,
dated October 31, Chamberlain states that on the receipt of
Sir Dudley Carleton's letter of the 19th, he went to Bishop
Andrewes, who received him with great kindness, and expos
tulated with him for the very long interval which he had
suffered to elapse without seeing him. He delivered him Sir
Dudley's proposition, " and withal upon long conference
something you had written touching the Arminians counte
nancing themselves with some of his letters. Whereupon he
fell into a long speech of a writing that the Archbishop
Whitgift had got from him in some parts of that argument,
and that he knows not what became of it, for he never gave
a copy of it, but only one to Mr. Hooker, who promised to
return it, but never did. But he expressed not all the while
which opinion he inclined to, but still insisted if they had any
writing of his they should shew it ; concluding that I should
assure you that they have no letter of his, and with that
vehemency that he would give me leave to send you his head
in a platter if they could shew any letter of his. He told
me further that Grotius when he was here dined once with
him, and supped another time ; but other communication than
passed at table he had none with him, though he under
stands since that he gave out and fathered many things
upon him that were neither so nor so. Surely he hath a
wonderful memory, for he not only calls to mind any matter
that passed at any time, but the very time, place, persons,
and all other circumstances, which seemed strange to me in a
discourse of almost two hours."1
On the 5th of November Andrewes preached before the
King at Whitehall Chapel on Luke i. 74, 75. He in this
sermon reminded his hearers of our memorable national
deliverance in 1588. His wit remarkably discovers itself
throughout this discourse as a holy ingenuity, full of practical
point. He speaks much of reverence in worship. But let it
be remembered to the credit of Laud, that he first broke off
the custom of breaking off the prayers for the sermon upon
the King's coming into the chapel.
On the 30th of November Bishop Andrewes collated his
brother Roger to the fourth stall in Ely Cathedral, which he
held till his death in 1635. He was then succeeded in his
stall by John Harris, M.A., Rector of Passenham on the
borders of Northamptonshire, near Stony Stratford.
The Dean of Ely at this time was Dr. Henry, son of Dr.
Julius Caesar, brother of Sir Julius Caesar, Master of the
Rolls, and son of Julius, physician to Queens Mary and
Elizabeth, a most munificent benefactor to Jesus College,
Cambridge, although himself of the University of Oxford.
The other prebendaries were Dr. John Boys, one of the
translators of the Bible, Eector of Boxworth, who had been
preferred by Andrewes himself; Daniel Wigmore, Arch
deacon of Ely, another of the Bishop's friends ; Jerome Beale,
also in the enjoyment of the same honour; the learned and
pious Andrew Willet, whose works have fallen into undeserved
neglect. He was as a Biblical scholar not inferior to any of
his contemporaries ; his life in Fuller's Abel Redivivus was
written by his son-in-law Dr. Peter Smith of King's College,
Cambridge. John Hills, B.D., Master of Catharine Hall,
Cambridge, Archdeacon of Lincoln, his patron being Bishop
Barlow, Eector of Fulbourn All Saints, the place of his nativity.
He was buried at Horsheath near Newmarket September
1626. He had been raised to the Mastership of Catharine
Hall from a Fellowship at Jesus College. Dr. John Duport,
Master of Jesus College, Precentor of St. Paul's, Vicar of
Fulham, Middlesex, and Eector of Bosworth and Medbourn
in his native county of Leicester ; and lastly, Dr. James
Taylor, Eector of Westmill, Hertfordshire, where he was
buried. He died March 19, 1624.
Our prelate on the 5th of December joined in a letter to
the King respecting the retrenchment of his expenses.1
Upon December 14th Andrewes, with Dr. King, Bishop of
London, Buckeridge, Bishop of Eochester, Marc Antony de
Dominis, late Archbishop of Spalatro, and Overall, Bishop of
Lichfield and Coventry, assisted Abbot at the consecration of
Dr. George Montagu to the see of Lincoln, and of Andrewes7
most worthy, learned, and upright friend Dr. Nicholas Felton,2
Master of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, to the see of Bristol.
There he succeeded Dr. John Thornborough, who had but
a contentious and disturbed rule in that see. He was now,
on the death of that eminent prelate Dr. Parry, translated to
Worcester.
Dr. George Montagu was bom at Cawood in Yorkshire,
north-west of Selby, and educated at Queens' College, Cam-
bridge, was Lecturer in Gresham College, Master of the
Savoy, Rector of Great Cressingham, Norfolk, January 25,
1603, on the presentation of Lord Keeper Egerton, and
November 22, 1609, Eector of Cheam on the presentation of
the King. He succeeded Neile as Dean of Westminster
December 10, 1610. He resigned this Deanry upon this his
consecration to the see of Lincoln, and was succeeded in it
by Dr. Thomas Fuller's uncle, Dr. Eobert Townson, who was
born in Cambridge and educated also at Queens' College in
that University. He was translated to London July 20,
1621, on the death of Bishop King, and to Durham early in
1628 on the promotion of Neile to Winchester, and a few
months afterward to York. He was succeeded at Durham by
Howson. He was elected to York June 26th, was enthroned
October 24th, and dying (probably 6th of November) that
same year, was buried in Cawood Church. Hugh Holland
wrote an epitaph upon him. His tomb is in the chancel with
his bust in his lawn sleeves. He was succeeded at York by
Harsnet, Bishop of Norwich.
Of Dr. Felton the reader may find several notices in my
Memorials of Dr. Thomas Fuller.1 He was the son of a
merchant of Yarmouth. He was B.A. of Pembroke Hall,
Cambridge, 1580, and was elected to a Fellowship, M.A. 1581,
B.D. 1591, Eector of St. Antholin's and St. Mary-le-Bow,
London, and of Great Easton near Dunmow in Essex, and of
Blagden or Blagdon near Bristol, Somersetshire, Prebendary
of St. Paul's, London, 4th March, 1616. On the translation
of Andrewes to Winchester Felton was removed from the see
of Bristol to that of Ely, being elected March 2nd, 1619, and
confirmed March llth. He died October 5th, 1626, and was
buried under the Communion-table in the chancel of St.
Antholin's, London, without any memorial. At Ely he was
succeeded by Dr. John Buckeridge, Bishop of Eochester.
He was a prelate of eminent piety and integrity, and of no
less learning, for which he was appointed one of the trans
lators of the Bible. " He had," says Fuller in his Church
History? " a sound head and a sanctified heart, was beloved
of God and all good men, very hospitable to all and charitable
to the poor." Andrewes assisted in procuring for him the
Mastership of Pembroke Hall, which he held from 1616 to
1619.
In the course of this year appeared Epphata to F. T.
(Thomas Fitzherbert, mentioned under 1613) ; or, the Defence
of the Right Reverend Father in God the Lord Bishop of
Elie, Lord High Almoner and Privy Councillor to the King's
most excellent Majestic. Concerning his Answer to Cardinal
Bellarmine's Apologie : against the slanderous cavils of a
nameless Adjoinder ; entitling his book in every page of it,
A Discoverie of many foule absurdities, falsities, lies, &c.,
wherein these things chiefly are discussed (besides many other
incident) :
1. The Pope's false Primacie claiming by Peter.
2. Invocation of Saints, with Worship of Creatures and
Faith in them.
3. The Supremacie of Kings both in Temporal and
Ecclesiastical Matters and Causes, over all States and
Persons, &c., within their Realms and Dominions.
By Dr. Collins, Chapleine to His Majestic. Apoc. xviii. 7.
Give her torture (an allusion to the title of the Bishop's book,
Tortura Torti}. Printed by Cantrell Legge, Printer to the
University of Cambridge, 1617. This work was, for abun
dance of learning, force of argument, and felicity of illustration
and application, not unworthy the great reputation of its
author, who was accounted one of the most learned theologians
and scholars of his age, and who at school had given early
promise of the ability which distinguished him at the Uni
versity. He was a constant guest at Buckden at the table
of the munificent and hospitable Williams, with Dr. Samuel
Ward and Dr. Brownrigg, afterwards Bishop of Exeter. He
was born at Eton, where he was also educated ; was from a
Fellowship raised to the Provostship j^f King's College 1615,
succeeded Dr. Richardson, Master of Trinity College, as
Regius Professor of Divinity 1617, and was, on the death of
Dr. Duport, Master of Jesus College, Cambridge, collated by
Bishop Andrewes to the seventh stall at Ely February 9th,
1618. He was deprived in 1644, and died, aged 75, Sep
tember 16th, 1651, and was buried in King's College chapel.
He fully exposes the weakness, incompetence, and sophistry
of Fitzherbert. This elaborate work is one of many proofs
how valuable is the study of the Fathers to those who have
sufficient learning to profit from them, and how dangerous it
is merely to dabble in them, as Fitzherbert appears to have
done. But in truth we need never look into the writings of
those who adhere to Kome for right views of the Fathers.
Their learned men are fully aware that the Fathers often and
in many things make against them. Hence we find the
theory of development anticipated by Bishop Fisher.
As some in our own time have done, so Fitzherbert caught
at Andrewes' words, that Christ is to be adored in and with
the sacrament. "The Bishop grants that Christ is to be
worshipped, and that he is to be worshipped in the sacrament,
which he infallibly accompanieth, and effectually assisteth :
ergo, with you he is a Pontifician, and maintaineth your cause,
and letrayeth his own. No such thing, gentle sir. To make
him yours, more goes to it than so. Especially these two,
corporal presence, and transubstantiation or conversion. These
are the two main badges or rather buttresses of your Cyclops,
neither of which is to be found in the Bishop's writing, and
God knows is far off from his belief." " Though again, when
we say that Christ is in the sacrament (because we would not
be mistaken), we say not that he is there after a corporal
manner : nay, that your own Captain and Cardinal dis-
claimeth, corporaliter esse Christum in Sacramento; but we
say not so much as that his flesh is there, or his body there at
all, not only after a bodily or fleshly manner. Christus, saith
St. Leo, quadragesimo post resurrectionem die, coram dis-
cipulis elevatus in coelum, corporalis praesentise modum fecit,
&c. Christ made a period of his bodily presence, being lifted
up into heaven before^he face of his disciples the fortieth
day after his resurrection. And St. Austin, out of those words,
Matt, xxvi., Non semper habebitis me vobiscum, with other
like in St. John xii., resolves it plainly that secundum carnem
non semper, according to the flesh he is not always with
us. (Tract. 109 in Joh.) It were not hard to produce divers
more to the same purpose. Yea, si esset in terra, non esset
sacerdos. (Heb. viii.) If Christ were on the earth, he could be
no priest, &c. So as you destroy his priesthood, while you
stand for such presence, to commend your sacrifice. I say,
therefore, neither bodily nor in body at all." The contrary
to this is insisted upon by the late Archdeacon Wilberforce
in his work upon the Eucharist ; and accordingly whilst he
affixes a literal, Dr. Collins gives a more just and reasonable
interpretation to Cyril's Catecheses, where the author of that
uncertain book touches upon the Eucharist. For Rivet did
not without reason call the authorship of the Catecheses in
question.1 In a note Dr. Collins ridicules those who make
Christ's body to be a figure of itself in the Sacrament.2
Collins was, besides his other preferments, Eector of
Braintree, Essex, February 15, 1611, and of Fen Ditton
in 1643. He was ejected thence by the Earl of Manchester.
He had declined the see of Bristol. He was the son of Master
Baldwin Collins, whom the Queen for his piety used to call
Father Collins.
Dr. Collins quotes that most admirable passage from St.
Augustine, in which he limits adoration to him who is the
source of our felicity, thus shutting out at once every kind of
worship besides, whether addressed to men or angels : u Solus
ille colendus est, quo solo fruens, beatus fit cultor ejus, et quo
solo non fruens, omnis mens misera est, etsi qualibet re alia"
perfruatur." (Contra Faustum Manichceum, lib. xx. c. 5.3)
" He alone is to be adored by the enjoyment of whom alone
the worshipper is made happy, and without the enjoyment of
whom alone the mind is miserable, whatsoever else it may
enjoy."
Dr. Collins defends the imputation of our Saviour's
righteousness to us (p. 376), and quotes St. Jerome; and,
on the other hand, for the imputation of the sin of Adam,
St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio in Baptism., that Adam's
eating the forbidden fruit was so ours, that of itself it was
enough to condemn us.
He speaks of regeneration as including the whole life
of a Christian ; we are regenerating here all the time of
our life. (p. 377.) He applies the 7th chapter of the Epistle
to the Komans to the regenerate, as did St. Augustine, and as
Bishop Andrewes also did in his Boole of Devotions, p. 379.
Dr. Collins defends Calvin, who says that Christ bade his
disciples receive^ not adore the sacrament. Calvin would
have us refrain from worshipping the sacrament of the Eu
charist for safety's sake : " Quia non tutum. Nam ut Christum
illic rite apprehendant pise animae, in ccelum erigantur necesse
est." (Instit. lib. iv. c. 17, § 36.) "It is not safe; for that
the faithful may duly apprehend Christ in that sacrament,
it is requisite that their minds should be lifted up to heaven."
Dr. Collins observes that St. Augustine and St. Ambrose
interpreted the footstool of God — the earth is my footstool,
Isa. Ixvi. 1, of our Lord's human nature. So Augustine on
Psa. xcviii. (Psa. xcix.), where he is careful not to be mis
understood, as though he intended the presence of Christ
bodily in the Eucharist, as the sequel clearly demonstrates.
CHAPTER XIX.
Page 451
Andrewes and Grotius, 1618 — Condemnation of Trash — Peter du
Moulin — Dr. Preston — Andrewes translated to Winchester —
Christmas 1619 — The King at Farnham 1620 — Consecration of
St. Mary's Chapel near Southampton — Tilenus.
WE find Chamberlain again with Andrewes in February.
He wrote to Sir Dudley Carleton on the 14th: " I made an
errand to Ely House to have shewn the Bishop the Pope's
determination 'twixt the Franciscans and Jacobins, if he had
not seen it ; as likewise what you wrote concerning Grotius
to make him more wary hereafter, though, for aught I ever
heard, he hath used caution enough that way ; but he was at
Lambeth." He found him at home a few days after, and he
informed Chamberlain "that he had had letters lately, and
that before Christmas one came to him for an answer; but
being presently to preach at court, and not finding himself
well at ease, he made his excuse. But I perceived by this
that he holds him for a very learned and able man : yet I doubt
not but this little conference will serve him for a caveat
hereafter. I lent him the Pope's determination 'twixt the
Franciscans and Jacobins, and the censure of the Sorbonists
upon the Archbishop of Spalatro's books, which I met with all
by chance, none of which he had, or had seen."1
Our prelate preaching before the King at Whitehall on
April 5, Easter-day, 1618, prefaced his sermon with a suitable
application of his text, 1 Cor. xi. 16 : But if any man seem
to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches
of God, to the question of the authority of the Church in
things ceremonial.1 This passage is similarly applied by
the learned Dr. John Forbes in his Theologia Moralis, who
quotes Calvin upon it.2 Andrewes proceeds to the conditions
to be regarded in the putting forth of Church authority, that
all customs be agreeable to the general custom of the Church :
especially is a custom to be commended if it be ancient and
from the Apostles.
The third part of this sermon is a learned dissertation upon
the various computations of the time of Easter in the first
four centuries, and a reference to many patristic testimonies
of the observance of the festival. That the Apostles them
selves instituted this festival he maintains on the ground of
St. Augustine's often quoted and but too often misapplied
assertion : For such things as come to us not ly writing, but
by practise (and yet such as are observed quite through the
world], we are given to understand they were commended to
us, and were instituted either by the Apostles themselves, or by
General Councils, whose authority hath ever been accounted of
as wholesome in the Church. " Now," adds Andrewes, " what
be those things so generally observed toto orbe terrarum?
These: that the passion, the resurrection, the ascension of
Christ , and the coming of the Holy Ghost from heaven, anni-
versaria solemnitate celebrantur, are yearly in solemn manner
celebrated. And, saith he" [St. Augustine], " if there be any
beside these : for these are most clear."
When we call to mind that the Apostles would, by the
Passover and the Day of Pentecost, be annually led back to
the still more wonderful events which endeared those seasons
to their hearts, we may well conjecture that from the very
earliest they annually commemorated at those seasons the
sufferings and the resurrection of Christ, and the descent of
the Holy Ghost.
His Whitsunday sermon, May 24th, preached before the
King at Greenwich from Acts ii. 7, is not one of the most
felicitous of his discourses. He observes the tendency of the
age to turn religion into an auricular profession; but whilst
the whole is upon the effusion of the Spirit, it is not a pouring
forth worthy of the occasion. But one comparison there is in
it, which would have sufficed for a sermon of itself ; when he
remarks that as copious as was the effusion of Christ's blood,
so copious was the effusion of the Spirit, " He as liberal of
his grace , as Christ of his blood."1
Andrewes appears to have been nominated to the see of
Winchester on the ver y day of the decease of Bishop Montague
at Greenwich, 20th July, 1618. The conge d'elire for his
election is dated 29th July, 1618.
But a short time before he was, on June 23rd, put in
commission for banishing Jesuits, Seminary Priests, &c.2
This year, 1618, the King appointed Drs. Carleton, Hall,
Davenant, and Ward to represent the English Church at the
Synod of Dort.3 George Carleton was born at Norham in
Northumberland, and was educated by the famous Bernard
Gilpin, the apostle of the North, (whose zeal was emulated by
the indefatigable Edmund Bunney, of an eminent family from
the village of Bunney in Nottinghamshire, B.D., and Fellow
of Merton College, Oxford, and Prebendary of St. Paul's, of
York and Carlisle, and Kector of Bolton Percy4). He first
went to St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, and thence to Merton
College, of which he was chosen a Fellow. He was made
D.D. 1613. He held the stall of St. Dubritius in the church
of Llandaff, previously to his being appointed to the bishopric.
He was consecrated to that see a few months before he wrent
to Dort, namely, July 12, 1618, at Lambeth. Abbot was
assisted on this occasion by Dr. John King, Bishop of London,
Dr. John Buckeridge, Bishop of Eochester, Dr. John Overall,
Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and Dr. George Monteigne,
Bishop of Lincoln. Dr. Joseph Hall of Emmanuel College,
Cambridge, was at this time Dean of Worcester and Arch
deacon of Nottingham. The latter dignity he received on the
promotion of Dr. King, Dean of Christ Church, to the see of
London in 1611, and his Deamy to the promotion of that other
equally noble and illustrious divine Dr. Arthur Lake to the
see of Bath and Wells in 1616. Dr. Samuel Ward was at
this time Master of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, Rector
of Much Munden, between Ware and Buntingford, Arch
deacon of Taunton, and Prebendary of Ampleforth in the church
of York. In 1622 he succeeded Bishop Davenant at Cam
bridge as Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity. Dr. John
Davenant, uncle to the celebrated Dr. Thomas Fuller, was of
a wealthy London family, had been for a short time Vicar
of Oakington near Cambridge,1 received his education at
Queens' College, Cambridge, and was appointed President
of Queens' College 1614, on the death of Dr. Humphrey
Tindall, Dean of Ely, having been Lady Margaret's Divinity
Professor from 1609. He was in 1622 made Bishop of
Salisbury, and Carleton was in 1619 translated from LlandafF
to Chichester. Ward, Davenant, Hall, and Carleton had an
interview with King James at Newmarket previously to their
departure for Dort. Andrewes was probably with the King
at the same time, when his commissary came to Newmarket
to lay a complaint against the celebrated preacher Dr. Preston,
at this time a Fellow of Queens' College. Ward and Davenant
were again summoned to the royal presence at Royston on
the 8th of October, " where," says Fuller in his Church
History? il his Majesty vouchsafed his familiar discourse unto
them for two hours together, commanding them to sit down
by him, and at last dismissed them with his solemn prayer
that God would bless their endeavours, which made them
cheerfully to depart his presence."
On October 16th Andrewes admitted Edmund (or Edward3)
White, M.A., to be his domestic chaplain.4 He had been
admitted as a sizar at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, in
1605, was B.A. 1609, M.A. 1612.
On November 5th our prelate preached before the King at
Whitehall from Esther ix. 31 : To confirm these days of Purim,
according to their seasons, &c. Comparing the plot to that
of Haman, he observed, tl Haman was to the Jews a stranger
in nation, for he was an Agagite : a stranger in religion, for
he was an heathen man. Ours were no strangers in nation,
the same nation that we. No Turks or infidels, but professing
the same Christ that we j and better than we, say they, for
right Catholics they ; and not Christians, but (which is more
than Christians) Jesuits some of them."1
On the 10th of December Walter Balcanqual, B.D., Fellow
of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, was also sent over as in the
name of the Church of Scotland. On the 8th of March, 1625,
he was installed Dean of Rochester on the promotion of Dr.
Goodman to the see of Gloucester, but about three weeks
before the death of King James. On the 13th of May, 1639,
he was installed Dean of Durham. The same cause was
forwarded at home by Archbishop Abbot, who joined with Sir
Henry Savile in publishing Bradwardine's Causa Dei.
Dr. Hall returning home on account of ill health, Dr.
Thomas Goade was sent over to supply his place. In the late
Mr. Carwithen's History of the Church of England, Goade
is thus depreciated : " Goade, a chaplain of Abbot, of whom
nothing more can be said than that he was ready to join in
any measure which might be adopted against the Remon
strants."2 Goade was the learned son of a learned father, who
when Provost of King's College discerned the talent of Dr.
Collins, and pointed him out as his successor. This came to
pass five years after his death, two Provosts succeeding in the
interim, Dr. Fogge Newton, Rector of Kingston near Cam
bridge, where he lies buried, and Dr. William Smyth, one of
King James's Chaplains, who from his Fellowship at King's
College was chosen Master of Clare Hall in 1598, and thence
raised to the Provostship of King's College in 1612, on the
death of Dr. Newton. Goade was in the time of Bishop
King made Precentor of St. Paul's February 16, 1618,
Prebendary of the tenth stall at Winchester August 25, 1621,
Proctor of his University in 1629, and Professor of Civil Law.
in 1635. If he was ejected he was probably restored. His
successor in the Professorship was not appointed until 1666.
At the Synod of Dort met not only the divines of Holland
with those sent from England, but also from the Palatinate,
from Hesse, from Switzerland, from Herborn in Nassau, from
Bremen, Emden, and Geneva. The French Protestant divines
were not suffered to attend, the King being displeased with
the Dutch for their noncompliance with his intercession in
behalf of Barneveldt, and other political reasons.1 It was
found that not a few favourers of Socinianism concealed their
errors under colour of anti-Predestinarianism ; and this the
Lutheran historian Weismann confesses was the principal
cause of the great hostility of the Predestinarian divines to the
Remonstrants.2
The canons of the Synod of Dort have recently been
republished in Niemeyer's Collectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis
Reformatis publicatarum. Leipz. 1840.
In the course of this year Andrewes delivered his speech
in the Star Chamber against that unstable and fanatical
person John Traske. His speech was a confutation of
Traske's two judaical points, namely, that we should abstain
from all the forbidden meats enumerated in Leviticus, and
that we should observe the Jewish Sabbath or Saturday.
Some few there are still in our own country and in America
who appear to have inherited his perverseness in the latter
particular. In 1620 he put forth a recantation, entitled A
Treatise of Liberty from Jadaism, or an Acknowledgment of
true Christian Liberty , indited and published by John Traske;
of late stumbled, now happily running again in the Race
of Christianity. Bishop Andrewes himself, we have before
seen, acknowledged the moral nature and obligation of the
Lord's-day ; and so in the recantation of Traske we read, ' A
new spiritual service we are to yield. And that a Sabbath-
day we do still acknowledge, it is by virtue of the command
ment itself, as far as it is moral.'
Andrewes began his speech thus : " It is a good work
to make a Jew a Christian ; but to make Christian men Jews
hath ever been holden a foul act, and severely to be punished."
Respecting the distinction of meats he cites our Saviour's
words, that there is nothing that goeth into the mouth that
defileth a man. And he adds, " This is our ground : Sermo
Christi omnes cibos mundanSj saith Gregory Thaumaturgus
more than 1300 years since."1
He proceeds to observe that the distinction of clean and
unclean was only appointed for the Jews. He passes over
the distinction of clean and unclean in Genesis viii. 20,
probably because it was made with a view to the law of
sacrifice. He alleges not only the ceremonial nature of the
prohibition which proved that it was not a part of the moral
and eternal law, but of the law of ordinances, which was in
its own nature temporary, but the vision related in the tenth
chapter of the Acts. He observes that this distinction was
not insisted on in the fifteenth chapter. He observes from
St. Augustine that the prohibition of eating the blood was, in
like manner, but for a time.2
In his remarks on the Sabbath he, in alleging St. Atha-
nasius, attributes to him the Creed called after his name.
Dr. Waterland refers the composition of this Creed to Hilary,
Archbishop of Aries, about A.D. 430 ; Alt, in his Christliche
Cultus* ascribes it to Vigilius of Thapsus (on the coast of
the province of Byzacium or Byzacena below Carthage), about
A.D. 460.
In November commenced his correspondence with Peter
du Moulin, who on the death of Bilson betook himself to the
patronage of Andrewes, it being well known that the King
had destined him to the vacant see. Du Moulin (although, in
a work intended to answer the Jesuit Arnold, he had owned
the very rise and prevalence of episcopacy, and had highly
complimented the English prelacy,) had given offence by
affirming that in the New Testament the names bishop and
presbyter were interchanged ; that the order of bishop and
presbyter was but one and the same ; and that episcopacy was
not of divine right, meaning thereby that it was not of
indispensable obligation. The first of these three Andrewes
admitted, but complained that Du Moulin had not guarded
against the ill inferences that some might draw from it. For
the second and third he contended, admitting however that
episcopacy was not so of divine right as to be essential to
the being of a Church or to the salvation of any Christian
community. Du Moulin took the same ground with Grotius,
and both agree in witnessing that theirs was the opinion of all
the reformed Churches abroad.
Not long before Bishop Andrewes was translated to
Winchester, there appears to have been no small commotion
in the University from the popularity of the celebrated
Puritan Preston, then a Fellow of Queens' College. Fuller
thus warily (to use his own words) expresses himself hereupon
in his History of the University of Cambridge : " Master John
Preston, Fellow of Queens', suspected for inclination to non
conformity, intended to preach in the afternoon (St. Mary's
sermon being ended) in St. Botolph's Church. But Dr.
Newcombe, Commissary to the Chancellor of Ely, offended by
the pressing of the people, enjoined that service should be
said without sermon. In opposition whereunto a sermon was
made without service, whence large complaints to Lancelot
Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, and in fine to the King himself.
Hereupon Mr. Preston was enjoined to make what his foes
called a recantation, his friends a declaration sermon ; therein
so warily expressing his allowance of the Liturgy and set
forms of prayer, that he neither displeased his own party nor
gave his enemies any great advantage."1
This incident is related much more circumstantially in
Clark's Lives of Thirty -two English Divines / but both he
and Fuller place it under the Vice-Chancellorship of Dr.
Scott, Master of Clare Hall, before whose Vice-Chancellorship
Andrewes was translated to the see of Winchester ; in which
case Dr. Newcombe would not have brought a complaint
before him. According to Clark, Dr. Newcombe seeing the
crowd, commanded that only evening prayer should be read,
and no sermon preached. The incumbent entreated that for
that time Preston might be suffered to preach, as did the Earl
of Lincoln and others present. But the Commissary refused
his permission, and went home with his family. However
Preston preached from 2 Peter iii. 17, 18. There was so
much time spent in debates and messages before the Com
missary left the church, that the prayers were omitted, that so
the scholars might depart in time for their College services.
This furnishing the Commissary with farther ground of
complaint, he went the next day to the court at Newmarket
where the Bishop also was. Upon complaint made to the
King, a letter was directed to the Vice-Chancellor (Dr. Scott,
who however was not then Vice-Chancellor,) and to the other
heads to call Preston before them. He appealed to Andrewes,
and offered himself to undergo an examination by Andrewes
if he was in any way suspected of disaffection to the established
order. On Andrewes objecting to him his dislike of the Liturgy,
he replied that it was a slander of his enemies, for he thought
set forms of prayer lawful, and refused not on all occasions to
be present at prayers in College, and to read them in his turn.
The Bishop answered that he was glad, and would inform the
King, and do him all the good he could, and bade him wait
awhile, and return to him. But time passed on, and nothing
further was done. Dr. Young, " an honest Scotchman," Dean
of Winchester, told Preston plainly that the Bishop was his
greatest adversary, and desirous of his expulsion, but to save the
odium, as desirous that this should be left to the University.
Preston then waited upon Andrewes, calling upon him at once
to say what he would do, and whether he would stir in his
behalf or no. The Bishop upon this bade him come again,
and said that he would deal with the King in his behalf.
The Bishop is said to have gone to the King, and to have
advised that the harsher course should be dropped, and
Preston enjoined to deliver his opinion at St. Botolph's the
next Sunday on set forms of prayer. He the next Sunday
preached accordingly, commending as well private extem
poraneous prayer as public set forms of devotion. And there
this affair ended. We are not bound to believe that Andrewes
dissembled, as Clark represents him to have done.1
Dr. Young, Dean of Winchester, was brother of the learned
Patrick Young, who leaving Scotland was made a Chaplain
of New College, and otherwise preferred. He was an excellent
classical scholar, and translated the King's works into Latin.
His brother the Dean did not attain such celebrity, but besides
his Deanry he was appointed to the prebendal stall of Riccall
in the church of York April 30, 1613, in the place of Dr.
Henry Banks, who was appointed to the Precentorship. He
died some time after, 1642.
" On November 26th, upon report made to the Lords of
the Council by Sir Clement Edmunds, it was ordered by their
lordships that the Earl of Arundel, Dr. Andrewes, Bishop
of Winchester, the Lord Carew, Mr. Treasurer, and Mr.
Comptroller of his Majesty's Household, Mr. Chancellor of
the Exchequer, the Master of the Rolls, and Mr. Edward
Coke, or any four of them, should take consideration of the
state of the business, &c. \_i. e. of the drainage of the fens],
and prepare some opinion to be delivered to the board, of
what present course might be fit to be taken therein. The
Earl of Arundel made a journey to the fens, and treaty with
Sir William Ayloff, Knight, and Antony Thomas, Esq., and
others. They undertook to drain all the fens in Cambridge
shire, the Isle of Ely, Norfolk, Suffolk, Lincolnshire, North
amptonshire, and Huntingdonshire."2
"The work nevertheless," says Lysons, " meeting with
much opposition in the country, was carried on with little
effect." Of the subsequent vicissitudes of the drainage system
Lysons gives a concise account in his History of Cambridge
shire, to whom I remit the reader.
On Friday, Christmas-day 1618, our prelate preached an
incomparable discourse from the gospel for the day, before the
King and Court at Whitehall. Well does he observe of the
meanness of our Saviour's birth and of the glory that yet
attended it, the angels themselves making melody upon it:
"It is a course, (this) the Holy Ghost began it (here) at his
birth, and after observed it all along, Sociare ima summisj
et insolita solitis temperare ; to couple low and high together,
and to temper things mean and usual) with others as strange
every way."1
Affectingly in his own simple way does he note how the
sign by which the Lord was to be found suited the time, his
coming in humility, and the persons : " The poorest of the
earth may repair to him, being no other place but this ; and
by this sign to find him."
Yet was this sign not without glory. " It was much, from
a babe floating in the flags of Nilus, in a basket of bulrushes,
(Moses) to gather himself a people, even the nation and
kingdom of the Jews, and to deliver his law. It was infinitely
much more, from this babe (here) lying in the cratch, to work
the bringing in of the Gentiles, and the turning about of the
whole world, and to publish his gospel, the power of God to
salvation."2
Then does he open to us our sign of Christ's presence,
humility: "As St. Augustine saith well, Signum vobis si
signum in vobis , A sign for you if a sign in you."3 How
would men's minds turn from the externals to the internals of
religion, if they bore in their hearts the teaching of our prelate,
that to be but babes in Christ they must to faith join
Those who would pour contempt upon patristic reading
and upon the name of Bishop Andrewes, and have men go
no farther than to some modern commentator, or some idolized
name of the last or present century, would never come upon
so pregnant a passage, such a storehouse of illustration, as the
few following sentences.
"But then if it be signum volts'" [a sign to you] "to
some, it is for some others signum contra vos" [a sign against
you] : " and that is, the proud. For the Word of God hath
two edges : and if it go one way, that for humility, it cuts as
deep the contrary, against pride. And withal, under one
leads us to the cause straight, and shews us the malignity of
the disease of pride, for the cure whereof this so profound
humility was requisite in Christ. There was one, when time
was, took the disease of Ero similis Altissimo" [I will be like
the Most High], a and he breathed upon our first parents with
his Eritis sicut Dii" [ye shall be as gods], " and infected
them with it. To make themselves equal with God is plain
robbery (saith the Apostle, Phil, ii.) For that robbery of
theirs was the Son of God robbed (as I may say), and quite
spoiled of his glory. For their puffing up, e/eez/oxre, he was
made empty ; for their lifting up, eraTretVoxre, was he brought
thus low ; for their comparing with God, came he to be
compared to the beasts that perish; lay in their manger,
we see."
This one sermon might suggest many others to the con
templative preacher.
On February 9th, 1619, Bishop Andrewes received the
royal assent to his translation to Winchester.1
In March he was attending the King, then lying ill at
Eoyston, and was appointed to preach the Easter-day sermon
there before him on the 28th;2 but if preached, it was not
printed with the rest of his Festival Sermons.
On May 13th he was present at the funeral of Queen
Anne,3 and on the Sunday following, being Whitsunday,
preached before the Court at Greenwich in the royal chapel
there. From his text, Of a truth I perceive that God is no
respecter of persons, he acutely exposed the sophistry of the
pretended Papal infallibility. St. Peter himself owned that
hitherto he had been in error respecting the divine purpose to
open the Church to the Gentiles.
1 Andrewes was confirmed in his new see 25th of February, and obtained the
temporalities March 19th. He had been previously made Dean of the King's
Chapel.
God is no accepter of persons. This St. Peter knew, yet
he falsely reasoned that God was an accepter of one nation
above another. So inconsistent is human nature !
God accepts those who fear him ; who fear him not with a
mere servile but holy fear, a fear opposed to presumption, a
fear proceeding from a true faith, and working righteousness
not occasionally, but constantly as the very occupation of life.
The works of Cornelius were alms, prayer, and fasting. And
as to his faith, "if you will reach it further," says our prelate,
" to faith in Christ ; living in garrison among the Jews, he
could not choose but have heard somewhat of him, to move
him to throw himself down before him ; and he took him up."1
God accepts, that is, graciously, not upon a claim of merit.
The word accepted here used is but a capacity that he may be,
lays no necessity that he must be accepted.2 And " if this
fearer, this worker be accepted and not in himself, in whom
then ? Who is it ? The Apostle tells us directly, He hath
made us accepted in Ms beloved Son"z
On the 1st of September Peter du Moulin sent to our
prelate his work against the Arminians, undertaken at the
request of the Dutch Church. He speaks very modestly of
this treatise as not coming up to his own wishes, and also of
the difficulty of the subject as being a most thorny one, and
one in which it is impossible to satisfy men's judgments. But
he adds, " I shall readily think nothing of the judgments of
others, if I satisfy yours. For you alone are equal to all,
inasmuch as with me you are above all. But if I seem to you
to have undertaken a work beyond my powers, you will
nevertheless look with kindness on the attempt, and will take
into consideration the great difficulty of writing accurately
upon the most difficult subjects, and upon which men with an
ill-directed ingenuity have cast additional obscurity, in a life
full of occupation and time at the mercy of a thousand various
calls. But if I may not look for thus much, you will accept this
volume as a token of my regard and entire devotedness to you,
which is such that I had rather be corrected and taught by
you than praised by others. May God long preserve you,
most reverend prelate, and long make use of your influence to
the good of his Church.
" Farewell.
" Paris, Gal. Sept. 1619."
Du Moulin's work was translated into English in 1635
with the following title, The Anatomie of Arminianism : or
the Opening of the Controversies of these times (formerly
handled in the Low Countries] concerning the Doctrine of
Providence, of Predestination, of the Death of Christ, of Nature
and Grace, &c. By Peter du Moulin, Minister of the Church
at Paris. London : printed for Nathaniel Newbery, at the
sign of the Star in Pope's Head Alley. Anno Dom. 1635.
The translation is dedicated by Nathaniel Newbery to Sir
Henry Mildmay, Knight, Master of his Majesty's Jewels, and
Sir Henry Howe, Knight. The work was prefaced by the
author with an epistle to the Lords the States-General of the
United Provinces of the Low Countries. In this epistle King
James is commended for his sanction of the Synod of Dort.
Du Moulin expresses his regret that he could not be present
at that assembly, adding that he did what he could, by
sending to the Synod his opinion upon the subjects there
treated of. The answers he thus gave, he drew out at full
length in this treatise. From it he appears to have been
opposed to the supra-Lapsarian theory, against which he
writes very unreservedly in the sixth chapter, Of the Sin of
Adam.
Of the efficacy of the death of Christ he says : " When we
say that Christ died for all, we take it thus, to wit, that the
death of Christ is sufficient to save whosoever do believe ; yea,
and that it is sufficient to save all men, if all men in the whole
world did believe in him : and that the cause why all men are
not saved, is not in the insufficiency of the death of Christ, but
in the wickedness and incredulity of man."1
Gn the difficulties which those who maintain what is called
particular redemption have thrown in the way of those whom
they should encourage to believe in the Gospel, Dr. Chalmers
has delivered himself with an effectiveness peculiarly his own,
in the eleventh chapter of his Institutes of Theology, entitled,
On the warrant which each man has to appropriate the calls of
the Gospel to himself, and what that is which marks his doing
so.1 Let the reader also peruse the third chapter of the third
part, entitled, On the Universality of the Gospel. He will
then perceive that the doctrine of divine predestination is not
necessarily at variance with that of universal redemption. The
opposite opinion has arisen from the injudicious and un
hallowed attempts of some to harmonize their own misgivings
of the truth with their imperfect conceptions of it.
Calvin was altogether too practical to lose himself in the
artificial reasonings of such as have made it impossible for
themselves to testify to all men with St. Paul, repentance
towards God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts
xx. 21.) With Calvin, faith was the receiving of Christ as he
is offered to us in the Scriptures, that is as at once our redemp
tion and sanctification.2
Neither do we find the tenet of particular redemption coun
tenanced in the Synod of Dort, but the very contrary :
" Casterum promissio evangelii est, ut quisquis credit in
Christum crucifixum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam.
Quas promissio omnibus populis et hominibus, ad quos Deus
pro suo beneplacito mittit evangelium, promiscue et indis-
criminatim annuntiari et proponi debet cum resipiscentiae et
fidei mandato.3 ( But the promise of the Gospel is, that who
soever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but shall
have eternal life. And this promise is to be proclaimed and
set forth to all nations and individuals without exception
and without any difference, with the command to repent and
believe, to whom God, according to his own good pleasure,
sends the Gospel.'
Upon Saturday, Christmas-day, December 25th, our
prelate delivered one of his most copious and eloquent dis
courses. How many sermons might be produced from this
one. What a multitude of holy lessons does it contain, what
heavenly peace pervades it. How fit an exposition of the
angels' hymn, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace,
good will towards men. Most happily too, whilst its excellencies
are incomparable, its defects are few.
On the 5th of February, 1620, our prelate was on the
Committee of Privileges of the Lords. On the 14th he was
one of the Conference with the Commons for the uniting of
both Houses in a petition to the King for the better execution
of the laws then in force against Jesuits, Seminary Priests,
and Popish recusants.
On Saturday, February 17th, he was on a committee to
consider a Bill that had been read a second time for the con
firmation of the King's letters-patent to Sir Philip Carey,
Knight, and others, of the manor of Minster in the Isle of
Thanet. On the 21st he was to meet on the naturalization of
Sir Francis Stewart, Knight, Walter Stewart, James Maxwell,
and William Carr, Esquires. James Maxwell was afterwards
Groom of the Bedchamber to Charles I., and was with the
King when he was surprised by Colonel Joyce at Holdenby
in Northamptonshire.
On Thursday the 22nd he was appointed to meet in a
committee for clearing the passage by water from London to
beyond Oxford, at two P.M. in the council-chamber, Whitehall.
On the 1st of March he was to meet, by eight A.M. in the
committee-chamber, to enable Edmund Clough, Esq., and
other bargainers in trust to convey the manor of Temple
Newsome, &c. to Esme Stuart, Lord Aubigny, and Earl of
March, and the Lady Catharine his wife, or such as they shall
name and appoint.
On Monday the 5th of March he was appointed to meet at
eight A.M. in the Painted Chamber on an Act for the con
firmation of the Hospital of King James founded in Charter
House at the humble petition and only costs, &c., of Thomas
Sutton, Esq.
On the 9th he was to meet upon a projected academy for
the training of the younger nobility and gentry.
On the 12th, respecting abuses on the Lord's-day ; and on
a committee of grievances complained of by the House of
Commons, as also of complaints respecting the patents of gold
and silver thread.
On March 26th he attended the King to St. Paul's, one of
the most venerable Norman structures in England, and of
unusual dimensions. This was with a view to promote the
repairs of that vast edifice, upon which the munificence of the
whole church and nation was liberally expended so long as it
remained. We may be allowed to regret that it was not
restored and preserved, as peradventure it might have been,
after the great fire.
Not less to be commended is his Easter-day sermon,
preached at Whitehall in the following year April 16, being
taken from the account of our Lord's resurrection by the
Evangelist St. John.
His discourse upon the 4th of June, Whitsunday, is
among the best of that series.1 It is full of patristic learning
such as may be gathered from the commentaries of Lorinus.
Both learnedly and piously has the same place — This is he
that came ly water and blood — been treated of in the second
of Bishop Heber's Sermons in India.2
On April 27th Andrewes was on a commission for selling
some of the crown jewels, and on the 29th on the High
Commission.
On the 6th of August, 1620, he admitted Christopher
Wren, the younger brother of Matthew, and father of the
famous architect, one of his domestic chaplains. Wren
preached before him in Windsor chapel. He then received
his appointment, and with his brother accompanied the Bishop
to Farnham, where the King and his Court were feasted three
days at a cost of above £3,000.3
Buckeridge observes of this entertainment, in his funeral
sermon for our prelate, that it was as bountiful and great an
entertainment as ever King James received at a subject's
hands. Christopher, afterwards Dean of Windsor and Wolver-
hampton in 1635, was born in 1589. He was of St. John's
College, Oxford, B.D. 1620, but D.D. 1630 of the University
of Cambridge. Andrewes made him Hector of Knoyle Magna
or East Knoyle near Hindon in the south-west part of Wilt
shire. In 1628 he was appointed chaplain in ordinary to
Charles I. ; in 1635 Dean of Windsor and Wolverhampton ;
and in 1638 Kector of Haseley in Oxfordshire. His Deanry
was plundered in 1642. He died at Blechindon near Oxford,
29th of May, 1658, at the parsonage of Mr. William Holder
(who had married his daughter), and was buried in the
chancel. He was a good mathematician, and gave proofs of
that ingenuity which shone so eminently in his only son the
architect.
On Sunday September 17th Andrewes consecrated the
new chapel in St. Mary's parish, called St. Mary's Extra,
near Southampton, for the benefit of the village of Weston
and the hamlets Itchen, Wolston, Kidgway, and part of Bittern
Manor.
This form, which is every way more impressive than those
now in use, was followed by Laud at the consecration of St.
Catharine Cree, Leadenhall-street (a remarkable specimen of
the mixed architecture of his age) in 1630.1 This consecration
gave occasion to many aspersions upon Laud both before and
at his trial, and these have, with the usual veracity of blind
party-spirit, been continued by Kapin and others, as though
they had never been refuted. Happy had it been for Laud,
if he had followed the judgment of Bishop Andrewes as well
in points of doctrine as of ceremony.
Bishop Andrewes, attended by his two chaplains Matthew
and Christopher Wren, proceeded to the chapel, and at eight
in the morning, being in their proper habits, came out of the
chapel ; and the Bishop addressed Captain Richard Smith,
who gave into the hands of William Cole, the Bishop's
registrar, the instrument praying for the consecration and
constant appropriation of the chapel to the service of God.
After this the two chaplains read alternately the 24th
Psalm, and after the Doxology had been said, the Bishop
advancing nearer the porch, said, / was glad when they said
unto me. We will go into the house of the Lord. Our feet shall
stand in thy gates, 0 Jerusalem.
Then all entering the chapel, the Bishop read, with some
few accommodations to this service, the dedication prayer of
King David, the 29th chapter of the First Boole of Chronicles,
from the 10th to the 18th verse inclusive. Then followed the
prayer, * Most glorious God.' This prayer is in part taken
from one in common use at that time, and recorded to have
been offered up also at the consecration of a chapel at
Edmonton by Bishop King in 1615,1 and of another chapel
in Clay Hall in the parish of Barking, Essex, September 15,
1616, by Dr. Thomas Morton, Bishop of Chester (afterward
of Durham). It is remarkable that in the Parentalia Bishop
Wren is said to have prepared an office for consecrating a
church at Dore in Herefordshire,2 in 1634.
After the longer prayer commemorating the precedents of
such acts of consecration, followed a prayer and benediction
in the name of the Holy Trinity. Then the Bishop laying
his hand upon the font consecrated it with a short prayer, as
also the pulpit, reading-desk, communion-table, site of joining
of hands in matrimony, and the whole pavement with reference
to such bodies as should be interred beneath. Then a general
prayer of dedication for the whole church was said by the
Bishop before the communion-table. Then the morning ser
vice commenced. For the psalms were read the 84th, 122nd,
and 132nd. The first lesson was the 28th chapter of Genesisj
in which is read the dedication of Bethel by Jacob. For the
second was read the 2nd chapter of St. John from the 13th
verse to the end, in which is read the purifying of the Temple.
After the three Collects the Bishop said a fourth, full of that
humility and earnest devotion for which he was ever so
conspicuous. Then the other chaplain read the Litany, and
the Bishop concluded with a prayer, as for himself and from
himself apart from the congregation, that God would be
pleased to hear whatsoever prayers should in that place be
made according to his will. After the benediction the 132nd
Psalm was sung, and Mr. Eobinson, B.D., brother-in-law to
the founder, preached the sermon from the 16th verse of the
28th chapter of Genesis.
After the sermon a poor woman returned thanks to
Almighty God for safe deliverance. The psalm used pre
viously to the last review was the 121st. The Communion
service was then commenced by the two chaplains, standing
one on either side the holy table. Before the Epistle for the
day a special Collect was read : ' Most blessed Saviour, who
by thy bodily presence at the feast of dedication didst honour
and approve such devout and religious services as we have
now in hand, be thou present also at this time with us, and
consecrate us into an holy temple unto thyself, that thou
dwelling in our hearts by faith, we may be cleansed from all
carnal affections, and devoutly given to serve thee in all good
works. Amen.'
The Epistle was 1 Cor. iii. from ver. 16 to the end ; the
Gospel from the 10th chapter of St. John, from ver. 22 to the
end. Then after the Nicene Creed the Bishop, casting himself
down before the holy table, prayed the dedication prayer of
Solomon, 2 Chron. vi. from ver. 18 to ver. 40, praying also
at the end that God would favourably hear this congregation
as he did Solomon. Then sitting in his chair, with his head
covered, Thomas Ridley his Chancellor standing on his right
hand,*-and Dr. Barlow,1 Archdeacon of Winchester, on his
left, he read in Latin the Act of Consecration, Dedication, and
Appropriation, The chapel was named Jesus Chapel, as a
chapel-of-ease to St. Mary's parish near Southampton. The
officiating minister was to be endowed with at least 20 marks
per annum. The patronage was to be in the family of the
founder. Then a short prayer was added by the Bishop, that
God would bless this day's action unto his people. After
this those who did not communicate were dismissed.
At the Offertory was collected £4 12s. 2d., which the
Bishop ordered to be appropriated to the purchasing of a
chalice for the use of the chapel. Before the consecration
prayer of the Communion service the Bishop washed his hands,
and mixed water with the wine, according to the custom
of the Church from the age of St. Cyprian. After he had
received the holy Communion, he delivered it first to the
founder, then to his chaplains, and delivered the bread to all
the rest, one of the chaplains delivering the wine. The
Bishop read the first of the two prayers that precede the
Gloria in Excelsis, and concluded with a prayer for the
founder and for all who should hereafter enjoy the benefit
of this his munificent and pious act.
After the Bishop and a numerous company had dined at
the founder's house at Peer Tree (now called Pear Tree), the
congregation reassembled in the chapel, and one of the
chaplains read the Lord's Prayer, and for the psalms was
read alternately the 90th Psalm. The act of consignation
of the churchyard was then read, and after confirmed by the
founder and his neighbours. The time being short the second
lesson was omitted, and only the 23rd chapter of Genesis
read, being the account of the burial of Sarah. The act of
consignation and remainder of the consecration service was
read in the churchyard ; which being completed they returned
to the chapel, and sang the first part of the 16th Psalm, and
Matthew Wren preached the sermon from The zeal of thine
house hath even eaten me. After sermon, was sung the rest of
Psalm xvi., and the service, beginning at the Apostles' Creed,
proceeded in the ordinary course.
The Rev. James Bliss, M.A., of Oriel College, Oxford, the
able editor of Bishop Andrewes' Minor Works (Oxford, 1854),
and Vicar of Ogbourne St. Andrew near Marlborough, observes
of Andrewes' Form for the Consecration of a Church or Chapel,
that it was first published in 32mo in 1659, with a preface
dated May 29 of that year ; that the only copy of this edition
which he had seen was now in the Bodleian Library, and
that it was afterwards reprinted in quarto, and appended to
Bishop Sparrow's Collection of Articles. It has since been
reprinted and bound up with Bishop Sparrow's Rationale of
the Book of Common Prayer.
In a letter from Junius to Vossius dated from Paris
September 18, Junius relates that on the 15th he had met
with Tilenus. He writes of him in terms of high commend
ation as most strenuous in behalf of the truth. Tilenus
informed Junius that he was about to visit England to enjoy
an interview with the King, from whom and from Bishop
Andrewes he had received letters. The King had sent over
his physician to attend him on this journey.1
Upon Monday, Christmas-day, Bishop Andrewes preached
before the King at Whitehall, very ably and with much
learning, upon the wise men's coming to our Saviour. If any
will see the force and beauty of typical illustration, let them
read this sermon, and let them confess that many types there
are in Holy Writ besides those that are there called so.
CHAPTER XX.
Page 473
Bishop Andrewes preaches at the opening of Parliament 1621 — His
Sermon upon Fasting — Upon St. John xx. 17 — Whitsunday — *
Archbishop Abbot's calamity — Andrewes befriends Allot — Enter
tains Junius and Doublet at Farnham — Dr. Thomas Goad.
ON the assembling of the Parliament, 1621, our prelate
preached before them in the Abbey of Westminster from the
first psalm in the evening service (Psalm Ixxxii.), God standeth
in the congregation of princes ; in the midst will he judge
the gods. Upon the words God standeth, he contrasts with
God's unchangeable the mortal nature of princes, these earthly
gods ; and says, in allusion to that most solemn sanctuary of
death in which they were then met, " This could not be told
us in a fitter place : the place where we stand is compassed
about with a congregation of these fallen gods, these same
Dii caduci (fragile gods), with monuments of the mortality of
many a great Elohim (God) in their times. And let me tell
you this, that in the Hebrew tongue the grave is called a
synagogue as well as the church. All shall be gathered,
even the gods, even the whole synagogue of them, into this
synagogue at last." Very plain and earnest is the whole
sermon, treating of the presence of God, and of the duty of
being well affected toward his presence if we would stand in
the judgment.
On February 14, Ash-Wednesday, Bishop Andrewes
preached at Whitehall upon the duty of fasting, overthrowing
the cavils of those who would expunge when from the text
(Matt. vi. 16), by leaving it so at liberty as that it should
never be performed.
About the 15th or 16th of March Andre wes and Moun-
taigne, Bishop of Lincoln, in the name of all the rest, pre
sented to the King at Hampton Court a grant of subsidies
passed by the clergy of the province of Canterbury.1
Upon Easter-day, April 1st, he resumed his discourse upon
the narrative of the resurrection, as it is given in St. John's
gospel, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father,
giving the three interpretations of Chrysostom, Gregory, and
Augustine, which last is also followed and expressed with his
usual energy and conciseness by Leo the Great. The first
is that our Lord saw in her a degree of irreverence. Under
this head our prelate condemns the too familiar and irreverent
handling of the doctrine of predestination, and the familiar
taking of Christ in the sacrament, when to touch the ark itself,
that other symbol of him, was death. Yet we have those who
most familiarly pray to God and plead that they are his
children, a most irreverential excuse for this much worse than
childish practice. But even this irreverence is not without
some share of popularity, and that amongst some who profess
themselves, notwithstanding, members (not children] of the
Church of England.
The second and third interpretations however will stand
better, and may well stand together ; that our Lord forbade
her at this time, when his disciples were still full of sorrow,
to spend her moments in the enjoyment of his presence. Add
secondly, that thus too she was admonished that the touch
of faith was more excellent than to touch him corporeally,
whom the wicked could indeed also touch, and yet not be
thereby healed of their spiritual diseases.
On April 30th Andrewes attended with other peers on
Lord Bacon, to ascertain from him whether, he acknowledged
as his own the petition and confession made in his name to
the House.2
On May 2nd our prelate was appointed to take examinations
in the case of Sir John Bennet, who had been charged by
the House of Commons with abusing his office of Judge of
the Prerogative Court to purposes of corruption and fraudulent
self-aggrandisement, and was eventually committed to custody
for a short time, fined the enormous sum of £20,000, and
deprived of his office.
On the 8th of May Bishop Andrewes was on a committee
for confirming the sale of the Rectory of Dorking, heretofore
made by Charles Earl of Nottingham, and William late Lord
Howard of Effingham, deceased, to Thomas Trevor and
William Bryan and their heirs.
On the 12th of May he was appointed to meet on committee,
at two P.M. in the Painted Chamber, respecting an Act for
the making good of grants made by collegiate churches and
corporations to the late Queen Elizabeth after the 2nd of
April in the thirteenth year and before the 8th of February
in the twenty-fifth year of that Queen.
On the 18th he was again on a committee upon an Act
for the confirmation of exchange of lands between Prince
Charles and Sir Lewis Watson, Knight.
On May 20th, Whitsunday, our prelate preached before
the King at Greenwich from St. James i. 16, 17. u If," he
says, " we look forth, let it not be about us, either on the
right hand or on the left, on any place here below. Look up ;
turn your eye thither. It is an influence, it is no vapour ; an
inspiration, no exhalation: thence it comes; hence it rises
not : our spirit lusts after envy, and worse matter. (James iv. 5.)
Why should thoughts arise in your hearts? saith Christ. If
they arise they are not good; if they be good, then they come
down from above."1 The lights from above he begins with
" the light of nature, for rebelling against which, all that are
without Christ suffer condemnation. Solomon calls it the
candle of the Lord^ searching even the very bowels (Prov. xx.),
which though it be dim and not perfect, yet good it is : though
lame, yet (as Mephibosheth) it is regia proles, of the blood
royal."2
This sermon, excellent in detail, is however unhappily too
much broken up, too variegated in its texture. It might be
made the groundwork of more than one discourse upon the
noble diversity of God's heavenly gifts.
On June the 10th Andrewes was present at the delivery
of the great seal to Dr. John Williams, Dean of Westminster.1
Monteigne, Bishop of Lincoln, being elected to the see of
London on July 20th, on the death of Dr. John King, Williams
was raised to the see of Lincoln. He was elected the 3rd of
August, and consecrated on the 10th of November. He was
permitted to hold his Deanry in commendam.
On July 12th Andrewes was on a commission for examining
Lewis Bayly, Bishop of Bangor.2 Bayly was committed to
the Fleet Prison July 15th, but soon after liberated. The
most serious charges are said to have been brought against
this prelate ; they are mentioned in a letter by the celebrated
Mede of Cambridge, but his early liberation is the best answer
to them.
On July 24, 1621, there befel a great calamity to the
primate Abbot, who, upon a visit to Lord Zouch at Bramshill
Park (two miles to the west of Hartford Bridge in the north
east corner of Hampshire), shooting with the cross-bow at a
buck, and his arrow meeting with a swelling bough in the
way, had the mishap to wound one of the keepers. It was
but a flesh-wound and a slight one, but being under the care
of an heedless surgeon, the poor man died of it the next day.
The King, upon hearing it, feelingly remarked that an angel
might have miscarried in that sort. ' The Archbishop,' says
Hacket, f was an happy man in this unhappiness, that many
hearts condoled with him, and many precious stones were in
the breastplate which he wore, that pleaded for him. He was
painful, stout, severe against bad manners, of a grave and a
voluble eloquence, very hospitable, fervent against the Roman
Church, and no less so against the Arminia^ns, which in those
days was very popular.'
Laud was raised by Williams at the solicitation of Villiers
the great favourite. Abbot's first patron was the more truly
illustrious Thomas Sackville Earl of Dorset. Laud was ever
fearful of the excess of that popular aversion to Romanism
which was natural enough in a period in which it was the
ill fate of his country to be governed by a family proud of
Romish alliances. Abbot was the intrepid assertor of
Protestantism as essential to the good of the commonwealth.
Hence the friends of Laud have always depreciated his equally
honest and far more consistent, nay more honest and upright
predecessor. It could not be said of Laud as of Abbot, that
' that Archbishop was wont to dissent from the King as often
as any man at the Council-board.'1 In Abbot it was a merit,
in Laud it would have been. For years the latter was,
according to Heylyn, the King's chief adviser, in effect, after
the death of the royal favourite, his prime minister, the
flatterer of his royal master, the inquisitor of his more
exemplary brethren, of men such as Hall, who found it no
small trial to hold the episcopal office under so arbitrary a
primate.
And now the question was agitated both at home and
abroad, what penalty was incurred by Abbot lying under the
charge of casual homicide. The Romish party were not
backward to exult over him, and to shew what kind of
opinions and individuals were sure of their most cordial
aversion. But ambition magnified his difficulties in the eyes
even of some of his brethren. Hacket, the good and eloquent
Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry (a more impartial author
than Wharton would concede2), remarks of his great bene
factor Williams the Lord Keeper, that he did not come
forward in Abbot's behalf as he might have done. That he
came out of this great trouble unhurt, he owed to the good
offices of Andrewes and to the kind heart of the King — a King
who could discern merit and admire integrity.
According to Fuller, Abbot and Andrewes were not upon
terms of intimacy. It has been imagined that the latter
regarded Abbot as his undeservedly successful rival. An
drewes was probably much less at the Council-table than
Abbot, and would doubtless hear many reports to his dis
advantage from those who were immediately about the King.
Hence might arise mutual misunderstanding. But be this as
it might, tl the party," writes Fuller, " whom the Archbishop
suspected his greatest foe, proved his most firm and effectual
friend, even Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester. For
when several Bishops inveighed against the irregularity of
the Archbishop, laying as much (if not more) guilt on the act
than it would bear, he mildly checked them : ' Brethren,'
said he, l be not too busy to condemn any for uncammicals
according to the strictness thereof, lest we render ourselves in
the same condition. Besides we all know Canones qui dicunt
lapsos post actam pcenitentiam, ad clericatum non esse restitu-
endos, de rigore loquuntur disciplines, non injiciunt despera-
tionem indulgentice, (' that the Canons that say that persons
who have fallen into some offence are not, after they have
repented, to be restored to their place in the church, speak in
regard of the strict execution of discipline, but do not design
to create despair of pardon.'1) But to set at rest all doubts
and canonical scruples, he advised theJKing to grant a dis
pensation to Abbot in virtue of his royal supremacy, and so
an address was prepared praying a dispensation from the
King, and signed by Andrewes, Monteigne, Bishop of
Lincoln, Buckeridge, Bishop of Kochester, and Williams,
Bishop elect of Lincoln, Carey, Bishop elect of Exeter, and
Laud, Bishop elect of St. David's ; together with Judges
Hobart, Doddridge, Marten, and Stywarde.2 The dispensation
was granted on November 21.
By a letter from Junius to Vossius, dated London, August
18, Bishop Andrewes appears to have been at Farnham.
Their kinsman George Eataller Doublet had, about this time,
come to England.
On September 3rd we find Doublet himself writing from
London to Vossius, and most gratefully alluding to the muni
ficent hospitality and frank affection with which he and Junius
were entertained at Farnham, always supping and dining
with Bishop Andrewes in his own hall, who never failed to
drink to the health of Grotius, Vossius, and Erpenius. Bishop
Andrewes had already seen Grotius when that politic and
eminently learned person had visited this country to plead the
cause of the Remonstrants and of the edict of pacification. But
whatever the favour they appeared to obtain, and however they
might colour over their opinions, the endeavours of that party
did not prevail with the King to side with them at the Synod
of Dort. Nor until after that Synod did that party openly
profess itself in this country, and not then without some
repulses. Erpenius had been in England before Grotius,
and was ^personally well known to Andrewes. Yossius he
earnestly desired to see also.1
On November 24th Vossius wrote to Bishop Andrewes in
reply to a letter from that prelate received by the hands of
Doublet. He excuses his long delay on the ground of the
protracted illness of his wife. Everywhere indeed in his
correspondence does the affection of Yossius shine forth
unabated and undiminished by the multitude of his literary
avocations. He mentions how Junius, in all his epistles to
him, had ever reverted to the name of Andrewes with the
liveliest emotions of grateful regard.2
Junius, in a letter to Yossius from London on the 1st of
December, informs him of Abbot's casualty, and of the doubt
of the four bishops elect respecting the canonicalness of a
consecration performed by the Archbishop. Nor were there
wanting, he adds, some who were desirous of making this an
occasion of deposing Abbot, and of placing Andrewes in his
room; Andrewes himself indeed strenuously opposing the
project, and shewing himself a firm friend to the primate.
The King is here said to have appointed ten persons to take
this emergency into consideration, and Andrewes to have
brought over the greater part to milder proceedings by alleging
this canon, ' Clericus de quo dubitatur an sit regularis^ non
est irregular is."1 CA clerk of whose irregularity there is doubt,
is not irregular.' The King himself, he relates, was delighted
with the moderation of Andrewes, and told Abbot to regard
Andrewes on this occasion as the sole person to whom he
owed his escape from deprivation. Junius adds that Andrewes
would have answered Vossius earlier but for this sudden
interruption.
On the 25th of August Dr. Thomas Goad, Precentor of
St. Paul's, Chaplain to Archbishop Abbot, and who had been
sent by the King on Hall's return home to take his place
in the Synod of Dort, was installed Prebendary of the tenth
stall of Bishop Andrewes' church of Winchester. He retained
this dignity to his death in 1638. He was Proctor of the
University of Cambridge 1629, being then Fellow of King's
College. He was also LL.D., and Begius Professor of Civil
Law in that University in 1635.
This year saw the elevation of Williams and Laud to the
episcopal bench. Williams owed his rise to the King himself,
Laud to Williams, who recommended Laud to the King, and
pressed his promotion upon him in order to shew a favour to
Villiers. At the same time he recommended to the King his
secretary, the pious and highly talented Dr. John Donne, for
the Deanry of St. Paul's, Dr. Valentine Carey for the see of
Exeter, and Dr. Davenant for that of Salisbury. So Carey
and Davenant were consecrated to Exeter and Sarum, and
Laud to St. David's on the same day, November 18th, the
very Sunday after the consecration of the Lord Keeper
Williams, Dean of Westminster, to the see of Lincoln. The
King herein yielded to Williams, as he so often did to others,
against his better judgment, and after remonstrating with
Williams on Laud's restless temper instanced in his advice to
him and urgency with him respecting the affairs of the Scotch
Kirk.
CHAPTER XXI.
Bishop Andrewes* Sermon on Hypocrisy — The Archbishop of Spalatro
— The King's Letter to Preachers — William Knight — Disputes
on Predestination at Cambridge — Junius — Andrewes* Christmas
Sermon on the Wise Men.
NEVER was the pious severity of Bishop Andrewes more
effectually put forth than in his sermon against hypocrisy
preached upon March 6, 1622, Ash- Wednesday, from When
ye fast, be not as the hypocrites are. It is a masterpiece of its
kind. The worshippers indeed of their own imaginations,
who have resolved fasting, holy-days, and all religious reve
rence into Popery, will but condemn the good Bishop as a
patron of superstition. To such objectors to fasting he very
pertinently replies that as well might they object to prayer
and almsgiving, for that these also have been observed by
some to the same evil end, to obtain praise of men. Hypocrisy
is c the moth that frets in sunder all that holy or good is.'
In truth, since men have learned an easier repentance, a
repentance that only humbles them whilst they are upon
their knees, and then but with a superficial sentimentality,
they have taken upon them to despise all abstinence, and the
more because the Church directs it to be observed at set
times. And to justify themselves they turn from the Scrip
tures by which they cannot be justified, to plead other men's
abuse of that which is good; thus excusing themselves a
neglected and unpopular duty, as some excuse their attendance
upon the holy Communion.
On March 23rd Bishop Andrewes assisted at the conse
cration of Dr. Kobert Wright to the see of Bristol.
On the 30th of this month Bishop Andrewes sat in com
mission at Lambeth with Archbishop Abbot, Williams, Lord
Keeper of the Great Seal, and Bishop of Lincoln, Mountaine,
Bishop of London, Neile, Bishop of Durham, and other Privy
Councillors, upon that most eminently learned but most
worldly-minded and ambitious person, Mark Antony de
Dominis, late Archbishop of Spalatro. Bishop Neile pub
lished an account of Mark Antony de Dominis, and Hacket
in his Life of Williams exposes upon the most incontestable
evidence the double-mindedness of this unstable and in the
end most unhappy ecclesiastic. Spalatro, as appears from
Fuller,1 took the side of the Kemonstrants, and so found a
zealous advocate in that most partial of controversialists and
doubtful of historians, Dr. Heylyn.
Archbishop Abbot, in the name of the rest, by his Majesty's
special command, in a long Latin speech recapitulated the
many misdemeanours of Spalatro, especially animadverting
upon his inconstancy, who, coming hither as a refugee from
Italy, now designed to return to Eome, having for that purpose
held correspondence with the Pope without the King's know
ledge. Spalatro made answer, an answer that was regarded as
' rather a shuffling excuse than a just defence.' Then the
Archbishop in his Majesty's name commanded him to depart
the kingdom within twenty days, and never to return. His
erudition was very great, but the love of money was his snare
and his destruction. His own countrymen did not confide
in him, but received him only to imprisonment in the Inqui
sition. He probably never cordially again professed their
religion, and had his integrity been equal to his learning, he
would have gone down to his grave with fame not surpassed
by any of his contemporaries. But so it is, the greatest
talents lose no small part of their reward when once devoted
to sinister ends.
Upon Easter-day, April 21, Bishop Andrewes preached
his third sermon upon the resurrection as recorded by St. John.
Of these three, the first is the most replete with interest, but
each is well worthy of its very pious author. The last, as
more quaintly subdivided than the preceding, will be least
acceptable to modern taste.
His Whitsunday sermon is entitled one ' prepared to be
preached.' It might be that he was already suffering from
his sedentary habits, as we find he did most afflictively some
two years after. It displays his usual fertility of ideas, a mul
titude of verbal allusions, and many most pertinent observa
tions, but embraces too many topics for a single sermon. He
plainly condemns those who without gifts yet seek for places
and offices or callings in the church. Again he speaks against
le officiousness of the weak-minded, who, without either gifts
r calling, take upon themselves to meddle in public and in
rivate with divine things. e Either a calling without a gift, or
gift without a calling. What say you to them that have
either, but fetch their run for all that, and leap quite over
ift and calling, Christ and the Holy Ghost both, and chop
Qto the work at the first dash? that put themselves into
•usinesses which they have neither fitness for, nor calling
o?' And our prelate justly observes that the gift should
recede the calling : and as no man comes to Christ but by
be Holy Ghost, so no man to the catting but by the gift.
£et how fearfully, how generally, is this still lost sight of!
Still but comparatively little regard is had to the office and
dignity of the Holy Ghost, whose it is to make men overseers
of the flock which the Lord hath purchased with his own blood.
On July 4th we find Andrewes on a commission for de
fective titles.
Upon August 5th Andrewes preached at Windsor the
anniversary sermon on the Gowrie Conspiracy, from 1 Sam.
xxiv. 5. He again touched upon the treasons of the Romanists,
and on the assassination of Henry III. and IV. of France.
Chamberlain dined with Andrewes, and did not leave him
until half-past five. The weather was so hot, and he so
faint and wet, that he was fain to go to bed for some little
time after he came out of the pulpit.1
On the 15th Andrewes wrote from Farnham to his Arch
deacon to forward to his clergy copies of the King's Letter :
1. to limit preachers to such topics as are in the Articles and
Homilies ; 2. to enjoin that (except funeral sermons) none
shall preach in the afternoon, but on the Catechism or on
some text taken from the Ten Commandments or the Lord's
Prayer, and those to be most encouraged who spend the
afternoon in catechising ; 3. to restrain preaching on predesti
nation, election, or reprobation, or the universality, efficacy,
resistibility or irresistibility of grace; 4. that in respect of
the royal prerogative, they shall in their public teaching be
regulated by the Homilies upon obedience, &c.j 5. to forbid
all violent invectives against the persons of Papists and
Puritans, but modestly and gravely to touch upon the con
troversies relating to them as the text may call the preacher
to it ; 6. that the Bishops be more wary in licensing preachers,
and that lecturers be licensed only on the recommendation of
the Bishop, with a fiat from the Archbishop, and confirmation
under the great seal.2
It may well be doubted whether this was a wise extension
of the royal authority. It is especially to be noted that
Heylyn himself supposes that Laud had a hand in drawing
up these instructions.
Doublet, in a letter to Vossius from London, August 16th,
informs Vossius of William Knight of Broadgate Hall, Ox
ford, who, on Palm Sunday, had maintained in a sermon that
it was lawful for subjects to take up arms in defence of religion
against the King, and on being called into question for his
doctrine, defended himself by the authority of Parseus.
Upon this occasion Andrewes himself, with other bishops,
directed a mandatory letter to the Vice-Chancellor and Heads
of Houses at Oxford, intimating to them their judgment
in this case. Doublet with his own epistle sent to Vossius
the decree of the University of Oxford condemnatory of
Paraeus On the Romans, and speaks of the theological tem
perament of the University of Cambridge as somewhat over
heated in regard of such as were strictly for the Genevan
Eeformation, either through their great animosity to every
thing savouring of Puritanism, or through their inclination to
the opinions of the Kemonstrants. He was at Cambridge
during the Commencement. There he heard very warm
disputes upon predestination, free-will, and other kindred
points; some strongly maintaining the side of the Bemon-
strants against Dr. Balcanqual. He was informed by one
and another of the Doctors to whom he had introductions
from Bishop Andrewes, that it was a doubt which was the
greater party in the University, the Eemonstrants or the
Anti-Bemonstrants. The Vice-Chancellor himself (Dr. Leo
nard Mawe), he adds, was l remonstrantissimus' He found
many much attached to Vossius, especially Balcanqual and
Dr. Jerome Beale.1
On September 13th Vossius wrote to Bishop Andrewes,
thanking him with much affection for his kindness to his
son-in-law Francis Junius, and that at a time when Junius
was suffering from the neglect of his other friends.2
Bishop Andrewes had commended Junius to the Earl of
Arundel, the Marshal of England, who took him into his
family, and with whom he long continued.
The Earl of Arundel was one of the greatest patrons
of the fine arts whom this age produced. A part of his
noble collection remains in the hands of the University
of Oxford. He in the reign of James relinquished the
errors of Komanism, and appears to have enjoyed the con
fidence of his sovereign. The succeeding monarch created
him Earl of Norfolk, but would not raise him to the Dukedom.
He was variously looked upon, by some with suspicion, as he
would not live in dependence upon the smiles and favour of
the Court. He took no part in the subsequent commotions,
but went over to Italy, where he died at Padua October 4,
1646.
Upon Wednesday, Christmas-day, Bishop Andrewes pro
ceeded with the history of the Wise Men's coming. Here, he
said, are three stars, the star in the firmament, the star of
faith in their hearts, and Christ himself, the bright and
morning star. Their faith believed that he, though of the
Jews, had relation to them ; that benefit was to come to them
by him ; that therefore their worship was due to him. They
did the work of faith, they confessed him boldly. They had
a faith that was well grounded. They had seen his star.
They most probably were led to that star by Balaam's
prophecy, that a King should arise who should not only smite
the corners of Moab, that is Balak their enemy, for the
present ; but should reduce and bring under him all the sons
of Seth, that is, all the world. For all are now Seth's sons ;
Cain's were all drowned in the flood. The West had some
glimmering of knowledge of this star. It is seen in Virgil's
sixth Eclogue, but not having the word of prophecy they
missed it. So this, this book must be our morning light,
a more sure word of prophecy, as St. Peter saith. And
besides these, there must be a light within, in the eye. And
that must come from him and the enlightening of his Spirit.
The work of their faith they shewed in that they came. They
left their country, and so walked in the steps of the faith of
Abraham ; did Abraham's first work. They came not a short
journey, as the shepherds, but a long and wearisome one over
the deserts and rocks and insecure ways of Arabia, and in
the worst season. And they set out without delay. No
sooner did they see the star than forthwith they set out. And
having come they inquired where he was born ; they enquired
of the scribes; they went not to a conventicle but to the
church. And as they enquired themselves, so must we, and
seek Christ not by another but by ourselves.
And they came and worshipped him, not in hypocrisy, as
Herod at his birth, or the other Herod at his death. They
came and found him in a stable, and yet they turned not away.
They find him in so humble a state that he might seem more
like to be abhorred than adored of such persons. lt Will they
be as good as their word, trow ? Will they not step back at
the sight, repent themselves of their journey, and wish them
selves at home again? But so find him, and so finding,
worship him for all that ? If they will, verily then great is
their faith"
u The Queen of the south, who was a figure of these
Kings of the east, she came as great a journey as these. But
when she came she found a king indeed, King Solomon in all
his royalty • saw a glorious king and a glorious court about
him ; saw him and heard him ; tried him with many hard
questions, received satisfaction of them all. This was worth her
coming. Weigh what she found and what these here : as poor
and unlikely a birth as could be ever to prove a king, or any
great matter. No sight to comfort them, nor a word for which
they any whit the wiser : nothing worth their travell. Weigh
these together, and great odds will be found between her faith
and theirs. Theirs the greater far."
CHAPTER XXII.
Page 488
Easter, 1623 — Cluverius — Bishop Andrewes foresees the coming
dangers — The Isle of Jersey.
FROM Laud's diary we find the name of Andrewes once
more involved in secular and state affairs. On the 23rd of
February, 1623, he, with Laud, Villiers, Marquess of Buck
ingham, and the Lords Arundel and Pembroke, appear to
have made up the Commission of Grievances.
On the 26th of the same month he preached before the
Court upon the fruits meet for repentance. Better had it been
if he had more dwelt upon the motives to it. Useless indeed
is a repentance that does not exercise the heart, and humble
both the soul and the body, and put both to grief. But first
there must be the root, and he who should look for the fruit
without watering the root itself, would but fall into the
extreme of superstition by way of avoiding that of irreverence.
His Easter-day sermon for the 13th of April is not liable
to any such objections. Amongst the latest, it is also amongst
the best of Bishop Andrewes' discourses. It is taken from
the beginning of the 63rd chapter of Isaiah. There is
throughout a vividness and depth of colouring that could
proceed only from such a hand. He brings before our eyes
the winepress of redemption and the winepress of triumphal
retribution ; the first in which the Lord himself was trodden
under foot, the second in which he treads down his enemies,
hell itself, the spiritual Edom, the most inveterate of all the
foes of Israel. Over Edom, strong as it was, David cast his
shoe, that is, set his foot upon it, and trod it down. And
Bozra, as impregnable a hold as it was holden, yet David
won it, was led into the strong city ; led into it and came
thence again. So did the son of David, this day from his
Edom, death, how strongsoever, yet swallowed up in victory
this day. In 0 death where is thy victory he supposes an
allusion to ' the Eoman standard that had in it the image of
the goddess Victory.'
Here having direct occasion he passes not over the doctrine
of our justification, and that as he had done elsewhere, Christ,
he saith, * laid by his own righteousness to be clothed with
our sin : he to wear our colours that we his : he in our red
that we in his white. So we find our robes are not only
washed clean, but dyed a pure white in the blood of the
Lamb. Yea, he died and rose again both in our colours, that
we might die and rise too in his.' And again, a little after,
' He in Mount Golgotha, like to us ; that we in Mount Tabor,
like to him.'
On the 13th of June we find Vossius writing to our prelate,
expressing his grief upon the death of their common friend
Cluverius,1 who had left his young family but a poor in
heritance. But he is comforted from the consideration that
their grandmother survives, herself an Englishwoman and of
good parentage. She was preparing to come to England
to claim her property, at that time unjustly detained from her.
He begs of Bishop Andrewes to put her cause into the hands
of some honest and sufficient person. He mentions with
cordial and not undeserved commendation the unparalleled
benevolence of Andrewes, as eminent as his great learning.
He complains that antiquity finds now but few admirers, and
that solid learning is out of favour.
Upon Sunday, July 20th, Bishop Andrewes administered
to the ambassadors the oath for the observance of the articles
with Spain. This was celebrated at Whitehall Chapel with
great ceremony, all of which is fully detailed in Nichols'
Progresses of King James? The marriage-treaty, however,
and the consequent articles with it fell to the ground. Our
unhappy nation was to be ruined from another quarter.
Bishop Andrewes was appointed to preach before the King
on the oth of August, and prepared a sermon which from
some cause or other does not appear to have been delivered.
After the 5th of October, the day of the return of Prince
Charles from Spain, occurred the following incident noted
down by Bishop Wren, Chaplain both to the Prince and to
Bishop Andrewes.
"After our return from Spain, my Lord of Winchester
(among other great expressions of his respects to me) made me
promise to him that upon all occasions of my coming to
London (for I abode still at Cambridge) I would lodge with
him ; to which end he caused three rooms near the garden2
to be fitted and reserved for me ; and twice or thrice I had
lodged there.
11 And at another time, coming suddenly to London and
late, I lodged at my sister's in Friday Street ; and the next
day being Friday, I went to Winchester House to dinner,
and craved his lordship's pardon that I lodged not there;
because that my business was to treat with some country
gentlemen who lay in Holborn, whom I should not meet with
but in the evening and morning, when it would not be safe
for me to pass the bridge or the Thames ; and so after dinner
I took my leave of him, hoping to return for Cambridge on
Monday.
" But on Saturday, going to do my duty to my Lords of
Durham [Neile] and St. David's [Laud], and telling them of
my sudden return, they would needs overrule me, and made
me promise them, though I had taken leave of my Lord of
Winchester, yet to meet them next day at Whitehall at my
lord's chambers at dinner. I did so, and there we sat after
dinner above an hour. And then, I shewing them that on the
morrow my business would be dispatched, and I would be
gone on Tuesday, I took my leave again of them all. But
on Monday morning by break of day (before they used to be
stirring in Friday Street) there was a great knocking at the
door where I lay ; and at last an apprentice who lay in the
shop came up to my bedside, and told me there was a
messenger from Winchester House to speak with me. The
business was to let me know that my lord, when he came
from court last night, had given his steward charge to order
it so that I might be spoken with, and be required as from
him without fail to dine with him on Monday ; but to be at
Winchester House by ten of the clock, which 1 wondered the
more at, his lordship not using to come from his study till
near twelve. My business would hardly permit this ; yet
because of his lordship's importunity, I got up presently, and
into Holborn I went, and there made such dispatch that soon
after ten o'clock I took a boat and went to Winchester House,
where I found the steward at the Water-gate, waiting to let
me in the nearest way, who telling me that my lord had
called twice to know if I were come, I asked where his lord
ship was. He answered, in his great gallery (a place where
I knew his lordship scarce came once in a year), and thither
I going, the door was locked ; but upon my lifting the latch,
my lord of St. David's opened the door, and letting me in,
locked it again.
a There I found none but those three lords, who causing
me to sit down by them, my lord of Durham began to me :
1 Doctor, your lord here will have it so, I that am the unfittest
person must be the speaker. But this it is ; after you left us
yesterday at Whitehall, we, entering into farther discourse of
those things which we foresee and conceive will ere long come
to pass, resolved again to speak to you before you went hence.
We must know of you what your thoughts are concerning
your master the Prince. You have now been his servant
above two years, and you were with him in Spain. We
know he respects you well, and we know you are no fool, but
can observe how things are like to go.' ' What things, my
lord?' qut)th I. 'In brief,' said he, c how the Prince's heart
stands to the Church of England, that when God brings him
to the crown, we may know what to hope for?' My reply
was to this effect, that, however, I was the most unfit of any
to give my opinion herein, attending but two months in the
year, and then at a great distance, only in the closet and at
meals ; yet seeing they so pressed me, I would speak my mind
freely. So I said, f I know my master's learning is not equal
to his father's ; yet I know his judgment to be very right ; and
as for his affections in these particulars which your lordships
have pointed at, for upholding the doctrine and discipline
and right estate of the Church, I have more confidence of him
than of his father, in whom they say (better than I can) is
so much inconstancy in some particular cases.'
" Hereupon my lords of Durham and St. David's began to
argue with me, and required me to let them know upon what
ground I came to think thus of the Prince. I gave them my
reasons at large, and after many replyings (above an hour
together), then my lord of Winchester, who had said nothing
all the while, bespake me in these words : c Well, Doctor,
God send you may be a true prophet concerning your master's
inclinations in these particulars, which we are glad to hear
from you. I am sure I shall be a true prophet. I shall be in my
grave, and so shall you, my lord of Durham • but my lord of
St. David's and you, Doctor, will live to see that day that
your master will be put to it, upon his head and his crown,
without he will forsake the support of the Church.'
" Of this prediction made by that holy Father, I have now
no witness but mine own conscience and the eternal God, who
knows I lie not; nobody else being present when this was
spoken but these three lords."
Hence it would appear that whatsoever might be the
connivance of the King's advisers in the matter of the Spanish
match, they were not without their secret apprehensions.
They dreaded the return of Popery, and so questioned Wren
respecting the inclinations of the Prince. It is very certain
that Andrewes was more thoroughly imbued with a sense of
the essential evil of the Komish system than Laud, and
probably Neile himself was inferior to Andrewes in this
respect, as in every other. Neile was himself some years
younger than Andrewes, and lived to see the beginning of
those troubles of which the false friends of the Prince were
themselves so great and so guilty a cause.
Bishop Andrewes' sermon on Christmas-day, upon the
summing up of all things in Christ, displays his usual inge
nuity, piety, and learning, but is not equal in point of interest
to many of the preceding.
In the course of this year the Isle of Jersey was, after
many efforts throughout the greater part of this reign, brought
to conformity with the Church of England, and David Bandi-
nelli, an Italian and minister of St. Mary's, was appointed
Dean. A book of canons was then drawn up by the Dean
and ministers, and examined and corrected by Archbishop
Abbot, Bishop Williams, Lord Keeper, and Bishop Andrewes,
now Diocesan of Jersey. The rupture with Spain prevented
the application of the same regulations to the Isle of Guernsey.
CHAPTER XXIII.
Bishop Andrewes on Repentance and Fasting — Andrewes and Neile on
the King 's Prerogative — Meric Casaubon — The Death of King
James — Moderation of Andrewes — Fast Service — Richard Montagu
— Death of Andrewes.
BISHOP ANDREWES this year (1624) completed his doctrine
of repentance in his Ash- Wednesday sermon, February 10th.
The last five of the eight Ash- Wednesday sermons may be
regarded as one treatise. The first of them, from the 2nd
chapter of Joel, treats of repentance generally as a turning out
of the way of sin to God, a sincere turning with the heart,
and, for the manner of it, with fasting. This he commends
not only as preventive of sin but as a correction of it / wept
and chastened myself with fasting.1 For " if in very sorrow
we are to fast when the bridegroom is taken away, much more
when we ourselves, by our sins committed, have been the
cause of his taking, nay, of his very driving away from us.
And must we then fast ? Indeed we must, or get us a new
Epistle for the day, and a new Gospel too."
tl But how fast ? Two kinds of fasting we find in Scripture :
1. David's, who fasted, tasted neither bread nor aught till
the sun was down; no meat at all: that is too hard.
2. What say you to Daniel's fast? He did eat and drink,
but no meats of delight, and (namely) eat no flesh. The
Church as an indulgent mother mitigates all she may; enjoins
not for fast that of David, and yet he who can, let him receive
it for all that. She only requires of us that other of Daniel,
to forbear meat of delight (and flesh is there expressly named),
meats and drinks provoking the appetite, full of nourishment,
kindling the blood.
" And yet even this also doth the Church release to such
as are in Timothy's case, have many infirmities. It is not
the decay of nature but the chastisement of sin she seeketh.
But this must not be hypocritically taken advantage of. Then
weeping, and if we cannot weep, yet mourning is required.
Mourning they call the sorrow which reason itself can yield.
Complain and bemoan ourselves we can, and desire and pray
for some portion of the grace of tears. 0 that my head were
full of water, and mine eyes fountains of tears. And we can
humbly beseech our merciful God and Father, in default of
ours, to accept of the strong crying and bitter tears which, in
the days of his flesh, his blessed Son in great agony shed for
us. Our hearts must be rent, contrite, ground as it were
to powder, to feel that it is a bitter and an evil thing to have
turned away and forsaken the Lord. We must be angry
with ourselves, or we are not truly grieved with ourselves.
Indignation naturally seeks revenge. We must abhor our
selves for our sins, not from mere earthly principles, but for
the manifold indignities offered by our sins to God, to the
law of his justice, to the awe of his majesty, to the reverent
regard of his presence, to the dread of his power, and to the
long-suffering of his love. And let repentance be without
delay. Now is the only sure part of our time."
Then in the second discourse our prelate establishes the
duty of fasting from our Lord's own injunction in the 6th
chapter of St. Matthew, and this preceded by the constant
practice of the Old Testament saints ; the fast of Ai, under
Joshua;1 at Gibeah,2 under the Judges; at Mizpah, under
Samuel f at Hebron, under David ;4 of Jeremiah, before the
Captivity ;5 of Daniel under it ;6 of Zachary after it ;7 at
Jerusalem, of the Jews at the preaching of Joel ,8 at Nineveh,
of the Gentiles at the preaching of Jonas.1 And so the
Christians at Antioch, the prophets of the New Testament
there, as well as the prophets of the Old.2 So the rest of
Christ's ministers shewed themselves such by this proof of
fasting amongst others.3 And what themselves did, they
advised others to do, to give themselves to fasting and
prayer.4 In truth, it accompanied ever all great acts of
devotion, whether for the deprecating of evil, or the obtaining
of good.
He returns to treat of the time and circumstances. The
forty days' fast is sanctioned by Moses, Elias, and Christ, and
God gave the same number to the people of Nineveh to repent
in. We may here consider whether those go not a presump
tuous length, who deny anything of an exemplary nature in
the fast of our Saviour. As we take less pleasing meats, less
luxurious and dainty, so we may diminish the quantity and
put off the time. Cornelius fasted to three at noon, Peter to
twelve at noon.5
The third discourse is, as we have seen, against hypocrisy.
The fourth and fifth are upon the fruits of repentance. The
fruits are works meet for repentance. For spiritual sins let
us now bring forth prayer and works of devotion ; for fleshly,
bodily self-denial; for worldly, alms and works of charity,
and compassion.
'For the first Simon Magus went not through with his
bargain ; did but think the Holy Ghost had been ware for his
money, all was but thinking ; went no further than the Spirit.
St. Peter prescribes him what to do, to fall to prayer ; pray,
saith he, if it be possible, this thought of thy heart may be
forgiven thee. Prayer serves where it goes no further than
thought.
1 For the second, the king of Nineveh and his people, they
fell to fasting on all hands. What was their sin ? Nahum
will best tell us that : he wrote the burden of Nineveh. This
it was, Because of the fornications of the harlot. For that
kind of fleshly sin, that was the proper fruit.
For the third, one example shall be the King of Babylon.
He had been a mighty oppressor of his people. There have
ye now a worldly sin. Break off thine iniquities with mercy
to the poor, is Daniel's prescript to him.'1 These make up the
corrective or penal part of repentance.
But most certain it is that he denies to the best of our
works everything that is strictly of the nature of satisfaction.
' Shall we put them into the balance, to weigh the worthiness
of our fruits with the unworthiness of our sins, and the conse
quent of our sins, the wrath of God ? the dignity of the one
with the indignity of the other, and think by their dignity to
satisfy God's great indignation ? I trow not. At this beam
no fruits of ours will hold weight ; none so found worthy ; no,
not if we could, I say not, shed or pour out, but even melt
into tears, and every tear a drop of blood. The honour of
worthy in this sense belongs to the fruits of no tree but the
tree of the cross of Christ ; to his sufferings, and to none but
his.'2 To apportion to each his proper works of repentance,
that there may be no self-deception, he commends that the
minister of God be consulted. So it was of old time. ' In
the law every man was not left to himself. The offering for
sin, which was to them a fruit of repentance, it was rated ever,
ever taxed by the priest.3 According to his ordering, so it
went : he made the estimate, how much was enough, what
would serve. And here now in St. John's time — to St. John
they come with their What shall we do ? — and under the Gospel
there we see, for the Corinthian St. Paul said, This much is
enough, this shall serve : his conscience may be quiet ; I
restore him to the Church's peace. And the canons peni
tential which were made in the times under persecution, the
very best times of the Church, lay forth plainly what is to be
followed and observed in this kind.' He witnesses the general
neglect of casuistry of this kind, and laments over it. ' Truly
it is neither the least nor the last part of our learning, to be
able to give answer and directions in this point ; but therefore
laid aside and neglected by us, because not sought after by
you; therefore not studied but by very few, because it is
grown out of request quite.'
He who would faithfully treat both of repentance and the
fruits of repentance, may well consult Bishop Andrewes'
Manual for the Sick, edited by Dr. Drake in 1685.1
We find a sermon prepared to be preached on March 28th,
Easter-day, from the 18th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
the benediction toward the end of the chapter. It abounds in
pious applications of the text, but embraces too many points
to have been easily carried away by the auditory, the greatest
perhaps of all. the faults of that age of learned and truly able
preachers.
On May 29th, the day after the proroguing of Parliament,
Mr. Waller, "going to see the King at dinner, overheard a
very extraordinary conversation between his Majesty and
Bishops Andrewes and Neile, who were standing behind the
King's chair. His Majesty asked them, ' My lords, cannot
I take my subjects' money when I want it, without all this
formality in Parliament?' The Bishop of Durham readily
answered, 'God forbid, Sir, but you should; you are the
breath of our nostrils.' Whereupon the King turned and
said to Bishop Andrewes, 'Well, my lord, what say you?'
4 Sir,' replied the Bishop, ' I have no skill to judge of parlia
mentary cases.' The King answered, i No put-offs, my lord,
answer me presently.' l Then, Sir,' said he, ' I think it
lawful for you to take my brother Neile's money, for he
offers it.'"2
Bishop Andrewes' name frequently occurs upon committees
of the Peers in this and occasionally the following year. On
February 26th he was on a committee of privileges. On
March 1st he had leave to be absent. On March 8th he was
on a committee on the observance of the Lord's-day. On
March llth on the Bill respecting recusants made in the
third of this reign. On March 12th on a committee to
prevent the carrying of gold out of the country by bills of
exchange, « and, as they conceive, by the Papists.' On March
16th on a committee to enable Prince Charles to make leases
of lands parcel of the Duchy of Cornwall. On May 29th, at
eight in the morning, respecting an Act for the confirmation
and continuance of hospitals and free-schools that had been
called in question. About this time Dr. Field, Bishop of
Llandaff, was to be admonished in the Convocation House
before the Bishops, a charge having been laid against him
by the Archbishop of dealing in bribery.1 On May 31st
Andrewes was placed on a committee, " the session not to be
closed by the royal assent being given to some acts."2
In the month of August our prelate was afflicted with
a very dangerous illness at his palace at Waltham, Hants.
On the 6th of August he wrote to Dr. Fenton. His rest was
disturbed and his whole system disordered. His appetite
for meat had left him. " No drink," he says, to me." He also suffered great pain in his left side. After
detailing his symptoms, he adds : " This I hope will make
you to come. I have sent my own coach for you to be here
on Tuesday. I would it could be sooner, but not to fail of
you then. You shall never come more welcome. Till then
and for ever God have you in his keeping. Waltham, 6 Aug.
1624.
" Your very assured loving friend,
"LA. WINTON."
He complains in a P.S. that he is disappointed in respect
of his brother and his wife ; " so that," he adds, " you are like
to come alone. You shall be never a wit the loser, but better
welcome. See you come in any wise."
But we find him named in a committee on a private bill
the following 1st of December) again on Saturday, December
the 5th, to meet at eight A.M. in the Painted Chamber on a
committee for making the Thames navigable for barges, boats,
or lighters from the village of Bercott (Buscott or Burwardscot
in Berkshire) to Oxford. On that day he was also on a
commission for the banishing of Jesuits and Seminary Priests.
In December 16243 the King was a third time in Cam-
bridge (having paid two visits to the University in 1615),
and kept his court at Trinity College. Prince Charles also
was with him ; and here Monsieur de Villiariler and the
Marquis d' Effiat, Embassadors Extraordinary from the King
of France, had audience of his Majesty, who, on the 12th of
December, signed here the ratification of the treaty with
France respecting the marriage of the Prince of Wales with
the Princess Henrietta Maria. The King was confined with
the gout in his hands and arms, but the Prince, Embassadors,
and Nobility were entertained with public disputations, &c.
There was an extraordinary Commencement, when many
degrees were granted.1
i Doctors created by his Majesty's letters-patent :
Shaw, Peterhouse.
John Leslie, Trinity, took no other degree.
Anthony Topham, Trinity (Fellow), B.A. 1605, M.A. 1609, B.D. 1616.
Thomas Rayment, Peterhouse, M.A. 1606.
Laurence Burnell, John's, B.A. 1600, M.A. 1604.
Alexander Reade, Pembroke, B.A. 1604-5 — 1608.
Gabriel Moore, Christ, B.A. 1605-6, M.A. 1609.
John Towers, Queens', B.D. 1615.
Abraham Gibson, John's, B.A. 1606-7, M.A. 1610, B.D. 1617.
Thomas Warner, Emmanuel, B.A. 1604-5, M.A. 1608.
Amongst those who received the degree of M.A. were Sir Kenelm Digby
and Sir "William Fleetwood.
Richard Bagnall intruded himself, and his name not being found in the King's
list, he was three days after (*'. e. the 16th) deprived of his degree.
The King, by a letter to the University on the 17th, gave instructions that
all persons so taking their degrees should promise to perform the usual exercises
according to the statutes and customs of the University.*
Dr. Anthony Topham was Vicar of Trumpington, and 7th September, 1629,
installed Dean of Lincoln. He retired, after the loss of his preferment, to
Clayworth, to the south of the road between Bawtry and Gainsborough, and
died there October 22, 1655.
Dr. Thomas Rayment, or Raymond, of Peterhouse, was at this time Preben
dary of Milton Ecclesia in the church of Lincoln, to which he had been collated
November 17th, 1620, and installed January 19th, 1621. He was also Prebendary
of Chamberlainswode in the church of St. Paul's, London, and Archdeacon of
St. Alban's. He died in his 47th year November 4th, 1631, and was buried in
St. Paul's. The Latin inscription on his gravestone is given in Dugdale's
St. Paul's, and in Browne Willis's Survey of Lincoln Cathedral, p. 221.
* See Mr. Charles H. Cooper's Annals of Cambridge, vol. iii. p. 171.
Of this visit to Cambridge of King James with Andrewes,
Isaak Walton relates in his Life of George Herbert, " the year
following the King appointed to end his progress at Cam
bridge, and to stay there certain days ; at which time he was
Dr. John Towers of Norfolk was B.A of Queens' College, Cambridge, 1602,
M.A. 1606, Fellow of his College, B.D. 1615. His letter to Sir J}hn Lamb, to
intercede for him with Laud for the bishopric of Peterborough, is given in p. 354
of Prynne's Compleat History of the Trial and Condemnation of William Laud,
Archbishop of Canterbury. He was accordingly promoted from the Deanry, to
which he had been nominated 14th November, 1630, to the see of Peterborough
November 21, 1638. He was consecrated 1639 by Laud, Juxon, Bishop of
London, Curie, Bishop of "Winchester, Wren, Bishop of Ely, and "Warner, Bishop
of Rochester. Prynne gives also this prelate's orders for and concerning the
sermon weekly on "Wednesday in St. James's Chapel, Brackley, September 14th,
1639. These orders contain the names of the clergy appointed to preach the
lecture, the time of the service, which was nine A.M., and the order of divine
service. By these instructions it appears that the whole morning service was to
be read as now, i. e. the Morning Prayer, Litany, and the Communion Service,
" commonly called the second service." A psalm was to be sung after the Litany.
The preacher was to go up into the pulpit immediately after the Nicene Creed, in
his surplice and hood. He was to use no form of prayer before sermon, but the
bidding prayer as set down in the 55th Canon. Only he might, if he would, insert
"the names of the Universities and of his College, or of his patron, he being one
qualified by law to have a chaplain." The sermon was to be at the utmost
within the compass of an hour, and no prayer was to be used after it, but it was
to end with Glory be to God, &c. ; and after the sermon the preacher was to
return to the Communion-table, and read the prayer for the whole state of
Christ's Church, &c., and one or two of the Collects at the end of the Communion
Service, and lastly the blessing, The Peace of God, &c. If the prayers were
neglected or deserted, the lecture was to be altogether discontinued. Dr. Towers
died January 10th, 1649, and was buried in his cathedral near his predecessor
Bishop Dee, without any memorial, in the middle of the choir. The choir of
this cathedral was, until at least about the middle of the last century, much
more spacious than at present. It commenced with the last pillar but one on
either side the nave, thus standing partly beneath the lantern tower. It is
now much too contracted for the wants of the city.
Dr. Laurence Burnell was B.A. of St. John's College, Cambridge, 1601,
M. A. 1604, Chancellor of Exeter July 20th, 1624. He died in his 68th year,
November 12th, 1647.
Dr. John Lesley, of Trinity College, was Bishop of Sodor August 17, 1628,
and was translated to Raphoe in Ireland in 1633.
Dr. Reade, who was minister of Yately, Hants, has been already mentioned in
the account of the royal visit to Cambridge in 1615.
Gabriel Moore, of Christ College, was Taxor in 1616 and Proctor in 1620,
Prebendary of the first stall at Westminster March 8, 1632. He held it until
the Usurpation.
attended by the great secretary of nature and all learning, Sir
Francis Bacon (Lord Verulam), and by the ever memorable
and learned Doctor Andre wes, Bishop of Winchester, both
which did at that time begin a desired friendship with our
orator." " And for the learned Bishop, it is observable that
at that time there fell to be a modest debate betwixt them
two about predestination and sanctity of life ; of both which
the orator did not long after send the Bishop some safe and
useful aphorisms in a long letter written in Greek; which
letter was so remarkable for the language and reason of it,
that after the reading it the Bishop put it into his bosom, and
did often shew it to many scholars both of this and foreign
nations, but did always return it back to the place where he
first lodged it, and continued it so near his heart till the last
day of his life."1
This same year Bishop Andrewes preached his last
Christmas-day sermon before the King, from the 2nd Psalm^
TJiou art my Son, &c. ; first, treating of them as spoken to our
Lord; secondly, as the law preached by him to all that are
adopted into the family of God.
About this time he preferred Meric the son of Isaac
Casaubon, but far his inferior in learning, to the Rectory of
Bleadon, a small village west of Axbridge in Somersetshire.
He was bora at Geneva in August 1599, but coming over
with his father was admitted at Christ Church, Oxford, and
in 1621 published a vindication of his deceased father against
the false rumours and artifices of the Papists, Heribert Rosweid,
a Jesuit, Andrew Scioppius, Julius Caesar Bullinger, and the
traitor of 1605 (the favourite of the great Anglo-Romish
historian), Andrew Eudsemon Joannes. After the death of
Andrewes Laud became Casaubon's patron,2 and preferred
him in 1628 to a prebendal stall in Canterbury.
Fuller, in his Church History, b. xi. I. § 46, says that
Andrewes' gravity in a manner awed King James, who re
frained from that mirth and liberty in the presence of this
prelate, which otherwise he assumed to himself. However
the King highly esteemed his wit, which as it shone forth in
all his writings, his sermons not excepted, would doubtless
have given an unrivalled charm to his conversation. Those
who enjoyed the society of the late incomparable Bishop of
Lincoln will never fail to remember that unaffected playfulness
which never lost sight of the higher requisites of conversation.
Both were perhaps the greatest patristic scholars of their day,
both eminent for their benevolence, and both have left behind
them monuments of as learned piety as their several ages can
boast.
On January 1st, 1625, Andrewes was on the High Com
mission.
His royal master in his last illness desired his attend
ance, but by reason of a severe fit of the stone and gout,
at the same time, he was unable to be with him. The King,
however, had the comfort of the presence of Abbot and
Williams, both soon to lose the best of masters, and to fall
into great and undeserved disgrace. The King ended his
days in much peace of mind. He was indeed but too incon
stant, and an uncertain friend to that religion in which he
professed to die, and in defence of which he had written with
sufficient learning. He was a true patron of learning, and
protector of the rights and revenues of the Church. But he
lived in the contaminating atmosphere of flattery, from the
shameless adulation of Whitgift at the Hampton Conference1
to that of Neile standing behind his table. He was indolent
and irresolute, seeing a better way than that which he would
walk in, and thus guilty of injustice which he but inade
quately regretted. He left his throne to a son weaker and
more arbitrary, but less conciliating, and far less versed in
theoretical wisdom. He left him to young and inexperienced
counsellors, who soon aggravated the difficulties with which the
crown was already environed, and raised up a host of enemies
to the Church by attempting innovations both in doctrine and
ceremonies. Andrewes was always of an unambitious and
quiet spirit. Laud took the place which he alone was fitted
to occupy, and Villiers soon thrust aside Williams.
On Wednesday, March 24th, our prelate was one of a
committee of the Lords for the confirmation of Wadham
College and its possessions. It had been founded in 1610.
On March 27, Midlent Sunday, whilst Laud was preaching
at Whitehall, news was brought in of the King's death.1 He
died at Theobalds about three-quarters of an hour past eleven
in the forenoon. The King fell sick March 4th, on Friday.
On the 1st of April Laud received letters from the Earl of
Pembroke, Lord Chamberlain to the King, and therein a
command to preach before him and the House of Peers in the
opening of Parliament to be held on the 17th of May. This
Parliament, however, was deferred to the 18th of June, and
on the 19th Laud preached before the King at Whitehall.2
Abbot and Andrewes were both henceforth superseded
most effectually, and Laud became the real primate and
director of all ecclesiastical affairs. So on April 5th he de
livered to the Duke of Buckingham a list of divines marked
O and P, Orthodox and Puritans. Thus was all church
patronage placed at once under his influence. After this most
responsible step had been taken he received a command to go
to Andrewes, and learn from him what he would have done
in the cause of the Church, and especially in regard of pre
destination. There can be little doubt that this was in con
sequence of Laud's own suggestion. The next day being
Sunday, April 10th, he went to Bishop Andrewes, who was
then in his chamber at court. He acquainted him with what
he had received in command. Andrewes gave Laud his
answer, but the purport of it we learn from Laud's chaplain
and panegyrist Heylyn. It accorded with the moderation
and experience of Andrewes, and, by advising that nothing be
done, and no controversies stirred, checked the ardent spirit of
Laud. There can indeed be no doubt that their opinions
and whole theology varied widely. Laud denied the character
of a Church to every communion that was not episcopal ; not
so Andrewes; as may be seen in his letters to Du Moulin.
Andrewes maintained that the Pope was Antichrist, Laud
that he was not. Andrewes never deserted the doctrine of
St. Augustine on predestination; Laud was at this time, in
all probability, at least a concealed Arminian. With much
subtlety and little ingenuousness both he and Neile indirectly
answered to the charge of Arminianism when it was objected
to them in the latter part of this reign, v Laud's answer on his
trial was, ' I have nothing to do to defend Arminianism,
no man having yet charged me with the abetting any point
of it.'1
On June 6th, Whit-Monday, Laud and Andrewes dined
together with Buckeridge, Bishop of Bochester, at his house
at Bromley.
On June 7th he was on a commission for mortgaging some
of the crown lands to Edward Allen and others.2
On Friday, June 24th, Andrewes was, with Laud, Moun
tain, Bishop of London, Neile, Bishop of Durham, Buckeridge,
Bishop of Rochester, Harsnet, Bishop of Norwich, and Abbot
the Archbishop, appointed to advise concerning a public fast
and a form of prayer, to implore the divine mercy on occasion
of the spreading of the plague, and the extraordinarily wet
weather which threatened a famine ; and also to beg the divine
blessing upon the fleet now ready to put to sea. This form of
prayer was altered and enlarged from that which was put
forth in 1563, which had also been used with some altera
tions and accommodations in 1603, on occasion of the plague
that raged at the time of the late King's coronation. The
same responses were now used instead of the 95th Psalm,
and for the psalms the seven penitential psalms, the 6th,
32nd, 38th, 51st, 102nd, 130th, and 143rd, were read at the
morning prayer; and at the evening prayer the 9th, 39th,
86th, 90th, and 91st. The lessons were Deuteronomy xxviii.
and xxx., 1 Kings viii., 2 Sam. xxiv., Joel ii., Jonah iii.,
i Wharton's History of Laud's Troubles and Trial, p. 352. 2 Rymer.
St. Matthew vi. or viii. or ix., and St. Luke xiii. or xxi. The
prayer, '0 almighty, most just, and merciful God,' was
altered so as to be less pointedly opposed to Eomanism : for
the words hitherto used, f thou hast delivered us from all
horrible and execrable idolatry,' were substituted, 'thou
hast delivered us from superstition and idolatry.' To this
form was appended as a preface the prayer for the High
Court of Parliament, since excellently altered and inserted
into the Liturgy. After 'the welfare of our sovereign and
his kingdoms,' it proceeded, 'Lord, look upon the humility
and devotion with which they are come into thy courts ; and
they are come into thy house in assured confidence upon the
merits and mercies of Christ (our blessed Saviour), that thou
wilt not deny them the grace and favour which they beg of
thee. Therefore, O Lord, bless them with all that wisdom
which thou knowest necessary to speed and bring great
designs into action, and to make the maturity of his Majesty's
and their counsels the happiness and the blessing of this
commonwealth. These and all other necessaries for them,
for us, &c. For the second lesson at the evening service were
appointed 1 Cor. x. to the 16th verse, I Cor. xiii., or 2 Cor.
ix., or 1 Thess. iv. The homily put forth in 1603 was
printed at the end of the prayers.
On the 23rd of July the Bishop promoted his brother
Dr. Roger Andrewes, Master of Jesus College, to the sixth
stall in Winchester Cathedral, on the death of William Barlow,
Archdeacon of Salisbury.
On September 8tli Andrewes was on a commission for
charitable uses, to inquire into the disposition of the property
of Andrew Windsor, Esq., who had bequeathed property for
the support of eight poor persons in an almshouse founded by
himself at Farnham. The gift was declared good.1
This year a third of the inhabitants of London and of the
suburbs died of the plague. Andrewes gave 100 marks
during this time to the parish of St. Saviour's, Southwark.
Buckeridge adds in his funeral sermon, that since the year
1620 he gave in private alms to the sum of £1340.
In Secretary Conway's Letter Book is the following
minute : "To Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester, to
admit Dr. Middleton to the place of Confessor of the House
hold," October, 1625. This was the occasion of the following
letter from our prelate :
" R.T. HON. AND MY VEET GOOD LoED,
"Your lordship's from Salisbury of the 25th October came
not to my hand till this day the 4th November, lest your lordship
should impute the delay of mine answer to any neglect of dutie.
May it please your lordship to be advertised that there hath nothing
been done in this matter of the Confessorship but with the know
ledge and by order of his Majestic.
" Mr. Beckett, the confessor that now is, and that hath been for
a great part of the time of our late Sovereign Lord King James
(whose remembrance be ever in blessing) had the grant of that place
not by me, but by Bishop Montague my predecessor, then Dean of
the Chapel, to whom appertaineth the gift of that place, to appoint
one of his own chaplains (as by the Book of the Household appeareth,
and as ever hath been used).
"It hath ever been the most gracious goodness of the Kings and
Queens, his Majestie's precedessors, so far to commiserate their poor
servants, as if the hand of God were upon them (as upon Mr.
a stall in that cathedral, and made him Archdeacon of Chichester 23rd February,
1608, as he had previously made him Chancellor October 16th, 1606. He was
the first who commenced a College Register. He was undoubtedly deserving of
promotion, for his learning obtained for him a place amongst the translators of
the Bible in the reign of King James. He died in 1635. He was succeeded in
his stall at "Winchester by Dr. Thomas Buckner, in his Mastership by Dr.
William Beale, brother of Jerome, Master of Pembroke College. His stall at
Southwell he resigned in 1631, and was succeeded by Dr. Henry "Willis. John
Scull was on his decease appointed Chancellor, and Laurence Pay Archdeacon
of Chichester.
Beckett it hath been now for these few years past, hath been stricken
with a palsy, not yet recovered), they could continue in their place
still, and serve them by a deputy.
" It may please his Majestic to call to mind, that not long after
his happy coming to the crown, upon the humble petition of Mr.
Beckett, his Majestic' s pleasure was to me signified by my Lord
Duke of Buckingham, and after by his Majestic himself, that he
would have Mr. Beckett continue in the place during his life;
whereupon he was orderly sworn by me. This as among the
multitude of far more weighty affairs it very well may, so it is
likely his Majestic calleth not to his remembrance. Under reforma
tion and craving pardon, I thought it to stand with my duty to
make this known. May it please it your lordship to put his Majestic
in mind thereof. And his memory being informed, his pleasure
shall be fulfilled, as becometh me.
" I beseech your lordship to bear with and to support this my
imperfect manner of writing, who have been under the hand of God
sick of an ague these seven weeks, for the most part forced to keep
my bed, where your letter found me. I remain while I live, to
pray and to wish your lordship continuance and increase of health,
honour and happiness from God, who long preserve you.
" In all duty and service
" At your lordship's commandment,
"LA. WlNTON.
" Bishop' s Waltham,
"Novemb. 4, 1625." l
Thus early was the very patronage of Andrewes as Dean
of the Chapel Koyal invaded, and that with the royal
sanction. So little reverence did the Sovereign shew to
his recently departed father's most deserving friend and
favourite. Had Abbot been removed before Andrewes from
his trials to that world for which his afflictions doubtless
ripened him, nothing can be more improbable than that
Andrewes would have been raised to Canterbury. Laud
would not have declined such an opportunity — Laud, who
was already aiming at the metropolitan functions.
On December the 8th Bishop Andrewes wrote as follows
to the Lords of the Council :
" RT. Hotf. MY VERY GOOD LOEDS,
" Your Lordships' letters of the 30th October I received on
Monday night last (the 5th of this present), wherein I am required
1 In the margin is as follows :
" (By his Majestie himself] in the gallerie at Whitehall, my Lord Chamberlain
and divers others then present."
to signify to the Lord Marquess of Winchester and to his son (the
Lord St. John) his Majestie's pleasure touching the removing of
their arms and other habiliments of war, and taking them into my
custodie.
" My Lords, I would my body were to my mind, and wish with
all my heart, that for the present state of my health, I were as able
to perform this service as I shall ever be found willing readily to
obey and to execute any of his Majestie's commands, or your Lord
ships' letters, to the uttermost of my endeavours. But at this present
God hath laid upon me the ague, the stone, and the gout all at
once. The ague hath held me these twelve weeks and more, and is
now come to plain tertian, which forceth me (being now low brought)
to keep my bed every other day. And within these three weeks I
have had at times three grievous fits of stone in the bladder, which
afflicteth me still. And to both these is now come the gout, to make
me more unhable for undertaking a journey, or taking on me a
matter of so great importance. All which, offering to your Lord
ships' grave judgment (that his Majestie's service sustain no preju
dice), I humbly desire your favourable report to his Majestie of my
weak estate. And the business requiring speed, that your Lordships
will be pleased to think of some other that are not only for the state
of their health and strength of their bodies, but besides better hable
every way than myself. Or, if it be required that I do it, that I may be
respited some time till it please God I may recover some strength to
go about it. Which I write not as any way unwilling to any of
his Majestie's service in this kind (for I shall be ever most ready to
execute it or any the like to the uttermost of my power), but only
that as my case is I have neither health nor strength to perform it.
" And here withal I have returned the letter sent to the two
Lords, expecting his Majestie's further pleasure and your Lord
ships' command, whereto my ability I will ever yield due obedience.
Beseeching God with all his graces ever to bless that most honourable
board at all your meetings, and to crown your consultations with all
prosperous success.
"At your Et. Honourable Lordships'
" Commandment,
"In all humble duty and service,
" LA. WINTON.
" Bishop's Waltham,
"Decemb. 8, 1625."
On January 16, 1626, by the King's command a con
sultation was held to resolve what should be done in the case
of Richard Mountague. This learned and able writer, now
Dean of Hereford and one of the King's Chaplains, had
given great offence, not to the Puritans only, but to many
whom it would be unjust to characterize by that name.
He had, in answer to a proselytist who troubled his parish
of Stanford Rivers near Ongar, put forth in 1624 a work
entitled A New Gag for an Old Goose, &c. This book
was severely animadverted upon by Yates and Ward,1 two
Puritan ministers of Ipswich. Antony Wotton, Divinity
Professor of Gresham College, afterwards entered into the
controversy in as severe a spirit, but with far more ability.
To Ward and Yates Mountagu replied in his Appello Ccesarem,
A Just Appeal from Two Unjust Informers. This second
work is written with gall rather than with ink, and proved its
author to be indeed what in that age would have entitled
him to be called ' a man of a stout spirit.' True it is, how
ever, that the two informers exaggerated his offences. In
Bishop Carleton Mountagu found a far more formidable
opponent. This prelate had himself taken part in the Synod
of Dort, and was well read in Christian antiquity. He wrote
piously and gravely, and without mingling false charges with
true, exposed the subtlety, sophistry, and inconclusiveness of
Mountagu, where he innovated upon the then received doctrine
of the Church. His examination of Mountagu's errors he
dedicated to King Charles, but it may be questioned whether
that monarch had either the knowledge or the impartiality
requisite for so deep and (to speak the truth) repulsive a
subject.
Upon the assembling of the Commons June 21, 1625,
amongst other subjects they took into consideration the
alleged errors of Mountagu. In the late reign the cause was
put into the hands of Archbishop Abbot, and ended in an
admonition being given to Mountagu.
Afterward the Bishops of the Arminian party, says Rush-
worth, consulted the propagation of the five articles condemned
in the Synod of Dort, [and] concluded that Mr. Mountagu,
being already engaged in the quarrel, should publish his
Appeal to Casarj at first attested by their joint authority,
which afterward they withdrew by subtlety, having pro
cured the subscription of Dr. Francis White,1 whom they left
to appear alone in the testimony, as himself ofttimes com
plained publicly. The Archbishop disallowed the book and
sought to suppress it ; nevertheless it was printed and dedi
cated to King Charles, whereby that party did endeavour to
engage him in the beginning of his reign. Mountagu himself,
on the contrary, asserts in his Epistle Dedicatory to King
Charles , that his royal father acquitted him of all the charges
that were brought against him, and gave express order to Dr.
White, Dean of Carlisle, for the authorising and publishing
thereof.
The Commons appointed a committee to examine the
errors therein, and gave the Archbishop thanks for the admo
nition given to the author, whose books they voted to be
contrary to the articles established by the Parliament, to tend
to the King's dishonour and disturbance of Church and State,
and took bond for his appearance. Hereupon the King
intimated to the House that the things determined concerning
Mountagu without his knowledge did not please him, for that
he was his servant and chaplain-in-ordinary, and he had
taken the business into his own hands ; whereat the Commons
seemed to be much displeased.2
It is reported that the King at one time thought of
leaving Mountagu to the Parliament, and to this that
reflection in Laud's Diary was supposed by some to refer:
1 1 seem to see a cloud arising, and threatening the Church of
England; God for his mercy dissipate it!' This occurs in
Laud's Diary January 29 : ' Jan. 29. Sunday. I understood
what D. B. had collected concerning the cause, book, and
opinions of Richard Mountague, and what E. C.' [King
Charles] ' had determined with himself therein. Methinks
I see a cloud rising/ &C.1
On January 16th, about a fortnight before the preceding
observation of Laud, he, with Monteigne, Neile, and Bucker-
idge, met at Winchester House, where they together with
Bishop Andrewes signed a letter, doubtless very satisfactory
to the King and sufficiently exculpatory of Mountagu. The
letter was addressed to the royal favourite, the Duke of
Buckingham :
"MAY IT PLEASE YOTTB, GltACE,
" Upon your late letters directed to the Bp. of Winchester,
signifying his Maties pleasure that, taking to him the Bps. of
London, Durham, Rochester, Oxford, and St. David's, or some of
them, he and they should take into consideration the business con
cerning Mr. Mountagu' s late book, and deliver their opinions
touching the same, for the preservation of the truth and the peace
of the Church of England, together with the safety of Mr. Mountagu' s
person, we have met and considered, and for our particulars do
think, that Mr. Mountagu in his book hath not affirmed anything
to be the doctrine of the Church of England, but that which in our
opinion is the doctrine of the Church of England, or agreeable
thereunto. And for the preservation of the peace of the Church,
we in humility do conceive that his Matle shall do most graciously
to prohibit all parties, members of the Church of England, any
further controversy of those questions by public preaching, or
writing, or any other way to the disturbance of the peace of the
Church for the time to come. And for any thing that may further
concern Mr. Mountagu's person in that business, we humbly com
mend him to his Maties gracious favour and pardon. And so we
humbly commend your Grace to the protection of the Almighty,
resting
" Yor Grace's faithful and humble servants,
" GEO. LONDON.
"B. DUNELM. LA. WlNTON.
"Jo. ROFEENS*
" GTJIL. MENEVE.
" From "Winchester House,
"January 16, 1625." 2
It is evident that the King and the Duke, probably swayed
by Laud, had previously determined upon Mountagu's ac-
quittal. This is clear from the wording of the Duke's letter.
The Bishops were to consult for the safety of Mountagu's
person. The prelates appointed to conduct the cause were all
prelates in favour at court. It is not on record that any of
them, except Andrewes, had ever appeared on the side of
the doctrine of the Church of England as maintained during
at least the greater part of the preceding reign. Both the
Archbishops were passed over, and so Williams, Bishop of
Lincoln, Davenant, Bishop of Salisbury, Carleton, Bishop of
Chichester, Morton, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry ; on
the other hand, Laud, Buckeridge, and Howson, Bishop of
Oxford, were known to be his friends. Thus the King in fact
asked the assistance of Monteigne, Neile, Andrewes, and their
assessors in shielding his chaplain Mountagu from the prose
cution of the Commons.
The House of Commons charged Mountagu with main
taining that the Church of Rome is and ever was a true
Church ; that it hath ever remained firm on the same founda
tion of the Sacraments and doctrine instituted by God ; that
no points of faith, hope, charity, and good manners are con
troverted between Protestants and Romanists; that images
may be used to raise devotion ; that in his treatise upon the
invocation of saints he had maintained that they have a more
peculiar charge of their friends, and that it may be believed
that some saints have tutelage of countries, &c. ; that he had
also taught, contrary to the 17th Article, that justified men
may fall away; that he had misquoted the 16th Article, and
sought to bring in Arminianism ; that he had factiously used
the term Puritan of such as conform to the discipline and
ritual of the Church ; and that the scope and end of Richard
Mountagu was to give encouragement to Popery, and to
lay the ground for a reconciliation with Popery ; lastly, that
he, in some things that he had written, reflected upon the
late King, and had used railing and bitter speeches to
many other persons and contemptuous to foreign reformed
churches.1
Mountagu, in his New Gag for an Old Goose, or Answer
to the late Gagger of Protestants, begins with the controversies
touching the relative places of Scripture and the Church. He
affirms that ' the written Word of God is the rule of faith
with us.' x c Unto the law and unto the prophets was a direction
of a perpetual morality, and is continued in that of our
Saviour, (John v.) Search the Scriptures, for in them you hope
to have eternal life : a rule absolute in itself, a rule most
«/ 7
sufficient unto us, for that end intended, to make the man of
God perfect in every good work.' c Plainly delivered in
Scripture are all those points which belong unto faith and
manners, hope, and charity, to wit.' But other points there
are which are obscure and open to controversy. These the
Church has power to interpret and resolve.2
He adduces Cyril of Jerusalem in his Fourth Catechism
speaking thus, ' In any point concerning the divine and holy
mysteries of our faith, not any the least thing must be tendered
without warrant of divine Scripture.' And he (Cyril) addeth,
1 Believe me not that speak and deliver these things unto you,
unless for proof of them I do bring plain and evident demon
stration out of divine writ.' Mountagu proceeds : * Was this
man a Protestant or a Papist? Those Bibles he had then
which we have now : and it seemeth that addressing his own
belief and doctrine accordingly varied not in judgment any
whit from us, who make Scripture the rule of our belief, and
in doubtful points that require determination, appeal unto the
Catholic Church for judgment in that rule.'
He then comments upon that passage so little understood,
but so much in some men's mouths, The Scribes and Pharisees
sit in Moses1 chair; all therefore whatsoever they bid you
observe, that observe and do.3 He asks, ' Do you suppose that
our Saviour approved them so well, as that he would have
had the Jews in matters of faith to rely upon them and their
decisions, as pastors of the Church in points of faith ? If this
were his meaning, what meant he then to give warning else
where, Take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees ? that is, as
the Holy Ghost expoundeth it, of their doctrine. If the
question had been put, Art thou the Christ f would he have
sent them unto the Scribes or Pharisees for resolution, or
advised the people to believe on them? We find it not
practised : the contrary we do. What then is this text in
consequence unto the point ? Surely he meant no more but
this, and in that he will declare himself a Protestant • What
soever they bid you observe out of Moses^ observe ; that is, so
long as they teach but Scripture they must be heard ; if here
they fail, then hear them not. Verba legis proferendo, in the
opinion of St. Augustine, so long as they speak law. Then
he adduces the Jesuits Maldonatus and Barradas giving the
same exposition.1
His antagonist had alleged from the 10th chapter of
St. LuJce, He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. These words,
he observes, might relate to the Apostles in the fullest sense
as having mission immediate from the Son himself, which
none ever had but they. But in relation to those after them,
it must be understood as St. Bernard understood it, with this
restriction, 'as far as man doth not gainsay the will and
commandment of the Most High.' ( A flat Protestant in his
assertion,' adds Mountagu, ' and upon reason ; for a nuncio
must go to his commission.' 2
St. Anselm he calls ' a factionist for Pope Urban, his good
lord and master.'3
As upon the authority of Scripture so of traditions, he might
have written more clearly. Thus why say that i traditions
derived from the Apostles have equal authority with their
preachings and their writings?' The love-feasts were such
traditions, and yet who would affirm that they were of equal
authority with the Eucharist, equally binding upon the ob
servance of the Church? It is not true that we hold all
apostolical traditions as binding. Such a tradition was baptism
by immersion ; yet neither is this observed by us. Such a
tradition was the order of deaconesses, yet where is it to be
found?
In animadverting upon the Komanist's allegation, that it
is our doctrine that the Church can err, Mountagu maintains
the same doctrine with some in our own day, that the Church
representative, true and lawful, cannot err in fundamentals.
The Church representative is in the second chapter of the
second part of his Appeal identified with a general council.
This is a fruitless controversy, and upon Mountagu's own
shewing, a needless one. For as all things according to
him requisite to be believed in order to salvation are in
Holy Scripture, why should general councils be called?
not to clear points of doctrine. And in points of disci
pline they may err without question, since they are liable
to err on points of fact which are always involved in the
administration of discipline. It is remarkable how those who
speak much for general councils are not careful to define
them. Even deacons spoke in antient councils. Would the
modern advocates of them be content with the antient
model?
In his fifth chapter occurs in Latin that passage which
gave just cause of offence to the House of Commons : l And
although this present Roman Church hath departed in no
small degree, not only in regard of purity of manners and
discipline, but also in regard of uncorruptness in doctrine,
from that antient Church whence it arose and was derived,
yet it hath ever stood firm upon the same foundation of
doctrine and of the Sacraments instituted by God, and recog
nises and keeps communion with the antient and undoubted
Church of Christ. Wherefore it cannot be another and a
different church from that, however unlike it in many respects.'
So then, the half-communion, idolatrous worship, and the
enjoining as essential to salvation doctrines of human origin
and no part of the Word of God, all this however unlike the
primitive Church is not so unlike it as to constitute a separate
being ! Now Mountagu admitted the gross idolatry of the
Church of Rome, and therefore the absurdity is his own.
" 1 do not, I cannot, I will not deny that idolatry is grossly
committed in the Church of Rome." This is his own testi
mony. But will any say, it is one thing for the Church to
commit idolatry, another thing for idolatry to be committed
in the Church ? He answers, that the idolatrous worship of
the image of Christ as maintained by [St. Thomas Aquinas
u is an article of faith in the Roman Church."1 To what end
we may well ask, did the Apostle write to the Corinthians,
What agreement hath the temple of God with idols?* No
wonder that the multitude have ever suspected of Popery
those who have thus palliated idolatry, and taught that it has
ceased under Christianity to be that mortal sin which it was
under the law.
Upon the question how St. Peter fell, whether totally or
finally, he forgets his usual caution, and condemns Ward and
Yates for their doctrine of final perseverance,3 forgetting that
it was the doctrine of Hooker. Here his factious use of the
term Puritan is apparent, and justifies the animadversion
both of the Commons and of the learned and pious Bishop
Carleton.
To his opponent objecting to the Protestants the doctrine
that the Pope is Antichrist, Mountagu replies that this is but
a private opinion of some men, but that for himself he inclines
to think that the Mahometan and Papal powers taken together
are the Antichrist of the Scriptures. This point he discusses
at some length in his Appeal. The reader will peruse him
with advantage upon the topics of absolution and confession.
Well had it been if, in regard of the former, the language of
Peter Lombard had satisfied himself and some other divines.
According to Peter Lombard, the priest is commissioned not
to give but to declare absolution ; and if to give, to give it
sacramentally, or in the administration of the Sacraments, and
thus only indirectly and mediately. It is no small indication
of the true feeling upon this subject that the more startling
and repulsive form of absolution was not in existence for
many centuries. It did not arise until the priesthood itself
had learnt to claim a kind of deification.
In treating of works of supererogation, Mountagu declared
himself in favour of the doctrine that Christ had given two
kinds of instructions, precepts and counsels ; precepts obliging
all, counsels left to those who were able to receive them.
This was grounded upon the 19th chapter of St. Matthew,
If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to
the poor; and, lie that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Here, as in the case of confession, he adduces the opinion of
Bishop Morton, 'that we allow the distinction of precepts
and counsels' ^ He quotes on this topic Saints Chrysostom,
Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine, deeming the authority of
the Fathers in all cases a sufficient proof of the fitness of an
interpretation of Scripture. Our Saviour's words, He that is
able to receive it, let him receive it, are indeed an irrefragable
proof that this is no superstitious distinction. But it is to be
feared that such an attestation to the excellency of a purely
spiritual life, and to the possibility of leading it, is opposed
and rudely dealt with in our age from the very prevalent
disposition to abide by a lower standard of holiness and of
self-denial than is consistent with true religion.
In treating of free-will, Mountagu seemed to affirm that
the will, unable at the first to choose good, spiritual good,
was upon our renewal able to wwk together with grace by its
own ability, by a power lodged in itself. He admits that the
Fathers did in some instances venture too far in what they
asserted of the power of the will.2
He defended his own modes of speaking upon this most
difficult point by the language of Whitaker, Chemnitz,
Perkins, and others. But indeed it is easy to conceal a man's
real opinion here under terms that are used by his opponent
in a far different sense. These writers would probably have
agreed that without the preventing grace of God the will
could not turn to him. They would have resolved every
good thought and desire into the same degree of divine grace ;
in a word, they would have resolved the goodness of man's
will from first to last into the grace of God. To his working
with us they would have ascribed it that man had a good will
kept alive in him. This is in words confessed by Mountagu,
but it is at variance with another part of his system, that the
calling of them that are saved is in consideration of their
faith, repentance, and obedience.3 This it was which identified
him with the Semi-Pelagians and Arminians. He refused
the name, and denied knowledge of the works of Arminius ;
but this one dogma, perhaps on his part incautiously owned,
left no doubt upon the more discriminating of his contem
poraries, of his real adherence to Arminianism.
Mountagu very ably and learnedly exposes and refutes the
impious doctrine of the Romanists respecting the possibility
of human perfection, or rather, of rendering to God a perfect
obedience.1
His statement of the doctrine of justification is open to
exceptions if he is not fairly read and allowed to explain
himself. At the same time he shewed a disposition to extend
the use of the term justification, so as to include in it both our
forensic justification in Christ, or by the imputation of his
righteousness, and our declarative justification by works,
which he would call our second justification. But what would
be the result? That which has already followed in the
attempt at a departure from the accustomed language of the
Church, a bringing in of opinions still less excusable than the
novel expressions under which they are veiled.
Mountagu did, it is true, use language liable to exception
in one page, but in the very next 2 he so rectified himself that
it was uncandid in his opponents to overlook all that he had
said in explanation and correction of his own words. Nor is
there any reason to suspect him here. He wrote in language
that could not be misunderstood by the Eomanists. He fully
honoured the name of Christ as our justifying righteousness,
and faith as that by which alone we lay hold of it. " In the
first signification then of justification, the which properly is
justification, we acknowledge instrumentally faith alone, and
causally God alone."
"In the second and third [to be more just inherently,
and to be declared just at last by works,] beside God and faith,
we yield to hope and holiness and sanctification and the
fruits of the Spirit in good works. But both these are not
justification, rather fruits and consequents and effects and
appendants of justification than justification, which is a
solitary act."3 " Our justification in the act thereof, is only
the work of God for Christ's sake, whose death and passion
apprehended by faith, which is the sole peculiar work of faith
to do, as it hath made an atonement betwixt God and us, so
hath it procured remission of our sins at his hands, and there
upon a new state of grace, not for any merit or deserving of
our own, which is utterly excluded in this act." " Faith that
is without charity doth not justify, but faith may yet justify
without charity. They have their several distinct acts, and
the act of faith is to justify, though both are virtues incident
to a just man."
Accordingly he explains St. Paul and St. James as speaking,
the one of the attaining of justification which is i confessed to
be the act of faith,' the other of justification now obtained,
which necessarily is not separate from works. Justus factus
through the grace of Christ, is Justus declaratus by his holy
life and conversation. And so St. James is expounded by
yourselves, or else hath access of justification, as it is also
taught by your own men."1 Now this last expression is
apparently a contradiction to the preceding, and accordingly
in the Appeal we find the sting taken out of it. He there
explains thus, ' Access unto justification is not by me made
essential unto justification, but only declaratory ,'2
Mountagu then was unjustly charged with Romanism and
with innovation in the doctrine of justification, and with equal
injustice the two informers imputed to him the Romish doc
trine of merit. He rightly notes the patristic use of mereor
as expressing simply to procure, to incur, to purchase, not to
deserve. Thus the Vulgate, ' My iniquity is greater than that
I can obtain pardon.'3
The Romanist objecting to the Protestants the opinion that
faith once had cannot be lost, Mountagu affirms that it can,
and that this is the doctrine of the Church of England, that
Judas was as much given to Christ as Peter or John, and that
Simon Magus was a sincere Christian, but afterward apos
tatized. Bishop Carleton has copiously answered and refuted
him on this point, and vindicated St. Augustine from the
tenet here imputed to him, that to some men God gave faith
and justification, and afterward left them to perish in apostacy.
It is but an adventurous assertion, that as God gave Peter and
John, so he gave Judas to Christ. If all were alike given to
him as apostles, they were not all alike given to him as heirs
of his kingdom. There was a sense in which they were not
all his. So St. John saith at the beginning of the 13th
chapter, Having loved his own which were in the world, he
loved them to the end. Again he said, / know whom I have
chosen.1 Judas was one of the world for which he did not
pray. The Apostles were both his own and his Father's in a
sense in which Judas was not. I pray for them ; I pray not
for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they
are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine ; and
I am glorified in them?
In the topic of predestination Mountagu proceeded with
some wariness, yet not able to act an entirely neutral part.
He attacked the supralapsarian doctrine, and laboured to
make it appear odious. But it may not be denied that all
things are resolvable into the divine decrees • yet let us not
hold this so as to deny that which we feel, our natural
liberty, neither let us deny that to God we owe the renewal
of the will, and that in an inscrutable manner he worketh
in them that love him to will and to do of his good pleasure.
The invocation of saints Mountagu calls 'grand foolery,'
but touches upon the impiety of offering false worship with
a gentle peradventure, ' Perhaps there is no such great impiety
in saying — St. Laurence, pray for me.'3
For lay-baptism in cases of emergency he pleads, as did
Whitgift before him in his Answer to Cartwright, ' the use
and warrant of antiquity.' He does not imagine any true
baptism independent of faith. i As in little infants the faith
of the Church, and those that present them to be baptized, is
by God reputed their own ; so the willingness and desire of
the same Church, of their godfathers and parents, is reputed
theirs.'
Upon the real presence he uses the same language with
others of his own and the preceding century, who gave "but
a handle to the Romanists to charge them with unmeaning
distinctions, whilst they professed to take literally (which
Tertullian and Augustine did not) the words of Christ, This
is my body. Allow this, and we partake of Christ's natural
body in the Eucharist, for he gave no other if he gave it at
all. Allow this, and Tertullian, Theodoret, and Augustine must
be condemned for heterodox, and with them all the believers
of their times; for they do not appear to have condemned
them for agreeing in this, that This is my body is the same
with This is the figure of my body.
We find in him the doctrine of quasi-sacramentals though
not the word. Nor is there any valid reason to the contrary.
This distinction forces itself upon us in the case of marriage,
confirmation, and ordination, which all border upon the nature
of a sacrament, being consecrated to holy ends. Yates and
Ward here shewed their Puritanism when they objected to
the form of the ordination of priests, Receive ye the Holy
Ghost; not that we are to look for that divine gift ex opere
operato. There must be fit dispositions to receive it. Simon
Magus had it not, neither do those amongst us who seek
ordination not for the work of the ministry but for its
emoluments.
Mountagu supposes, on the ground of the antiquity of the
opinion, that Christ took the saints up with him to heaven at
his ascension. He also asserted the literal descent of Christ
into the place of the damned. But our Lord went into
Paradise. And so the more antient opinion, that of Irenasus
and Tertullian, was that the only hell into which our Lord
went was Hades, the state of departed spirits, where they
lived in Abraham's bosom in the comfort of the hope of a
joyful resurrection.
He also follows some of the antients in their veneration
of the sign of the cross, pleading for its use as a token of
Anti-Puritanism. So zealous was he against ' the brethren,'
as he calls the Puritans in the very title of his appeal, Appello
Ccesaremj An Appeal from the Brethren.
Such are the Gag and the Appeal, a mass of learning and
of satire, coarse in style and full of invective; erroneous
enough, but by no means so erroneous as some of his oppo
nents represented.
Upon Bishop Andre wes' acquittal of Mountagu, given in
the above letter to the Duke of Buckingham, he has himself
been claimed as a convert to the opinions upon predestination
maintained in Mountagu' s Appeal. Yet it may admit of
doubt whether he did not act in this instance upon the grounds
of general policy, considering the attack made by the Puritans
and by the Commons on Mountagu as intended to wound the
Church of England and to elevate the Puritans. Their charges
against him were partly groundless, partly false, partly exag
gerated. It was not possible for him to have effected a
reconciliation of England and Rome on the basis maintained
in his New Gag. At the same time he was evidently desirous
of giving the Romanists every possible advantage, every
concession that seemed to him not to compromise essential
truths. His spirit was not that of a Christian, but his learning
was so great and so undoubted that it seems to have covered
all his defects. He had promised too, at the end of his last
performance, to return the royal protection with the service
of his polemical sword. And therefore, in perfect accordance
with the then principles of government, which singled out for
promotion those who were most obnoxious to unpopularity
(a rule savouring of petulance rather than of discretion, and of
weakness rather than true dignity), the King speedily raised
Mountagu to a bishopric, to the very see of his late opponent
Carleton. On August 24th, 1628, he was consecrated to the
see of Chichester by Archbishop Abbot, assisted by Laud,
now Bishop of London, by Neile, Bishop of Winchester,
Buckeridge, now Bishop of Ely, and Dr. Francis Whiter
Bishop of Carlisle. On the translation of Wren from Norwich
to Ely, Mountagu was in 1638 appointed his successor, and
Dr. Brian Duppa consecrated to Chichester. Mountagu was
elected to Norwich May 4th, 1638, and died in April 1641,
when, to make episcopacy more popular, Bishop Hall was
translated thither from Exeter.
Besides Bishop Carleton, Anthony Wotton, Yeates, and
Ward, Mountagu was animadverted upon by Dr. Matthew
Sutcliffe, Dean of Exeter, Dr. Daniel Featley, Francis Rouse,
and Henry Burton of Friday Street, London. Dr. Featley,
Abbot's Chaplain, put forth his animadversions in 1626,
entitling them, Pelagius Redivivus, or Pelagius Ratid out of
the Ashes by Arminius and his Scholars. This book consists
of two parallels, one between the Pelagians and Arminians,
the other between the Church of Eome, the Appealer, and
the Church of England, in three columns. Francis Rouse
(made by the Parliamentarians Provost of Eton) did not
direct his work by name against Mountagu, but published in
the same year his Testis Veritatis ; The Doctrine of King
James and of the Church of England plainly shewn to be one
in the points of Predestination , Free- Will, and Certainty of
Salvation. 1626. He was a member of the House of
Commons, and thus sustained a mixed character. He was
especially busy in the ecclesiastical innovations of his party,
and in opposing episcopacy. He died in January 1659.
The recommendation in the letter of the Bishops was
enforced, and the works that were written against Mountagu
were sought after and suppressed. But whether or not this
prohibition put a stop to the publication of works directly
treating of these controversies, certain it is that it was not until
a later period that the Universities declared in favour of the
Court divinity. Dr. Prideaux, afterward Bishop of Worcester,
Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, and Dr. Ward, Master
of Sidney Sussex College, and Lady Margaret's Professor of
Divinity at Cambridge, continued the Predestinarian doctrine
in their respective Universities.
On January 18th, 1626, the before-mentioned prelates met
together to prepare a form of thanksgiving for the staying
of the plague, to be used on Sundays, Wednesdays, and
Fridays.
On the 2nd of February Bishop Andrewes was present at
the coronation, and carried the golden plate for the Com
munion.
On April 12th, Wednesday, at nine A.M., Archbishop
Abbot, Andrewes, Neile, and Laud met together by the
King's command to consult concerning a sermon preached
before the King on the Fifth Sunday in Lent last past
by Dr. Goodman, Bishop of Gloucester. He had spoken
ambiguously upon the real presence in the Sacrament, and
was already suspected of Komanism. They advised together,
and gave answer to the King that some things were therein
spoken less cautiously, but nothing falsely ; that nothing was
innovated by him in the doctrine of the Church of England ;
that the best way would be that the Bishop should preach the
sermon again at some time to be chosen by himself, and should
then shew how and wherein he was misunderstood by his
auditors.1
On May 1st, Monday, Andrewes was on a commission
upon an Act concerning the issuing of citations out of the
Ecclesiastical Courts.
This is the last transaction with which we find the name
of Bishop Andrewes connected. And now let his grateful
secretary Isaacson conclude this imperfect narrative of his
life. " He was not often sick, and but once (till his last
illness) in thirty years, before the time he died, which was at
Downham in the Isle of Ely, the air of that place not agreeing
with the constitution of his body. But there he seemed to be
prepared for his dissolution, saying oftentimes in that sickness,
* It must come once, and why not here ? ' And at other times
before and since he would say, ' The days must come, when,
whether we will or nill, we shall say with the Preacher,
/ have no pleasure in them' Of his death lie seemed to
presage himself a year before he died, and therefore prepared
his oil that he might be admitted in due time into the bride-
chamber. That of qualis vita finis ita, &c. was truly verified
in him, for as he lived so died he. As his fidelity in his
health was great, so increased the strength of his faith in his
sickness. His gratitude to men was now changed into thank-
fulness to God; his affability to incessant and devout
prayers and speech with his Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier;
his laborious studies to restless groans, sighs, cries, and
tears, his hands labouring, his eyes lifted up, and his heart
beating and panting to see the living God, even to the last of
his breath."
He died on September 25th, 1626, about four of the clock
in the morning.
Thus eloquently also Bishop Buckeridge in his funeral
sermon for him : i God's house is truly called, and is indeed
the house of prayer; it accompanies all acts done in God's
house. Of this reverend prelate I may say his life was a life
of prayer. A great part of five hours every day did he spend
in prayer and devotion to God. After the death of his brother
Mr. Thomas Andrewes in the sickness time, whom he loved
dearly, he began to foretel his own death before the end of
summer, or before the beginning of the winter. And when
his brother Mr. Nicholas Andrewes died, he took that as
a certain sign and prognostic and warning of his own death,
and from that time till the hour of his dissolution he spent
all his time in prayer, and his prayerbook, when he was
private, was seldom seen out of his hands. And in the time
of his fever and last sickness, besides the often prayers which
were read to him, in which he repeated all the parts of the
confession and other petitions with an audible voice, as long
as his strength endured, he did, as was well observed by
certain tokens in him, continually pray to himself, though he
seemed otherwise to rest or slumber. And when he could
pray no longer with his voice, yet by lifting up his eyes and
hands he prayed still ; and when both voice and eyes and
hands failed in their office, then with his heart he still prayed,
until it pleased God to receive his blessed soul to himself."1
Bishop Andrewes was buried on Saturday, November llth.
The funeral procession went from Winchester House, South-
wark, where he had died 26th September. It was ordered
and directed by Sir William Segar, Garter Principal King-
of-Arms,1 Henry St. George, Bichmond Herald,2 and George
Owen, Eouge Cross.3 Neile, Bishop of Durham, chief mourner,
assisted by Dr. Boger Andrewes, the Bishop's brother, Mr.
Burrell, the husband of his sister Mary, Mr. Salmon, the
husband of his sister Martha, Mr. Boger Andrewes, the son
of his brother Thomas, and Mr. Booke, the husband of his
niece Mary, daughter of Mary Burrell. The great banner was
borne by Mr. William Andrewes, the son of his brother
Nicholas ; the four bannerolls by Mr. Prinseps, the son of his
sister Martha Salmon by her first husband; Mr. Samuel
Burrell, third son of his sister Mary Burrell ; Mr. Peter Salmon,
eldest son of Martha by her second husband ; and Mr. Thomas
Andrewes, the eldest son of his brother Thomas. The corps
assisted by Drs. Collins, Beale, Wren, and Green of Corpus
Christi College, Oxford, Bector of Stockton, Wilts. The
inhabitants of St. Saviour's parish honoured his funeral by
hanging the church with 165 yards of black baise. The
house mourners made an offering, and Mr. Archer, one of the
chaplains, received £11 17s. 7d., which he paid to the wardens
as their due, but they handsomely returned it to him and Mr.
Micklethwaite the other chaplain.4
The sermon was preached by Dr. Buckeridge, at that time
Bishop of Bochester. His text was Hebrews xiii. 16 : To do
good and to distribute forget not: for with such sacrifices God
is well pleased. He at once enters into the subject of sacrifices.
"Our head, Christ," he observes, "offered his sacrifice of
himself upon the cross; Crux altare Christi ; and the cross
of Christ was the altar of our Head, where he offered the
unicum, verumj et proprium sacrificium, the only, true, proper
sacrifice, propitiatory for the sins of mankind ; in which all
other sacrifices are accepted, and applicatory of this pro
pitiation.
" 1. The only sacrifice, one in itself, and once only offered,
that purchased eternal redemption ; and if the redemption be
eternal, what need is there that it should be offered more than
once, when once is all-sufficient ?
"2. And the true sacrifice. All others are but types and
representations of this sacrifice; this only hath power to
appease God's wrath, and make all other sacrificers and
sacrifices acceptable.
" 3. And the proper sacrifice : as the psalm saith, Corpus
aptasti mihi (Psa. xl. 6, Ixx.), * Thou hast fitted me with a
body' ; the deity assumed the humanity that it might accipere
h nobis quod offerret pro nobis (c receive of us what it might
offer for us'); being the deity could not offer, nor be offered to
itself, he took flesh of ours that he might offer for us.
u Now as Christ's cross was his altar where he offered
himself for us, so the Church hath an altar also, where it
offereth itself, not Christum in capite but Christum in membris,
not Christ the head properly, but Christ the members. For
Christ cannot be offered again and properly, no more but once
upon the cross ; for he cannot be offered again, no more than
he can be dead again ; and dying and shedding blood as he
did upon the cross, and not dying and not shedding blood,
as in the Eucharist, cannot be one action of Christ offered on
the cross, and of Christ offered in the Church at the altar by
the priest by representation only, no more than Christ and
the priest are one person : and therefore though in the cross
and the Eucharist there be idem sacrificatum, the same sacri
ficed thing, that is, the body and llood of Christ offered by
Christ to his Father on the cross, and received and partici-
pated by the communicants in the sacrifice of the altar;
yet idem sacrificium quoad actionem sacrificii or sacrificandi,
it is impossible there should be the same sacrifice, under
standing- by sacrifice the action of sacrifice; for then the
action of Christ's sacrifice, which is long since past, should
continue as long as the Eucharist shall endure, even to the
world's end ; and his consummatum est is not yet finished :
and dying and not dying, shedding of blood and not shedding
of blood, and suffering and not suffering, cannot possibly be
one action, and the representation of an action cannot be the
action itself."
He gives the true design of the term the Real Presence as
used by the Church of England, when deriving Eucharistia
from good grace, he says the Lord's Supper is so called
because "it really contains Christ, who is full of grace."
It is true he quotes this from Aquinas, but Aquinas here
conveyed a truth, if the words are taken in a spiritual sense,
expressive of the faith of both catholic antiquity and of the
Keformers of our Church. He proceeds to shew clearly out
of Aquinas himself, as Dr. Field had also done in the 19th
chapter of his Appendix to his third book Of the Church?
li Here is a representative or commemorative and partici
pated sacrifice of the passion of Christ the true sacrifice, that
is past ; and here is an eucharistical sacrifice : but for any
external proper sacrifice, especially as sacrifice doth signify
the action of sacrificing, here is not one word. And therefore
this is a new conceipt of latter men, since Thomas his time
unknown to him, and a mere novelism. And the cure is as
bad as the disease. Though Thomas gives no other reasons
why it is called a sacrifice, yet (say they) Thomas denieth it
not: for that is plainly to confess that this is but a patch
added to antiquity. And yet when he saith it is a repre
sentative or commemorative sacrifice, respectu prceteriti, in
respect of that which is past, that is, the passion of Christ,
which was the true sacrifice, he doth deny by consequent that
it is the true sacrifice itself, which is past. And if Christ be
sacrificed daily in the Eucharist according to the action of
sacrifice, and it be one and the same sacrifice offered by
Christ on the cross, and the priest at the altar, then can it not
be a representation of that sacrifice which is pasty because it is
one and the same sacrifice and action present."1
He proceeds thus : " Therefore St. Paul proceeds in the
15th verse, By Mm therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise
to God continually, that isj the fruit of our lips, giving thanks
to his name. Let us offer up to God; Christians then have
an offering : and let us offer up to God continually ; this is the
ground of the daily sacrifice of Christians that answereth to
the daily sacrifice of the Jews. And this sacrifice of praise
and thanks may well be understood the Eucharist, in which
we chiefly thank and praise God for this his chief and great
blessing of our redemption. And this and all other sacrifices
of the Church external or spiritual must be offered up and
accepted per ipsum, in, by, and through Christ. St. Paul
saith not, Ipsum offeramus. Let us offer him (that is) Christ ;
but let us offer and sacrifice per ipsum, by him, in whom only
we and our sacrifices are accepted." He afterwards affirms
that " all the offerings of the Church are the Church itself."
And then, after having again spoken of Christ having once
offered himself for us, he adds, a Neither doth Christ there
(that is) in heaven, where he now appears in the presence of
God, offer often or any more for us, but this once ; there is
appearing but no offering. And the Apostle gives the reason
of it : For then he must have often suffered since the foundation
of the world, (Heb. ix. 24, 25, 26). He appears in heaven
as our high priest, and makes intercession for us ; but he offers
his natural body no more but once, because he suffers but
once. No offering of Christ (by St. Paul's rule) without the
suffering of Christ. The priest cannot offer Christ's natural
body without the suffering of Christ's natural body."
We have lived to see St. Augustine deserted in the doc
trine both of our Lord's sacrifice and sacrament, but not so
Buckeridge. He fully shews out of St. Augustine that the
Church herself is the only sacrifice which in the Church is
offered up to God.2 He next proceeds to treat of alms, and
to shew that nothing that we can offer to God can merit
anything. We can only be justified by the imputed righteous
ness of Christ.
" What is the reason the prophet saith (Psa. Ixxi. 16),
O Lord, memorabor justitice tuce solius, I will remember thy
righteousness only, but because there is no other righteousness
worth^the remembering but only thy righteousness only? That
righteousness that is a Domino'1'' [from the Lord], " inherent
in us by sanctification of the gifts and graces of the Lord, is
not worth the remembrance, for it is a defiled cloth and dung
in itself; and were it never so good, God hath no need of it;
nay, being offered to God, he is nothing increased by it. If
thou do all good works, Deus meus es, et bonorum meorum non
indiges: Thou art my God, saith David (Psa. xvii. 2), my
goods, and therein are his good worJcs also, are nothing to
thee : God is not increased or enriched by them. If thou do
commit all manner of sins with all manner of greediness, thou
canst not defile God, nor take any thing from him ; thy evil
cannot decrease or diminish him. But it is Justitia in Domino,
Righteousness in the Lord, (that is) Christ's righteousness
communicated or imputed to us ; for Christ is made to us
wisdom from God, and justice or righteousness and sancti
fication, and redemption. And he doth not say fecit nos, he
made us righteous in the concrete, but factus est nobis, he was
made righteousness to us in the abstract, because he commu
nicates his righteousness to us, and thereby covers our naked
ness, as Jacob clothed in his elder brother's garments received
the blessing.1 And therefore the name of the Son of God is
Jehovah, Justitia nostra, the Lord our Righteousness". After
descanting farther upon this most essential topic, and exposing
the false pleas of the Church of Rome for her doctrine of
merit, Buckeridge gives a very valuable account of Bishop
Andrewes, which has already been quoted in various places,
according as the chronological order of these memorials gave
occasion. I will here add the following extracts :
" His admirable knowledge in the learned tongues, Latin,
Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, besides other modern
tongues, to the number of fifteen (as I am informed), was
such and so rare that he may well be ranked in the first
place, to be one of the rarest linguists in Christendom; in
which he was so perfect and absolute, both for grammar and
profound knowledge therein, that he was so perfect in the
grammar and criticism of them, as if he had utterly neglected
the matter itself; and yet he was so exquisite and sound in
the matter and learning of these tongues, as if he had never
regarded the grammar."
He mentions his love and encouragement of learning and
of learned men, " which appeared in his liberality and bounty
to Master Casaubon, Master Cluverius, Master Vossius, Master
Grotius, Master Erpenius, whom he attempted, with the offer
of a very large stipend out of his own purse, to draw into
England, to have read and taught the Oriental tongues
here." To these his secretary Isaacson adds Moulin, Barclay,
and Bedwell.
"He meddled little with them" (the goods of the world),
" but left the taking of his accounts from his officers to his
brothers; and when he began his will at Waltham a year
before his death, he understood not his own estate; nay,
till about six weeks before his death, when his accounts
were delivered up and perfected, he did not fully know his
own estate: and therefore in his first draught of his will
he gave but little to his kindred, doubting he might give
away more than he had ; and therefore in a codicil annexed
to his will he doubled all his legacies to them, and made
every hundred to be two hundred, and every two hundred to
be four hundred : and yet, notwithstanding this increase, he
gave more to the maintenance of learning and the poor than
to his kindred. His charity and love of God and the poor
was greater in him than natural affection, and yet he forgot
not his natural affection to them."
For many years since he left St. Giles's, Cripplegate,
Buckeridge records that he sent £5 about Christmas, besides
the number of pounds given to the poor of that parish when
he was almoner. " And," he adds, " I have reason to
presume the like of those other parishes mentioned in his
will, to which he also gave legacies : to St. Giles an hundred
pounds, where he had been Vicar ; to All-Hallows, Barking,
where he was born, twenty pounds ; to St. Martin's, Ludgate,
where he dwelt, five pounds ; to St. Andrew's in Holborn,
where Ely House stands, ten pounds ; and to this parish
of St. Saviour's in Southwark, where he died, twenty pounds :
which parishes he hath remembered for his alms to the poor,
when the land shall be purchased for the relief and use of
the poor."
u The total of his pious and charitable works mentioned in
his will amounts to the sum of six thousand three hundred
twenty-six pounds. Of which to Pembroke Hall for the
creation of two fellowships and other uses mentioned in the
codicil, a thousand pound, to buy fifty pound land per annum
to that purpose, besides a bason and ewer like that of their
foundress, and some books."
"To buy two hundred pound per annum, four thousand
pound : viz. for aged poor men, fifty pound per annum ; for
poor widows the wives of one husband, fifty pound ; for the
putting of poor orphans to prentice, fifty pound ; to prisoners,
fifty pound."
" After he came to have an episcopal house with a chapel,1
he kept monthly communions inviolably ; yea, though himself
had received at the Court the same month, in which his
carriage was not only decent and religious but also exem
plary : he ever offered twice at the altar, and so did every one
of his servants, to which purpose he gave them money, lest it
should be burthensome to them." " A great part of five
hours every day did he spend in prayer and devotion to
God."
tl He instructed his chaplains and friends to inform him of
such young men at the University as stood in need of
assistance. He of his own accord preferred men of learning,
as Boys and Nicholas Fuller the Orientalist. If any deserving
youths missed their election to the University from the great
schools of London and Westminster, he sent them to the
University at his own charge.
11 He always observed a most noble hospitality, and at the
same time paid regard to all the appointments of the Church
in regard of fasts, at Lent, Embers, and other times. He dined
at noon, giving his mornings to prayer and study. He was
averse to be interrupted by calls before that time. t( He
doubted," says Isaacson, " they were no true scholars that
came to speak with him before noon. After dinner, for two
or three hours' space, he would willingly pass the time either
in discourse with his guests or other friends, or in despatch of
his own temporal affairs, or of those who (by reason of his
episcopal jurisdiction) attended him. And being quit of these
and the like occasions, he would return to his study, where he
spent the rest of the afternoon even till bedtime, except some
friend took him off to supper, and then did he eat but
sparingly."
He suffered much by suits at law sooner than willingly
institute persons whom he suspected of simoniacal engage
ments. When Bishop of Winchester he would not renew
some leases that would have been most lucrative to himself,
when he foresaw that such renewals would tend to the injury
of his successor.
His secretary Henry Isaacson was born in St. Catharine
Coleman's parish September 1581. He was the son of
Kichard Isaacson, Sheriff of London, who died January 19th,
1620, son of William Isaacson of Sheffield, by Isabel his first
wife. Henry Isaacson died about the 7th December, 1654,
and was buried in St. Catharine's, Coleman Street, London
(since rebuilt), on December 14th.1 Isaacson is reckoned
amongst the writers of Pembroke Hall. Antony Wood
appears to have been unable to have discovered more respect
ing him than that which is here presented to the reader.
Bishop Andrewes' Devotions in Greek and Latin, Preces Privatce, fyc.,
were published at Oxford 1675, pp. 359, with a portrait (probably by no
means a good one) by Loggan, the admirable engraver of those most
beautiful folios the ' Oxonia and Cantabrigia Illustrata.' There is the
usual old view of the Sheldonian Theatre in the title-page. Upon Log-
gan's successor as University engraver, Burghers, see the second volume
of ' Hearne's Diary,' recently edited by Dr. Bliss, p. 630. This edition of
Bishop Andrewes' Devotions was put forth by Dr. John Lamphire, of New
College, Oxford, from the MSS. of Samuel Wright, the Bishop's own
amanuensis, communicated by Dr. Richard Drake, Chancellor of Sarum,
and with other fragments from the then recently edited collection of Dr.
David Stokes.
John Lamphire was the son of George an apothecary of Winchester,
and was born in St. Lawrence's parish in that city. He was educated first
at Winchester School, and then at New College, Oxford, of which he was
Fellow in 1636. He was ejected thence by the Parliamentary authorities,
practised medicine at Oxford, and lived to be restored in 1660. Being
again Fellow of New College, he was elected Camden Professor of Ancient
History August 16th, 1660, and appointed Principal of New Inn Hall
September 8th, 1662, on the ejection of Dr. Christopher Rogers of Lincoln
College. Thence he was removed to Hart Hall, of which he was made
Principal May 30th, 1663. After he had published this very neat edition
of Bishop Andrewes' Devotions in 1675 in 12mo., he obtained a more
perfect copy, which other avocations hindered him from giving to the
world. He died at Hart Hall March 30th, 1688, aged 73 years, and was
buried in the ante-chapel near the west door of New College. He was
succeeded in his professorship by that learned but somewhat eccentric
genius Henry Dodwell, for an account of whom the reader may refer to
' Hearne's Diary.' Hearne does his memory ample justice.
Dr. David Stokes was educated at Westminster School, was first
a scholar of Trinity College,1 then a Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge,
D.D. 1630, also a Fellow of Eton College, Rector of Binfield near Windsor ,
and Canon of Windsor, to which he was appointed llth July, and installed
12th July, 1628, on the promotion of Richard Montagu to the see of
Chichester. He was also preferred by Sir Henry Wotton to the Eectory of
Everdon near Daventry (in the gift of Eton College) September 19th,
1638. He assisted Walton in the Polyglott, wrote on the Twelve minor
Prophets, 1659, 8vo.
Verus Christianus, or Directions for Private Devotions and Retire
ments, with an Appendix containing some private devotions of Bishop
Andrewes.
Truth's Champion.
Some Sermons.
He was also M.A. of Peterhouse in 1618. He was elected to his
Fellowship in the place of the Rev. John Blithe, who was instituted to the
College living of Statherne in Leicestershire. Blithe founded some scholar
ships at Peterhouse. His portrait is in the hall of the College (Johannes
Blithe, Bac. Theol. Socius Collegii anno 1617), on the south side of the
hall. Dr. Stokes resigned his Fellowship in 1625. He was made D.D.
1630. The College chapel at Peterhouse was built in 1632. He con
tributed £10. He was deprived of all his preferments, and took refuge at
Oxford. He was reinstated in them in 1660, and spent the remainder of
his days in peaceful enjoyment to his death, May 10th, 1669. To his stall
at Windsor succeeded Henry Wotton, M.A., May 28th, 1669. He resigned
on May 1st, 1671. He was M.A. of Merton College, Oxford, 1660.
In Lamphire's edition of Andrewes' Prayers in Greek and Latin, Dr.
David is by a mistake called William Stokes. The beautiful copy by
Samuel Wright is a small 12mo., still in the Library of Pembroke College,
Cambridge. The portions alluded to by Lamphire as taken from Stokes,
are taken from the Appendix to his Verus Christianus, published at
Oxford.
Wright's copy, consisting of 168 pages, contains the Devotions in
Greek without any Latin translation, down to the Meditation on the Day
of Judgment at p. 252 of the Oxford edition recently set forth in the
* Anglo -Catholic Library.' The two meditations on the Last Judgment
and on Human Frailty, are from Dr. Stokes, and also many passages in
the Latin Devotions. The prayers as thus edited have been reprinted in
1828 and 1848.
The recent Oxford edition in 8vo. has a third part from the Harleian
MSS. No. 6614. That manuscript indeed is not in the handwriting of
Andrewes, as a MS. note by J. Cole asserts.
Andrewes' Manual of the Sick, first put forth with some spurious
additions in 1647 by Humphrey Moseley, a bookseller at the Prince's
Arms in St. Paul's Churchyard, was edited with fidelity in 1648, by
Richard Drake, with the other Devotions translated from Wright's MS.,
with a dedication to the Prince of Wales. The Preface to the Christian
Reader is dated on the Nativity of St. John Baptist, 1646.
Dr. Richard Drake was a scholar of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, on Dr.
Watts's foundation, March 15th, 1626, B.A. 1628, M.A. 1631, Rector of
Radwinter, between Thaxted and Walden in Essex, D.D. by royal mandate
August 2nd, 1660, Prebendary of North Alton in the Cathedral of Salis
bury September 9th, 1660. He resigned this stall on March 23rd, 1663,
having been appointed to the Chancellorship of that church on the 12th
of March. He was installed Prebendary of Bricklesworth in the church of
Sarum, February 24th, 1665. He was, as was also Dr. Stokes, one of
Walton's assistants in the Polyglott. He died in 1681.
In 1655 a volume appeared entitled Holy Devotions, with Directions
to Pray, fyc,, by the Rt. Rev. Father in God L. Andrewes, late Bishop of
Winchester. The 4th edition, printed for Henry Seile, &c. 1655.' The first
edition had appeared in 1660, with another title, Institutiones Pice, or
Directions to Pray. The initials of the Compiler are given as H. I. This
was retained in the second and third editions. The initials are those of
Henry Isaacson. He died in 1654. The date of his death (1654) accords
with H. Seile's statement in the preface to the fourth edition, that the
three previous editions had been dressed up by a kind foster-father who
now sleeps in the Lord. It is most likely, says Mr. Bliss, that the volume
was compiled By Isaacson from some of the Bishop's papers. The earlier
portion appears to be notes of sermons either made by Andrewes himself
to assist in composition, or else taken down by some of his hearers. Other
passages agree exactly with portions of his Latin Devotions, especially with
some recently published in the Oxford 8vo. edition. The volume can in
no other and stricter sense be regarded as Andrewes'. The first editor
(Isaacson) states that he had originally compiled the Devotions for his
own use.
This volume has been re-edited by a recent successor of our prelate in
the Vicarage of St. Giles', Cripplegate, Archdeacon Hale.
Milton had been sent from St. Paul's School to Cambridge, and
admitted of Christ's College there February 12th, 1625, under the tuition
of Mr. William Chappel.1 He probably wrote his Elegy on the death
of Andrewes whilst an undergraduate at Christ College. Here he took his
degree of B.A. in 1629, and of M.A. in 1632, after which he left the Uni
versity, and went to live five years with his parents at Horton in Bucking
hamshire. There he lived until the death of his mother. Her remains are
buried beneath a dark slab in the centre of the chancel, on which is this
inscription :
Heare lyeth the body of Sara Milton, the wife of
John Milton, who died
The Zrd of April, 1637.2
Milton's elegy is evidently a youthful exercise. After a poetical com
plaint that death exercises his dominion over not only the material
creation but over man himself, he presents to the reader a vision of Para
dise, and the joyful reception of Andrewes by its celestial inhabitants to his
new abode.
" A List
" of persons to whom I intend rings, as in my will mentioned," probably
six weeks before his death : Abbot ; Neile, Bishop of Durham ; Bucke-
ridge ; Laud, Bishop of Bath and Wells ; Sir Thomas Edmondes, Comp
troller of the Household ; Sir Julius Caesar, Master of the Eolls ; Sir
Thomas Lake, Secretary of State in the reign of James ; his Lady Mary ;
Sir Henry Martin, Judge of the Prerogative Court ; Dr. John Young,
Dean of Winchester ; Dr. Steward, a civilian ; Dr. Collins, Provost of
King's College, Cambridge ; Dr. Ward of Waltham, Herts ; Dr. Beale of
Pembroke Hall ; Dr. Wren of Peterhouse ; Mr. Man of Westminster,
probably a bookseller ; Mr. Eoger, late Proctor in the Court of Arches ;
Mr. Greene, Prebendary of Bristol ; Mr. William Johnson ; and Mr. Joseph
Fenton.
Prynne, whose Canterbury's Doom and Necessary Intro
duction to Laud's Trial contain a vast store of most valuable
information, doubtless frequently betrays the most exaggerated
feelings and unhappy prejudices. Nowhere is this more
apparent than in his unhandsome charges against Bishop An
drewes. He takes up with Father Giles' or Davenport's
misrepresentations of our prelate, who would persuade his
readers that Andrewes held not the doctrine of the Keformation
but of the Church of Rome respecting justification by faith.
The reader will, if he refer to the Bishop's sermon on
Jer. xxiii. 6, perceive at once the untruthfulness of such a
statement. Laud was indeed most blameable in procuring
sanctuary for so perfidious a writer in the University of
Oxford. Prynne was not less blameable in giving currency
to his falsities. See p. 424, and sequel of his Compleat History
of Laud.
Prynne speaks in one place of the Popish furniture, &c.
of Bishop Andrewes' private chapel ; in another he professes
to doubt whether Laud did not make an unwarrantable use of
Bishop Andrewes' name. Speaking of his form of conse-
cration he says, that he took his form from Bishop Andrewes
is only avowed by himself, not proved by any witnesses,
(p. 503.)
It is certainly most remarkable that if Andrewes did
observe the ceremonies comprised in the notes to the Liturgy
ascribed to him, and involved in the account of his private
chapel to be found in Prynne, pp. 121 — 124, there is evidence
that at Winchester there were in the time of Andrewes neither
rails to the Communion-table, which probably stood then in
the middle of the choir, nor bowing to it. tf From Canter
bury," says Prynne, "we shall next hunt this Romish Fox
to the cathedral of Winchester, where, keeping a visitation in
the year 1635 by Sir Nathanael Brent, his Vicar-General, he
did by his injunctions under seal enjoin them to provide four
copes, to rail in the Communion-table, and place it altarwise,
to bow unto it, and daily to read the epistles and gospels
at it. This was attested by Sir Nathanael Brent himself,
manifested by his own injunctions to that Church, and by his
articles proposed to the College of Winchester, produced and
read in the Lord's house.'7 (p. 79.) Then follow the in
junctions themselves, (p. 80.) This verifies the assertion of
Dr. Fuller that it " was the constant practice of Dr. Andrewes,
successively Bishop of Chichester, Ely, and Winchester,
never to urge any other ceremonies than those which he found
there." This remark of Fuller's drew down upon him the
indignation of Heylyn, in whose eyes Laud's greatest indis
cretions were his highest excellencies. He accordingly takes
care that they shall not be hid.
Andrewes was the most imaginative of all our older divines,
and would therefore have a natural bias toward a ceremonial
piety. He was as remarkable for pathos and simplicity as for
wit and fancy. He was an intense student of both the
Fathers and the divines of succeeding ages. As a critic he
was often led away by his excessive love of illustration. He
was perfectly free from covetousness and pride, a lover of
learning and of learned men. His infirmities were a want of
firmness in opposing the unwise and unhallowed counsels of
his sovereign ; and an undue partiality toward his kindred and
friends, whom he loaded with preferments in an age in which
pluralities were found to be a grievance — a grievance to the
cause of piety, however they might operate in favour of
learning. His own brother was unworthy of his name. He
was the object of general aversion in the College over which
Andrewes placed him. He was not however what he has
been represented even in our own time, an ambitious courtier.
He never intermeddled with state affairs. He did indeed
sometimes his sovereign's bidding where others, more faithful
in some remarkable instances, declined. But he never forced
himself into observation. His rise was due to his great
learning, piety, and munificence. His patrons were men
whose names will be had in honour so long as piety and
patriotism shall perpetuate the names of Henry, third Earl
of Huntingdon, and Secretary Walsingham. He was by his
sermons a truly pastoral prelate, and his Prayers will probably
continue to the end of time to cherish the devotion of an
innumerable company who shall follow him to his heavenly
rest.
APPENDIX.
THE FAMILY OF ANDREWES.
The name of our prelate was variously spelt, — Andrew, Andrews,
Andrewes, and Andros. The e in Andrewes was sometimes omitted
in the early part of the seventeenth century. Sir Robert Andrewes
of Normandy, knt., came over with William I., and married the
daughter and heiress of Sir Robert Winwick of "Winwick, Nor
thamptonshire, and afterward of Denton in the same county.1
In 1303 occurs John Andrew, Alderman of Redingate, Canter
bury.2 A Sir William Andrewes of Northamptonshire and Carlisle
occurs in 1234.3
Thomas Andrews of Beggar's Weston, or Weston Bigard, (or
Begard,) a few miles east of Hereford, was born in 1501, and died
in 1615. See the genealogy of this branch in Nichol's Leicestershire,
parish of System* From him was descended the late highly re
spected Gerard Andrewes, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,
Rector of St. James', Westminster, and 8th November, 1809, Dean
of Canterbury. He died, aged 75, on June 2nd, 1825.
In a window in St. Bartholomew the Less, London, over the
door in the passage into the church, are the arms and crest (painted
in glass) of Henry Andrewes, Alderman of London, 1636 : argent,
a saltire azure on a chief gules ; 3 mullets or : crest, a Moor's head
in profile.
In 1649 and 1651 Thomas, a leatherseller, son of Robert An
drewes of Feltham near Hounslow, Middlesex, and of the Fish
mongers' Company, was Lord-Mayor of London.
Jonathan Andrewes was a member of the court of Merchant
Taylors 1665, and Richard Andrewes, M.D., 1627—1634.
Sir Matthew Andrewes, knt., was one of the Elder Brethren of
Trinity House, 1625.5
Our prelate in his will makes mention of William the son of his
deceased brother Nicholas; Thomas, Nicholas, and Roger the sons
of his deceased brother Thomas, and their eldest sister Ann, married
to Arthur "Woollaston ; also her younger sister Mary. His brother
Nicholas was born in 1567, and died in 1626. His brother Thomas
was named after his father, who appears as a benefactor to All
Hallows', Barking, " 1593, towards repairs of the church, £2; to
the poor £5;" probably bequeathed. Our prelate's mother, Mrs.
Joan Andre wes, left in 1524 a bequest of £10. He also makes
mention of his sister Mary Burrell. One Alexander Burrell, B.A.,
Trinity College, Cambridge, 1706, M.A. 1710, was Yicar of Buck-
den, July 5, 1717, which he resigned in 1721, being made in 1720
Rector of Adstock near Winslow, Bucks., by Dr. Gibson, then Bishop
of Lincoln, and also Rector of Puttenham, Herts, by the same patron.
His father was also of Trinity College, B.A. 1666, M.A. 1670.
There have been about twenty members of the University of Cam
bridge of that name. The name is also spelt Burwell; Mr. Samuel
Bur well was at our prelate's funeral. Of this name was Thomas,
LL.D. of the University of Cambridge, 1661 ; Thomas, M.B. of the
same University per Literas Regias, 1662 ; Francis, A.M. of the same
University per Literas Regias, 1675 ; Thomas, M.B., King's College,
1677; and Charles, M.B., Pembroke College, 1717. The name
Burwell appears to have merged into Burrell. The children of the
Bishop's sister, Mary Burrel, were Andrew, John, Samuel, Joseph,
James, Lancelot, Mary Rooke, and her daughter Martha. His
sister Martha, born in 1577, married first to Robert Princep, by
whom she had a son Thomas. Charles Robert Princep (probably
a descendant) was B.A. St. John's College, Cambridge, 1811, M.A.
1813. At Oxford was John Princep, B.A., BaUiol College, Oct. 12,
1738. Martha was married secondly to Mr., probably Peter,
Salmon, by whom she had two sons, Peter and Thomas. The Rev.
Thomas Peter Dod Salmon was B.A. St. John's College, Cambridge,
1782, M.A. 1786, Fellow of that College, B.D. 1793, and was
living in 1811. Mr. Salmon had a sister Martha and a daughter
Anne Best. The Bishop also makes mention of his cousin Anne
Hockett. John Hockett was B.A. of Trinity CoUege, Cambridge,
1662, M.A. 1666, and a Fellow of that society. Another of the
same name was B.A. of that College 1696. He names another
cousin, Sandbrooke; also his cousin Robert and his two children;
his cousin Rebecca; his father's half-sister Joan; her first hus
band's name was Bousie. Also his godson Lancelot Lake, son of
Sir Thomas Lake. There was a Lancelot Lake, B.A. Catharine
Hall, Cambridge, 1666, M.A. 1670. Also his two godsons Robert
and Charles Barker, son of Mr. Robert Barker, " latelie the King's
printer." His principal executor was Mr. John Parker, citizen and
Merchant Taylor, of London, to be assisted by Sir Thomas Lake,
Sir Henry Martin, and Dr. Nicholas Styward or Steward. His
will was_ witnessed by Robert Bostock, Prebendary of Norton
Episcopi in the church of Lincoln, and afterward Archdeacon of
Suffolk, and (if not in 1626) Prebendary of Chichester; Joseph
Fenton, probably our prelate's physician; John Browning, Rector
of Buttermere near Hungerford, whom he had preferred to that
living in 1624, author of Six Sermons concerning Public Prayer
and the Fasts of the Church (Lond. 1636); Thomas Eddie and
"William Green, two of the Bishop's servants. Archdeacon Wig-
more also signed the three several codicils to the will.
The family of Andrew or Andrewes has seated itself in Gloucester
shire ; Plymouth, Devon ; Bisbrook, Rutlandshire ; Norfolk, Suffolk,
Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, Lancashire, "Wilts, Bucks, Hert
fordshire, Cambridgeshire, Surrey, and Hants. In Cambridgeshire
it is still represented by the Rev. Thomas Andrew of Pembroke
College, Cambridge, Yicar of Triplow ; and by another descendant,
a respectable yeoman at Litlington in the same county. In Hert
fordshire, by the father of this latter, a yeoman in the parish of
Buckland near Barkway. In Suffolk, by George W. Andrewes,
Esq., Sudbury, Suffolk. In Surrey, by the Rev. William Gerard
Andrewes, M.A., Magdalen Hall, Oxford, curate of Morden near
Mitcham, and grandson of the late Dean of Canterbury. The Rev.
Thomas Andrew of Triplow is descended of a Northamptonshire
branch of this family. Erom Northamptonshire a branch of this
family migrated about the beginning of the seventeenth century to
the neighbourhood of Canterbury. Thence Henry Andrews re
moved to London, and was cut off with his whole household, except
one infant, in the Great Plague in 1665. This infant lived to a
considerable age, and having acquired some fortune by merchandise,
thought it right to take out arms afresh in 1729. He died in 1730.
His grandson Joseph was at a very early age appointed Paymaster to
the Eorces serving in Scotland 1715. His son Joseph was created
a Baronet in 1766. His brother, James Pettit Andrews, born at
Shaw House near Newbury, 1737, was the author of a miscellaneous
collection entitled Anecdotes, Ancient and Modern, fyc. Lond. 8vo.
1789. A supplement to this volume in 1790; History of Great
Britain, 1794, vol. I., from CaBsar's invasion to the death of Richard I.
4to. Lond. In 1795 appeared a second part, to the accession of
Edward YI. The plan of this work was founded on that of Dr.
Henry. He appears to have discontinued it for the purpose of com
pleting Dr. Henry's history, which, in 1796, he brought down to
the accession of James I. He translated The Savages of Europe ;
a popular Erench novel now forgotten. In 1798 he published The
Inquisitor, a Tragedy in five Acts altered from the German, in
conjunction with his friend H. J. Pye, the Poet Laureate. He was
a contributor to the Archceologia and the Gentleman's Magazine. On
the establishment of the London Police Magistracy in 1792, he was
appointed Magistrate for Queen's Square and St. Margaret's "West
minster. He died in London August 6th, 1797. He had married
Anne daughter of the Rev. Rumney Penrose, Rector of Newbury.
He survived her twenty years. The present excellent Master of the
Grammar School, Stamford, the Rev. Erederic E. Gretton, B.D.,
late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, and author of some
valuable Parochial Sermons,1 is descended from Bishop Andrewes
both on the mother's and father's side. His father married a Clay,
and his grandfather a Pigott, the granddaughter and daughter re
spectively of Catharine and Ellen Andrewes, whose father died and
was buried at Southwell in or about 1717. Mr. G. "W. Andrews of
Sudbuiy is a younger brother of the Rev. Robert Andrews, B.D.,
who was ninth Senior Optime, Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and
B.A. 1821, of Middleton near Sudbury. The eldest brother is Lieut. -
Colonel Andrews, residing at 57, Ecclestone Square, London; and
the youngest, the Rev. "William Nesfield Andrews, of Jesus College,
Cambridge, M.A. 1832, Rector of Chilton near Sudbury 1853.
A.D. 1600.
Five days after the death of Hooker, Andrewes wrote to Dr.
Parry, afterward Bishop of Worcester :
" SALTJTEM IN CHRISTO.
" I cannot choose but write though you do not ; I never failed
since I last saw you, but daily prayed for him till the very instant
you sent me this heavy news. I have hitherto prayed Serva nobis
hunc ; now must I Da nobis alium. Alas, for our great loss ! and
when I say ours, though I mean yours and mine, yet much more
the common : with [which ?] the less sense they have of so great
a damage, the more sad we need to bewail them ourselves, who
knew his works and his worth to be such as behind him he hath
not, that I know, left any near him. And whether I shall live
to know any near him, I am in great doubt that I care not how
many and myself had redeemed his longer life, to have done good
in a better subject than he had in hand, though that were very
good. Good brother, have a care to deal with his executrix or
executor, or (him that is like to have a great stake in it) his father-
in-law, that there be special care and regard for preserving such
papers as he left, besides the three last books excepted. By pre
serving, I mean, that not only they be not embezzled and come to
nothing, but that they come not into great hands who will only
have use of them quatenus et quousque, and suppress the rest, or
unhappily all; but rather into the hands of some of them that
unfeignedly wished him well, though of the meaner sort, who may
upon good assurance (very good assurance) be trusted with them ;
for it is pity they should admit any limitation. Do this and do it
mature ; it had been more than time long since to have been about
it, if I had sooner known it. If any word or letter would do any
good to Mr. Churchman, it should not want. But what cannot
yourself or Mr. Sandys do therein? For Mr. Cranmer is away;
happy in that he shall gain a week or two before he know of it.
Almighty God comfort us over him, whose taking away, I trust
I shall no longer live than with grief remember; therefore with
grief because with inward and most just honour I ever honoured
him since I knew him.
" Your assured poor loving friend,
" L. ANDREWES.
"At the Court, Nov. 7, 1600."
About a month after this letter was written the Archbishop sent
Andrewes to Mrs. Hooker to enquire after the MSS. He did not
however succeed in obtaining any information. Upon this the
Archbishop sent for her to London, when she confessed that Mr.
Chart, a Puritan, and another minister of the same bias, had de
stroyed some of his papers as being in their opinion not such as
should see the light. However the rough drafts of the three last
books of the Eccl. Polity were discovered and delivered by Whitgift
to Dr. Spenser, who drew up as perfect a copy as he could, a tran
script of which was given to Andrewes amongst others. — Strype's
Whitgift, ii. 441.
FROM DEAD ANGLICAN THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY -September 20, 2012:
Lancelot may have acquired his flair for languages from his father, Thomas Andrewes, who was a merchant seaman and master of Trinity House. He undertook to master a new language every year, and it is said he was fluent in 15 or 16 languages, ancient and modern, as an adult, and could read 21 languages.... Lancelot officiated at the funeral of Queen Elizabeth and was was closely involved in making arrangements for the coronation of James VI of Scotland as James I of England.
Eugene Chrisman, 830 N. 10E. Mountain Home, has Thomas' burial as June 25, 1593, Al Hallow Barking, London, Middlesex, England and has him married to the following:
1. Agnes Newport
Marriage abt. 1516, Sandon, Hertfordshire, England
2. Joan Andrews
Marriage abt. 1554, Towerhill, London, Middlesex, England
_________________
Son Lancelot Andrews' will:
to my father's half sister Johan (her first husband's name was Bousie) and each of her two children, and more kindred I know not.
__________________
Bishop Buckeridge in his funeral sermon for Lancelot Andrews said that Andrewes's parents "left him a sufficient patrimony, which has descended to his heir", and Isaacson described the parents as "honest and religious". Andrewes himself, in his private prayers, records his thanks that he was "not the sad egg of sorry crows".
Lancelot's brother Thomas was named after his father, who appears as a benefactor to All Hallows', Barking, " 1593, towards repairs of the church, £2; to the poor £5;" probably bequeathed.
_______
Thomas Andrewes, of Tower Hill, London, mariner; son of his father's first marriage.
Thomas Andrewes the younger; unclear by which marriage, though apparently not the first; named in the will of his sister Agnes, 1563, then under age; named in his father's will, 1568.
His father's Will - To Thomas my son, the younger, a feather-bed.
Thomas Andrewes, son of Thomas Andrewes and his first wife, nee Goodwin; born at Hordon-on-the-Hill, Essex; of Thames Street, Tower Ward, London; mariner; of age, 23 March 5 Mary I/4 Philip [1558], when he entered in a bond; legatee of his uncle William Goodwin, 1561, then of London; bought a messuage, a toft, a garden, 60 acres of arable, 20 acres of meadow, 40 acres of pasture and 3 acres of wood at Horndon for £160, 1587 [Essex Feet of Fine]; named in the Assessment of 1589 for Tower Ward; "having most part of his life used the seas, in his latter time became one of the Society, and Master of the Holy Trinity, commonly called the Trinity House" (Isaacson); will dated 23 June 1593, proved PCC 4 July 1593:
"I, Thomas Andrewes of the parish of All Saints Barking on Tower Hill, London, mariner; to my well-beloved wife Joan the moiety of my manor or farm in Raweth, Essex, called Borrells, and of all the lands except the advowson of the church of Raweth, which I will shall remain to my eldest son Lancelot Andrewes, clerk; also the moiety of that farm and those lands in Hordon on the Hill, and lands called Gore Oke and Clayes, and of houses in Redriffe, Surrey; to my son Nicholas the other moiety of Borrells and lands in Rawerth; the other moiety of those houses and lands in Horndon shall remain to my son Thomas; the premises in Rederiffe shall remain to my son Roger; to Martha Andrewes my daughter, L200 at 21, with remainder if she die unmarried to my daughter Mary; to the poor of Horndon where I was born, L5; to my brother William Andrewes one quarter of my ship called the White Hart; to every of my brothers and sisters by my father's side dwelling in Essex, 40s apiece; to Thomas Andrewes, son of my brother Robert Andrewes, and to Anne, sister to the said Thomas, to each a dozen of silver spoons; residue to wife Joan".
Thomas' son Lancelot Andrews' Will:
...to my father's half sister Johan (her first husband's name was Bousie) and each of her two children...
Then follows the last will and testament of John Parker, of London merchant taylor, as executor of the last will &c. of the Right Revd Father in God Lancelot Andrewes late Lord Bishop of Winchester deceased. Reference to his kinsmen ...his father's half sister Jone (her first husband's name was Bousie) and her two children.
Bishop Buckeridge in his funeral sermon said that Andrewes's parents "left him a sufficient patrimony, which has descended to his heir", and Isaacson described the parents as "honest and religious".
Andrewes himself, in his private prayers, records his thanks that he was "not the sad egg of sorry crows".
________
Memoir of the Ancestry of Dr. Lancelot Andrews
In the second volume of the Rev. William Palin's History of "Stifford and its neighbourhood," I had the honour of contributing a brief memoir of the ancestry of that eminent and learned Prelate Dr. Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester, in which I claimed for the Bishop an Essex ancestry, proving that his father and grandfather were of Horndon-on-the-Hill (where the former says he was born), in direct contradiction to the statement of the Bishop's amanuensis and biographer, Henry Isaacson, who states that he was descended from an ancient Suffolk family.
He was buried (as "Mr Thomas Andrewes") at All Hallows', Barking, in the choir, 23 June 1593 during a period shown by the registers to have been one of very high local mortality.
Married Joan, named in the will of her step-mother in law, 1592;
Executrix to her husband, 1593; will dated 1594 proved PCC 10 January
1597/8:
"I Joan Andrewes, widow, of Tower Hill in London; body to be buried with due and decent funerals and laid in the Quier of the church of All Saints, Barking, hard by the body of my late husband Thomas Andrewes, as near as conveniently it may; to son Lancelot my best salt with cover, being silver and gilt; to son Nicholas, L100; to son Thomas, servant [ie apprentice] to Mr William Cotton, draper, L130; to son Roger, L100; to daughter Mary, wife of William Burrell of Ratcliffe, shipwright, L50; to Andrewe Burrell her son, L100; to daughter Martha Andrewes L100 over and above the L200 she is to receive of me as executrix of Thomas Andrewes her father; to Alice Andrewes, the wife of William Andrewes my brother-in-law, L5; to Thomas Andrewes, second son of Matthew Andrewes my brother-in-law by his first wife, L5; to my brother-in-law William Andrewes and Richard Ireland, my third part of the ship called the Mayflower, the said Richard Ireland to be master of the same as heretofore; to son Roger a gilt tankard and a goblet (of) parcel gilt; to daughter Martha Andrewes my second salt with the cover of silver and gilt; to Joan Butler, late wife of Robert Andrewes my brother-in-law, my hooped ring of gold; to Agnes Butler her daughter, a ring of gold; to my cousin germane, Emma Fowle, L5; to my cosen William Biam, my ring of gold with death's head in it; to my sister Alice Andrewes, wife of William Andrewes, one cloth gown, a kirtle, the residue of my wearing linen, now in a little black chest; son Lancelot executor"
She was buried (as "Mistress Andrewes") at All Hallows, Barking, 7 January 1597/8.
Joane Andrewes (spelt Andrewes), widow of Thomas, who made her will in 1595, mentions therein her brothers-in-law, Matthew, William, and Robert Andrewes. We have therefore clear evidence of the existence of the father and two uncles of Bishop Andrewes whose names accord with those mentioned in the will of Thomas Andrew, the carpenter. John may have died prior to 1593, and Robert who is not named in the carpenter's will might have been a posthumous son. The orthography of the name is variable and in the wills of the Bishop and two of his brothers it is spelt Andrews.
If not proved to demonstration or with the same absolute certainty with which the Pedigree printed in Mr. Palin's work has been established, the evidence, I think, is such as to leave no reasonable doubt that Thomas Andrew the Horndon carpenter, was the grandfather of one of the greatest and most learned Prelates of the Church in England, Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester and Prelate of the Order of the Garter.
H. W. K.
* There was a good family of gentry and yeomanry of this name in that part of Essex. They had a grant of arms and occur in the Heraldic Visitations.
_________
All Hallows by the Tower:
All Hallows by the Tower is an ancient Anglican church located in the City of London, just uphill from the famous Tower of London.
History
All Hallows was first established in 675 by the now-defunct Saxon Barking Abbey and was for many years named after the abbey, as "All Hallows Barking." The church was built on the site of a former Roman building, traces of which have been discovered in the crypt.
The church was expanded and rebuilt several times between the 11th century and 15th century. All Hallows' proximity to the Tower meant that it acquired royal connections, with Edward IV making it a royal chantry and the beheaded victims of Tower executions being sent for temporary burial at All Hallows.
The church was badly damaged by a nearby explosion in 1649, which demolished its west tower, and only narrowly survived the Great Fire of London in 1666. It owed its survival to Admiral William Penn, father of William Penn of Pennsylvania fame, who saved it by having the surrounding buildings demolished to create firebreaks.
In 1926 a Roman pavement and many artifacts were discovered many feet below the church. Restored in the late 19th century, All Hallows was gutted by the Blitz in World War II and required extensive reconstruction, only being rededicated in 1957.
All Hallows by the Tower has connections with several famous persons, including:
• John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States - married here in 1797
• Judge Jeffreys, notorious "hanging judge" - married here in 1667
• William Laud, archbishop beheaded at the Tower - buried here 1645
• Thomas More, Catholic humanist, author and Lord Chancellor, refused to acknowledge Henry VIII as head of the Church - beheaded at Tower of London and buried here in 1535
• John Fisher, beheaded at the Tower - buried here in 1535
• Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Chichester, oversaw King James Bible - baptized here in 1555
• William Penn, founder of the U.S. state of Pennsylvania - baptized here in 1644
__________
Andrews Genealogy and Alliances
BY CLARA BERRY WYKER
DECATUR, ALA.
MRS. JOHN D. WYKER
1917
Methodist Book Concern Press,
Cincinnati, Ohio
From Boston Library, copied and sent me by librarian.
Genealogical Gleanings in England, p. 333:
Johan Andrewes, widow, of the Tower hill. All Saints Barking, 19 February 1594, proved 14 January 1597. My body to be buried in the choir of All Saints Barking hard by the body of my late husband Thomas Andrewes.
To my son Launcelot Andrewes my best salt with the cover, being silver and gilt. To my son Nicholas one hundred pounds. To my son Thomas Andrewes, . . . one hundred and thirty pounds (and other bequests). To my son Roger one hundred pounds. To my daughter Marie Burrell, wife of William Burrell of Ratclif, shipwright, fifty pounds. To Andrewe Burrell their son, one hundred pounds. To my daughter Martha Andrewes one hundred pounds over and above the two hundred pounds she is to receive of me as executrix of the last will &c of my husband, Thomas Andrewes, her father. To Alice Andrewes, wife of William Andrewes, my brother in law, five pounds. To Thomas Andrewes, second son of Matthew Andrewes, my brother in law, by his first wife, five pounds. To my brother in law William Andrewes and Richard Ireland, sometime my servant, my one third part of the ship called the Mayflower of the burden of four score tons or thereabouts, equally between them, upon condition that they shall aliene or sell the same and that the said Richard Ireland shall follow, attend and be master of the same ship as he hath followed, attended and been master of it heretofore. To Joane Butler, late wife of Robert Andrewes, my brother in law, my hooped ring of gold and to Agnes Butler, her daughter by my brother Robert Andrews my "gimous" rings. To Emma Fowle, my cousin germain five pounds. Lewyn, 5.
(The Launcelot Androwes or Andrewes mentioned in this will was the learned Bishop of Winchester, about whose ancestry a short paper will be found in the Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society, New Series, Vol. i, p. ^^. — Henry F. Walters.)
Above is followed by will of John Andrewes, 1649.
Page 418 :
Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester 22 September 1626, with codicils dated 1 May 1626, proved 26 September 1626.
Bequests to the poor of All hallows Barking where I was born, St. Giles without Cripplegate where I was Vicar, St. Martin's within Ludgate, St. Andrew's in Holborne and St. Saviour's in Southwalk where I have been an inhabitant; to the Master, Fellows and Scholars of the College or Hall of Mary Valence, commonly called Pembroke Hall, in Cambridge (a thousand pounds to found two fellowships and also the perpetual advowson of the Rectory of Rawreth in Essex);
to brothers' and sisters' children, viz*. William, son of brother Nicholas, deceased, the children of brother Thomas deceased (his eldest son Thomas, his second son Nicholas, his youngest son Roger, his eldest daughter Ann, married to Arthur Willaston and youngest daughter Mary), the children of sister Mary Burrell (her eldest son Andrew, her sons John, Samuel, Joseph, James and Lancelot, her daughters Mary Rooke and Martha), the children of sister Martha Salmon (her son Thomas Princep by her former husband Robert Princep, her sons Peter and Thomas Salmon, her daughter Ann Best);
to kindred removed, as cousin Ann Hockett and her two sons and three daughters, cousin Sandbrooke, cousin Robert Andrewes and his two children, cousin Rebecca, to my father's half sister Johan (her first husband's name was Bousie) and each of her two children, and more kindred I know not. To Peter Muncaster son of Mr. Richard Muncaster my schoolmaster. To Mr. Robert Barker lately the King's Printer (whom I freely forgive those sums wherein he stands bound to my brother Thomas deceased) and his two sons Robert and Charles, my godsons. To my godson Lancelot Lake. To the poor of All Saints Barking by the Tower, Horndon on the Hill, Rawreth (and other parishes) &c. &c.
My executor to be Mr. John Parker, citizen and merchant taylor of London, and overseers to be Sir Thomas Lake, Sir Henry Martin and Dr. Nicholas Styward. Hele, 109.
(See will of Johane Andrewes, the testator's
mother, and notes, ante, page 333. — Editor.)
___________
The Bishop also makes mention of his cousin Anne Hockett. John Hockett was BA. of Trinity College, Cambridge, 1662, M.A. 1666, and a Fellow of that society. Another of the same name was B.A. of that College 1696. He names another cousin, Sandbrooke; also his cousin Robert and his two children; his cousin Bebecca; his father's half-sister Joan; her first husband's name was Bousie. Also his godson Lancelot Lake, son of Sir Thomas Lake. There was a Lancelot Lake, BA. Catharine Hall, Cambridge, 1666, M.A. 1670. Also his two godsons Bobert and Charles Barker, son of Mr. Bobert Barker, "latelie the King's printer." His principal executor was Mr. John Parker, citizen and Merchant Taylor, of London, to be assisted by Sir Thomas Lake, Sir Henry Martin, and Dr. Nicholas Styward or Steward. His will was witnessed by Robert Bostock, Prebendary of Norton Episcopil in the church of Lincoln, and afterward Archdeacon of Suffolk, and (if not in 1626) Prebendary of Chichester; Joseph Fenton, probably our prelate's physician; John Browning, Bector of Buttermere near Hungerford, whom he had preferred to that living in 1624, author of Six Sermons concerning Public Prayer and the Fasts of the Church (Lond. 1636); Thomas Eddie and William Green, two of the Bishop's servants. Archdeacon Wigmore also signed the three several codicils to the will.
_________________
Ancestry of Lancelot Andrewes (b 1555), Bishop of Winchester
PART ONE
Relatively little seems to be available on the ancestry of Lancelot Andrewes, Elizabethan scholar and Bishop successively of Chichester, Ely and Winchester until his death in 1626. Similarly, various claims may be found in print and online about other Andrews families who claim descent from the Bishop's family - many of these turn out to be spurious (in particular, much of the IGI material is erroneous) but there are some notable descendants living today, including the Parker Bowles children of HRH the Duchess of Cornwall.
John Aubrey ("Brief Lives") tells us that Lancelot Andrewes was born in London and was educated at Merchant Taylors School there, before going up to Pembroke College, Cambridge. Otley in his biography "Lancelot Andrewes" (1894) states that "he was born in Thames Street in the Parish of All Hallows Barking in 1555", noting that the exact date of his birth is unknown; he records that "the family was connected with Suffolk, but very little seems known of its history" - based on statements by the Bishop's earliest biographer, Henry Isaacson, in his "Exact Narration of the Life and Death of the late... Lancelot Andrewes" (1650) ("his father was... descended from the ancient family of the Andrewes in Suffolk".)
Bishop Buckeridge in his funeral sermon said that Andrewes's parents "left him a sufficient patrimony, which has descended to his heir", and Isaacson described the parents as "honest and religious". Andrewes himself, in his private prayers, records his thanks that he was "not the sad egg of sorry crows".
The best two articles dealing with the history of the family may be found in "More About Stifford & Its Neighbourhood", by W. Palin(1872), at pp 8-13 and 70-71, summarising the research of H.W. King, and in Suffolk Manorial Families, which re-examines the former material and provides the texts of some probate records to augment it. These articles are largely correct, but include some incorrect statements, as well as omitting some important facts.
There are also a couple of unreliable references in three Harleian Society Manuscripts in the British Library (Harl MSS 1094 and 1184, and 4031), nominally papers connected with the Vistation of Northamptonshire in 1618-19 by Augustine Vincent, and an undated roll pedigree in the Society of Genealogists' Library. These provide the following originating stemma:
1. Thomas Andrewes of Carlisle, ff 1286, married Magdalen Tokett
2. Ralph Andrewes, ff 1334, married Mary Thompson
3. Ralph Andrewes, of Cockold, married Jane Witney
4. Richard Andrewes of Husdon, married Elizabeth Marcant
5. John Andrewes, married Emma Vaughan
6. Henry Andrewes, married Blanche Smythe
7. Thomas Andrewes 'of St Edes' [i.e. St Neots, Cambs], married Mary Brough
8. Richard Andrewes, of Horndon-on-the -Hill, Essex, married Joyce Bresom
9. John Andrewes, of Horndon, married Joan Cotton
10. Thomas Andrewes of Horndon, "had three wives"
11. Thomas Andrewes of London, father of L Andrewes, Doctor in Divinity, Bishop of Chichester".
It is curious that the latest (ie contemporary) generation in this pedigree should be the only one missing a Christian name! These documents have normally been treated as an ambitious, but essentially fanciful, attempt to connect various disparate Andrews families, and hence it testimony rejected in terms of accuracy.
Nevertheless, we find that it is correct in relation to what it tells us about the Bishop's father and paternal grandfather, including (as we shall see) the statement that the latter had three wives.
I have been unsuccessful in ascertaining whether there is any historical evidence for the earlier generations, and accordingly suspect they should be treated as myth.
In this course of this thread, I shall aim to examine the background of the Bishop and his siblings, and intend to use the Harleian MSS's end generations as my peg.
MA-R
PART TWO: PATERNAL ANCESTRY
Thomas Andrewes of Horndon-on-the-Hill, Essex, was the paternal grandfather of Bishop Lancelot Andrewes. According to the Vincent pedigrees he married three times. Evidence from the Essex wills (published by Fitch in his series of that county's probate records) allows us to confirm this statement, and most of what King's reconstructs of the family:
1. Thomas Andrewes, witnessed the will of Thomas Armerar of Horndon, 21 February 1558/9 (pr Archdeaconry of Essex, 3 April 1559); named in the will of William Goodwyn, his brother-in-law [see will of his daughter Agnes, infra], waxchandler of Horndon, dated 30 May 1561 (pr. Archd. Essex, 3 December 1561):
"L30 to the children of Thomas Andrewes of Horndon, i.e. to Robert
L10, to John and Matthew L5 apiece, and to Agnes L10, all at 23; to John and Matthew in addition L5 each at 23; to Lancelot Andrewes and Agnes Andrewes the son and daughter of Thomas Andrewes of London, mariner, my part of and in the ship called the Trinity of Caryte, and of and in the crayer called the Hearne of London" as "Thomas Andrewe, carpenter of Horndon-on-the-Hill", made a will:
"to the poor men's box of Horndon, 12d; to John my son a bullock and my best coat; to Thomas my son the younger a featherbed; to William my son a gold ring; to Matthew my son a bolster, pair of sheets, two platters and my best jerkin; residue to Margaret my wife whom I ordain my executrix; Robert Drywood and my son Matthew to be overseers;
witnessed by Robert Drywood, maker of this will, Matthew and John Andrewes his sons", dated 29 December [presumably 1568], proved Archd.
Essex 25 January 1568/9.
married firstly ( ) the sister of William Goodwin of Horndon; had by her Thomas, Robert, John, Matthew and Agnes.
married secondly ( ), by whom he had William, not named in any of the Goodwin wills but still living in 1597, and possibly Thomas the younger
married thirdly Margaret, his widow. She seems to have married firstly a Mr Lowe, by whom she had a daughter Agnes [see will of Agnes Andrewes, infra]; then Thomas Andrewes, and thirdly John Goodwin of Horndon, her second husband's nephew by his first marriage. Her will, dated 19 November 1592, proved Archd. Essex 17 February 1592/3, names her son Robert Goodwin, her daughter Sarah Almon; her daughter Agnes Gyles; her daughter Elizabeth Hawkins; her daughter Joan Bowsy, and "Mistress Andrewes of Tower Hill", to whom she left her "bay nag with saddle and bridle". The will of her third husband John Goodwin (dated 26 May, proved 18 June 1588 Archd. Essex) names Margaret his wife, his son Robert and his daughter Sarah. We may thus conclude that by Margaret's marriage to Thomas Andrewes, she bore Elizabeth, afterwards Hawkins, and Joan, afterwards Bowsy.
Issue:
2a. Thomas Andrewes, of Tower Hill, London, mariner; son of his father's first marriage - see part three
2b. Agnes Andrewes, daughter of her father's first marriage; mentioned in her uncle's will, 1561; unmarried; left a will dated 2 February 1562/3, proved Archd. Essex, 7 September 1563:
"Agnes Andrewe of Horndon, maiden; from the money that my brother Thomas Andrewes hath in his hands which was given me by the will of my uncle William Goodwin: to my father, my two brothers William and Robert, each 10s; to my brother Matthew 20s, and my brother Thomas the younger, 40s each at 21; to my sister Elizabeth and my sister-in-law [i.e. step-sister] Agnes Lowe, each 20s at 18; residue to my father; witness: Robert Drywood"
2c. Robert Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; mentioned in the will of his uncle, 1561, and that of his sister Agnes, 1563, then of age; mentioned in his father's will, 1568; dead by 1594, when his widow is mentioned in the will of his sister-in-law Joan Andrews;
married Joan (called "Joan Butler" in the 1594 will, so probably she remarried); had issue:
3a. Thomas Andrewes, named in the will of his uncle Thomas Andrewes, 1593
2d. John Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; mentioned in the wills of 1561 and 1568
2e. Matthew Andrewes, named in the wills of 1561, 1563 and 1568; aged under 21 in 1563; witnessed the will of James Roger of East Tilbury, 18 February 1572/3 (pr. Archd. Essex 13 June 1573); executor to his mother-in-law Alice Thomson, 1579 (Archd, Essex); married firstly ( ) the daughter of Alice Thomson of East Tilbury, by whom he had three children; married secondly ( ); engaged to marry Judith Turner at the time of making his will, proved Archd. Essex, 16 October 1599:
"Matthew Andrewes of Horndon; to my son Robert L20 at 21; to daughter Rebecca, L20 at 20 or marriage; to son William, L5; to Judith Turner, whom, had God permitted, should have been my wife, L10; residue to Nicholas Andrewes my cousin, whom I make executor"
Had issue by both marriages:
3a. William Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; named in his maternal grandmother's will, 1578; named in his father's will, 1599
3b. Thomas Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; named in his maternal grandmother's will, 1578; named in the will of his aunt Joan Andrewes, 1594 as "second son of the first marriage"
3c. John Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; named in his maternal grandmother's will, 1578
3d. Robert Andrewes, son of his father's second marriage; mentioned in his father's will, 1599, and the wills of his cousins Lancelot Andrewes, 1626, and Martha Salmon, 1650; had two children, according to the 1626 will
3e. Rebecca Andrewes, daughter by her father's second marriage; mentioned in the wills of Thomas Almon, her godfather, 1594 (Archd. Essex, 112 ER 17), her father, 1599, and her cousins Lancelot Andrewes, 1626, and Martha Salmon, 1650
2d. William Andrewes, apparently son of his father's second marriage, as not named in the wills of William Goodwin or Margaret Goodwin; named in his sister's will, 1563, then of age; named in his father's will; bequeathed an interest in a ship by his brother Thomas, 1593, and again by his sister-in-law Joan Andrewes, 1594; married Alice, named in the 1594 will
2e. Thomas Andrewes the younger; unclear by which marriage, though apparently not the first; named in the will of his sister Agnes, 1563, then under age; named in his father's will, 1568
2f. Elizabeth Andrewes, daughter of her father's third marriage; named in her sister's will, 1563, then under 18; mentioned in her mother's will, 1592, having married a Mr Hawkins; she had a daughter Susanna
2g. Joan Andrewes, daughter of her father's third marriage; not named in the will of her sister Agnes, 1563, so possibly not then born; named as "Joan Bowsy" in her mother's will, 1592; referred to as "my father's half-sister Joan - her first husband's name was Bousie" in the will of Lancelot Andrewes, 1626; married firstly Mr Bowsy/Bousie, and secondly ( ). Had two children, according to the 1626 will.
MA-R
PART TWO: PATERNAL ANCESTRY
1. Thomas Andrewes, of Horndon-on-the-Hill, carpenter; had issue, incl:
2d. William Andrewes, apparently son of his father's second marriage, as not named in the wills of William Goodwin or Margaret Goodwin; named in his sister's will, 1563, then of age; named in his father's will; bequeathed an interest in a ship by his brother Thomas, 1593, and again by his sister-in-law Joan Andrewes, 1594; married Alice, named in the 1594 will
This William was a party to a property transaction in Brentwood, Essex, 1594:
"William Greatham and Joan his wife v. William Andrewes and Alice his wife, re two messuages, a garden and an orchard in Brentwood parish of Weald; £40" (Essex Feet of Fines 1581-1603, p 120 #60)
PART THREE: PARENTS AND SIBLINGS
Perhaps the greatest level of confusion about the family of Lancelot Andrewes concerns his siblings. A quick glance at the IGI, for instance, will reveal no fewer than 15 brothers and sisters variously assigned to him. I have been able to confirm 12 only, including an unnamed sibling who died young. The spurious children credited to his parents appear to be:
(a) Ann, said per IGI to have been born in 1568, but of whom there is no trace
(b) Agnes, said per IGI to have been born in 1582, but of whom there is no trace
(c) George, of whom King states "baptised at All Hallows 1563 (and) buried there in 1571", quoting the parish registers (this is presumably the source of the identical details appearing in Boyd's Inhabitants of London). No George Andrewes is named in the parish register for the period in question, either in respect of a baptism or a burial.
(d) William, referred to in the 'Suffolk Manorial Families' pedigree, but of whom there is no other evidence.
In fact, details of Lancelot's parents and siblings are as follows:
Thomas Andrewes, son of Thomas Andrewes and his first wife, nee Goodwin; born at Hordon-on-the-Hill, Essex; of Thames Street, Tower Ward, London; mariner; of age, 23 March 5 Mary I/4 Philip [1558], when he entered in a bond; legatee of his uncle William Goodwin, 1561, then of London; bought a messuage, a toft, a garden, 60 acres of arable, 20 acres of meadow, 40 acres of pasture and 3 acres of wood at Horndon for £160, 1587 [Essex Feet of Fine]; named in the Assessment of 1589 for Tower Ward; "having most part of his life used the seas, in his latter time became one of the Society, and Master of the Holy Trinity, commonly called the Trinity House" (Isaacson); will dated 23 June 1593, proved PCC 4 July 1593:
"I, Thomas Andrewes of the parish of All Saints Barking on Tower Hill, London, mariner; to my well-beloved wife Joan the moiety of my manor or farm in Raweth, Essex, called Borrells, and of all the lands except the advowson of the church of Raweth, which I will shall remain to my eldest son Lancelot Andrewes, clerk; also the moiety of that farm and those lands in Hordon on the Hill, and lands called Gore Oke and Clayes, and of houses in Redriffe, Surrey; to my son Nicholas the other moiety of Borrells and lands in Rawerth; the other moiety of those houses and lands in Horndon shall remain to my son Thomas; the premises in Rederiffe shall remain to my son Roger; to Martha Andrewes my daughter, L200 at 21, with remainder if she die unmarried to my daughter Mary; to the poor of Horndon where I was born, L5; to my brother William Andrewes one quarter of my ship called the White Hart; to every of my brothers and sisters by my father's side dwelling in Essex, 40s apiece; to Thomas Andrewes, son of my brother Robert Andrewes, and to Anne, sister to the said Thomas, to each a dozen of silver spoons; residue to wife Joan".
He was buried (as "Mr Thomas Andrewes") at All Hallows', Barking, in the choir, 23 June 1593 during a period shown by the registers to have been one of very high local mortality.
marred Joan, named in the will of her step-mother in law, 1592; executrix to her husband, 1593; will dated 1594 proved PCC 10 January 1597/8:
"I Joan Andrewes, widow, of Tower Hill in London; body to be buried with due and decent funerals and laid in the Quier of the church of All Saints, Barking, hard by the body of my late husband Thomas Andrewes, as near as conveniently it may; to son Lancelot my best salt with cover, being silver and gilt; to son Nicholas, L100; to son Thomas, servant [ie apprentice] to Mr William Cotton, draper, L130; to son Roger, L100; to daughter Mary, wife of William Burrell of Ratcliffe, shipwright, L50; to Andrewe Burrell her son, L100; to daughter Martha Andrewes L100 over and above the L200 she is to receive of me as executrix of Thomas Andrewes her father; to Alice Andrewes, the wife of William Andrewes my brother-in-law, L5; to Thomas Andrewes, second son of Matthew Andrewes my brother-in-law by his first wife, L5; to my brother-in-law William Andrewes and Richard Ireland, my third part of the ship called the Mayflower, the said Richard Ireland to be master of the same as heretofore; to son Roger a gilt tankard and a goblet (of) parcel gilt; to daughter Martha Andrewes my second salt with the cover of silver and gilt; to Joan Butler, late wife of Robert Andrewes my brother-in-law, my hooped ring of gold; to Agnes Butler her daughter, a ring of gold; to my cousin germane, Emma Fowle, L5; to my cosen William Biam, my ring of gold with death's head in it; to my sister Alice Andrewes, wife of William Andrewes, one cloth gown, a kirtle, the residue of my wearing linen, now in a little black chest; son Lancelot executor"
She was buried (as "Mistress Andrewes") at All Hallows, Barking, 7 January 1597/8.
Issue:
(1) Lancelot Andrewes, born circa 1555; educated at Merchant Taylors school and Pembroke College, Cambridge; successively Dean of Westminster, Bishop of Chichester, Ely and Winchester; Dean of the Chapel Royal; died 25 September 1626; buried at St Saviour's, Southwark [tomb extant] (Alum. Cantab.); aged 71 and some months at his death (Funeral Certificate, College of Arms, I.8/31 and I.23/30); unmarried; will proved PCC, 109 Hele and 23-24 Skynner: inter alia named "cousin Sandbrooke; cousin Ann Hockett, her two sons and three daughters; my father's half-sister Johan (her first husband's name was Bousie) and each of her two children; my brother Thomas, deceased; my cousin Robert Andrewes and his two children; my cousin Rebecca"
(2) Judith Andrewes, buried at All Hallows, Barking, April 1559 (PR)
(3) Agnes Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 30 September 1561 (PR); named in the will of her great-uncle, William Goodwin, 1561; buried at All Hallows, Barking, 19 June 1571 (PR)
(4) (child), buried at All Hallows, Barking, 6 December 1563, during a period of severe local mortality (PR)
(5) Sarah Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 30 May 1564 (PR); presumably died young
(6) John Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 30 January 1565/6; buried there 3 February 1575/6 (PR)
(7) Nicholas Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 23 February 1566/7 (PR); bequeathed property in Essex by his father, 1593; named in his mother's will, 1594; grocer, of the parish of St Brides, Fleet Street, October 1598 (London Subsidy Rolls); residual beneficiary of his uncle Matthew Andrewes, 1599; appointed to the Registrarship of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster Abbey for life, 3 December 1602 ("Lancelot Andrewes", P. Welsby, London 1958); received assignation of a lease of tithes at Erbury and Chilton from Henry Isaacson, 1620 (Norfolk RO, GIL/1/333/717 x 4); late of St Saviour, Southwark, administration PCC 25 September 1626; married and left issue (NB his son and heir, William Andrewes (1602-1640), was Rector of Nuthurst, Sussex, and did not emigrate to America.
(8) Mary Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 23 October 1570 (PR); named in her father's will, 1593, and her mother's will, 1594; died at Lambeth Marsh, her will dated 28 February 1655 with codicil of 20 February 1656/7 proved PCC 15 October 1657; married by 1594 William Burrell, of Ratcliffe, shipwright; armiger; "one of the Commissioners for the Royal Navy for 15 years" (Vis. London, 1633-4, Vol I, p 125); died 1630; will proved PCC 1631 (87 St John); had issue, from whom descended Admiral Rooke, and Andrew Parker-Bowles
(9) Sarah Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 30 December 1571 (PR); presumably died young
(10) Thomas Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 13 March 1572/3 (PR); apprenticed to William Cotton, citizen and draper of London; inherited property at Horndon from his father, 1593; named in his mother's will, 1594; admitted Freeman of the Drapers' Company, 1597 (Roll of the Drapers' Company of London); will proved PCC 1625 123 Clarke; married by licence dated 19 September 1598 Alice Clay, and left issue.
(11) Roger Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 12 December 1574 (PR; not 1575, as usually stated, or 1576, as alleged by King); educated at Pembroke College, Cambridge; Rector of Nuthurst, Chancellor and Archdeacon of Chichester; Master of Jesus College, Cambridge (Alum. Cantab.); "overbearing and quarrelsome, (he) treated his college with contemptuous disregard and seems to have resided very little; he neglected the financial the financial affairs of the college, which were his responsibility, and finally embezzled certain sums of money; it was only due to the royal favour in memory of (his) late brother that in 1632 he was permitted to resign instead of being dismissed" ("Jesus College Cambridge, A. Gray, 1902, pp 84-90); died 10 September 1635 (Le Neve's Fasti); buried at Cheriton, Hants, 11 September 1635 (Alum. Cantab.); will proved PCC, 1635 (Prob 11/169); married Philippa Blaxton, but had no issue.
(12) Martha Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, 24 March 1576/7 (PR); named in her father's will, 1593, and her mother's will, 1594; called "now wife of Robert Salmon and late wife of Robert Princippe lately deceased, 12 July 1597 (Huntingdon RO, Con 3/5/9/13); will dated 27 May 1650, proved PCC 7 July 1653:
"Martha Salmon of London, widow, late wife of Robert Salmon, deceased; 20s to the preacher at her interment at All Hallows, Barking; to loving friend and cosen Captain John Stevens, L200 on trust for her daughter, and L5 and 40s for a ring in remembrance; to sister Mary Burrell, L20; to cosen Mr Sambrooke, 40s to buy him a ring; cozens Mrs Cator and Mrs Ireland, L3 each; to Robert Andrewes and Rebecca Andrewes, L3 each; late deceased brother's trustees, L50 for setting up young beginners in trades or handicrafts as per his will"
married firstly Robert Princep, and had a son, Thomas, baptised at St Bride's Fleet Street, 23 November 1595 (IGI); married secondly, 26 January 1597 at St Olave Hart Street (PR) Robert Salmon, Master of Trinity House, 1617; of Leigh-on-sea, Essex (East Anglian & Essex Countryside Annual, 1964, p 65). Left issue.
(13) Sarah Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, 24 March 1576/7 (PR); presumably died young.
MA-R
PART THREE: PARENTS AND SIBLINGS
Thomas Andrewes, of Thames Street, Tower Ward, London; mariner; will dated 23 June 1593; buried at All Hallows', Barking, 23 June 1593
Given the dates of his will and his burial, we may conclude that the Bishop's father died 23 June 1593. There was a virulent outbreak of bubonic plague in London during 1593; Stowe reports nearly 11,000 deaths in twelve months.
PART FOUR: GOODWIN ANCESTRY
I visited Horndon-on-the-Hill this morning; it is a very pleasant village, with various mediaeval buildings remaining in good condition. The church is open for visitors on a Tuesday and Saturday mornings, and the Bell still functions as an inn. A plaque outside commemorates Thomas Higbed, of Horndon House, who on 26 March 1555 was burnt at the stake in the courtyard for adhering to the Protestant cause.
1. ( ) Goodwin; had issue:
2a. (daughter), married as his first wife Thomas Andrewes of Horndon-on-the-Hill (died 1568), and left issue
2b. William Goodwin, of Horndon-on-the-Hill, waxchandler; left a will dated 30 May 1561, proved Archd. Essex 3 December 1561:
"to my eldest son Robert, my messuage called the Bell in Horndon; to my sons Thomas and John each L10 at 23; to Joan Goodwin my maidservant, 40s at marriage; to Lancelot Andrewes and Agnes Andrewes the son and daughter of Thomas Andrewes of London, mariner, my part of and in the ship called the Trinity of Caryte, and of and in the crayer called the Hearne of London; whereas the said Thomas by his obligation dated 23 March in the fourth and fifth years of the late King and Queen Philip and Mary [i.e. 1557/8, not 1556/7 as printed by Fitch in his edition of Essex Wills] standeth bound to me in L40 for payment of L30, i.e. L5 yearly at Michaelmas until L30 be paid, which obligation I will shall be cancelled, and that he shall stand bound to Robert my son for payment of L30 to the children of Thomas Andrewes of Horndon, i.e. to Robert L10, to John and Matthew L5 apiece, and to Agnes L10, all at 23; to John and Matthew in addition L5 each at 23; residue to Robert, whom I make my executor"
left issue:
3a. Robert Goodwin, eldest son; executor and residual benefiary of his father, 1561, from whom he inherited the Bell at Horndon; named in the will of his brother John, 1588 [infra]; dead by 1590; married Elizabeth Bretton, daughter of Robert Bretton; died a widow; her will proved Archd. Essex 4 June 1590:
"Elizabeth Goodwin of Horndon, widow: to John and Robert Goodwin, my sons, such right as I now have in three tenements, a barn, an orchard and a croft which my father Robert Bretton did give between me and my sister Hearde in Horndon; if they both die without heirs, to my daughter Susan Carter; to John and Robert, four kine and ten sheep which are let to farm to one Williams of East Tilbury; to Repent Savage, 10 shillings; to Susan my mourning gown, my best hat, 11 pieces of pewter in a spruce chest, the said chest, my best salt, two latten candlesticks, my best ***, best petticoat etc etc; to Joan Savage my daughter, my two bedsteads in the bed loft, a great chest etc etc; to my sister Heard, my warming pan and a pair of great cob- irons; residue to Robert Heard and Robert Bretton my brother, whom I ordain executors, desiring them to see my two sons brought up; my brother Heard shall have Robert, and my brother Robert shall have John".
Issue:
4a. John Goodwin, named in his uncle's will of 1588, and his mother's will proved 1590
4b. Robert Goodwin, named in his uncle's will of 1588, and his mother's will proved 1590
4c. Susan Goodwin, named in her mother's will; married Mr Carter
4d. Joan Goodwin, named in her mother's will; married Repent Savage, named in his mother-in-law's will
3b. Thomas Goodwin, named in his father's will of 30 May 1561, then aged under 23
3c. (daughter), referred to in the will of her brother John, 1588 (infra); married Mr Norden
3d. John Goodwin, named in his father's will of 30 May 1561, then aged under 23; bequeathed 4s by Robert Bretton of Langdon Hills, 1566; beer-brewer of Horndon; administration of his nuncupative will dated 26 May 1588 granted Archd. Essex, 18 June 1588:
"to brother Robert Goodwin's two sons, John and Robert, 40 shillings a piece at 21; to Susanna Hawkins, a cow at 18 or marriage; to sister Norden, a winter gown; residue to wife Margaret, son Robert and daughter Sarah, to be equally divided"
married Margaret, third wife and widow of Thomas Andrewes of Horndon, his uncle by marriage; she died his widow, 1592; will dated 19 November 1592, proved Archd. Essex, 17 February 1592/3:
"to Robert Goodwin my son, the bedstead that I lie on, with the featherbed, half dozen of my best flaxen napkins, etc etc, the Book of Acts and Monuments [Foxe], the New Testament, and the book of Latymer's Sermons; to Sarah Almon my daughter, the next bedsteadle with the new feather bed, a flaxen tablecloth, etc etc; to Agnes Gyles my daughter, a featherbed, the great kettle, etc etc; to Elizabeth Hawkins my daughter, my spice mortar, a chafer with feet, a kettle, etc etc; to Joan Bowsy my daughter, a featherbed, a dozen of pewter and a good tablecloth; to Susan Hawkins, a brass pot and a kettle; to Mistress Andrewes of Tower Hill, my bay nag with the saddle andbridle; residue to Robert, whom I make executor; witnesses: Thomas Taylor, Robert Drywood, Robert Taylor".
Issue:
4a. Robert Goodwin, named in his parents' wills, 1588 and 1592
4b. Sarah Goodwin, named in her parents' wills, 1588 and 1592; married Mr Almon [probably Thomas Almon of Horndon-on-the-Hill, will pr. Archd. Essex, 1594 112ER17].
There are a number of other Goodwin wills at Chelmsford, including some earlier (eg Thomas of Horndon, 1543; Joan of Horndon, widow, 1552) which I have not yet seen; these likely shed further light on the Goodwin family of Horndon-on-the-Hill.
MA-R
From: Brad Verity
Date: 21 Apr 2007
______________
Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626), born in the parish of All Hallows, Barking, he was a scholar at the Coopers' Free School in Ratcliff. Whilst at Coopers he came under the influence of school master Thomas Ward who played a pivotal role in young Lancelot's life. He went on to study at Pembroke College, Cambridge, and in 1580 was ordained, quickly progressing to higher offices within the church. He shone as a scholar and was said to be fluent in fifteen ancient and modern languages; Andrewes was soon noticed in royal circles by Queen Elizabeth's Chief Minister and spymaster Francis Walsingham leading to him becoming her Chaplain in Ordinary. Upon her death in 1603 Lancelot Andrewes preached the sermon at her funeral, and then went on to participate in the coronation of King James I. Under the new King his rise in the church was rapid: in 1605 he was made Bishop of Chichester and Lord High Almoner. In 1609 he became Bishop of Ely and in 1619 Bishop of Winchester and Dean of the Royal Chapel. He narrowly missed becoming Archbishop of Canterbury. Upon his death seven years later he was buried in what is now Southwark Cathedral. Amongst his many ecclesiastical achievements Bishop Andrewes oversaw the translation of the King James version of the Bible and, following the unsuccessful attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament in 1605, Lancelot was asked to prepare a sermon to be presented to the King. In his sermon he justified the need to commemorate the deliverance of The King and Country: to 'always remember the fifth of November!' He defined the celebrations which became the foundations of events that continue some 400 years later. Lancelot Andrewes remained a close confidant of the King and accompanied him on his Scottish mission to persuade the Scots that it was preferable to pay more attention to rituals like the Holy Communion through an Episcopalian approach and move away from the heavy sermons of Presbyterianism. Liverymen might be interested to know that on Saturday 14 January 1933 during the building of the Bishop Andrewes' Church in St Helier, Morden, the foundation stone was laid by the then Master of the Company, Harold Griffin JP, Great Grandfather of Liveryman and Society President Celia Campbell and Liveryman and Past President of the Society, Sharon Ashby. The above trowel was presented to him as a commemoration of the event. In June of that year the church was consecrated by the Bishop of Southwark with the company and school playing their part in the service.
____________
Lancelot Andrews' Catholicity:
On September 25th most of the Anglican Communion commemorates the day on which Lancelot Andrewes died. Monday, about 4 O'clock in the morning, died Lancelot Andrews, the most worthy bishop of Winchester, the great light of the Christian world." (Laud 3:126)
And what a light he was in his time and still is. Those who value the catholicity of the Church and the beauty of holiness in worship, also offer a big thank you on this day as he safeguarded the Catholic heritage in the English Church in its formative years of the Reformation period under Elizabeth I. One cannot read Andrewes' sermons or use his prayers without being aware of the centrality of the Eucharist in his life and teaching, as well as teaching the Catholic faith according to the Fathers in his sermons.
So it is not surprising that for many in the seventeenth century Andrewes was considered the authority on worship, and so what he practised in his beautiful chapel, designed for Catholic worship, became their standard for the celebration of the Liturgy. The 1662 Prayer Book, following Andrewes' practice, restored the rubrics for the manual acts at the offertory and consecration. In modern times Eliot referred to Andrewes as "the first great preacher of the English Catholic Church".
There is no doubt therefore that Andrewes saw himself as standing in that long line of Christian tradition embedded in antiquity, and a part of the wonder and loveliness of creation. Indeed Andrewes was a man of prayer and learning whose preaching and piety was noted as far away as Venice. Each day of his life, from 4.am to noon was spent in prayer and study.
During those fifty years Andrewes ministry touched all walks of life. He was chaplain to reigning monarchs for forty years; constant preacher at Court especially for James I.
Andrewes' began his ministry (a ministry that was to last fifty years) c.1578, a time when the Puritans were trying their hardest, especially through pamphlets and parliaments to model the English Church on the Genevan. This would have meant discarding the episcopal and apostolic ministry, the Prayer Book, downplaying the sacraments and dismantling the structure of cathedrals. However their demands were always thwarted by Queen Elizabeth. She and the Archbishop of Canterbury (Whitgift) both appointed Andrewes as one of their chaplains, and prevailed on his skills as a preacher and theologian to address many of the issues raised by Puritans in the late 16thC. So his preaching and lecturing and later on when a bishop his Visitation Articles always stressed amongst other things the observance of Prayer Book services to be taken by a properly ordained minister, the Eucharist to be celebrated reverently, infants to be baptised, the Daily Offices to be said, and spiritual counselling to be given where needed.
One cannot read Andrewes' sermons or use his prayers without being aware of the centrality of the Eucharist in his life and teaching. It had been the heart of worship in the early Church when the local bishop and people came together constantly to celebrate Christ's glorious death, and partake of His most blessed Body and Blood. That partaking fell into disuse in the mediæval church and was replaced instead by adoration of the Host at the elevation during the Canon. For Andrewes the Eucharist was the meeting place for the infinite and finite, the divine and human, heaven and earth. "The blessed mysteries ... are from above; the 'Bread that came down from Heaven,' the Blood that hath been carried 'into the holy place.' And I add, ubi Corpus, ubi sanguis Christi, ibi Christus". We here "on earth ... are never so near Him, nor He us, as then and there." Thus it is to the altar we must come for "that blessed union [which] is the highest perfection we can in this life aspire unto." Unlike his contemporary Puritans it was not the pulpit but the altar, glittering with its candles and plate, with incense wafting to God, that was the focal point for worship in Andrewes' chapel.
The reason that Andrewes placed so much importance on reverence in worship came from his conviction that when we worship God it is with our entire being, that is, both bodily and spiritually. At a time when little emphasis was placed on the old outward forms of piety Andrewes maintained, "if He hath framed that body of yours and every member of it, let Him have the honour both of head and knee, and every member else."
During those fifty years Andrewes ministry touched all walks of life. He was chaplain to reigning monarchs for forty years; constant preacher at Court especially for James I; vicar of an important London parish, St. Giles, Cripplegate; and a prebendary of St. Paul's Cathedral for fifteen years. He was also Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge for a similar period; a prebendary and then Dean of Westminster Abbey for a total of eight years; Almoner and Dean of the Royal Chapel and finally a bishop for twenty-two years. He therefore not only held influential positions but also ministered to many who held important positions of State. Yet his congregations came from all walks of life, apart from royalty, politicians and gentry, there were actors, artisans, musicians, students, common folk and clerics. Contemporaries admired his preaching and piety, and eagerly awaited the publication of his sermons. Whilst he was a prebendary of St. Pancras stall at St. Paul's he restored the ancient office of confessor. Accordingly, "especially in Lent time" he would "walk duly at certain hours, in one of the Iles of the Church, that if any came to him for spirituall advice and comfort, as some did, though not many, he might impart it to them."
So it is not surprising that for many in the seventeenth century Andrewes was considered the authority on worship, and so what he practised in his beautiful chapel, designed for Catholic worship, became their standard for the celebration of the Liturgy. As Andrewes was steeped in the teachings of the Fathers and the liturgies of both Eastern and Western churches it meant that in intention and form he followed the 1549 Prayer Book more than the 1559. His practice shaped the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637 (adopted by the American Episcopal Church in the 1789), and the reshaping of the Liturgy in the English Church in 1662. The 1662 Prayer Book, following Andrewes' practice, restored the rubrics for the manual acts at the offertory and consecration. Since then all Prayer Books compiled in various parts of the Anglican Communion are closer to the 1549 Prayer Book - a liturgy in Cranmer's eyes to be only a stop-gap, but for Andrewes it reflected the practices and beliefs of the Church for over a thousand years.
As a preacher Andrewes was highly esteemed by contemporaries and later generations. In modern times Eliot referred to Andrewes as "the first great preacher of the English Catholic Church" who always spoke as "a man who had a formed visible Church behind him, who speaks with the old authority and the new culture, whilst his sermons "rank with the finest English prose of their time, of any time." As well as teaching the Catholic faith according to the Fathers his sermons also reflected an appreciation of beauty as well as knowledge of commerce, trade, art, theatre, navigation, husbandry, science, astronomy, cosmography, fishing, nature, shipping, and even the new discoveries of the world.
But Andrewes himself would have said, as indeed he did to Sir Francis Walisingham, that his whole life and teaching were indebted to the Fathers, especially the Eastern. One has only to be reasonably familiar with the Fathers, to see how much of their teachings were preached by him. For example the Cappadocian Fathers on the Eucharist, the Trinity and Christology, Cyprian on prayer, Anselm on sin and Bernard on atonement.
There is no doubt therefore that Andrewes saw himself as standing in that long line of Christian tradition embedded in antiquity, and a part of the wonder and loveliness of creation. As Dean Church said of him: "He ... felt himself, even in private prayer, one of the great body of God's creation and God's Church. He reminded himself of it, as he did of the Object of his worship, in the profession of his faith. He acted on it in his detailed and minute intercessions." Indeed Andrewes was a man of prayer and learning whose preaching and piety was noted as far away as Venice. Each day of his life, from 4.am to noon was spent in prayer and study. It is a shame that very few Anglicans know anything about this most important divine during the Reformation period in England, or of their heritage. The period in which Andrewes lived was perhaps "the golden years" of what became known as Anglicanism.
____________
The darker side of the chief King James Bible translator, Lancelot Andrewes
One of the most amazing feats of history was the creation of the King James Version of the Bible in the years leading up to 1611. A committee of bickering scholars pulled together one of the two greatest works of English literature–great, at least, in their formative influence on the language and culture of English-speaking nations–with the other being the plays of Shakespeare.
The "lead mule" on this herculean project was perhaps the most brilliant man of his age, and one of the most pious, Lancelot Andrewes. A fascinating figure in his own right, Andrewes was not only a scholar and a spiritual man, but also a master of ecclesiastical politics. Like all people, he was not without flaws, and Adam Nicolson, author of God's Secretaries, looked unstintingly into those flaws as well as the greatness of the man. Here is some of what Nicolson discovered:
[You should know that a prebendary is a post connected to an Anglican or Catholic cathedral or collegiate church and is a type of canon. Prebendaries have a role in the administration of the cathedral. A prebend is a type of benefice, which was usually drawn from specific sources in the income from the cathedral estates.]
26 "By midsummer [1603], London under plague now looked, sounded, and smelled like a city at war. It was by far the worst outbreak England had known. Here now, grippingly, and shockingly, the first and greatest of the Bible Translators appears on the scene. It is not a dignified sight. Lancelot Andrewes was a man deeply embedded in the Jacobean establishment. [Jacobitism was a political movement in Great Britain and Ireland that aimed to restore the Roman Catholic Stuart King James II of England and his heirs to the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland.] He was forty-nine or fifty, Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge. He was also Dean of Westminster Abbey, a prebendary of St. Paul's Cathedral, drawing the income from one of the cathedral's manors, and of Southwell Minster, one of the chaplains at the Chapel Royal in Whitehall, who under Elizabeth had twice turned down a bishopric not because he felt unworthy of the honour but because he did not consider the income of the sees he was offered satisfactory. Elizabeth had done much to diminish the standing of bishops; she had banished them from court and had effectively suspended Edmund Grindal, the Archbishop of Canterbury whose severe and Calvinist views were not to her liking. Andrewes, one of the most astute and brilliant men of his age, an ecclesiastical politician who in the Roman Church would have become a cardinal, perhaps even pope, was not going to diminish his prospects simply to carry an elevated title."
26-7 "Andrewes plays a central role in the story of the King James Bible, and the complexities of his character will emerge as it unfolds—he is in many ways its hero; as broad as the great Bible itself, scholarly, political, passionate, agonized, in love with the English language, endlessly investigating its possibilities, worldly, saintly, serene, sensuous, courageous, craven, if not corrupt then at least compromised, deeply engaged in pastoral [27] care, generous, loving, in public bewitched by ceremony, in private troubled by persistent guilt and self-abasement—but in the grim realities of plague-stricken London in the summer of 1603, he appears in the worst possible light. Among his many positions in the church, he was the vicar of St Giles Cripplegate, just outside the old walls to the north of the city."
27 "The church was magnificent, beautifully repaired after a fire in 1545, full of the tombs of knights and aldermen, goldsmiths, physicians, rich men and their wives. The church was surrounded by elegant houses and the Jews' Garden, where Jews had been buried before the medieval pogroms, was now filled with 'fair garden plots and summer-houses for pleasure . . . some of them like Midsummer pageants, with towers, turrets and chimney-tops.'"
28 "Andrewes wasn't there. He had previously attended to the business of the parish, insisting that the altar rails should be retained in the church (which a strict Puritan would have removed), doubling the amount of communion wine that was consumed (for him, Christianity was more than a religion of the word) and composing a Manual for the Sick, a set of religious reassurances, beginning with a quotation from Kings: 'Set thy house in order, for thou shalt die.' And he certainly preached at St. Giles's from time to time. But throughout the long months of the plague in 1603, he never once visited his parish."
For the king to absent himself [to the country to avoid the plague] was only politic. But for the vicar of a parish to do so was another question."
28 "The mortality had spread to Westminster. In the parish of St Margaret, in which the Abbey and Westminster School both lie, dogs were killed in the street and their bodies burnt, month after month, a total of 502 for the summer. The outbreak was nothing like as bad as in Cripplegate, but Andrewes, who as dean was responsible for both Abbey and school, with its 160 pupils, was not to be found there either. He had ordered the college closed for the duration and had gone down himself to its 'pleasant [29] retreat at Chiswick, where the elms afforded grateful shade in summer and a 'retiring place' from infection'. He might well have walked down there, as he often did, along the breezy Thameside path through Chelsea and Fulham 'with a brace of young fry, and in that wayfaring leisure had a singular dexterity to fill those narrow vessels with a funnel'. He was lovely to the boys. 'I never heard him utter so much as a word of austerity among us,' one of his ex-pupils remembered. The Abbey papers still record the dean's request in July 1603 for 'a butler, a cooke, a carrier, a skull and royer' – these last two oarsmen for the Abbey boat – to be sent down to Chiswick with the boys. Richard Hakluyt, historian of the great Elizabethan mariners, and Hadrian à Saravia, another of the Translators, signed these orders as prebendaries of the Abbey. Here, the smallness of the Jacobean establishment comes suddenly into focus. Among the Westminster boys this summer, just eleven years old, was the future poet and divine George Herbert, the brilliant son of a great aristocratic family, his mother an intimate of John Donne's. From these first meetings in a brutal year, Herbert would revere and love Andrewes for the rest of his life. Meanwhile, in Cripplegate, the slum houses were boarded up, the poor died and in the streets the fires burned. Every new case of the disease was to be marked by the ringing of a passing bell down the street. Each death and burial was rung out too so that 'the doleful and almost universal and continual ringing and tolling of bells' marked the infected parishes. From far out in the fields, you could hear London mourning its dead. In the week of 16 September, the outbreak would peak at 3,037 dead. Proportionately, it was a scale of destruction far worse than anything during the Blitz."
29-30 "Was Andrewe's departure for Chiswick acceptable behavior? Not entirely. There was the example of the near-saintly Thomas Morton, one of John Donne's friends and the rector of Long Marston outside York, later a distinguished bishop, who, in the first flush of this plague epidemic as it attacked York in [30] the summer of 1602, had sent all his servants away, to save their lives, and attended himself to the sick and dying in the city pesthouse. Morton slept on a straw bed with the victims, rose at four every morning, was never in bed before ten at night, and travelled to and from the countryside, bringing in the food for the dying on the crupper of his saddle."
30 "Alongside this, Andrewes's elm-shaded neglect of the Cripplegate disaster looks shameful. While he was at Chiswick, he preached a sermon on 21 August that compounded the crime. 'The Rasor is hired for us,' he told his congregation, Hakluyt and Herbert perhaps among them, 'that sweeps away a great number of haires at once.' Plague was a sign of God's wrath provoked by men's 'own inventions', the taste for novelty, for specious newness, which was so widespread in the world. The very word 'plague' – and there is something unsettling about this pedantic scholarship in the face of catastrophe – came from the Latin plaga meaning 'a stroke'. It was 'the very handy-worke of God'. He admitted that there was a natural cause involved in the disease but it was also the work of a destroying angel. 'There is no evill but it is a sparke of God.' Religion, he said, was filled by Puritan preachers with 'new tricks, opinions and fashions, fresh and newly taken up, which their fathers never knew of'. The people of England now 'think it a goodly matter to be wittie, and to find out things our selves to make to our selves, to be Authors, and inventors of somewhat, that so we may seem to be as wise as God, if not wiser'. What could be more wicked than the idea of being an Author? Let alone wittie? Newness was the sin and novelty was damnable. 'That Sinn may cease, we must be out of love with our own inventions and not goe awhoring after them . . . otherwise, his anger will not be turned away, but his hand stretched out still.'"
30-1 "The educated, privileged and powerful churchman preaches his own virtue and ignores his pastoral duties, congratulating himself on his own salvation. The self-serving crudity of this [31] did not escape the attentions of the Puritans. If Andrewes sincerely believed that the plague was a punishment of sin and 'novelty', and if he was guiltless on that score, then why had he run away to Chiswick? Surely someone of his purity would have been immune in the city/ And if his pastoral duties led him to the stinking death pits of Cripplegate, as they surely did, why was he not there? Did Andrewes, in other words, really believe what he was saying about the omnipotent wrath of the Almighty?"
31 "In a way he didn't; and his hovering between a vision of overwhelming divine authority and a more practical understanding of worldly realities, in some ways fudging the boundaries between these two attitudes, reveals the man. Henoch Clapham, the angry pamphleteer, lambasted Andrewes in his Epistle Discoursing upon the Present Pestilence. All Londoners, Andrewes included, should behave as though plague was not contagious. Everybody should attend all the funerals. There was no need to run away. It was a moral disease. If you were innocent you were safe. And not to believe that was itself a sin. How innocent was Andrewes in running to save his own skin? Did the innocent require an elm-tree shade? Clapham was slapped into prison for asking these questions. To suggest that the Dean of Westminster was a self-serving cheat was insubordinate and unacceptable. Andrewes interrogated him there in a tirade of anger and attempted to impose on him a retraction. Clapham had to agree (in the words written by Andrewes):"
31 " 'That howsoever there is no mortality, but by and from a supernatural cause, so yet it is not without concurrence of natural causes also . . . That a faithful Christian man, whether magistrate or minister, may in such times hide or withdraw himself, as well corporeally as spiritually, and use local flight to a more healthful place (taking sufficient order for the discharge of his function).'"
31-2 "Clapham refused to sign this and stayed in prison for eighteen months until he finally came up with a compromise he could [32] accept: there were two sorts of plague running alongside each other. One, infectious, was a worldly contagion, against which you could take precautions. The other, not infectious, was the stroke of the Angel's hand. A pre-modern understanding of a world in which God and his angels interfered daily, in chaotic and unpredictable ways, was made to sit alongside something else: the modern, scientific idea of an intelligible nature. The boundary between the two, and all the questions of authority, understanding and belief which hang around it, is precisely the line which Andrewes had wanted to fudge."
32 "If this looks like the casuistry of a trimming and worldly churchman, there were of course other sides to him. Down at Chiswick, as throughout his life, the time he spent in private, about five hours every morning, was devoted almost entirely to prayer. He once said that anyone who visited him before noon clearly did not believe in God. The prayers he wrote for himself, first published after his death in 1648 as Preces Privatae, have for High Church Anglicans long been a classic of devotional literature. Andrewes gave the original manuscript to his friend Archbishop Laud. It was 'slubbered with his pious hands and watered with his penitential tears'. This was no rhetorical exaggeration: those who knew him often witnessed his 'abundant tears' as he prayed for himself and others. In his portraits he holds, gripped in one hand, a large and absorbent handkerchief. It was a daily habit of self-mortification and ritualized unworthiness in front of an all-powerful God, a frame of mind which nowadays might be thought almost mad, or certainly in need of counseling or therapy. But that was indeed the habit of the chief and guiding Translator of the King James Bible: 'For me, O Lord, sinning and not repenting, and so utterly unworthy, it were more becoming to lie prostrate before Thee and with weeping and groaning to ask pardon for my sins, than with polluted mouth to praise Thee.'"
32-3 "This was the man who was acknowledged as the greatest preacher of the age, who tended in great detail to the school children in his care, who, endlessly busy as he was, would nevertheless wait in the transepts of Old St Paul's for any Londoner in need of solace or advice, who was the most brilliant man in the English Church, destined for all but the highest office. There were few Englishmen more powerful. Everybody reported on his serenity, the sense of grace that hovered around him. But alone every day he acknowledged little but his wickedness and his weakness. The man was a library, the repository of sixteen centuries of Christian culture, he could speak fifteen modern languages and six ancient, but the heart and bulk of his existence was his sense of himself as a worm. Against an all-knowing, all-powerful and irresistible God, all he saw was an ignorant, weak and irresolute self:
33 " 'A Deprecation
33 " 'O Lord, Thou knowest, and canst, and willest
the good of my soul.
Miserable man am I;
I neither know, nor can, nor, as I ought
will it.'"
33 "How does such humility sit alongside such grandeur? It is a yoking together of opposites which seems nearly impossible to the modern mind. People like Lancelot Andrewes no longer exist. But the presence in one man of what seem to be such divergent qualities is precisely the key to the age. It is because people like Lancelot Andrewes flourished in the first decades of the seventeenth century – and do not now – that the greatest translation of the Bible could be made then, and cannot now. The age's lifeblood was the bridging of contradictory qualities. Andrewes embodies it and so does the King James Bible."
86 "At the same time, Bancroft began to hire the men for the great translation and here it was breadth and inclusiveness which dictated the choice. The first Westminster company, charged with translating the first books of the Bible, had Lancelot Andrewes, Dean of Westminster Abbey, as its director. He was known as 'the Angell in the pulpit', the man more versed in modern and ancient tongues than any other in England, who could serve, it was thought, as 'Interpreter-General' at the Day of Judgement, but he had other skills, and another track record, which confirmed him as a member of the core establishment and recommended him to Bancroft and the king."
86 "He had been used before in important political work, some fifteen years earlier when Bancroft was working for Whitgift rooting out the Separatist congregations in London. Andrewes, then in his mid-thirties and already recognized as the coming man, and as the cleverest preacher in England, could be relied on to do Bancroft's work for him. Highly detailed accounts survive of what Andrewes did for the ecclesiastical establishment: a representation, in other words, of what Bancroft would have known of him, the grounds on which he chose him as one of the principal Translators. Once again, it is not a dignified picture: his governing qualities are those of a man who knows how to exercise power."
86-7 "Through the second half of the 1580s, the more extreme Separatist puritans, who considered each congregation a self-sufficient church of Christ, became the target of a campaign led by Richard Bancroft. They were to be found in private houses all around London, holding private conventicles in which their [87] inspirational preachers were, it was reported to Bancroft, 'esteemed as godds'. Bancroft, who in another life would clearly have been an excellent detective, had his spies in place. As a central player in the Crown establishment, he would have had an array of inducements to hand: money, prospects, threats, the persuasive words of a man with access to power. Those tools gave him access to all kinds of secret meetings. 'After the Minister hath saluted everie one, both man and woman, at theire comynge into the Chamber with a kysse', one report of such a Separatist meeting described, shocked at its impropriety,"
87 " 'a large Table beinge prepared for the purpose (which holdeth fortie or fiftie persons) he taking the chayre at the end thereof, the rest sitt down everie one in order: . . . the Minister himself having received [communion] in both kyndes: the breade and the wyne which is left, passeth downe, and everye man without more a doe is his owne Carver.'"
87 "The state church could not tolerate the freedom or the priestlessness of such behavior. Many Separatists – and they were overwhelmingly young, idealistic people, a tiny minority, perhaps no more than a couple of hundred in England as a whole – fled to the Netherlands but others were arrested and, eventually, some fifty-two were held for long periods in the string of hideous London gaols [jails]: the Clink, the Gatehouse, the Fleet, Newgate, the Counter Woodstreet, the Counter Poultry, Bridewell and the White Lion, some of the prisoners shut in the 'most noisome and vile dungeons', without 'bedds, or so much as strawe to lye upon . . . and all this, without once producing them, to anie Christian trial where they might have place given them, to defend themselves'. One of them, the eighteen-year-old Roger Waters, was kept in irons for more than a year."
87-8 "Their leaders, honest, fierce men, the spiritual forebears of the future Massachusetts colonists, were to be interrogated (or 'conversed with' as Bancroft described it; the meetings were known among the Separatists themselves as 'Spanish conferences') [88] by the more brilliant and trustworthy members of the Church of England. Andrewes was at their head. Bancroft instructed him to interrogate Henry Barrow, the leading Separatist who had been arrested in 1587 and kept in the Fleet."
88 "Andrewes visited the gaol accompanied by another divine, William Hutchinson. Their descent into the Separatists' hell is a moment of sudden, film-like intensity, when the passionate realities of early modern England come starkly to life. The entire context of the King James Bible is dramatized in these prison meetings: holiness meets power, or at least one version of holiness meets another; the relative claims of society and the individual, and the legitimacy of those claims, clash; the individual conscience grates against the authority structures of an age which senses incipient anarchy at every turn and so is obsessed with order; the candid plays against the cynical, worldliness against a kind of stripped Puritan idealism; and the godly comes face to face with the political."
88-9 "With Barrow, in March 1590, Hutchinson and Andrewes began kindly. They were sitting in the parlour of the Fleet prison [89] (one of the better of the London prisons, 'fit for gentlemen')." Barrows expressed his desire " 'to obtain such conference where the Book of God might peaceably decide all our controversy'. That phrase, innocuous as it might sound, was salt in the eyes for Andrewes. It released a flood of hostile questions. All the issues of order and authority, the great political questions of the day, streamed out over his prisoner-conversant. 'Whie,' Andrewes said, 'the booke of God cannot speake, which way should that decide owr controversies?" That was the central question of the Reformation: did Christians not need a church to interpret God for them? Or could they have access to the godhead without help, with all the immediacy of the inspired? Barrow replied in the spirit of Luther: each soul could converse with God direct, unmediated by any worldly church, his thoughts and actions to be interpreted by the words of scripture itself."
89 " 'Dr Andrewes: But the spirits of men must be subject unto men, will you not subject your spirit to the judgment of men?
" 'Barrow: The spirit of the prophets must be subject to the prophets, yet must the prophets judge by the word of God. As for me I willingly submit my whole faith to be tried and judged by the word of God, of all men.
" 'Dr Andrewes: All men cannot judge, who then shal judge the Word?
" 'Barrow: The word, and let every one that judgeth take hede that he judge aright htereby; 'Wisdom is justified of her children.' (Matthew 11:19)"
89-90 "Andrewes thought he spotted error. 'This savorth of a pryvat spyrit,' he said. Nothing was more damning in his lexicon than that phrase. The privateness of the Puritan spirit was its defining sin, its arrogance and withdrawal in the face of communal and [90] inherited wisdom, treating the word of God, the scriptures, not as a common inheritance, whose significance could be understood only within the tradition that had grown and flowered around it, but as a private guidebook to a personal and selfish salvation. The heart of the Puritan error was that social divisiveness, that failure to join in, its stepping outside the necessity of order, its assumption that the Puritan himself was a member of God's elect, and the rest could look to the hindmost [look out for themselves]. How could a society be based on that predestinarian arrogance?Increasingly, for churchmen such as Andrewes [and here is the Establishment position], it seemed that the true church could only be inclusive, one in which God's grace would descend on believers not through some brutal predestinarian edict but through the sacraments, through the ceremony of the church."
[a paragraph cut out here]
90 "Barrow responded sharply. It was not a private spirit but 'the spirit of Christ and his Apostles'. They had been happy to be judged by the word of God and so was Barrow. This, for Andrewes, so crushingly aware of his own sin, was too much.
" 'Dr Andrewes: What, are you an apostle?
" 'Barrow: No, but I have the spirit of the apostles.
" 'Dr Andrewes: What, the spirit of the apostles?
91 " 'Barrow: Yea, the spirit of the apostles.
" 'Dr Andrewes: What, in that measure?
" 'Barrow: In that measure that God hath imparted unto me, though not in that measure that the apostles had, by anie comparison, yet the same spirit. There is but one spirit."
91 "That was not an unreasonable answer: God had blown his spirit into Adam, and it was acceptable to think that the life of men was a divine gift. But Andrewes, revealing himself here in a way he would rarely do later in life, curiously narrowed and harsh . . . clung to his hostility. They argued over the difference between a schism and a sect. Then, in an emblematic moment of the English Reformation, angry, impassioned, pedantic, scholarly, they called for a dictionary. The heretic and his interrogator pored together over the Greek-Latin Lexicon of Joannes Scapula (Basel, 1580) to try and sort out the etymologies of the two words, but they could come to no shared conclusion."
91-2 "Andrewes then uttered one of the most despicable remarks he ever made. Barrow said his imprisonment had been horrible. He had been there for three years and the loneliness of it, the sheer sensory deprivation, the nastiness of the conditions, had sunk him deep into depression. Andrewes's reply, witty, supercilious, a pastiche of the sympathetic confessor, is still shocking 400 years later: 'For close imprisonment', he told Barrow, 'you are most happie. The solitarie and contemplative life I hold the most blessed life. It is the life I would chuse.' It is Henry barrow, martyr to his beliefs, who emerges from this confrontation as the holy man. 'You speak philosophically,' he told Andrewes with some self-control, 'but not Christianly. So sweete is the harmonie of God's grace unto me in the congregation, and the conversation of the saints at all times, as I think my self as a sparrow on the house toppe when I am exiled thereby. But could you be content also, [92] Mr. Androes, to be kept from exercise and ayre so long together? These are also necessarie to a natural body.'"
92 "The poor man was lonely, longing for his friends and for a sight of the sky, from which the intolerance of the state had excluded him. Andrewes's breathtaking insouciance continued until the last. In conversation, he had used the word 'luck.' For fundamentalists [sic] such as Barrow, there was no such thing: all was ordained, everything from the death of a sparrow to the execution of a heretic was the working out of God's providence. Calvin had written, in a famous passage, that to believe in luck was a 'carnal' way to look at the world. Barrow told the departing Andrewes 'there was no fortune orluck. To prove luck [Andrewes] torned in my Testament to the 10 of Luke, verse 31, 'By chance there went down a certain priest that way.' And torned in a leafe upon the place, and as he was going out willed me to consider of it.'"
92 "That folded-down page of the Puritan's Bible, Andrewes's all-too-complacent knowledge of the scriptural text, 'the poor worne bodie' of the prematurely aged Barrow (he was about thirty-seven, a couple of years older than Andrewes) standing in the room, silenced by the rising self-congratulatory confidence of the young Master of Pembroke College, prebendary of St Paul's, vicar of St Giles Cripplegate, a candidate for the bishopric of Salisbury, sweeping out of the prison parlour door, with his departing quip, his patronizing flourish: could you ask for a more chilling indictment of established religion than that?"
92-3 "Three years later Barrow's life ended in execution, for denying the authority of bishops, for denying the holiness of the English Church and its liturgy and denying the authority over it of the queen. Andrewes saw him again on the eve of his death. The prisoner had been transferred to Newgate . . . and he was high on his impending martyrdom. He was reminded by one of those present of the Englishmen who had been martyred by the Roman Catholics in the reign of Queen [93 Mary for their defence of the very church which Barrow now denied. ' "These holy bonds of mine" he replied, (and therewith he shooke the fetters which he did wear) "are much more glorious than any of theirs."' Andrewes argued with him again over points in the Geneva Bible. Barrow would have none of it and he told his adversary that his 'time now was short unto this world, neyther were we to bestow it unto controversies'. He was finally executed early in the morning on 6 April at Tyburn, where the mallows and bulrushes were just sprouting in the ditches."
93-4 "Andrewes could put the knife in. What little one can judge from contemporary portraits – the Jacobean image is so much less revealing than the Jacobean word – shows a narrow and shrewd face, a certain distance in the eyes, as if the person had withdrawn an inch or two below the surface of the skin, but that surface was bien soigné [well washed, cleaned], a well-trimmed beard, a well-brushed moustache. He could look the church's adversaries in the eye, and he was clever enough to slalom around the complexities of theological dispute: not only a great scholar but a government man, aware of political realities, able to articulate the correct version of the truth. He was . . . useful for his extensive network of connections. It is clear that in 1604 he played a large part in selecting the men for his, and perhaps also for Barlow's, company. Several themes emerge: there is a strong Cambridge connection(Andrewes had been an undergraduate and fellow there and was still Master of Pembroke College); an emphasis on scholarly brilliance – more so than in the other companies; a clear ideological bent in choosing none who could be accused of Puritanism, however mild, and several who would later emerge as leading anti-Calvinists in the struggles of the 1620s; there was also a connection with Westminster Abbey, where ANdrewes had been appointed dean. . . . [94] In this marrying of leverage and discrimination, it is a microcosm of the workings of Jacobean England: the right men were chosen and part of their qualifications for being chosen was their ability to work the systems of deference and power on which the society relied."
94 "They met in the famous Jerusalem Chamber, the fourteenth-century room in what had been the abbot's lodgings at Westminster, where Henry IV had died; now it was part of Andrewes's deanery. It was where the chapter usually met, on which Andrewes had secured for his brother Nicholas the valuable post of registrar for life. Such nepotism was habitual and habitually condemned. Ten years before, Andrewes had preached at St Paul's (in Latin), lashing the indigent clergy for their corruption: 'You are extremely careful to enrich your own sons and daughters,' he had told them. 'You are so careful of the heirs of your flesh that you forget your successors.' One of the Translators, in the Cambridge company dealing with the central section of the Old Testament, was Andrewes's brother Roger. Judging by every other aspect of Roger's life we know of, he was almost certainly there on Lancelot's recommendation: when Lancelot had become Master of Pembroke, he made Roger a fellow; when he became Bishop of Chichester, he made Roger a prebendary, archdeacon and chancellor of the cathedral. When Lancelot moved on to Ely in 1609, Roger became a prebendary there and also Master of Jesus College, Cambridge, which was in the gift of the Bishop of Ely. At Jesus, Roger was not a success. He argued with the fellows, neglected the financial affairs of the college and was finally sacked in 1632 for stealing college funds. Meanwhile, when in 1616 his saintly brother was translated to Winchester, the richest see in England, Roger received another prebend there."
Works by Lancelot Andrewes
Devotions of Bishop Andrewes. Vol. I
Bishop Andrewes was one of the foremost Biblical scholars of his time. He also was one of the translators of the King James Version of the Bible and was King James' favorite preacher. The Devotions of Bishop Andrewes was originally entitled, Preces Privatae, which translates to "Private Devotions." They are the private, intimate prayers of a very public and pious man. Andrewes was not motivated to write these devotions out of a desire to publish them. These devotions were written from Andrewes' heart out of love and devotion for our Lord. Andrewes is said to have spent five hours in prayer every day. Included in the collection are devotions for the morning and evening that he employed during his time alone with God.
_________
HISTORY OF THE ANDREWS FAMILY, a Genealogy of Robert Andrews and his derscendants 1635 to 1890 by H. Franklin Andrews, Attorney at Law
Audubon, Iowa
William E. Brinkerhoff 1890
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1890. by
H. FRANKLIN ANDREWS, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
RECEIVED
JAN 17 1893
WIS. HISTORICAL SOC;
We should hardly do justice to the family history, if we omitted to refer to Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, D. D. and will quote from his biography:
Lancelot Andrews, D. D., Bishop of Winchester, one of the most illustrious of the prelates of England, was born in 1555 in Thames street, Allhallows, Barking, London. His father Thomas, was of the ancient family of the Suffolk Andrewes; in his later years he became master of Trinity House.
Lancelot was sent while a mere child to the Cooper's Free School, Ratcliff, in the parish of Stepney. From this the youth passed to Merchant Taylor's School, then under the celebrated Richard Mulcaster. In 1571 he was entered at Pembroke College, Cambridge. He was here one of the first four scholars upon the foundation of Dr. Thomas Watts, successor of the venerable* Nowell. Contemporaneously he was appointed to a scholarship in Jesus College, Oxford, at the request of the founder (Dr. Price), by Queen Elizabeth. In 1574-5, he took his degree of B. A. ; in 1576 he was chosen to a fellowship at his college; in 1578 he proceeded M. A. ; in 1580 he was ordained, and in the same year his name appears as junior treasurer; in 1581 he was senior treasurer, and on July 11 was incorporated M. A. at Oxford.
On passing M. A. he was appointed catechist in his college and read letters upon the Decalogue, afterward published causing a furor of interest far and near, as his first quaint biographer Isaacson tells. The notes of these lectures printed in 1642, authenticate themselves; later editions have been suspiciously enlarged, and otherwise altered for the worse.
The notes are historically valuable and inportant, inasmuch as with Bishops Jewell and Bilson, he teaches in them, that Christ is offered in a sacrament, that is, his offering represented and a memory of his passion celebrated.
Nothing can be more definite or emphatic than Andrewes' repudiation of a real external sacrifice in the bread and wine.
From the university Andrewes went into the North by invitation of Henry Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon, lord president of the North. In 1585 he is again found at Cambridge taking his degree of B. D. In 1588 he succeeded Crowley in the vicarage of St. Giles, Cripplegate. Here he delivered his most penetrative and striking sermons on the Temptation in the wilderness, and the Lord's Prayer—the former published in 1592, the latter in 1611. In a great sermon on April 10, Easter week, 1588, he most effectively, and with burning eloquence, vindicated the Protestantism of the Church of England against the Eomanists. It sounds oddly to have "Mr. Calvin" adduced herein and elsewhere as a new writer, with lavish praise and affection. Passing other ecclesiastical advancements, Andrewes was preferred by Grindal, at the suit of Walsingham, lo the prebendary stall of St. Pancras in St. Paul1s, London, in 1589. The prebendary had "the courage of his opinions," for Sir John Harington records that Sir Francis Walsingham his patron, having laboured to get him to maintain certain points of ultra- Puritanism, he refused, having, as the garalous knight, in his State of the Church of England, cunningly remarks, "too much of the AvSpoS. in him to be scared with a councillor1s frown or blown aside with his breath," and accordingly answered him plainly, that "they were not only against his learning, but his conscience." On September 6, 1589, he succeeded Fulke as master of his own college of Pembroke, being at the time, one of the chaplains of Archbishop Whitgift. His mastership of Pembroke was a success in every way. In 1589-90, as one of the twelve chaplains of the queen, he preached before her, a singularly outspoken sermon (March 4, 1590). In this year, on October 13, he preached his introductory lecture at St. Paul's upon undertaking to comment upon the first four chapters of Genesis. These form part of the Orphan Lectures, of the folio of 1657, than which there is no richer contribution to the theological literature of England, notwithstanding the imperfection of the notes in some cases. He was an incessant worker as well as preacher. He delighted to move among the people, and yet found time to meet with a society of antiquaries, whereof Raleigh, Sidney, Burleigh, Arundel, the Herberts, Saville, Stow, and Camden, were members. What by his often preaching testifies Isaacson, at St Gile's, and his no less often reading in St Paul's, he became so infirm that his friends despaired of his life. His charities were lavish, and yet discriminative.
The dearth of 1594 exhibits him as another Joseph in his care for the afflicted and poor of "the Israel of God." In 1595 appeared The Lambeth Articles, a landmark in our national church history. Andrewes adopted the doctrine of St Augustine as modified by Aquinas. Philosophically, as well as theologically, his interpretations of these deep things remain a permanent advance in theological-metaphysical thought. In 1598 he declined offers of the two bishoprics of Ely and Salisbury, his "noloepiscopari" resting on an intended alienation of the lands attached to these sees. On Nov. 23, 1600, was preached at Whitehall his memorable sermon on Justification, around which surged a controversy that is even now unspent. The preacher maintained the evangelical view as opposed to the sacerdotal.
On July 4, 1691, he was appointed Dean of Westminster,and his sedulousness over the renowned school is magnified by Bishop Hacket in his Life of Archibishop Williams. On July 25, 1603, Andrewes assisted at the coronation of James I. In 1604 he took part in the Hampton Court Conference, and better service, was one of the committee to whom we owe our authorised version of Holy Scripture. The Dean frequently preached before the king, and his majesty's own learning, given him by George Buchanan, made him a sympathetic hearer.
Many of these sermons are memorable from their results and place in our eclesiastical history. In 1605 he was appointed, after a third declinature, bishop of Chichester. In 1609 he published his Tortura Torti, in answer to Bellarmine's Matthceus Tortus. This work is one of many born of the gunpowder plot and related controversies. It is packed full of learning, and yet the argument moves freely. Nowhere does Audrewes' scholarship cumber him. It is as a coat of mail, strong but mobile. In this same year he was transferred from Chichester to Ely. His studiousness here was as intent as before. He again assailed Bellarmine in his Responsio ad Apol- ogiam, a treatise never answered. From 1611 to 1618 Andrewes is to be traced as a preacher and controversialist in season and out of season. In 1617 he attended the king to Scotland. In 1618 he was translated to the see of Winchester. In this year he proceeded to the Synod of Dort. Upon his return he became in word and deed a model bishop, while in every prominent ecclesiastical event of the period he is seen in the front, but ever walking in all beauty of modesty and benignity. His benefactions were unprecedented. His learning made him the equal friend of Grotious, and of the foremost contemporary scholars.
His preaching was unique for its combined rhetorical splendor and scholarly richness, and yet we feel that the printed page poorly represents the preaching. His piety was that of an ancient saint, semi-ascetic and unearthly in its self-denial, but rooted in a deep and glowing love for his Lord. No shadow rests on his beautiful and holy life. He died Sept. 25, 162(5, and the leaders in church and state mourned for him as for a father. Brittanica. ]
Walter records this of him; Neal, bishop of Durham, and bishop Andrewes were standing together behind the king's chair at dinner, when king James turned to them and said "My lords, can not I take my subjects' money when I want it without all this formality in parliament?" bishop Neal readily answered, "God forbid, sire, but you should, you are the breath of our nostrils." The king then turned to bishop Andrewes; "Well, my lord, and what say you?" "Sir," said Andrewes, "Ihave no skill to judge of parliamentary cases." The king answered, *'No put offs, my lord, answer me immediately." "Then sir," said he, "I think it lawful for you to take my brother Neal's money, for he offers it."
King James had such a veneration for this excellent prelate that he refrained from all levity in his presence. He was made a privy councilor by king James I, and was in no less esteem with king Charles I. His was a life of prayer, a great portion of five hours every day was spent in the exercise of devotion.
his last sickness he continued, while awake, to pray audibly, till his strength failed; and then by lifting his eyes, he showed that he still prayed. He was a patron of learning, being master of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, beside fifteen modern languages. He had brothers, Thomas, and Nicholas. — [Andrews Memorial. ]
This great man lived in the reigns of three sovereigns of England; queen Elizabeth, and kings James I, and Charles I, with whom he was personally acquainted. He died only two years before the organization of the Mass. Bay Company. The subject of colonization had been agitated for years prior to that time. It is very probable that one of his charitable nature would have been actively interested in the subject, which may have influenced his kindred to emigrate to America.
__________
Annals of St. Mary Overy; an historical & descriptive account of St. Saviour's church & parish William Taylor 1/1833
Lora Tatum: "According to the "Annals of Saint Mary Overy" written by William Taylor in 1833, book two of the parochial registries states that Mr. Nicholas Andrewes, "the Bishops Brother", was buried at what is now the Southwark Cathedral on August 12, 1626. In the same book is the burial record for Lancelott Andrewes, "Lord Bishop of Winton" on November 11, 1626, also at the Southwark Cathedral."
Before transcribing portions of the book, the following history of the Cathedral is helpful:
Southwark Cathedral
The Cathedral and Collegiate Church of Saint Saviour and Saint Mary Overy, Southwark
A church has stood on the site of Southwark Cathedral for over 1,000 years. In 606 a convent was established on the south bank of the River Thames at the place from which the ferry used to cross over to the City of London. In 1106 an Augustinian Priory was established under the Normans and some Norman stonework can still be seen at the west end and north side. It has the distinction of being the first 'gothic' church to be built in London and much of that early work can still be seen in the choir and retro-choir of the present church (1212). The Augustinian canons ministered to pilgrims and travellers, to the sick and the needy of the area and the Word of God was faithfully preached and the sacraments celebrated. As part of their ministry, the Hospital of St Thomas was established (now located opposite the Houses of Parliament). In 2006 the Cathedral celebrated 1400 years of Christian witness and service.
Following the Reformation, the church was sadly neglected but the gospel continued to be faithfully preached and the people of the parish cared for and taught. A parish school - now the Cathedral School - was opened in 1704 following in the work already established in schools founded from the parish under a charter from Queen Elizabeth I. A new nave was built in 1890. By the end of the 19th century, a new Diocese was needed to cater for the growing population of south London and Surrey. In 1905 the church became Southwark Cathedral, the mother church of the new Diocese of Southwark. ...
A new nave was built in 1890. By the end of the 19th century, a new Diocese was needed to cater for the growing population of south London and Surrey. In 1905 the church became Southwark Cathedral, the mother church of the new Diocese of Southwark.
The life, diversity and character of the area are revealed in the tombs and monuments within the church. Among them is that of John Gower (c. 1330-1408), poet and friend of Chaucer, whose Canterbury Tales begin in Southwark. Across the nave is a memorial to William Shakespeare, who spent much of his life in Southwark, and above it, a stained glass window depicting scenes from his plays. Edmund Shakespeare, John Fletcher and Philip Massinger are all buried in the Cathedral. Lancelot Andrewes, who translated the first five books of the Bible into English, is buried by the High Altar. He is a founding father of the Church of England. In the grounds is buried Mahomet, Chief of the Mohegan Tribe from New England and a memorial to him can be found in the churchyard. In 1607 John Harvard was born in the parish of St Saviour and on 29th November of that year was baptised in the church. These events and Harvard's subsequent emigration to the new colonies in America and the founding of what we now know as Harvard University, began a strong link between the Cathedral and the people of the United States of America that continues to develop and which was celebrated in 2007, the 400th anniversary year of John Harvard's birth. In the grounds is buried Mahomet, Chief of the Mohegan Tribe of New England, USA and in November 2006, Her Majesty The Queen unveiled a lasting memorial to him in the presence of the present day members of the Tribe.
The Cathedral today Situated on the south bank of the River Thames adjacent to London Bridge in the heart of a burgeoning business community.
THE BOOK
Annals of St. Mary Overy; an historical and descriptive account of St. Saviour's church and parish William Taylor January 1, 1833
Page 100
In this aisle are also Monuments to the memory of— "
PAGE 101
We next entered the "Ladye Chapel" where we found several persons assembled, who were examining with considerable interest the recently discovered coffin of Bishop Andrewes.
"How fortunate," said my companion, "that our visit should have been paid at so interesting a moment; admiring, as I do, the character and writings of this excellent prelate, I would not on any account have missed the opportunity of seeing this last home of his mortality. A rude casket this to contain so bright a gem! But, I have seen the velvet coffin with its glittering studs, surrounded by the costly trappings of funereal splendour, the sable plumes, and blazoned heraldry, with less emotion far, than that which now I feel."
The accompanying sketch was made at the time, together with the following memoranda:
The removal of the little chapel which stood eastward of the Lady Chapel, having been determined on, the workmen commenced their labour by taking down the monument of Bishop Andrews; entombed in which they found the prelate's coffin, in an excellent state of preservation, it having been closely bricked up in an arch, as shewn on the plate. It is formed of lead, and bears the initials " L A" on the lid ; attached to it is a massive iron frame work with large rings at the head and foot. It rested on a cross of brick-work, the foot of the coffin, on the upper part of the cross, which was placed eastward. The whole has been carefully removed and re-erected in the Lady Chapel, at the back of the altar screen.
I endeavoured to draw the attention of the Antiquary to the architectural beauty of the place, but he was too much engaged in the contemplation of the interesting object before him; let us enter into his feelings, and briefly view the illustrious character of the pious prelate.
He was born in London, A. D. 1555, in the parish of Allhallows Barking, of religious parents; his father during a large portion of his life was a mariner, but was afterwards a member and master of Trinity House. He was descended from an ancient family in Suffolk of the same name.
So great an aptitude did he evince, even in childhood, for learning, that his two first school masters, " Master Ward " and "Master Mulcaster," foreseeing the result, are said to have contended for the honour of his breeding. From Master Ward, master of the Coopers' Free School in RadclifFe, he was sent to Master Mulcaster, master of the Merchant Tailors' Free School, where he soon took the lead of all the other scholars, making such progress in the Greek and Hebrew languages, as recommended him to the notice of Thomas Wattes, D. D. prebend and residentiary of St. Pauls and arch deacon of Middlesex, who, having founded some scholarships at Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, bestowed the first upon him.
Here we soon find him contending with Thomas Dove (afterwards Lord Bishop of Peterborough), who was also eminent for his talent, for a fellowship which he gained. In the mean while, Hugh Price having built Jesus College, in Oxford, hearing of his fame, named him in his foundation as one of its first fellows. It was his custom to spend one month annually, with his parents, but even this was devoted also to the attainment of the knowledge of some language or art which he had not yet learned. He preferred, as a recreation, studying alone (or with some selected companion), the sublime beauties of creation, to participating in the ordinary amusement of his day.
PAGE 103
After he had been some time Master of Arts, he applied himself to the study of Divinity with such effect, that being chosen Catechist in the College, and purposing to read the ten commandments every Saturday and Sunday, at 3 o'Clock afternoon, that being the hour of catechising, divers persons, not only out of the other colleges, but from the country also, re sorted thither as to a Public Divinity Lecture.
Henry, Earl of Huntingdon, hearing of his fame, sent for him, and thought himself much honoured by his accompanying him into the north, whereof he was president, and where his preaching converted many, recusants, priests, and others, to the protestant religion.
Sir Francis Walsingham, Secretary of State to Queen Elizabeth, also took especial notice of his abilities, and was the means of preferring him to the Vicarage of St. Giles' Without Cripplegate, London; he was afterwards (through the interest of Sir Francis) Prebendary and Residentiary of St. Pauls, and Prebend of the Collegiate Church of Southwell. His labours at this time were incessant, preaching at St. Giles', and reading at St. Pauls, he became so infirm that his friends despaired of his life.
He was afterwards elected master of Pembroke Hall, a place of much credit but little benefit, on which he spent more than he received by it.
He was Chaplain to Queen Elizabeth, who was so much delighted with his piety and zeal, that she first made him Prebend and afterwards Dean of Westminster. Her successor, King James, selected him as his choicest advocate to vindicate his regality against his adversaries, and be stowed upon him the Bishopric of Chichester, which he held about four years, he also made him Lord Almoner, and soon after added the Parsonage of Cheam, in Surrey, to his commendam.
He was afterwards Bishop of Ely during nine years, in which time he was made Privy Counsellor, first of England, then of Scotland in his
PAGE 104
attendance upon the King thither. He was afterwards preferred to the Bishopric of Winchester and the Deanery of the King's Chapel, which pre ferments he held to his death, which happened about eight years after, in the reign of King Charles, with whom he was as great a favourite as with his father before him : all these honours having been conferred on him without any effort on his part for their attainment.
He was singularly pious and devout both in his private prayers and public services : so reverend and holy was his deportment, and that of his family, at the monthly communions held in his chapel, that those who were accidentally present at the service, often expressed a desire to end their days in the Bishop of Ely's Chapel.
He was eminently charitable during his life, clothing the poor, relieving the sick, and administering to the various wants of suffering humanity; and at his death, leaving by his will various sums for similar purposes. He left Four thousand pounds to purchase Two hundred pounds land per Ann., for ever, to be distributed by fifty pounds quarterly, as follows : — To aged poor men and decayed, especially sea-faring men, fifty pounds ; to poor widows, the wives of one husband, fifty pounds ; to the binding of poor orphans apprentices, fifty pounds ; and to the relief of poor prisoners, fifty pounds.
He also left Two hundred pounds to be distributed immediately after his decease, among maid-servants of honest report who had served one master or mistress seven years.
In all the offices which he filled, he evidently conducted himself as the steward of God, and as one who was to give an account of the important trust committed to him.
He was careful to keep in good repair the houses of all his spiritual preferments, and spent much money in that way.
PAGE 105
He was exceedingly anxious that the ministerial offices should be filled by men eminent for piety and learning, and to effect this, sought for and patronized humble merit : such persons he would send for without their knowing why, entertain them at his house and confer the preferment upon them, defraying all the incidental charges for a dispensation, or a faculty, and even of their very journey: the same principle was also observed in the election of scholars who were to be sent from the Free Schools to the University, here disregarding all letters from great personages in favour of insufficient scholars, he was careful to select the possessors of merit.
As Almoner he was remarkable for his fidelity, keeping more exact account of this trust than of his own affairs.
He was grateful to all from whom he had received benefits, particularly to those who had the care of his early education.
That he was liberal is evident from the magnificent reception and entertainment which he gave to King James, when that Prince visited him at Farnham Castle, on which occasion he spent three thousand pounds in three days. He was also eminent for his hospitality to scholars and strangers, committing to his attendants the care of making liberal provision for such, and joining them at dinner with such amiable deportment, that his guests would often profess that they never came to any man's table where they received better satisfaction in all points, and that his Lordship kept Christmas all the year round.
He was through the various periods from childhood to old age, indefatigable in study, to which with the exception of two or three hours which he cheerfully spent with his guests after dinner, he devoted his time. By his industry he had attained to the knowledge of fifteen tongues if not more; it has been jocosely said in reference to his knowledge of languages, that had he lived at the time, he might almost have served as interpreter
PAGE 106
general at the confusion of tongues. Yet he was modest withal ; let one instance of this suffice, when preferred by King James to the Bishopric of Chichester he pleaded his imperfections and insufficiency to undertake such a charge, and caused to be engraven about the seal of his Bishopric, those words of St. Paul, " et ad hcec quis idoneus ? " (and who is sufficient for these things ?)
He generally hated all vices, but three more especially, Usury, Simony, and Sacrilege. The Sanctity of his manners is said to have awed the mirth and levity of King James while in his presence.
Such was the character of this amiable prelate, that biographers appear to have exhausted the vocabulary for words to express his many virtues. As his life was exemplary so was his death ; twelve months before that event he seemed conscious of its approach, and applied himself incess antly to prayer and humiliation before God whom he earnestly longed to see. Towards the close of his life the manuscript of his " Private Devotions " was scarcely ever out of his hands ; it was found worn in pieces by his fingers and wet with his tears. He closed his useful life at Winchester House, on the 25th day of September, 1626, in the 71st year of his age.
His remains were entombed in a splendid monument which stood in a little chapel eastward of the Lady Chapel, the entrance to which is shown in the interior view of the Lady Chapel ; at his funeral, he having been a great benefactor to the Parish, the inhabitants honoured the solemnity by hanging the Church and Chancel with 165 yards of baize. The house mourners made an offering, and Mr. Archer one of the chaplains re ceived £11. 17s. 7d., which he paid to the wardens as their due, but they handsomely returned it to him and Mr. Micklethwaite (the other chaplain). It is worthy of passing remark that his lordship's steward was also buried here on the same day, as appears by an entry in the parish registry.
PAGE 107
His Funeral Sermon was preached in St. Saviour's Church, by the Right Rev. John, Lord Bishop of Ely, on Saturday the 11th of November, 1626, from Hebrews, 13th chapter and 16th verse: "To do good, and to distribute forget not : for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." This was six weeks after his death, and from an expression in the sermon we may collect that it was preached over the remains of the Bishop : it has already been stated that the coffin was found entombed in the monument, not buried ; the time necessary for preparing the monument for the reception of the remains, may probably account for the unusual length of the intervening space between the time of his death, and the preaching of his funeral sermon*
The monument of the Bishop as it now appears is in fact but a part of the original erection; there was then a fair canopy supported by black marble pillars, and an elegant epitaph written by his lordship's domestic chaplain, these were destroyed by the falling in of the roof in 1676, when the chapel received considerable injury by a fire. The restoration of the canopy and original epitaph, whether we view it as a matter of taste, or as a mark of respect for the memory of this virtuous prelate, would be highly creditable to the parish. The epitaph was as follows:
"LECTOR. SI CHRISTIANUS ES, SISTE: MORJE PRETIUM KBIT, RON NESCIBB TE, QUI VIR HIC SITUS SIT. EJUSDEM TECUM CATHOLICS ECCLESI* MEMBRUM, SUB EADEM FELICIS RESURRECTIONIS SPE, EANDEM D. JESU PR^ESTOLAXS EPIPHANIAM, SACBATISSIMUS ANTISTES, LANCELOTUS ANDREWES, LONDINI ORIUN- DUS, EDUCATUS CANTABRIGI* AVLM PEMBROCH : ALUMNORUM, SOCIORUM, PRiEFECTORUM UNUS, ET NEMIM SECUNDUS . LINGUARUM, ARTIUM, SCIENTIARUM, HUMANORUM, DIVINORUM OMNIUM INFINITUS THESAURUS, STUPENDUM ORACULUM; ORTHODOX* CHRISTI ECCLESI* DICTIS, SCRIPTIS, PRECIBUS, EXEMPLO . INCOM PARABLE PROPAGNACULUM : REGIN* ELIZABETH* A SACRIS, D. PAULI LONDINI RESIDENTIARIUS, D. PETRI WESTMONAST. DECANUS, EPISCOPUS CICESTRENSIS, ELIENSIS, WINTONIENSIS, REGIQUE JACOBO TUM AB ELEEMOSYNIS, TUM AB UTR1USQUE REGNI CONSILIIS, DECANUS DENIQUE SACELLI REGII . IDEM
______
* In Moss' History of St. Saviour's Church, it is stated that " he was buried the 27ih of Sep tember, six days after his decease," this is certainly an error; Henry Isaacson, his friend and amanuensis, who wrote his life, says he died the 25th of September, and his funeral sermon it appears was preached the 11th of November, as above stated, which agrees with the entry in the parish registry, which states that he was buried the 11th of November, 1G26.
PAGE 108
EX INDEFESSA OPERA IN STUDIIS, SUMMA SAPIENTIA IN REBUS, ASSIDUA PIETATE IN DEUM, PROFUSA LARGITATE IN EGENOS, RARA AM.SNITATE IN SUOS, SPECTATA PROBITATE IN OMNES, iETERKUM ADMI- RANDUS : ANNORUM PARITER, ET PUBLICS FAMfi SATUR, SED HONORUM PASSIM OMNIUM CUM LUCTU DE- NATUS, CC3LEBS HINC MIGRAVIT AD AUREOLAM CC2LESTEM, ANNO REGIS CAROLI II0. JETATIS SU.fi LXXI°. CHRI6TI MDCXXVI0. TANTUM EST, LECTOR, QUOD TE M(ERENTES POSTERI NUNC VOLEBANT, ATQUE UT EX VOTO TUO VALEAS DICTO SIT DEO GLORIA."
TRANSLATION
" Reader, if thou art a Christian, stay; it will be worth thy tarrying, to know how great a man lies here. A member of the same Catholic Church with thyself, under the same hope of a happy resur rection, and in expectation of the same appearance of our Lord Jesus, the most holy Bishop Lancelot Andrewes ; bom at London, educated at Cambridge, at Pembroke Hall, one of the Scholars, Fellows, and Masters of that Society, and inferior to none : an infinite treasure, an amazing oracle of languages, arts and sciences, and every branch of human and divine learning : an incomparable bulwark of the Orthodox Church of Christ, by his conversation, writings, prayers and example.
"He was Chaplain in ordinary to Queen Elizabeth; Residentiary of St. Paul's, in London; Dean of St. Peter's, Westminster ; Bishop, first of Chichester, then of Ely, and lastly of Winchester ; Almoner to King James, Privy Counsellor of both kingdoms, and Dean of the Royal Chapel. He merits eternal admiration, for his indefatigable application to his studies, his consummate experience and skill in business, his constant piety towards God, his liberality and charity to the poor, his uncommon affability and humanity to those about him, and his unshaken integrity towards all. Full of years and reputation, to the regret of all good men, he died a bachelor, and exchanged this life for a crown of glory, in the second year of King Charles^ the seventy-first of his age, and that of Christ, 1626. Reader^ farewell, and give glory to God."
He has left abundant evidence of his industrious application and study in his numerous works, among which are the following:
He has left abundant evidence of his industrious application and study in his numerous works, among which are the following:
"Ninety-six Sermons on various occasions, chiefly suited to the festivals and fasts of the Church of England.
"A Manual of Private Devotions, and Meditations for every day in the Week.
"A Manual of directions for the Visitation of the Sick. — An Exposition of the Ten Commandments. — Posthumous and Orphan Lectures preached in St. Giles* and St. Paul's Church. — Holy Devotions, with direc tions to pray. — His Opera Posthuma. Concioad Clerum pro gradu Doctoris. Ad Clerum in Synodo Provinciali coram Rege habita V° August, 1606. In discessu Palatini XIII0 April, 1613. Theologica determinatio de Jurejurando. De Usuris. De Decimis. — Responsiones ad 3 Epistolas Petri Molieni. — An
PAGE 109
Answer to the 18 and 20cc. of Cardinal Perous' reply. — A Speech in the Star Chamber against Master Thaske. — Another there concerning Vows, in the Countess of Shrewsbury's Case. — Responsio ad Forti librum, ad Apologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini.
"There are also several controversial tracts of this learned Prelate's extant. He had also a part in the translation of the Bible, from Genesis to the second book of Kings.
In the introduction to the Archaeologia is the name of Lancelot Andrews, as one of the earliest members of the Antiquarian Society, he was elected a member in 1604.
In the hall of Pembroke College, Cambridge, there is a painting of Bishop Andrewes, with his armorial bearings: date 1618, and several portraits of him have been engraved; but by far the best is that which appeared as a frontispiece to his sermons, J. Payne Fecit, 1635, the others appear to be copies of this.
Before quitting this subject, I feel it a duty to contradict a statement which appears in " Cassan's Lives of the Bishops of Winchester," and also in a modern edition of " Bishop Andrewes' Meditations, &c." it is as follows, " Not many years ago, his (the Bishop's) bones were dispersed to make room for some corpse : and the hair of his beard and a silken cap were found, undecayed, in the remains of the coffin." That remains were discovered as above described, is very probable, but certainly they were not the remains of Bishop Andrewes, whose eoffin was found undisturbed when the tomb was removed, and has been very properly replaced without mo lestation, in its little cell as before. In this Chapel stand the two Stone Coffins* engraved on the plate of " Priory Remains, SfC." figures 9 and 10. They appear to be of considerable antiquity, but as the lids are wanting, it is
PAGE 110
difficult to form an opinion as to their age, the shallowness of them would suggest the idea that the lids were hollow, so that they were probably of the prismatic form, which would carry them back to a very early period. We have no account of the discovery of them, but they were probably found when the church was paved, as they were seldom placed at any great depth. Stone coffins occur as early as the year 695, and were not quite obsolete before the reign of Henry VIII.
"Memento mori," said Antiquarius, (whose attention was arrested by the cadaverous figure represented on the plate of Sepulchral Remains, fig. 2,) " now were we not in the church, I would venture a wager that you have some marvellous legend concerning this grim personage." -
"You are right," quoth I, " for tradition says this is the veritable effigy of 0X0 3J0f)tt ©ilftg, the father of the foundress of the Church ; though unfortunately for the story, such monuments were not in fashion till some centuries after the time that gentleman lived, if such a being ever existed. There is a curious tract in the British Museum entitled ' The true History of the Life and sudden Death of Old John Overs, the rich Ferry sudden Death of Old John Overs, the rich Ferryman of London, shewing how he lost his Life by his own Covetousness. And of his Daughter Mary, who caused the Church of St. Mary Overs in Southwark to be built; and of the Building of London Bridge.' and a rare story it is, believe me." "I see" said the old gentleman "you long to tell it, so let's have it ?" and he seated himself with all the composure of a genuine antiquary, to hear it patiently. "The tract opens at considerable length with a statement of the nature of the sin of covetousness, and an exhortation to the reader to avoid that error. It then proceeds to illustrate the subject by the case of John Obers a ferry-man, who, before there was any bridge, ferryed the good folks of old 'betwixt Southwark and Church-yard alley, that being the high road way betwixt Middlesex and Sussex, and London: 'it then goes on to state how he gat marvellous riches thereby; that he kept many servants, ' yet was of so covetous a mind, that he would not even in his old age, spare his own weak body, nor abate anything of his unnecessary labour, only to save the charges.' Having described his character, it proceeds to relate that he had an only Daughter, 'of a beautiful aspect, and pious disposition, that he had care to see her well and liberally educated, though at the cheapest rate, that he would not allow any man, of what condition or quality soever, (by his good will) to have a sight of her, much less the least access to her ; that a young gallant took the advantage of the opportunity when he was picking up his penny fares, to be admitted into her company ; that the first interview pleased well, the second better, and the third concluded the match ; and how in all this interim, the poor silly old ferry-man, not dreaming of any such passages as are before spoken of but thinking all things as secure by land as he knew tliey were by water, continued in his former course, (which was as near as lean relate to you J in this manner following.' It then goes on to state a variety of his penu rious habits, such as feeding his servants on black puddings, when that commodity was sold at a penny a yard London measure, yet even begrudging that, saying when he gave them their allowance, ' Jiere you hungry rogues, you will undo me with eating,' — That he kept no cats, as the rats and mice voluntarily left the house, for there were no fragments or crumbs left by the servants to feed them, &c. — But now comes the tragedy: it occurred to him, (careful soul) that if he could for one day counterfeit himself to be sick, and the next day to die, his loving family would not, of course, be so unman nerly or unnatural as to taste any food 'till they had consigned him to his parent earth, purposing however to revive, and recover the next morning;
PAGE 112
his amiable daughter like a good child, consented to her father's scheme, and so he was laid out for dead : but alas ! how are our best plans often frustrated ; no sooner had the old gentleman screwed his countenance into a decent sort of a sepulchral aspect, and a light been placed at his head and another at his feet, as was the custom of those days, than his 'prentices and servants rejoiced at the event, began to caper and dance about the corpse ; and worse than all, that one ran into the kitchen and brought the brown loaf, a second brought the 1 Essex Cheese,' a third drew a ' Black Jack of the Four Shilling Beer,' &c— but flesh and blood could not endure all this, he rose up in his sheet with a candle in each hand, and would have rated them for their boldness, when one of them supposing it to be his ghost, or some other supernatural visitant, seized a broken oar and sent him who had so often ferryed others, himself a fate for old Charon.
" His daughter's lover who was in the country, hearing the news hastened, to come to London, but alas ! with more haste than good speed, for riding post, in his hurry he brake his neck : poor Mary, overpowered with the accumulation of ills, would fain have gone mad, but altering her plans, all the good folks being comfortably buried, (though by the way, her father was taken up again and dropt into an unconsecrated hole beneath the gallows at St. Thomas-a- Watering,) she betook herself to a religious life, and founded the famous church in which we now stand dedicating it to the honor of the blessed Virgin Mary." " Marvellous ! " said Antiquarius, " I have heard many traditions but this indeed out-herod's Herod." I begged the antiquary's pardon, as I now do that of my reader, for the intrusion of so light a subject, but really the tradition and the figure, and the church, have now become so united, that they appear to claim a passing notice even from the most rigid historian.
Page 113
This figure is probably only a part of a monument, there is a similar one in Clerkenwell Church. Mr. Lethieullier, who is quoted by Gough in his Sepulchral Monuments, says he has observed a figure of this make in almost all the cathedral and conventual churches in England, and scarcely ever more than one. There were several other monuments in this chapel, which will be described in the respective places to which they have been removed. Since the period of our visit, this beautiful portion of the church has undergone a most careful restoration, at a cost of £2,500. raised by a public subscription; the work has been conducted under the superintendence of G. Gwilt, Esq. F.S. A. whose valuable services it is but justice to record, were given gratuitously to this laudable undertaking: nothing can exceed the care bestowed on the work by that gentleman, the traces of whose mas terly hand are visible, not only in the general design, but also in the finishterly hand are visible, not only in the general design, but also in the finish of the most minute details, the whole having been conducted with that spirit which should ever characterize such undertakings, a feeling of veneration for the talent of the original designers. During the progress of this work the Piscina engraved on the plate of Architectural Fragments, fig. 8, was discovered at the N. E. corner of the chapel, where it has been before conjectured the altar for the service of " Our Ladye" probably stood, which opinion this discovery has a tendency to confirm. Under the floor of the wooden enclosure at this corner of the chapel, where the sittings of the Consistorial Court were formerly held, a slab was found on which is the following inscription rudely engraved : — " Nicholas Norman, Waterman, late Servante to the King's Maiestie, and Elizabeth his Wife, were here bvryed, hee the 25 of May, 1629, and shee the 15 of Janvarie followeinge, who lived 16 yeares together in the holie state of matrimonie, and do here rest in hope of a ioyfvll resvrrection."
PAGE 114
Near this stone, at a short distance from the surface, was discovered at the same time, a little coffin rudely formed in chalk, in which were remains of "Some happy babe, who privileg'd by fate To shorter labour, and a lighter weight, Received but yesterday the gift of breath, Ordered to-morrow to return to death." On the same spot was found the leaden seal of a Papal Bull, exhibiting (as was usual with those of latter times) the heads of St. Paul and St. Peter on one side, with the inscription " spaspe," and on the other side, which is much obliterated, appears to have been the following " innocetivs pp VI." Against one of the pillars of the chapel there is a small tablet with the following inscription, — " The Gift of Robert Buckland, Glover," it seems probable, as he was a donor to the parish, that this was placed over a tablet on which the nature of his bequests were inscribed. " In 1628, by deed, he gave to eight pensioners 9£d. per week each, payable out of Harden Farm, at Harcsfield, Kent. " In 1639, by deed, he gave to ten poor men 10s. each, on Christmas day, £100. for an annuity. " In 1647, by deed, he gave to the poor in general, a messuage or tenement at Dartford in Kent, £20. yearly, two pounds of which are payable to the Wardens for their trouble." Leaving the Chapel of " Our Ladye " we next entered the south aisle of the choir, where are monuments inscribed with the following names :* — On a very small black tablet with a gilt border, near the altar screen, " William Mayhew, who deceased the 16th of April, 1609." A plain white marble monument by Soane, with the following inscription, —
______
* To have printed the inscriptions at length would have occupied too much space, but as church histories have sometimes been produced as evidence iu courts of law, when time had obliterated the monu mental record, 1 have deemed it a duty to print names and dates.
______
PAGE 115
" In the Bishop's Vault are deposited the remains of Abraham Newland, late Chief Cashier to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, whom he served with fidelity from the year 1747, to the 17th of September, 1807, when, under the pressure of age and infirmity, he availed himself of an honourable retirement, having for thirty years sedulously employed the powers of an unusually energetic mind to the various and important duties of the office of Chief Cashier. He was born in this parish, on the 4th of May, 1730, and he died at Highbury, on the 21st of November, 1807." " John Paine, died 5th March, 1820, aged 13 months." " Richard Holditch and Ann his wife. Also, Anna Howell, daughter of the above Richard Holditch, died January 22nd, 1789, aged 42. Anna Howell died May 11th, 1799, aged 32 years. Ann Holditch died May 10th, 1817, aged 71." A very neat mural monument of marble — " To the Memory of Mrs. Betty Farmbr, died 12th May, 1808, aged 49. Mr. Richard Farmer died 9th May, 1819, aged 79. Richard Farmer their son, died 16th April, 1825, aged 38. John Farmer their eldest son, died 28th December, 1826, aged 47 years." " Mrs. Mary Richards, wife of Richard Richards, died May 11th, 1821, aged 49. Also their children : John died in infancy ; Thomas died September 22nd 1810, aged 2 years; Phoebe died August 1st, 1814, aged 21 years ; Anna Maria died December 2nd, 1814, aged 3 years ; Joseph died February llth, 1819, aged 24. Also Sarah, his second wife, died May 12th, 1830, aged 61." Painted on a framed panel, is the following inscription, — " Here lyeth buried the body of Mr. John Gawen, Citizen and Clothworker of London, who died the 4th of March, 1647, aged 71." Arms : Ermine, on a saltiere engrailed, five fleur-de-lis, Or. " Mrs. Jane Bradford, died 17th January, 1825, aged 54 years. Mr. James Bradford died 7th February, 1829, aged 45 years." On a plain white marble tablet is the following inscription, — " Sacred to the memory of William Winkworth, late Chaplain of this Parish. Pious without ostentation ; zealous with discretion ; active in the cause of distress ; humble and laborious in the ministry of the word ; he fell asleep in Jesus, a debtor to grace, August 22nd, 1804, in his 54th year." Mr. Winkworth was born at Blewberry, near Wallingford, August 22ud, 1750. O. S. He was ordained Deacon at Oxford, June 10, 1781: and Priest at Winchester House, Chelsea, the 14th of July, 1782, to the parish of Morden, in this County, the Rev. J. W. Peers, D.D. being then Rector. He was elected Chaplain to the County Gaol of Surry, in December, 1778; and to this Church, 30th of April, 1794. These appointments, together with the Lectureship of St. Paul's, Shadwell, in Middlesex, he held at the time of his death.* * Moss's History of St. Saviour's Church.
PAGE 116
A plain white marble slab — " Sacred to the Memory of Mr. Wiluam Butler; died October 17th, 1815, aged 77." Buried in the Bishop's Vault. " Joseph Devey, Esq. died March 1st, 1816, aged 64 years. Mrs. Martha Devey, died March 12th, 1827, aged 68 years." In this aisle is the entrance to the Great Vault, a murky cave, where death seems to hold his court amid solemn heaps of mouldering remains that speak volumes on mortality. A few years since two bodies were found here in a wonderful state of preservation, apparently without any attempt having been made by art to keep them from that decay which is the common lot of humankind.f It is supposed that they had lain for upwards of seventy years, but tho' time had so long spared them, he has since seized his victims, the bodies being now in a rapid state of decomposition. Attached to one of the great pillars which support the tower, is the brass plate engraven on the plate of Monumental Remains; it was formerly on the floor of the Lady Chapel, but, being the last of these interesting records, it has been placed here with a view to its preservation.^ The monuments in the South Transept next engaged our attention ; this portion of the church is rich in sculptured tributes to the memory of the dead, many of the monuments having been removed to this spot from other parts of the building in consequence of necessary alterations and repairs : f Such instances are by no means uncommon, but have occurred in several other Churches of the Metropolis; the probable cause may be some property in the wood of the coffins in which they were deposited, of rapidly imbibing the moisture of the bodies. There have been found in Poland a kind of natural mummy, or human bodies preserved without the assistance of art: these lie in considerable numbers in some of the vast caverns in that country. Mr. Hardy in his notices of Bourdeaux, says, that in the vault under the Tower of St. Michael, are nearly sixty bodies placed standing or sitting against the wall, some near three hundred years old, the skin having the appearance of leather. J The conduct of those Collectors, whose sacrilegious pilferings have removed so many of these useful links from the chain of history, cannot be too severely censured : I say collectors, for the Antiquary who studies with a view to illustrate history, knows too well the value of an arms or monumental legend to wish it anywhere bat on the tomb to which it belongs.
PAGE 117
every man of taste must feel indebted to the present Warden of the Great Account, Edward Sells, Esq. for his care in preserving them from destruction, and rendering them by the most economical expenditure highly ornamental to the fabric. In the first recess on the east side of the south transept is a most beautifully executed marble monument, removed from the Magdalen Chapel, " Sacred to the Memory of the Rev. T. Jones, A.M. late of Queen's College, Cam bridge, and Chaplain of this Parish, who died June 6th, 1762, aged 33. This monument is erected by John and Joseph Street, Gent., as a memorial of the edification they received from his faithful labours in the ministry, A. D. 1770. — Also Mrs. Jane Jones, relict of the above Mr. Thomas Jones, died, April 30th, 1782, in the 54th year of her age." The above inscription is on the front of the tomb encircled by a wreath; on the tomb is a bust of the deceased between two cherubs, one having in his left hand a book, entitled Articles of Religion, the other hand pointing to the bust ; the other holding a torch reversed : under the bust are two books, one the Holy Bible, in the other which is opened, is written "John V. 39, Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me." At the back of the monument are the arms of the family, — Gules on a fess Or, three mascles sable, between three cinquefoils argent. The Rev. T. Jones was one of the Chaplains of St. Saviour's Church, and admired for the zeal with which he enforced the gospel truths ; prefixed to a volume of his works published a year after his decease, is a brief memoir of him by his friend the Rev. W. Romaine, who says, speaking of hiin in connection with this parish, — " There is an alms-house in the parish, called the college, and some small stipend for doing duty in it. Mr. Jones thought it was not right to take the money unless he did the duty, accordingly he began to read prayers, and to expound the scripture in the college chapel, and went on for some time. The congregation used to be very large, and the success was very great. Many souls were in this place first awakened, who are now walking in the faith and fear of God, adorning the gospel of our Saviour. Bui here he was stopped and
PAGE 118
refused the use of the chapel. After this he set up a weekly lecture in his church, but he had not preached it long, before he was denied the use of the pulpit. However he was not discouraged, he went on giving away good books, some of which he carried in person to every house in the parish ; catechising the children, who came weekly to his house for that pur pose ; and paying religious visits among his parishioners, when they used to talk freely of the state of their souls. By these methods he tried to win his people to Christ, besides the stated duties of his office; in performing of which he seemed to set God always before him, and to be greatly drawn out in love to his hearers, of whom a very great number I trust did frequent his ministry, not led thither by the ease of his delivery, the sweetness of his voice, or the smoothness of his periods, but because they felt the weight and importance of the doctrines preached. Several I am myself acquainted with, who will I hope be his joy and crown of rejoicing in the day of the Lord Jesus." He was for some years afflicted with a disorder, which his bio grapher states " kept him low, and often brought him near death's door:" he died young, and to the last was anxious for the spiritual welfare of his flock, during a long illness borne with patience, he was always studying and contriving something for their welfare, and his frequent ejaculatory prayer Svas " Lord feed thy sheep, Lord feed thy sheep." His sermons were not written, as he himself states, with studied elegance of style, being frequently begun on the Saturday in the afternoon and preached on the following day, so numerous were his avocations that he had not time to embellish them with pretty conceits; in his preface to his sermons he says, " I do not desire to please the fancies, but to affect the hearts of all my readers." Over Jones' monument is placed a neat monumental tablet with the following inscription, — " Within the rails, by the communion table, lyeth interred the body of Mr. James Shaw, and his wife Mrs. Alice Shaw, who departed this life the 13th day of November, 1693, aged 84 years. Also the body of her nephew, Captain Joseph Williams, and his daughter Alice Shaw Overman, wife of William Overman, Gent., who departed this life the 28th day of December, 1697, aged 26 years and 10 days." On the frieze of the monument is the following: "Mr. James Shaw, departed this life the 18th day of February, 1670." On the base " Memento Mori."
The monument is surmounted by the family arms : (viz.) Or, a
PAGE 119
cheveron between three lozenges ermines. Crest, on a helmet and wreath of his colours, six arrows in saltiere gules, feathered and headed, or, tied of the first. The whole formerly rested on a death's head. On the left of Jones's monument is a black marble tablet with this inscription, — " Neare vnto this place lyeth the body of Mistris Margrit Maynard, the daughter of Master John Maynard, Minister of Mayfered in Svssex, who departed this life March the 14th, 1653, being aged 13 years, 10 monthes, and 14 dayes." On the right of Jones's is the curious little monument engraved on the plate of Monumental Remains, it consists of a diminutive effigy of a man in a winding sheet, an emaciated figure, lying on a marble sarcophagus, at the back is a black tablet, on which is the following inscription, in letters of gold, —
PAGE 129
The Parochial Records will next occupy our attention; among the Baptisms are the names of several children of players, a circumstance easily accounted for by the vicinity of the Globe Theatre, &c. at Bankside.
PAGE 130
Among the Burial Registries are the following, —
1572, August 17. — Mr. Randal Oge, Sergeant at Arms to the Earl of Desmond.
1579, Julye 26. — And the same daye for the buryinge of the bowells of Robt. Home, Byshoppe of Winchester, in the quire. ...... 26s. 8d. 1595,
June 13.— William Wickham, B. of Winchest.
1597, Dec. 10. — Mr. Graye, a Priest, from the olde Ladye Montacute's house.
1603, Dec— Alice Pinke buried, aged 112.
1605, October 31. — Mr. Francis Dacres, son to my Lord D acres, in the church.
1607. — Edmond Shakespear, player, in ye church. 1609,
November 16. — Richard Johnson, Gent. Coroner of his Majesty's Household and of the Verge.
1614, January 3. — Sir George Brown, Knt. 1625,
Auguste, 29. — Mr. John ffletcher a man in the church.
The above named John Fletcher, the dramatic poet, died of the Plague in 1625, his name is distinguished from the hundreds by which it is surrounded by the addition of Mr. Of his death we have the following memorandum from the Aubrey MSS. " In the great plague, 1625, a knight of Norfolk or Suffolk, invited him into the country, he staid but to make himself a suit of cloaths, and while it was making fell sick of the plague and died ; this I had/rom his Tailor, who is now a very old man and Clerk of St. Mary Overy's." Edward Philips, speaking of this author, says " he was one of the happy triumvi rate of the chief dramatic poets of our nation in the last foregoing age, among whom there might be said to be a symmetry of perfection, each excelling in his peculiar way ; Shakes- pear in wit ; Fletcher in courtly elegance, wit, and invention, qualities which he possessed
PAGE 131
in so great a degree that it is said to have been part of the business of his contemporary Beaumont, to lop the luxuriance of the branches thereof; and Ben Jonson in his elaborate pains and knowledge of authors."
1626, August 12.— Mr. Nicholas Andrewes, the Bp9 Brother.
1626, Nov. 11.— Lancelott Andrewes, Ld BisP of Winton.
Raphe Henrie, the Bisp. Stuarde.
1639, March 18. — Philip Massenger, Stranger.
This great dramatic poet, who in the opinion of several able criticks, ranks immediately under Shakespeare, died in his own house on the Bankside, he went to bed in good health (says Langbaine), and was found dead in the morning : thus as he had passed through life with but few friends to endear it, in death he had none to administer consolation or even close his eyes: he was followed to the grave by a few comedians, and the event is simply registered in the parish annals as above. His writings were perfectly free from the licentiousness and impiety of the age in which he wrote, and which were so great at that period that new regulations were constantly necessary for the restraining of them.
The registries bear awful testimony of the dire ravages of disease in this parish, during the Plagues of 1625 and 1665 : and it is a remarkable fact, that at that period (when he that wrote must have felt that in a few hours his own name might be added to the dismal list) the registries are kept with the greatest care, and the entries appear minutely accurate. In the month of August, 1625, the number buried was 764, the number in the corresponding period of the preceding years averaging about 40 ; but in the great Plague of 1665, the number of burials was 1124 in the month of September, that of the corresponding month of 1664 being but 54. " From plague pestilence and famine, good Lord deliver us."
There are a few facts yet remaining to be noticed in connection with the Church.
At page 27 mention has been made of the marriage of the Princess of Milan to Edmund Holland, Earl of Kent; from another account we add that the King himself gave away this lady at the church door,* and afterwards conducted her to the banquet at Win chester Hall. The Princess remembered the scene of her espousals in her will which was dated 2 Henry VI. bequeathing to this convent, with others, 6000 crowns for masses after her death, to be said for the souls of her husband and herself. Like most of our great churches this appears not to have been wanting in relioks; during the recent repairs a stone corbel was found with remains of a Latin inscription which has been trahslated " Relics of St. Thomas." * Formerly part of the marriage ceremony was performed at the church door, the parties did not enter the church till that part of the office where the Minister now goes up to the altar and repeats the psalm. Chancer in his prologue to the Canterbury Tales, describing the Wife of Bath, says — " Houibondei at the chucks dors had (he had five.)"
________
MEMORIES OF THE LIFE AND WORKS OF THE RIGHT HONORABLE AND RIGHT REV. FATHER IN GOD LANCELOT ANDREWES, D.D.
THE LIFE OF BISHOP ANDREWES.
MEMORIES OF THE LIFE AND WOKKS
OF
THE RIGHT HONORABLE AND RIGHT REV. FATHER IN GOD
LANCELOT ANDREWES, D.D. LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER.
BY THE KEY ARTHUR T. RUSSELL, B.C.L.
OF ST. JOHN S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
VICAR OF WHADDON, CAMBRIDGESHIRE.
CAMBRIDGE:
FOR THE AUTHOR BY J. PALMER, SIDNEY STREET.
1860.
J. PALMER, PRINTER, SIDNEY STREET.
TO THE HONOURABLE AND REVEREND
HENRY COCKAYNE GUST, M.A.,
CANON OF WINDSOR, AND RECTOR OF COCKAYNE HATLEY
IN THE COUNTY OF BEDFORD, &c.
APPENDIX.
THE FAMILY OF ANDREWES.
The name of our prelate was variously spelt, — Andrew, Andrews,
Andrewes, and Andros. The "e" in Andrewes was sometimes omitted
in the early part of the seventeenth century. Sir Robert Andrewes
of Normandy, knt., came over with William I., and married the
daughter and heiress of Sir Robert Winwick of "Winwick, Northamptonshire, and afterward of Denton in the same county.
In 1303 occurs John Andrew, Alderman of Redingate, Canter
bury. A Sir William Andrewes of Northamptonshire and Carlisle
occurs in 1234.
Thomas Andrews of Beggar's Weston, or Weston Bigard, (or
Begard) a few miles east of Hereford, was born in 1501, and died
in 1615. See the genealogy of this branch in Nichol's Leicestershire,
parish of System* From him was descended the late highly respected Gerard Andrewes, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, Rector of St. James', Westminster, and 8th November, 1809, Dean of Canterbury. He died, aged 75, on June 2nd, 1825.
In a window in St. Bartholomew the Less, London, over the
door in the passage into the church, are the arms and crest (painted
in glass) of Henry Andrewes, Alderman of London, 1636: argent,
a saltire azure on a chief gules; 3 mullets or: crest, a Moor's head
in profile.
In 1649 and 1651 Thomas, a leatherseller, son of Robert Andrewes of Feltham near Hounslow, Middlesex, and of the Fishmongers' Company, was Lord-Mayor of London.
Jonathan Andrewes was a member of the court of Merchant Taylors 1665, and Richard Andrewes, M.D., 1627—1634.
Sir Matthew Andrewes, knt., was one of the Elder Brethren of Trinity House, 1625.
Our prelate in his will makes mention of William the son of his deceased brother Nicholas; Thomas, Nicholas, and Roger the sons of his deceased brother Thomas, and their eldest sister Ann, married to Arthur "Woollaston ; also her younger sister Mary. His brother Nicholas was born in 1567, and died in 1626. His brother Thomas was named after his father, who appears as a benefactor to All
Hallows', Barking, " 1593, towards repairs of the church, £2; to the poor £5;" probably bequeathed. Our prelate's mother, Mrs. Joan Andrewes, left in 1524 a bequest of £10. He also makes mention of his sister Mary Burrell. One Alexander Burrell, B.A., Trinity College, Cambridge, 1706, M.A. 1710, was Yicar of Buckden, July 5, 1717, which he resigned in 1721, being made in 1720 Rector of Adstock near Winslow, Bucks., by Dr. Gibson, then Bishop of Lincoln, and also Rector of Puttenham, Herts, by the same patron.
His father was also of Trinity College, B.A. 1666, M.A. 1670. There have been about twenty members of the University of Cambridge of that name. The name is also spelt Burwell; Mr. Samuel Burwell was at our prelate's funeral. Of this name was Thomas, LL.D. of the University of Cambridge, 1661; Thomas, M.B. of the same University per Literas Regias, 1662 ; Francis, A.M. of the same University per Literas Regias, 1675 ; Thomas, M.B., King's College, 1677; and Charles, M.B., Pembroke College, 1717. The name Burwell appears to have merged into Burrell. The children of the Bishop's sister, Mary Burrel, were Andrew, John, Samuel, Joseph,
James, Lancelot, Mary Rooke, and her daughter Martha. His sister Martha, born in 1577, married first to Robert Princep, by whom she had a son Thomas. Charles Robert Princep (probably a descendant) was B.A. St. John's College, Cambridge, 1811, M.A. 1813. At Oxford was John Princep, B.A., BaUiol College, Oct. 12,
1738. Martha was married secondly to Mr., probably Peter, Salmon, by whom she had two sons, Peter and Thomas. The Rev. Thomas Peter Dod Salmon was B.A. St. John's College, Cambridge, 1782, M.A. 1786, Fellow of that College, B.D. 1793, and was living in 1811. Mr. Salmon had a sister Martha and a daughter Anne Best. The Bishop also makes mention of his cousin Anne Hockett. John Hockett was B.A. of Trinity College, Cambridge, 1662, M.A. 1666, and a Fellow of that society. Another of the same name was B.A. of that College 1696. He names another cousin, Sandbrooke; also his cousin Robert and his two children; his cousin Rebecca; his father's half-sister Joan; her first husband's name was Bousie. Also his godson Lancelot Lake, son of Sir Thomas Lake. There was a Lancelot Lake, B.A. Catharine
Hall, Cambridge, 1666, M.A. 1670. Also his two godsons Robert and Charles Barker, son of Mr. Robert Barker, " latelie the King's printer." His principal executor was Mr. John Parker, citizen and Merchant Taylor, of London, to be assisted by Sir Thomas Lake, Sir Henry Martin, and Dr. Nicholas Styward or Steward. His will was witnessed by Robert Bostock, Prebendary of Norton Episcopi in the church of Lincoln, and afterward Archdeacon of Suffolk, and (if not in 1626) Prebendary of Chichester; Joseph Fenton, probably our prelate's physician; John Browning, Rector of Buttermere near Hungerford, whom he had preferred to that living in 1624, author of Six Sermons concerning Public Prayer and the Fasts of the Church (Lond. 1636); Thomas Eddie and "William Green, two of the Bishop's servants. Archdeacon Wig-
more also signed the three several codicils to the will.
The family of Andrew or Andrewes has seated itself in Gloucestershire; Plymouth, Devon ; Bisbrook, Rutlandshire ; Norfolk, Suffolk, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, Lancashire, "Wilts, Bucks, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Surrey, and Hants. In Cambridgeshire it is still represented by the Rev. Thomas Andrew of Pembroke
College, Cambridge, Yicar of Triplow ; and by another descendant, a respectable yeoman at Litlington in the same county. In Hertfordshire, by the father of this latter, a yeoman in the parish of Buckland near Barkway. In Suffolk, by George W. Andrewes, Esq., Sudbury, Suffolk. In Surrey, by the Rev. William Gerard Andrewes, M.A., Magdalen Hall, Oxford, curate of Morden near Mitcham, and grandson of the late Dean of Canterbury. The Rev. Thomas Andrew of Triplow is descended of a Northamptonshire branch of this family. Erom Northamptonshire a branch of this
family migrated about the beginning of the seventeenth century to the neighbourhood of Canterbury. Thence Henry Andrews removed to London, and was cut off with his whole household, except one infant, in the Great Plague in 1665. This infant lived to a considerable age, and having acquired some fortune by merchandise, thought it right to take out arms afresh in 1729. He died in 1730.
His grandson Joseph was at a very early age appointed Paymaster to the Forces serving in Scotland 1715. His son Joseph was created a Baronet in 1766. His brother, James Pettit Andrews, born at Shaw House near Newbury, 1737, was the author of a miscellaneous collection entitled Anecdotes, Ancient and Modern, fyc. Lond. 8vo. 1789. A supplement to this volume in 1790; History of Great Britain, 1794, vol. I., from CaBsar's invasion to the death of Richard I. 4to. Lond. In 1795 appeared a second part, to the accession of Edward VI. The plan of this work was founded on that of Dr. Henry. He appears to have discontinued it for the purpose of completing Dr. Henry's history, which, in 1796, he brought down to the accession of James I. He translated The Savages of Europe; a popular French novel now forgotten. In 1798 he published The Inquisitor, a Tragedy in five Acts altered from the German, in conjunction with his friend H. J. Pye, the Poet Laureate. He was a contributor to the Archceologia and the Gentleman's Magazine. On the establishment of the London Police Magistracy in 1792, he was appointed Magistrate for Queen's Square and St. Margaret's "West minster. He died in London August 6th, 1797. He had married Anne daughter of the Rev. Rumney Penrose, Rector of Newbury. He survived her twenty years. The present excellent Master of the Grammar School, Stamford, the Rev. Erederic E. Gretton, B.D., late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, and author of some valuable Parochial Sermons, is descended from Bishop Andrewes both on the mother's and father's side. His father married a Clay, and his grandfather a Pigott, the granddaughter and daughter respectively of Catharine and Ellen Andrewes, whose father died and
was buried at Southwell in or about 1717. Mr. G. "W. Andrews of Sudbuiy is a younger brother of the Rev. Robert Andrews, B.D., who was ninth Senior Optime, Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and B.A. 1821, of Middleton near Sudbury. The eldest brother is Lieut. Colonel Andrews, residing at 57, Ecclestone Square, London; and the youngest, the Rev. "William Nesfield Andrews, of Jesus College, Cambridge, M.A. 1832, Rector of Chilton near Sudbury 1853.
A.D. 1600.
Five days after the death of Hooker, Andrewes wrote to Dr. Parry, afterward Bishop of Worcester:
" SALTJTEM IN CHRISTO.
"I cannot choose but write though you do not; I never failed since I last saw you, but daily prayed for him till the very instant you sent me this heavy news. I have hitherto prayed Serva nobis hunc; now must I Da nobis alium. Alas, for our great loss! and when I say ours, though I mean yours and mine, yet much more the common: with [which?] the less sense they have of so great a damage, the more sad we need to bewail them ourselves, who knew his works and his worth to be such as behind him he hath not, that I know, left any near him. And whether I shall live to know any near him, I am in great doubt that I care not how many and myself had redeemed his longer life, to have done good in a better subject than he had in hand, though that were very good. Good brother, have a care to deal with his executrix or executor, or (him that is like to have a great stake in it) his father-in-law, that there be special care and regard for preserving such papers as he left, besides the three last books excepted. By preserving, I mean, that not only they be not embezzled and come to nothing, but that they come not into great hands who will only have use of them quatenus et quousque, and suppress the rest, or unhappily all; but rather into the hands of some of them that
unfeignedly wished him well, though of the meaner sort, who may upon good assurance (very good assurance) be trusted with them; for it is pity they should admit any limitation. Do this and do it mature ; it had been more than time long since to have been about it, if I had sooner known it. If any word or letter would do any good to Mr. Churchman, it should not want. But what cannot yourself or Mr. Sandys do therein? For Mr. Cranmer is away; happy in that he shall gain a week or two before he know of it.
Almighty God comfort us over him, whose taking away, I trust
I shall no longer live than with grief remember; therefore with
grief because with inward and most just honour I ever honoured
him since I knew him.
"Your assured poor loving friend,
" L. ANDREWES.
"At the Court, Nov. 7, 1600."
About a month after this letter was written the Archbishop sent Andrewes to Mrs. Hooker to enquire after the MSS. He did not however succeed in obtaining any information. Upon this the Archbishop sent for her to London, when she confessed that Mr. Chart, a Puritan, and another minister of the same bias, had destroyed some of his papers as being in their opinion not such as should see the light. However the rough drafts of the three last books of the Eccl. Polity were discovered and delivered by Whitgift to Dr. Spenser, who drew up as perfect a copy as he could, a transcript of which was given to Andrewes amongst others. — Strype's Whitgift, ii. 441.
THE BOOK
MY DEAR SIR, The following pages, designed as a tribute to the memory of one of the most eloquent and munificent Prelates that ever adorned the Church of England, will, I trust, form also no unfitting memorial of my grateful regard for yourself, to whose kindness I was indebted for the second Vicarage which I have held under Her Majesty's Free Chapel of St. George, Windsor. I trust it will be seen by every candid reader that my aim has been to represent the subject of this volume as he was, neither exaggerating nor depreciating his...
CHAPTER I.
LANCELOT ANDREWES was born A.D. 1555, in Thames street, in the parish of Allhallows, Barking, London, of religious parents, who, besides his education, left him a fair estate which descended to his heir at Eawreth, a little village between Chelmsford and Rayleigh. (Morant professes that lie was unable to discover what this property was. ) His father Thomas in his latter time became one of the Society and master of Trinity House, and was descended of the ancient family of the Andrewes in Suffolk. Lancelot was early sent to the Coopers' Free School, KatclifF, in the parish of Stepney. This school was founded in the reign of Henry the Eighth by Nicholas Gibson, grocer, who in 1538 served the office of Sheriff. It was intended for the education of sixty children of poor parents, under a master and usher, and to it were attached an almshouse and chapel. Here Andrewes was
placed under Mr. Ward, who, discovering his abilities, persuaded his parents to continue him at his studies and to destine him to a learned profession. His young scholar did not prove unmindful of his kindness, but when raised to the see of Winchester, promoted his son Dr. Ward to the living of Bishop's Waltham. At this place, which is a small market-town ten miles north-east of Southampton, the Bishops of Winchester had a residence from the time of Bishop Henry de Blois, brother of king Stephen. This place was the favorite resort of the famous Wykeham. The palace was destroyed in the civil wars. From Mr. Ward Andrewes
was sent to the celebrated Richard Mulcaster, then master of Merchant Taylors' School. Mulcaster was a strict disciplinarian, having been trained under the stern Udal at Eton. Thence he went to King's College, Cambridge, in 1548, but removed to Oxford, where his learning was so highly esteemed that in 1561 he was appointed the first master of Merchant Taylors' School, which was founded in that same year by the munificent Sir Thomas White. Here Mulcaster continued until 1596, and was appointed master of St. Paul's School, from which he was preferred by the Queen to the rich rectory of Stanford Kivers, near Ongar, 1598. In 1609 he was deprived by death of a beloved wife, with whom he had lived happily fifty-six years. He did not long survive, but died April 15, 1611. Amongst Andrewes contemporaries at Merchant Taylors' were Giles Thompson, afterwards Bishop of Gloucester, Thomas Dove, afterwards Bishop of Peterborough, and Ralph Hutchenson, who was president of St. John's College, Oxford, from 1590 to his
death, January 17, 1605. On his leaving Merchant Taylors' School in 1571, Andrewes was entered at Pembroke College, Cambridge. On 9th September in this same year Dr. Thomas Watts, of Christ's College, Cambridge, (who in 1560 was
appointed archdeacon of Middlesex, in the place of the venerable Alexander Nowell,) being then prebendary of Totenhale in St. Paul's, and in 1571 also dean of Bocking, founded seven scholarships at Pembroke College, called Greek scholarships. The four first scholars upon this foundation were Andrewes and Dove, Gregory Downhall, and John Wilford. About the same time Andrewes was, with Dove, Wilford, and William Plat, appointed to a scholarship in Jesus College, Oxford, at the request of the founder, by Queen Elizabeth. It would appear that he was nominated to a scholarship at Oxford previously to his admission, or at least residence, at Cambridge. He left Merchant Taylors' School on St. Barnabas Day, June 11, 1571, and the royal charter of foundation whence Jesus College dates its institution, is dated 27 June, 13 Eliz. 1571. By this charter Dr. Hugh Price, or Ap Rice, (LL.D., of Oxford, 1525, and supposed to have been educated at Oseney Abbey), Treasurer of St. David's, was permitted to settle estates on the said college to the yearly value of £160., for the sustentation of eight fellows and eight scholars, all appointed in the first instance, according to Dr. Price's mind, by Queen Elizabeth.
" What he did when he was a child and a schoolboy, it is not now known," says his grateful biographer Isaacson, "but he hath been sometimes heard to say, that when he was a young scholar in the University, and so all his time onward, he never loved or used any games or ordinary recreations, either within doors, as cards, dice, tables, chess, or the like ; or abroad, as bats, quoits, bowls, or any such; but his ordinary exercise and recreation was walking either alone or with some companion with whom he might confer and recount his studies." To the last he took great delight in those meditations that are, as it were, inspired by the
beholding of the works of God.
His custom was, after he had been three years at the University, (when he took his degree of B.A. in 1574-5,) to come up to London once a year to visit his parents, always about a fortnight before Easter, and to stay with them about a month, never intermitting his studies. And, until he was a bachelor of divinity, he even used to perform these journies on foot.
In October 1576 he was chosen to a fellowship at his college, and Dove, the unsuccessful candidate, was continued as a tanquam-socius by a liberality not unusual in those times. In 1578 he took the degree of M.A.1 In 1580 he was ordained, and the same year his name appears in the College books as Junior Treasurer. In 1581 he was Senior Treasurer, and on July 11 was incorporated M.A. of the University of Oxford, on the same day with William Pemberton of Christ College, afterwards the incumbent of High Ongar.
After he had been some time Master of Arts he was appointed catechist in his college, and read his lectures upon the decalogue at the hour of catechising (three in the after noon) every Saturday and Sunday; and such was his reputation as a student and a divine, that many came to the chapel, now (since the chapel founded by Bishop Wren) the College library*; and these not only from other colleges, but even from the country. So report both his biographer Isaacson and Jackson the editor of these very lectures. They were put forth from notes in 1642, and entitled, The Moral Law expounded; and in the same volume were reprinted his Sermons on the Temptation in the Wilderness, and on Prayer. The lectures were a second time edited in 1650, and again in 1675, in a comparatively modern style, and with many enlargements and additions. The edition of 1675 is by no
means so accurately printed as that of 1642. Of the substance of the work there can be no doubt that it is the production of our prelate. John Jackson the first editor was probably one of the Assembly of Divines, Preacher of Gray's Inn and of the University of Cambridge. Sparke was a Puritan, and has introduced his own likeness in an engraving of Laud's Trial.
We have witnessed in our own times an extreme jealousy of all summaries of the Gospel. Not so Bishop Andrewes, who, in his introduction to these lectures, observes, in defence of catechising by the help of summaries, that "our Saviour
catechising Nicodemus made an epitome or abridgement of the Gospel under one head: So God loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him might not perish, but have everlasting life."
After an introduction vindicating the practice of cate
chising, Andrewes proceeded to speak of the spirit in which
the catechized should come to this exercise; and in this,
which forms the second chapter, the later is more copious
than the earlier edition. But both appear to be taken
from notes, and neither can claim to be the original, for
each edition possesses its peculiar marks of the style and
learning of our author. In the third chapter the catechist
proves with great variety of classical and patristical illus
tration, that true happiness is to be found only in God.
Then he proceeds to shew that the surest way to come
unto God is by faith. Nor is there fear of credulity when
we believe God, who neither can deceive nor be deceived.
Now faith is grounded, says Andrewes, upon the word of
God, though published and set forth by man.1 We cannot
come to God by reason, for God transcends reason, nor
can we know anything of the essences of things. And as
to credulity, the endless differences of philosophers upon
the nature of the chief good shew that the uncertainty of
the way of reason is most favorable to credulity. And so
in the things of common life there is likewise frequent and
inevitable necessity for faith.2
But faith doth not exclude reason as corroborative of
revelation. So St. Paul appeals to natural reason in the
first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. And, adds our
catechist, " having thus submitted ourselves to belief, and
strengthened it with reason, we must look for an higher
teacher. For though faith be a perfect way, yet we being
imperfect walk imperfectly in it ; and therefore in those
things which transcend nature and reason, we must believe
God only, and pray to Him, that by the inspiration of His
Holy Spirit, we may be directed and kept in this way."
And " because this inspiration cometh not all at once at
the first, we must grow to perfection by little and little,
and come up by degrees till it please Him to send it in
full measure to us. He that believeth shall not make haste."
Excellently then does he treat of the proofs of the being
of a God, especially from the existence of moral sentiments
and of a conscience in man.1 Next are summed up the proofs
of a particular providence, in which chapter he affirms the
principle, that God is his own end, and that he wills all
things for his own honour.2 Then follow very elaborate
discourses upon Heathenism, Judaism, Mahometanism, and
the evidences of Christianity. He then proceeds to treat
of the rule of interpretation, and does not, as do some
who make use of his name, treat the Scriptures as practically
useless until a meaning is assigned to them out of the Fathers
or by the Church. He does not refer us either to the one
or to the other as the rule of interpretation, but will have
us seek the literal meaning of each passage, consult the text
in the original tongues, compare Scripture with Scripture,
learn the intent of those expressions or idioms that are peculiar
to Scripture, as the crucifying of the flesh, the mortifying
of concupiscence, &c. ; consider the scope of the passage,
as, what was God's intent in setting down the law, in
giving a prophecy, in working a miracle, &c., as St. Paul to
Timothy reasoneth from the end of the law, against those
that made evil use of the law; and lastly, have regard to
the context. These rules he prefaces with a quotation from
St. Augustine, " Let us ask by prayer, seek by reading,
find out by meditation, taste and digest by contemplation."
It may be observed that in this part of the lectures we
meet with a very plain proof that the latter edition was not
taken from the bishop's own manuscript, and that it does not
deserve the high commendation it gives itself in the titlepage.
Thus in p. 54 we read (Rule) 4. " To be acquainted with the
phrase of the Holy Ghost, and this is to be gotten by the
knowledge of the dialect, idiom, or style of the Holy Spirit,
as the apostle speaks, by use to discern it, 'as the crucifying of
the flesh, mortifying the concupiscence, &c., for sometimes the
Holy Ghost in Greek sends us to the Holy Ghost in Hebrew.
Holy Ghost useth divers idioms that are not to be found in
other writers ; as, the crucifying of a man's flesh, the mortify
ing of his concupiscence, &c. Therefore we must be perfect in
these ; and as Heb. 5, ver. last, have our senses exercised, that
we may know the Holy Ghost when he speaketh. Often we
shall meet with TOVT earl ^eOep^vevofjievoVj this is being
interpreted; the Holy Ghost in Greek referreth us to the
Holy Ghost in Hebrew."
The second editor has endeavoured to incorporate his own
with Bishop Andrewes' doctrine. It is to be observed more
over, that whereas the larger additions to the author are dis
tinguished as such by the editor, he has also inserted glosses
and limitations which are indeed put in italics; but neither are
these the only additions, for it is owned in the preface that
there are some additions left by mistake in the same character
with the rest. Very remarkable is our author's reason for
the introduction of the new covenant ; it is in perfect harmony
with the great principle of his theology, that God is all in all :
"The reason of this second covenant was, that now Adam
having lost his own strength by breach of the first, all power
and strength should be new from God in Christ, and all the
glory be given to him. For if Adam had stood by his own
strength in the first, howsoever God should have had most
glory, yet Adam should have had some part thereof for using
his strength well and not abusing it when he might, but kept
his standing. But that God might have all the glory, he
suffered the first covenant to be broken, and permitted man to
fall, for which fall he was to make satisfaction, which he could
not do but by Christ, nor perform new obedience but by the
grace of God preventing us, and making us of unwilling
willing, and of unable able to do things in that measure that
God will require at our hands." He discourses of the order
that should be observed in preaching. He will have the law
preached first because by it alone men are humbled ; then he
will have them brought to that covenant by which they can
be saved. ..
In his traces of the moral law amongst the heathen' he
notices their observance of the number seven as the number
of rest, and the number most pleasing to the gods, and their
practice of mourning seven days, of naming their children on
the seventh day, &C.
Under the exposition of the first commandment are most
learnedly and piously treated all the religious affections, faith,
hope, love, humility, patience, reverence also prayer, thanks
giving, obedience, integrity, and perseverance; and their contraries, unbelief, despair, pride, love of the world, self-love, &c.
Under the second commandment he derives the use of
pictures in churches from the Gnostics in Irenasus, and gives
the four causes of the introduction of images, condemning it
at the same time as the beginning of great abuses. These
causes are the policy of heretics aiming by their imitation of
the heathen to conciliate them ; secondly, desire to preserve
the memory of the dead ; so the people had the likeness of
Malesius, Bishop of Constantinople, in their rings, and in
their houses. Thirdly, wealth, by reason of which they desired to please their eyes and to have their churches as rich as themselves. Lastly, the idleness, absence or ignorance of their pastors. Paulinus, Bishop of Nola in Campania,
having occasion to travel into Syria and Egypt, and having
none to preach to his people till his return, thought good
(because he would have something to teach them in his
absence) to paint the whole history of the Bible on the walls
of his church, so that their preachers were none other but
painted walls. But this is no way to be commended in him,
and the effect proved accordingly. For it fell out that for
want of better teachers the people became ignorant, and be
cause their pastors became but dumb images, therefore dumb
images became their pastors."
Our author charges upon the second council of Nice the
paying supreme worship to images themselves. The later editor of his lectures inserts a correction, affirming that
the council was misrepresented to the councils of Frankfort
and Paris. But the reader will find this point fully treated
of in Bishop Stillingfleet upon the Idolatrous Practices of the
Romish Church* and Andrewes fully justified.
Under this commandment Andrewes discourses of all
the parts of divine worship, preaching, prayer, thanksgiving,
sacraments, and discipline. " St. Paul," he tells us, " not only
preached, but made it an ordinance of God, to save them that
believe."2 Upon the sacraments and discipline the later is far
more copious than the earlier edition, which, from its extreme
brevity, was probably taken from notes very defective them
selves upon these particulars. If this part of the work be
our author's, he decides that children are believers " by their
godfathers and godmothers and parents who present them
and desire to have them baptized in the faith of Christ."
The sacrifice of the Eucharist he does not make a repetition of
Christ's sacrifice, but an oblation of ourselves to God and
a sacrifice of thanksgiving. The only other sense in which
our author ever calls the Lord's Supper a sacrifice is as
a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice. He disclaims in
his Easter-day Sermon for A.D. 1612, the application of
the term sacrifice in the strict and literal sense. He saith,
" by the same rule that theirs [the passover] was, by the
same may ours be termed a sacrifice. In rigour of speech
neither of them : for (to speak after the exact manner of
divinity) there is but one only sacrifice veri nominis properly
so called ; that is Christ's death, and that sacrifice but once
actually performed at his death, but ever before represented
in figure, from the beginning; and ever since repeated, in
memory, to the world's end." And a little after, in the same
sermon : lt So it was the will of God, that so there might
be with them a continual foreshewing, and with us a con
tinual shewing forth the Lord's death till He come again.
Hence it is, that what names theirs carried, ours do the like, and the Fathers make no scruple at it ; no more need we." We
do not find here that theological confusion of language which
would lead us to suppose that the Eucharistic elements them
selves were a sacrifice available to the forgiveness of sins;
a confusion into which those have fallen perhaps unwittingly,
yet really, who have sought to make of the Eucharist a real
sacrifice and not a commemoration of a sacrifice. These
contend for a real; Bishop Andrewes, Bishop Jewel, Bishop
Bilson for a figurative sacrifice, a memorial of Christ's death,
in which the offerers were as much the people as the priests ;
so Bishop Bilson : " Christ is offered daily but mystically,
not covered with * qualities and quantities of bread and wine,
for those be neither mysteries nor resemblances to the death
of Christ: but by the bread which is broken, by the wine
which is drunk, in substance creatures, in signification sacra
ments, the Lord's death is figured and proposed to the
communicants, and they for their parts, no less people than
priests, do present Christ hanging on the Cross to God the
Father, with a lively faith, inward devotion, and humble
prayer, as a most sufficient and everlasting sacrifice for the
full remission of their sins and assured fruition of His
mercies." And again, he explains Peter Lombard in his
fourth book and twelfth distinction, saying, " Christ is offered
in a sacrament," by these words, u that is, his offering is
represented, and a memory of his passion celebrated." And
so Dr. Field (who has nevertheless been alleged to prove
the doctrine of Johnson, Hickes, and their followers) sums
up all in this, " The sacrifice of the altar is only the sacrifice
of praise and thanksgiving, and a mere representation and
commemoration of the sacrifice once offered on the Cross."
Equally careful is Buckeridge, Bishop of Ely, to guard
against all idea of a real external sacrifice, denying in plain
terms that the Eucharist is an external proper sacrifice.
CHAPTER II.
Andrewes on the Fourth Commandment — Of holy places — Of the
Church's deposit — Of Circumcision — Of the fear of God — Of grace.
— Andrewes goes into the north with the Earl of Huntingdon —
Sir Francis JValsingham becomes his patron — He is made Vicar
of St. Giles', Cripplegate — Preaches at the Spital in 1588 — His
censure of highmindedness — His honourable notice of Augustine
and Calvin — Vindication of Protestant munificence — Censure of
simony and sacrilege — Of Justification — He preaches before the
Queen in 1589 — Is made Prebendary of Southwell and of St.
Paul's, and Master of Pembroke College — His Clerum.
IN the sixth chapter our author exposes the excuses of the
Romanists in regard of image-worship, and herein follows the
very same course that is taken in the Homily upon Peril of
Idolatry. In his exposition of the fourth commandment he
observes that men would probably have neglected worship
altogether, "if God had not provided a particular day for
himself and settled it by a special commandment ; as we see
in those that talk of a perpetual Sabbath, who come at length
to keep no day at all." His judgment did not suffer him to
be led away with the presumptuous folly of those who dis
covered that, Adam had no need of a Sabbath. He regarded
the fourth commandment as partly moral and partly cere
monial, which appears to be virtually admitted by Bishop
White himself, who says that "the common and natural
equity of the commandment is moral."1 Andrewes derives
the Lord's Day, with St. Augustine, from Holy Scripture; this is the day that the Lord hath made. And so St. Athana-
sius affirms that u the Lord changed the Sabbath to the Lord's
Day."1 " So," observes our author, "though the Sabbath or
seventh day from the creation be ceased, yet there is another
day still remaining, because the end of keeping a day is
immutable from the beginning, to wit, that God might be
honoured by a solemn and public worship." But the whole
of this subject is more fully considered and more accurately
recorded in his Lectures preached in St. Paul's: "Of all the
days in the week we shall see the seventh day to be the fittest
to retain and keep in memory the commendation of this
benefit and work of creation. When God had performed this
great work of creation, he took order also, because it was the
greatest benefit which as yet the world had or knew of, that
the seventh day should be always had in remembrance, be
cause he had fully perfected all the work in it ; and the very
same reason which made the Jews' Sabbath on the seventh
day, doth now also move Christians to keep it on the first day
in the week ; for it is God's will that the lesser benefit should
surcease and give place to the greater, Jer. xxiii. 7, and that
the benefit of creation as the lesser, should yield and give
place to the work of redemption, which is the greater benefit."
But the Sabbath of Sinai, adds our author, had three other
accessory ends : first, political, which was bodily rest, Exod.
xxiii. 12; secondly, ceremonial, that is commemorative of the
creation, and typical of Christ's rest in the grave, of our rest
from sin, and of eternal rest in heaven: thirdly, an end
peculiar to the Jews, the commemorating of their deliverance
out of Egypt, Deut. v. 15 ; wherefore the Jews say that they
have a double right and interest in the Sabbath.
In regard of the sanctification of the day, he condemns all
labor, pastimes, journeyings, and such agricultural works as
are forbidden in Exodus xxxiv., bounding these rules by
that of our Saviour, God will have mercy and not sacrifice.
The eighth chapter treats of the duty of fasting, a duty unhappily for the most part altogether neglected, or magnified
as an end instead of a way to an end.
Again, if the love of ease will condemn fasting, so the
love of money will as easily condemn all care of the house
of God as superstitious. But justly does our author satirize
this desecrating sort of religion. " The Sabbath is the day
of rest, and when we hallow it, we call it the Lord's rest.
So Psalm cxxxii. 14, we see the Lord will give the same
name to the place, This is my rest ; concerning which, as
the Apostles took order, as that the exterior part of God's
worship might be performed decently and in order ; so on
the other side, that the place of God's worship should be
so homely and so ordered, that the table of the Lord's Supper
where, one saith well, the dreadful mysteries of God are
celebrated, were fitter to eat oysters at, than to stand in the
sanctuary of the Lord ; this is so far from pomp that it is
far from decency. And it is a thing that would be thought
of: it is not the weightier matter of the law, yet not to be
neglected. As our working, travelling, &c. shew that we
esteem not that day, so the walls and windows shew that we
are not esteemers of his sanctuary."
From holy things he proceeds to treat of 'holy persons,
and of that power which is in the law of God alone to hold
communities together by checking those sins that cannot,
from their very nature, be restrained by human enactments ;
sins which nevertheless have been the destruction of empires.
Here he speaks of the great mischief which the corruption
of law and oppressive delays, &c. had brought upon our
own country.
In the later edition, which is much more ample upon
the subject of ceremonies than the earlier, having a whole
page by way of introduction which that has not, Andrewes
calls the Scriptures, the volume of both covenants, the
depositum committed to the Church.
Circumcision he calls here and elsewhere a sacrament
affirming that to the sacraments of circumcision and of the
passover succeeded baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Of the fear of God lie saith, tl The reason why though
we may and ought to obey God out of love, yet it hath
pleased him to command fear, is threefold: 1. to overthrow
the vain speculation of some erroneous people, that dream
of an absolute perfection in this life. The wise man saith,
Blessed is the man that feareth alway. And either there
is no perfection in this life, or fear is superfluous; he that
cannot fall need not fear. 2. Inasmuch as the children of God
often feel in themselves a feebleness in faith, a doubt in hope,
coldness in prayers, slowness in repentance, and weakness
in all the other duties, in some more, in others less, according
to the measure of the Spirit communicated to them, as it was
in king David ; therefore fear is necessary to recover them
selves, and he that loseth it not, his heart shall never be
hardened, nor fall into mischief. Though all other duties
fail, yet if fear continues, we shall never need to despair.
3. Because the excellent duty of love, the effect of fear, might
not fail and grow careless. In the Canticles the spouse
fell asleep with her beloved in her arms, and when she awoke
her beloved was gone : in her bed she sought him but found
him not. So that if there be not a mixture of fear with love,
it will grow secure and fall asleep and lose her beloved.
Therefore that we may be sure to keep our love awake, when
we think we have Christ in our arms, there must be a mixture
of fear with it. So for these three reasons fear is necessary,
even for them that think themselves in a perfect state. And
withal Solomon tells us, the fear of the Lord is the beginning
of wisdom : so did his father before him. And the same
Solomon concludes his book of the Preacher with, Fear God
and keep his commandments, for this is the end of all and
the whole duty of man. And in another place he saith, The
fear of the Lord is the fountain of life to avoid the snares
of death. As faith is the beginning of Christian religion,
as the first principles in every science are of things to be
believed, so is fear the first work or beginning of things
to be done : and as servile fear is the first work, so a reverend
and filial fear is the last work and conclusion of all things."
He thus speaks of the grace of God. tl As Nebuchad
nezzar ascribed the building of great Babel to his own power,
and made his own glory the end of it ; so, on the contrary,
we also say of hope, it makes God the author of all the
good it looks for, and makes His glory the end of all. For
first, it makes us go out of ourselves and trust only in God,
and wholly rely upon Him as the sole efficient cause of
good to us. We must wholly depart out of ourselves • we
must not conceive that there is any sufficiency in ourselves,
but that all our sufficiency is of God, not so much as to
think a good thought, therefore much less to have a will
to do it; but that it is God that works the velle [willing]
and consequently the perficere [perfecting] both the will and
the deed in us. We must not ascribe any part or help
to ourselves : for our Saviour saith, Without Me ye can do
nothing. Upon which place St. Augustine noteth, it is " not
any great thing, but nothing at allj and not that we can
perfect nothing, but do nothing at all. And as it makes
God the cause and first beginning, so the last end too, by
giving the glory of his graces in us to him : and the reason
is plain in the Apostle, That no flesh should glory in his
presence, but as it followeth, that he that glorieth should glory
in Him. (\ Cor. i.)"1
The same pious doctrine is contained and vindicated very
fully in his sermon upon 2 Cor. iii. 5, Not that we are sufficient
of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency
is of God? There he saith, " If we begin to do any good
thing, it is God who began a good work in us. Phil. i. 6.
In consideration of which place Augustine saith of the Pela
gians, Audiant qui dicunt, i a nobis esse cceptum, a Deo esse
eventum] the beginning is from us, the completion is from
God. Here let them learn of the Apostle, that it is the
Lord that doth begin and. perform the good work."
And thus much of his catechetical lectures, the value
of which is by no means exaggerated in Jackson's Dedication
to Parliament, where they are called and said to have been
reputed "a very library to young divines, and an oracle
to consult at, to laureate and grave divines."
From the University Andrewes went into the north on the
invitation of Henry Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon and Lord
President of the North. Whilst with him he is said "both by
Isaacson and Bishop Buckeridge to have had great success in
converting several both priests and laymen to the Protestant
religion.
"After this," adds Buckeridge in his funeral sermon for
our prelate, "Mr. Secretary Walsinghame took notice of him,
and obtained him of the Earl, intending his preferment, in
which he would never permit him to take any country
benefice, lest he and his great learning should be buried in
a country church. His intent was to make him Reader of
Controversies in Cambridge, and for his maintenance he as
signed to him (as I am informed) the lease of the parsonage of
Alton in Hampshire, which after his death (in 1590) he returned to his lady, which she never knew nor thought of.
In 1583, November 27, Nicholas Felton, afterward Bishop
of Ely, and, like Andrewes, one of the most upright and
popular prelates of his time, was elected to a fellowship
at Pembroke College. In 1585 Andrewes took his degree
of B.D., and in 1588 appears to have succeeded Robert
Crowley (Veron's successor in 1563) in the vicarage of
St. Giles', Cripplegate. Crowley died on June 18, and was
buried in the chancel.
Andre wes, on April 22, 1585, read his Thesis de Usuris1
as his exercise for the degree of B.D. His Sermons on
the Temptation in the Wilderness, first published in 1592,
and those on the Lord's Prayer, first published in 1611, were
probably delivered, not at Cambridge as a recent editor of
Isaacson's Life of Andrewes conjectures, but at St. Giles',
Cripplegate. Dr. Hopkins, Bishop of Deny, also published
a very valuable series of Sermons on the Lord's Prayer
towards the latter end of this century. Amongst other
eminent divines who have written upon it, are John Smith,
1609, Dr. John Boys, 1622, Perkins of Cambridge, Dr.
Henry King, 1638, Joseph Mede, 1658, and William Gouge.
In 1586 appeared A Choice of Emblems and other Devises
for the most part gathered out of sundry writers, Englished
and Moralized, and divers newly devised by Geoffrey Witney,
&c. Imprinted at Leyden in the house of Christopher Plantyn,
by Francis Baphelengius, 1586. Dedicated to Robert Earl
of Leicester, with his arms opposite the dedication. In the
second part, p. 224, Matth. xxiv. To M. Andrewes, Preacher.
The Martyrs. " Sic probantur." And under it the Pharisee
giving alms and blowing his trumpet at the same time.
Others are:
p. 217, to Mr. Elcocke, preacher.
to Mr. Rawlins, preacher.
to Mr. Knewstubs, preacher.
to Mr. James Jonson.
to Mr. Howlte, preacher.
Andrewes, whilst at Cambridge, united, it is said, with
the Rev. John Knewstubs, B.D., a native of Westmoreland
and fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, Dr. Chaderton,
afterwards first master of Emmanuel College, Mr. Culverwell,
(Ezekiel Culverwell) of Emmanuel College, vicar of Felstead
in Essex, author of a Treatise of Faith, 1633, also A ready
Way to remember the Scriptures, 1637 ; also John Carter,
A.M. of Clare Hall, and some others, in weekly meetings
for prayer and expounding the Scriptures. Mr. Carter,
afterwards rector of Belstead in Suffolk, wrote A Commentary
of Christ's Sermon upon the Mount. He died, aged 80 years,
February 22, 1634. " At their meetings," says Samuel
Clarke in his Lives of Thirty-two English Divines, p. 133,
"they had constant exercises : first they began with prayer,
and then applied themselves to the study of the Scriptures.
One was for the original languages ; another's task was
for the grammatical interpretation ; another's for the logical
analysis; another's for the true sense and meaning of the
text ; another gathered the doctrines ; and thus they carried
on their several employments, till at last they went out, like
Apollos, eloquent men and mighty in the Scriptures : and
the Lord was with them, so that they brought in a very
great harvest unto God's barn."
On Wednesday, April 10, in Easter-week 1588, Andrewes
preached from 1 Tim. c. vi. 17—19, at the Spital. This discourse is in many respects inferior to none of the ninety-six
sermons with which it is embodied. In all the great and
essential features of a Christian sermon it is perfect, and abounds
with that fertility of illustration, and that witty and at times
satirical wisdom which marked its author. But indeed truth
is a continual satire upon the world; and he who would
faithfully portray men's passions and set them before their
own eyes must pass for a satirist. But all is here delivered
with an affection not less evident than that fearlessness which
shines so nobly in this most faithful of preachers. How
does he hold up to view all the meanness of pride, all the
folly of covetousness, all the cruelty and oppression of the
proud rich man! How does he urge his authority as a
messenger from God, upon the rich and the great !
He delivered not an essay but a discourse, written not
with a view to reading but to delivery. He therefore raises
up and meets the objections of his hearers, and answers to
the supposed charge of personality in a manner that those
indeed do not need who are always careful to destroy the
force of particular precepts by unmeaning generalities. And
at least he reminds his congregation that they must one
day give an account of the use to which they shall turn that
which they have heard at his mouth.1 He calls God to
witness that he has delivered his own soul/ and with all
this holy earnestness is nothing but truth in all sobriety and
gravity, as it is drawn from the all-searching and all-powerful
word of God.
After instancing the highmindedness of Nabal, Abner,
and Mieaiah, he adds, " These were, I dare boldly affirm,
highminded men in their generations. If any be like these
they know what they are. If then there be any that refuse
to be pruned and trimmed by the word of God ; who either,
when he heareth the words of the charge, Uesseth himself
in his heart and saith, Tush, he doth but prate; these things
shall not come upon me, though I walk still according to
the stubbornness of mine oivn heart;3 either in hearing the
word of God, takes upon him (his flesh and blood and he)
to sit on it and censure it; and say to himself one while,
'This is well spoken,' when his humour is served; another
while, 'This is foolishly spoken, now he babbleth,' because
the charge sits somewhat near him; either is in the Pharisee's
case, which, after they have heard the charge, do (as they
did at Christ) eK/jbVKrrjpl^eLVj jest and scoff, and make them
selves merry with it, and wash it down with a cup of sack,
and that because they were covetous; if in very deed the
word of God be to them a reproach,5 and they take like
delight in both, and well were they if they might never
hear it ; and, to testify their good conceit of the word, shew
it in the account of the ephod, which is a base and con
temptible garment in their eyes, and the word in it and ,
with it, (this is Michal's case) : whosoever is in any of these
men's cases, is in the case of a highminded man, and that
of the highest degree, for they lift themselves up, not against
earth and man, but against heaven and God himself. 0 be
loved, you that be in wealth and authority, love and reve
rence the word of God. It is the root that doth bear you;
it is the majesty thereof that keepeth you in your thrones,
and maketh you be that you are : but for Ego dixi Dii estis
(a parcel-commission out of this commission of ours) the mad
ness of the people would bear no government, but run head
long, and overthrow all chairs of estate, and break in
pieces all the swords and sceptres in the world ; which you of
this city had a strange experience of in Jack Straw and his
meiny,1 and keep a memorial of it in your city-scutcheon, how
all had gone down, if this word had not held all up. And
therefore honour it, I beseech you; I say, honour it. For
when the highest of you yourselves which are but grass, and
your lordship's glory and worship which is the flower of this
grass, shall perish and pass away, this word shall continue
for ever. And if you receive it now with due regard and
reverence, it will make you also to continue for ever."2
Touching upon the words, the rich in this worldy he re
marks, " Sure it is thought of divers of the best writers both
old and new (I name of the new Mr. Calvin, and of the old
St. Augustine^} that this addition is a diminution &c. — for
being of this world, they must needs savour of the soil ; be as
this world is, (that is) transitory, fickle, and deceitful."3
In this sermon he most amply vindicates the Protestantism
of the Elizabethan age from the false accusations of the
Romanists, who gave out that it was a faith without good
works. After commending the liberality of the city of London,
he proceeds, " I will be able to prove, that learning, in the
foundation of schools and increase of revenues within col
leges ; and the poor, in foundation of alms-houses and increase
of perpetuities to them, have received greater help within this
realm in these forty years last past, since (not the starting up
of our Church, as they fondly used to speak, but since) the
reforming of ours from the errors of theirs, than it hath, I say,
in any realm Christian not only within the selfsame forty
years (which were enough to stop their mouths), but also
than it hath in any forty years upward, during all the time of
Popery: which I speak partly of mine own knowledge, and
partly by sufficient grave information to this behalf. This
may be said and said truly."1
To simony and sacrilege he thus alludes. Treating of the
good that might be done to the Church by the rich men of the
city whom he likens to Tyre, called a cherub stretching its
wings over the ark to signify what protection it should yield
to the Church, he says : " And much good might be done, and
is not, in this behalf, and that many ways. I will name but
one, that is, that with their wings stretched out, they would
keep the filth and pollution of the sin of sins (whereof you
heard so bitter complaint both these days) of simony and
sacrilege, from falling on the ark, and corrupting and putrify-
ing it, which it hath almost already done : that seeing the
Pope do that he doth (howsoever some have alleged the
Papists' great detestation of this sin and of us for this sin, for
a motive ; it is all but dissembling ; their hand is as deep in
this sin as any man's) ; I say, seeing the Pope doth as he doth,
that is, as he hath dispensed with the oath and duty of subjects
to their prince, against the fifth commandment: with the
murder, both violent with daggers and secret with poison, of
the sacred persons of princes, against the sixth ; with the un-
cleanness of the stews and with incestuous marriages, against
the seventh ; so now, of late, with the abomination of simony,
against the eighth; having lately (as it is known by the
voluntary confession of their own priests), by special and ex
press warrant of the see apostolic, sent hither into this land
his license dispensative to all patrons of his mark to set up
simony, and to mart and make sale of all spiritual livings
which they have or can get to the uttermost penny, even (if
it were possible) by the sound of the drum ; and that with
a very clear conscience (so that some portion thereof be sent
over to the relief of his seminaries, which by such honest
means as this come to be now maintained). Seeing thus do
the Papists, and we (loth to be behind them in this gain of
blood) make such merchandize with this sin, of the poor
Church and her patrimony, as all the world crieth shame of
it : to redeem the orderly disposing them to the Church's
good, were a special way for you rich men to do good in these
days. Neither as these times are do I know a better service,
nor which (I am persuaded) will please God better than this,
or be better accepted at his hands."
Towards the end he answers the sophism of the Ehemist
translators, who from the text would deduce that good works
are a foundation. This they insert in a note, without any
reason, and to insinuate an untruth, namely, that they are the
foundation of justification. tl The ground whereon every
building is raised, is termed fundamentum. The lowest part
of the building immediately lying on it is so termed too. In
the first sense, Christ is said to be the only foundation : yet
the apostles, because they are the lowest row of stones, are
said to be foundations in the second. So, among the graces
within us, faith is properly in the first sense said to be the
foundation; yet in the second do we not deny, but as the
apostle calleth them, as the lowest row next to faith, charity
and the works of charity may be called foundations too.
Albeit the margin might well have been spared at this place ;
for the note is here all out of place. For, being so great
schoolmen as they would seem, they must needs know it is
not the drift of the apostle here in calling them a foundation,
to carry our considerations into the matter of justifying, but
only to press his former reason of uncertainty there, by a con
trary weight of certain stability here : and so their note comes
in like Magnificat at matins." Afterwards he thus dis
tinguishes : " But if you shall have grace to make choice of
God's plot which he hath here levelled for you to raise upon,
0 quantum dignum pretiof that will be worth all the world
in that day: the perfect certainty, sound knowledge, and
precious assurance you shall then have, whereby you shall be
assured to be received, because you are sure you are Christ's,
because you are sure you have true faith, because you are sure
you have framed it up into good works. And so shall they
be a foundation to you-ward, by making evident the as
surance of salvation : not naturd to God-ward, in bringing
forth the essence of your salvation."1
On the 19th May, 1589, Lancelot Andrewes was admitted
to the prebendal stall of North Muskham, in the church of
Southwell, in the place of John Yonge, D.D., at this time
Bishop of Eochester. Yonge was B.A. of Pembroke Hall,
Cambridge, 1551, M.A. 1555, B.D. 1563, and D.D. 1569.
On May 3rd, 1564, he was made Prebendary of Cadington
Major, in St. Paul's, London, which stall he held until 1579.
From a fellowship he was chosen to be Master of his college
in the place of Whitgift, that year preferred to the mastership
of Trinity College, where he had been educated. On the
26th April, 1572, Yonge was promoted to the 10th stall in
Westminster Abbey, in the place of Edmund Freke, Bishop
of Kochester. This stall he was permitted to keep in com-
mendam with his bishopric of Eochester, to which he was
consecrated March 16th, 1578, on the translation of Dr. John
Pierse to Salisbury. He died at Bromley in Kent, the
ancient seat of the Bishops of Eochester, in his 72nd year,
on the 10th April, 1605, and was buried at Bromley. Dr.
Christopher Sutton, the pious author of Disce vivere^ &c.,
succeeded to his stall at Westminster.
North Muskham is about three miles north of Newark.
This stall was founded probably by Thomas II. Archbishop
of York from 1109 to 1114, and endowed with a part of the
great tithes of North Muskham, with the great tithes of
Caunton (between Newark and Worksop), and with certain
temporals in North Muskham and Caunton.2 Andrewes re
tained this stall until he was raised to the see of Ely, when it
was conferred upon his brother Dr. Eoger Andrewes, after
wards Master of Jesus College, Cambridge.
On the 29th May Andrewes was, on the death of Dr.
Thomas Sampson, the Puritan Dean of Christ Church (where
he was succeeded in 1565 by Thomas Godwyn), preferred by
Grindal, Bishop of London, at the suit of the same patron
who had obtained for him his stall at Southwell, Sir Francis
Walsinghame, to the prebendal stall of St. Pancras, in St.
Paul's, London, which he also held until his translation from
Chichester to Ely in 1609, when he was succeeded by his
friend and fellow-collegian the very pious and learned Dr.
Eoger Fenton, also one of the translators of the Bible with
himself and his brother, and afterwards preferred by himself
to the parsonage of Chigwell, in Essex. Fenton was regarded
in his college as only inferior to Andrewes himself.1
Andrewes acknowledged these favours in a letter to Sir
Francis Walsinghame, as follows :
"I do in humble manner crave pardon of your Honour, in that
I have not myself attended in the re-delivery of the enclosed, to
render to your Honour my bounden duty of thanks for the contents
thereof. Being, besides mine exercise tomorrow, on Monday morn
ing, at the feast of my father's company, to preach at Deptford,2
I promised myself from your Honour a favourable dispensation for
the forbearing of my presence till then, what time I shall wait on
your Honour, as well in regard of your Honour's great bounty to
me these years past, which, while I live, I am bound to acknow
ledge, as now for the instant procurement of these two prebends,
the one of them no sooner ended, than the other of them straight
begun. They are to me both sufficient witnesses of your Honour's
care for my well-doing, and mindfulness of me upon any occasion.
My prayer to God is, that I may not live unworthy of these so
honourable dealings, but that in some sort I may prove serviceable
to your Honour, and to your Honour's chief care, this Church of
ours. What your Honour hath, and farther shall vouchsafe to
promise in my name, in this or aught else, shall be, I trust, so satis
fied, as shall stand with your Honour's liking every way. So
recommending to your Honour the perfecting of your Honour's own
benefit, with my very humble duty I end.
"The Lord Jesus, of his great goodness, grant unto this realm
long to enjoy your Honour. Amen. May 24 [1589]. Your
Honour's in all humble duty and service, so most bound, "L. ANDREWES."
Sir John Harrington relates that Sir Francis Walsinghame
had previously laboured to bring Andrewes to maintain some
state points of Puritanism. "But," he adds, "he had too
much of the av&pos in him to be scared with a councillor's
frown, or blown aside with his breath, and answered him
plainly that they were not only against his learning but his
conscience."
He further mentions that Andrewes' stall at St. Paul's
was that of the Confessioner or Penitentiary ; and that while
Andrewes held this place, his manner was especially in Lent
to walk at stated times in one of the aisles of the cathedral,
that if any came to him for spiritual advice and comfort, as
some did, though not many, he might impart it to them.
On the 28th August died Dr. William Fulke, Master of
Pembroke Hall, and previously fellow of St. John's College,
Cambridge. His refutation of the notes appended to the
Rhemish Translation of the New Testament forms a storehouse
of patristic learning and of sound theology. He was buried
at Depden, near Bury, in Suffolk. Andrewes, who was about
this time chaplain to Archbishop Whitgift, was chosen to the
vacant headship. Strype, in his Life of Whitgift, relates that
Andrewes was, for his well-known adherence to ecclesiastical
conformity, denied his grace of D.D. in the first congregation
of Dr. Preston's admission of him. This Dr. Preston, then
Vicechancellor, was not the celebrated Puritan, but Thomas
Preston, LL.D., Master of Trinity Hall.2 On this occasion
he delivered the thesis 'Decimae non sunt abrogandse,' pub
lished in the collection of his posthumous works. On Sep
tember 6th he was admitted Master of Pembroke College, and
on taking his degree preached ad Clerum from Prov. xx. 25,
It is a snare to the man who devour eth that which is holy ; a
passage of holy scripture which is altogether disallowed by
multitudes as utterly inapplicable under the Christian dis
pensation. It was indeed in the time of Charles the First,
when almost the whole nation was given to extremes both in
religion and politics, a fashionable doctrine with all pseudo-
patriots that either sacrilege had ceased to be a sin, or that
there was nothing holy, no kind of property of which it could
be said that it belonged to God, and was inalienable.
The bidding prayer was doubtless Andrewes' own compo
sition, full of antithesis. tl May God," he prays, il preserve
to it [the Church militant] his truth so lately recovered from
the thickest clouds of error : may he restore it when it shall
seem good to him, its unity now well-nigh lost through the
dissensions of the Christian world."
He begins his sermon with observing that whereas the nine
first chapters are evidently connected, the remainder appear to
be a collection taken down from Solomon's mouth by others
without regard to the order of subject. He touches upon the
free-will offerings of the people in the days of David and Saul,
1 Chron. xxvi. 27, 28. This proverb, he notes, might have
been the reply of Solomon to some of his courtiers, who like
those in Haggai might think that the house of God needed
not a roof (i. 4), or who might ask with Judas, l to what is all
this waste f He remarks, as he might have justly done in
our times, " We daily enlist soldiers many, brave and good,
but provision for them we find not. We are ever saying
much of the diffusion of light, nothing of the supplying of the
oil." He then treats — 1. of sacred things, 2. of those who
devour them, 3. of their guilt and punishment. Under the
first he shews that sacred revenues both by way of oblation
and tax are included. The Church both under the old and
new covenant had the same liberty granted it of accepting
property. This is clear from the last chapter of Leviticus, and
from the liberty which the apostles recognized, of the first
Christians laying at their feet whatsoever offerings they
thought fit. Acts iv. 35. Then as to revenues by way of
impost, there is a sacred portion in every man's property. So
Abraham the father of the faithful, guided in this (we may
not doubt) by the Holy Ghost, and an example wheresoever
justly imitable, bound himself to the giving of tithe. The
Old Testament Church had a power of taxing itself, (see
Nehem. x. 32), and, by parity of reasoning, the Christian.
Thus in Acts xxiv. 17, we read not only of alms but of
offerings, the offerings being things devoted to religious not
to eleemosynary uses. He quotes St. Augustine : u God may
thus speak, Thou, 0 man, art thyself mine ; mine is the earth
thou tillest; mine the seeds thou sowest; mine the beasts
thou makest to labour ; mine the showers 5 mine this heat of
the sun ; all are mine ; thou who only puttest to thine hand,
deservedst only the tenth, but to thee my servant I give thee
nine parts ; give to me the tenth." He notices the unwilling
ness of the people to give as proceeding in no small degree
from the springing up of the abuse of impropriations. He
refers to the complaints of the Scotch Church preferred to
the Parliament in 1565.
In speaking of persons he blames the clergy themselves as
guilty, through their own negligence and sloth, of being ac
cessory to such sacrilegious alienations. The punishment of
sacrilege he instances in both profane and sacred history ; in
the former, from Cambyses, Brennus, and Crassus • in sacred
history, from the fate of Dathan, Achan, Belshazzar, Athaliah,
and Judas. He enlarges upon the sure destruction which
sacrilege entails upon the state, and upon its injurious conse
quences as discouraging learning in the Church.
His biographer Isaacson relates that when he became
master of his college, a he found it in debt, being of a very
small endowment, then especially, but by his faithful provi
dence he left above eleven hundred pounds in the treasury of
that college, towards the bettering of the estate thereof."
CHAPTER III.
Dr. Andrewes preaches before the Queen in Lent 1589-90 — His
Lectures on the Creation and Fall — Udal, the Puritan, 1591 —
Thesis on the Oath ex officio — Of the worshipping of imaginations,
1592 — Convocation Sermon, 1593 — Greenwood and Barrow — The
Dearth of 1594.
ON March 4, 1590, Ash- Wednesday, we find Andrewes,
being now one of the Queen's twelve chaplains, preaching
before the Queen at Whitehall, from Psalm Ixxviii. ver. 34,
When Tie slew them they sought him, and they returned, and
enquired early after God.
This sermon contains many striking illustrations of the
sin and folly of delay in the things of God, and of the
power of religion as it is seen in the fears of such as have
yet all their life boasted themselves in a fancied independence
of God. u They^ that a little before, grievously provoked the
most high Gody with speeches little better than blasphemy :
Can God do this ? Is there a God amongst us ? or is there
none? And so, instead of qucerebant Deum, qucerebant an
Deusj made a question whether there were any to seek:
that is, even the very wicked, and (of all wicked the worst)
the profane atheists, they sought even at last, they sought.
This is the triumph of religion: the riotous person, the
hypocrite, the atheist, all shall seek."
Andrewes again preached before the Queen at Greenwich
on the following Wednesday, March 11, from Psalm Ixxv.
ver. 3, The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved:
I bear up the pillars thereof; discoursing upon the two pillars
of a state, religion and justice, and illustrating his subject
from the history of Saul and David. He did not with some,
who yet feign reverence of his memory, set up prayer against
preaching, which he included in the sublime duty of praise,
as the proclaiming of God to his creatures; but with the
devout George Herbert would have prayer and preaching
go hand in hand. ft So that not only Moses and Paul by
calling on the name of God, but Elias and Jeremie by
teaching the will of God (not by prayer only, but by
preaching) are, the one an iron pillar, the other the chariot
and horsemen of Israel in his time."
He reads 2 Kings xi. ver. 12, with the Vulgate, making
the ceremony of the coronation there spoken of to be the II putting not only the diadem imperial, but the book of
the law also, upon the King's head," to remind them that
"that book should be as dear to them as their crown, and
they equally study to advance it."
Andrewes, on the 6th of April, lost his faithful friend
and patron, Sir Francis Walsinghame, who died at his house
in Seething-lane, Great Tower-street, about midnight and
was buried at St. Paul's the next evening, about ten, without
pomp or publicity.
On October 13, he preached his introductory lecture at
St. Paul's, upon undertaking to comment upon the four first
chapters of Genesis. These he continued to the 12th February, 1592, upon which day he delivered that upon Gen. iii. 13,
And the Lord God said unto the woman, What hast thou
done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and
did eat. The remaining lectures1 to the end of the fourth
chapter were preached in his parish church at St. Giles',
Cripplegate, where he resumed them on the 18th June, 1598,
and completed them on February 17, 1600. These were
published in 1657 with the following title, " Apospasmatia
sacra: or, a Collection of posthumous and orphan Lectures :
delivered at St. Paul's and St. Giles' his Church, by the Eight
Honourable and Reverend Father in God Lancelot Andrews,
Lord Bishop of Winchester. Never before extant." It may
be observed that our prelate himself did not write his name
Andrews as in this title page, but Andrewes. Some of these
lectures are from very sparing, others from very copious notes.
They abound in learning and in pious applications of the
history of which he treats. Here we have the same zeal
against sacrilege, the same honest denunciation of faction
and schism which we find in his convocation sermon, the
same delight in the works of God which made his solitary
walks his most pleasant recreation when a youth, the same
familiar knowledge of the Fathers, the same doctrine of the
grace of God, sanctifying all that came from his lips.
Treating of the divine rest spoken of in Genesis ii. 2, he
saith, We say then, that he rested not from preserving and
governing, though he did rest from making.
" Hermes, by the light of reason, could say that it were
very absurd to think that God should leave and neglect the
things he had made; and God imputeth it as a fault to
the ostrich, Job xxxix. ver. 18, 19, to leave her eggs without
care and regard in the sands; therefore God himself will
be free from that blame and blemish which he condemneth
in others. As we say of the Father, so we say of the Son,
which is the Word of God, Psalm xxxiii. ver. 9, He commanded
and they were made; there is creation : He said the word and
stood fast; which is the second work of preservation
and guiding. Also Psalm cxlviii. ver. 5, 6, He first made them
with his word, which is the first work of creation long since
ended, and he gave them a law which they should not break,
which is the other work of establishing and governing things
made. So Col. i. ver. 17, Paul speaking of Christ, saith,
By Him all things have their being, or existence ; and Heb.
i. ver. 3j By Him all things have their supportance, and are
held up.
"If God had his work six days before he rested in
creation, and if Adam had his work in the state of innocency,
then it is much more meet now, that man should go forth
to his labour until the evening, Psalm civ. ver. 23. They
which are not in the works of men. Psalm Ixxiii., but lie on
their beds imagining mischief, they shall not rest in the
Lord, because God made them for good works to walk in
them, Ephes ii. ver. 10.
"There are a number of superfluous creatures, as one
calleth the idle ones, of whom if we should demand, what
is thy calling or work? they cannot say, we are exercised
in the works of men; neither do they work in the will
of God. Therefore if they do anything, they busy themselves
in meddling about other men's matters.
"It is strange to see how busy we are in taking in hand
evil things, and how earnest we are in doing them, and how
constant in not giving them over, or ceasing from such
works. Judas can watch all night to work his treason; but
Peter and the rest could not watch one hour to pray with
Christ.
"Husbandmen in their works for earthly things are
earnest; they follow his counsel (Eccles. xi. 6) not to cease
sowing from the morning until the evening, but will make
an end. But in the works of God we cannot follow his
counsel, to do all that thou takest in hand with all thy power
and strength.
"The last use which we are to make of this is, that which
the Apostle gathereth out of the Hebrews (iv. 10). As
God did rest from his works, so let us from ours. We must
esteem our righteousness and best works as filthy rags,
yea as very dung, Phil. iii. 8, and say as Job did, 1 feared
my own works. Job ix. 28, Vulgate. Thus we must rest
from our own works because there is no safety or quietness
in them, but leave our own righteousness, that we may rest
in Christ and in the works he hath wrought for us."
These lectures Dr. Andrewes continued at St. Paul's
through the months of January, February, April, May, June,
July, August, October, and November, 1591.
On January the 8th in that year we find him not only
one of the witnesses, but appointed one of the executors
of Dean Nowell's will (most providently made by that
venerable man now ten years before his decease). As guard
ian of John Dean, in whose education No well had been at
great expense, Nowell was in the receipt of the interest
of £2,600, lent upon bonds to different companies of merchants in London, of which income, amounting to £135 per annum, it was Nowell's desire that no part should be applied to the emolument of his widow, but the whole laid out in
deeds of charity. Of £100, half to be sent to Oxford, half
to Cambridge. Of that sent to Cambridge, Dr. Andrewes,
master of Pembroke Hall, Dr. Neville, master of Trinity
College (tutor to George Herbert, and in 1597 dean of
Canterbury), Dr. Tyndale, president of Queens' College, and
this same year dean of Ely, and Dr. Chaderton, master
of Emmanuel College, were to dispose ; £4. being annually
reserved to Alexander Whitaker, scholar of Trinity College,
and £4. to his brother Samuel of Eton College, sons of Dr.
Whitaker, master of St. John's College, deceased.
Alexander Nowell was admitted scholar of Trinity College,
Cambridge, April 16, 16023 : he was admitted to the degree
of B.A. in 1604, and of M.A. in 1608. He was not elected
to a fellowship. The registers make no mention of his
brother Samuel.
Under January 21, 1591, the following register is entered
in the registry of St. Olave's, Hart-street : "Master Walter
Devereux, second son to the Earl of Essex, in my lady
Walsinghame's house; Sir Thomas Parrot [Perrot] and Sir
William Knollys, Knts., and my lady, the mother, were wit
nesses. Mr. Doctor [Andrewes] preached and baptized the
child."
Sir William Knoilys, or Knowles, was afterwards treasurer
of the household to King James, by whom he was created
Baron Knowles, May 3, 1603, Viscount Wallingford 1616,
and by Charles I., in the first year of his reign, Earl of
Banbury. His mansion was Greys Kotherfield, (whence
the name of his barony EotJierfield) to the west of Henley-
on-Thames; a house which in times past Walter Grey
the archbishop of York [1216—1256] gave freely unto
William Grey his nephew, the inheritance whereof by the
Baron of D'Eincourt was devolved upon the Lovels.
In the baptismal register of St. Olave's, Hart-street, is
the following, dated January 22, 1591 : " Kobert Devereux
Viscount Hereford," (afterward General of the Parliament)
"son and heir of Robert Earl of Essex, in my Lady Walsing
hame's house" (in Seething-lane4) mother to the countess;
Sir Francis Knollys and the Lord Rich, with the Countess
of Leicester," (daughter of Sir Francis Knollys, and widow
of Walter Earl of Essex as well as of Robert Earl of
Leicester, and grandmother to the infant,) witnesses. Dr.
Andrewes preached and baptized the child.
Sir Francis Knollys was a Knight of the Garter and
treasurer to the Queen's household. He had been an exile
in Germany in the reign of Queen Mary. He was descended
from Sir Robert Knollys who greatly signalized himself in
the wars with France under Edward III. Sir Robert also
assisted in the suppression of Wat Tyler's rebellion, and
was of a spirit as munificent as heroic. He contributed
to the building of Bochester-bridge, founded a college at
Pontefract, where Constance his lady was born, and was
a great benefactor to the White Friars in London, in whose
church he was buried in August 1407, being then at least
ninety years old.
The first lord Kich was Lord-Chancellor for five years in
the reign of Edward VI. He was well descended and allied
in Hampshire, and was much employed under Cromwell in
the suppression of abbies; umost of the grants of which
lands," says Fuller, "going through his hands, no wonder if
some stuck upon his fingers."
On St. Matthias-Day, February 24th, Andrewes preached
at Greenwich before the queen, from Psalm Ixxvii. 20, setting
before her the pattern of the divine government, the gentle
ness with which the great Shepherd of Israel led his flock.
He treated very tenderly, and in the true pastoral spirit, of the
value of the flock committed to her royal charge, all alike by
nature given to disobedience, but God's flock and people, and
the lowest and meanest of them dear to Christ. He quoted
those impressive words of St. Augustine upon Inasmuch as
ye did it to the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me;
u Thou nearest the least, and thou despisest them ; hear also
these words, my brethren, and, believe me, the saving of the
least of these is no small glory." He reminded the queen
that the office of princes is to lead their people to God, and
urged the necessity of a public ministry as well of religion as
of civil justice ; the hand as well of Aaron as of Moses.
In May Dr. Andrewes was, together with Nowell, appointed by archbishop Whitgift to confer with Udal, then in prison.
Udal had been convicted under a very large interpretation
of the 23 Eliz. cap. 2, which was enacted for the punishment
of seditious words against the queen. His offence was a passionate invective against the bishops in a work entitled The
Demonstration of Discipline which Christ hath prescribed in
his Word, for the government of his Church in all times and
places until the world's end. The preface gave especial
provocation, and a virulent specimen of it was inserted in the
indictment. " Who can deny you without blushing (he
writes to the bishops) to be the cause of all ungodliness,
seeing your government is that which giveth leave to a man
to be anything saving a sound Christian?" and more in a still
severer strain. Udal was treated with much injustice, and
after a somewhat turbulent trial and much overbearing, was
convicted on July 23, 1590; but his learning and reputation
were such that Whitgift is said to have interceded for him
and to have delayed judgment. He was however, in March
1591, brought to the bar at South wark and condemned to die
as a felon. Whitgift is said to have procured his reprieve.
In prison he wrote a Hebrew grammar, and was visited by
several of his friends. Andrewes conferred with him upon all
the points then in controversy between the Church of England and the maintainers of the new discipline, but without
success. He appears however to have respected both An
drewes and Nowell, and to have been regarded by them with
unfeigned sympathy if not esteem. Great efforts were made
in his behalf, and his friendly visitants themselves promised
him their kind offices, but he was disappointed of all his
hopes, and at last died broken-hearted in prison. Great
numbers attended his funeral at St. George's, Southwark.
Andrewes is said to have been a member of a Society
of Antiquaries, to which belonged Sir Walter Kaleigh, Sir
Philip Sidney, Lord Burleigh, Henry Earl of Arundel, the
two Herberts, Earls of Pembroke, Sir Henry Saville, John
Stowe, and William Camden. It began in the earlier
part of the reign of queen Elizabeth, and its great object
was the preservation of MSS. dispersed by the suppression
and dissolution of monasteries. They met first at the house
of Sir Robert Cotton, under the patronage of archbishop
Parker. So Dr. Moore, p. 2, The Gentlemans Society at
Spalding. (Pickering, 1851.)
In July 1591, Dr. Andrewes read in the Divinity School
at Cambridge his Theological Determination upon the law
fulness of the oath ex officio on the ground of Scripture.
He maintained the affirmative as implied in the very authority
of the magistrate, which was over the soul as well as the
body, Rom. xiii. 1. If it was lawful in Abraham to make
his servant take an oath, in the case of Jacob and Joseph,
and of Jacob and Esau; much more in causes of a weightier
kind, and by the authority of greater persons. This power
he urged was involved in Exodus xxii. 8, If the thief be
not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto
the judges to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. He alleged also Numbers v. 19, Levit. vi. 3,
and 1 Kings viii. 31. In cases involving the life or death
of the party he makes an exception, instancing the case
of Jeremiah (xxxviii. 14). But where the public weal is
concerned, whether in church or state, recourse may be had
to extraordinary modes of discovering guilt. Thus Joshua
proceeded by lot, and so Achan was taken and punished.
(Josh. vii. 16.) Amongst other reasons and illustrations
he adduced Levit. v. 1, and Ezra x. 11. Micaiah answered
when thus put upon his oath (1 Kings xxii.), and our Lord
himself (Matth. xxvi. 63).
Of the limits of an oath or of that which determines its
equity, he remarks, that Scripture lays down a threefold rule,
(1) " in truth, in righteousness, in judgment" (Jer. iv. 2), that
is, "I will speak nothing but the truth in the name of
the Lord; (2) concerning those things which fall within my
knowledge (things possible) and according to the requirements of the law itself; (3) not hastily, but with deliberation.
In January and February 1592, Dr. Andrewes proceeded
with his lectures on the third chapter of Genesis at St. Paul's,
but does not appear to have resumed them until June 18, 1598,
and then at his church of St. Giles', Cripplegate. On
January 9, 1592, he preached there his sermon entitled
Of the worshipping of imaginations, from Acts ii. 42, as
one of a series upon the Commandments. Here he refutes
the pleas of the Puritans pretending in everything to follow
the Apostolic model, and yet no man thinks himself bound
(says Andrewes) to abstain from eating things strangled and
blood. And so of their love-feasts and their celebrating
their sacrament after supper. He here defends the reading
of the Apocrypha from St. Jude's quoting the apocryphal
book of Enoch. He declares for the Apostolic origin of
episcopacy, and disputes against that of lay-elders, citing
St. Chrysostom, that in his time only the wiser of the
presbyters were suffered to preach, the simpler sort to baptize. The distinction between elders and doctors he shews
to have had no existence at least in the minds of the antient
commentators Chrysostom, Jerome and Augustine. He
shews how the Popish mass is an imagination, since, contrary
to the text (as the Syriac translates it), in their sacrament
there is no breaking of bread, inasmuch as after consecration
there is, according to them, no bread to break, and the body
of Christ is now impassible. He calls the Eucharist a sacrifice,
as it is the renewing of covenant with God in virtue of Christ's
sacrifice. The partaking of the bread he calls the partaking
of Christ's true body. Lastly he animadverts upon the
long and extemporaneous prayers of the Puritans, with their
tautology and incoherence. This and another are the only
two of his many parochial sermons which Laud and Buckeridge seem to have thought worthy of preservation.
In the course of this year, 1592, Andrewes' Seven Sermons
on the Temptation were first printed, with the following
title: tl The Wonderful Combat (for God's glory and man's
salvation) between Christ and Satan opened, in seven most
excellent, learned, and zealous Sermons upon the Temptations
of Christ in the Wilderness. Seen and allowed. London:
printed by John Charlwood for Richard Smith: and are
to be sold at his shop at the west door of St. Paul's, 1592.
This edition was called in as soon as printed, as appears
from a notice of it in p. 1324 in Herbert's Ames. They were
reprinted in 4to. in 1627 for J. Jaggard and Michael Sparke;
the latter reprinted them, with Robert Milbourne, Richard
Cotes and Andrew Crooke, in his edition of Andrewes' Lectures
on the Decalogue.
The other parochial discourse is from Jer. iv, 2, on the
third commandment, and was preached at St. Giles', Cripple-
gate, on June llth. He interprets our Lord as designing
to free the divine law in his Sermon on the Mount from
the false glosses of the Pharisees, not as giving a new law.
He observes that an oath may be lawfully made without
including an express mention of the name of God. "Howbeit
yet the Fathers (well weighing that speech of St. Paul's,
1 Cor. xv. 31, where he speaketh on this wise, By our rejoicing
which we have in Christ Jesus our Lord, &c., wherein his
oath is not immediately by the Name of God, but by a
secondary thing issuing from it,) have thought it not abso
lutely necessary that in every oath the Name of God should
be mentioned, but sufficient if reductive. It is ruled in
divinity, that such things as presently are reduced to God,
will bear an oath." This he instances in swearing by the
Holy Gospel
The first edition of Andrewes' Sermons on the Temptation -
has an epistle dedicatory to Sir John Puckering, Knt, Lord-
Keeper of the Great Seal of England.
This volume contains the bidding prayers used by Andrewes before his parochial sermons.
"Two most excellent Prayers which the preacher commonly
used before his exercises.
"That the name of God may be glorified by this our
assembly, and his holy Word blessed to the end he hath
ordained it: let us in all humbleness present ourselves before
the mercy-seat of God the Father, in the name and mediation
of Christ Jesus his dear Son, through the sanctifying of
his Holy Spirit, with our unfeigned humble acknowledgment both of our own unworthiness to receive any of his
graces, and unableness when we have received them to make
right use of them. And both these by reason of our manifold
sundry sins and offences, amongst the rest, of this one (as
a chief one) that we divers times have been hearers of his
divine and precious Word, without care or conscience to
become the better thereby: let us beseech him, in the
obedience of the life and sacrifice of the death of Christ Jesus
his dear Son, to receive both us and this our humble confession; to pardon both this and the rest of our sins, and
to turn from us the punishments deservedly due unto them
all; especially that punishment which most usually he doth
exercise at such meetings as this, which is, the receiving
of his Word into a dead and dull heart, and so departing
with no more delight to hear nor desire to practise than
we came with; that so, through the gracious assistance of
his good Spirit, inward, adjoined to the outward ministry
of his Word at this present, the things which shall be spoken
and heard may redound to some glory of his everlasting-
blessed name, and to some Christian instruction and comfort
of our own souls, through Jesus Christ our only Lord and
Saviour."
This prayer ended he proceedeth again in this manner:
a And as the Church of Christ, wheresoever it is at this
present assembled and met together, is mindful of us that
be here, so it is our parts and duties in our prayers to
remember it, recommending unto the majesty of Almighty
God the prosperous and flourishing estate thereof: beseeching
God the Father, for Christ Jesus his Son's sake, to be merciful
to all his servants, even his whole militant church, scattered
far and wide over the face of the whole earth : both preserving
it in those truths that it hath recovered from the sundry gross
and superstitious errors of the form erage, and restoring it
also unto that unity (in his good time) which it hath almost
lost and daily loseth through the unchristian and unhappy
contentions of these days of ours.
11 And in this Church let us be mindful of that part thereof
which most especially needeth our remembrance, that is,
the poor afflicted members of Christ Jesus, in what place,
for what cause, or with what cross soever: that it would
please God to minister into our hearts the same spirit of
compassion and fervency, now in the time of their need,
that we would wish should be ministered into theirs in
the time of our need, for them to become suitors for us.
And let us wish them all from the Lord (in his good time)
the same joyful deliverance, and till his good time be, the
same measure of patience that we would wish unto our own
souls, or would have them entreat and pray for at his hands
for us, if ever our case shall be as theirs is at this present.
" And forasmuch as those churches or members of churches
which enjoy the outward benefits of the Lord, as of health,
plenty, peace and quietness, do many times as much and (for
the most part) much more need the prayers of Christ his
faithful congregation, than those that are under his hand in
the house of affliction, let us beseech him for them also, that
he will give unto each and every of them a thankful receiving
of those his benefits, a sober using of them, and a Christian
employing of them, to his glory that hath sent them.
u And in these our prayers let us be mindful also of the
Church and country wherein we live, yielding first and fore
most evermore, our unfeigned and hearty thanksgivings for
all his mercies and gracious favours vouchsafed this land of
ours : and namely, for our last no less gracious than marvellous
deliverance from our enemies, and for all those good signs and
tokens of his loving favor which ever since and daily he
sheweth towards us.
tl And together withal let us beseech him, that whilst these
days of our peace do last, he will open our eyes to see and in
cline our hearts to seek after those things which may make
for the continuance and establishing of this peace long
amongst us.
"And (as by especial duty we all stand bound) let us
commend unto his Majesty his chosen servant Elizabeth our
Sovereign by his grace, of England, France, and Ireland
Queen, Defendress of the Faith, and over all estates and per
sons within these her dominions (next and immediately under
God) supreme Governess : let us beseech God (daily more and
more) to persuade her Highness' heart that the advancement
and flourishing of this kingdom of hers consisteth in the ad
vancement and flourishing of the kingdom of his Son Christ
within it; that it may be therefore her Majesty's special care and
study, that both her Highness in that great place wherein God
hath set her, and every one of us in the several degrees wherein
we stand, may be as careful to testify unto the whole world
a special care and endeavour that we have for the propaga
tion of the gospel of his Son, as Christ Jesus hath shewn
himself by many arguments both of old and of late (and
that of weight) that he hath carried and still carrieth a special
care of the preservation and welfare of us all.
" Let us commend also unto God the several estates of
the land, for the right honourable of the Nobility and of
her Highness' Privy Council, that they may be careful (from
the Spirit of the Lord) to derive all their counsels ; that
so God which sendeth the counsel may send it good and
happy success also, and may confound and cast out the
counsels of the enemy.
lt For the estate of the clergy, the right reverend Fathers
in God, in whose hand the government of the Church is,
and all other inferior ministers, that he will give unto
each and every of them sufficient graces for the discharge
of their functions, and together (with the graces) both a faith
ful and a fruitful employing of them.
" For the estate of magistracy, and namely for the gover
nors of this honourable city, that they together with the
rest, according to the trust that is reposed in them, may
be no less careful speedily without delay, than incorruptly
without partiality, to administer justice to the people of God.
u For the estate of the commons, that they all, in a Christian
obedience towards each and every of their superiors, and in
a godly love, with the fruits and duties thereof one towards
another, may walk worthy of that glorious calling whereunto
they are called: and that the blessings of the Lord may
not only be with us for our times, but successively also
be delivered to our posterity, let us beseech God that he
will visit with the Spirit of his grace the two Universities,
Cambridge and Oxford, all schools of learning and places
of education of youth; that they being watered with the
dew of his blessing, may yield forth such plants as may
both serve for a present supply of the Church's need, and
also in such sort furnish the generations that are to come
that our posterity also may be counted unto the Lord for
a holy seed and a Christian generation as we ourselves are.
li And thus recommending ourselves unto the prayers of
Christ his Church, as we have commended Christ his whole
Church by our prayers unto the majesty of Almighty God,
reposing our trust and confidence neither in our own prayers
nor in the Church's prayers, but in the alone mediation of
Christ Jesus our advocate, let us unto him as unto our
sole intercessor offer up these our supplications, that he
may present them to God his Father for the effectual obtaining of these and whatsoever graces else he knoweth needful for his whole Church and for us, calling upon him as himself in his Gospel hath taught us, Our Father, &c."
Isaacson informs us that Andrewes read the lecture at
St. Paul's three times a- week in term time. " And indeed,"
he adds, " what by his often preaching at St. Giles', and
his no less often reading in St. Paul's, he became so infirm
that his friends despaired of his life."
Of his charities in his parish of S. Giles', Cripplegate,
Buckeridge says, in his funeral sermon, "The first place he
lived on was S. Giles', there I speak my knowledge; I do not
say he began — sure I am he continued his charity: his
certain alms there was ten pound per annum, which was
paid quarterly by equal portions, and twelve pence every
Sunday he came to church, and Jive shillings at every
Communion.'' As prebendary of St. Pancras he built the
prebendal house in Creed-lane, and recovered it to the
church.
On February 20, 1593, Dr. Andrewes preached the Convocation sermon at St. Paul's, from Acts xx. 28. He refers to the notice of this passage in the 14th chapter of the 3rd book of Irenseus against Heresies, as shewing that he
held the distinction of the episcopate and of the presbytery.
Towards the beginning of his discourse he reprobates the
great abuse of preaching by the idle and unlearned in those
times ; he also admonishes his audience of the need they
have to look well to their flocks, and remarks that the narrow
scrutiny of their lives and manners so common amongst
the laity is the effect of their remissness in their pastoral
charge. Nobly does he urge the consideration that (l this
congregation which we call the Church and which so many
amongst us so lukewarmly and slothfully tend, are, if we
believe Peter, partakers of the divine nature, (2 Pet. i. 4);
if John, citizens of heaven ; if Paul, the future judges of
the angels," 1 Cor. vi. 3. Towards the end of this discourse
he animadverts upon the boldness of some who at that time
ventured to impugn the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Next
he speaks, and that in the very strongest terms, of the Romish
emissaries, and of the unaltered spirit of Rome still thirsting
for blood. After this he notices the factious spirit of the
Puritans, more ready to give laws to the Church than to
receive them. He speaks of some who made light of the
Sacraments and treated them as superfluous, proscribed the
Apostles' Creed, would not use the Lord's prayer, and sought
to introduce a state little better than anarchy itself. He
predicts that if these evils are not restrained our Sion will
soon be turned into Babel.
He next faithfully reproves the evil custom of admitting
unfit persons to the ministry, men whose lives are a scandal
to the Church, and the cause, as he admits, of loud complaint,
and that not without foundation. Nor does he spare the
bishops themselves, but alludes very openly to the iniquitous
and impious practice of that age, of bishops, on their advancement to their sees, impoverishing their bishoprics by in equitable exchanges of estates for great tithes,1 &c. Indeed, queen Elizabeth first strove to deteriorate by this kind of
temptation the whole prelacy, and then punished the natural
effect of her own misconduct, the popular contempt that was
cast upon her prelates, and that tended more perhaps than
any other cause to strengthen the Puritans. This very year
Dr. Marmaduke Middleton, Bishop of St. David's, was suspended by the High Commission Court.
Of the Convocation, Collier relates that, "excepting the
grant of two subsidies little or nothing was done. On the
11th of April, the day after the dissolution of Parliament, the
Convocation was dissolved by the queen's writ."
On March 21, Dr. Andrewes, with Dr. Parry, afterwards
Bishop of Worcester, Dr. Philip Bisse, Archdeacon of Taunton, and Dr. Thomas White, Prebendary of Mora and Canon
Kesidentiary of St. Paul's, was sent to Mr. Henry Barrow
to exhort him to recant his errors. This conference took no
effect, and so on April 6th, Barrow and John Greenwood, the
one a layman the other in holy orders, were executed at
Tyburn. These men, from the enumeration of their delinquencies as recorded by their judges, deserved rather to be sent to Bedlam than to Tyburn. They held that "the Church of England was no true church, and that the worship in this
communion was downright idolatry; that praying by a form
was blasphemous, and that all those who make or expound
any printed or written catechisms, are idle shepherds." Their
more venial offences were the maintaining that every parish
should choose its own pastor, that every lay elder is a bishop,
with other points of 'schismatical and seditious doctrine,' as
their indictment ran.
On Friday,5 March 30th, Dr. Andrewes preached before the queen at St. James's, from St. Mark xiv. 4, 6. Andrewes
here uncritically follows the conjecture of St. Augustine that
this Mary was Mary Magdalene, and the penitent woman
mentioned in the 7th chapter of St. Luke's Gospel. He re
flects in this sermon upon the prodigality of that age in
sumptuous feasting, in princely apparel, in burdensome reti
nues, in magnificent houses. Alluding to the complaint of
Judas, To what end is this waste? he says, "The case is
like, when they that have wasted many pounds, complain of
that penny waste which is done on Christ's body the Church.
Or when they that in their whole dealings (all the world sees)
are unreformed, seriously consult how to reform the Church."
Again he observes, "The kindliest way to have Judas' complaint redressed, is to speak and labour that Mary Magdalene's example may be followed."
The following year was a time of dearth, as we find from
li The renewing of certain Orders devised by the, special commandments of the Queers Majestic for the relief and stay of the present dearth of grain within the Realm in the year of our Lord 1586, now to be again executed this year 1594, dfcc., published by Christopher Barker. It was probably for a collection on account of this dearth that Andrewes preached in the Court at Richmond, from the parable of Dives and Lazarus, on Tuesday, March 5, 1594.2 This is indeed one
of the most profitable of his discourses, and contains many
topics and illustrations worthy of special observation.
On the following day he preached before the queen at
Hampton Court on Remember Lot's wife. He spoke much
of the frequency of such relapses, and very ably treated of
the peculiar nature and heinousness of her sin and greatness
of her punishment. He concluded with a high commendation
of the perseverance of the queen as one who had from the
beginning of her reign to this time been faithful to the true
religion; one who (like Zorobabel) first by princely magnanimity laid the corner-stone in a troublesome time; and since, by heroical constancy, through many both alluring proffers and threatening dangers, hath brought forth the
headstone also, with the prophet's acclamation 'Grace, grace
unto it.' "
In November the queen, to satisfy the complaints of her
parliament, issued a commission to examine into the state
of the ecclesiastical courts. For the diocese of London, Dr.
Richard Fletcher, bishop of Worcester, Dr. Andrewes, and
Dr. Stanhope, a civilian, were appointed commissioners.
CHAPTER IV.
The Lambeth Articles, 1595.— Dr Andrews' Review of them.— He
adopts the Augustinian doctrine as modified by Aquinas.
THE late eminently learned and candid bishop of Lincoln,
Dr. Kaye, has observed of St. Augustine, that the high
estimation in which his authority was held may be traced
equally in the writings of the Reformers and in the discussions
of the theologians at the Council of Trent. Of the state
of our nature after the fall, he observes, that the framers
of our Articles not only adopted the opinions, but in the
concluding paragraph (of the 10th Article) have used the
very language of Augustine.
Neither is there any adequate proof that any of the Reformers departed from the doctrine of St. Augustine, or differed from one another upon the peculiar and essential tenets of that father, whose theology entered even into all the forms
of devotion that had been used in our own country and over Western Christendom from the fifth century. It may be seen from the Formula Concordise itself, which was promulgated and subscribed in 1579, that the original doctrines
of Luther were at that time recognized as the unaltered faith
of the Lutheran Communion. Melancthon himself in 1551
subscribed to the doctrine of St. Augustine on Original Sin,
which doctrine was affirmed in the Saxon Confession, a Confession drawn up by Melancthon himself. He had previously maintained the same in his Apology of the Confession of Augsburg. Yet Weismann and others have claimed Me-
lancthon as a dissentient from St. Augustine even in the lifetime of Luther.
The opinions of Cranmer as early as 1537 are easily
discernible in the Institution of a Christian Man, and in
his annotations upon the king's proposed corrections of that
book, in which it is obvious that the king with Gardiner
dissented from St. Augustine. Indications are not wanting
in the history of the English Reformation that the same
diversity of bias marked the two great parties of that age,
the friends of the Reformation herein adhering to the antient,
of the Papacy to the modern church of Rome, even when
abroad this mark of severance was not so observable.
The year before Cranmer with Ridley drew up the forty-
two Articles, since reduced to thirty-nine, and which were
placed in the hands of Knox, Grind al, and others previously
to publication, he thus expressed himself in his Answer
to Dr. Smith:
"And yet I know this to be true, that Christ is present
with his holy church, which is his holy elected people , and
shall be with them to the world's end, leading and governing
them with his Holy Spirit, and teaching them all truth
necessary for their salvation. And whensoever any such be
gathered together in his name, there is he among them,
and he shall not suffer the gates of hell to prevail against
them. Nor although he may suffer them by their own
frailty for a time to err, fall, and to die ; yet finally, neither
Satan, hell, sin, nor eternal death shall prevail against them.
But this holy church is so unknown to the world, that no
man can discern it but God alone, who only searcheth
the hearts of all men, and knoweth his true children from
other that be bastards. This church is the pillar of truth
because it resteth upon God's Word."
In the following year appeared the Articles. There can
be no doubt respecting the mind of their framers as regards
their interpretation of them. Enough has been adduced to
justify the assertion of the late Bishop of Lincoln, that a if
they can be said to have followed the guidance of any uninspired teacher, that teacher was Augustine, who for more than ten centuries had exercised through his writings an unbounded influence over the Western Church." That influence continued to prevail in both our universities to the time of Andrewes, and after his decease. It is alike visible in the works of Whitaker, and in Andrewes' Judgment of the Lambeth Articles. But Andrewes pleaded for the modification of the Augustinian doctrine which had been introduced by Aquinas, maintaining at the same time that it introduced no essential variation, and did not affect the cause but the order which the Almighty observes in the act of predestining.
The first indication of a departure from the received doctrine
was on the part of Dr. Baro, the Lady Margaret's Divinity
professor at Cambridge. He was a learned Frenchman,
Peter Baro Stempanus, a licentiate of Civil Law in the
university of Bourges, admitted to his professorship in 1575,
having the great lord Burleigh for his patron; D.D. of
the university of Cambridge 1576. He gave offence to
the university by some antipredestinarian opinions delivered
in his lectures upon Jonah. And upon this occasion Dr.
Whitaker drew up the Lambeth Articles in November 1595.
That same year, on the 5th May, William Barrett, a fellow
of Caius College, was cited to appear before the Heads of
Houses for an Act sermon for his degree of B.D. preached
on the 29th April. He had maintained that no man could
be assured in this life of his own salvation but by revelation,
that the faith of all men could fail, that therefore the assurance
of final perseverance was both proud and wicked; that there
was no distinction in faith (such as between a true and living
and a dead faith), but in the persons believing ; that no man
could or ought to believe that his sins were forgiven; that
sin is the first cause of reprobation; that Calvin lifted up
himself above Grod; adding contumelious language against
Peter Martyr, Beza, Zanchius, Junius and others, and calling
them Calvinists. He was compelled to read a retractation,
but evinced symptoms of unwillingness immediately after so
doing departed the university, joined the Church of Rome,
and returned to England, where, adds Fuller, in his History
of the University of Cambridge, he led a layman's life until
the day of his death.
To settle these contentions Dr. Whitaker drew up nine
Articles, and these were laid before Whitgift the primate,
to whom the university deputed Whitaker and Dr. Humphrey
Tyndall, president of Queens' College and dean of Ely, to
represent the state of the controversy. Whitaker was admitted in his own age to be inferior in learning and acumen to none of his contemporaries. Bellarmine himself so respected his learning that he placed his portrait in his study.
He was born in 1547, the first year of Edward VI., at
the manor of Holme in the parish of Burnley. Holme is
situated between Burnley and Todmorden, and to the east
of Blackburn. Having been first educated probably at
Burnley, he was sent for to London by his maternal uncle,
that accomplished scholar and theologian, Alexander Nowell,
the composer of the smaller and also of the greater Catechism
of the Church of England, recently edited both by the present
able Regius Divinity professor at Oxford, Dr. Jacobson,
and by the Parker Society. Dean Nowell placed his nephew
at St. Paul's School. Thence he was sent to Trinity College,
Cambridge, and was elected to a fellowship in that noble
foundation. He translated his uncle's larger catechism into
Greek. He now applied himself to the study of theology,
and his voluminous works bear ample testimony to the depth
of his patristic and general erudition. He was accordingly
appointed at the early age of thirty-three to succeed Dr.
William Chaderton, bishop of Chester and afterwards of
Lincoln, as Regius professor of Divinity in his university.
When the mastership of St. John's College, Cambridge,
became vacant by the promotion of Dr. John Howland to
the see of Peterborough, who was consecrated at Lambeth
February 7th, 1585, Whitaker was, by special mandate from
the queen, admitted to the mastership on the 25th February,
1586, Rowland being permitted to retain the mastership
a year after his consecration.
Whitgift wrote to Dr. Matthew Hutton, Archbishop of
York, and formerly a fellow of Trinity (Whitgift's) College.
Hutton hereupon drew up a Latin summary of Predestination,
taken especially from St. Augustine. On November 10th,
Dr. Fletcher, Bishop of Worcester, and now Bishop elect of
London, Dr. Eichard Vaughan, Bishop elect of Bangor, trans
lated two years after to Chester, and thence, on Bancroft's
promotion to the primacy, to London, and some other divines
met Whitaker, Tyndall, and Whitgift at Lambeth, and the
bishops agreed upon the Articles after some few alterations.
It was designed to enforce subscription to them, but the queen
resented it as a violation of her prerogative.
In 1651 a brief history of these Articles was published,
and annexed to them two minor treatises purporting to be the
judgment of Andrewes upon them and his censure of the
censure of Barrett. Dr. Andrewes had been for some years
chaplain to Whitgift, and was doubtless already known as
one of the most learned theologians of the age.
In his review of the nine articles he first remarks, "The
four first articles are concerning predestination and reprobation,
of which it is said by the Apostle, 0 the depth, and by the
Prophet, a great deep. (Rom. xi. 33, Psalm xxxvi. 6.)" Here
we may observe that Andrewes follows St. Augustine, who
in like manner refers that wonderful conclusion of the 11th
chapter of the epistle to the Romans to these mysteries.
Then Dr. Andrewes acknowledges that he has followed
the counsel of St. Augustine, and abstained from the time
of his ordination (sixteen years) from disputing and from
preaching upon these points. And considering the great
danger of abuse, and that but few of the clergy can skillfully
handle these subjects, and that very few are competent to
hear of them with profit, he would advise that silence should
be enjoined on both sides.
The first article affirmed that God from all eternity had
predestinated some to life, and had reprobated others. Upon
this he notes : "That there are in the mind of God, in that
his eternal (whether one may call it foreknowledge or) know
ledge by which he sees those things which are not as though
they were, some who are predestinate, others who are reprobate, I think is beyond all doubt. They are the words of Scripture, before the foundation of the world, that is, that God chose us from eternity, and, when he had chosen, predestinated us, Ephes. i. 4, 5 ; and that he chose us out of the
world, John xv. 19; wherefore, he chose not all that are
in the world, but some. Otherwise there would be no election."
Here we may observe that whereas in the antipredestinarian sense all are predestinate alike, though to different ends, Andrewes uses the term of the elect alone. Secondly, in John xv. 9, he supposes that Judas was excluded, which
is certain indeed, for the words were not spoken until after
he had left the Apostles. Thirdly, he applies this place
to predestination unto life, in which again he follows St.
Augustine, but not so those who here leave that father and
accuse him of being tainted with Manichasism.
Then Andrewes proceeds to justify from Scripture the
use of the term reprobate, but advises that it should be
expressed that these are predestinated through Christ, those
reprobate on account of sin. And here there has arisen
a strife of words, it having been sometimes objected to
Calvin and to Augustine that they deny that sin is the
cause of reprobation, and resolve all into the mere pleasure
or decree of God. The truth is that if there were no sin
there could be no rejection; and again it is equally true
that if God had determined to include all in the number of the elect, there had been no rejection. Both Calvin and Augustine therefore teach that men are reprobated as sinners, and that reprobation follows naturally upon a decree of election. And so Dr. Andrewes adds, "But those whom he chose not and by choosing approved (as the nature of election carries with it) he reprobated. And scripture uses the words rejecting (Rom. xi. 2), reprobating (Heb. xii. 15)."
The second article is: "The moving or efficient cause
of predestination unto life, is not foresight of faith, or of
perseverance, or of good works, or of anything that is in
the person predestinated, but only the good-will and pleasure
of God."
Dr. Andrewes advised the addition "of God in Christ";
for that first God had respect to his beloved Son, "but
not to us first (as some think) and to him last, and that
for our sakes. For we could not be predestinated to the
adoption of sons but in his natural son, nor could we be
predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, unless
first the Son be ordained to whose image we are to be conformed. Wherefore I would also add to this article l the good- will of God in Christ.' ''
Next he expresses his disapproval of the separation of
the divine prescience from the divine predestination. This
indeed sounds to modern ears antipredestinarian; but let
the explanation be received, and the proposition that the
will of God includes bold foreknowledge and fore-ordination
will be seen to be at once perfectly compatible with the
belief of predestination.
"Next it may be enquired in the second place, whether
this sole will of God's good pleasure includes or excludes
his foreknowledge. I at least think that these two, namely
foreknowledge and fore-ordination, are by no means to be
severed, but to be joined (as do the Apostles). Neither do
I here dare presumptuously to advance my own opinion,
or to condemn the Fathers, who for the most part affirm
that we are elected and predestinated according to foreknowledge of faith, as Beza himself confesses on 11 Horn. 2 ed., f Here the Fathers are by no means to be heard who refer this to foresight.'' But in this (as it always appeared to me) they speak rather of the series and order which God observes
in the act of predestinating, than of the cause of predestination. But the chain some are wont to form in this way, others in that, as seems best to them. The Fathers seem to me to have been of this opinion, that there could be no
election if it were not thus connected : first that God loves
Christ, then us in Christ which the Apostle saith, that
he accepts us in the beloved (Ephes. i. 6); secondly, that
he confers on us so accepted grace and faith thirdly, that he
elects us thus endowed and thus differenced (discretes) from
the rest* fourthly, that he predestinates us who are elect."
Certainly the nature of election requires this, as it
cannot be nor can be conceived, where there is no difference
whatsoever between him who is chosen and him who is rejected. So Gecumenius, after the opinion of the Greeks, p. 323: When he saith) according to election, he shews that he distinguished between them, for no person chooses one from
another unless there is some difference in him. So Augustine
to Simplician, 1, 2: But election does not precede justification
(foreseen) but justification election. For no one is chosen
unless already differing from him who is rejected whence
I cannot see how God can be said to have chosen us before
the foundation of the world but by foreknowledge.
"Nor otherwise the schoolmen: Thorn. 1st, Q. 23, Act 4.
'Predestination presupposes election, and election love? That
is, first he made them to be chosen, then he chose them;
he loved them that he might endow them; he chose the gifts
that he conferred. And this seems to me to be the opinion
of the most reverend archbishop of York [Mr. Button], For
thus he: * What did God love from eternity in Jacob when
as yet he had done no good thing? certainly that which
was his own, that which he purposed to give him.
Certainly the Apostle himself does not doubt to join
in this article the purpose and the grace given, and that
from all eternity, since the grace given could only exist
in the divine foreknowledge: that is together with the eternal
purpose of God, he foresaw before all time the grace itself
also which he would give.
Nor does any inconvenience result hence (as I can see)
if God, that he may crown his own gifts in us, thus chooses
his own gifts in us, to wit the things which he gave first
by loving us, that afterward he might choose them thus
given. And so both love, which is the act of grace by which
God makes a difference, and election, which is the act of
judgment by which he chooses those who are thus distinguished, are preserved. And thus election will remain.
"For the chain of the moderns plainly takes away all
election, by which chain God is made to appoint these
to salvation and those to eternal perdition by the first act
and that absolute, together and at once, neither considered
as existing together in any similar condition [nee in ulla
massa] nor in any way distinguished one from another by
his own gifts: after which destination, what place there
is for election I cannot understand, or how this destination
itself can be called election.
"But this whole question, as I said, is rather of the
order in which God proceeds, in our conception of things
who know but in part, than of the cause as respects the
act itself, which is in God one and that perfectly simple;
or if of the cause, it ought not to be understood of the cause
of the first act, but of the cause as respects the integral effect
in predestinating (as it is called).
It is enquired also whether the integral act (in our
conception) is made up of several acts, or whether the first
is the sole act? and if they are many and diverse, what
is the order, what the chain of acts?
"Predestination, which cannot be without foreknowledge,
is not but of good works. (Aug. de Proudest. Sanctorum, c. 10.)
They are elect before the foundation of the world by that
predestination in which God foresaw his own future acts.
(c. 17, § 34.)"
Here we must remark that the first quotation is equivalent
to what goes a little before in the chapter from which it
is quoted: 'Predestination is the preparation of grace,' i.e. the
providing for its being given, 'but grace is the giving itself.'
"Will any one, dare to say that God did not foreknow
to whom he would grant that they should believe?" — De Dono
Perseverantise, 14, § 35, and c. 17 passim.
The third article is, that the number of the predestinate
is certain, and can neither be increased nor diminished. Dr.
Andrewes here only notes that they are the very words
of St. Augustine at the beginning of the third chapter of
his Book De Correptione et Gratia, and adds to these
a passage from Prosper de Vocatione Gentium, but citing it
under the name of St. Ambrose, to whom it was sometimes
but erroneously attributed.
The fourth article is: "Those who are not predestinated
to salvation shall be necessarily condemned for their sins."
He would have the word necessarily as being a new mode
of expression changed to without doubt.
The fifth article is: "A true, living, and justifying faith
and the Spirit of God sanctifying is not extinguished, does
not fail and come to naught in the elect either totally or
finally."
Andrewes remarks upon this: " No one ever said (I believe) that faith fails finally in the elect. It does not then fail. But that it does not fail, arises, I think, from the nature of its subject, not from its own ; from the privilege of the person, not of the thing. And this on account of apostates, who ought not to be condemned on the ground of their falling away from a faith which was never a true and living faith.
"But whether the Holy Spirit can be taken away or extinguished for a time, I think may yet be enquired into. I confess that I am in doubt.
"Or FAITH.
Thou standestly faith: Be not highminded, but fear;
otherwise thou also shalt be cut off, Rom. xi. 20, 22. Is not
this an unmeaning precept, if faith cannot fail?
"1. Beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the
wicked, fall from your own steadfastness, 2 Pet. iii. 17.
"2. Look that no man fail of the grace of God, Heb. xii. 15.
Ye are fallen from grace who are in the law, Gal. v. 4. (Some of these passages are not quoted accurately.)
"3. Take not thy Holy Spirit from me. Psalm li. 13.
"4. Quench not the Spirit, 1 Thess. v. 19.
"On what ground can it be shewn that these prayers and
precepts are not a mere mockery, if we can in no way fall
from the firmness of our faith, or fail of grace, if the Spirit
could in no way be taken away or extinguished?
Although I am not ignorant that this [cannot be lost
totally] can be so interpreted, as that it cannot be utterly
altogether or entirely, although it may be lost as a whole, that
is, so lost as that no room shall be left of returning thither
whence they have fallen."
Bivetus, who was contemporaneous with the Synod of
Dort, thus expressed himself in his thesis on Final Perse
verance — that those who once had true faith could not become
enemies to God, or utter infidels.1 The same is the explica
tion which Hooker gives of the indefectibility of faith, in his
second sermon, in which he observes: "Directly to deny the
foundation of faith is plain infidelity; where faith is entered,
there infidelity is for ever excluded : therefore by him which
hath once sincerely believed in Christ, the foundation of
Christian faith can never be directly denied." The Synod
of Dort, if candidly judged by its own admissions, will be
admitted to intend no more than that which was affirmed by
Hooker, however it may use greater ambiguity of expression
when it speaks of the predestinate not falling from the grace
of adoption, the condition of justification."3 Its meaning is
that God still deals with them as his children he does not
utterly take his lovingkindness from them, but as he did not
leave Peter to himself after he had denied him, so neither does
he leave them. To say that he sees no sin in them in their
departures from him, is not less contrary to the Synod of Dort
itself than it is to both reason and religion.
And thus understood we see that Andrewes himself allowed
the Lambeth article maintaining that the elect never totally
fall from grace. And this is clearly consistent with both
those exhortations and prayers which are adapted in Holy
Scripture to the weakness of our mortal nature, by reason of
which we cannot always stand upright, as we confess in the
Collect for the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany a collect derived
from Gregory the Great, himself a follower of St. Augustine.
If indeed it is but just to admit an opponent to explain his
own terms, we may see from Bishop Morton's reply to Dean
White in the Conferences concerning Montague's works, that
the falling from the grace of justification (itself a sufficiently
ambiguous term) was intended to denote, the total and irreversible loss of the divine favour.
The sixth article was, Of the assurance of salvation:
"A truly faithful man, that is, one who is endowed with
justifying faith, is certain, with the conviction [plerophoria] of
faith, of the remission of his sins, and of his eternal salvation
through Christ." Andrewes would have substituted for the
assurance of faith the assurance of hope, on the ground that
we had not the same certainty of a conditionate as of a purely
categorical proposition. To this however may be opposed
St. Paul's conviction of security in the approach of death, in
the fourth chapter of his Second Epistle to Timothy, Hence
forth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness. Neither
is less certainty implied in his Epistle to the Philippians,
when he writes, I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire
to depart and to be with Christ which is far better, (i. 23.)
The seventh article, On the conferring of grace, is as
follows:
"Saving grace (gratia salutaris) is not given, communicated, and granted to all men by which, if they will, they can be saved."
The observations attributed to Andrewes oppose to this
that some previous dispositions are not only offered but conferred upon all men, and that saving grace would be conferred upon all, were they not wanting to it. And to this effect is cited an earlier work of Augustine upon the Creation against
the Manichgeans, written in A.D. 390, the year before he was
ordained priest. These remarks are in harmony with the
known opinions of Andrewes' learned contemporary Bishop
Overall.
Bishop Andrewes, in his Whit-Sunday Sermon 1612, thus
speaks of the operation of the Holy Spirit : "And this (of
blowing upon one certain place) is a property very well fitting
the Spirit. Ubi vult spirat. To blow in certain places, where
itself will; and upon certain persons, and they shall plainly
feel it, and others about them not a whit. There shall be an
hundred or more in an auditory; one sound is heard, one
breath doth blow : at that instant, one or two and no more;
one here, another there; they shall feel the Spirit, shall be
affected and touched with it sensibly: twenty on this side
them and forty on that shall not feel it, but sit all becalmed,
and go their way no more moved than they came. Ubi vult
t) is most true."
This certainly is not consistent with these anonymous
remarks which long after the death of Andrewes were put
forth in his name. The Remonstrants indeed were desirous
of his patronage, and said that they had letters of his which
he challenged them to produce. He is supposed to have
alluded to these strictures on the Lambeth articles in a conversation in 1617, but we know nothing of their history, only that they were published by some person or persons who retained neither the doctrine of Andrewes nor of Overall, but wholly favoured that of the Remonstrants.
The eighth article is : "No man can come unto Christ
unless it shall have been given him, and unless the Father
shall have drawn him. And all men are not drawn by
the Father to come to the Son."
Andrewes, or whosoever the author of these strictures is,
adds, "not drawn so as that they come"; and would have
it added, "that the cause of their not being drawn or so
drawn is the depraved will of man, not the absolute will
of God." This indeed is in harmony with the remarks upon
the seventh article.
The ninth article is: It is not placed in the will or power
of every man to be saved."
The suggested form is, lt It is not placed in the free will of
any man, saving when made free by the Son, to be saved,
or in the power of any, unless it be given him from above."
Then, after observing that every one will explain the words
in his own sense either by addition or subtraction, the writer
recommends silence on both sides, and ends by submitting
both himself and his opinions to the judgment of the queen.
Having now given a full view of the scope of the Judgment
of the Bishop of Winchester on the Lambeth Articles^ I leave
it to the reader to decide upon the authenticity of the Judgment. It is singular that in the preface to these minor treatises of Andrewes and Overall (if indeed they are theirs), no allusion is made to them, no account is given of the
manner in which they were transferred to the hands of the editor; only they are annexed to Ellis's Defence of the Thirty-nine Articles ; the theology of which is not even that of Overall, as it observes, and truly according to the doctrine of St. Augustine, that men are said to cooperate in respect of subsequent, not of preventing grace.
The Judgment upon the Lambeth Articles is followed by
the Censure of the Censure of Barrett. It relates simply
to one point, the question whether the justified ought to
feel certain of their salvation, or in other words, that they
shall persevere to the end. Andrewes probably was not
the author of this censure. It is written with a degree of
warmth in favour of Barrett which Andrewes was not likely
to have evinced. Neither does it embrace more than one
of many points for which Barrett was censured. It is questionable whether Andrewes would have denied that to some at least the Spirit gave an assurance that he would abide with them for ever. Of his so abiding and working in
the soul to the end, he thus speaks in his Whit- Sunday Sermon 1620, above twenty years after the date of these pieces published iu 1600. "How take we notice of the Spirit? How knew they the angel was come down into
the pool of Bethesda, but by the stirring aud moving of
the water? So by stirring up in us spiritual motions, holy
purposes and desires, is the Spirit's coming known. Specially
if they do not vanish again. For if they do, then was it
some other flatuous matter which will quiver in the veins,
(and unskilful people call it the life-blood), but the Spirit
it was not. The Spirit's motion, the pulse, is not for a while
and then ceaseth, but it is perpetual, holds as long as life
holds, though intermittent some time for some little space."1
That the Holy Spirit never utterly forsakes the elect,
but that they "have that grace which excludeth sin from
reigning, and that this grace once had by them is never
totally nor finally lost," is affirmed by Field in his Book
of the Church, and, after his manner, explained with a clear
ness and minuteness that will enable the reader to judge
fully of the grounds of his opinion, and to see the working
of the more scholastic minds in that age of intense theological
investigation.' Field moreover shews that these are at least
no new opinions, but to be found in the works of the celebrated Hugo de Sancto Victore in the twelfth century, and in those of John Duns Scotus in the fourteenth. Even some amongst the members of the Romish communion have confessed that Calvin and Augustine were substantially agreed, as may be seen in the 399th chapter of the fourth book of John James Hottinger's Fata Doctrine de Prcedestinatione et Gratia Dei salutari?
Dr. Andrewes Sermon on the Love of Souls, Good Friday 1597. —
Andrewes refuses two Bishoprics, 1598 — Preaches before the Queen
on Ash- Wednesday. — Sermon on the Eucharist — On Justification —
St. Paul and St. James — On the power of Absolution — Ontance.
THE learned Whitaker on his return from Lambeth took cold
which turned to fever and brought him speedily to his happy
and peaceful but early end, on the 4th of December 1595,
in his forty-seventh year. He was buried on the 10th, Dr.
Goad the Vice-chancellor, provost of King's College, preaching
the funeral sermon at the university church, and Eobert,
afterwards Sir Eobert, Naunton, the Public Orator, delivering
a funeral oration in Latin. Dr. John Overall, fellow of
Trinity College, was elected to his professorship.
Overall had maintained a middle way between the theology
of his times and that of the Antipredestinarians. He taught
that God vouchsafed a certain measure of grace to all men,
but secured salvation to the elect by a still more abundant
measure. He taught that some had true faith and grace for
a time and then fell away, but that those who are believers,
who are included in the divine decree of election, cannot
either totally or finally fall or perish, but by a special and
efficacious grace so persevere in a true and lively faith, that
at length they are brought to eternal life. This he maintained
at the Hampton Court Conference.1 He complained that some
had exaggerated the doctrine of the indefectibility of faith,
and had denied that the elect upon the commission of the
greatest sins were ipso facto subject to the divine wrath and
in a state of damnation until they repented. Overall was
neither altogether a follower of Augustine nor of Calvin, but
partly borrowed from Ambrose Catharinus, who taught that
some were saved by special, others by their right use of
common grace. Catharine of Sienna, archbishop of Conza,
maintained at the same time in the Council of Trent, and
afterwards in his writings, that the righteous might be certain
of their justification. He also maintained that the inward
intention of the minister was not requisite to the validity of
the Sacraments. Overall's system has been given from two
of the Harleian MSS. in the British Museum, by the Rev.
Wm. Goode, in his Effects of Infant Baptism? Overall and
others after him have adduced St. Augustine as teaching that
some have true faith and grace for a while, and yet fall away,
whilst to the elect salvation is secured by the gift of final
perseverance. There are a few passages in his works which
favour this opinion, but of the principal of these the authen
ticity is not universally admitted, and it is certain that in his
Tractatus in Joannem and some other of his Treatises he
maintains the contrary. The reader may see these passages
fully given by Dr. John Forbes, in the 20th chapter of the
eighth Book of his Instruction's Historico-TJieologicce?
On Sunday April 4, 1596, Andrewes preached before
the court at Greenwich. This sermon, from 2 Cor. xii. 15,
is upon the love of souls, ( soul-love,' and upon the love
of Christ to us. Nothing can excel the fervour, the tenderness, and the truly Christian charity that distinguish this truly apostolical discourse. O that all who profess to admire this venerable father and prelate of our Church would read,
and that not once but often, the divine instruction, the paternal
charge which he here has left to posterity, a savour of holy
love never to fail. He shews how it was the love of Christ
that kindled in St. Paul such a love of souls, a love indeed
copied from his. This love, a love not to be overcome by
unkindness, this he reminds us is the only true Christian
love; and what is all to that love of Christ which loved
us not as but more than his own life? He hath changed
the rule of the law ; no longer is it, Thou shalt love thy neighlour as thyself, but, as I have loved you. " And if St. Paul
were loved when he raged and breathed blasphemy against
Christ and his name, is it much if, for Christ's sake, he
swallow some unkindness at the Corinthians' hands? Is
it much, if we let fall a duty upon them, upon whom God
the Father droppeth his rain, and God the Son drops, yea
sheds his blood,— upon evil and unthankful men?"
On the 14th October died the bishop of Salisbury, Dr.
John Coldwell. He was the first married bishop of Salisbury
after the Reformation. His name was also spelt Gold well.
He was B. A. of St. John's College, Cambridge, 1554 ; M.A.
1558, and M.D. 1564. He was in 1571 made archdeacon
of Chichester whilst Curteis the late dean was bishop of
that see. He resigned this dignity in 1575. On the death
of Dr. Thomas Willoughby^ean of Rochester and prebendary of Canterbury, he was preferred to the deanery, and installed 26th September, 1582.
After the see of Salisbury had been kept vacant three
years, on the translation of Dr. John Piers to York, Coldwell
was consecrated to Sarum, December 26th, 1591, at Lambeth
by Whitgift, assisted by Aylmer bishop of London, Cowper
bishop of Winchester, Fletcher bishop of Bristol, and Under
bill bishop of Oxford. Dying October 14, 1596, he was
buried in Salisbury Cathedral, in the same grave where
bishop Wyville had been buried in 1484. Andrewes declined the vacant see, as he would not impoverish it.
On Good-Friday, March 25th, 1597, Dr. Andrewes
preached before the court, from Zech. xii. 10, And they shall
look upon me whom they have pierced; and set forth our
Saviour's sufferings in a discourse never perhaps surpassed
but by himself.
There have not been wanting some who have ventured
to affirm that our Lord endured suffering equal to what the
redeemed would otherwise have endured; that in short he
suffered the pains of hell itself. Others again have gone
into" a contrary extreme, and have explained away our Lord's
words on the cross, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken
me? More piously and cautiously our learned and devout
preacher: "It is the soul's complaint ; and therefore, without
all doubt, his soul within him was pierced and suffered,
though not that which (except charity be allowed to ex
pound it) cannot be spoken without blasphemy; not so much,
(God forbid!) yet much, and very much; and much more
than others seem to allow, or how much, it is dangerous
to define."
He was invited to attend the annual election and examination at Merchant Taylors' School, but did not go. There was present its venerable patron, Dr. Gabriel Goodman, dean of Westminster. Mr. William Juxon, afterward archbishop Juxon, made a Latin oration.
Juxon was born at Chichester of a good family. He was
the son of Richard Juxon of^hat city. From Merchant
Taylors' School he succeeded to a fellowship at St. John's
College, Oxford. He applied himself to the law, and was
a student of Gray's Inn about 1603 ; but afterwards, taking
orders, was in 1609 instituted to the vicarage of St. Giles'
Oxford, in the gift of his College. Buckeridge was at that
time president of St. John's College, and Laud was electee
to succeed Buckeridge in that office 10th May, 1611, Bucke
ridge being then bishop elect of Rochester. With Lauc
Juxon contracted an intimate friendship. He was also
sometime rector of Somerton to the south-east of Deddington
in Oxfordshire, where his coat-of-arms was, if it is not still
in the east window of the chancel. When Laud was made
bishop of St. David's in 1621, Juxon was elected president o
St. John's on the 29th December, appointed to the deanery
of Worcester in 1628, when Dr. Joseph Hall was made bishop
of Exeter, and in 1633 was bishop elect of Hereford, but
consecrated to the see of London. Laud was his friend with
the king, who made him in 1632 Clerk of the closet. In
1635 he was constituted Lord High Treasurer. This pro
duced great envy amongst the courtiers, as no ecclesiastic
had held that office since the reign of Henry VII. He resigned it in 1641. He attended his sovereign on the scaffold, and afterward retired to his manor of Little Compton in Gloucestershire, but close upon Oxford and Worcestershires.
He was raised to the see of Canterbury in 1660, and died
at Lambeth June 20th, 1663, aged 81. He was a most
munificent prelate, of great patience and moderation.
Bishop Buckeridge relates in his funeral sermon for
Andrewes, that "when the bishoprics of Ely and Salisbury
were void, and some things were to be pared from them, some
overture being made to him to take them, he refused them
utterly. If it please you," adds Buckeridge, "I will make
his answer for him, Nolo episcopari, and I will not be made
a bishop, because I will not alienate bishops' lands." This
was probably in A.D. 1598, when Dr. Henry Cotton was pro
moted to the see of Sarum, .and not long after Dr. Heton to
that of Ely, who in 1609 was succeeded by Andrewes at that
time bishop of Chichester. On June 16th Andrewes, as
prebendary of St. Pancras, presented Harsnet, also of Pem
broke Hall, to the vicarage of Chigwell in Essex.
In June he resumed his lectures on the third chapter of
Genesis at St. Giles', Cripplegate, after an interval of about
seven years.
On Sunday, October 1, before the administration of the
Holy Communion, he preached at St. Giles', from Isaiah vi. 6,
applying the passage as typical of Christ by whom alone our
iniquities are taken away, and especially to the Holy Eucharist
in which the remission of sins is dispensed; wherefore, as he
observes, in the ancient church at the celebration of the Communion, the priest stood up and said as the seraph doth here, 'Behold this hath touched your lips ; your iniquity shall be taken away, and your sin purged.'1 And here he does not deny, as do some who speak much of him, the assurance of
forgiveness of past sins to those who come with true faith to
this holy sacrament. It was his custom to speak most
patristically of the Eucharist, but he calls the participation
a spiritual feeding.
On October 15th he preached from Matthew vi. 1, against
desire of vainglory. He said excellently, " God hath given
us the joys and use of all his creatures, but reserveth the
glory of them to himself. Therefore the apostle saith, Do all
to the glory of God; for though he giveth us the use of all
things, yet, My glory will I not give to another".
On Sunday, December 3rd, he preached from 2 Peter i. 9.
In this sermon he thus treats of justification. "At the first
the doctrine of faith in Christ was hardly received; for men
thought to be saved only by works: and when they had once
received it, they excluded the doctrine of good works. All
the difficulty that St. Paul found in the work of his ministry
was to plant faith, and to persuade men that we are justified
before God by faith in Christ without the works of the law.
But St. Peter and St. James met with them that received the
doctrine of faith fast enough, but altogether neglected good
works. But because both are necessary, therefore St. Paul in
all his Epistles joins the doctrine of faith with the doctrine of
works. This is a faithful saying, and to be avouched that
they which believe in God, be careful to shew forth good works?
Therefore with the doctrine of the grace of God, he joins the
doctrine of the careful bringing forth of good works. The
saving grace of God hath appeared, and teacheth us to deny
ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly and right
eously and godly in this world. The doctrine of grace is not
rightly apprehended, until we admit of the doctrine of good
works. Wilt thou know, O man, that faith is dead without
works? Was not Abraham our father justified by works,
when he offered his son Isaac? Therefore St. Peter saith,
that is no true faith which is not accompanied with virtue and
godliness of life. It is true that good works have no power
to work justification, because they do not contain a perfect
righteousness. And inasmuch as they are imperfect, there
belongs the curse of God unto them: Cursed is he that con-
tinueth not in all things, &c. (Gal. iii.) So far are they from
justifying, but yet they are tokens of justification. God had
respect unto Abel and to his sacrifice. (Gen. iv.) God first
looked upon his person, and then upon his sacrifice. For
before the person be justified, his works are not accepted in
God's sight. The best works if they proceed not of faith are
sin. Our Saviour saith, No branch can bring forth fruit of
itself, except it abide in the vine. Therefore if we do any
good works, they proceed from our incision and engrafting
into Christ, by whom they are made acceptable unto God.
"Paul saith, Abraham was justified by faith before works,
not when he was circumcised, but when he was uncircumcised.
But James saith, Abraham our father was justified by works.
To reconcile the apostles we must know, that the power of
justification which is spoken of in Paul is effective, but that
which James speaketh of is declarative. It -was Abraham's
faith that made him righteous, and his works did only declare
him to be justified. Therefore Paul saith, that albeit good
works have no power to justify, yet they are good and profit
able for men. For they declare our justification which is by
faith ; and by them we make ourselves sure of our calling and
election."
On the Sunday after Christmas-day, December 31, he
preached from John viii. 56, Your father Abraham rejoiced to
see my day, and he saw it, and was glad. From the same
words he preached before king James on Christmas-day 1613.
Whosoever will carefully compare the two discourses will find
that although the earlier is divided similarly with the latter,
and some passages are common to both, yet they are far from
being the same, and the parochial is by no means inferior to
the court sermon, nay has some advantage over it ; although of
it we have but notes, those notes however very copious.
On the Sunday after Epiphany, January 7, 1598, he discoursed learnedly and with a fertility of illustration peculiarly his own, upon Psalm xlvii. 10, The princes of the people are gathered together, even the people of the God of Abraham: for
the shields of the earth belong unto God: he is greatly exalted.
The Epiphany he calls Christ's second nativity ; "for as he
was born at Bethlehem of his mother the Virgin, so hath
he another birth foretold by the prophet, I will think of
Eahab and Babylon; behold Palestina, Tyrus, and Ethiopia,
lo! there is he born, Psalm Ixxxvii. 4.
"This," he saith, " God hath from all times revealed, that
the gate of faith should be opened to the Gentiles to enter
into the flock of Christ. This was shewed by Abraham's
matching with Keturah a Gentile ; by Moses matching him
self with Zipporah a Midianite and a Gentile; by Solomon
matching with Pharaoh's daughter; as in the genealogy of
Christ's birth Solomon is matched with Eahab, Boaz with
Kuth, to signify that Christ should save both Jews and
Gentiles. The same was shewed by the stuff whereof the
tabernacle was made; by the first temple which was built
upon the ground of Araunah a Gentile, with timber sent by
Hiram a Gentile; and by the second temple which was
founded by Cyrus and Artaxerxes, heathen princes."
On March 23, 1598, Andrewes succeeded Bishop Bancroft
in the eleventh stall at Westminster.
On Friday, February 2, 1599, being the festival of the
Purification of the Blessed Virgin, he preached at his parish-
church of St. Giles', from the history of Hannah, 1 Sam.
xxvii. 28. The presentation of Samuel, and Samuel himself,
he regards as typical of our Lord; and indeed the great
similarity of the song of Hannah and of that of the Virgin,
the miraculous birth as of Christ, so in a manner of Samuel,
and the meeting of the triple office of prophet, priest, and king
in Samuel, together with the singular inoffensiveness and
purity of his character, and his love to the unthankful, all
most amply vindicate the typical application of this history to
our Lord as the fulfilment, the true Samuel of the Israel of
God.
On the following Sunday, being the administration of the Holy Communion, he preached excellently upon our conflict with the old serpent, from Rev. ii. 7, To Mm that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the
Paradise of God.
On the 21st of the same month, being Ash- Wednesday,
and the time that the earl of Essex was setting out on the
Irish expedition, Dr. Andrewes, being one of the Queen's
chaplains, preached before her at Richmond from those most
seasonable words, When thou goest out with the host against
thine enemies , keep theefrom all wickedness? Having treated
of the justifiableness of war both offensive and defensive,
quoting to this purpose the Septuagint version of the text,
and alleging Jacob's war to win from the Amorite with
his sword and bow,3 he shewed the folly of trusting in
human power, from the defeat in the valley of Achor; he
urged the need of the prayer of the prophet and of the priest,
from the intercession of Moses whereby Israel prevailed over
Amalek; and the utter inconsistency of those who were
themselves in rebellion against God going forth to punish
rebels. Nor did he fail to point out most plainly how peace
was the blessing, war the scourge of God. Towards the
end he adduced the exemplary fidelity of Uriah as an ex
ample to all in like manner to forbear, now of all times
especially, from sin.
On Friday, August 24, St. Bartholomew's day, he preached
at his own church, Cripplegate, on the assurance of hope;
nor can any one who is familiar with his writings fail to
recognize him throughout.
We find him, according to his custom on all holy days,
preaching at his parish-church on St. Michael's day, Saturday,
September 29, from Eev. xii. 7, 8; a sermon displaying,
as we have seen in some former instances, his eminent
patristic learning. He shews that Christ cannot be the
Michael of the heavenly host, for that he is called 'one
of the first princes,' but Christ is the King of Kings.
He notices, and very largely, the conjecture of the Fathers,
that the fallen angels would not submit to adore Christ
in our nature, and to see our nature exalted above their
own. He forgets not to remind his congregation of the
war in which they themselves ought to be engaged, assured
that the enemy shall not prevail over those who faithfully
resist him. He touches also upon that reverence we ought
to have of the presence of the angels as well in the house
of God as at other times.
On Sunday, October 7, being the celebration of the holy
Eucharist, he preached from those most gracious and divine
words of our Lord, All that the Father giveth me shall come
to me and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
"Howsoever," he saith, "a man may know himself to be
a sinner, that is, to have an unclean soul, yet he is not
to despair, because Christ, by the confession of his enemies,
is such an one as doth not only receive sinners, but eats
with them; yea, he not only receiveth them that deserve
to be cast out as unworthy to inherit the kingdom, but
doth also wash, sanctify, and justify them in his own name
and by the Spirit of God."
Such was the diligence of Dr. Andrewes, that besides
preaching on the Festivals and Sundays, he also delivered
many of his lectures this year upon Genesis on other
week-days.
In A. D. 1600, on March 30, Low-Sunday, he preached
at Whitehall his well-known discourse upon the power of
absolution, from John xx. 23. He maintained from these words
a ministerial power of absolution granted to the Apostles, not as
apostles but as ministers of Christ, and from them derived to all
others; "yet not so that absolutely without them God cannot
bestow it on whom or when he pleaseth; or that he is bound
to this means only and cannot work without it. For gratia,
Dei non alligatur mediis [i. e. the grace of God is not tied
to means], the grace of God is not bound but free, and can
work without means either of word or sacrament; and as
without means so without ministers, how and when to him
seemeth good. But speaking of that which is proper and
ordinary, in the course by him established, this is an ecclesi
astical act committed as the residue of the ministry of re
conciliation to ecclesiastical persons. And if at any time
he vouchsafe it by others that are not such, they be in that
case ministri necessitatis non officit, in case of necessity
ministers, but by office not so." To shew the previous
existence of a like power he refers to Job xxxiii. 23, to the
priest's being ever a party in sacrifices, and to the prophet
Nathan's being commissioned to declare to David the remission
of his sin in God's name. He observes that besides this
there are divers acts instituted by God and executed by us,
which all tend to the remission of sins, namely, the two
sacraments, the Word of God itself, and prayer. The word
he interprets of the word preached.
He also treats of the need of the key of knowledge to
open to men the true nature of repentance and the works
of repentance, which is not only sorrow for sin, but a holy
revenge upon ourselves for it, with works of restitution, &c.
His doctrine of repentance may indeed be most fully and
practically learnt from that little volume which alone might
have obtained for his name the veneration of all ages of
the Church, his Manual for the Sick.
He is said to have been called upon to explain himself
to the Secretary of state in regard of this sermon, his doctrine
being unusual for that time and strange in the ears of his
audience. It is observable that it is confessedly imperfect,
and deals very much in generalities. His quotation from
St. Augustine belongs not to private but to public confession,
as both Fulke remarks in his Confutation of the Notes
in the Rhemish New Testament, and also Dr. John Gerhard
in his Confessio Catholica. Fulke farther refers his readers
to his Confutation of Dr. Aliens Books, Pt. I., from c. 10 to
the end.
Some would explain the words, Whosesoever sins ye remit
they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain
they are retained, as though they had been, whosesoever sins
ye declare forgiven, when ye preach pardon to the penitent,
they shall be forgiven; and whosesoever sins ye declare
still unforgiven, because of their unbelief, heaven shall con
firm your words. Thus, indeed, Jeremiah and the prophets
are said to do what they declare shall be done, (Jer. i. 10),
See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the
kingdoms to root out and to pull down, and to destroy and
to throw down, to build and to plant, compared with c. xviii.
ver. 7.
Andre wes was present on St. Barnabas' Day, June llth,
at the annual election and examination at Merchant Taylors'
School, and with three other (London?) clergymen, Dr. Grant
of the university of Cambridge, master of Westminster
School, and Drs. Montford and Hutchinson of the university
of Oxford, was appointed to nominate four persons to the
Merchant Taylors' Company for the living of St. Martin's,
Outwich. A minute account of the proceedings may be found
in Dr. Wilson's History of Merchant Taylors' School, in
which he has done ample justice to the memory of Andre wes,
and that with no small industry and ability.
Dr. Thomas Montford, or Mountfort, was the son of John
Mountfort of Norwich. He was of the university of Oxford,
was admitted to the rectory of Anstey near Barkway, Jan. 25,
1584. On May 26, 1585, he was made prebendary of the first
stall, Westminster, took the degree of D.D. at Oxford July 4,
1588, and on March 24, 1596, was admitted to the stall
of Harleston in St. Paul's, and became a canon residentiary
on the presentation of the queen. On May 7, 1602, he was
collated to the vicarage of St. Martin-in-the-fields by bishop
Bancroft, and in 1612 appears to have been also rector of
St. Mary-at-hill near St. Dunstan's in the East. He died
Feb. 27, 1631, and was buried in the chancel of Tewing near
Welwyn, of which also he had (according to Newcourt) been
rector. His son John succeeded to the rectory of Anstey on
the presentation of Charles I., having before been made prebendary of Sneating in the church of St. Paul by bishop
King, 14 Nov. 1618. He was presented by Trinity College
to the vicarage of Ware, Herts. 1633, but held it only for
about a year. He was ejected from Anstey in 1643.
Dr. Edward Grant was master of Westminster School,
prebendary of the sixth stall at Ely 1589, rector of Barnet
in Middlesex and Tatsfield near Godstone in Surrey, vicar
of Benfleet in Essex and Foulsham in Norfolk, prebendary
of the twelfth stall at Westminster, 27 May, 1577. He
died in October 1601, and was buried in the abbey, but
no memorial was erected for him there.
Dr. Kalph Hutchinson was archdeacon of St. Alban's.
CHAPTER VI.
Andrewes Sermon on Justification, 1600.
ON November 23rd Dr. Andrewes preached at Whitehall
his celebrated sermon on Justification, for a more copious
notice of which no apology will be required.
This sermon is a very ample dissertation upon Jer. xxiii. 6.
This is the name whereby they shall call him, the Lord our
Righteousness. First he shews how this is the chief of names
in the account of God himself. God is salvation and peace,
but both these are branches of this name and effects of it.
He then remarks that this name is peculiar to our Lord.
Others are said to do, he alone to be righteousness. "Nor is
this (he adds) a question of names merely. The name of God
has virtue in it. By the name of Christ we are justified, so
St. Paul (1 Cor. vi. 11); forgiven, so St. John (I Joh. ii. 12);
saved, so St. Peter (Acts iv. 12). Now this name is compounded of three words, Jehova, Justitia, Nostra.
Because his righteousness and only his righteousness is worth
the remembering; and any other's besides his is not ment
to be mentioned. For, as for our own righteousness which
we have without him, Esay telleth us, it is but a defiled
cloth, and St. Paul that it is but dung; two very homely
comparisons, but they be the Holy Ghost's own, yet nothing
so homely as in the original, &e.
"Our own then being no better, we are driven to seek
for it elsewhere. He shall receive his righteousness, saith
the prophet (Psalm xxiv. 5), and the gift of righteousness,
saith the apostle (Eom. v. 17). It is then another, to be
given us and to be received by us, which we must seek
for. And whither shall we go for it ? Job alone despatcheth
this point. Not to the heavens or stars; for they are unclean
in his sight. Not to the saints; for in them he found folly;
nor to the angels, for neither in them found he any steadfast
ness. Now if none of these will serve, we see a necessary
reason why Jehova must be a part of this name. And this
is the reason why Jeremie, here expressing more fully the
name given him before in Esay, Immanuel, God with us,
instead of the name of God in that name (which is M),
setteth down by way of explanation this name here of
Jehova. Because that El and the other names of God are
communicated to creatures; as the name of El to angels,
for their names end in it ; Michael, Gabriel, &c. And the
name of Jah to saints, and their names end in it; Esaiah,
Jeremiah, Zechariah. To certify us therefore that it is
neither the righteousness of saints nor angels that will serve
the turn, but the righteousness of God and very God, he
usetli that name which is proper to God alone ; ever reserved
to him only, and never imparted by any occasion to angel
or saint, or any creature in heaven or earth.
"Righteousness. Why that? If we ask, in regard of
the other benefits which are before remembered, salvation
and peace, why 'righteousness' and not salvation nor peace?
it is evident. Because (as in the verse next before the
prophet termeth it) righteousness' is the branch; and these
two, salvation and peace, are the fruits growing on it. So
that, if this be had, the other are had with it."
"Jehovah, Righteousness. For except justice be satisfied,
and do join in it also [the counsel of salvation], in vain
we promise ourselves that mercy of itself shall work our
salvation: which may serve for the reason why neither
Jehova potentia or Jehova misericordia are enough, but it
must be Jehova justitta, and. justitia a part of the name."
But if he be righteousness, and not only righteousness, but ours too, all is at an end; we have our desires. . . . For if he be, as the Apostle saith, factus nobis,
made unto us righteousness, and that so as he becometh ours, what can we have more? What can hinder us, saith St. Bernard, but that we should ' use him and his righteousness; use that which is ours to our best behoof, and work our salvation out of this our Saviour.'
And more significant it is by far to say Jehovah our
justice, than Jehovah our Justifier. I know St. Paul saith
much; that our Saviour Christ shed his blood to shew his
righteousness, that he might not only be just, but a justifier
of those which are of his faith, Rom. iii. 26. And much
more again in that when he should have so said, To him
that believeth in God, he chooseth thus to set it down, To him
that believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly ; making
these two to be all one, God, and the justifier of sinners.
Though this be very much, yet certainly this is most forcible,
that he is made unto us by God very righteousness itself.
(1 Cor. i. 30.) And that yet more, that he is made righteousness to us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. v. 21. Which place St. Chrysostom well weighing, this very word righteousness, saith he, the Apostle
useth to express the unspeakable bounty of that gift, that he hath not given us the operation or effect of his righteousness, but his very righteousness, yea his very self unto us. Mark, saith he, how everything is lively and as full as
can be imagined. Christ, one not only that had done no sin, but that had not so much as known any sin, hath God made (not a sinner, but) sin itself; as in another place (not accursed, but) a curse itself; sin in respect of the guilt, a curse in respect of the punishment. And why this? To the end that we might be made (not righteous persons; that was not full enough, but) righteousness itself; and there
he stays not yet — and not every righteousness, but the very righteousness of God himself. What can be further said? What can be conceived more comfortable? To have him ours, not to make us righteous but to make us righteousness,
and that not any other but the righteousness of God ; the
wit of man can devise no more. And all to this end, that
we might see there belongeth a special Ecce to this name,
that there is more than ordinary comfort in it ; that therefore
we should be careful to honour him with it, and so call
him by it, Jehovah our righteousness.
There is no Christian man that will deny this name, but
will call Christ by it, and say of him that he is Jehova justitia
nostra, without taking a syllable or letter from it. But it is
not the syllables, but the sense that maketh the name. And
the sense is it we are to look unto; that we keep it entire in
sense as well as in sound, if we mean to preserve this name of
justitia nostra full and whole unto him. And as this is true,
so is it true likewise that even among Christians all take it
not in one sense ; but some, of a greater latitude than other.
There are that take it in that sense which the prophet Esay
hath set down: In Jehova justitia mea, that all our righteous
ness is in him, (Isaiah xlv. 24) ; and we to be found in him,
not having our own righteousness, but being made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor. v. 21.) There are some other, that though in one part of our righteousness thay take it in that sense, yet in another part they shrink it up, and in that make it but a proposition causal, and the interpretation thereof
to be, l from Jehova is my righteousness.' Which is true too,
whether we respect him as the cause exemplary, or pattern,
(for we are to be made conformable to the image of Christ); or whether we respect him as the cause efficient. This meaning then is true and good, but not full enough ; for either it taketh the name in sunder, and giveth him not all, but
a part of it alone, or else it maketh two senses, which may
not be allowed in one name.
"For the more plain conceiving of which point, we are to be put in mind that the true righteousness (as saith St. Paul) is not of man's device, but hath his witness from the law and the prophets ; which he there proceedeth to shew out of the
example first of Abraham and after of David. In the Scrip ture then there is a double righteousness set down; both in the Old and New Testament.
"In the Old, and in the very first place that righteousness is named in the Bible, Abraham believed, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness: a righteousness accounted. And again (in the very next line) it is mentioned, Abraham will teach his house to do righteousness: a righteousness done. In the New likewise. The former, in one chapter (even the fourth to the Eomans), no fewer than eleven times, Eeputatum est illi adjustitiam: a reputed righteousness. The latter in St. John: My beloved, let no man deceive you; he that doeth
righteousness is righteous: a righteousness done, which is nothing else but our own just dealing, upright carriage, honest conversation. Of these, the latter the philosophers themselves conceived and acknowledged; the other is proper
to Christians only, and altogether unknown in philosophy.
The one is a quality of the party; the other an act of the
judge declaring or pronouncing righteous : the one ours by
influence or infusion ; the other by account or imputation."
Then he proceeds from the context to fix upon the term
the forensic and imputative sense, and observes that the
tenor of the Scripture touching our justification all along
runneth in judicial terms to admonish us still what to set
before us. The usual joining of justice and judgment continually all along the Scriptures shew it is a judicial justice we are to set before us. The terms of a judge, It is the Lord that judgeth me, 1 Cor. iv. 4. A prison: kept and shut up
under Moses, Gal. iii. 23. A bar : We must all appear before the bar, 2 Cor. v. 10. A proclamation : Who will lay any thing to the prisoner's charge? Rom. viii. 33. An accuser: The accuser of our brethren, Eev. xii. 10. A witness : Our
conscience bearing witness, Horn. ii. 15. An indictment upon
these : Cursed is he that continueth not in all the words
of the law to do them, Deut. xxvii. 26. And again, He that
breaketh one is guilty of all, James ii. 10. A conviction:
That all may be guilty, or culpable, before God. Yea, the
very delivering of our sins under the name of debts; of the
law under the name of a handwriting; the very terms of an
advocate, 1 John ii. 2; of a surety made under the law;
of a pardon, or, being justified from those things which by
the law we could not; all these wherein for the most part
this is still expressed, what speak they but that the sense of
this name cannot rightly be understood, nor what manner
of righteousness is in question, except we still have before our
eyes this same cor am regejustojudiciumfaciente?
"For it is not in question, whether we have our inherent
righteousness or no, or whether God will accept it or reward
it, but whether that must be our righteousness coram rege
justo judicium faciente ; which is a point very material and in
nowise to be forgotten. For without this, if we compare our
selves with ourselves, what heretofore we have been, or, if we
compare ourselves with others, as did the Pharisee, we may
take a fancy perhaps, and have some good conceit of our
inherent righteousness. Yea, if we be to deal in schools by
argument or disputation, we may peradventure argue for it
and make some shew in the matter. But let us once be
wrought and arraigned coram rege justo sedente in solio, let us
set ourselves there, we shall then see that all our former con
ceit will vanish straight, and righteousness (in that sense) will
not abide the trial.
"Bring them hither then, and ask them here of this name,
and never a saint nor father, no, nor the schoolmen them
selves, none of them but will shew you how to understand it
aright. In their commentaries, it may be, in their questions
and debates they will hold hard for the other ; but remove it
lither, they forsake it presently, and take the name in the
right sense."
Then he adduces the examples of Job, David, Daniel,
[saiah, Paul, and amongst the fathers, of Ambrose, Augus
tine, and Bernard.
He then touches upon the devotional writings of the school
men, and the half admissions of Bellarmine and Stapleton,
conceding an imputation of the sufferings, but excluding the
imputation of the obedience, or as it is sometimes called, the
active righteousness of Christ.
Next he proceeds upon abstract grounds, the finite nature
of our righteousness, its disproportion to our infinite reward,
" especially if we add hereunto that as it cannot be denied but
to be finite, so withal, that the antient fathers seem further
to be but meanly conceited of it ; reckoning it notv to be full
but defective, not pure but defiled ; and if to be judged by
the just judge, districts, or cum districtione examinis (they be
St. Gregorie's and St. Bernard's words), indeed no righteous
ness at all." Here Bishop Andrewes adduces that remarkable
passage from St. Chrysostom, which Mr. Faber has also given
at full length in his work upon Justification, from his eleventh
homily on the second Epistle to the Corinthians, where that
father declares that a justifying righteousness must needs be
without spot, and that therefore the righteousness of God by
which we are justified is not of works but of grace.
Adducing an admission of Stapleton's, that our righteous
ness needs indulgence, he observes, ll Now indulgence (we
know) belongeth unto sin, and righteousness, if it be true,
needeth none."
Bellarmine is then shewn to destroy his own doctrine by
qualifying it first, and next by entirely setting it aside, which,
remarks our reverend preacher, "is enough to shew, when
they have forgot themselves a little out of the fervor of their
oppositions, how light and small account they make of it
themselves, for which they spoil Christ of one half of his
name."
Then he insists upon the jealousy of God in regard of this
name, that He will not give his glory to another. " As we are
justified in this name, so we are to glory in it, according to
the prophet. For this very purpose the apostle asks, where is
boasting then f as if he should admonish us, that this name
is given with express intent to exclude it from us and us
from it. And therefore in that very place where he saith, ' He
is made unto us from God righteousness,' to this end (saith
he) he is so made, ut qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur [that
he who glorieth might glory in the Lord]. All which I put
you in mind of to this end, that you may mark that this
nipping at this name of Christ is for no other reason but that
we may have some honour ourselves out of our righteousness."
Then he gives an instance of this in the confession of
Bellarmine, who makes justification to be on the title of merit,
because it is more honorable so to receive it than simply on
the title 6f inheritance ; " So that it seemeth he is resolved,
that rather than they will lose their honour, Christ must part
with a piece of his name, and be named Justitia nostra only
in the latter sense: which is it, the prophet after (in the
twenty-seventh verse of this chapter) setteth down as a mark
of false prophets; that by having a pleasant dream of their
own righteousness, they make God's people to forget his name ;
as indeed by this means this part of Christ's- name hath been
forgotten."
Such is the doctrine of good and learned Bishop Andrewes :
they must be blind indeed who see not at once how unlike
and opposed to the teaching of Mr. Newman and his ad
vocates, as also of Jeremy Taylor, Archbishop Sharpe, Bishop
Bull, Bishop Tomline, and others who have stumbled at this
stone, and have, with all their talents, only laboured to ob
scure that great and most essential article of Christian faith,
which our prelate, believing with his heart, knew so well
how to defend.
CHAPTER VII.
The election at Merchant Taylors' School, WQl—Andrewes is made
Dean of Westminster — His Sermon on giving to C(esar his due —
Oversees Westminster School — Preaches before the Queen for the last
time in 1602 — Coronation of King James — Sermon on the Plague,
1603 — He is at the Hampton-court Conference — Is appointed a
translator — His famous Good-Friday Sermon, 1604, and 1605 —
He is made Bishop of Chichester.
ON St. Barnabas-day, June 11, 1601, we find Dr. Andrewes,
with his old schoolmaster Mulcaster, and Dr. Goodman, dean
of Westminster, Dr. Hutchinson, president of St. John's
College, Oxford, Dr. Eoger Marbeck, and Sir Eobert Wroth,
knt., attending at the election and dinner at Merchant
Taylors' School. It was at this time that Dr. Andrewes
first patronised Matthew Wren, afterwards bishop of Norwich
and Ely. Wren was born in St. Peter's Eastcheap, 1585.
His father Francis was a citizen and mercer of London.
Wren lost his election to St. John's College, Oxford, upon
which Dr. Andrewes procured his admission at Pembroke
College, Cambridge, on the 23rd of the same month.
This election was the last public occasion at which Dr.
Goodman appeared. He died on June 17, and Andrewes
was appointed to succeed him as dean of Westminster July 4,
and Dr. Adrian Saravia was presented to the stall which
Andrewes vacated, and installed on July 5.
In this year the learned Andrew Willet, prebendary of
the fourth stall at Ely (July 22, 1584), in which he succeeded
his father, Thomas Willet, M.A., as he did also in the
rectory of Barley, Herts., was, amongst many excellent col
leagues (ten in number), of whom were Dr. Downame, bishop
of Derry (who wrote the most complete work that has ever
appeared upon Justification, and also a very learned and
elaborate work upon Antichrist), Dr. George Meriton (dean
of York in 1617) that famous preacher, and others of no
mean note, chosen to answer the Divinity Act in the Com
mencement House, Cambridge : ll An. 1601, Publicis Comitiis,
Eespondente Dre. Willet, Quasst.
" Peccatum sola causa damnationis.
" Decimse jure divino debentur."
Meriton, Downame, Milburne, &c., S.T.P., eodem anno."
Milburne was B.A. of Queens' College, Cambridge, 1581,
elected fellow July 7, 1582, before he had completed twelve
terms, and perhaps migrated from Trinity College. He was
made M.A. 1585, treasurer of the College, 1589. He was of
a Pembrokeshire family, but born in London and educated
at Westminster School. He was rector of Cheam in Surrey,
and of Sevenoaks in Kent in 1611, chaplain to prince Henry,
precentor of St. David's according to Anthony Wood, but
his name does not occur in Hardy's Le Neve's Fasti. On
the death of Dr. Thomas Blague (by a mistake in Hasted's
Kent said to have been master of Clare Hall) he was made
dean of Rochester 4th December 1611, and consecrated to the
see of St. David's by Abbot, assisted by Andrewes, King,
bishop of London, Buckeridge, bishop of Rochester, and
Overall, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, July 9th, 1615.
Thence he was translated to Carlisle on the death of Dr.
Robert Snowden, llth September, 1621. He died in 1624,
and was buried in the churchyard of Carlisle cathedral.
Richard Senhouse, dean of Gloucester, was his successor at
Carlisle, as Laud, a previous dean of Gloucester, had succeeded
him at St. David's.
In the llth volume of Bishop Andrewes' works, printed
at Oxford in 1854, is given for the first time, A Discourse
written by Doctor Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, against second
Marriage, after Sentence of Divorce with a former Match, the
party then living. In Anno 1601. Besides the two copies
in the British Museum (Birch MSS. 4149, art. 38, p. 320,
and Lansdowne MSS. 958) there is a third in the University
Library at Cambridge. This last has been marked probably
by its original owner as unworthy of Bishop Andrewes.
However, in the Articles of Visitation for the years 1619 and
1625, immediately following the Discourse, the question is
asked, "Do any being divorced or separated, marry again,
the former wife or husband yet living?" (p. 120.)
The author of the Discourse, after giving that interpretation
which is usually pleaded in behalf of this view to Matth. xix. 9,
Rom. vii. 2, and 1 Cor. vii. 11, alleges the 9th Canon of the
Council of Eliberis, the 17th Canon of the Council of Milevum,
Origen's 7th Homily upon St. Matthew, St. Jerome's Epistle
to Amandus (torn i. col. 296 A.), St. Ambrose on 1 Cor. vii.
(or rather Hilary the Deacon), Op. torn. ii. Append, col. 133,
the Epistle of Innocent I. to Exuperius (§ 6. Cone. torn. ii.
col. 1256 C.), and to St. Augustine de Adulterinis Conjugiis,
1. 2, c. 4.
The author, towards the conclusion, alleges that otherwise
an encouragement is held out to the adulterer, if he is at
liberty, having broken his vows, to marry again. He refers
to St. Jerome on Matth. xix. 9, and to St. Ambrose on
Luke xvi. 1, 8, § 4, though, observes the editor, the meaning
appears to be mistaken. The decision of the Reformers,
both English and Continental, was in favour of the validity
of the second marriage of the innocent and injured party after
divorce on the ground of adultery. The Eeformatio Legum,
a noble monument of the high spiritual aims and apostolic
simplicity of Cranmer and his associates in that great work,
permitted such marriages. That they but walked in the steps
of primitive antiquity is avouched by the authority of the
most learned and impartial student of the fathers whom the
present century has seen, the late bishop of Lincoln. In his very
valuable work upon Tertullian he observes, " that the Roman
Catholic notion of the indissolubility of marriage was then
unknown. Tertullian on all occasions affirms that it may be
dissolved on account of adultery: and though his peculiar
tenets would naturally lead him to deny to either party the
liberty of marrying again, yet he admits that such marriages
actually took place in the church."1
In 1821 was republished by the late munificent dean of
Westminster, Dr. Ireland, Nuptice Sacrce, or, an Enquiry into
the Scripture Doctrine of Marriage and Divorce, addressed to
the Two Houses of Parliament. First published in 1801, and
now reprinted by desire. In this very able and elaborate
treatise, its learned author traces this notion of the indis
solubility of marriage to the Shepherd of Hermas. For
the history of this apocryphal writing the reader may consult
the Dissertation of Ittigius de Patribus Apostolicis, § 55 — 65.
Ittigius is opposed to the opinion advocated in Dr. Burton's
Lectures,2 that the works bearing the name of Hermas were
written by a brother of Pius, bishop of Rome, in A.D. 141
or 142. The late venerable Dr. Routh observes its con
demnation by all the Councils of the Catholic Church, as
affirmed by Tertullian de Pudicitid, c. 16. See Routh's
Scriptorum Eccles. Opusc. torn. i. p. 176, Oxon. 1832, and
'Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, 3rd ed. p. 242.
A second marriage, upon divorce on account of adultery,
was allowed the innocent party to the time of archbishop
Bancroft, who was swayed by some divines in the opposite
direction. Amongst these perhaps was Edmund Bunney,
who wrote very zealously against such marriages, but did
not make good his claim to the general authority of the
fathers on his side. This Edmund Bunney added the
arguments of the books and chapters to the London edition
of Calvin's Institutes in 1576. He was, like Bernard Gilpin
the apostle of the north, an indefatigable preacher, travelling
about the north of England to supply as far as possible
the then great lack of preachers. He was B.D. and fellow of
Merton College, Oxford, rector of Bolton Percy, prebendary
of Oxgate in St. Paul's, March 20, 1564, subdean of York
1570 ; he resigned the subdeanery in 1575, and was made
prebendary of Wistow in St. Peter's, York, October 21, 1575.
On July 2, 1585, he was admitted to the first stall in Carlisle,
which he resigned in 1603. The village of Bunney, seven
miles south-east of Nottingham, took its name from his
family. He sometime before his death, which occurred
Feb. 6, 1612, gave up his paternal inheritance to his brother
Richard. His effigy and monument are against the wall of
the south aisle of the choir in York-minster, near the monu
ment of archbishop Lamplugh.
But by far the most learned treatise that has appeared
upon this subject, is the posthumous work of that prodigy
of learning, Dr. John Rainolds, sometime dean of Lincoln
and afterward president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford,
in the reign of James the First. There antiquity is clearly
shewn to be far more in favour of the permission of a second
marriage after divorce on the ground of adultery than against it.
Heylyn, in his Life of Laud, calls the prohibiting of such
marriages the Romish doctrine. The Greek Church has
on the other hand always allowed them.
Of the authorities cited in the Discourse ascribed to An-
drewes, the Council of Eliberis forbids the remarriage of the wo
man, but makes no mention of the man. Origen, in Tract. 7 in
c. 19 MattL, spoke of divorces not granted for adultery, but for
lighter reasons after the custom of the Jews : St. Jerome, with
Athenagoras and the so-called Apostolical Constitutions, con
demned all second marriages : St. Ambrose, on Luke xvi., did
not refer to these marriages, but reproved men for marrying
after they had put away their chaste wives : St. Augustine
himself, in his Retractations, acknowledged his partial dis
satisfaction with what he had previously advanced upon this
subject : ' Scripsi duos libros de conjugiis adulterinis, quan
tum potui secundum scripturas, cupiens solvere difficillimam
qusestionem. Quod utrum enodatissime fecerim nescio, imb
verb non me pervenisse ad hujus rei perfectionem sentio,
quamvis multos sinus ejus aperuerim, quod judicare poterit
quisquis intelligenter legit.' (1. 2, p. 83. Lugd. 1563.)
To this should be added his concession in his book De Fide
et Operibus, c. 19, p. 98, torn. iv. Et in ipsis divinis sententiis
ita obscurum esty utrum et iste cui quidem sine dubio adulterant,
licet dimittere, adulter tamen habeatur si alteram duxeritj ut
quantum existimo, venialiter ibi quisque fallatur '.
It should be borne in mind that for a long time in the
Western church, where Scripture was regarded as leaving
every liberty of opinion, there St. Augustine's opinion was
received as the rule.
St. Chrysostom is plain for the dissolubility of marriage,
Horn. 19, in 1 Cor. 7 : tl The marriage is dissolved by fornica
tion, neither is the husband a husband any longer." This
testimony is allowed by Covarruvias in 4 1. Decretal, Part 2,
c. 7, D 6.
Theophylact, on St. Luke c. xvi., says expressly that our
Lord's words here must be supplied from St. Matthew.
Bellarmine has recourse to a chapter fathered on the
Council of Basle by Pope Eugenius IY. St. Basil's Canons
9 and 21, approved by General Councils (Cone, in Trullo,
Canon 2), authorize the man to marry again after divorce
from an adulterous wife, and check the custom that would
forbid the same liberty to a woman divorced from an adult
erous husband.
The reader may find many other authorities in Dr. Kai-
nolds ; he may also consult the 14th chapter of the seventh
book of the Theologia Moralis of Dr. John Forbes, and the
2nd chapter of the third part of the second book of Dr.
John Gerhard's Confessio Catholica.
On November 15th the Dean of Westminster preached at
Whitehall, upon giving to Caesar his due, instancing out of
both the Old and New Testament the duty of obedience to
princes be they good or bad ; for it is not to Tiberius but to
Cassar that the tribute is due, (not to the person but to the
office). The gospel recognizes the doctrine that every man
must regard his property as belonging of right to God and to
Csesar, himself being interested in it but as a third person •
a doctrine consonant enough to reason and revelation, but
not very acceptable to the philosophy of covetousness, which
would misrepresent it as subversive of the laws of property,
whereas it is the only true foundation of them. Certain
it is that in proportion to the prevalence of more selfish
principles, property has been rendered insecure by the natural
revulsion that always follows the oppression of covetousness.
Whilst dean of Westminster, Dr. Andrewes frequently
superintended the school in person ; but bishop Hacket shall
relate in his own words the sedulousness with which he
fostered that school, and the delight which he took in en
couraging the studious. In his Life of Archbishop Williams
Hacket says : " He had heard much what pains Dr. Andrewes
did take both day and night to train up the youth bred
in the public school, chiefly the alumni of the college so
called. For more certain information he (Williams) called
me from Cambridge, in the May before he was installed,
to the house of his dear cousin Mr. Elwes Winn in Chancery-
lane, a clerk of the Petty Bag, a man of the most general
and gracious acquaintance with all the great ones of the land
that ever I knew. There he moved his questions to me
about the discipline of Dr. Andrewes. I told him how strict
that excellent man was to charge our masters that they
should give us lessons out of none but the most classical
authors ; that he did often supply the place both of the head-
schoolmaster and usher for the space of an whole week
together, and gave us not an hour of loitering time from
morning to night : how he caused our exercises in prose and
verse to be brought to him, to examine our style and pro
ficiency ; that he never walked to Chiswick for his recreation
without a brace of this young fry; and in that wayfaring
leisure had a singular dexterity to fill those narrow vessels
with a funnel. And, which was the greatest burden of
his toil, sometimes thrice in a week, sometimes oftener,
he sent for the uppermost scholars to his lodgings at night,
and kept them with him from eight till eleven, unfolding
to them the best rudiments of the Greek tongue and the
elements of the Hebrew grammar; and all this he did to boys
without any compulsion of correction, nay, I never heard
him utter so much as a word of austerity among us."
Hacket adds, after a rapturous eulogy, that this good
and great prelate was the first that planted him in his tender
studies, and watered them continually with his bounty. It
is recorded of Duppa, bishop of Winchester, on his monument
in Westminster Abbey, that he learnt Hebrew of Lancelot
Andrewes, at that time dean. Dr. David Stokes was also
at Westminster School at this time.
On Ash- Wednesday, 1602, dean Andrewes preached be
fore the queen at Whitehall, February 17, from Jer. viii. 4 — 7,
a very ingenious and forcible sermon against neglecting and
delaying of repentance. Towards the conclusion he notes
how the very season of Lent, coming earlier in the year,
is an intimation of the duty of an early return to God.
On St. Barnabas' Day, June 11, we find him, with his
old schoolmaster Mulcaster and Dr. Friar, as an examiner
at Merchant Taylors' School.
On Thursday, March 24, 1603, died queen Elizabeth,
the prosperity of whose reign, the wisdom of whose councillors,
the security of whose subjects raised her memory upon an
imperishable basis, and deeply rooted her name in the affections of all ranks. Her remains were followed to the tomb
by fifteen hundred persons in deep mourning, and this a
voluntary attendance. Fuller observes, that most of the
London and many of the country churches had pictures or
models of her tomb. Under these were inscriptions which
may be seen in Stow's Survey of London.
On St. James's Day, July 25, Dr. Andrewes, as dean,
assisted at the coronation of king James. The plague was
meanwhile raging in London, and carried away thirty thou
sand inhabitants. Andrewes probably retired to Chiswick
to the prebendal house, and preached in the church there on
August 24, from Psalm cvi. 29, 30. Very excellently does
he urge that if not a sparrow falleth to the ground without
our heavenly Father, much less can such a visitation as
the plague be attributed to chance. He inveighs against
inventions in religion, and new modes of luxury in common
life. He enumerates the causes of plagues (or sicknesses)
mentioned in Holy Writ, namely, fornication, the sin of Peor;
pride, the sin of David;1 blasphemy, the sin of Balshakeh ;
and neglect and profanation of the Sacrament, the sin of the
Corinthians. Some in our day have, amidst their other
superstitious scruples (unscrupulous enough in points of
greater moment) been forward to censure the common appli
cation of this term 'the Sacrament' to the holy Eucharist.
Nevertheless we here find one, who is a giant in comparison
of them all, using the term without hesitation, as being
in truth not likely to lead men into error, nor inappropriate
to that sacrament which is confessedly the highest part of
Christian worship.
On the 26th of August he was put in a commission with Dr.
Eichard Field, archbishop Whitgift, the earl of Nottingham,
many of her ministers were eminently distinguished. In every season of alarm
and danger, the greatness of her mind and the dignity of her character were
strikingly displayed ; and although she ruled with absolute sway, — although she
pressed severely upon some of her conscientious subjects, who could not conform
to the ceremonies which she introduced, or which she retained in the services of
the Church, she was beheld with veneration by her people, and regarded
throughout Europe as the strenuous defender of the Protestant faith." — Dr.
Cooke's Hist, of the Church of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 128. Edinb. 1815.
1 2 Sam. c. xxiv.
Lord Admiral, the bishop of Winchester, Sir John Herbert,
Knt, Second Secretary, Sir Thomas West, Knt, Sir Julius
Caesar, Knt., a master of Requests, Sir David Dunn, Knt.,
also a master of Requests, Sir Thomas Fleming, Knt., solicitor,
Sir Edward and Sir George Moore, Sir Richard Mill, Sir
Richard Norton, Sir William Uvedale, Sir Benjamin Tytch-
borne, Knts., the Chancellor of the bishop of Winchester,
the Dean and Archdeacon, and others, for visiting the diocese
of Winchester for the punishment of recusancy, nonconformity,
fornication, adultery, misbehaviour in the church or church
yards, &c., &c.
On Saturday, January 14, 1604, he was appointed to be
present at the Hampton-court Conference, held between the
Conformists and the Puritans. The dean of the chapel, Dr.
Montague, also dean of Worcester (afterwards bishop of Bath
and Wells and then of Winchester), Dr. Thomas Ravis, dean
of Christchurch (afterwards bishop of London), Dr. Overall,
dean of St. Paul's (afterwards bishop of Norwich), Dr. Barlow,
Dr. Bridges, dean of Sarum, and Dr. Giles Thompson, dean
of Windsor (afterwards bishop of Gloucester), were summoned
with Andrewes, and were in the presence-chamber ; but only
Montague, dean of the chapel, Andrewes, Overall, Barlow and
Bridges were called in on the first day. Andrewes does not
appear to have taken any part, except that on the second day,
Monday the 16th, upon the king's making inquiry into the
antiquity of the use of the cross in baptism, Andrewes made
answer, " It appears out of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen,
that it was used in immortali lavacro".
This conference was followed by the appointment of a Com
mittee who were entrusted with the preparing the present
version of the Scriptures. Both Dr. Andrewes and his brother
Roger, a fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge, were ap
pointed translators, and besides Andrewes, four other Merchant
Taylors, Tomson, dean of Gloucester, Perin, who on November 24th was made a canon of Christchurch, Dr. Ravens, vicar of Dunmow, Essex, and Spenser, chaplain to the king,
and (on the death of the very learned Dr. Kainolds) president
of Corpus Christ! College, Oxford, and also a fellow of the
Koyal Controversial College of Chelsea. Andrewes was in that
division to which was allotted the Old Testament from Genesis
to the end of the books of Kings. Previously to the appoint
ment of the Committee of Translators, Dr. Andrewes discovered
his wonderful eloquence to the king by a sermon such as hath
never been equalled in an age of greater fastidiousness but
not of greater strength.
On Good Friday, April 6th, he preached before him at
Whitehall, from Lam. i. 12, Have ye no regard, 0 all ye that
pass ~by the way ? . Consider and behold, if ever there were
sorrow Wee my sorrow, which was done unto me, wherewith the
Lord did afflict me in the day of the fierceness of his wrath f
If any discourse could ever be said to be at all worthy of the
subject, the unspeakable mystery of the love of Christ in our
redemption, this is it. Bishop Home, a great admirer of our
prelate, but not for a moment to be put in comparison with
him, is said to have delighted in using the substance of, or
preaching this sermon in a more modern style ; but indeed the
great simplicity of Bishop Andrewes is amongst his greatest
perfections. Bishop Home was too ornate and polished to be
powerful, but to Andrewes both the king and the peasant
might have listened with unequal, but both with great profit.
This passage in Lamentations, and that of Hosea, Out of
Egypt have I called my Son, with many more of the like kind,
he regarded as typical, and most perfectly applicable to our
Saviour ; a rule in accordance with the spirit of scripture and
Christian antiquity, and that tends to the more complete
understanding of the scripture testimony to Christ— an inter
nal evidence of its correctness.
In regard of the sermon itself, it is a very full and glowing
declaration of the great doctrine of our redemption accom
plished in that day of the wrath of God when the innocent
suffered for the guilty, the lamb as a sacrifice, who could not
justly suffer merely as a lamb.
"The cause then in God was wrath. What caused this
wroth? God is not wroth but with sin ; nor grievously wroth
but with grievous sin. And in Christ there was no grievous
sin, nay, no sin at all. God did it (the text is plain), and in
his fierce wrath he did it. For what cause ? For God forbid
God should do as did Annas the high-priest, cause him to be
smitten without cause. God forbid (saith Abraham) the Judge
of the world should do wrong to any ; to any, but specially to
his own Son, that his Son of whom, with thundering voice
from heaven, he testifieth all his joy and delight were in him,
in him only he was well pleased. And how then could his
wrath wax hot, to do all this unto him?
" There is no way to preserve God's justice and Christ's
innocency both, but to say as the angel said of him to the
prophet Daniel, The Messiah shall be slain, Vb^NI ve-en-lo ;
shall be slain, but not for himself. Not for himself? for
whom then? For some others. He took upon him the
person of others ; and so doing, justice may have her course
and proceed.
" Pity it is, to see a man pay that he never took : but
if he will become a surety, if he will take on him the person
of the debtor, so he must. Pity to see a silly poor lamb
be bleeding to death, but if it must be a sacrifice (such
is the nature of a sacrifice) so it must. And so Christ,
though without sin in himself, yet, as a surety, as a sacrifice,
may justly suffer for others, if he will take upon him their
persons; and so God may justly give way to his wrath
against him.
"And who be those others? The prophet Esay telleth
us, and telleth us seven times over for failing : He took upon
him our infirmities, and bare our maladies : He was wounded
for our iniquities, and broken for our transgressions. The
chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes
were we healed. All ive as sheep were gone astray, and turned
every man to his own way : and the Lord hath laid upon him
the iniquity of us all. All, all ; even those that pass to and
fro, and for all this, regard neither him nor his passion."*
The king was from the very first anxious to effect a legis
lative union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and England.
But the jealousy that arose in consequence of the king's
partiality for his Scottish courtiers defeated his intentions,
intentions that were commended to the consideration of
Parliament as early as May 19, 1603, soon after his accession.
We find his very learned and excellent kinsman John
Gordon, of the noble house of Huntley, and whom he had
made dean of Sarum in the preceding February, preaching
before him at Whitehall on the 28th of October, the 21st
Sunday after Trinity (the 7th Nov. N. s.) in favour of the
Union of Great Britain. This sermon is entitled, Henoticon,
or, A Sermon of the Union of Great Brittannie, in antiquitie
of language, name, religion, and kingdom. It was printed
by Geo. Bishop, London, 1604. This sermon, consisting
of above fifty pages, is written in an excellent style, simple,
clear, and vigorous, full of sound maxims and sound theology,
and abundantly illustrated by examples from history, both
civil and ecclesiastical. We are not to look indeed for
critical acumen. The legendary account of Joseph of Ari-
mathea, and the sway of Lucius over the whole of Britain,
are introduced into his account of our early Christianity.
For his notices of the dispersion of mankind after the flood
he refers to the Anchoratus of Epiphanius* a work the
principal object of which was indeed to set forth the doctrine
of our Lord's divinity against the Arians, and of the Holy
Ghost against the Macedonians. Gordon shewed how Divine
Providence ever favoured those kingdoms that discountenanced
idolatry and maintained the true worship of God. He
unreservedly condemned the Romish worship of the host
and of images as Gentilism under the profession of Christi
anity. He had in the preceding year, 1603, written : Asser-
tiones theological pro verd verce ecclesice nota, quce est solius
Dei adoratio, contra falsce ecclesice Creaturarum Adorationem.
Theological Theses in maintenance of a true mark of a true
Church, namely, the worship of God alone, against the false
Churctis adoration of the Creatures. Rupell, 1603, 8vo.
Gordon was of Balliol College, Oxford, but had first received
a very extensive education both in Scotland and France,
and especially in the Eastern languages. He derived the
names of Britain, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland from the
Hebrew, and commented upon them accordingly in his sermon
upon Union. He had been gentleman of three Kings' cham
bers in France, namely, Charles IX., Henry III. and IV. ;
and, adds Anthony Wood, " whilst he was in the flower
of his age he was there assailed with many corruptions as
well spiritual as temporal, and in many dangers of his life,
which God did miraculously deliver him from. At length
K. James the first of England did call him into England,
and to the holy ministry, he being then 58 years of age,
and upon the promotion of Dr. John Bridges to the see
of Oxon in the latter end of 1603, he made him Dean of
Salisbury in February 1604."1 Lord-Chancellor Egerton
gave him, in June 1608, the rectory of Upton Lovel near
Heytesbury, close by the road to Salisbury.
On the following Good-Friday, March 29, 1605, Dean
Andrewes preached before the King at Greenwich, from
Heb. xii. 2. It is difficult to say which is the more in
comparable of his three Good-Friday sermons. In this there
is not a sentence that could be spared, there is not a passage
but deserves to be studied. Truly did he live in the con
templation of his heavenly Master's love and in the view
of his cross; of looking to which he saith here, "blessed are
the hours that are so spent." The reading of these pages
makes us regret the loss of those discourses which he most
probably delivered either in his college chapel or his abbey
church at Westminster upon Christmas and Easter Day.
For truly St. Chrysostom himself was, in naturalness and
in setting forth the love of Christ, nay altogether as a divine,
far his inferior. Here we have not the undue austerity of
that age, not the unmeaning pomp of words, not the occasional
bursting forth of Christian light ; but the heart speaks from its
fulness, of that love which passeth knowledge, which despised
both pain and shame, which bowed itself to the death of
a slave, a malefactor, a derided person. Here both our love
and hope are fed; as he himself saith, "if either of these
will serve us, will prevail to move us, here it is. Here is
love, love in the cross ; who loved us and gave himself for us
a sacrifice on the cross. Here is hope, hope in the throne :
To him that overcometh will I give to sit with me in my throne.
If our eye be a mother s eye, here is love worth the looking
on. If our eye be a merchant's eye, here is hope worth
the looking after. I know it is true, that verus amor vires
non sumit de spe. (It is Bernard.) Love, if it be true indeed,
as in the mother, receiveth no manner of strength from hope.
Ours is not such, but faint and feeble and full of imperfection :
here is hope therefore to strengthen our weak knees, that
we may run the more readily to the high prize of our calling.
Early in the reign of James the plague broke out in
Oxford, so that although he received Dr. Abbot, Master of
University College and Dean of Winchester, Vicechancellor
of the university, with the proctors (of whom Laud was one)
and several doctors and other members of the university
at Woodstock, in September, he did not then venture to visit
Oxford. He was presented with the Holy Scriptures in the
name of the university, and then promised that when the
plague had abated he would visit the university.
The King however resolved on visiting the university
in August 1606, taking in his way Havering-atte-bower to
the north of Eomford, where he remained two nights, July,
Tuesday 16th and Wednesday the 17th. This Havering
had been a royal seat from the reign of Edward the Confessor,
and was frequently visited by his illustrious predecessor
Elizabeth. Thence he proceeded to Loughton Hall, westward
below the east side of Epping Forest, another resort of the
late Queen. On Saturday the 20th, the King came to the
Earl of Salisbury at Theobald's, a little to the west of Wal-
tham Abbey. Here he and the Queen remained three days.
Theobald's had been the seat of the great Lord Burleigh, where
he was often visited by Queen Elizabeth. James received it of
the Earl of Salisbury in exchange for Hatfield, frequently re
tired hither, and in 1625 here breathed his last. Charles I.
sometimes came to this place, and in 1642 the petition of both
houses of parliament was presented to him here ; and hence
he withdrew to put himself at the head of his army. During
the commonwealth the greater part was taken down, and sold
to pay the troops. James II. greatly enlarged the park.
In 1689 it was given by William III. to the Earl of Portland,
whose descendants sold it in 1702 to Mr. Prescot. Every
vestige of the ancient palace was removed in 1765, and
a new house erected about a mile from the site.
On Tuesday the 23rd, the King and Queen went to
Hatfield palace, where they stayed three days. Here the
Bishops of Ely had formerly a palace, which was conveyed
to Queen Elizabeth by Bishop Cox. James, in the fourth
year of his reign, exchanged it for Theobald's with Sir Eobert
Cecil, whom he had in 1603 made Baron of Essendine in
Rutlandshire, and in 1604 Viscount Cranborne in Dorsetshire,
and whom, on May 4, 1605, he raised to be Earl of Salisbury.
He erected the present noble mansion. Hence he went one
day to visit Sir Goddard Pemberton at Hertford Bury, of
an ancient family in Lancashire, and, some years after, sheriff
for Hertfordshire.
On Friday the 26th, the king visited Mr. Sandy, afterward
Napier, whom in 1612 he made a baronet. He had purchased
about this time the capital manor of Luton, with the fine
seat and park there called Luton Hoo, from the ancient
family of Hoo, and which since came into the hands of the
Marquis of Bute. The Queen went to Sir John Kotheram's,
a mansion on Farley Green in the parish of Luton. At Mr.
Sandy's Sir George Peryam, of Oxfordshire, received the
honour of knighthood. On the same day, Thursday the
27th, the King proceeded to Houghton Bury in the parish
of Houghton Conquest, the seat of Sir Edward Conquest,
by whom he was entertained five days. The little that now
remains of the mansion is a farm-house of brick and timber.
The male line of this family became extinct in Benedict
Conquest, esq., father of Lady Arundel (1828). The manor
was purchased by the Earl of Upper Ossory in 1741.
The Queen was entertained by Sir Robert Newdigate at
Hawnes. The house has been modernised and mostly rebuilt
by Lord Carteret, whose family has possessed the manor from
1667. Sir Roger Newdigate, the last who bore the title,
died in 1806, leaving by his will the annual prize at Oxford
for the best English verses on ancient sculpture, or painting,
or architecture.
On the 28th, it being the feast day at Houghton, the King
with his court, consisting of the Duke of Lenox, the Earls
of Northampton, Suffolk, Salisbury, Devonshire, and Pem
broke, the Lords Knowles, Wotton, and Stanhope, and Dr.
Watson Bishop of Chichester, his almoner, attended divine
service at the parish church.
On the 30th the King visited the Queen at Hawnes, and
there attended divine service. The rector of Houghton
Conquest, the Rev. Thomas Archer, preached from the Song
of Solomon, ii. 15, Take us the foxes, the little foxes which
destroy the grapes, for our vines have small grapes. Some
of his MSS. (and amongst them this sermon) were in the
possession of a late rector, Dr. Pearce, Dean of Ely and
Master of Jesus College, Cambridge. Archer was immediately
sworn one of the King's chaplains in ordinary.
During this visit the King devoted himself to his favourite
field sports in the parks of Houghton and Ampthill.
On Thursday, August 1st, the King went from Houghton
to Thurleigh, the seat of Sir Wm. Hervey, between Bletsoe
to the west and Bolnhurst to the east, above Bedford. He
had amply deserved the honours to which he afterwards rose,
by numerous acts of unparalleled valour in the memorable
1588, and on many subsequent occasions. He had been
knighted by Queen Elizabeth, and was made a baronet by
James, May 13, 1619, and in 1620 Lord Eoss in the county
of Wexford, and finally by Charles I. a baron of this realm
by the title of Lord Hervey of Kidbrook in Kent, February 7,
1628. His title became extinct on his death in 1642. He
was buried, July 8th, in Westminster Abbey with great
solemnity.
On the same Thursday, August 1st, the Queen went
from Hawnes to the seat of Oliver third Lord St. John at
Bletsoe, "the residence in times past of the Pateshulls,
after of the Beauchamps, and now of the honourable family
of St. John (1610), which long since by their valour attained
unto very large and goodly possessions in Glamorganshire,
and in our days," says the more ancient editor of Camden,
" through the favour of Q. Elizabeth of happy memory, unto
the dignity of barons, when she created Sir Oliver, the second
baron of her creation, Lord St. John of Bletnesho, unto
whom it came by Margaret Beauchamp on inheritance, wedded
first to Sir Oliver St. John, from whom these barons derive
their pedigree, and secondly to John duke of Somerset, unto
whom she bare the Lady Margaret Countess of Kichmond,
a lady most virtuous and always to be remembered with
praises; from whose loins the late Kings and Queens of
England are descended." At Bletsoe, overlooking a country
of considerable extent to the south around and beyond
Bedford, was Lady Margaret the mother of Henry VII. born.
Vestiges of the old castellated mansion were discernible some
years ago near a farm-house, the remains of the more modern
quadrangular mansion of the St. John's. This family held
lands in Oxfordshire in the reign of Henry I.
Oliver the third Lord, who had the honour of entertaining
the king, succeeded to the title in 1596, and died in 1613.
His son Oliver, the fourth baron, was in 1624 advanced
to the title of Earl of Bolingbroke. The earldom became
extinct in 1711. The barony devolved to the posterity of
Sir Kowland St. John, a younger son of Oliver the third
baron. But the family residence is a few miles northward near
Eisely at Melchbourn. In the north aisle of the venerable
and cruciform church of Bletsoe, which is the burial-place
of the noble family of St. John, is a monument with the
effigies of a knight in armour, with his lady, intended for
Sir John St. John, father of Oliver the first Lord. This son
was created Lord St. John Jan. 13, 1559. His father married
Margaret daughter of Sir William Waldegrave, of a noble
Saxon family, and by her had two daughters, Margaret who
was married to Francis second Earl of Bedford, one of the
greatest ornaments of his house.
On Saturday the 3rd of August, the King and Queen
were received for three days, at the noble mansion of Drayton
to the west of Daventry on the borders of Northamptonshire,
by Henry Lord Mordaunt. His son was created Earl of
Peterborough in 1628. On the following Tuesday the 6th,
the King, accompanied by the Queen, renewed the pleasure
he had received on his former visit to Sir Anthony (son to
Sir Walter Mildmay the founder of Emmanuel College, Cam
bridge,) at Apthorp, where he had dined in April 1603,
on his way from Scotland to London.
Apthorp is in the neighbourhood of Kingscliffe, the resi
dence for some months of the truly venerable Archdeacon
of Lincoln, the early friend of the late ever to be revered
Bishop of that see, Dr. Kaye.
Sir Walter Mildmay has been very gratefully memorialized
by the eccentric but kind-hearted George Dyer, himself
of Emmanuel College, in his interesting History of the
University of Cambridge.
Sir Walter, fifth son of Thomas Mildmay of Little Baddow
below Chelmsford, was a student of Christ's College. Fuller
observes of him, tl Sir Robert Naunton, in his Fragmenta
Regalia, did leave as well as take, omitting some statesmen
of the first magnitude, no less valued by than useful to Queen
Elizabeth, as appears by his not mentioning of this worthy
knight. True it is, toward the end of his days he fell into
the Queen's disfavour, not by his own demerit, but the envy
of his adversaries. For he being employed by virtue of his
place to advance the Queen's treasure, did it industriously,
faithfully, and conscionably, without wronging the subject,
being very tender of their privileges, insomuch that he once
complained in Parliament that many subsidies were granted,
and no grievances redressed. Which words being represented
with his disadvantage to the Queen, made her to disafFect
him, setting in a court cloud, but in the sunshine of his
countiy and a clear conscience."
" Coming to court after he had founded his college,"
(1584) the Queen told him, tf Sir Walter, I hear that you
have erected a Puritan foundation." " No, Madam," saith he,
" far be it from me to countenance anything contrary to your
established laws; but I have set an acorn, which when it
becomes an oak, God alone knows what will be the fruit
thereof." « Sure I am at this day," adds Fuller (1634), " it
hath overshadowed all the University, more than a moiety
of the present Masters of Colleges being bred therein."
Sir Anthony was son to Sir Walter. He was knighted
by Queen Elizabeth and sent over to France on an embassy
to Henry IV. in 1596. " He was at Geneva," says Fuller,
" when Theodore Beza their minister was convened before
their consistory and publicly checked for preaching too elo
quently : he pleaded that what they called eloquence in him
was not affected but natural, and promised to endeavour more
plainness for the future. Sir Anthony, by Grace coheir to Sir
Henry Sherington, had one daughter Mary, married to Sir
Francis Fane, afterwards earl of Westmoreland."
In Apthorp chapel, within Nassington park, both Sir
Anthony and his lady Grace, " one of the coheirs of Sir Henry
Sherington, knt., of Lacock in the county of Wilts, who
lived fifty years married to him, and three years a widow
after him," lie buried. He died September llth, 1617, and
his lady Grace July 27th, 1620.
The present mansion, the seat of the Earl of Westmoreland,
is neatly built of freestone, and consists of a quadrangle with
open cloisters. On the south side is a stone statue of James L,
who gave the timber for building the east and south sides.
There are chambers still called the King's and the Duke's
chamber. Among several good portraits are a quarter piece
by Vandyke, in the king's chamber, of the first Earl of West
moreland, and a full-length portrait of Frances Howard,
Duchess of Richmond and Lenox, daughter to Thomas Lord
Howard of Bindon. In the ceiling are the arms, crest, and
supporters of England in fretwork. On the staircase is a full-
length portrait of James, created Duke of Richmond in 1641,
May 8th, the faithful friend of Dr. Thomas Fuller, and a
faithful servant of Charles I., at whose interment at Windsor
he was present. Here are also portraits of the Mildmay
family here mentioned, and of Philip and Mary, supposed
to have been painted by Holbein.
The King, after enjoying his favourite sport around Ap-
thorp, went on Friday the 9th to Rockingham Castle, the
mansion of Sir Edward Watson, and the Queen to Kirby,
the seat of Sir Christopher Hatton, in the parishes of Gretton
and Bulwick, thus going southward on their way to Oxford.
Sir Edward Watson had been high-sheriff of Northampton
shire in 1591, and was knighted by the King at the Charter
house May 12, 1603. He died in 1617. The mansion and
castle are now the property of Lord Sondes, descended of Lady
Margaret, youngest daughter of Sir Edward's son, Sir Lewis
the first Earl Rockingham.
Kirby, the seat of Sir Christopher, a godson of the Lord-
chancellor Hatton, was celebrated for its gardens. Sir Chris
topher sold Holdenby to the King in 1608, resided at Kirby,
and died in 1619.
On Monday the 12th August, the King and Queen visited
Mr. Edward, brother of Sir Thomas Griffin, at Braybrooke
Castle. Scarcely any remains of the castle now exist. On
the death of Sir Thomas in 1615, he succeeded to the family
estates at Braybrooke and Dingley. His son Edward was
created Lord Griffin of Braybrooke by James II. in 1688.
The title became extinct in 1742, but revived August 3rd,
1784, in favour of John, son of Anne, sister of the last Lord.
He took the title of Lord Howard of Walden. The title
of Baron of Braybrooke was revived September 5th, 1788,
in the person of Richard Neville Aid worth, esq., on the death
of John Lord Howard of Walden. He was descended from
the ancient family of Aldworth1 of Stanlakes in Berkshire,
and in the female line from the Nevilles of Billingbear near
B infield in Berkshire, contiguous to which is the park with
the old mansion of the Lords Braybrooke.
In the afternoon their Majesties left Braybrooke Castle for
Harrowden, the seat of Lord Vaux, some miles to the south
west of Braybrooke Castle, and about two miles above Well-
ingborough. The ancient manor-house has long been de
molished. Edward the fourth Lord Vaux succeeded his
grandfather William in 1595. The first Lord was Sir Nicholas
Vaux, captain of Guisnes in Picardy, created by Henry VIII.
Lord Vaulx of Harrowden.
On Tuesday the 13th, the king and queen visited Castle
Ashby, the princely seat of Lord Compton,4 a little to the north
of the road from Northampton to Bedford. The old mansion
was enlarged in the seventeenth century under the direction
of the famous Inigo Jones. Within the stone balustrade is
wrought in open-work in Latin, Except the Lord build the
housej they labour in vain that build it.
Here they remained until Friday the 16th, when the King
proceeded to Grafton Lodge, then an honour of the King's,
but in the fifteenth century the mansion of the Widvilles or
Woodvilles. It was once the residence of the renowned
George Clifford, Earl of Cumberland. This heroic and dis
interested nobleman died October 30 this same year. But
little remains of this venerable mansion.
The Queen on the same day went to Alderton, which was
annexed to the manor of Grafton. In the reign of Queen
Elizabeth it was in the hands of William Gorges, esq., who,
dying without issue in 1589, left it to Frances, his only
daughter and heir, the wife of Thomas Heselrige, esq.
William, the Queen's host, was the son of Sir Thomas, who
had been knighted by Queen Elizabeth in 1577, and died in
1600. The son entertained the King at Alderton in August
1608, when he was knighted. He was sheriff for Leicester
shire in 1613, knight of the shire in 1614 and 1623, and was
created a baronet July 21, 1622. He died January 11, 1629,
aged 66.
On Tuesday the 20th, the King and Queen passing west
ward into Oxfordshire came to Hanwell, within four miles of
Banbury, the seat of Sir Anthony Cope, now, like so many
more of the mansions they visited, reduced to a shadow of its
former greatness. Sir Anthony, who had been knighted by
Elizabeth, is said to have been a mirror of integrity and
hospitality. His first wife was Frances, daughter of Sir
Kowland Litton of Herts. This family, becoming connected
with Hampshire in the last century, was seated at Bramshill
Park in that county, where the upright Primate Abbot met
with that unhappy casualty, July 24, 1621, whilst on a visit
there to Lord Zouch.
On the same day the King visited Sir William Pope of
Wilcote, at Wroxton Park, about a mile nearer Banbury,
"probably," says Warton, "in the old abbey house, where
he entertained the King with the fashionable and courtly
diversions of hawking and bearbating. As the King was on
a visit to Sir Thomas Watton at Halsted in Kent, near
Sevenoaks, his granddaughter Anne1 was presented to the
King, holding the following humorous epigram in her hand,
with which his Majesty was highly pleased.
See this little mistress here
Did never sit in Peter's chair,
Or a triple crown did wear,
And yet she is a POPE.
No benefice she ever sold,
Nor did dispense with sins for gold;
She hardly is a sevennight old,
And yet she is a POPE.
No King her feet did ever kiss,
Or had from her worse look than this ;
Nor did she ever hope
To saint one with a rope,2
And yet she is a POPE.
A female Pope you'll say; a second Joan.
No, sure; she is Pope Innocent, or none.
It is supposed, says Warton in his Life of Pope, to have
been written by Kichard Corbet, then a student at Christ-
church, afterwards Bishop of Norwich. His poems, with a life
of him prefixed, were edited with many additions by Octavius
Gilclirist in 1807.
Wroxton Abbey stood in the garden on the east side of the
present house. It was a priory of Augustine Canons, founded
early in the reign of Henry III. It was granted by Henry
VIII. to Sir Thomas Pope, who bestowed the site and lands,
or great part of them, on his new foundation of Trinity, which
he grafted on to Durham College, a great part of which still
remains under the appellation of Trinity College, Oxford. Sir
William, the King's host, built from the ground the present
mansion. The chapel he caused to be decorated with painted
glass by Van Ling in 1623. Wroxton Abbey is engraved
in Skelton's Antiquities of Oxfordshire.
Sir William's lady was Anne, daughter of Sir Owen Hop-
ton, lieutenant of the Tower, and relict of Henry Lord Went-
worth, Baron of Nettlestead. She died at Wroxton 1625.
On Wednesday the 21st, the King and Queen left Wroxton
for their ancient palace of Woodstock, where they remained
three nights. Woodstock was a royal residence from the reign
of Henry I.
The Earl of Dorset, the Chancellor of the University of
Oxford, had sent his instructions to the Heads of houses as
early as the month of June.
On Thursday the 22nd, on which day Philip Stringer,
Fellow of St. John's college and Solicitor to the University of
Cambridge, M.A. 1571, and some years esquire bedell, pro
bably from 1568 to 1591, came to Oxford in the afternoon,
bringing with him from the King's Attorney-general a book
ready for his Majesty's signature, for the endowing of the
regius divinity professorship of Cambridge with the livings of
Somersham and Colne in Huntingdonshire ; the Earls of Wor
cester, Suffolk, and Northampton, with Lord Carey, were in
Oxford surveying the preparations making at Christchurch
and elsewhere for the royal visit.
Edward Earl of Worcester, descended of Sir Charles
Somerset, natural son to Henry Duke of Somerset, was Master
of the Horse, and, " amongst other laudable parts of virtue
and nobility," is said to have highly favoured " the studies of
good literature."1 He was a knight of the garter, and ancestor
to his grace the Duke of Beaufort. He was one of the most
complete gentlemen of his time, and excelled in those manly
exercises, a proficiency in which then constituted so material
a part of the character of an accomplished courtier, particularly
tilting and horsemanship. He possessed abilities which quali-
fied him for the highest public offices, but avoided politics,
and chose to shine at the court and in his own house. He
died March 3rd, 1627, aged 84.1
The Earl of Suffolk, on the death of Henry Howard Earl
of Northampton in 1614, was elected Chancellor of the Uni
versity of Cambridge. He was ever in high favour with
the King, who, on his entry into England, made him his
Lord-chamberlain and afterwards Lord-treasurer. He erected
the once more than royal mansion at Audley End.
The Earl of Northampton was a scholar and a man of the
world, versed in the art of dissimulation, without honour
and principle, an accomplished and successful criminal, im
plicated in the darkest tragedy of this period, the death
of Sir Thomas Overbury ; but a contemporary speaks of him
thus : u Lord Henry Howard, brother to the last Duke of
Norfolk, a man of rare and excellent wit, and sweet, fluent
eloquence, singularly adorned also with the best sciences,
prudent in council, and provident withal."2 Thus wrote
Camden of this talented but worthless person. He was
born at Shottesham, about eight miles south of Norwich.
He was first of King's College, Cambridge, and afterwards
of Trinity Hall, where he took the degree of M.A. He was
incorporated M.A. of Oxford, April 19, 1568. His learning has
procured him a place in Lord Orford's Royal and noble Authors?
He was unable to obtain the countenance of Queen Elizabeth,
but sought to rise through the Earl of Essex, paying court at
the same time to his inveterate enemy, secretary Cecil, whose
correspondence with James passed through his hands, which
paved the way for his promotion by that monarch. Though,
as Anthony Wood says, a papist,4 he was chosen on Cecil's
death to the Chancellorship of the university of Cambridge,
in 1612. He died in 1614, June 15th, not long before
the full discovery of the crimes that succeeded upon the divorce
of his great niece the Countess of Essex with Carr, Earl
of Somerset. On his death the king conferred the earldom
of Northampton on the Lord Compton.
Lord Carey, also called Carew, was called Baron Carew
of Clopton, close upon Stratford-upon-Avon, having married
into the family that owned the manor of Clopton. He had
distinguished himself in 1595 at the siege of Cadiz, was
a favourite of Queen Elizabeth, who appointed him president
of Munster and master of the Ordnance in Ireland. In 1603
he was made governor of Guernsey, and being now vice-
chamberlain to the Queen, was created Baron Carew of Clopton
in the county of Warwick, and in 1625 Earl of Totness. He
died without issue March 27, 1629, aged 73.1 " He was,"
says Camden, " a most affectionate lover of venerable an
tiquity." Thus a similar taste united these noblemen, the
earls of Worcester, Suffolk, and Northampton, and Lord
Carey.
On Saturday the 23rd, very late in the evening, the
Chancellor of the university and Lord-Treasurer of England,
the Earl of Dorset, came to Oxford. He was welcomed at
Christchurch with an oration, and took up his lodgings at
New College. Never was Oxford graced with a more ac
complished and unsullied Chancellor. It has enjoyed indeed
one unrivalled in the field, but in the arts of peace none
ever shone with a serener brightness than this star of the
Elizabethan era. Thomas Sackville, Earl of Dorset, was
born at Buckhurst in the parish of Withiam in Sussex,
1536. He was admitted of Hart Hall, Oxford, but removed
thence, before he had taken a degree, to St. John's College,
Cambridge. As a poet he is regarded as the model of Spenser.
His life was one of vicissitude although of honour. He was
a diligent and eminent student of the law, served in parlia
ment for the county of Westmoreland in the reign of Queen
Mary, and for that of Sussex in the first parliament of
Elizabeth. He suffered a short imprisonment at Kome. On
his return he found himself in possession of a most ample
fortune by the death of his father, but his magnificence of
living brought him into difficulties, from which however
he recovered himself, having been wounded by the incivility
of an alderman who had greatly enriched himself by his
purchases of him, and who kept him sometime waiting, when
he was once obliged to apply to him. His father died in
1566. He was in the following year created Lord Buckhurst,
and in 1571 sent ambassador to France. In 1572 he was
one of the peers who sat in judgment on the Duke of Norfolk.
He was in 1586 one of the commissioners for the trial of
Mary Queen of Scots. In 1587 he was sent to the states
of Holland upon their complaints of the Earl of Leicester's
proceedings, in order to examine that affair and to compose
the differences that had arisen out of it. Although he per
formed his office faithfully, Leicester's interest with the Queen
prevailed so far as that he was confined to his house above
nine months. Upon the death of the Earl he was restored
to the favour of his sovereign, and soon after made a knight
of the garter. Sir Christopher Hatton dying on the 20th
November, 1591, Lord Buckhurst was chosen Chancellor of
the University of Oxford in preference to the Earl of Essex,
who was supported by the favourers of Puritanism. In 1598
he was appointed Lord High-Treasurer of England, and in
1601 Lord High-Steward for the trial of the Earl of Essex,
and conducted himself with remarkable candour and humanity
towards that nobleman, whose sentence of death he was
compelled by his office to pronounce. He married Cecily
daughter of Sir John Baker. His son Kobert succeeded to
his honours. His daughter Jane married Anthony Viscount
Montagu, grandson of Antony Browne who was created first
Viscount in the reign of Queen Mary, whose grandmother
was a daughter of John Neville Marquess Montacute, from
Montacute in Somersetshire, who was slain at Barnet in
1472. His daughter Mary married Henry Neville, seventh
Lord Abergavenny. King James advanced Lord Buckhurst
to the dignity of Earl of Dorset on March 13, 1604. He
died suddenly at the council-table April 19th, 1608, and
was buried with great solemnity in Westminster Abbey.
He was kind and hospitable, and generous to his tenants.
His household consisted of one hundred and twenty persons.
He was zealously pious, and an unbending upholder of the
Protestant religion.
On Saturday the 24th, the King removed to Langley,
some miles to the west of Woodstock. Some remains of the
palace were visible here in the last century. It stood near
the village of Shipton-under-Whichwood. Here the royal
party continued until their coming to Oxford on the 27th.
The Chancellor, Vicechancellor, Dr. Abbot, and the doctors
following two by two, attended at St. Mary's, it being St.
Bartholomew's Day. The preacher is said to have been
a Mr. Gryme or Graham. The church was already prepared
for the acts and sermons of the ensuing week with a raised
throne to the back of the chancel, double galleries on the
north and south sides, seats rising one above another at
the west end, and forms in the mid-space of the nave for
bachelors in divinity, &c., and masters of arts.
Doctor Gordon, who had been recently created doctor
in divinity, preached before the court on the following day,
being Sunday, and thither went the Chancellor of the uni
versity, not to Langley, but to Woodstock.
On Monday, at seven in the morning, there was an English
sermon at All Saints, and so every morning at the same hour
to Friday inclusive. This church, in the twelfth century, was
given or confirmed to the Canons of St. Frideswide. Thence
it came into the hands of the Bishops of Lincoln, in the 20th
year of Edward II., until Richard Fleming Bishop of Lincoln,
early in the fifteenth century, appropriated it to Lincoln Col
lege, of which he was the founder in 1427. The old church
was so much injured by the fall of the spire in 1699 as to
render the rebuilding of the whole indispensable, which was
accordingly done after a design from Dean Aldrich. At eight
all public lectures were read in their several schools, and from
nine till eleven they continued their disputations on Quod-
libets in the schools of arts. These disputations were between
masters and bachelors. And in the same schools from one to
three disputations were continued by bachelors and sophisters.
This day the Earl of Suffolk, Lord Chamberlain and several
other Earls and Lords came to Oxford, and reviewed the King's
and Queen's lodging in Christchurch, and the Prince Henry's
lodging in Magdalene College, and dined with the Chancellor
in the Warden's lodge at New College, with whom dined also
Dr. Abbot the Vice-Chancellor, with some other Doctors and
the Bedells.
On Tuesday the 27th of August, in the forenoon, all things
were performed as on the day before. At one in the afternoon
the Vice-Chan cellor and Doctors went to the Chancellor at
New College, and thence presently to meet the King in the
following order. First three esquire Bedells rode on footcloths,
in fair gowns, with gold chains, in velvet caps, carrying their
staves as at other times, but bare-headed, as did the Serjeant
of the Mace, who rode next behind them. Immediately after
them rode the Chancellor talking with the Vice-Chancellor,
the Vice-Chancellor bearing back about half the length of his
horse. After them six or eight Doctors also in scarlet, two by
two upon the footcloths. Then the two Proctors in their
civil hoods, upon the footcloths, riding two by two. These
were some of them heads of halls, and some of them ancient
bachelors in divinity. All these university men did wear
square caps. They stayed first at a place called Aristotle s
Wel^ being about a mile from the city. "Aristotle's Well,"
says Hearne in his Diary, " is in the midway between Oxford
and Wolvercote. Before we come to it, is another way called
Walton Well, from the old village of Walton now destroyed.
I have mentioned both these wells in my preface to John
Eowse. Aristotle's well was so called from the scholars,
especially such as studied his philosophy, going to it, and re
freshing themselves at it, there being an house for these
occasions just by it."1 But as it was a narrow place much
annoyed with dust, the Lord-Chamberlain sent word to them
to come a little forward into a fair meadow, where they all,
saving the Serjeant of the Mace, alighted from their horses,
and stayed a little while beside the highway expecting the
King. In the meantime the Mayor of the city, twelve alder
men in scarlet, and some six score commoners in black coats
guarded with velvet and laid on with Bellament lace, passed
forward by them some forty score. The Vice-Chancellor and
Doctors acquainted the Chancellor with this circumstance, who
sent his Serjeant-at-Arms to them, upon which they turned
back behind the Chancellor some twenty score.
And now the King came up on horseback, with the Queen
on his left-hand, and the Prince before them, the Duke of
Lenox carrying the sword. Esme Stuart, or (as formerly
spelt) Steward, Duke of Lenox, was son to John Lord
D'Aubigny younger brother to Matthew Earl of Lenox
upon whom Henry VIII. bestowed his niece. From this
marriage with Margaret daughter of King Henry's sister,
Margaret Queen-dowager of Scotland by her second husband
the Earl of Angus, sprang Henry Stuart Lord Darnley, father
of James I. The Chancellor first accosted the King, and
kneeled down at his feet with the rest, and kissed the
sole of his stirrup. The Vice-Chancellor accosted him with
a speech in honour of both the University and the King. As
was the custom of that age, it was mixed up with mythological
allusions. The speech is given by Sir Isaac Worke, from
which it would appear that Stringer has not recorded the
substance of it with exactness. Probably any other uni
versity would have rivalled Abbot in his praises of his Alma
Mater. Oxford had, some centuries previously, been reckoned
inferior only to Paris. But Abbot did not claim absolute
precedency for Oxford above every other university. The
Vice-Chancellor then presented the King with a splendid and
splendidly bound copy of Stephens' New Testament, which
the King looked into again and again with evident admira
tion, observing that it was a present worthy of the University
to give, and of a Prince to receive. Oxford was then famous
for its gloves : so the Vice-Chancellor also presented to the
King two pairs of Oxford gloves with a deep fringe of gold,
the turnovers being wrought with pearl. There were also
presented two pairs to the Queen, and one to the Prince. So
they went on a little forward, the Bedells preceding the King,
as also after them three Serjeants-at-Arms, and the Duke of
Lenox, sword-bearer. So they came next to the Mayor and
his brethren in office. The Town-Clerk, in the absence of
the Recorder, made a long speech in English, highly extolling
the late Queen and her government, not without dutiful al
lusions to the hopes entertained of happiness under her suc
cessor. The Mayor meanwhile laid his gold mace at the
King's feet, and afterwards presented him, in the name of the
city of Oxford, with a gold cup, having £50 of gold in it,
another to the Queen, gilt and covered, worth £40, and to
the Prince another worth £30 ; so Stringer ; but Wake, who
is rather to be followed, speaks only of a richly embossed cup
given to the King, a purse adorned with Indian pearls pre
sented to the Queen, and a smaller cup with gold coin in it
(as was also in the others) presented to the Prince.1
The procession to Oxford was headed by the Lieutenant
for the County. After the company that attended him, the
royal guard in their glittering habiliments ; then the trumpet
ers ; after them the royal herald, called after the most noble
order of the Garter ; at his right the Vice-Chancellor, at his
left the Mayor of Oxford, then the Vice-Chamberlains of
the King and Queen, Lord Stanhope of Harrington, Vice-
Chamberlain to the King, and Lord Carey of Clopton, to the
Queen : then the most noble the Earl of Dorset, High-
Treasurer of England and Chancellor of the University. On
his left Thomas, Earl of Suffolk, Lord-Chamberlain to the
King: next came the Duke of Lenox bearing the sword; then
the King, Queen, and Prince Henry on horseback. Around
them the Earls of Arundel, Oxford, Northumberland, Wor
cester, Rutland, Cumberland, Southampton, Pembroke, Essex,
Nottingham Lord High Admiral, Devon Lord-Lieutenant of
Ireland, Northampton, Salisbury Secretary of State, Mont
gomery, and Perth.
Most of these have been already noticed. Thomas, Earl
of Arundel, conformed to the Protestant religion in this reign.
He was one of the greatest patrons of the fine arts of this
period. A part of his collection is still at Oxford. Charles
created him Earl of Norfolk.
Henry Vere, Earl of Oxford, whose family was originally
from Zeeland in the Netherlands, was the eighteenth of his
race in lineal descent. He died at the siege of Breda, 1625.
Roger Manners, fifth Earl of Rutland, succeeded his father
February 24th, 1588. He was early sent to the university of
Cambridge, where he took the degree of M.A. He was an
eminent traveller and good soldier. In 1595 he visited
France, Switzerland, and Italy; was Colonel of foot in the
Irish wars in 1598. In that year, July 10th, he was incor
porated M.A. of Oxford. He was appointed Constable of
Nottingham Castle, and Chief-Justice in Eyre of Sherwood
Forest in 1600, and in 1603 was honoured with a visit from the
King. He was in that same year made Lord-Lieutenant of
Lincolnshire, and was sent ambassador into Denmark to the
christening of the King's eldest son, and to invest the King
of Denmark with the order of the Garter. He was made
Knight of the Bath at the coronation of James in 1603, and
that same year Steward .of the manor and soke of Grantham.
He married Elizabeth only daughter and heir of the famous
Sir Philip Sidney. He died without issue June 26, 1612,
and was buried at Bottesford. His Countess survived him
little more than two months. He was succeeded in his titles
and estates by his brother Francis.
Henry Percy, the most generous Earl of Northumberland,
a great friend to learning and learned men, especially of
mathematicians. He died 5th November 1632, and was
buried at Petworth in Sussex.1
The famous Bevis, whence Bevis Mount near South
ampton, is said to have been the first Earl of Southampton,
and the only one until Henry VIII. created William Fitz-
william, descended from the daughter of Marquess Montacute,
both Earl of Southampton and Admiral of England in his
old age. He married Mabel daughter of Henry Lord Clifford,
but left none to inherit his honours. He was the son of Sir
Thomas Fitz-Williams, of Aldwarke near Easingwold in
Yorkshire. He was in 1512 made one of the esquires of the
body to Henry VIII., and in 1513 had the command of
the fleet which fought the French off Brest ; and though
very severely wounded, distinguished himself in 1514 at
the siege of Tournay. After having fulfilled the office of
Vice- Admiral in the absence of the Earl of Surrey, and
that of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in 1520, he was in 1537
appointed Lord High-Admiral and Earl of Northampton, and
soon after Lord Privy-Seal, being succeeded in the Admiral-
ship by John Lord Russell. He died at Newcastle as he was
on his way to Scotland to assist in the expedition sent
against that country under the command of his friend the
Duke of Norfolk.
Next, Edward VI., in the first year of his reign, conferred
the Earldom of Southampton upon Thomas Wriothesley,
Lord Chancellor. This the King did not of his own will, but
as a minor, Wriothesley being left one of his father's executors ;
but he was very early compelled to resign the Chancellorship.
He had rendered himself execrable by taking part himself
in applying the rack to Anne Askew previously to her
martyrdom.
His grandson Henry was now Earl of Southampton. He
having taken part with the Earl of Essex in 1599, was
brought to trial and found guilty. His life was spared, but
he remained in the Tower until his release by King James,
April 10th, 1603. On the 21st of July following he was
restored to his title by a new patent. He was a nobleman
of great courage, and henceforth high in favour with his
sovereign and his court. He was a patron of learning. In
1614 Richard Brathwayt dedicated to him The Scholar s
Medley. In 1617 he, with other munificent patrons of learning,
contributed to relieve the distress of Minsheu, the laborious
author of the Guide to Tongues. He was a great promoter
of the first Virginia Company. He was sworn a Privy-
Councillor on the 19th August 1619. He made a successful
motion against illegal patents in Parliament 162 1.1 At the
sitting on the 14th March he had a dispute with the Marquess
of Buckingham which was moderated by the Prince of Wales,
but was put under restraint for some time after the adjourn
ment of Parliament. He did not however desist from serving
his country in the Parliament of 1624, but lost his life at
Bergen-op-zoom on the 10th November that year, together
with his eldest son. His son Thomas was the last Earl
of Southampton, the Lord High-Treasurer, whose name has
been commended to posterity by the pen of Clarendon.
William Herbert, third Earl of Pembroke, was son of
Henry Earl of Pembroke and of Mary the famous sister
of Sir Philip Sidney. He was bom at Wilton April 8, 1580,
and was educated at New College, Oxford. He succeeded
to his father's title January 19th, 1601, and was made E.G.
by James in 1603. In 1604 he married Lady Mary one
of the three daughters and coheirs of Gilbert Talbot, Earl
of Shrewsbury. He was in 1610 appointed Governor of
Portsmouth, and in 1616 Lord-Chamberlain of the King's
household, and that same year Chancellor of the University
of Oxford, on the death of Egerton Lord-Chancellor Ellesmere.
He was opposed to the Spanish interest. He died April 10th,
1630, at his house, Baynard's Castle, on the banks of the
Thames.
The Earl of Essex was the restored son of the late Earl
who was beheaded in 1601. He was of Merton College,
Oxford. He, after having been appointed Lord-Chamberlain
to Charles I., went over to the Parliament. He was sworn
of the King's Privy Council in 1641, when indeed the King
was endeavouring to make himself popular. The King
however took all by demanding the six members of the House
of Commons to be delivered up to him on a charge of treason,
the Lord Kimbolton, Denzil Hollis, Sir Arthur Heselrige,
Pym, Hampden, and Strode, on January 3, 1642. These
were followed by as unconstitutional acts on the part of the
Commons.1 The King now tempted Essex to disloyalty, by
requiring of him and the Earl of Holland to resign the staff
and key of their offices. So he accepted in the course of
this year the command of the Parliamentarian army. The
Earl laid down his command on the 2nd April 1644, which
was taken up by Sir Thomas Fairfax. He was unwelcome
to Cromwell and all the more violent of the popular party;
the more moderate lost a firm friend by his death, September
14, 1647.
Charles Howard, son of Lord William Howard Baron of
Effingham, was bora in 1536, and early served at sea under
his father. He was highly serviceable in putting down the
insurrection in the north under the Earl of Warwick, against
the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland. He suc
ceeded to his father's title on his death in 1572, having been
elected to represent Surrey in Parliament in the preceding
year. He was made Chamberlain of the Household in
1573, and K.G., and in 1585 Lord High-Admiral. He
signalized himself and did immortal service to his country
in the memorable year of the Armada, 1588, and again
chastising the Spanish in 1596, he was in 1598 created Earl
of Nottingham. He was as humane as he was valorous.
In 1590, a time of renewed apprehension from the Spaniards,
he was made Lord-Lieutenant of all England. In 1600 he
quelled the insurrection of the Earl of Essex, but shewed
his magnanimity by treating the Earl with the greatest
kindness possible. He was employed at the Spanish court
by James, and received with the greatest respect. He was one
of the greatest of that age of great men, and lived to enjoy
his honours and the veneration of his country for an unusual
period. He died December 14th, 1624, aged 88.
Charles Blount the eighth Lord Mount] oy, created after
wards Earl of Devonshire, was born in 1563, being the second
son of James Lord Mount] oy. He was of the University
of Oxford, M.A. June 16th, 1589.1 He studied also at
the Inner Temple. He was early a favourite at court, and
was one of the volunteers who engaged in pursuit of the
Armada with ships at their own charge. He served in the
House of Commons until 1594, when he succeeded to his
brother's title of Lord Mountjoy, and was made Governor of
Portsmouth. In 1597 he was made K.G., and was employed
in the expedition to the Azores. In 1599 he was made
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, which was subdued to order
under his government. He was continued in this office by
James I., appointed one of his Privy Councillors, and on
July 21, 1603, created Earl of Devonshire. He died in the
prime of life at the Savoy, April 3, 1606, and was buried
with great pomp in St. Paul's chapel in the Abbey.
Philip Herbert Earl of Montgomery was younger brother
of William Earl of Pembroke. Antony Wood is unsparing
in his attacks upon his memory, as one so intolerably choleric,
quarrelsome and offensive while he was Lord-Chamberlain to
Charles I., ll that he did not refrain to break many wiser
heads than his own."
The Earl of Perth was James Baron Drummond, whom
the King had advanced to that Earldom. Drimein Castle,
on the banks of the Earn in the old district of Strathern, was
the ancient seat of this family, tc advanced to highest honours
ever since that King Robert Steward the third took to him
a wife out of that lineage."
With these noblemen were Lord Knowles Treasurer of
his Majesty's household; Lord Wotton Comptroller of his
Majesty's household; Lord Erskine Captain of the yeomen
of the guard; the learned Lord Buckhurst son of the Earl
of Dorset ; and Lords Monteagle and Haddington.
Sir William Knowles (formerly Knolles) resided at Greys
Rotherfield, near Henley-on-Thames. He was created Baron
Knowles May 3, 1603, Viscount Wallingford 1616, and Earl
of Banbury by Charles I. in 1626. He had been of Magda
lene College, Oxford.
Sir Edward Wotton had been Comptroller of the household
to Queen Elizabeth, was of the Wotton family of Boughton
Malherb near Lenham in Kent, and had been created by
James Baron Wotton of Merlay, or Marley. His son and
heir Thomas Lord Wotton died in the sixth year of Charles I.,
leaving four daughters his coheirs, of whom Catherine the
eldest married Henry Lord Stanhope. So the title became
extinct.
Lord Erskine, originally Sir Thomas Erskine, was second
son of Sir Alexander Erskine of Gogar or Gogyr in Edin-
burgshire, an ancient parish now included in that of Costor-
phine. He was born in 1566, the same year with the King,
and was brought up with him from his childhood. The
King, who was not insensible to kindly affections, appointed
him one of the gentlemen of his bed-chamber 1585. He had
charters of Mitchellis, Eastertown and Westertown in the
county of Kincardine, 17th October 1594, of Windingtown
and Windingtown Hall, June 1st, 1598, and of Easterrow in
Perthshire, 15 January, 1599. He was one of the happy
instruments in the rescue of the King from the treasonable
attempt of the Earl of Gowrie and his brother Alexander
Ruthven of Perth, August 5th, 1600, and killed Euthven
with his own hand. For this signal service he had the third
part of the Lordship of Dirleton, belonging to Gowrie, conferred
on him by charter dated 15th November 1600, and in warran-
dice thereof the King's barony of Corritown in Stirlingshire.
In that charter he is designated eldest lawful son of the
deceased Alexander Erskine, Master of Marr. He accom-
panied the Duke of Lenox in his embassy to France in
July 1601. Attending James into England, he was in 1603
constituted Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard in the room
of Sir Walter Raleigh, and held that command until 1632.
He was created a Knight of the Bath at the King's coronation,
raised to the peerage with the title of Lord Dirleton, and
admitted a Privy Councillor. In 1606 he was appointed
Groom of the Stole, and created Viscount Fentown or Fenton,
18th May, being the first who was raised to that order of
nobility in Scotland. In 1615 he was made K.G., and
on March 12, 1619, Earl of Killie, a district of Fifeshire,
and formerly called Kellieshire. He had charters of Ey croft
16th July 1622, and of the barony of Restersrioth May 13th,
1624. He married Anne daughter of Gilbert Ogilvie, of
Powrie, esq., by whom he had one son and one daughter.
He died in London, June 12th, 1639, in his 73rd year, and
was buried at Pittenweem in Fifeshire. His descendants
suffered greatly for their loyalty to both Charles I. and II.
William Parker Lord Monteagle was eldest son of Edmund
Parker Lord Morley, who married the sole daughter and
heir of William Stanley Lord Monteagle, fifth son of Thomas
Earl of Derby. Lord Morley lived at a house at Mile End
Green, died at Stepney April 1, 1628, and was buried in
Stepney church. He had a grant of £200. a-year in land,
and a pension of £500. per annum for life, as a reward for
discovering the letter that led to the detection of the Gun
powder Plot in 1605. On his father's death in 1618 he
succeeded to the barony of Morley. He married Elizabeth
daughter of Sir Thomas Tresham, by whom he had three
sons and two daughters. Catherine married John Savage
Earl Rivers, from whom descended George Pitt, created
Baron Rivers 1776, who was coheir to the baronies of Morley
and Monteagle. However they were not revived in him,
but the title of Monteagle was conferred upon the Rt. Hon.
T. S. Rice in 1839, as a descendant of Sir Stephen Rice,
Chief Baron of the Irish Exchequer, created Lord Monteagle
by James II.
Lord Monteagle died at Haslingbury Morley in Essex,
the residence of the Barons Morley, now called Hallingbury
near Hatfield Broad Oak.
Viscount Haddington had as Sir John Ramsey defended
the King in the Gowrie conspiracy.
Of the ladies who graced the procession, Sir Isaac Wake
is most lavish in his praises of the beautiful and accomplished
Arabella Stuart, who afterward, as being descended from
Henry VII. , suffered so severely from the jealousy of King
James. Next are recounted Lucy Countess of Bedford, " dear
to the Muses." As servants of the Muses both Donne and
Daniel have transmitted her name to posterity. She was
daughter of John Lord Harrington of Exton in Rutlandshire,
to whom and to her mother, brother, and sister she erected
a costly tomb at Exton, sculptured by Nicholas Stone,
statuary to the King, at the cost of £1020.
With her are mentioned the Countesses of Suffolk, Not
tingham, and Montgomery. The Countess of Suffolk was
celebrated for her beauty and also for her rapacity. Pennant,
in his Journey from Chester to London,lidiS given an engraved
portrait of her from a painting at Gorhambury.
The Countess of Nottingham was the Earl's second wife,
a young Scotch lady, Margaret daughter of James Stuart
Earl of Murray, by Elizabeth daughter and coheir of James
Earl of Murray natural son to James V. of Scotland.
The Countess of Montgomery was the Lady Susan Vere,
daughter of Edward Earl of Oxford, the poet, by his first
wife Anne the daughter of Lord Burleigh. She was born
26 May 1587, and married to Philip Herbert Earl of Mont
gomery on St. John the Evangelist's Day, December 27th,
1604.
And now they approach the suburb of St. Giles, and see,
says Sir Isaac Wake, how fitly this ancient city was termed
Bellositum, a name however of comparatively modern date,
perhaps suggested by the name of the palace of Henry I.,
Beaumont, the birthplace of the valorous Richard Cceur de
Lion. Camden delights to record the beauty and salubrity
of the situation of this venerable and interesting city: a fair
and goodly city, whether a man respect the seemly beauty
of private houses, or the stately magnificence of public
buildings, together with the wholesome site or pleasant
prospect thereof. For the hills beset with woods do so
environ the plain, that as on the one side they exclude the
pestilent south wind, and the tempestuous west wind on the
other, so they let in the clearing east wind only, and the
north-east wind withal, which is free from all corruption."
It was an important city in the times of the Saxons, in
fact, one of the chief cities of England. Of fourteen of the
present churches, the majority was represented by eight
churches before the Conquest, namely, St. Peter' s-in-the-East,
St. Mary's, Carfax, St. Aldate's, St. Ebb's, St. Peter's-le-
Bailey, St. Mary Magdalene, and St. Michael. There were
also formerly several other churches, as another St. Michael,
near the South-gate, St. George since represented by the recent
church of St. George, an excellent specimen of the decorated
or curvilinear style as revived in the nineteenth century, a
monument of the good taste of the architect, and of the
munificence of the Kev. Jacob Ley, the present incumbent
of St. Mary Magdalene's. Add to these St. Budoc's, St.
Edward, St. Mildred,1 and St. Frideswide, now the Cathedral.
Down to 1771 the North and East gates were still standing,
the north joining the old church of St. Michael with its
Saxon tower, the east a little to the east of Coach-and-Horses-
lane leading to King-street, in which stand St. Alban Hall,
Merton, Corpus Christi, and Oriel Colleges. The South and
West gates, as also Little-gate, had been removed by the
middle of the last century. The West gate stood at the junc
tion of St. Ebbe's and Castle-street, in the neighbourhood of
the Franciscan Monastery or Grey Friars. In their church
was buried the celebrated Roger Bacon in 1292. Paradise
Garden, once the garden of the monks, still remains to the
south of the Castle. The site of Little-gate below St.
Ebbe's still retains its name. And just below Christ Church
Almshouses formerly stood the South-gate, and near it another
church dedicated to St. Michael.2
When the royal party entered Oxford by the road to the
west of which stand the Observatory and Infirmary, they
found the way lined on each side with the students in their
several university habits. Now might St. Giles, says Sir
Isaac Wake, have looked for the restitution of its ancient
honours. For there was a tradition that there was once
another church, of which this took the place although nearer
or within the city, which had the honour of being the Uni
versity Church before that privilege was divided between
St. Mary's and St. Peter's-in-the-East.3 The whole line of
street from St. Giles' to the Bocardo, even to the South-gate,
hard by which the King was to enter Christ Church, was
graced with members of the University, Doctors, Bachelors of
Divinity, Law, &c., all in their proper habits, all exulting at
the presence of their royal patrons. At St. John's College
fifty of the members, with the President, Ralph Hutchinson,1
came forth to congratulate their sovereign. Three youths
apparelled as three sybils came forth out of the quadrangle,
and recited, each having his several part, some Latin verses
annexed by their author Dr. Gwynne to his Vertumnus,
printed in 4to. 1607.2 These are founded upon the legend
of Macbeth and Bancho, who are said to have been met by
three sybils, who foretold that Macbeth should be a king, but
without any to succeed him, and that from Bancho, who
should not be a king himself, should descend a race of Princes.
When the King had passed through North-gate and had
come to Carfax (Quatre Vois), so called from the four prin
cipal streets meeting at that point, where on the east side of
St. Martin's stood Pennyless Beach, chiefly known to modern
readers by T. Warton's humorous description of it in his
Companion to the Guide, and Guide to the Companion. At
this point Dr. John Perin of St. John's College, who had the
year previously resigned the College living of Wartling in
Sussex (not Watling, as in Wood's Fasti, vol. i. p. 273), but
now no longer in the hands of that Society, and who was now
Greek Professor and Canon of Christ Church, addressed the King
in Greek in a brief and apposite oration. And now the King
entered the great gateway of Christ Church, not as yet adorned
with that light and lofty tower which now evinces the origi
nality of the great classical architect Sir Christopher Wren.
Sir Christopher was B.A. of Wadham College March 18,
1650, and afterwards Fellow of All Souls. He erected the
tower, with the upper parts of the two turrets which flank the
entrance, in 1682. The father of the celebrated Dr. Henry
Hammond was present on this occasion. He was Dr. John
Hammond, M.D. of the University of Cambridge, and Phy
sician to the King and to Prince Henry. He commended
Perin's oration as being in good familiar Greek. The King
heard him willingly, and the Queen still more so, as she said
that she had never heard that language before. At the foot
of the hall stairs thrones were erected for the King, Queen,
and Prince, and Mr., afterwards Sir, Isaac Wake made a Latin
oration. He was of Merton College, and had been elected
Orator in the preceding year. In 1609 he travelled in France
and Italy, and on his return became secretary to Sir Dudley
Carleton, at that time Secretary of State. He was after
wards ambassador to Venice, Savoy, and elsewhere. He was
knighted April 19, 1619, before proceeding to Savoy. In
1623 he was elected M.P. for the University of Oxford.
Some few years after this Anthony Sleep, M.A., of Trinity
College, Cambridge, was Deputy Orator in that University.
The King is said to have often remarked upon the two Orators
Wake and. Sleep; that Wake had a good Ciceronian style, but
his utterance and matter were so grave, that when he spake
before him he was apt to sleep; but Sleep the Deputy Orator
of Cambridge was quite contrary, for he never spake but he
kept him awoke, and made him apt to laugh.1 In his
oration Wake commended the King as being after Plato's
mind, a lover of wisdom,2 whence the title of his very amusing
and learned narration of this royal progress, Rex Platonicus.
He also took this opportunity of returning thanks as Public
Orator for the favour which the King had shewn the Univer
sity by conferring upon it the right of sending two repre
sentatives to Parliament.3
The King with a benignant smile evinced his readiness
to encourage the genial eloquence of the Public Orator, which
was followed up by loud and universal acclamations, im
ploring long life, glory, and eternal happiness for the King,
the Queen and Prince. The King was then conducted to
the venerable Cathedral. Before the doors splendid cushions
were placed, upon which the King offered his devotions
previously to entering in. The royal party proceeded up
the nave toward the choir under a rich canopy of crimson
taffety, carried on six staves gilt with silver, surmounted
with great silver knobs and pikes, borne by six Doctors of
Divinity in their scarlet costume. Stringer says that they
were six out of the eight canons of the Cathedral.
On each side of the nave stood the members of the College
in surplices and hoods, and the younger nobility, members
of the University, Thomas Lord Wentworth, of Nettlestead
to the north-west of Ipswich, O'Bryen Lord Thomond, de
scended of the ancient kings of Ireland, the two brothers
Somerset, and the two Stewarts, the Seymours and Sack-
villes, and the Lords Dudley and Grey.1
Just as the King was about to enter the choir Dr. King
the Dean, who was six years after raised to the see of
London, presented the King on his knees with a little book
of congratulatory verses ; the Latin verses to the King are
given by Sir Isaac Wake in his Rex Platonicus? The two
other addresses in English he presented to the Queen and
Prince. Dr. John Bridges, formerly a Fellow of Pembroke
Hall, Cambridge, afterward Dean of Salisbury, and with
Cooper Bishop of Lincoln a defender of the Church against
Martin Mar-Prelate, and now Bishop of Oxford, with the
Dean and Canons, assembled with the rest of the procession
in the choir, where the King heard divers anthems, probably
far superior to the popular adaptations of Mozart, Beethoven
and Mendelssohn now in use in our Universities. It was
the age of true Church musicians, when the marvellous Dr.
Bull3 was the King's chief Organist, and Morley, Dowland,
and the gifted family of the Tomkyns, and the brothers
Weelkes, and the other madrigalists who celebrated the
Triumph of Oriana, were rivalling the continental composers.
At this time William Stonard was organist of the Cathedral,
some of whose works remain in the Music School at Oxford,
sent by Walter Porter" (son of Henry Porter of Christ
Church, and gentleman of the Royal Chapel to Charles I.,
and Master of the Choristers, Westminster Abbey) lt to his
kinsman John Wilson, Doctor of Music and the public
Professor of the praxis of that faculty in Oxon, to be reposed
and kept for ever in the archives of the said school." Stonard
composed certain divine services and anthems, the words of
some of which are in Clifford's Collection of Divine Services and
Anthems, 1663. Of Dr. John Wilson, u now," says Anthony
Wood, of 1644, t( the most noted musician of England,"
Wood gives an account in his Fasti under that year, from
which we learn that by the mediation of Mr. Thomas Barlow,
then Lecturer of Churchill, Oxfordshire, afterward Provost
of Queens' (his) College at Oxford and Bishop of Lincoln,
with Dr. John Owen then Dean of Christ Church, he was
made Professor of Music in 1656. He had rooms allowed
him in Balliol College, was an industrious composer of music
both sacred and secular, and died, aged 78 years, Feb. 22nd,
1674, at his house at the Horse Ferry within the liberty
of Westminster. He was buried in the Little Cloisters of
the Abbey.
At Magdalene College, Richard Nicholson, B. Mus. and
Professor of 'Music, was organist. He was a madrigalist
and a contributor to the Triumphs of Oriana.
And now, after the Dean had officiated in the liturgy,
in the course of which other instruments were used in addition
to the organ, the King and Queen retired to their lodgings
at the Deanery. The Prince was accompanied through the
High-street and the Eastgate to Magdalene College. Thither
he was attended by the Earl of Worcester and Lord Knowles,
the Earls of Oxford and Essex, William Viscount Cranborne,
son and heir to Cecil Earl of Salisbury, Sheffield, Har
rington, Howard and Bruce, with the other flower of the
nobility, and with his honorary guardian Sir Thomas Cha-
loner,1 who had himself been educated at Magdalene College.
At the College gate the Prince was received by Dr. Nicholas
Bond, the President, who was Kector of Brightwell, Berks,
May 3, 1586, Chaplain to the Queen, and Prebendary of the
fifth stall at Westminster, 1582. He was constituted Presi
dent of Magdalene College by the Queen, by lapse, against
the will of the College.1 He died February 8, 1608, and
was buried in the College chapel.
The Rev. James Mable, a noted wit and orator, who was
afterwards made Prebendary of Wells, accosted the Prince
with an elegant oration. Verses were affixed to the
walls in honour of his arrival. Thence he was conducted
to the cloistered quadrangle, the most beautiful and truly
collegiate court of any university. Having surveyed these
incomparable structures and the hieroglyphical figures, the
statue of Moses whereby is represented Theology, with those
of the lawyer, the physician, the schoolmaster, the fool
making a mock of learning, the lion, the pelican, indicating
the duty of masters and teachers sternly to set themselves
against the evil-disposed youth, and to nourish the good
as parents, the Prince is conducted to his apartments in
the President's lodge. No sooner does the lodge receive
him than the College entertains him with the academic fare
of scholastic disputations. William Seymou*, second son
of Edward Lord Beauchamp and grandson of Edward Earl
of Hertford, performed the part of respondent. The opponents
were Charles Somerset sixth son of the Earl of Worcester,
Edward Seymour eldest son of the Lord Beauchamp, Mr.
Robert Gorge son of sir Thomas Gorge by the Marchioness
of Northampton, two sons of Sir Thomas Chaloner, and
Mr. William Borlace son of a Knight; to all of whom, in
testimony of his approbation, the Prince gave his hand to
kiss. The Prince then returned to the King at Christ Church,
in the hall of which a Latin Comedy, entitled Vertumnus,
was acted by the students of that College. It began between
nine and ten, and ended at one. Its tediousness and other
uninviting features are said to have wearied the royal party.
But this is on the authority of the Cambridge critic given
in NicholFs Progresses. A more favourable account is given
by Sir Isaac Wake, to whom we remit the reader.
On Wednesday, the 28th of August, the bell rang at
seven to an English sermon at All Saints. About nine
the King came in great state to St. Mary's ; the Earl of
Southampton was sword-bearer for this day. In St. Mary's
the Prince sat on the King's right hand, and on his left
Christopher de Harlay Count de Beaumont, ambassador
from the court of France, and Nicolo Malino, ambassador
from that of Venice.
The two theses for the disputants were, Saints and Angels
have no knowledge of the thoughts of men's hearts, and,
The Pastors of the Church are not bound to visit the sick
whilst a pestilence is raging. The respondent was Dr. John
Aglionby, Principal of St. Edmund Hall. Dr. Aglionby
was of Cumberland, had taken his degrees as a member and
Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford, and had been admitted
to the Principalship of St. Edmund Hall, April 4, 1601,
being at that time chaplain to the Queen. James continued
him as one of his chaplains, and appointed him one of the
translators of the Bible, for he bore a high character for
the vastness of his theological learning. He died Feb. 6,
1610, and was buried in the chancel of Islip church near
Oxford, of which church he had been Kector. His son
I George was educated at Westminster School and at Christ-
| church, where he was entered in 1619. Lord Falkland,
(when he visited Oxford, especially sought the company of
(George Aglionby. He was appointed tutor to George the
Duke of Buckingham, after he had taken his B.A.
at Christclmrch in 1623. In 1638 he was made a Preben
dary of Westminster, and in 1642, whilst attending the court
at Oxford, was nominated Dean of Canterbury, but never
installed. He died not long after, in November 1643, in his
40th year, and was buried in Christclmrch Cathedral, near
Bishop King's monument in the south aisle, but without
any memorial.
The opponents were :
1. Dr. Thomas Holland, who, when Fellow of Balliol Col
lege, had been appointed Eegius Professor of Divinity in 1589,
on the death of the celebrated Lawrence Humphrey of Magda
lene College. He took all his degrees at Balliol College, and
was elected Rector of Exeter College on the death of Thomas
Glasier, LL.D., late of Christchurch, by virtue of the Queen's
letters written in his behalf April 24, 1592. He died
March 17, 1612, and was buried in the chancel of St. Mary's,
Oxford. Wood says of him, " He was esteemed by the
precise men of his time, and after, another Apollos mighty
in Scriptures, and so familiar with the Fathers, as if he
himself was a Father ; and in the schoolmen, as if he had
been the Seraphical Doctor"1 He is said by Wood to have
been a predestinarian of the higher or supra-lapsarian kind,
as was his predecessor Humphrey. In this respect Wood2
distinguishes them from the pious and learned Abbot after
ward Bishop of Salisbury, and, like Holland, of Balliol
College. In Fuller's Abel Eedivivus he is by a mistake said
to have been educated at Exeter College. It is reported
of him that when he went any journey, he would call the
Fellows of his College together, and commend them to the
love of God, and to the hatred of Popery and superstition.
He spent all his time in his declining health in fervent prayers
and heavenly meditations, and when his end drew near, often
sighed out, Come, 0 come, Lord Jesus f I desire to be dissolved
and to be with thee. He died in his 74th year.3
2. Dr. Giles Thompson, Dean of Windsor, and in 1611
Bishop of Gloucester. He was B.A. of University College,
Oxford, July 5, 1575, and B.D. of All Souls' College, March 21,
1591 ; Bp. Andre wes assisted at his consecration to Gloucester
June 9, 1611. Andrewes, now Dean of Westminster, came
to Oxford, but probably on the Thursday, for Buckeridge
relates in his Funeral Sermon, that " when he came to Oxford
attending King James in the end of his progress, his custom
was to send fifty pound to be distributed among poor scholars."1
3. Dr. Field, Chaplain to the King. He was first entered
at Magdalene College, but was B.A. of Magdalene Hall,
November 8, 1581, M.A. June 2, 1584, B.D. January 14,
1593, D.D. of Queen's College, December 7, 1596. No
divine of his own or of any age rendered a greater theological
service to the Church than did Dr. Field, by his comprehensive
Treatise on the Church of Christ. It first appeared in 4to.
A copy of the volume in 4to. is to be seen in the library
of Magdalene Hall. The next was a much enlarged edition.
The third was published at Oxford in 1635. But as he took
a more hostile view of the Church of Kome, and one more
agreeable to the faith of his own Church than that of the
courtiers in the following reign, his work fell for a while into
unmerited neglect. It has been more than once reprinted
in the present century, and is a library of itself. James was
not insensible to his merits. He admired his preaching, and
appointed him Dean of Gloucester 1609, as he had also been
previously appointed Canon of Windsor 1603, having had
a grant from Elizabeth, 30th March 1602, of the next vacant
prebend. He was born at Hemel Hempstead, Herts. He
spent his time partly at Windsor, partly on his living in
Hampshire. He died November 20, 1626, and was buried
in St. George's, Windsor.
4. Dr. John Harding, Kegius Professor of Hebrew, to
which Professorship he was appointed whilst Fellow of Mag
dalene College, 21 September 1591. He resigned in 1598.
and was succeeded by William Thorne, A.M., Fellow of New
College, 27 July 1598.2 Thorne resigned in 1604, and
Harding had the Professorship conferred upon him a second
time.1 Harding was Proctor in 1589. He was a native
of Hampshire, and succeeded Dr. Bond in the Presidentship
of Magdalene College, February 22, 1608. He was one
of the translators of the Old Testament. He died in 1610.
5. Dr. George Byves, Warden of New College December
1599, on the resignation of Dr. Cole or Culpepper, Dean of
Chichester and Archdeacon of Berkshire. He held, as did his
two predecessors Whyte and Colepepper, the rectories of
Staunton St. John's Oxfordshire, and of Colerne (Wilts) near
Chippenham. He was preferred to the fourth stall at Win
chester, November 17, 1598, on the promotion of Dr. Cotton
to the see of Salisbury. He died May 31, 1613, and was
buried at Hornchurch, Essex, without any memorial.
6. Dr. Henry Airay, Provost of Queen's College, where
he had taken all his degrees. He was born in Westmoreland
1560, and educated under the apostolic Bernard Gilpin, by
whom he was sent at the age of nineteen to Oxford. He first
studied at St. Edmund Hall, but removed thence to Queen's
College before he took his B.A. which was on June 19,
1583. He succeeded Dr. Henry Kobinson, Bishop of Carlisle,
as Provost of his College, March 9, 1599. Laud was con
vened before him for his sermon in 1606, in which year
he was Yice-Chancellor.
He was himself of Puritan tendencies, and wrote against
bowing at the name of Jesus. His name still survives as
a commentator upon the Epistle to the Philippians.2 He
died October 10, 1616, aged 57, and was buried in his college
chapel. Christopher Potter, a Fellow of his college, erected
a monument to his memory in the old chapel. The old
chapel was begun before 1355; the new chapel on February 6,
1714, the anniversary of Queen Anne's birthday. Dr. Airay
bequeathed lands in the parish of Garsington, Oxfordshire,
to his college. Christopher Potter was much his junior,
being B.A. of Queen's College August 30, 1610. He suc
ceeded Barnabas Potter (Array's successor), Bishop of Carlisle,
as Provost of his college, June 17, 1626. He was appointed
Dean of Worcester 1635, and of Durham 1645, but died the
3rd of March following, before his installation. He was
Kector of Blechingdon, Oxfordshire, which belongs to Queen's
College.
7. Dr. Gordon Huntley, Dean of Sarum, who has been
previously noticed. He was now actually created a Doctor
of Divinity, with the ancient ceremonies of putting on the
hood, the square cap, the gold ring,1 the boots,2 the delivering
the Holy Scriptures into the Doctor's hands ; then the Yice-
Chancellor kisses his son, as the newly created Doctor is
styled, and concludes with giving him his solemn benediction.
A trumpet is now sounded, and Dr. Holland calls forth the
disputants. The respondent proclaims the theses aloud in
Latin verse. He then proceeds to maintain the first thesis,
quoting 1 Kings viii. 39, Whose heart thou Jcnowest; 1 Cor.
ii. 11, For what man Jcnoweth the things of a man, save the
spirit of man tvhich is in him? and Jer. xvii. 9, 10, The
heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked : who
can know it ? I the LORD search the heart; I try the reins.
That the dead (the saints) have no knowledge of men's
hearts, Dr. Field confirms out of St. Augustine, in the 22nd
chapter of the Appendix to his third Book. Bellarmine
indeed, after the manner of Komish controversialists, charged
Melancthon with falsehood for having asserted in his Loci
Theologicij that the papists attributed to the saints the power
of knowing the thoughts of men's minds ; yet in his answer
to the third argument, in the 20th chapter of his first Book
on the Blessedness of the Saints, he himself expressly affirmed
such a power, as Dr. John Gerhard shews in his Confessio
Catholica.3
Holland, Gordon, Field, and Ryves were the opponents
in the first; Thompson, Harding, and Airay in the second
thesis. The King himself, with the Scriptures in his hand,
took part in these exercises, examining the quotations and com
menting upon the arguments. Wake has given his obser-
vations upon the second thesis, which was maintained in the
negative. Bishop Andrewes, in his Parochial Circulars,
expressly exempted his clergy from visiting in a time of
pestilence. The King answered the passage in St. James,
Ts any among you sick, let him call for the elders of the
churchj &c.j that those who were called in that age were
called not only to pray, but also to heal. Finally, Dr. Abbot
the Vice-Chancellor gave his own learned determination upon
the two questions.
After the King had dined he came again about two, with
the Queen and Prince, to hear two disputations in the Civil
Law. The questions were, first, Whether in giving judgment
a judge is invariably bound by the legal proofs in opposition
to the truth, of which he is privately assured ? And secondly,
Whether covenants are of the nature of good faith or strict
law ? The first was affirmed ; the second was decided in
favour of sincere intention and candid, in contradistinction
to legal, interpretation. The moderator was Dr. Alberic
Gentilis,1 who, after he had been created D.C.L. at Perugia
in 1572, came over to England on account of his religion,
and obtained permission in 1580 to reside at Oxford. Queen
Elizabeth appointed him Eegius Professor of Civil Law
8th June 1587. His learned writings were all the fruit of
his tranquil studies at Oxford. He died in the beginning
of 1611, and was buried in the Cathedral.
The respondent was Dr. Anthony Blencoe, Provost of
King's or Oriel College or Hall Royal, for all these names
have been applied to Oriel. He had held the Provostship
from February 4, 1573, having previously served the office
of Proctor in 1571 and 1572. He died January 25, 1618, and
was buried in St. Mary's church, which belongs to his
college.
The opponents were :
1. William Bird, D.C.L., of All Souls1 College, son
of William Bird of Walden in Essex. He was D.C.L.
February 13, 1588, and afterwards principal Official and Dean
of the Arches, a Knight, and Judge of the Prerogative Court
of Canterbury. He died without issue, and was buried
in Christ Church, Newgate Street, London, 5 Sept. 1624.
His nephew, William Bird, D.C.L. of All Souls' College
July 4, 1622, was son of Thomas Bird of Littlebury near
Saffron Walden, was Master of the Prerogative Court of
Canterbury, and died on the 28th November 1639, aged 51,
and was buried in Littlebury church.
2. John Weston, of Christ Church, the only son of Robert,
who was Chancellor of Ireland, D.C.L. 1590. His father
Robert was D.C.L. of All Souls' July 8, 1556. He con
formed to the Protestant religion, and was made Dean of
Wells 1570. He was for six years Chancellor of Ireland,
died there 20 May 1573, and was buried in St. Patrick's
Dublin.1 John Weston was first M.A., and on July 14,
1590, D.C.L. of Christ Church, Oxford. He was installed
Canon of the sixth stall of Christ Church September 3, 1591,
and was eighteen years Treasurer of that church. He died
July 20, 1632, being about eighty years old. His epitaph
records his virtues worthy of his descent, his Ciceronian
eloquence, his aptness in casuistry, his truly Christian life,
and the painful disease that carried him to his grave.2
3. Henry Martin, of New College, D.C.L. 1592, being
at that time an eminent advocate at Doctors' Commons, as
afterwards in the High Commission Court. He became
successively Official of the Archdeacon of Berkshire, King's
Advocate, Chancellor of London, Judge of the Admiralty
Court, twice Dean of the Arches, a Knight Dec. 21, 1616,
and in 1624 Judge of the Prerogative Courts. Bishop An-
drewes left him a mourning ring. He died in 1641, aged 81. 3
4. James Hussey of New College, D.C.L. 1600, Principal
of Magdalene Hall 1602, having been previously a Fellow
of New College and Registrary of the University. He after
wards became Chancellor of Salisbury, was knighted Nov. 9,
1619, and made a Master in Chancery. He died of the
plague at Oxford the day after his arrival, July 11, 1625,
and was buried late at night in St. Mary's Church without
any funeral rites. He died in New College, and shortly after
Dr. Chaloner, Principal of St. Alban Hall, who had supped
that night with him, died also.
5. John Budden, D.C.L., B.A. of Trinity College, Oxford,
Oct. 19, 1586, but M.A. of Gloucester Hall (now Worcester
College) June 27, 1589. He was B.C.L. of Magdalene
College July 8, 1602. He became Philosophy Reader at
Magdalene College, was made Principal of New Inn Hall
June 28, 1609, there being then neither gentleman-commoner
nor commoner at New Inn Hall. He was son of John
Budden of Canford in Dorsetshire. He was admitted at
Merton College at the Michaelmas Term 1582, and thence
to a scholarship at Trinity College May 30, 1583. He was
D.C.L. 1602 5 in 1611 was appointed Regius Professor of
Civil Law, then Principal of Broadgate's Hall, to which
Pembroke College has succeeded. He died there June 11,
1620, and was buried in the chancel of St. Aldate's Church.
6. Oliver Lloyd, D.C.L. 1602, of All Souls. He was
afterwards Chancellor of Hereford, Canon of Windsor 1615,
May, 20, Dean of Hereford 1617, in which city he died
in 1625.
The second question is thus put in Wake : lt Whether
a stranger and an enemy detained by contrary winds in an
enemy's port beyond the time of an armistice, may be lawfully
killed by the inhabitants of that port ? The respondent held
the negative. The King interposed in this dispute, alleging
the saying of one, that he who judges against his conscience
builds for hell. He instanced in the unjust judgment passed
upon our Lord himself, and thus, as Wake remarks, con
firmed the words of another, who asked, What shall become
of the good citizen when the evil spirits shall have carried
away the bad man to hell f
In regard of the second question the King said, that
a prisoner detained unawares should be remitted by the
judge to the King, who can and ought to save his life. Alas
that the King did not always exemplify his own wise dicta,
but forgot both law and equity when he was tempted to
forfeit the life of a subject, as in the case of Sir Walter
Raleigh.
The evening drew on as Gentilis concluded the Act. In
the course of the Act the scholars gave & plaudits; the graver
men cried out Vivat Rex, and on the King speaking a third
time there was a general acclamation. After supper the
Ajax flagellifer was acted in the Hall of Christ Church. The
stage was varied thrice, and the actors were all clad in
suitably antique apparel. The name alone was borrowed
from Sophocles.
On Thursday the 29th, the Physic Act commenced at
nine at St. Mary's, and lasted until noon. The two questions
were: 1. Whether the dispositions of nurses were imbibed
with their milk? 2. Whether the frequent use of tobacco
was good for persons in health? The moderator was Dr.
Bartholomew Warner of St. John's College, Regius Professor
of Medicine 1597, and in 1617 superior Reader of Linacre's
Lecture. He died January 26, 1619, and was buried in
St. Mary Magdalene's Church, Oxford.
The respondent was the munificent Sir William Paddy,
M.D. of Oxford and Leyden, President of the College of
Physicians, of St. John's College, Oxford, and Physician
to the King, whom he attended on his death-bed. He was
of the county of Oxford. He was a great, and one of the
first benefactors to the Bodleian Library, although by an
oversight not mentioned as such in Dr. Ingram's very valuable
Memorials of Oxford. He has, however, not omitted to
commemorate his bounty to his college, where on the south
wall of the chapel is his monument, with an epitaph recording
his legacy of £2800. (a great sum in those days) for the
endowing of the choir, after having provided the college with
an organ. He left also £150. for the encouragement of
learning. His will, says Dr. Ingram, is dated Dec. 10, 1634,
in his 81st year, in which year he died.
The opponents were:
1. Dr. Matthew Gwinne, B.A. of St. John's College
May 14, 1578, M.A. May 4, 1582, Proctor April 17, 1588,
B.M. July 17, 1593, and M.D. on the same day. He was
the author of Vertumnus. He was Physician to the Tower
of London, the first Professor of Medicine at Gresham Col
lege, and a member of the College of Physicians. He died
in 1627.
2. Anthony Aylworth, M.D. 1582, of New College, Phy
sician to Queen Elizabeth, and Regius Professor of Medicine
in the University of Oxford, 29th June, 1582. He resigned
his Professorship to Dr. Warner of St. John's College 1597.
He was of an ancient family in Gloucestershire, born in London,
educated at Winchester School and New College. He " died
happily in the Lord" April 18, 1619. He had disputed
before Elizabeth in 1592. His two sons, Martin the elder
and Antony the younger, survived him. Martin erected
a memorial to him in New College Chapel, and was D.C.L.
of All Souls' College, Nov. 27, 1621.
3. John Gifford, also M.D. of New College, December 7,
1598, a member of the College of Physicians. li He died in
a good old age in 1647, and was buried in the parish Church
of Hornchurch in Essex, near to the body of his wife."1
4. Henry Ash worth, M.D. of Oriel College August 13,
1605. He rose to eminent practice in Cat-street, (to the
east of the present Eadcliff Library) where his son Francis
was born.2
5. John Cheynell, M.D. of Corpus Christi College
August 13, 1605. Cheynell extolled the virtues of the ob
noxious weed above all others, and with his pipe in his hand
suited the action to the word, not however omitting to vindi
cate in the sequel the royal aversion to tobacco. Wake, who
was one of those serious men who could enjoy if he could
not make a joke, has not lost this opportunity of enlivening
his narration by ample notes of the King's facetiousness
as well as the Professor's. Warner, in his peroration, ex
horted both sexes to wreak their vengeance on their pipes
by every term of reprobation which he could bring together.3
The Act concluded, the King went to New College, then
more faithfully displaying the consummate skill of its munifi-
cent architect and founder than now, when it has lost so
many of its ancient features, and has been enlarged in a more
modern style, yet venerable and majestic, and adorned as
much by nature as by art, owing more than can be expressed
to its beautiful gardens, the most impressive, although not
the most extensive in the University. At New College the
noble Chancellor kept open house daily during the King's
visit. Verses were attached to 'the walls of the college. Dr.
Kyves, the Warden, congratulated his Majesty in a Latin
speech, in the name of the Chancellor and of the members
of New College, and was on the following day added to the
number of the royal chaplains. The King sat in the hall
beneath a canopy ; Prince Henry at some distance on his right
hand ; the Queen on his left, and at the other end of the table,
opposite to the Prince, the two ambassadors. There was a
magnificent show of plate, and the Chancellor's private musi
cians played during the banquet. But the whole university
contributed to this hospitality. The King, before he rose from
the table, called the Chancellor to him, returned him his
thanks, and bade him drink out of the royal goblet.
From the banquet the King returned to St. Mary's to
hear the following disputations : the first, Whether gold can
be produced by artificial means ? Secondly, Whether imagina
tion can produce real effects ?
The moderator was Roger Porter, of Brasennose College.
The respondent was Richard Andrewes, of St. John's College,
M.B. June 1, 1607, M.D. June 1, 1608. He improved
himself by foreign travel, and was esteemed amongst the
literati of that age.
The opponents were :
1. Simon Baskerville, B.A. of Exeter College July 8,
1596, Proctor in the year following the royal visit, M.D.
1611, knighted by King Charles. He was of an ancient
Herefordshire family. He was eminent in his profession.
He died July 5, 1641, aged 68 years, and was buried* in
the north aisle of old St. Paul's.
On the same day with him was the celebrated Robert
Vilvaine, of Exeter College, also created M.D. in 1611. He
was B.A. of Exeter College May 9, 1597, M.A. July 11,
1600. Vilvain was also a theological author and student.
He, with Mr. Richard Sandy, alias Napier, Mr. William
Orphord, and Mr. William Helme, fellow-students, was
a benefactor to Exeter College, all assisting in rebuilding the
kitchen. At their expense also was the old chapel (superseded
by Dr. Hakewill's, the late chapel) turned into a library
in 1624.1 He was son of Peter Vilvain, steward of the city
of Exeter, was born in All Saints' parish, Exeter, in Gold
smith Street, and was a Fellow of Exeter College in 1599.
He resigned his fellowship in 1611, and returned to Exeter.
About 1644 Fuller's acquaintance with Dr. Vilvain com
menced. They spent much of their time together so long
as Fuller remained at Exeter. Dr. Vilvain gave a library
to the Cathedral there, and endowments, in the way of ex
hibitions, to the Grammar School. He wrote Theoremata
Theologica,) 1654, 4to., a Compendium of Clironography , 1654,
4to., and some other pieces. He died in his 87th year, Feb.
21, 1663, and was buried in the Cathedral of Exeter.
Baskerville attracted the especial notice of the King.
After he had disputed, the King, who had himself prolonged
the time of his disputation beyond what the Proctor would
have granted, said to the nobles about him, " God keep this
fellow in a right course ; he would prove a dangerous heretic ;
he is the best disputer that ever I heard."
2. Edward Lapworth, M.D., of Magdalene College (where
he had been educated) 1611, on the same day with Basker
ville and Vilvaine and Clayton of Balliol College, but pre
viously of Gloucester Hall. Lapworth was in 1618 appointed
the first Professor of Natural Philosophy at Oxford, by the
will of the founder, Sir William Sedley, Knt. and Bart. He
usually practised in the summer at Bath, where he died
May 23, 1636, and was buried in the Abbey church.
3. Thomas Clayton, of Gloucester Hall. He removed
to JBalliol College, and succeeded Dr. Warner as Regius
Professor of Medicine March 9, 1611. He was the last
Principal of Broadgates Hall 1620, and the first Master
of Pembroke College 1624. In 1607 he had been chosen
Professor of Music in Gresliam College, which place he re
signed November 17, 1610. He died in 1647, and was
buried in St. Aldate's church July 13. His son, Sir Thomas,
was also Eegius Professor of Medicine, and in 1661 Provost
of Mcrton College. He died October 4, 1693.
4. Eichard Mocket, B.A., of Brasennose College Feb. 16,
1596, M.A. of All Souls' College 1600, B.D. 1607, D.D. 1609,
Warden of All Souls' April 12, 1614, domestic Chaplain to
Archbishop Abbot, Eector of St. Clement's, East Cheap,
London, Dec. 29, 1610, which he resigned in December 1611,
when he was Eector of St. Michael's, Crooked-lane. He was
Eector of Monks Eisborough, Bucks, and of Newington,
Oxfordshire. He died July 5, 1618, aged 40, and was buried
in the college chapel, where his relation, Sir Thomas Freke,
erected a monument to his memory. His monument was
removed into the ante-chapel in 1664.
5. Eobert Pinke, born at Wenslade, Hants, 1572, Proctor
1610, M.B. 1612, B.D. 1619, D.D. 1620, Warden of New
College July 17, 1617. James, who gave himself a Latin
determination on the first question, admired his disputing.
He was seized at Aylesbury for his loyalty in raising the
University militia, and was for a time imprisoned in the
Gate-house, Westminster. He died November 2, 1647.
Dr. Brideoak, Bishop of Chichester, erected a monument
to him in his college chapel.1
6. Eobert Bolton, B.A., of Brasennose College Dec. 2,
1596, M.A. July 1602, B.D. 1609. Bolton was born at
Blackburn in Lancashire 1572. He removed from Lincoln
College to Brasennose College, of which he was made Fellow.
He was brought to true repentance and seriousness of mind
by his college tutor, Thomas Peacock, who was B.D. 1608,
a native of Cheshire. Peacock died in 1611, and was buried
in December in St. Mary's Church. He was incumbent
of Broughton in Northamptonshire, and there devoted himself
most exemplarily to his duties. He had a fluency and elo
quence truly Chrysostomian, with as great energy, so that
his sermons are to this day far from antiquated or unworthy
of perusal. He died aged 60 years in 1631. There is an
account of him in Fuller's Abel Eedivivus.
The King resolved upon hearing a second Act after but
a short interval, upon two questions appointed by himself:
Whether it be a greater object to preserve than to extend
the bounds of a kingdom ? and, Whether the origin of right
and wrong is to be sought in law or in nature ?
The moderator was Kichard Fitzherbert, of New College,
Senior Proctor. He was installed Archdeacon of Dorset
August 27, 1620, and died probably some time after 1640.
The respondent was William Ballow, of Christ Church.
He had been Senior Proctor in 1604. He was created D.D.
November 29, 1613, and died in December 1618. He was
Rector of Milton Bryant, near Woburn, Bedfordshire, Canon
of the first stall at Christ Church January 3, 1615, and dying
in 1618 was buried in the Cathedral without any memorial.
He is highly commended by Wake as a most polished scholar
and of a most courteous disposition.
The opponents were :
1. Thomas Winniff, B.A. of Exeter College July 12, 1592,
M.A. May 17, 1601, B.D. March 27, 1610, D.D. July 5, 1619.
He was born at Sherborne in Dorsetshire, was Rector of
Lamborne and Willingate Doe near Chipping Ongar, Essex,
Dean of Gloucester November 20, 1624, of St. Paul's April 18,
1631, consecrated Bishop of Lincoln February 6, 1642, but
he had no enjoyment of that dignity, but retired to Lamborne
where he had purchased both the advowson and an estate,
and there died September 19, 1654, in his 78th year. He
was raised to the see of Lincoln on account of the blameless-
ness and popularity of his character, when Charles sought
but too late to conciliate the nation by this and similarly good
appointments.
2. Simon Jux, (or perhaps Jukes) D.D. of Christ Church
1618. One probably of the same family was a benefactor
to the present chapel at Brasennose College, Rowland Jucks,
Esq.
3. Richard Thornton, Vicar of Cassington and Rector of
Westwell near Burford, Canon of the first stall of Christ-
church, July 13, 1596, Prebendary of the ninth stall at
Worcester, March 20, 1612. He died January 2, 1615, and
was buried on the 6th in the Cathedral at Oxford without
any memorial.
4. John King, D.D. of Merton College, July 6, 1615,
Canon of the twelfth stall, Westminster, on the death of
Dr. Barlow, Bishop of Lincoln 1613, and Canon of Windsor
November 23, 1616, on the decease of Murdoch Aldem. He
died August 7, 1638, and was buried in St. George's,
Windsor. Murdoch (in Wood Mardochay) Aldem succeeded
another John King, Fellow both of Peter House and of
Exeter College. Dr. King of Merton College was nephew
to King of Peter House.1 Dr. King was some time Fellow
of Merton College. He was uncle to Dr. George Aglionby,
already mentioned as the friend of Falkland, and as designated
in 1643 for the Deanery of Canterbury.2 He succeeded Dr.
King in his stall at Westminster 1638.
5. William Langton, President of Magdalene College
November 19, 1610, on the death of Dr. Harding, already
mentioned amongst those who disputed in the Divinity Act.
He was born at Langton in Lincolnshire near Wragby, of
an ancient and celebrated family. He was as conspicuous for
his modesty as for his learning. He died Oct. 10, 1626,
aged 54 years. His monument with his effigy, after the
manner of that age, is in his college chapel, with an inscrip
tion of no common character for its reality and force of
expression.3
6. John Barkham, of Corpus Christi College, is said to
have applied himself in his earlier years to heraldry, and to
have suffered his collections to be published with Gwillim's
name as the author. He was born in the parish of St. Mary
the Greater, Exeter, in 1572, entered at Exeter College,
Oxford, 1587, and removed thence to Corpus Christi College
in 1588. He wrote the life of King John published in
Speed's History, and wholly or chiefly that of Henry II.
His account of Becket is supposed to have been designed
as an answer to one written by Bolton, a Papist. Gwillim's
Heraldry was printed in folio, London, 1610. Barkham was
successively Chaplain to Bancroft and Abbot. He was
Rector and Dean of Bocking 1615, the other Dean being
Dr. Thomas Goad, Precentor of St. Paul's. Of Goad,
elsewhere mentioned, a posthumous work appeared, entitled,
Stimulus Orthodoxus, sive Goadus Redivivus. A disputation,
partly theological, partly metaphysical, concerning the necessity
and contingency of events in the world, in respect of God's
eternal Decree, written above twenty years since ~by that reverend
and learned Divine Thomas Goad, Doctor of Divinity, and
ftector of Hadleigh in Suffolk. London, for Will. LeaJce,
1669, 4&, with a Preface ~by J. G. He wrote also, Eclogce
et Musce virgiferce acjuridicce. Dr. Barkham was Prebendary
of Brownswood in St. Paul's, London, and died at Bocking
on March 25, 1643. At the conclusion of the Act the King,
in a brief speech, engaged to continue, as he had ever been,
a patron of learning and of learned men. He promised in
particular his patronage and encouragement to the University
of Oxford. He bade them continue to maintain the setting
forth of the pure Word of God, to fly from and to put to flight
all Romish superstitions, and to avoid and reject all schisms
and innovations in religion; to advance in their peculiar
studies both in theory and practice, that so their lives might
agree with their profession, God's glory, and his own
expectation be fulfilled, himself augmented in honour, and
abundant fruit meanwhile redound to themselves.1
The King and nobility were attended with acclamations
and by torchlight (for the evening had closed upon them)
to Christchurch. Others of the nobility attended Prince
Henry to Magdalene College. He occupied the middle seat
at the high table. Down the middle of the hall the noblemen
were seated, and along the sides the Fellows and other
members of the foundation. The Prince graciously bade
them keep their square caps on their heads. He drank their
healths, to which they responded, all standing. He more
than once called Magdalene his college, and himself of
Magdalene. William Grey, the younger son of Arthur
Lord Wilton, at the command of Dr. Bond the worthy
President, presented the Prince with a richly-bound MS.,
the Apologues of Pandulf Colinucius, the binding set with
pearls and enriched with ornaments of gold. Arthur Lord
Grey de Wilton was son of William Lord Grey de Wilton,
a brave soldier, who being Captain of the Castle of Guisnes
after the surrender of Calais 1558, was at length obliged to
deliver it up and yield himself a prisoner, and afterwards
to pay a ransom of 24,000 crowns, which much weakened
his estate.1 In 1560 he was made a Knight of the Garter,
and died 1562, leaving issue by Mary, daughter of Charles
Somerset, Earl of Worcester, a daughter Honora, married to
Henry Denny (who had issue by her Edward, created by
James L Earl of Norwich), and two sons, Arthur Lord Grey
de Wilton and William Arthur, the father of William at
Magdalene College in 1605, died in 1593. Edward, the son
of Sir Thomas Chaloner, presented the Prince with a pair of
splendid gloves in the name of the whole College, and an
illustrious youth, Kichard Worsley, presented him with a
volume of verses in various foreign languages. Edward
Chaloner was B.A. of Magdalene College July 8, 1607;
May 15, 1610, M.A. He removed to All Souls' College,
where he was B.D. May 30, 1617, and D.D. November
6, 1619. From his fellowship at All Souls' College he was
raised to be Principal of St. Alban's Hall December 29, 1624,
and died of the plague July 25, 1625. He had on the
evening of 10th July supped with his friend Dr. Hussey of
New College, who is supposed to have brought the plague
with him from London. He was buried in St. Mary's
churchyard.
Richard was second son of Sir Richard Worsley, the first
Baronet of that name, and Frances, daughter of Sir Henry
Neville. The family took their name from their lordship in
Lancashire, Workeseley or Workedeley.
After supper the King and Prince met again at St. John's
College, where a comedy, but in tragic measure, says Sir
Isaac Wake, representing the revolving year, was acted by the
members of that College. The scene was made in the form
of the zodiac, with the sun passing through all the twelve
signs. All kinds of allegories were introduced into this piece.
It began with the sun entering the ram, it ended with the
fishes broiled by the heat of the sun.
On Friday morning, the day of the King's departure, a
pastoral by Samuel Daniel was acted at Christ Church, and
was highly applauded. It was published shortly after with
the following title, " The Queen's Arcadia, a Pastoral Trago-
Comedie, presented to Her Majestie and her Ladies by the
University of Oxford in Christ's Church in August last
1605. At London : printed by G. Eld, for Simon Waterson.
1606." A copy of this edition is among Garrick's Plays in
the British Museum. It was reprinted in 1611, in 12mo. It
is also to be found in the edition of Daniel's Poems in 1620.1
At the same time a Convocation was held at St. Mary's.
The Bedell appears at this time to have fulfilled his office in
the old fashion to the letter, making oral proclamation of the
Convocation. The nobles began to assemble at eight. The
Earl of Northampton was the first that went in with Abbot,
Master of University College and Yice-Chancellor, and sat
on his right hand upon a form, for there was but one chair,
on which the Vice-Chancellor sat. He went in a black gown
and a regent's hood, having been before incorporated there.
And first there passed a grace for the Earls of Northum
berland, Oxford, Essex, and others, to which consent was
asked of the Doctors by the Proctors, and then the Proctors
turning to the House gave their consent by general acclama
tion, saying Placet ; so the Earl was presented, as were most
of the nobility, by Sir William Paddie. Then the Earl was
sworn to observe the privileges and statutes of the University.
The Vice-Chancellor admitted the noblemen to their degrees
standing, but remained seated whilst he admitted the knights
and others. Sir John Davies2 presented the knights and
courtiers, the Prince's servants, and others. Doctors presented
the Doctors and Bachelors of Divinity from Cambridge, and
Masters of Arts the Masters of Arts. Of Cambridge were
incorporated Dr. John Hammond, one of the King's Phy
sicians, father of the learned Henry Hammond ; George
Kuggle, first of Trinity College, then Fellow of Clare Hall,
and author of the celebrated comedy Ignoramus ; the Bishop
of Oxford, Dr. Bridges, who was of Pembroke Hall, Cam
bridge; Alexander Serle, LL.B., Thomas Howard, Earl of
Suffolk; Kobert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury; and Dr. Bar
nabas Gooch, Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge, and
highly regarded by Williams when Lord Keeper. Amongst
those who were honoured with degrees were, Esme Stuart,
Duke of Lenox, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke ; his
younger brother Philip, Earl of Montgomery ; William
Cecil, Viscount Cranbourne, who succeeded his father Robert
Cecil as Earl of Salisbury ; Theophilus Howard, Lord
Walden, Earl of Suffolk on the death of his father, the
wealthy builder of Audley House; Charles, son of the
famous Lord High Admiral ; Thomas West, Lord de la
Warr ; Grey Bridges, Lord Chandos, commonly called King
of Cotswold from the great number of his attendants when
he went to court ; William Compton, afterwards Earl of
Northampton ; Edward Bruce, Master of the Rolls and
Baron of ^Kinloss in Scotland,1 father of Thomas, Earl of
Elgin and Baron of Whorlton in Yorkshire ; Lord Erskine,
Sir Henry Neville, Sir Thomas Chaloner, John Egerton,
Knight, afterwards Earl of Bridgewater ; Sir Thomas Monson,
of Magdalene College, of Burton Hall, near Lincoln ; David
Foulis, Knight ; George More, Knight ; 2 John Digby, Esq.,
of Magdalene College, afterwards Earl of Bristol.
About nine the King went to the Bodleian Library, the
noble foundation of Sir Thomas Bodley, of the ancient family
of the Bodleighs of Dunscombe near Crediton. He was born
at Exeter March 2, 1545. His father removed with his
family to Geneva to avoid the Marian persecution, but
returned in 1558 and settled in London. In 1559 or 1560
Bodley was admitted at Magdalene College, whence he
removed to Merton College, where he took his B.A. July 26,
1563, and M.A. July 5, 1566. He was chosen to a fellowship,
and having studied under the most learned professors at
Geneva, he was appointed to read a public lecture on the
study of Greek literature in the hall of his College. In 1569
he was Junior Proctor. From 1576 to 1580 he travelled on
the Continent, then returned to Merton College, but was
afterwards employed by Elizabeth both at home and abroad
till 1597. He afterwards lived in London or at Parson's
Green, Fulham. From 1597 he employed himself in re
storing and supplying the University Library. On the 8th
of November, 1602, there was a solemn procession from St.
Mary's to the Library, for the purpose of opening it and
devoting it to the use of the University. More than two
thousand choice volumes had been deposited in it by that
time. Sir Thomas Bodley was assisted in his noble under
taking by Sir Henry Saville and Sir John Bennet. Sir
Henry was also B.A. of Merton College, Sir John Bennet of
Christ Church. The latter fell under the displeasure of the
House of Commons in 1621, was imprisoned for a short time,
fined £20,000, and deprived of his office of Judge of the
Prerogative Court. He died in the parish of Christ Church,
Newgate Street, in the beginning of 1628. The original
founder of the Library was indeed Humphrey, the good Duke
of Gloucester, son of Henry IV. about 1445. * Sir Thomas
Bodley 's work is the eastern wing of the present Library.
This was finished in 1613, the year after his death. The
western was added between 1630 and 1640. The Divinity
School, over which the original Library was built, was
founded about 1427, but not completed until 1480. The
Proscholium was a part of the work of Sir Thomas Bodley.
The remainder of the square rose from 1613 to 1619. The
effect was doubtless far superior before the removal of the
transoms from the windows of this venerable quadrangle.
The architect was Thomas Holt of York, who died Sept. 9,
1624, and was buried in Holy well churchyard.1 The King,
upon casting his eyes round the Library, expressed his
satisfaction upon seeing whence these stores of learning had
been drawn which had recently yielded him so much
satisfaction, and looking upon Bodley's effigies said, he
should rather be called Godly. Amongst other MSS. of
that kind he was shewn the Ethiopic version of the Scrip
tures, and that monument of impurity under the garb of piety,
Gaguinus de Puritate Conception** B. M. V. Paris, 1497.2
The King promised himself to become a benefactor to [the
Library. The Earl of Salisbury and Charles Lord Effingham,
son of the Lord High Admiral, seconded the King's expres
sions of good will. The King further said, that were he not
king he could have lived as an academician ; and, alluding to
the chains with which the books were then fastened to their
shelves, added that should it ever be his fate to be led
captive in chains, if his choice were given him, he would be
shut up in this prison, bound with these chains, and pass his
time with these captives for his companions. From the
Library the King went into the Divinity School, and visited
all the other schools in the quadrangle.
Next the King visited Brasenose College, of whose huge
brazen nose on the great gate Sir Isaac Wake does not fail to
remind his reader. Dr. Thomas Singleton, the Principal, at
the head of all the members of his house, accosted the King.
Dr. Singleton had been presented by Lord Keeper Egerton
to the Rectory of Whitchurch, Oxfordshire, in 1596 ; he
was made Prebendary of Bromesbury in St. Paul's, London,
10th May, 1597. Thomas Powell, B.D. of his College,
dedicated to him a sermon upon Exod. xxviii. 34, preached
at St. Mary's in 1613. He died November 29, 1614, and
was buried in the chancel of St. Mary's ; for, until the
consecration of their present chapel, which was founded
June 26, 1656, and consecrated November 17, 1686, by the
Bishop of Oxford, the Society had only a small oratory over
the buttery on the south side of the quadrangle. The King
entered into discourse with the Principal respecting Friar
Bacon, of whose brazen head a tradition went that the
prodigious nose aforesaid was a part. Koger Bacon is said
to have lectured in Little University Hall, one of the
Halls since swallowed up in Brasenose College, and once
occupying the north-east angle near the lane. Adjoining to
this was the ancient hostel called Brasenose Hall as early
as 1278, whence the College, founded in 15091 by William
Smyth, Bishop of Lincoln, took its name. The brazen head
of Koger Bacon, with its portentous nose, brings to Sir
Isaac Wake's mind a pleasant story of Thomas Aquinas
and his master Albertus Magnus. Albertus had made an
image which, by the help of machinery, could articulate a
few sounds, nay words — so the story ; and Aquinas was sent
into the room utterly unprepared for his strange companion,
whom, when he began to speak, he in his terror broke to
pieces with a staff; whereupon Albertus said, Pol, triginta
annorum opus uno momenta contrivisti; In one moment you
have dashed to pieces the work of thirty years.2 The quad
rangle of Brasenose was then beautified with flowers and
shrubs, (probably in the antique style, as once was that of
Peterhouse at Cambridge,) which the King failed not to
observe with approbation. His Majesty next visited All
Souls' College. There he was accosted by Dr. Kobert
Hoveden the Warden, who had been elected to the warden-
ship in his 28th year, 12 Nov. 1571. He was Eector of
Newington near Oxford, and had been Chaplain to Arch
bishop Parker, of whose diocese he was a native. Under
Grindal he was made Prebendary of the fourth stall at
Canterbury in 1580. The next year he was also Prebendary
of Wells, and in 1570 or 1571 of Clifton, in the Cathedral of
Lincoln. He wrote the life of Chichely, the founder of All
Souls' College.3 He died in his 69th year, March 25, 1615,
and was buried in his college chapel.
Thence passing down the High Street by the ancient
Colleges of University and Queen's, both now replaced by
more modern edifices, the King enters his son's adopted
College of St. Mary Magdalene. There Douglas Castilion
made him an oration, probably of the same family with John
Castilion, Dean of Eochester in the reign of Charles II.
and of Francis Castilion, Knight, who had been created M.A.
this same morning. The King thence returned to dinner at
Christ Church, where Dr. Edmund Lilly, who had been of Mag
dalene College and was at this time Master of Balliol College
and Archdeacon of Wiltshire, made another and valedictory
oration. His wonderful patristic knowledge made him the
admiration of his age. At the stairs' foot, where the King
entered into the Court, John Hanmer, of All Souls' College,
the Junior Proctor, made a short oration. He rose to be
Bishop of St. Asaph 1624. Upon this the Chancellor
delivered to the King his Majesty's grant of the Eectory of
Ewelme to the Regius Professor of Divinity, which the King
took and returned to the Vice-Chancellor. Then both the
King and Queen presented their hands to the Vice-Chancellor
and the Doctors to kiss, and bade them farewell, and to leave
him to take his departure without farther state. Then the
King, Queen, and Prince went all into one coach, and passed
through the town, the Mayor and other civic officers of the
city in scarlet preceding the King through the town to the
farther end of Magdalene Bridge. The Lord Treasurer
stayed till Monday next after the King's departure. He
sent to the disputers and actors £20 in money, and five
brace of bucks ; so he sent to every College and Hall venison
and money after this proportion ; to Brasenose College five
bucks and ten angels; to St. Edmund's Hall four red deer
pies and four angels. The King slept the evening of his
departure at Rotherfield Grey's near Henley, the mansion of
Lord Knowles, and on Saturday, proceeding by Bisham
Abbey, the seat of the Hobies, returned to Windsor.
On Nov. 3rd Andrewes, who had thrice nobly refused
a mitre, was consecrated to the see of Chichester1 on the
decease of Dr. Anthony Watson. He was consecrated by
Archbishop Bancroft, assisted by Dr. Eichard Vaughan,
Bishop of London, Jegon, Bishop of Norwich, Dr. Thomas
Kavis, Bishop of Gloucester, and Dr. William Barlow, Bishop
of Rochester, afterwards of Lincoln. His elevation was owing
to the King's especial regard for him.2 The King also
appointed him his Almoner, and at the same time granted, in
augmentation of the King's alms, all the goods, &c. of all
who were felones de se, as well as all deodands in England
and Wales, exempting Andrewes also from rendering an
account of his receipts from these sources.3 Andrewes re
signed the mastership of Pembroke Hall on the 5th, on which
day Wren was elected a Fellow of that Society, Andrewes
voting for him by his deputy, the President. In his
mastership Andrewes was succeeded by a far inferior person,
Dr. Samuel Harsnett, who was afterwards compelled to resign
in consequence of the complaints of the Fellows, headed by
Wren, who was himself a devoted friend of both Peter House
and Pembroke Hall.
1575; and B.D. 1582. He was made Dean of Bristol 16th April, 1590, and
installed 21st July. He was (in the place of Thomas Manton, M.A., who
succeeded Dr. Roger Goad in that preferment,) made Chancellor of Wells, and
installed 15th July, 1592, and at the same time made also (in the place of
Manton) Prebendary of Wedmore Secunda, in that Church. He was nomi
nated to the see of Chichester 1st June, 1596, elected by the Chapter on the
14th, confirmed August 14th, and the temporalities were restored to him 13th
September. He had been previously consecrated August 15th by Whitgift,
assisted by Dr. John Young, Bishop of Rochester; Richard Vaughan, Bishop
of Bangor (afterwards translated successively to Chester and London) ; and
Bilson, who on June 13th this same year was consecrated to the see of Worcester,
having been previously Fellow of New College, Oxford, and Warden of Win
chester College. Bishop Watson lived in celibacy, was Almoner to King James,
and died at his house at Cheam 10th September, 1605. He was buried in his
church there on the 19th. His will is in the Prerogative Office, London. He
left £100 to Christ's College, Cambridge, where he had been educated, and whence
he was chosen to a fellowship at Corpus Christi College. Bishop Hacket was
afterwards Rector of Cheam. On March 14th, 1606, Abbot granted a license to
Andrewes, now Bishop of Chichester, to demolish sundry ruinated and super
fluous buildings attached to the episcopal houses at Chichester and Aldingbourne
near Chichester. " Upon the house belonging to the bishopric of Chichester he
expended above £420." So his biographer Isaacson.
CHAPTER VIII.
Bishop Andrewes* Sermon on Christmas Day, 1605 — King James's
policy in regard to the Scotch Church — Bishop Andrewes' Sermon
on the anniversary of the King' s Accession, 1606 — His commenda
tions of the King — Sermon on Easter- Day — On Whit- Sunday —
Of the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit's operations — Sermon at
Greenwich before King James and the King of Denmark — His
notice of the Jesuits — The Scotch Conference and Sermons at
Hampton Court — Bishop Andrewes* Sermons on the right of
Kings to call Councils — On 5th November — On Christmas Day
— Of the merits of Christ — Sermon on Easter Day, 1607 —
On leing doers of the Word — Sermon at Romsey on 5th August
— On 5th November at Whitehall — On Christmas Day on the
mystery of Godliness — On Easter Day, 1608 — On Whit- Sunday
— At Holdenby on August 5 — Consecration of Bishop Neile —
Dr. John King, Bishop of London.
ON Christmas Day 1605, Tuesday, our prelate preached
before the King at Whitehall from Heb. ii. 16, in the then
version : For he in nowise took the angels / but the seed of
Abraham he took. In page 5 he observes, " And emergent or
issuing from this are all those other apprehendings or seisures
of the persons of men (by which God layeth hold on them,
and bringeth them back from error to truth, and from sin to
grace,) that have been from the beginning, or shall be to the
end of the world. That, of Abraham himself, whom God
laid hold of and brought from out of Ur of the Chaldeans,
and the idols he there worshipped. That, of our Apostle St.
Paul, that was apprehended in the way to Damascus. That
of St. Peter, that in the very act of sin was seized on with
bitter remorse for it. All those, and all these, whereby men
daily are laid hold of in spirit, and taken from the bye-paths
of sin and error, and reduced into the right way, and so their
persons recovered to God and seised to his use j — all these
apprehensions (of these branches) came from this apprehension
(of the seed) : they all have their beginning and their being
from this day's taking, even semen apprehendit" [he took the
seed]. " Our receiving His spirit for His taking our flesh.
This seed, wherewith Abraham is made the son of God, from
the seed wherewith Christ is made the son of Abraham."
Of the word used in the original he notes that it is the
same word that was used of St. Peter, when, being ready to
sink, Christ caught him hy the hand and saved him, and of
Lot and his daughters1 in the like danger.
lt And," he proceeds, " it may truly be said — (inasmuch as
all God's promises, as well touching temporal as eternal
deliverances, and as well corporal as spiritual, be in Christ
Yea and Amen ; Yea in the giving forth, Amen in the
performing) — that even our temporal delivery from the dangers
that daily compass us about, even from this last [the 5th of
November], so great and so fearful as the like was never
imagined before, all have their ground from this great appre
hension, are fruits of this seed here, this blessed seed, for
whose sake, and for whose truths sake, that we (though
unworthily) profess, are by him caught hold of, and so
plucked out of it."
Having set down St. Augustine's reason why more mercy
might have been shewn to us than to the angels, that they
had no tempter ; and Leo's, that not all the angels fell, but
that all fell in Adam, he adds : "And thus have they travailed,
and these have they found why he did apprehend us rather
than them. It may be not amiss; but we will content
ourselves for our inde nobis hoc — whence cometh this to us ?
with the answer of the Scriptures, whence, but from the tender
mercies of our God, whereby this day hath visited us?
Zelus Domini (saith Esay), The zeal of the Lord of hosts
shall bring it to pass. Propter magnam charitatem [for his
great love wherewith he loved us], saith the apostle. Sic
Deus dilexit [God so loved the world], saith he, he himself.
And we are taught by him to say, Even so} Lord, for so it
was thy good pleasure thus to do."
King James set the example to his son Charles of
endeavouring to effect a conformity in Scotland to the
established discipline and ritual of the Church of England ;
nor was the indiscretion of the royal father less than that
of the misguided son. In England James was as fulsomely
flattered as in Scotland he had been undutifully browbeaten.
The boldness of the Scottish clergy was at times rash and
intemperate, and could not but have been most offensive to
him ; yet to that body did Scotland owe much of its security
from the plottings of Komanism on the one hand, and of civil
despotism on the other. Those who can see nothing in the
kirk of those days to admire, are as intolerantly blind as
those who would condemn them in nothing. But the
impolicy and insincerity of James frustrated his own designs,
and laid the foundation for those troubles which afterwards
fell upon King Charles. It was insincere in him, who had
not privately alone, but publicly declared for the discipline
of the Kirk, to force upon it episcopacy. His impolicy is
repeatedly admitted by one who has spared no pains for the
most part to exculpate him.
In 1606 James early in the year proceeded to an act of the
most consummate injustice in procuring the condemnation of
six of the Presbyterian clergy upon a false charge of treason.
This took place on the 10th of January. Others were some
time hence commanded to London, apparently to hold con
ferences, really to be inquisitor! ally examined and for a while
detained, and some of them to be banished from their native
land. But we shall find them in London in the month of
August ; so we return to our prelate, whom we find, from the
31st March to the 22nd June inclusive, engaged in his par
liamentary duties in various committees ; first, on a committee
for the repeal of an Act of the 14th Eliz. concerning the length
of kersies, which forbade their being made above the length of
eighteen yards ; the committee to meet on Thursday, April
3, by eight A.M. in the Little Chamber near the Parliament
presence ; and also for the relief of John Eoger, gent, against
Kobert, Paul, and William Taylor. The House of Commons
desired a conference on the 5th of April on the silencing of
ministers, the multiplicity of ecclesiastical commissions, the
manner of citations, and on excommunication. The Bishop
was one of the Lords appointed to confer with them. The
conference was appointed to be on Monday the 14th April, at
two in the afternoon. The day was changed to the 17th. The
prelates were Abbot, Andrewes, Bilson, still Bishop of Bath
and Wells, and Rudd, Bishop of St. David's. Eeport was
made on the 28th of April.
On Easter Day April 6, he again preached before the
King at Whitehall, on Rom. vi. 9 — 11, in a manner worthy
of himself. This sermon, indeed, abounds with most pious
and profitable passages. In it he cites that saying of Bernard,
" Christ, although he rose alone, yet did not all rise ; that is,
we were a part of him. He is but risen in part, and that he
may rise all, we must rise from death also." Again, he sets
forth the true doctrine of the Church, that Christ's death was
an exhibition of Divine justice, and that his person was that
which gave virtue to his sacrifice. Of living according to
God he saith, "Then live we according to him, when his
will is our law, his Word our rule, his Son's life our example, his Spirit rather than our own souls the guide of our actions."
On the 28th of April he was appointed to meet on a com
mittee on the annexation of certain honours, castles, forests,
manors, &c. &c., and of certain diadems, jewels, crowns, &c.,
to the throne of England for ever.
On the 5th of May he made report touching the oath
ex officio which was appointed to be handled by him in
respect of the sickness of Dr. Still, Bishop of Bath and Wells.1
On the 12th May our prelate was appointed to meet on
a Bill read a second time on the 10th of that month, for the
more sure establishing and continuance of true religion.
On Whitsunday, June 8, he preached before the King at
Greenwich from Acts ii. 1 — 4. " It pleased Christ," he
saith, u to vouchsafe to grace the Church, his queen, with
like solemn inauguration to that of his own, when the Holy
Ghost descended on him in the likeness of a dove, that she
might, no less than he himself, receive from heaven like
solemn attestation."
Of the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit's operations he saith :
" And this (of blowing upon one certain place) is a property
very well fitting the Holy Spirit, He bloweth where Tie listeth.
To blow in certain places where itself will, and upon certain
persons, and they shall plainly feel it, and others about them
not a whit There shall be an hundred or more in an auditory ;
one sound is heard, one breath doth blow. At that instant
one or two and no more, one here, another there, they shall
feel the Spirit, shall be affected and touched with it sensibly ;
twenty on this side them and forty on that side shall not feel
it, but sit all becalmed, and go their way no more moved
than they came. Ubi vult spirat [He bloweth where he
listeth] is most true."2
When Christern IV. King of Denmark came on a visit to
the Queen his sister, Bishop Andrewes preached in Latin
before the two Sovereigns at Greenwich on August 5th, the
anniversary of the Gowrie conspiracy. His text was the 10th
verse of the 144th Psalm. He spoke of the Jesuits as amongst
the strange children in v. 11, Their mouth speaketh a lie, their
right hand is a right hand of iniquity. " And are not these
of ours just like them ? Only except what David calls lying
they call equivocation.'" Andrewes alludes in this sermon to
their various plots in which, by the use of poisons and powders
(not omitting the gunpowder), and of the sword, they had
plotted against our own and other Princes. In the latter
part he gives a detailed account of the Gowrie conspiracy.
This sermon was printed with his posthumous works, and in
English in the folio edition of his Sermons in 1661.
On September 7th he assisted, with Toby Matthews, the
pious and witty Archbishop of York, Dr. Thomas Eavis, the
deservedly popular Bishop first of Gloucester then of London,
and one of the translators of the Bible, and Dr. William
Barlow, Bishop of Rochester and afterwards of Lincoln, at
the consecration of Dr. William James, Dean of Durham and
President of University College, Oxford, to the see of Durham.
He thus succeeded Dr. Toby Matthew both in the deanery
and bishopric. He obtained permission to be consecrated
within the province of Canterbury.1
William James was a native of Sandbach in Cheshire. In
1559 he was admitted student of Christ Church, and took the
degrees in arts. He afterwards entered into holy orders, and
became Divinity Eeader of Magdalene College. Thence,
being at that time B.D., he was elected to the mastership of
University College, Oxford, June 12, 1572. On August 27,
1577, he was admitted Archdeacon of Coventry by Bishop
Bentham. Being appointed Dean of Christ Church he, on
September 14, 1584, resigned the mastership of University
College, On June 5, 1596, he was installed Dean of Durham,
whence he was promoted to the bishopric. He died on the
12th May, 1617, and was buried in his Cathedral. The
reader will find more in Wood's Athence Oxonienses and
Surtees' invaluable History of Durham.
li The commotions," says the late Bishop of Glasgow (Dr.
Eussell), a which continued to disturb the Scottish Church,
suggested to the King the propriety of holding a conference
with the leading members of the two parties. For this
purpose he summoned to London the Archbishops of Glasgow
and St. Andrew's, and the Bishops of Orkney, Galloway,
and Dunkeld, to represent the episcopal interest ; while, as
advocates for the Presbyterian cause, he named the two
Melvilles and five others, than whom there were none better
qualified both by talent and courage to support the tenets
of the Genevan school, whether in doctrine or discipline."
To these seven, namely, Andrew and James Melville, James
Balfour, William Watson, William Scott, John Carmichael,
and Adam Cole, the King addressed a circular letter, ex
pressing therein his anxiety to preserve that peace in the
Church which had been established when he left Scotland.
He further enumerated the measures which he had taken for
that purpose, dwelt upon the opposition which he had en
countered from the clergy, opposition which had been such
as to compel him to a severity contrary to his inclination,
and concluded by telling them that, being influenced by
this and various other weighty reasons, he saw good to
command them without fail to come to London before the
15th of September, that on that day he might begin with
them, and such others of their brethren as he knew to be learned
and experienced, and whom he had also ordered to attend,
to treat concerning the peace of the Church of Scotland, and
to make his constant and unchangeable favour to the members
of that Church so manifest, that they might be bound in duty
and conscience to conform to his godly meaning. In his usual
style he took great praise to himself for his condescension,
and plainlv intimated what consequences would follow, if the
conference did not terminate agreeably to his royal pleasure.
The learned and experienced brethren whom they w%ere to
meet were the aforesaid Bishops, not that they had been
otherwise ordained than themselves. They had the title
of Bishops, but they were not as yet canonically consecrated
as a separate order. The canonical consecration of the
Scottish Prelates did not take place until A.D. 1610. The
King had been known, notwithstanding his many public
professions of fidelity to the Kirk, to be favourable to
episcopacy. In June, 1606, he settled upon his titular
Bishops so much of the episcopal estates as had been hitherto
annexed to the crown, legalizing at the same time the
immense plunder of church property which the nobility had
secured to themselves by way of rewarding their godly zeal
for reformation. Very many of the ministers who were
favourable to the Presbyterian discipline protested, but in
vain, against this attempt to pave the way for another form
of church government.
The seven whom the King had summoned arrived in
London before the end of August.1 " To clear the ground,"
says Dr. Russell, "for the amicable contest in which the
Scottish champions were about to engage, James had pro
vided that they should all go to church and listen to a series
of discourses on the several points at issue." They had warn
ing given them to attend at Hampton Court on the 20th.
Barlow, now Bishop of Rochester, preached on the superiority
of Bishops to presbyters; then followed Dr. Buckeridge,
President of St. John's College, Oxford, and afterwards
successively Bishop of Rochester and Ely, who handled the
King's supremacy in causes ecclesiastical, often ranking the
Romanists and Presbyterians together in the matter of
rebellion. On Sunday, September 28, Bishop Andrewes
preached from Numbers x. 1, 2, upon the King's right to
call assemblies, both civil and ecclesiastical, instancing in
both the Old Testament and Apocryphal histories, and
copiously also from the ecclesiastical history for the first
eight centuries from the Christian era. He noticed the
inconsistency of those who disputed this power only upon
despairing of its being exerted on their side. After him
Dr. King, Dean of Christ Church and Abbot's successor
in the see of London, preached from the Canticles (chap. viii.
verse 11), against the Presbyterian institution of lay-elders.
Neither the sermons nor the conference produced the desired
effect. So the ministers were now examined relating to pro
ceedings which had not been specified in the letter. James
Melville had rendered himself especially obnoxious to the
King by his opposition to his policy on various occasions.
He was now, after an exhibition of intemperate zeal, committed
first to the care of the learned Dr. Overall, Dean of St. Paul's,
and then to the Tower. After about four years he was
restored to his liberty, but not to his country ; that he never
revisited, but was permitted in 1611 to accept the Divinity
Professorship at Sedan, whither he was invited by the Duke
of Boulogne. He died in 1621. His nephew James
Melville was ordered to reside in Newcastle, but was after
wards removed to Berwick, where he died. The rest were
detained awhile, but at last suffered to return to such places
in Scotland as were specified by the King.1
On 5th November Andrewes preached before the King
at Whitehall, from Psalm cxviii. 23, 24 : This is the Lord's
doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. This is the day which
the Lord hath made^ let us rejoice and be glad in it. On this
the first anniversary of that horrible and all but incredible plot,
which the Jesuits of our own day would have the world, if
possible, discredit,2 he set forth the plot and the deliverance in
language that must have thrilled the hearts of his auditors.
The court of Kome had openly rejoiced at the success of the
sanguinary plot of Charles IX. against his Protestant subjects
in 1572. He did not on this occasion spare either the Church
of Rome, which, had this plot succeeded, would, as he observed,
have canonized it, nor the Jesuits. Taking up our Saviour's
words, he spoke of it as an abomination that was to have
brought desolation. Every abomination doth not forthwith
make desolate. This had. If ever a desolate kingdom upon
earth, such had this been after that terrible blow. Neither
root nor branch left, all swept away. Strangers called in;
murtherers exalted; the very dissolution and desolation of
all ensued.
"But this, that this so abominable and desolate a plot
stood in the holy place, this is the pitch of all. For there it
stood, and thence it came abroad. Undertaken with an
holy oath; bound with the holy sacrament (this must needs be
in a holy place) ; warranted for a holy act, tending to the
advancement of a holy religion, and by holy persons called
by a most holy name, the name of Jesus. That these holy
religious persons, even the chief of all religious persons (the
Jesuits] , gave not only absolution but resolution , that all this
was well done ; that it was by them justified as lawful,
sanctified as meritorious, and should have been glorified (but
it wants glorifying, because the event failed, that is the grief;
if it had not, glorified) long ere this, and canonized as a very
good and holy act, and we had had orations out of the Conclave
in commendation of it."1 Let the reader but peruse this
discourse and carry himself back to the day when it was
delivered, the audience assembled to hear it. the presence of
the King who was to have been, with all the flower of his
own house and of his kingdom, so ruthlessly destroyed, and
he will receive an impression, it may be hoped, indelible, of
that truly marvellous interposition of the Almighty in behalf
of our religion and nation. He will, too, feel that so memo
rable an occasion could not have been left in the hands of a
more eloquent divine than our prelate. Ungrateful indeed
and insensible must have been the heart of James, who, in
spite of even that deliverance, could not rest until he had
endangered the stability of his throne and unsettled the
affections of his subjects, by seeking to unite his son, his
ill-fated son, to a Komish family.
On the 14th November Andrewes preferred to the vicarage
of Chigwell one of the greatest ornaments of his own college,
Koger Fenton, B.D., Hector of St. Stephen's, Walbrook, and
Prebendary of St. Paul's, and one of the translators of the
Bible. He was the friend of Thomas Fuller, Eector of
St. Peter's, Aldwinckle, and father of the famous Thomas
Fuller, and of the excellent Dr. Felton, Andre wes's successor
in the see of Ely. He died January 16, 1616, and was
buried in St. Stephen's, Walbrook.2
On 24th November Andrewes was on a committee upon
the Union, and again on 8th December, to restrain the multi
tude of inconvenient buildings in and about the metropolis.
On Christmas-day, Wednesday, our prelate preached
before the King at Whitehall, from Isaiah ix. 6, vindicating
this illustrious prophecy from the forced interpretation of the
Jews who apply it to Hezekiah, the vain subterfuge also of
modern Unitarianism. But, as Bishop Andrewes remarks,
u how senseless is it to apply to Hezekias that in the next
verse, Of his government and peace there should be none end •
that his throne should be established from thenceforth for ever ;
whereas his peace and government both had an end within
few years."
Here, as elsewhere, he does not confine the mediatorial
character and saving merits of our Lord to the time and
works of his public ministry, but includes therein all that
he did and all that he suffered. " If the tree be ours, the
fruit is ; if he be ours, his birth is ours ; his life is ours ; his
death is ours ; his satisfaction, his merits, all he did, all he
suffered is ours."
Bishop Andrewes served on various committees of the
Lords in February and March, 1587.
On Tuesday, March 24, being the anniversary of the
King's accession, Andrewes preached before him at Whitehall,
from Judges xvii. 6 : In those days there was no Jcing in
Israel, but every man did that which was good in his own eyes.
He spoke of the excellence of an hereditary monarchy, as
leaving no interregna, no seasons of confusion. He urged
the duty of kings, to whom God gives commission (I said ye
are gods] to take under their charge the things of God, to put
down idolatry, and to provide right instruction for their
subjects. He animadverts upon the disposition of many
of the laity in his time to intermeddle with ecclesiastical
things and persons, the people that strive with the priest.
Hos. iv. 4. Andrewes appears too courtly in this discourse.
Was it altogether true of James that he was the opposite to
Andrewes's picture of Eehoboam, one that was full of great
words, but so faint-hearted as not able to resist ought?
On April 5, Easter-day, he preached before the King at
Whitehall, from 1 Cor. xv. 20, observing how our Lord's
resurrection was the day of the feast of first-fruits.1 Very
felicitious is his observation in p. 400 : " There was a statute
concerning God's commandments, Qui fecerit ea, vivet in eis,
He that observed the commandments should live by that his
obedience. Death should not seize on him. Christ did
observe them exactly, therefore should not have been seized
by death ; should not, but was ; and that seizure of his was
death's forfeiture."
Towards the end of this sermon, as elsewhere, he speaks
in general terms of baptism as our regeneration in which we
receive the first-fruits of the Spirit, and of the constant
renovation of grace and of pardon in the Lord's Supper ;
and here he does not introduce the quasi- Romanism of some
who (like the Pharisees in regard of the prophets) speak much
of him, but do not teach the same doctrine. He does not
tell his hearers that there are but two times of absolute
cleansing, baptism and the day of judgment.2
It was in this year, and probably on May 10th, the fifth
Sunday after Easter-day, when the text occurs in the epistle
for the day, that our prelate preached before the King at
Greenwich one of his best and most ingenious discourses upon
the " doing of the Word," from St. James i. 22 ; noting one
of the great diseases of his day, the placing of all religion
in the going to hear sermons, and at the same time neglecting
to be so much as present at the prayers. And in exposing
this absurd kind of religion (so to call it), he does not with
some vilify preaching, nor teach with these that the hearers
should equally follow whatsoever they are taught from the
pulpit. He would have all that is heard to rest on the
authority and to be tried by the rule of holy Scripture. He
notes that " not so few as twenty times in the Gospel is the
preaching of the word called the Kingdom of Heaven, as a
special means to bring us thither. It is that of which St.
James in the verse before saith, It is able to save our souls;
the very words which the angel used to Cornelius, that, when
St. Peter came, he should speak words by which he and his
household should be saved."1
On Whit-Sunday, May 24th, Andrewes preached before
the King at Greenwich a sermon erroneously assigned to the
year following in the folio edition. This, which is the second
of the Whit-Sunday series, abounds more in the faults of
his style than most of his discourses. He does not proceed
far before he pours out his wit upon the Puritans. " I wish
it were not true this, that humours were not sometimes mis
taken, and mistermed the Spirit. A hot humour flowing from
the gall, taken from this fire here, and termed, though untruly,
the Spirit of zeal. Another windy humour proceeding from
the spleen, supposed to be this toind here, and they that [are]
filled with it (if nobody will give it them) taking to them
selves the style of the godly brethren. I wish it were not
needful to make this observation, but you shall easily know
it for an humour : non continetur termino suo, its own limits
will not hold it. They are ever mending churches, states,
superiors ; mending all save themselves j alieno non suo is the
note to distinguish an humour."1
Observing that the gifts for which we are to thank God on
our celebration of this day are the pastors of his church, he
says, u Must we keep our Pentecost in thanksgiving for these ?
are they worth so much, I trow ? We would be loth to have
the prophet's way taken with us (Zach. xi. 12) that it should
be said to us, as there it is, If you so reckon of them indeed,
let us see the wages you value them at; and when we shall see,
it is but eight pound a year^ and having once so much, never
to be capable of more. May not then the prophet's speech
there well be taken up ? A goodly price these high gifts are
valued at by you. And may not he justly (instead of Zachary
and such as he is) send us a sort of foolish shepherds; and send
us this senselessness withal, that, speak they never so fondly,
so they speaJc, all is well ; it shall serve our turn as well as the
best of them all ? Sure, if this be a part of our duty this day
to praise God for them, it is to be a part of our care, too,
they may be such as we may justly praise God for. Which
whether we shall be likely to effect by some courses as have
of late been offered, that leave I to the weighing of your wise
considerations."1
On 12th July he, with Dr. Eavis, Bishop of London, and
Dr. Barlow, Bishop of Eochester, assisted Archbishop Ban
croft at the consecration of Dr. Henry Parry, Dean of Chester,
to the see of Gloucester, then vacant by the translation of Dr.
Eavis to London.
Dr. Parry was the son of Henry, son of William Parry,
gentleman, of Wormbridge, about ten miles south-west of Here
ford, but was himself a native of Wiltshire, 1561. He was a
scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 13th Nov. 1576,
and Fellow and Greek Reader in that college. He was Eector
of Bredon in Worcestershire, Chaplain to Queen Elizabeth,
installed Dean of Chester 1st August, 1605, which he resigned
on his consecration at Croydon to the see of Gloucester. He
was translated to Worcester 13 July, 1610, died 12 December,
1616, and was buried in the Cathedral there. He was as
a preacher an especial favourite with King James. The
King of Denmark gave him a very rich ring for a sermon
preached before him and James the First at Eochester in
1606. He was very charitable to the poor. He built the
pulpit that was standing in the nave of Gloucester Cathedral
in the last century, but has since been removed. He pub
lished two Latin discourses, translated into English ; The Sum
of a Conference between Jolin Eainolds and John Hart touching
the head and faith of the Church, Oxford, 1619, folio; and
translated from Latin into English a Catechism of contro
verted questions in Divinity, Oxford, 1591, 8vo., which was
written by Zachary Ursinus, a Silesian, and Caspar Olevian,
commonly called The Heidelberg Catechism.1
In August Bishop Andrewes was with the King at Eomsey
in Hampshire, probably at Broadlands near Eomsey. His
Majesty's host there appears to have been Edward St. Barbe,
Esq., who, being previously of Ashington near Ilchester,
Somersetshire, married Frances, daughter and heiress of
William Fleming, Esq., of Broadlands, who died in 1606.
Edward was grandfather of the first baronet of his name.
Here Bishop Andrewes preached before the King on the
5th of August, the anniversary of the Gowry conspiracy, from
2 Sam. xviii. 32 ; shewing that it was not for Jews only,
but for Christians also, to denounce and curse the enemies
of God, of mankind, and of the church. In this sermon he
noticed the rise of the Independents, and the levelling prin
ciples of the Anabaptists of those times.
" Of the first sort of these risers (against kingly powder) are
the Anabaptists of our age, by whom all secular jurisdiction
is denied. No lawmakers they but the evangelists : no courts
but presbyteries : no punishments but church-censures. They
rise against the very state of kings : and that should they find
and feel, if they were once grown enough to make a party.
"A second sort there be (the Independents) that are but
bustling to rise ; not yet risen, at least not to this step ; but
in a forwardness they be ; proffer at it, that they do. They
that seek to bring parity not into the commonwealth by no
means, but only into the church. All parishes alike, every
one absolute, entire of itself. No dependency, or superiority,
or subordination. But, this once being had, do we not know
their second position ? — have they not broached it long since ?
The church is the house} the commonwealth but the hangings.
The hangings must be made fit for the house, that is, the
commonwealth fashioned to the church, not the house to the
hangings. No, take heed of that. And when they were
taken with it and charged with it, how sleightly in their
answer do they slip it over ! These, when they are thus got
far may rise one step higher ; and as Aaron now must not, so
perhaps neither must Moses then exalt himself above the con
gregation, seeing that all Gods people are holy no less than he"
On the 8th October Andrewes, as one of the residentiaries
of St. Paul's, presented the erudite Arabic scholar, William
Bedwell, to the Kectory of Tottenham, Middlesex. He was
one of the translators of the Bible, and had been educated
at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was B.A. in
1585, and M.A. in 1588. In 1601 he was made Kector of
St. Ethelburga, London. He was Chaplain to Sir Henry
Wotton in his embassy to Venice, where he is said to have
assisted Father Paul in his history of the Council of Trent.
He published Kalendarium Viatorium Generate, The Traveller's
Kalendar, serving generally for all parts of the world, 8vo.
1614. Also Mohamedis Imposturce: that is, a Discovery of
the manifold Forgeries, Falsehoods, and horrible Impieties of
the blasphemous seducer Mohammed / with a demonstration of
the Insufficiency of his Law, contained in the cursed Alkoran.
Delivered in a Conference had between Two Mohametans on
their Return from Mecha. Written long since in Arabick, and
now done into English by William Bedwell. Whereunto is
annexed the Arabian Trudgman, interpreting certain Arabic
Terms used by Historians : together with an Index of the
Chapters of the Alkoran , for the understanding of the con
futations of that Book. London. Imprinted by Richard Field,
dwelling in Great Wood-street, 1615. It purports to be a
translation of a work at that time 600 years old. Mr. Gough
says that Bedwell translated the Koran into English. He
was an early friend and patron of Henry Jacob, son of Henry
Jacob, one of the earliest Independents. He recommended
the younger Jacob to the notice of William Earl of Pembroke,
at whose recommendation he was admitted B.A. of Oxford,
1629. He found a patron in Laud, and adhered to him in
his troubles. He was intimate with Selden, who befriended
him in his own troubles. He died 1652. Bedwell also
published^! Brief Description of the Town of Tottenham High
Cross, 4to. 1631. In this he gave a copy of a very ancient
ballad, The Tournament of Tottenham; or, the Wooing,
Winning, and Wedding of Tibbe the Reves Daughter. This
poem, says Warton, in his History of English Poetry, is a
burlesque on the parade and fopperies of chivalry. It was
reprinted in Percy's Reliques of Antient Poetry, in Kobinson's
History, (fee., of Tottenham, 1828. He died May 5, 1632,
aged 78, and is buried in Tottenham Church.
On 5th November he preached before the King at White
hall, from the first four verses of Psalm cxxvi., enlarging upon
the greatness of that wonderful deliverance which is com
memorated on that day.
On Friday, Christmas-day, he again preached before the
King at the same place, upon the mystery of godliness , and its
manifestation in our Lord's incarnation, discoursing excel
lently upon the great humiliation and love by which this
manifestation of God was distinguished.
On Easter-day, March 27, 1608, Bishop Andrewes preached
most eloquently upon the history of our Lord's resurrection,
from St. Mark xvi. 1—7, at Whitehall.
On April 17 he assisted at the consecration of the truly
noble Dr. James Montague to the see of Bath and Wells.
On August 5, the anniversary of the Growry conspiracy, we
find Bishop Andrewes preaching before the King at Holdenby,
the once magnificent but now ruined mansion first of Sir
Christopher Hatton. His sermon, full of his usual ingenuity,
was upon David's most noble and pious answer to Abishai
when Abishai counselled him to put Saul to death. The King
on the same day rode to Bletsoe, the seat of Oliver Lord St.
John, whose third and fourth sons, Antony and Alexander,
he there knighted, as also Sir Thomas Tresham, of Newton
in Northamptonshire. On August 6 he knighted Sir Eichard
Harpur of Derbyshire, of a family now represented by Lord
Crewe.
On October 9 Bishop Andrewes with Dr. Thomas Ravis,
now Bishop of London, and Dr. James Montague, the truly
munificent Bishop of Bath and Wells, assisted Archbishop
Bancroft at Lambeth Chapel on the consecration of Dr.
Richard Neile, Dean of Westminster, to the bishopric of
Rochester. Dr. Neile owed his rise to the great Lord Bur-
leigh and to his son Robert Earl of Salisbury, to both of
whom he was successively Chaplain. He was himself the
great patron of Archbishop Laud, whom this year he made
his Chaplain, and in 1609 introduced him to the notice of the
King, before whom he preached at Theobalds.
On November 5, Dr. John King, Dean of Christ Church,
who appears as a preacher to have been esteemed next to
Andrewes, preached before the King at Whitehall.1 His
text was Psalm xi. 2 — 4. u Cruelty," he truly said, " is the
ensign and badge of that Church" [the Church of Rome].
u The habit of the harlot is according to her heart, scarlet and
purple ; her diet the diet of cannibals. * / saw her drunken,
saith the Apostle, ' with the blood of saints.' I wondered to
see her so wonderfully drunk \davp,a fjieya. Rev. xvii. 6].
The city was first founded in blood, the blood of a natural
german brother ; and the Papacy also founded in blood, the
blood of a natural liege lord and emperor."2
And again : u But from the 5th of November was three
years ; henceforth, till time shall be no more, let the name of
Nero, with the rest, rest in peace, and be buried in silence,
and instead of Syllan, Marian, Scythian, Tartarian, Barbarian,
Turkish, Spanish, let Romish, Popish, Antichristian, Catholic,
Catacatholic cruelty be a proverb, astonishment, hissing, for
all nations and ages to come."3 Towards the conclusion he
urges the King to put in execution the laws against Ro
manists.4 This sermon was published by the King's com
mand, and Dr. King was in three years advanced to the
see of London.
This very eloquent preacher and resolute and upright
prelate was born about 1559, at Wormenhall, a small village
in Buckinghamshire near Thame, being the son of Philip
King (who was nephew to the first Bishop of Oxford), and
of his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Edmund Conquest, of
Houghton Conquest, Bedfordshire. He was educated at
Westminster School and at Christ Church, Oxford. He was
elected a student of Christ Church in 1576, and in 1580 was
preferred to the Church of St. Anne's and St. Agnes, Alders-
gate. Dr. John Piers, who from 1570 to 1576 was Dean of
Christ Church, and in 1588, after having been successively
Bishop of Rochester and Salisbury, was raised to the Arch
bishopric of York, made him his private Chaplain. This most
pious and truly Christian Archbishop made him in 1590
Archdeacon of Nottingham, and probably procured his being
added to the Queen's Chaplains. Archbishop Piers died in
November, 1594, and the Queen in 1597 presented King to
the Church of St. Andrew's, Holborn, on the promotion of
Bancroft to the see of London. He had already, by his
sermons upon Jonah preached at York, proved himself the
Chrysostom of his times, but with more depth of piety and
with a more accurate theology than is to be found in the
homilies of that most earnest and ingenious father. He is
in some respects indeed far superior to Bishop Andrewes,
although in his court sermons he displays similar faults, and
spoils his own more natural method. In 1599 he was collated
to the prebendal stall of Sneating, in the place of Dr. William
Cotton, the Queen's godson, now raised to the see of Exeter.
That truly noble-minded and uncorrupt favourite of the Queen
and of his country, Egerton, the Lord Keeper, made him his
Chaplain, and in 1605 he succeeded Dr. Ravis as Dean of
Christ Church, and was for some years Vice-Chancellor of
the University. When Dr. Ravis was to be promoted to the
see of Gloucester, several of the students of Christ Church
petitioned of the King that he might succeed in the Deanry,
which request the King, a great admirer of his preaching,
graciously granted. His oratorical talent was such that Sir
Edward Coke was wont to call him the best speaker in the
Star Chamber. On September 8, 1611, he was consecrated
to the bishopric of London. But delighting in his office, and
esteeming the preaching of God's word the highest dignity,
he preached constantly in one and another church in his
diocese every Lord's Day. He died on the 29th or 30th
of March, 1621.
On November 11 we meet with the following notice of
Bishop Andrewes in a letter from John Chamberlain to
Dudley Carleton :
" I thank you for your remonstrance of the French clergy,
which will give me occasion perhaps to visit the good Bishop
of Chichester, though I doubt he be not at leisure for any
bye-matters, the King doth so hasten and spur him on in this
business of Bellarmin's, which he were likely to perform very
well (as I hear by them that can judge) if he might take his
own time, and not be troubled nor entangled with arguments
obtruded to him continually by the King, who is somewhat
pleased with a late accident fallen into Scotland, where one
Sprott, being to be executed for some other matter, confessed
somewhat touching Gowry's conspiracy that makes it hang
more handsomely together." Of Sprott and his confessions,
and of the Gowrie conspiracy, the reader may obtain sufficient
information and impartially conveyed in the 40th chapter of
Sir Walter Scott's History of Scotland, vol.. ii., 1830.1
Of our prelate's Tortura Torti mention is also made in a
letter from Dudley Carleton, Esq., to Sir Thomas Edmunds,
London, June 8th, 1609 : " The Bishop of Chichester's book is
now in the press, whereof I have seen part, and it is a worthy
work ; only the brevity breeds obscurity, and puts the reader
to some of that pains which was taken by the writer. Dr.
Morton comes after with a large volume; and Sir Edward
Hoby (who by the way is a sad mourner for his mother)
comes in like an entremets with a work of his dedicated to
the relapsed ladies ; so as Paul's churchyard is like to be well
furnished."
CHAPTER IX.
Plots of the Papists against King James — The King treats them
favourably — Duplicity of Pope Clement Till. — Watson's con
spiracy — The Gunpoivder Plot — Grounded on the Pope's Breves —
The plot referred to the Pope for his opinion — Garnet fearful lest
he should encourage recourse to arms — Greenwell and Hall —
Garnet — Lingard's plea for Garnet — Concealment of sins not yet
perpetrated formerly not allowed under the plea of confession —
Martin del Rio — Abstraction of documents from the State Paper
Office — -Abbot's Antilogia — N~ot the Jesuits alone to be blamed —
Oath of allegiance — The King's Premonition to Christian Princes
and States — His Confession of Faith — His dissertation on Anti
christ.
BEFORE the accession of King James in 1603, Pope Clement
VIII. had put Garnet, the superior or head of the English
Jesuits, in possession of epistles or breves directing the
Roman Catholics to prevent the accession of James, or of
any but a Roman Catholic, whenever the demise of Queen
Elizabeth should occur. The Romish historian, Dr. Lingard,
himself acknowledges that Garnet had these breves ; that
in 1602 Thomas Winter, afterwards one of the Gunpowder
conspirators, had arranged with the ministers of Philip III.,
King of Spain, a plan for the invasion of England,1 that the
death of Elizabeth disconcerted the project, and that " Garnet
had thought it prudent to burn the breves in favour of a
Catholic successor."2 Thus did the court of Rome and the
Jesuits plot against James even previously to his accession,
but opportunities did not favour their schemes, and so they
did what they could to conceal them. Dr. Lingard says that
the Catholics (or, as they are more appropriately designated,
Romanists) almost unanimously supported the right of James ;
and, but for their religion, their loyalty probably would have
been unanimous ; and Dr. Lingard admits that the King felt
inclined to grant them some partial indulgence. The open
toleration of their religion the country would not have en
dured. Thousands were still alive who remembered that
reign of horror which some of their degenerate posterity have
taken such pains to bury in oblivion. The nation was
imbued with too deep a spirit of unfeigned attachment to the
great truths of Christianity itself, to look upon Romanism
with the lukewarmness of the present age. It was therefore
boldly impolitic in the King to shew them so much regard
as he is acknowledged to have done. He invited them to
frequent his court ; he conferred on several the honour of
knighthood ; and he promised to shield them from the penal
ties of recusancy, so long as by their loyal and peaceable
demeanour they should deserve the royal favour. This
benefit, though it fell short of their expectations, they ac-
cepted with gratitude.1 By most it was cherished as a pledge
of subsequent and more valuable concessions ; and the Pontiff
Clement VIII., now that Elizabeth was no more, determined
to cultivate the friendship of the new King. Thus Dr.
Lingard would, as it were, introduce his reader to Pope
Clement VIII. ; but it is well inserted, a now that Elizabeth
was no more," for had her life been spared, the Pope's breves
in the hands of Garnet were to have operated to the depriva
tion of King James of his right. Dr. Lingard gravely informs
his reader that the Pope also sent strict commands in two
breves directed to the arch-priest and the provincial of the
Jesuits, to the intent that the missionaries (for this is the
name given by the Romish Church to her clergy in this most
benighted kingdom) should confine themselves to their spiri
tual duties, and discourage every attempt to disturb the public
tranquillity. These breves he should have sent earlier, for
he knew full well that his missionaries were used to such
plots and conspiracies as those which had so often endangered
the life of Elizabeth. These breves too were sent to Garnet,
the same to whom had been entrusted those treasonable breves
to keep James out of the throne of this kingdom.
Already one plot had been discovered in which two priests
were engaged, one of whom confessed that the Jesuits who
betrayed him, and that when he and they were in a state
of mutual hostility, had first led him into the crime. The
priest Watson, at the gallows, alluding to the former disputes
between himself and the Jesuits, said, " he forgave and desired
to be forgiven of all, namely, that the Jesuits would forgive
him if he had written over-eagerly against them ; saying also
that it was occasioned by them, whom he forgave, if they had
cunningly and covertly drawn him into the action for which
he suffered.1 Watson himself had his accomplices, of whom
it is not clear that all were brought to justice. So did
Romanism attempt to overturn the government when the
King had been scarcely three months upon his throne.
Thus rendered insecure by those who turned religion into
rebellion, and faith into faction, his person and kingdom were
guarded in his first Parliament by additional fences to protect
our country against the insidious policy of Rome. Fresh
cautions were framed against the missionary-priests, and
legal disabilities were attached to those who studied in the
foreign universities.2
The second plot was that of 1605, which the reader may
find palliated in Dr. Lingard's History, who is followed to
some extent by the anonymous continuator of Sir James
Mackintosh's History of England?
On May 1, 1604, the five Gunpowder conspirators, Robert
Catesby, Thomas Winter, Thomas Percy, a distant relation
and steward to the Duke of Northumberland, John Wright,
and Guido Fawkes, after having sworn each other to secresy,
received the host at the hands of John Gerard a Jesuit. The
only two who survived (for Catesby, Percy, and Wright were
slain resisting their pursuers) declared that Gerard had no
knowledge of the conspiracy. This was but a pretext. Their
assembling was itself an extraordinary proceeding. Catesby
and Winter were well-known agitators. After Catesby had
once escaped the block, he attached himself, says Dr. Lingard,
to the Spanish party amongst the Bomanists, and bore a
considerable share in their intrigues to prevent the succession
of the Scottish monarch.1 Such were the communicants • no
wonder that they made choice of a Jesuit for their celebration
of these mysteries.
We have heard Dr. Lingard in one place speaking of the
pacific disposition of Pope Clement VIII.;2 in another, he
owns that Catesby, the originator of the plot, defended it to
Garnet on the ground of the two breves of Clement VIII.
for the exclusion of the Scottish King from the succession.
"If," he argued, "it were lawful to prevent James from
coming in after his promise of toleration, it could not be
wrong to drive him out after his breach of that promise."
Thus does Dr. Lingard himself bear witness to the Pope's
duplicity. It is observable, too, that Garnet, instead of
condemning the conspirator on the simple ground of the
atrocity of his design, opposes to his plans two letters of the
Pope advising him (Garnet) to discourage all attempts against
the state ;3 letters, the sincerity of which Catesby, no inex
perienced politician, could appreciate at their real value.
But the guilt of both parties is sufficiently clear from the
result of their most conscientious conference. In conclusion,
a sort of compromise was accepted, that a special messenger
should be despatched to Borne with a correct account of the
state of the English Catholics, and that nothing should be
done on the part of the conspirators till an answer had been
received from the Pontiff."4 Thus the Jesuit and the con
spirator were both agreed that the plot might proceed with
the Pope's permission. Nay, Garnet himself, who had just
pleaded the Pope's pacific letters, was (according to Dr.
I Lingard) fearful that his Holiness would countenance the plot.
If he had not such apprehensions, why should he secretly add
a request that the Holy Father would prohibit under censure
a recourse to arms? Such was the casuistry of the Pope
and of Garnet. Garnet was but an ill teacher of loyalty
who had been judged by such a Pope traitor enough to be
the keeper of breves denying the right of James to his crown.
Dr. Lingard concedes that his martyr Garnet, who he says
was only guilty of misprision of treason, constantly practised
equivocation and falsehood when examined touching the
conspiracy, nay, even justified the confirmation of equivo
cation by the taking of oaths, or by the receiving of the
sacrament.
Bates, Catesby's man, was sent to a Jesuit by name
Tesmond, and revealed to him the whole plot in confession.
Tesmond highly applauded the design, and gave him the
host to confirm him in his purpose. So Bates confessed, as
Bishop Andrewes has recorded in his Tortura Torti* Our
prelate appears to affirm that Gerard himself administered
to the five conspirators the oath of secresy.
A third Jesuit, Oldcorn (alias Hall), after the detection of
the conspiracy, justified it.
Twice was Garnet consulted with respect to the guilt
of involving the innocent in any fatal calamity in a case of
necessity when some great end called for it. Dr. Lingard
notices but one such occasion. On the first occasion Green-
well (Dr. Lingard' s Greenway} was present with Catesby.
The second time the same question was put on Moorfields,
and a more direct answer returned, lt that] the innocent might
lawfully be blown up with the guilty, and that it would be
highly meritorious if it should bring any great advantage
to the Catholics."1
Garnet confessed that from Catesby he knew that a plot
was in agitation before he knew it in detail, and that he was
guilty both for concealing it and not preventing it.2 Nay,
Garnet said prayers and offered up masses for the success
of the plot,3 and an order was issued to all the Jesuits to use
certain special prayers for the furtherance of an object that
was in the mind of their superior (Garnet), and which was
to be a great benefit to the Catholic cause. Scarcely four
days before that memorable one in which the plot was to
have been executed, Garnet was at Coughton in Warwick
shire (the very place whither the other conspirators were to
have gathered to him, if the plot had not failed), and there
enjoined his auditors to pray for the success of the act which
was then about to take place.4
So much for the innocence of Dr. Lingard's and his
Church's martyr, Garnet.
The excuse that Dr. Lingard urges and that Bellarmine
urged in his behalf was, that he had only kept that secret
which had been delivered under the seal of confession ; but
the Komish historian admits that Garnet was brought to
some concessions even on this point, only after his trial.1 Dr.
Lingard does not enlighten his readers by telling them that
the excuse of the seal of confession was one that would not
have been allowed in France, and one on which there existed
a diversity of opinion at least at that time in his own com
munion. It is true indeed that in Ireland, if not in England,
this profane doctrine of the inviolability of treason when
communicated in confession is maintained by the Eomish
priesthood, a proof that Eomanism is as little to be trusted
now as in the darkest ages of its supremacy.
Cardinal Bellarmine, whose pen was equally ready to
write books of devotion and treatises of rebellion, affirmed
that his Church did not permit any other conduct than that
of the holy and incomparable martyr Garnet, for so this
traitor was esteemed at Kome. Bishop Andrewes adduces
various examples of the revealing of treason communicated in
confession by priests in France.2 He remarks that Bellarmine
says truly, ( permits not] for that it is certain that formerly it
did permit such disclosures. uWho," asks Bishop Andrewes,
lt is ignorant of that verse, Hceresis est crimen, quod nee confessio
ccelat?" Heresy is a crime which not even confession conceals.
The secresy for which Bellarmine pleads, and which Dr.
Lingard does not condemn, is disapproved by Alexander de
Hales, the master of whom both Bonaventura and Aquinas
learnt. It is also disclaimed utterly by Angelus & Clavasio,
an Italian who lived about A.D. 1480. He affirms that the
priest is bound to reveal any evil that is in meditation against
the state and that he shall have heard in confession. The
same is the equally decided opinion of Sylvester Prierias,
master of the Pope's Palace, who wrote against Luther.
Nicholas of Palermo, one of the greatest canonists of the
15th century, reports also that the same was the opinion of
Pope Innocent the Fourth, who died in 1254. And so Domi-
nicus a Soto, confessor to the Emperor Charles V., and present
at the Council of Trent in 1545. * But a new doctrine arose
after the time of the Reformation, and probably only with
a view to its extinction and to the concealment of the multi
plied conspiracies by which Protestant princes were assailed,
at the instigation more especially of the still tolerated and
flourishing order of Jesuits.
Garnet equivocated not only in regard of facts but of
doctrine. Upon his trial, defending himself upon the ques
tion of the Pope's deposing power, he who had been the
keeper of breves to prevent the accession of King James,
pretended that although the Pope had power to depose
Catholic princes, he made a difference in the matter of
excommunicating and deposing of princes, betwixt the con
dition and state of our king and of others, who having
sometimes been Catholics, did or shall afterwards fall back.2
Afterwards the Earl of Salisbury put the question to him,
Whether in case the Pope, per sententiam orthodoxam, should
excommunicate the King's Majesty of Great Britain, his
subjects were bound to continue their obedience? To this
Garnet denied to answer.3
The Attorney-General observed that Garnet might and
ought to have discovered the mischief for preservation of the
State, though he had concealed their persons.4 It may be
added that he might have both done this and secured the
lives of the conspirators, who, upon timely warning, might
all have fled, and would certainly have been protected by
the King of Spain in his dominions, the fomenter himself
of rebellion and treason. Dr. Lingard must have been aware
of this, who yet evidently sympathizes with these incen
diaries.
Garnet died a true Romanist, imploring the Virgin Mary
to receive him at the hour of his death, using these words
of their idolatrous hymn —
"Maria mater gratise,
Mater misericordiae,
Tu me a malo protege,
Et hora mortis suscipe." x
The atrocity and almost incredible viciousness of Garnet's
private life is set forth by Dr. Abbot (afterwards Bishop of
Salisbury) in the preface2 to his Antilogia. Bishop Andrewes
alludes in plain terms to his unlawful attachment to the female
who was permitted to converse with him when in the Tower.
Such was the man whose piety is commended by Bellarmine,
and who was regarded by some of his own communion as a
martyr, and one whose innocence was attested by a miracle.
In 1674 appeared A Discourse concerning the Original of
the Powder Plot, together with a Relation of the Conspiracies
against Queen Elizabeth^ and the Persecutions of the Protestants
in France to the Death of Henry the Fourth, &c. This work
consists of two parts, the first by the editor, the second a
translation from De Thou of his account of the Parisian
massacre in 1572, and of the Gunpowder Plot.
The author observes that " this was not the first time that
this means hath been proposed by confederates of that party,
for the destruction and murder of our princes, for it had been
long before proposed by one Moody to be laid under Queen
Elizabeth's bed and secretly fired."
But there is a passage of the Jesuit Martin Del Rio
(otherwise Delrius} in his Disquisitiones Magicce^ printed
about five years before the conspiracy, in which it is actually
anticipated and resolved that, being revealed in confession
as a thing not yet executed but resolved upon, it is most
agreeable to the sanctity of confession that it should not be
revealed. And for this resolution of this case of conscience
the Jesuit refers to the opinion of the then Pope, Clement VIII. ,
the same who conspired against the accession of King James
by sending breves to England with a view to raise to the
throne Arabella Stuart. This book of the Jesuit Del Rio,
printed about five years before the plot was discovered, may
be seen in the Bodleian Library, and after the discovery
of the plot the book was reprinted in 1617 with the same
passages retained.2 The opinion that sins deliberately intended to be committed should be revealed by the priest Del Rio condemns as dangerous and tending to withdraw men from confession ; and therefore he concludes that the
contrary opinion is altogether to be followed, that it is not
lawful to detect even treason against the State. He puts
the case, " A malefactor confesses that himself or some
other hath put powder or something else under such an
entry (or groundsel), and except it be taken away the house
will be burnt, the Prince destroyed, and as many as go into
or out of the city will come to great mischief or hazard ;" and
then resolves for the negative, that the priest ought not to
reveal this confession, owning that herein he differed from
others of his communion, but alleging that this seems to
be the mind of Pope Clement VIII. himself. Then he
proceeds to justify the concealing of such crimes by equivocation and falsehood ; nay, he must not reveal such even to the Pope. This carries with it a great air of consistency.
And here it may be observed that the Romish religion
itself is a religion of subtleties, equivocations, and evasions.
Thus both Bishop Andrewes, and after him Bishop Abbot,
in his Antilogia, expose the shuffling of Bellarmine with
respect to the Pope's deposing power over princes. Thus
the Romish distinctions respecting image- worship, and the
mediation of Christ and of the saints, and the higher and
inferior worship, the one due to him, the other to them.
Garnet was not the first equivocator ; it had grown into
a system and had been frequently practised by others before
him. And not only the Jesuit Garnet, but Black well, the
head or arch-priest of the secular or parochial clergy of that
communion in England, sanctioned a book recommending
equivocation.
The second volume of Criminal Trials, published in 1835
in the Library of Entertaining Knowledge, and printed by
Charles Knight, Ludgate Street, is entirely occupied with
the Gunpowder Plot, and is the fullest account of it that
has hitherto appeared. It professes to be for the most part
taken from the collection of original documents respecting
the plot, preserved in the State Paper Office, and arranged
and indexed some years ago by Mr. Lemon. The writer
of the preface observes that, " although it was not thought
expedient by the Privy Council of James I. to publish to
the world much information respecting the plot, it is clear
from the existence of this mass of evidence, that they were
in possession of full knowledge of its minutest details.
Perhaps no conspiracy in English history was ever more
industriously inquired into. For nearly six months the
inquiry almost daily occupied the earnest attention of the
commissioners appointed by the King to examine the
witnesses and prisoners, during the whole of which time
their labours were zealously aided by Chief Justice Popham,
Sir Edward Coke, Sir Francis Bacon, and several others of
the most acute and experienced lawyers of the day. More
than five hundred depositions of witnesses and real or sup
posed confederates were taken, a large proportion of which,
together with numerous contemporary letters and papers
relating to the transaction, are still in existence at the State
Paper office."
This writer informs us, in the next page that, " for many
years previously to the passing of the Catholic Belief Bill,
whilst the propriety of that measure was the subject of
animated discussion in every session of Parliament, proposals
for the publication of these papers were discouraged from just
and laudable motives, under a reasonable apprehension that
such a publication, sanctioned as it must have been in some
measure by the Government would have tended to prejudice
that great question" The writer who can justify such conduct
may at least be trusted in the witness which he unwillingly
bears to the reasonableness of the remaining prejudices of his
Protestant fellow-countrymen, and such witness this publi
cation does bear.
But a little after this he adds that the papers of this
collection most materially concerning Garnet and the Jesuits
are now missing. " Although the documents upon the subject
of the Gunpowder Plot preserved at the State Paper Office are
very numerous, and constitute a body of evidence of incalculable
value to the historical inquirer, the collection is not by any
means complete. Many important papers, which were par
ticularly mentioned and abstracted1 by Bishop Andrewes, Dr.
[afterwards Bishop] Abbot, Casaubon, and other contemporary
writers, and some of which were copied by Archbishop Bancroft
from the originals so lately as the close of the 17th century,
are not now to be found. It is remarkable that precisely those
papers which constitute the most important evidence against
Garnet and the other Jesuits are missing ; so that if the merits
of the controversy respecting their criminal implication in the
plot depended upon the fair effect of the original documents
now to be found in the State Paper Office, impartial readers
might probably hesitate to form a decided opinion against
them." The advocate of the Jesuits, Dr. Lingard, is silent
upon this most remarkable incident. Our author proceeds :
" The papers of particular importance upon this part of the
subject are the minutes of an overheard conversation between
Garnet and Oldcorne in the Tower, dated the 25th February,
1605-6 ; an intercepted letter from Garnet addressed to " the
Fathers and Brethren of the Society of Jesus," dated on
Palm Sunday, a few days after his trial ; and an intercepted
letter to Greenway [Green well], dated April 4, 1605-6. That
all of these papers were in the State Paper Office in 1613,
when Dr. Abbot wrote his Antilogia, is evident from the
copious extracts from them published in that work; and a
literal copy of the first of them, made by Archbishop Bancroft
many years afterwards from the state papers, is still in existence.
The originals of these documents, and many others mentioned
by Dr. Abbot and Bancroft, are, however, not to be found in
the proper depository for them; and it is undoubtedly a
singular accident that, amongst so large a mass of documents,
precisely those should be abstracted upon whose authenticity
the question so hotly disputed between the Catholics and
Protestants mainly depended."1
Dr. Lingard builds considerably upon three Jesuits, two of
them, if not all three, friends o/"as well as to the conspirators,
Gerard, Greenwell,2 and a third who wrote under the name
of Eudsemon.3 The author of the account in Knight's
Criminal Trials (Mr. Jardine) notices that his real name
was L'Heureux, that he was a native of Candia, and a very
learned Jesuit who taught theology at Padua, and was
appointed by Pope Urban VIII. Eector of the Greek College
at Koine.* And the controversy to which this Eudsemon
gave occasion, affords us an incidental proof of the authen
ticity of the papers now missing. For, says our author of
Abbot — who undertook his Antilogia in 1613, in answer to
Eudsemon-Joannes (who, having first been answered ably
and candidly by Isaac Casaubon in his Epistle to Fronto
Duceeus in 1611), rejoined in 1612 that " it is manifest from
the contents of this work (the Antilogia) that during its
composition Dr. Abbot had free access to all the docu
mentary evidence against Garnet which was in the pos
session of the government. This he would readily obtain
through his brother the Archbishop of Canterbury ; and
indeed there is a memorandum still existing in the State
Paper Office, which records that on the 9th of October, 1612,
a great number of the documents relating to the plot, together
with the Treatise of Equivocation found in Tresham's desk,
were delivered to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that on
the 1st of July, 1614, they were again returned by him to
their proper depository."1
On the night of the 5th of November there was to be a general
meeting of the friends of the conspirators at Dunchurch in War
wickshire, under the pretence of hunting on Dunsmoor Heath,
from which place, as soon as they received notice that the
blow was struck, a party was to be despatched to seize the
Princess Elizabeth at the house of Lord Harrington, near
Coventry.2 With a view to this arrangement Sir Everard
Digby (one of the conspirators) removed Lady Digby and
his family, and with them Father Garnet, to Coughton Hall,
near Alcester, in the same county, which then belonged to
Mr. Thomas Throckmorton.3 On Saturday the 26th of
October the plot was discovered by the letter to Lord
Monteagle. On Sunday the 3rd of November Sir Everard
Digby rode from Coughton to Dunchurch. Some of the
conspirators were at Ashby St. Legers, the residence of
Lady Catesby, mother of Catesby the conspirator.4 About
six o'clock in the evening, just as the conspirators Robert
Winter and his companions were about to sit down to supper
with the lady of the mansion, Catesby, Percy, the two
Wrights, and Eookwood, fatigued and covered with dirt,
arrived with the news of the apprehension of Fawkes and the
total overthrow of the main design of the plot. After a
short conference, the whole party taking with them all the
arms they could find, rode off to Dunchurch. There they
found the house (Coughton Hall) filled with a large party of
anxious and excited guests ; for, though only a few were
informed of the specific nature of the intended atrocity, all
were aware that some great and decisive blow was about to be
struck in London for the Romish cause, the intelligence of
which they were that night to receive.1
Thus, besides the conspirators, many there were that
consented ; and what were the consciences of this large
party of anxious and excited guests ? and in what rank and
condition of life were they? Gentlemen, as was the boast
of Fawkes and Greenway.2 And there is little doubt but
that the conspirators would have been joined by many, if
the plot had not so suddenly and providentially failed. But
where they expected to be received they were, after the
detection of their schemes, repulsed for having brought ruin
on the cause they had purposed to restore.3
We are told that the Romanists as a body abhorred the
plot ; yet we find one conspirator, Greenway or Greenwell,
in favour with the Pope, and others safe under the protection
of Komish Sovereigns. " Baldwin, a Jesuit in Flanders, and
Hugh Owen had been implicated in various previous plots
against the English government, and the suspicions of their
acquaintance with the Powder Plot were confirmed by the
statements of Fawkes and Winter. A requisition was
therefore made to the Archduke in Flanders to deliver up
these individuals to the English government, and also to
secure the person of Sir William Stanley, upon which much
negotiation and correspondence passed through Sir Thomas
Edmondes the English ambassador at Brussels ; and Lord
Salisbury states to Sir T. Edmondes that the object was to
confront them with the other conspirators, whose trials were
delayed for that purpose. Eventually the Archduke, after
referring to the King of Spain, refused to comply with the
requisition.
Such was the spirit of Komanism that it led foreign princes
to shelter this conspiracy and to open their arms to these
men of blood, to become partakers of their guilt, and, by
withholding from James the means of detecting the con
spirators, proving to the world that their religion sanctioned
every kind of injustice towards those who did not embrace it.
In like manner one and another of the English Romanists
secreted the Jesuit Greenway, and thus gave him oppor
tunities of escape from justice.1 There was abundant testi
mony that both Greenway and Garnet, with full knowledge
of what had happened in London, joined the conspirators at
Haddington while they were in arms against the government.2
The author of the second volume of Criminal Trials
regards the plot as a purely Jesuit plot. He writes, " It
ought to be remembered that all the avowed conspirators
belonged to the Jesuit faction."3 But this little avails to
clear the character of the Romish laity. The Treshams, the
Winters, William Lord Vaux of Harrowden, the Abingdons,
and others, are incontestable indications of the facility with
which the Romish religion enables her priesthood to corrupt
the loyalty of her laity. The Romish faith was in truth
practically indebted to the Jesuits, and hence, as it owned
them, it unavoidably partook, and ever will partake, of their
disgrace.
The very fact of the recognition of a body who justified
doing evil that good might come, who taught a system of
equivocation and perjury, and solemnly maintained the piety
of such practices, has branded the Komish Church with a
stigma that can never be erased. This was the true cause
of the severe enactments touching recusancy, resorting to
Popish worship, harbouring seminary priests, &c. The state
was never safe whilst there were Jesuits in the country. And
as every kind of disguise was resorted to by them, it only
remained for the state to treat with suspicion every individual
who taught, and to watch narrowly every individual who
professed, the Romish religion.
But, on the other hand, the whole blame of treason and
disloyalty must not be laid upon the Jesuits. They have
truly said in their own behalf, that the doctrine of the Pope's
power of deposing princes, and if so, by consequence, the
papist's duty to rebel against the deposed, was not peculiar
to them. They were the deepest politicians, the most
unscrupulous, the most conscientiously unconscientious ; but
the religion itself, which, in not disavowing the Popes who
were the authors of these treasonable doctrines, gave them
advantages in promulgating it, the religion itself is to blame.
Since the publication of the second volume of Criminal
Trials another edition of Dr. Lingard' s History has appeared,1
in which he admits the genuineness of the letter of Garnet
1 to his beloved fathers and brethren.' This letter Dr.
Lingard had previously declared a forgery, but fresh light
has broken in upon him. In this letter he confessed to his
beloved fraternity that he had implicated Greenwell or
Greenway, which he should not have done, but that he
understood that he was safe upon the continent. It was well
for Dr. Lingard to withdraw his attack upon this letter, for he
had given to his readers a misrepresentation of the contents of
the letter itself, which was detected by the author of this
second volume. " Garnet is made to say," says Dr. Lingard
'that had he not known that Greenway was in the tower,
he would have invented some other fiction.' What Garnet
is really represented to have said is the reverse of this."1
Other misconceptions (to call them by no severer a name)
Dr. Lingard has continued to indulge, misconceptions most
ably removed by the author just cited in the concluding
pages of his most interesting volume.
This author bears impartial testimony to the fidelity and
ability both of Bishop Abbot's Antilogia and of Bishop
Andrewes' Tortura Torti? A most remarkable circumstance
it is that two men could have been found zealous to palliate
a traitor such as Garnet, one a layman, the other a clergyman
of the Church of Rome, Mr. Butler and Dr. Lingard. Both
of these could not but be aware that if Garnet had but for
one week instead of for five months a previous knowledge
of the plot, he might have given notice of it, and by so doing
have gained as great a reputation for that most plotting of
all societies, as now he has obtained for them an infamy
which they will never survive.
How little sympathy with true patriotism can be tolerated
by the Eomish communion, or can consist with a zealous
adherence to that system, may be seen from the fact that in
the Circle of the Seasons — a work full of interest in a variety
of points, and recommended to the general reader by the
most plentiful interspersion of poems and quotations — it is
more than insinuated that there was no such plot as that
of 1605.
King James, notwithstanding this fresh proof of the
insecurity to which he and his kingdom stood exposed, was
inclined to lenient measures. Doubtless the firm adherence of
his royal mother to the Church of Home was the ground of
that undue regard for the Romanists which he evinced to the
very last, to the loss of his popularity, and to the ruin of his
posterity. But the kingdom, more than ever awake to the
true character of the Church of Rome, which now looked upon
Garnet as a martyr whose innocence was attested by miracles,
demanded that the public security should be protected by
greater restraints tupon the Romish party, and amongst these
restraints was the new oath of allegiance.
"That James," writes Dr. Lingard, "in the proposal
of the last measure, had the intention of gradually relieving
one portion of his Catholic subjects from the burden of the
penal laws, is highly probable ; but whether those to whom
he committed the task of framing the oath, Archbishop Abbot
and Sir Christopher Perkins, a conforming Jesuit, were ani
mated with similar sentiments, has been frequently disputed.
They were not content with the disclaimer of the deposing
power ; they added a declaration that to maintain it was
impious, heretical, and damnable." And why, it may be
asked, should Dr. Lingard object to this? What should
hinder the Pope's making use of the deposing power, if that
power was lawful and admitted to be so on religious grounds ?
But if every soul is to be obedient to the higher powers (the
civil magistrate), and that by the Word of God, why should
a Christian believe other of the Pope's assumed deposing
power, than that it is damnable in him to exercise it, or in
others to give heed to it? What worse heresy than that
which merges all power in the ecclesiastical; a heresy that
would represent the religion of nature and of revelation as
diametrically opposed? What more impious than thus to
set the ministers of the Church above the Word of God ?
There was moreover an especial reason for framing the
oath in such decided terms. The Romanists were taught
that although equivocation was a duty when priests were
to be screened and other good ends maintained, it was not
lawful to deny the faith. Thus Satan, even as a teacher
of falsehood, was careful to appear as an angel of light. But
it would have been a denial of their faith for the Jesuits
and those of the Romanists who thought as highly as they
did of the Pope's authority, to have declared that the exercise
of that power or the admission of it to the deposing of princes
was impious, heretical, and damnable.
Of these fresh restraints and of this oath King James
himself thus speaks in his Premonition to all Christian
Monarchs, Free Princes, and States: "The never enough
wondered at and abhorred Powder Treason (though the
repetition thereof grieveth, I know, the gentle-hearted Jesuit
Parsons), this treason, I say, being not only intended against
me and my posterity, but even against the whole House of
Parliament, plotted only by Papists, and they only led
thereto by a preposterous zeal for the advancement of their
religion, some of them continuing so obstinate that even at
their death they would not acknowledge their fault, but in
their last words, immediately before the expiring of their
breath, refused to condemn themselves and crave pardon
for their deed, except the Romish Church should first
condemn it : and soon after, it being discovered that a great
number of my Popish subjects of all ranks and sexes, loth
men and women, as well within as without the country, had
a confused notion and an obscure knowledge that some great
thing was to be done in that Parliament for the weal of
the Church, although, for secresy's cause, they were not
acquainted with the particulars ; certain forms of prayer
having likewise been set down and used for the good success
of that great errand ; adding hereunto, that divers times, and
from divers priests, the archtraitors themselves received the
sacrament for confirmation of their heart and observation of
secrecy ; some of the principal Jesuits likewise being found
guilty of the foreknowledge of the treason itself, of which
number some fled from their trial, others were apprehended
(as holy Garnet himself and Oldcorne were) and justly
executed upon their own plain confession of guilt ; if this
treason now, clad with the'se circumstances, did not minister
a just occasion to that Parliament House, whom they thought
to have destroyed, courageously and zealously at their next
sitting down, to use all means of trial, whether any more
of that mind were yet left in the country ; I leave it to you to
judge whom God hath appointed his highest depute judges
upon earth : and amongst other things for this purpose, this
oath of allegiance, so unjustly impugned, was then devised and
enacted. And in case any sharper laws were then made
against the Papists, that were not obedient to the former
laws of the country, if ye will consider the time, place, and
persons, it will be thought no wonder, seeing that occasion
did so justly exasperate them to make severer laws than
otherwise they would have done. The time, I say, being the
very next sitting down of the Parliament after the discovery
of that abominable treason : the place being the same where
they should all have been blown up, and so bringing it
freshly to their memory again : the persons being the
very Parliament-men whom they thought to have destroyed.
And yet so far hath both my heart and government been
from any bitterness, as almost never one of those sharp
additions to the former laws have ever yet been put in
execution.
"And that ye may yet know further, for the more con
vincing of these libellers of wilful malice, who impudently
affirm that this oath of allegiance was devised for deceiving
and entrapping of Papists in points of conscience j the truth
is, that the lower house of Parliament, at the first framing of
this oath, made it to contain that the Pope had no power to
excommunicate me, which I caused them to reform, only
making it to conclude that no excommunication of the Pope
can warrant my subjects to practise against my person or
state, denying the deposition of kings to be in the Pope's
lawful power, as indeed I take any such temporal violence
to be far without the limits of such a spiritual censure as
excommunication is. So careful was I that nothing should
be contained in this oath, except the profession of natural
allegiance and civil and temporal obedience, with a promise
to resist all contrary uncivil violence."1
The oath was as follows : tl I A. B. do truly and sincerely
acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare in my conscience
before God and the world, that our Sovereign Lord King
James is lawful king of this realm, and of all other his
Majesty's dominions and countries : and that the Pope
neither of himself nor by any authority of the Church or
see of Rome, or by any other means with any other, hath any
power or authority to depose the King, or to dispose of any of
his Majesty's kingdoms or dominions, or to authorize any
foreign prince to invade or annoy him or his countries, or to
discharge any of his subjects of their allegiance and obedience
to his Majesty, or to give license or leave to any of them to
bear arms, raise tumults, or to offer any violence or hurt to
his Majesty's royal person, state, or government, or to any of
his Majesty's subjects within his Majesty's dominions. Also
I do swear from my heart that, notwithstanding any declara
tion or sentence of excommunication, or deprivation made
or granted, or to be made or granted, by the Pope or his suc
cessors, or by any authority derived or pretended to be derived
from him or his see, against the said King, his heirs or suc
cessors, or any absolution of the said subjects from their
obedience ; I will bear faith and true allegiance to his Majesty,
his heirs and successors, and him and them will defend to the
uttermost of my power, against all conspiracies and attempts
whatsoever which shall be made against his or their persons,
their crown and dignity, by reason or colour of any such
sentence or declaration, or otherwise, and will do my best
endeavour to disclose and make known unto his Majesty,
his heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous con
spiracies which I shall know or hear of to be against him
or any of them. And I do further swear that I do from my
heart abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical, this
damnable doctrine and position, that princes which be ex-
communicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or
murthered by their subjects or any other person whatsoever.
And I do believe, and in conscience am resolved, that neither
the Pope nor any other person whatsoever, hath power to
^absolve me of this oath, or any part thereof, which I acknow
ledge by good and full authority to be lawfully ministered
unto me, and do renounce all pardons and dispensations to the
contrary. And all these things I do plainly and sincerely
acknowledge and swear, according to these express words
by me spoken, and according to the plain and common sense
and understanding of the same words, without any equivo
cation, or mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever.
And I do make this recognition and acknowledgment
heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a
Christian. So help me God."1
This oath was condemned by the Pope (Paul the Fifth)*
who in his bull dated at Rome ' at S. Mark, under the sign
of the fisherman, the 10th of the calends of October,2 1606,
the second year of our Popedom,' 3 decided that such an oath
could not be taken without hurting of the Catholic faith
and the salvation of souls, tl seeing it contains many things
which are flat contrary to faith and salvation. Wherefore we
do admonish you that you do utterly abstain from taking this
and the like oaths," &c.
The English Eomanists not being all of the mind of the
Jesuits, were divided respecting this bull. Many of them
treated it as a forgery, and amongst them Blackwell, the
head or arch-priest of the seculars.4 Upon this the Pope
drew up a second brief or bull, dated the 10th of the calends
of September,5 1607. This disobedient spirit the Pope in
this brief attributed to the suggestions of the Devil, to the
"subtlety and craft of the enemy of man's salvation;" and
he assured them that it was not without mature deliberation
that he wrote to them his first letter.6
And now the disloyalty of the English Eomanists being
thus tested, many of them bade adieu to their native country
sooner than deny this article of their faith, that the Pope is
supreme over kings and princes, to set up and to pull down
at his pleasure. Some indeed would rather dare the Papal
fulminations than commit themselves to his treasons. The'
missionaries (so Dr. Lingard calls the Romish priesthood in this
country1) were divided in opinion. Some followed Blackwell,
some the Pope. The Jesuits in general condemned the oath.2
And now observe the effect of that servile submission of
the understanding which is the very foundation of the Eomish
faith: a priest, by name Drury, thought the oath admis
sible, but " dared not prefer his private sentiments before
those of the Pope," and would rather be executed than
take the oath. If such was the effect of this Papal impiety
upon a priest, what probably would be its effect upon the
laity? Dr. Lingard all but canonizes Drury, and would
seem to intimate that the disloyalty of the priesthood was
very general. Drury tl dared not prefer his private sentiments
before those of the Pope, and of many among his brethren,
and chose to shed his blood rather than pollute his conscience
by swearing to the truth of assertions which he feared might
possibly be false."3 Thus jesuitically does this acute his
torian write about conscience. One can plainly perceive
that Romanism is not yet purified from the subtlety of
Garnet and his brethren. To Blackwell Cardinal Bellarmine
addressed a long and laboured epistle, expostulating with
him for his loyalty in regard of the oath, and pretending
that the oath struck at the Pope's spiritual supremacy.4
In 1608 the King published his Apology for the Oath of
Allegiance, against the two Breves of Pope Paulus Quintus,
and the late Letter of Cardinal Bellarmine to G. Blackwell
the Arch-priest. To this was afterwards prefixed A Premonition
to all most mighty Monarchs} Kings, Free Princes, and States
of Christendom.
Bellarmine had in his letter affirmed, with the usual
effrontery of Jesuit controversialists, that " from the beginning
of the Church's infancy even to this day it was never heard
that ever a Pope either commanded to be killed, or allowed
the slaughter of, any prince whatsoever, whether he were an
heretic, an heathen, or persecutor." The King reminds
Bellarmine of the panegyrical oration made by Pope Sixtus
the Fifth in praise and approbation of the friar that murdered
King Henry the Third of France ; and " besides that vehement
oration and congratulation for that fact, how near it scaped
that the said friar was not canonized for that glorious act,
is better known to Bellarmine and his followers than to us
here."1 " But sure I am," adds the King, " if some Cardinals
had not been more wise and circumspect in that errand than
the Pope himself was, the Pope's own calendar of his saints
would have sufficiently proved Bellarmine a liar in this case.
And to draw yet nearer unto ourselves, how many practices
and attempts were made against the late Queen's life, which
were directly enjoined to those traitors by their confessors,
and plainly authorized by the Pope's allowance. For
verification whereof there needs no more proof than that
never Pope either then or since called any churchman in
question for meddling in any of these treasonable con
spiracies; nay, the Cardinal's own S. Sanderus, mentioned
in his letter, could well verify this truth if he were alive ;
and who will look (into) his books2 will find them filled with
no other doctrine than this. And what difference there is
between the killing or allowing the slaughter of kings, and
the stirring up and approbation of practices to kill them, I
remit to Bellarmine's own judgment."
Then follows a curious list of Bellarmine's theological
contradictions, the King observing that it is the less surprising
that he should contradict himself in matters of fact, who
contradicts himself so frequently in matters of doctrine. In
the latter part of his Apology the King exposes Bellarmine's
anarchical positions respecting the regal authority, as that
obedience due to the Pope is for conscience' sake, but the
obedience due to kings is only for certain respects of order
and policy; people may for many causes depose kings, but
no flesh hath power to judge the Pope ; and that the obe
dience - of ecclesiastics to princes is not by way of any
necessary subjection, but only out of discretion and for
observation of good order and custom.1
In the Premonition the King notices the answers of the
Jesuit Parsons and of Bellarmine (under the name of Mat-
thceus Tortus) to his Apology, and having animadverted upon
Parsons in a style sententiously suited to his deserts,2 returns
to Bellarmine, and lays before his readers the insolence and
scurrility of that unprincipled advocate of the Papal su
premacy.3 He then shews the authority which the earlier
Christian kings and emperors exercised over the Popes.
The Popes depended upon the emperors for their confirm
ation, and were in a manner tributary to them to about
the end of the seventh century.4 The Emperor Otho
deposed Pope John XII. for divers crimes, and especially
for impurity.5 The Emperor Henry the Third in a short
time deposed three Popes, Benedict the Ninth, Sylvester
the Third, and Gregory the Sixth, as well for the sin of
avarice as for abusing their extraordinary authority against
kings and princes.6
The King proceeds with the history of the right of
investiture : " As Walthram testifieth that the Bishops
of Spain, Scotland, England, Hungary, from ancient insti
tution till this modern novelty, had their investiture by
kings, with peaceable enjoying of their temporalities wholly
and entirely."
He mentions how the Queen his mother would not have
the ceremony of spittle used at his baptism, and the last
message she sent to him, that although she was of another
religion than that wherein he was brought up, yet she would
not press him to change except his own conscience forced
him to it.1
The King next clears himself of the charge of heresy. " I
am such a Catholic Christian as believeth the three Creeds,
that of the Apostles, that of the Council of Nice, and that
of Athanasius, the two latter being paraphrases to the former.
And I believe them in that sense as the antient Fathers and
Councils that made them did understand them, to which three
Creeds all the ministers of England do subscribe at their
ordination. And I also acknowledge for orthodox all those
other forms of Creeds that either were devised by Councils
or particular Fathers against such particular heresies as most
reigned in their times.
el I reverence and admit the first four general Councils as
catholic and orthodox. And the said four general Councils
are acknowledged by our Acts of Parliament, and received for
orthodox by our Church.
11 As for the Fathers, I reverence them as much and more
than the Jesuits do, and as much as themselves ever craved.
For whatever the Fathers for the first five hundred years did
with an unanime consent agree upon to be believed as a
necessary point of salvation, I either will believe it also, or at
least will be humbly silent, not taking upon me to condemn the
same. But for every private Father's opinion, it binds not my
conscience more than Bellarmine's, every one of the Fathers
usually contradicting others. I will therefore in that case
follow St. Augustine's rule in judging of their opinions, as
I find them agree with the Scriptures. What I find agree
able thereunto I will gladly embrace, what is otherwise I will
(with their reverence) reject."
To the Virgin Mary the King yields the title of Mother
of God, ll since the divinity and humanity of Christ are
inseparable." "And," he adds, " I freely confess that she is
in glory both above angels and men, her own Son (that is
both God and man) only excepted."1
The worship of reliques and images the King calls without
reserve " damnable idolatry."
The Jesuits he calls Puritan-Papists, and declares that
for himself he was always inclined to episcopacy. And
whatsoever protestations of fidelity to the discipline of the
Kirk the King ever made, he probably spoke the truth when
he affirmed that his heart was at least Episcopalian ; and he
appealed to his erecting of bishoprics, in 1584, and to his
Basilicon Doron, especially to the preface to the second
edition of that work.
The remainder of the Premonition is for the most part
taken up with a dissertation proving that Rome is the Babylon
and the Pope the Antichrist of the Book of Revelation ; thus
also applying St. Paul's prophecy in the second chapter of
his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. The Church of
Rome he describes as " full of idolatries," and " so bloody
in the persecution of the saints, as (that) our Lord shall be
crucified again in his members."2
The two witnesses clad in sackcloth the King inclines to
interpret of the Old and New Testament. " And now whether
this book of the two testaments or two witnesses of Christ
have suffered any violence by the Babylonian monarchy
or not, I need say nothing. The thing speaks for itself.
I will not weary you with recounting those commonplaces
used for disgracing it, as calling it a nose of wax, a dead
letter, a leaden rule, a hundred such-like phrases of reproach.
But how far the traditions of men and authority of the Church
are preferred to these witnesses doth sufficiently appear in the
Babylonian doctrine. And if there were no more but that
little book [by Cardinal Perron] with that pretty inscription,
Of the Insufficiency of Holy Scripture, it is enough to
prove it."
CHAPTER X.
Bishop Andr ewes' " Tortura Torti" — Of the Pope's deposing power
— Of excommunication — Of binding and loosing — The Bulls against
Queen Elizabeth — The words of commission — The Gunpowder Plot
undertaken only from blind zeal — Origin of recusancy — Sacri
legious nature of Romish worship — Rome Babylon — Lord Eal-
merino — The First General Lateran no Council — Pope Innocent
III. — Uncertainty of the doctrine of the Papal supremacy —
Historical accusations against the Church of Rome — Assassination
of Henry IIL — Bellarmine's contradictions — Image worship —
Fisher and More.
IN 1609 Bishop Andrewes followed the King in his con
troversy, and replied to Bellarmine's Matthceus Tortus in
his Tortura Torti. Our author adduces a multitude of
Romanists who denied the Pope's deposing power; John
of Paris, James Almain, Johannes Major, Cardinal Zabarella,
Alberic de Rosate, Antony de Rosellis,1 the Doctors of the
Sorbonne in 1561 and 1591, the Jesuit James Bosgrave,
Blackwell the arch-priest, and others. He follows Bellar-
mine through all his evasions, as that the Pope cannot as
Pope by his ordinary jurisdiction depose princes, but as a
spiritual prince. He refutes Bellarmine's pretence that to
deny the Pope's deposing power is to deny his power to
excommunicate. The former is not included in the latter,
and so not one with it. Theodosius was under the censure
of Ambrose eight months, but none of his subjects withheld
their allegiance to him on that account. Henry the Fourth
of France had been lately crowned, and the oath of allegiance
taken fry his subjects, whilst he was under the Pope's excom
munication.1 By the greater excommunication instituted by
Christ in those words, "If he hear not the Church, let him be
to thee as a heathen man" (Matt, xviii.) that power is en
trusted to the Church, not to St. Peter only. "As an
heathen man" has its limits. It is not lawful to despoil an
heathen of his goods, or to disinherit him, much less to take
from his crown. Heathen kings are certainly exempt from
this power of deposition, but it is absurd that Christian
princes should be in a worse condition. Church censures are
founded on the law of charity, and must not be destructive
of it. Many, too, are the exceptions allowed amongst
Komanists by which the Papal excommunication itself is
nullified. So the Venetians took no notice of the Pope's
censures, and the Council of Tours in 1510 cleared King
Louis the Twelfth of them.
As to the threefold command to Peter, "Feed my sheep"
both Cyril and Augustine teach that the intent of our Lord
appears to have been, by Peter's threefold confession, to wipe
off as it were the stain of his threefold denial. Nor is it safe
to insist upon the Pope's succession from St. Peter ; neither
was the office of feeding Christ's sheep committed to him
alone. The form of election, too, has been repeatedly varied,
and is not sanctioned by Christ himself.6 And certainly
" Feed my sheep" is not the same as uslay the leaders of
my sheep, drive my sheep out of the fold, scatter my sheep,
let their pastures be trodden down and their waters troubled."
1 Keceive the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' and with them
shut out from the kingdoms of the earth ' whatsoever thou shalt
bind,' that is, whatsoever part of guilt or of treason thou shalt
bind the more closely ; 'whatsoever thou shalt loose] that is,
whatsoever bond of law, duty, faith, and oath thou shalt
loosen. There is a great gulph betwixt these.
Our prelate then shews the inconsistency of the Cardinal,
who in one place denies that King James is a Christian, and
in another affirms that he belongs to the Pope's fold, for
neither is he a judge of kings, says Bellarmine, but as they
are Christians.
From the Pope's binding he proceeds to the Pope's loosing
power, that is, as the Cardinal himself has it, his power of
dispensing with censures, laws and oaths, vows, sins, and
punishments. And here again he wittily exposes his con
fusion of words and things. " For sin, censures, and penalties
are wont to be loosed, but laws, oaths, and vows to be bound,
and to be more closely bound ; and if the Pope looseth these
also, what is it that remains for him to bind? Men have
no need to be loosed from their duty, nor from the bond of
their duty; but they are loosed from their duty when they
are loosed from law, and from the bond of their duty when
they are loosed from their oath. Nay, what is more wonderful,
he looses in the same way the law itself and offences against
the law, and both with the like facility. Be it law or be it
an offence against the law, it is all one with him. It is as
easy a thing with the Pope to loose laws as sins. But it
can scarcely be that with one key both these doors, the door
of the commandment and the door of sin, can be opened.
Perchance then there are two keys ; one for opening sins, penal
ties, censures; the other for opening laws, vows, oaths. But
certainly both these cannot be the keys of the kingdom of
heaven. But if the keys for the loosing .of sins are the keys
of the kingdom of heaven, it behoved that the keys of hell
were given for the loosing of laws and the commandments of
laws."3 So no man can be under any obligation either to
God or man, but the Pope may forthwith loose him from it !
"On this ground what shall be sure upon earth? what shall
become of all compacts, treaties, bonds of society whatsoever?
how shall we ever be hereafter sure of any man's faith or
promise?"4 Then with a pun does Bishop Andre wes loosen
the whole fabric of Jesuitical casuistry, saying, ft Potestas
haec quidem solvendi dicenda non erat, sed dissolvendi
omnia." "But surely Bellarmine," says Bishop Andrewes,
"intended to limit the Pope's power of loosing laws. He did
not intend a power to loose the laws of nature upon which
yet the duty of civil obedience is founded ; nor the laws of
the ten commandments, which are, according to Aquinas,
indispensable ; nor yet the evangelical laws, of which that
of St. Peter is one, Be ye subject to the King as supreme:
for this is the will of God. What does your Pope in this
case? Does he loose this law of Peter, and say, 'Be not
subject to the King, although he is supreme ; for this is the
will of the Pope'? I conceive not. He will not put Paul
the Fifth on a par with Peter"*
"But as to oaths David said, / am sworn and am steadfastly
purposed to keep Thy righteous judgments. Peter, if he had
lived at that time, could he have absolved David of this
oath ? Suppose any one binds himself by oath to keep the
seventh commandment, not to commit adultery, can any Pope
absolve him of this oath ? But if a man in like manner bind
himself under the fifth commandment to civil subjection,
what power has the Pope to absolve him in the one case
more than in the other? The Popes dissolve obligations to
fealty, but not to treason ; they loose what ought to be bound,
they bind what ought to be loosed. They acted the part
of jugglers in Queen Elizabeth's reign, playing fast and
loose with their own bulls. In the eleventh year of the
Queen's reign Pope Pius the Fifth published a bull excom
municating and deposing the Queen, and cursing all those
who should yield any obedience to her. Before that time the
Komanists had attended the Protestant service, but now they
absented themselves, and open rebellion broke out in the
northern counties. 'Now truly,' said Sir Edward Coke at
the trial of the traitor Garnet, ' most miserable and dangerous
was the state of Komish recusants in respect of this bull ; for
either they must be hanged for treason in resisting their
lawful sovereign, or cursed by the Pope for yielding due
obedience to her Majesty. But of this Pope it was said
by some of his own favourites, that he was a holy and
learned man, but over-credulous, for that he was informed
and believed that the strength of the Catholics in England
was such as was able to have resisted the Queen. But when
the bull was found to take such an effect, then there was a
dispensation given, both by Pius Quintus himself and Gregory
the Thirteenth, that all Catholics here might procure quiet
and peace by shewing outward obedience to the Queen, but
with these cautions and limitations ; firstly, l Rebus sic stan-
tibusj things so standing as they did; and secondly, c Donee,
publica lullce executio fieri posset, that is, until they should
grow into strength and become able to resist and overcome."1
aA wonderful workman" (says Bishop Andrewes of
Pope Gregory the Thirteenth), "with one and the same
bull he binds and he does not bind. He binds heretics, he
binds not the Catholics ; and the Catholics he binds not, and
yet he does bind. Of a truth the Pope did not redeem the
souls of men, who by perjury makes such a sport of them."2
But Bellarmine fences round this power with " when it is
expedient for the glory of God, or for the salvation of souls."
Then consult history and see whether the theory and the
practice agree. tl This power is exercised not when souls are
hazarded, but when tenths are refused, provision made against
' provisions ,' and sales of indulgences forbidden. This power
is exercised when the Pope's revenue is to be increased,
whilst so many grosses are paid for such a vow solved, so
many florins for such an oath broken, so many gold pieces for
such a law transgressed ; in all which not the glory of God,
but the dishonour of princes ; not the salvation of souls, but
the wasting of their substance is the aim. So long as his
interest is consulted, the glory of God, the salvation of souls
may go where they please."3
Our prelate then returning to the words of commission,
interprets Matt. xvi. by John xx., Whosesoever sins ye remit,
&c.4 This interpretation he supports by Augustine, Theophy-
lact, Pope Adrian the Sixth, Cardinal Hugo, Anselm, Drith-
mar, and Duns Scotus. The promise in Matt. xvi. was
fulfilled in the grant in John xx. Secondly, the promise
was to Peter, not for himself but as representing the Church.
So Origen on Matt, xvi., Jerome in his first book against
Jovinian, Augustine on the 12th chapter of St. John, as also
in other parts of his works, Ambrose on the Dignity of the
Priesthood, Leo the Great in his third sermon on the assump
tion of the Blessed Virgin, Euthymius Zigabenus1 on St.
Matthew, Rabanus Maurus in the Catena of Aquinas on
Matthew, and Hugo a Sto Victore on the Sacraments, with
others of more recent date.2 But as to the oath of allegiance
it did not enter upon the general question of the Pope's
power to dispense with oaths ; it confined itself to his power
of dispensing with this particular oath.3 From the nature
of the oath, which is not for the most part promissory but
assertory, it is plain that he has no power over it. Add to
this the inherent voidness of absolution from civil obedience,
as had been before made manifest.4 He then exposes the
sophistry of Bellarmine in his attempt to shew that the
taking of the oath involves the denial of the Pope's spiritual
supremacy,5 and animadverts upon the assertion in the
Pope's first bull, l that the oath contained many things
plainly contrary to faith and salvation.'6 He then shews
the dishonesty of Bellarmine in mixing up the oath of
supremacy imposed by Henry VIII. with this oath of
King James.7
Bellarmine professed l not to excuse' the conspiracy : ' to
accuse' Bishop Andrewes observes would have been too severe
a word for the Cardinal to use. But how does execration of
the conspiracy consist with sheltering of the conspirators G.
and G.?8 (Greenway and Gerard). This question neither Bel
larmine could then, nor can Dr. Lingard answer now, and yet
the palliator of the Jesuits and of the plot need not be believed
to execrate it more than Bellarmine. Both Lingard and Bel
larmine in some measure justify the exasperated feelings which
they say led to the plot, by representing the Eomanists as
disappointed by the King and as enduring heavy persecution.
''But the King would be safe if he only tolerated the
Komanists." That was by no means certain. Henry the Third
suffered all his subjects to enjoy the free exercise of the Romish
religion, and yet he was assassinated.1 ' No one can deny/ said
Bellarmine, ' that occasion of desperation was given.' c With
what intent,' replies Bishop Andrewes, ' was this said by you,
but to excuse it ? But what though occasion had been given ?
You know what your master saith, l( Occasion doth neither
physically nor morally work anything."2 With him, God
ministers occasion of sinning, but not thereby of excusing
sinners. He exposes the hypocrisy of Clement VIII.,3 which
has before been pointed out. As to the occasion of desperation
he proves that there was none. The plot was contrived in the
very first year of King James's reign.4 No fines were levied
for recusancy until the fifth month of the second year. No
man suffered death, or the loss of all his goods. Yet before the
King was crowned, the priests Clarke and Watson conspired
against him, and the latter on his execution affirmed that the
Jesuits had then acknowledged that they had a great design of
their own on foot, no other than that famous plot of 1605.5 The
fines for recusancy began to be gathered in July, 1604. But in
the following November, when some of the Eomanists presented
a complaint to the King, that at the beginning of his reign,
before his royal intention of not demanding the fines due in
Elizabeth's reign was known, heavy contributions had been
levied upon them, the King ordered that those sums should be
returned to them by the same persons who had collected them,
and so they recovered to the amount of 52,000 florins; and yet
in the very next month were the conspirators engaged in digging
under the walls of the parliament-house.
The reader must not expect to find suck facts recorded by
the veritable historian who has in our day so elaborately
pleaded for the pseudo-martyr Garnet. Again, the confessions
of the conspirators had attested that in some it was zeal, in
others private friendship ^ that induced them to act their detest
able part.1 Some learned men beyond sea had filled them
with the idea that their design was " not only pious, but (as
you are wont to call it) meritorious" As for the oath of al
legiance, it was expressed in the very preamble that it was
for the detecting of those who were in heart disloyal and ready
to join in such plots and conspiracies!2
The bull was false in charging persecution upon the King
and representing the Komanists as martyrs.3 It was a mis
nomer to speak of Apostolical Briefs. He might as well
have called the ink with which they were written, apostolical
ink-, or the lead with which they were sealed, apostolical lead*
Bishop Andrewes returns to speak of the insincerity of the
Popes. They do not desire to cause disobedience to princes,
but they will not suffer men to be bound to obedience. But
Paul the Fifth is willing that obedience should be rendered
to princes according to the Holy Scriptures :5 " where, if
Matthew [Tortus] speak truth, there is good hope. For this
is a new thing in the Pope, that he should define the Holy
Scriptures to be the rule of obedience." Our wish it is that
all these questions should be referred to this rule, the questions
of the Pope's deposing power, &c.6 With great force does he
afterwards observe that this power leaves all princes in pos
session of subjects who are only ' hypothetically faithful.'7
He shortly after lays before the reader the penal laws enacted
in the parliament immediately after the Gunpowder plot.8 He
then relates that in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign
there were not many besides gfcme of the Romish clergy who
absented themselves from our worship and sacraments. They
were so few that the term recusant was not then known, nor
did the law recognize it for ten years. Hence it was plain
that the bull of Pope Pius the Fifth was the cause of recusancy.
Hitherto they had been of the same religion as now, when of
a sudden they became recusants, or refused to attend the
established worship. It was not then a matter of religion, or
why did they not absent themselves from the very first ?
Why then did they cease in the eleventh year of the Queen
from attending our worship ? But what was the effect of the
bull? It introduced at once and in one mass, treason and
recusancy, and gave occasion to the state to regard them as
identical. And the effect of the bull was manifestly both.
For now came both recusancy and the northern insurrection.
Not before faith was discovered to be mixed up with perfidy,
were any penal laws devised ; laws rather fines than punish
ments.1 It is plain then that the laws and fines appointed for
recusancy are not purely laws touching religion, but of a
mixed nature; touching religion mixed up with disloyalty
towards the prince^ touching persons whose civil obedience is
determined ly the Pope's lulls. Such recusants were in the
eye of the laws, and surely without any injustice such might
be punished.2 The Romanists complained of these laws, but
Bellarmine might soothe himself, and answer his own enquiry,
' what greater punishment can be conceived ? ' if he would call
to mind the variety of deaths, even burning to death by slow
fires, which were inflicted in the reign of Queen Mary.3
" But with what colour of truth could you call our sacred
rites sacrilegious? In them is nothing sacred taken away.
Look to it, that that term suit not yours rather, in which the
letter part of the sacred prayers, namely, the mind and under
standing of the person pray ing , and the sacred cup, to wit, the
half of the Eucharist, is by a sacrilegious daring taken away ;
in which a part of divine honor and that which is sacred to
God is given to a wooden image, and stamped bread is? not
without the height of sacrilege, adored for Gfod"1
How must Tortus have writhed beneath this ecclesiastical
scourge! "And equally absurd it is in you to call it an
oath of perfidy, which was made as well for the branding of
past as for the providing against future perfidy ; which is at
this time administered against perfidy, and which will be both
in books and in our laws an eternal memorial to perfidy, and
to the perfidy of your men who bound themselves by a double
obligation to perfidy against their country itself, and against
the father of their country. But ye who dissolve faith, and
oaths the bonds of faith, to the end that men may be per
fidious ; ye who say that faith is not to be kept, that is, that
perfidy is lawful and right, do ye dare mutter anything about
perfidy, or even to name the word to your own disgrace?"2
To the objection of Queen Elizabeth's supremacy he re
turns the spiritual jurisdiction of the abbess, which is more
strictly ecclesiastical. Nay, Aquinas did not confine the
exercise of the power of excommunication to the priesthood.3
The mendacious Sanders, whom Bellarmine had highly lauded,
had the shamelessness to publish to the world that Queen
Elizabeth exercised the ministerial calling.4 But nothing
was too mendacious for the Church of Rome. There was
published an account of the (fabled) persecution in England,
in which it was affirmed that the Catholics were sown up in
the skins of beasts and given to be devoured by dogs j others
were represented as bound to mangers and left to feed upon
hay, others as having their entrails eaten out by dormice.5
It was fit that a doctrine of devils should be maintained by
such devilish means, and that false miracles should be ac-
companied with false legends. Bishop Andrewes cites in
allusion to them the second chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to
the Thessalonians, that God had sent upon them strong de
lusion that they should believe lies.1
In order to vindicate the turbulence and anarchy which
must needs follow the Pope's deposing power, Bellarmine
had ventured to represent Gregory the Great as yielding but
a forced submission to the Emperor Maurice. Our prelate
shews that Gregory taught another and a better doctrine,2 and
severely animadverts upon the opposition of these Papal prin
ciples to those which ennobled the sufferings of the Primitive
Church.3
Cardinal Bellarmine wTas possessed of the same measure of
controversial integrity with Dr. Wiseman and the Jesuit
Harding. This the reader may gather as from his larger
works, so abundantly from his Matthew Tortus*
Our prelate quotes at full length from the acts of the
various Councils5 convened by Charlemagne, and appealed to
by King James in his ' Apology,' and adduces the submission
of Pope Leo the Great (in the point of convening Councils) to
the Emperors Theodosius, Yalentinian, and Martian.6 He
refutes Bellarmine by himself, convicting him of alleging an
epistle to Damasus from the Second General Council, which
epistle Bellarmine had, in his Eecognitio or Censure of Ms own
looks, admitted to be spurious.7 When the Pope's power
waxed great, then were General Councils held in Italy, but
no General Council until nearly the completion of eleven cen
turies. Bellarmine thought no authority too great for the
Pope. He openly avowed that he could make articles to be
received "with Catholic faith."8
Bellarmine would have Rome Babylon sooner than not
have a scripture-proof that St. Peter had been there. Bishop
Andrewes retorted that he might as well have made Mark an
allegorical person as Babylon an allegorical place.1 He then
proceeds at some length to shew that Rome is the Babylon
of the Apocalypse.2 This and the whole question of Anti
christ he discusses at large in his Answer to Bellarminds
Apology.
Cardinal Bellarmine was not afraid to affirm that the
breves entrusted to that very innocent and holy martyr
Garnet, were rather favourable than unfavourable to King
James.3 Bishop Andrewes remarked that Garnet knew other
wise.4 Indeed, had they been for the King, they would have
been boasted of by him and his fraternity. But, said Bel
larmine, the Romanists had hope of King James. This was
not enough for the Pope, who in his breves forbad the
Eomanists to advance the cause of any but of such as would
not only tolerate but promote with all possible earnestness
the cause of their religion.5 Bellarmine appealed to the
King's correspondence with the Pope. This was answered
by the tl Declaration and Confession of the Lord Balmerino,
one of his Majesty's Privy Councillors, concerning some letters
which he caused to be sent without the King's knowledge
and as in his name, to Rome, to Pope Clement the Eighth,
1598.6 A question has been raised whether the King was
not insincere in this business, sacrificing his secretary to screen
himself.7
Our author gives his reason for suspecting the Council
called the first General Lateran Council, A.D. 1215, to be
a forgery. Cochlseus was the first who published it, and that
not before 1538, £ from an old manuscript,' but without adding
a word touching the way in which it came into his hands, or
anything to establish its authority. In 1535 James Merlin
published the Councils, but not a word of this. A Council
was indeed called; nothing was decreed at it. Pope Inno-
cent himself condemned the book of Abbot Joachim; he
himself condemned Almeric, and so Matthew Paris.1
Bishop Andrewes writes satirically of Pope Innocent ex
communicating King John and robbing him of his kingdom,
" 0 virum sanctum ! 0 speculum innocentise !"2 Mr. F. W.
Faber has appeared too late in the world to chastise the good
bishop's irreverent treatment of the holy Father. " We read
the history," says this writer, in a spirit worthy of Bellarmine,
" we read the history of John and his Barons j and, while we
think we are carrying away a clear view of the bigoted,
haughty, secular prelate, how unlike the original is the rude
image we have hewn from the coarse materials of Protestant
history."3 Holy man, he is cursing and anathematizing,
and tumbling the world upside down ; but, good reader, look
into his soul ; it is as clear as the azure vault of heaven.
Only a cloud of penitential sorrow is seen to pass across the
surface of that heavenly breast. He is taking away that
which is another's, and stirring up bloodshed and confusion,
but at the same time (it is Mr. Faber who writes it) he is
" full of godly fear lest his height should make him proud ;
and so, as a penitential safeguard, composing a book on the
seven penitential psalms"! How admirable a piety ! behold
him breathing out his threats against the King, and with
the same breath uttering holy meditations ; spoiling a
monarch of his crown, and glorifying the heavenly grace!
This encomium of Pope Innocent (with whom Laud is
deemed worthy to be placed) was written by one who has,
since he penned the praises of Innocent, gone over wholly
to Rome. Let him erase with his tears, if he can, the 219th
and 220th pages of the Tortura Torti. There he may read
of the Papissa,) John the Eighth, a history, be it remembered,
not of Protestant but of Romish origin, and attested by
monuments, memorials, and traditions still extant.
Bishop Andrewes shews, and principally from Bellarmine's
own writings, the uncertainty of the doctrine of the Papal
supremacy, and that it is hypothesis upon hypothesis.1 He
observes of the very first link in the succession, " As though
God would not have us to depend upon your succession, he
determined that the subject should be uncertain concerning
the first succession of all, concerning the very first successor
of Peter. You yourself know that was made twelve hundred
years and more upon Clement,
Nutat adhuc mundus, sit quartuSj sit ne secundus?
Consider the schisms and heresies of the Popes (as honest
Fuller says, three sitting down at once, Peter's chair was like
to have been broken). Alphonsus a Castro saith, Although
we are bound to believe of faith that Peter's true successor
is the supreme pastor of the whole Church, yet we are not
bound to believe with the same faith that Leo or Clement
is the true successor of Peter, since we are not bound to
believe with Catholic faith that any one of them was rightly
and canonically elected."3 One Pope, John Picus Mirandula
tells us, doubted the immortality of the soul.4
It was weakness in Bellarmine to provoke a contest which
should call forth the testimony of history. Protestant con
troversialists had only to renew the attacks of Jewel in his
Apology and Defence of his Apology, and Eome at once stood
unmasked as the universal traitor, the conspirator as well
against the thrones of the kingdoms of this world as against
truth, the throne of the eternal kingdom of God. He that
will now speak with contempt of Jewel (much more easy it is
to revile him than to refute him) must also enter the lists
with Bishop Andrewes, who follows in his track, and verifies
his historical accusations of the Church of Rome.5
Most admirable is our prelate's exposure of Bellarmine's
sophistry, by which he would even commend the oration
(panegyrical) of the assassination of Henry the Third of
France. This controversial king-killer asks, " And what
will you find in it (the Pope's speech) but praises and
admiration of the wisdom and providence of God?"1 " And
what," retorts Bishop Andrewes, tl is that work of wisdom
which he so singularly admires? That a simple monk in
his usual habit, armed with neither sword nor shield, should
have found free access to the King. But this surely is not so
very marvellous. It would have been more so if the monk,
being armed with sword and shield, had found his way to the
King. For in that he was unarmed he excited no suspicion ;
had he been armed I do not believe that he would have found
his way so readily through the midst of the King's attendants.
There was nothing in this wondering of Sixtus worthy of
admiration."2
Bishop Andrewes asks, "If it was admiration of the
divine retaliation upon the King, why, if God so avenges
the death of Cardinals, was no assassinator raised up against
Pius the Fourth, who ordered Cardinal Caraffa, and him
a most near relation to Paul the Fourth, to be strangled in
prison? or against Urban the Sixth, who had five cardinals
put into a sack and drowned in the sea, and the bodies of
two more whom he had ordered to be slain, dried in a furnace
and placed upon mules, and so borne in procession on his
journies, with the paraphernalia of their dignities?"3
Several pages are ably expended on an exposure of
Bellarmine's theological contradictions, which were but
pointed out in the King's Apology.
1. Of justification, where our author justly complains of
his 'wretched wavering.'4 Bishop Andrewes contends that
Bellarmine's doctrine of justification by an inherent, will
not stand with justification by an imputed righteousness.
Herein he is opposed by the pseudo-patristic divines of our
own age, but with as little discretion as consistency. He
calls the Eomish teachers of justification by Christ's presence
manifested in us, and of the identity of justification and
sanctification, false prophets. They tell us, tacitly charging
falsehood upon our prelate, " Truth as well as charity require
us to be very careful how we cast suspicion on others [pious
Romanists, such as the most pious and veracious Bellarmine]
in this point, in which the Church Catholic has not authori
tatively pronounced, lest we be found false witnesses against
our brethren."1 It is nothing to writers of this kind that
the Church of England has authoritatively pronounced upon
this point. What the Scriptures have been made in the
Church of Rome, the Thirty-nine Articles are made in our
own, a nose of wax. Hence u justification by faith" is made
to stand for justification by obedience, and justification by
Christ's merits for justification by Christ dwelling in us, and
justification by Christ's name for justification by the Holy
Ghost, and justification for double justification. Such are
the lucid explanations, or rather casuistical wrestings, of Mr.
Newman in his Lectures on Justification.
Bellarmine, in his book upon the Loss of Grace and State
of Sin, had fallen into a flat contradiction, affirming first,
" God does not move or incline to evil morally;" then, aGod
does move or incline to sin morally." This could only be
reconciled by being explained away, as indeed Bellarmine
found, for so he explains himself: li God does not move
to evil morally, that is, by commanding; he moves to evil
morally, that is, by ministering the occasion to it." He
should have said, as Bishop Andrewes remarks, u God does
not move by commanding." As it is, he in the first place
applies that to the genus "to move," which is true only
of the species " by commanding."
His third contradiction was doubtless to secure the Papal
primacy. First, in his book De Clericis he admitted " that
bishops succeed the apostles, and priests the seventy disciples;"
but when he comes to treat of the supreme ecclesiastial power
in his church, then " bishops do not properly succeed the
apostles." But if it were so, it would not make the more for
the Pope, for neither does he succeed the apostles as an
apostle, going throughout the world to preach the Gospel,
writing canonical books, working miracles, more than other
bishops.1
The fourth contradiction is, u Judas did not believe;"2
but in the 14th chapter of his third book on Justification,
"Judas was just and certainly good." To this Bellarmine
replied, " Make a distinction of the times." Bishop Andrewes
retorted that there was no need to do this if Judas never
believed. But so affirmed St. Chrysostom on those words of
St. Peter, " For we have believed and have known that thou
art the Christ, the Son of the living God. When Peter had
said, And we have believed, Christ excepts Judas from that
number." And so verse 64 of the 6th chapter of St. John,
For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that
believed not, and who should betray him. " Our Alcuin,"
saith Bishop Andrewes, tl clearly expresses it in these his
words upon this place, " Judas was one of the twelve not in
faith but in number, not in truth but in hypocrisy."3
The fifth contradiction was a similar absurdity with the
second. The substance of a work is its moral quality, as in
alms, that we should give our own, that we should give
to him that needeth, that we should give from the motive
of compassion. Yet Bellarmine had improperly said that
a man might perform the substance of a commandment, and
yet with sin ; a manifest contradiction.4
The sixth is that Peter never lost a saving faith, and yet
fell into deadly sin.
The seventh is, Antichrist shall be a magician and shall
secretly worship the devil, and yet he shall hate all idolatry
and rebuild the Temple. This, as he observes, can only
be reconciled by equivocation. " Perchance the Fathers of
the Society [the Jesuits] thus say, Odi diabolum, that is,
I feign that I hate him."
The eighth is, " The oblation is made by the words of
consecration," yet not by them but by the oblation of the
thing itself. The oblation is to be understood here of the act
of oblation, not of the thing offered ; of the act of sacrificing,
not of the thing sacrificed. The true action of offering is in
the words of consecration ; that is the first proposition. The
placing upon the altar ; that is the second. But the second
is not done until after the completion of the first.
The ninth is, that the end of the world cannot be known,
but that after the death of Antichrist there shall be but
five-and-forty days to the end of the world. Here Bellar-
mine was so bold as to reply, "If this be a contradiction, it is
in Holy Scripture itself, for both are found there." "The
words," said Bishop Andrewes, " are perhaps in the Apocalypse,
the meaning is in the Apocrypse of your brain. For he
revealed not that to the servant which he revealed not to the
Son; nor doth John contradict Christ."4 He proceeds to
quote against him the Jesuit Blaise de Yiegas on the 13th
chapter of the Book of Kevelation.
The tenth is, that the ten kings shall burn Rome, the
mystic Babylon ; but that Antichrist shall hate Rome, and
fight against, and burn it. But it is not so, not Antichrist,
but God shall put it into their hearts?
The eleventh is a denial that all bishops are only the
Pope's vicars, followed by the affirmative, that all their
ordinary jurisdiction is from him immediately, and in him,
and so derived to them.
In a later stage of the work our prelate very ably discusses
the guilt of Garnet and of the other Jesuits as respects the
Gunpowder Plot, beginning with the arch-incendiary, the
Pope himself, who, he observes, cannot but be suspected,
together with Claud Acqua Viva, of being long privy to the
plot.
There are some who tell us that the abuses of image-
worship have lessened in the Romish Church. In this
instance as in others false liberality is but the charity of
ignorance. So long as the Roman breviary remains, so long
will the worship of images be countenanced by the Church
of Rome. Then we have speaking and wonder-working
images recorded, and doubtless for no other end than to
uphold a superstitious and idolatrous veneration of them.
The Church of Rome professes to be unchangeable. Hear,
then, how by the mouth of her greatest oracles she vindicates
and covers the guilt of idolatry, and unblushingly makes God
a liar. "They are not idolaters," said Bellarmine, "they
do not worship idols, because they worship images of things
that exist ; but those images are not idols, for an idol is only
the image of a thing nowhere existing." Bishop Andrewes
does not omit to point out to him how plainly he contradicts
God, and commands that to be done which God threatens to
punish. u According to the novel theology of TortuSj pro
vided only a thing has existence in heaven, in earth, in the
waters, or under the earth, though it be an evil demon, a man
can bow himself before it and worship God in it."1 Thus
Bellarmine went about to prove King James nearer to Julian2
the apostate than was his own communion, a communion
which, had it not been content to patronise blasphemy, would
never have tolerated such a patron of idolatry.
Alluding to the excuse that their missionaries indeed came
over into this country, though forbidden by law, to preach
the Gospel, Bishop Andrewes reminds them that they came
not to preach Christ, but to set up as the chief article of the
faith the power of the Pope; hence their need of going in
disguise that in their doctrine they might mix up sedition,
and in religion find a hiding-place for treason. te Your gospel
is not the gospel of peace ; yours is not the conversion but the
perversion of the Gentiles ; nor is it so much the edification
of the Church as the laying of the State in ruins."1
In this work, a very storehouse upon the subject of the
Pope's supremacy, our prelate argues at considerable length
from the Epistles of Gregory the Great, removing all the
cavils of the Jesuitical Leviathan.2 He afterwards proceeds
to shew that the four later as well as the four former General
Councils were convened by Emperors independently of the
Pope.3
The King in his Apology had singled out for reprobation
the mutilation of the eucharist, private masses, and the imper
fection of the words of consecration, which are not in the
canon of the mass taken from St. Luke and St. Paul, where
alone they appear in a complete form, but from the other
Evangelists, thus neglecting altogether our Lord's words,
"given for you"* The King animadverted upon three
points. Bellarmine, by a summary method of proof, would
conclude the King to be in error in all three points by proving
him so only in one ! 5
Bellarmine had in his letter to Blackwell reminded him
that Fisher and More died martyrs for this one head of
doctrine, the Pope's headship. Bishop Andrewes draws a
comparison between John Fisher and John the Baptist.
The one said to Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have her
(his brother's wife) ; but Bishop Fisher said the reverse, i It
is lawful for thee to have her.'6 In the course of treating upon
the cause of the deaths of Fisher and More, he discovers the
number of the beast out of PaVLo Y. VICe Deo.1
In the remainder of this very able volume, and one that
so truly answers to its title. Bishop Andrewes accurately
states the doctrine of the ecclesiastical prerogatives of
Christian princes, and replies to the objections of the Bo-
manists. Nowhere can the reader find this topic more clearly
illustrated.
Our prelate concedes to the sovereign whatsoever power
was exercised by the Jewish Kings in the Old Testament,
agreeably to the Divine will, for the reformation and mainte
nance of true religion. tl Quodcunque in rebus religionis Eeges
Israel fecerunt, nee sine laude fecerunt, id ut ei faciendi jus
sit ac potestas. Leges auctoritate Regia ferendi, ne blasphe-
metur Deus, non negabitis, fecit Rex Babel (Dan. iii. 29) : ut
jejunio placetur Deus, fecit Eex Ninive (Jon. iii. 7) : ut festo
honoretur, fecit Ester, cum Purim, Machabseus cum Encaenia
promulgaret (Est. ix. 26 ; 1 Mace. iv. 56, 59). Denique iis
omnibus rebus de quibus in Codice, in Authenticis, in Capitu-
laribus a Constantino, Theodosio, Justiniano, Carolo magno,
leges latse leguntur.
..." Whatever the Kings of Israel did in the department of
religion, and did not without commendation, that to "be his
right and privilege. The power of making laws by royal
authority, that God be not blasphemed ; such, ye will not deny,
the King of Babylon made (Dan. iii. 29) ; that God might be
propitiated by a fast, the King of Mneve made (Jon. iii. 7) ;
that he should be honoured by a festival, Queen Esther
made, when she proclaimed the Feast of Purim ; Judas
Maccabeus, when he proclaimed the Feast of Dedication
(Est. ix. 28 ; 1 Mace. iv. 56, 59) ; lastly, in regard of all
those things concerning which laws were enacted by Con-
stantine, Theodosius, Justinian, Charlemagne, in the Code,
the Authenticse, and the Chapters.
" Also the power of delegating such as should pronounce
judgment concerning the law so given, which power Jeho-
shaphat exercised (2 Chron. xix. 8) ; also of binding subjects
by an oath not to violate the law so made, which power both
Asa (2 Chron. xv. 14) and Josiah (ibid, xxxiv. 32) exercised.
" But if any do anything against laws so made, though it
be for the sake of religion, as the false prophets, it is a
criminal action (Deut. xiii. 10) ; or as idolaters (ibid. 15),
or as blasphemers (Levit. xxiv. 23), or as a sacrilegious
person (Num. xv. 35), he shall have the power of punishing
such by his royal authority.
" Also the power of calling Councils by his own authority ;
even upon bringing back the ark and putting it in its own
place, which David did (1 Chron. xiii. 3) ; also concerning
the recalling the people to the worship of God, which Jeho-
shaphat did (2 Chron. xix. 4) ; also concerning dedicating
the Temple, which Solomon did (1 Kings viii. 64) ; also
i concerning its restoration when it had fallen into ruin, which
iJoash did (2 Chron. xxiv. 4) • also concerning its purifi-
Ication after it had been profaned, which Hezekiah did
\(ibid. xxix. 5).
But although he may not think that he is in vain com-
manded by God to write out for himself a copy of the law,
to have it always by him, to read it diligently, to meditate
upon it day and night, to learn out of that the worship
of God, to ceremonies themselves ; nor that this is enjoined
him, yet so that he should altogether hang upon the lips of
another, and himself in fact decide nothing as of himself, yet
nevertheless he should in these things not unwillingly consult
the mouth of Eleazar (Num. xxvii. 21), and require the law
of those whose lips keep knowledge (Mai. ii. 7) ; he should,
in making laws regarding religion, apply to those to whom
it is but just that he should apply, and whom reason points
out as the best advised in such things, and as capable of
giving the best answer concerning them. And in those
things that pertain to God, he will command Amariah the
priest, not Zebadiah the commander, to preside (2 Chron.
xix. 11).
lt As regards persons, the right of giving laws to all orders
of persons, who is (to speak in the style of Scripture) the
head, of the tribe of Levi (1 Sam. 15, 17) not less than of
the other tribes, nor less the king of the clergy than of the
laity. On the other hand, if any Abiathar carry himself
proudly, he has the right to restrain him by his edict
(Deut. xvii. 12), and even to depose Abiathar himself from
the priesthood if he deserve it.
"As regards things, he has the power to pull down the
high places, that is, of abolishing foreign worship, not only
of breaking the golden calf cast by Aaron, as did Moses,
but also the brazen serpent erected by Moses, as Hezekiah
did, and of grinding both to powder, whether it be the golden
calf leading to idolatry, or the brazen serpent leading to
superstition.
"For as relates to the regulation of those things which
respect the beauty of the house of God, which are wont to
be called things indifferent, which Joash did (2 Chron.
xxiv. 12), and which are usually those points on which
schism is grounded; as also the right of setting at rest
needless and unprofitable questions by his authority, as
Constantine did (see his Epistle to Alexander and Arms;
Socrates' Eccl Hist. 1. i. c. 7, pp. 16—18, Cantab. 1720), you
yourselves will not deny his authority.
u Lastly, if you would rather an instance from Christians,
such precedent requires that he be the overseer of them that
are without, as was Constantine (Eusebius in his Life of
Constantinejl. iv. c. 24, p. 638, Camb. 1720), and the director
of religion, which not only Charlemagne was, but also Louis
the Pious.
tl These are with us the rights of the royal supremacy,
jure divino"
CHAPTER XI
Andrewes translated to Ely, 1609 — Bishop Heton — Bishop Harsnet
— Christmas — Easter, 1610 — Andrewes at Holdenby in August —
Consecration of the Scottish Bishops — J. Casaubon — Andrewes1
ON Easter-day, 16th April, 1609, Bishop Andrewes
preached before the King at Whitehall from John xx. 19.
Very simple and ingenious to edification, very touching by
the extreme naturalness of its pathos, is this most pastoral
discourse on Christ's salutation and benediction, Peace be
unto you.
"When you hear men talk of peace," saith our most
fatherly bishop, "mark whether they stand where they
should. If with the Pharisee, to the corners, either by
partiality one way or prejudice another, no good will be
done. When God will have it brought to pass, such minds
he will give unto men, and make them meet to wish it,
seek it, and find it."
In the course of this year he published his famous answer
to Bellarmine, entitled Tortura Torti; and on September 22
was, on the death of Dr. Martin Heton, elected to the see
of Ely. There were present at the election Dr. Humphrey
Tyndall, Dean of Ely and President of Queens' College, Cambridge, and Dr. Thomas Nuce, Dr. Andrew Willet, that most laborious commentator ; John Hills, Edmund Barwell, and James Taylor, Prebendaries. Dr. Martin Heton was son of
George Heton, Esq., and Joan, daughter of Sir William
Bowes, Knight. His father was of a Lancashire family, but
himself was born in London in 1553. His father was Master
of the Merchants' House at Antwerp, and caused it to be
free for the refugees in the reign of Queen Mary. Martin
Heton was educated at Christ Church, Oxford, and in 1582
was made a Canon of the Cathedral there. In 1588 he
served the Vice-Chancellorship, and in 1589 succeeded Dr.
Laurence Humphrey as Dean of Winchester. He was consecrated on February 3, 1599, to the see of Ely at Lambeth.
Dr. Andrewes declined the bishopric, not willing to be a
gainer himself to the loss of his see, and so he made way for
Dr. Heton, and now Dr. Heton by death for him.
On November 5 the Bishop of Ely preached before the
King at Whitehall from the Gospel for the day ; a topic that
came too near to that of this day's commemoration not to
minister to our prelate abundant opportunity of comparison
and contrast, of which he availed himself with great felicity.
On the day following he was confirmed in the temporalities
of the see of Ely ; and on the 13th he, with Buckeridge, Bishop
of Rochester, assisted Archbishop Bancroft at the consecration
of Dr. George Abbot to the see of Lichfield (afterward Arch-
Willis also gives his epitaph. It relates that his wife is buried near him, and
that they had five sons and seven daughters, and thus concludes,
"To the world they living died, So dying living they abide."
Page 232
... On Christmas-day Bishop Andrewes preached a sermon
before the King at Whitehall, that is reported to have given
him especial satisfaction. Mr. Chamberlain wrote to Sir
Kalph Winwood, "The King with much importunity had
the copy delivered to him on Tuesday last, before his going
towards Eoyston, and says he will lay it still under his
pillow." This sermon is from Gal. iii. 4, 5: "When the
fulness of time was come, God sent his Son} made of a
woman, made under the law, that he might redeem them
that were under the law that we might receive the adoption of sons. Here he saith that Christ was made under the law to become our surety, made under the law when he was circumcised. Then, as St. Paul saith, he became a
debtor to the whole law; then was his name of Jesus given him, St. Luke ii. 21. To get us from under the law it was not a matter of intercession but of redemption. So were verified as in a double sense his words at his passion, If you
lay hold on me if I must discharge all, let these go their way, let the price I pay be their redemption, and so it was."
So let us rejoice with fulness of joy, " with the joy of men
that have come out of prison, have 'scaped the law, with the
joy of men that have got the reversion of a goodly heritage."1
Well worthy indeed is this joyous discourse of that most
joyful occasion which it celebrated out of so cheerful a heart.
But what an Easter2 followed, when our good prelate
descanted so fervidly upon Job's gospel, upon his triumphal
monument, and on death's epitaph : tc I am sure that my
Redeemer livethj and he shall stand the last on the earth , (or,
and I shall rise again in the last day from the earth). And
though after my skin worms destroy this body, (or, as in the
Liturgy of King James, and shall be covered again with my
skin,) I shall see God in my flesh, whom I myself (or for
myself] shall see, and mine eyes shall behold, and none other
for me, though my reins are consumed loithin me (or, and this
hope is laid up in my bosom)."3
So, he observes, St. Jerome himself applies this place
as a plain prophecy both of Christ's and of our resurrection.
Do we ask how Job came by this knowledge ? "We shall
not need to trouble ourselves to know how he knew it; not
by any Scripture. He had it not from Moses, but the same
way that Moses had it; he looked in the same mirror Abraham
did, when he saw the same person and the same day, and
rejoiced to see it." 'Shall stand? He notes, "It is well
known it is the proper word for rising and not standing.
The LXX. so turn it ; the Fathers so read it. Nee dum
natus erat Dominus (saith St. Jerome) et athleta ecclesice
redemptorem suum videt a mortuis resurgentem. He was not
yet born, and the Church's champion Job saw his Redeemer
rising from the dead."5 Whoso will meditate upon mortality
and immortality, and seek to rekindle his faith and his hope,
let him come hither for comfort, and keep this Easter with
Bishop Andrewes.
On June 4th he was commissioned to be present at the
creation of Henry Prince of Wales, which took place in the
House of Parliament on that day. On the preceding Sunday
there was a creation of Knights of the Bath, and that was
preceded on the Saturday by an aquatic spectacle, all which
the curious reader will find amply detailed in the second
volume of Nichols's Royal Progresses of James I. Within
little more than two years was this noble Prince taken away.
He died in December 1612, our prelate being present at his
funeral on the 7th of December. Thus was our country to
learn wisdom through the severe struggles of the next half
century, in which the principles of arbitrary misrule on the
one hand, and the dangers of a military despotism on the
other, were to pave the way for the more constitutional
government and the more stable and decided Protestantism
which succeeded.
In singular harmony with his Easter was his Whitsuntide,
full of ' holy comfort.' Then at Whitehall, on May 27, he
preached upon our Saviour's promise, his covenant, and con
dition : If ye love me^ keep my commandments , and I will
pray the Father , and he shall give you another Comforter , that
he may abide with you for ever.1 He who could lay open
their graves to the rich, and compel them to look down and
learn from Dives on his bed of fire to avoid that place of
torment, could as tenderly revive the disconsolate, and as
affectionately animate men to the love of Christ. But at
all times a spirit of holiness shewed in his discourses, as the
good George Herbert directs in his Priest for the Temple.
Thus Bishop Andrewes : " As Christ is our witness in heaven,
so is the Spirit here on earth, witnessing with our spirits that
we pertain to the adoption, and are the children of God;
evermore, in the midst of the sorrows that are in our hearts,
with his comforts refreshing our souls ; yet not filling them
with false comforts, but, as Christ's advocate here on earth,
soliciting us daily, and calling upon us to look to his com
mandments and keep them, wherein standeth much of our
comfort, even in the testimony of a good conscience."2
On August 5th Bishop Andrewes preached at Holdenby
in Northamptonshire, upon the divine right of kings, from
Touch not mine anointedj animadverting upon Bellarmine
and Mariana, and noticing the late assassination of Henry IV.
of France.1 He observes that u the Pope saith he can make
the Christ the Lord himself: if he could do so indeed, it
were not altogether unlike he might make the Lord's
Christ," — set up kings who can make the King of kings.2
Hitherto episcopacy had in Scotland been upon a parity
with the presbyterate in regard of ordination. The King
had already restored to the Bishops their civil jurisdiction,
which after the Reformation had been transferred to the
supreme court of justice. He now determined to bring them
nearer to the model of the English Church, and on the 15th of
October summoned Spottiswoode, Archbishop of Glasgow,
Lamb, Bishop of Brechin, and Hamilton, Bishop of Galloway,
to London, and appointed Dr. Abbot, Bishop of London,
Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, Dr. Henry Parry, Bishop of
Worcester, and Montagu, Bishop of Bath and Wells, to
give them episcopal consecration. The consecration took
place in the chapel of London House on the 21st of the
same month. Andrewes stated the necessity of ordaining
them deacons and priests before they should be elevated to
the episcopate, on the ground that they had not been canoni-
cally admitted to holy orders in Scotland. Spottiswoode
relates that Archbishop Bancroft, who was present, main
tained that this was not requisite, because where there were
no bishops, ordination by presbyters must be esteemed valid ;
and that otherwise it might be doubted whether there was
any lawful vocation in most of the reformed churches. Our
prelate acquiesced in this answer, and so the consecration
proceeded. Isaac Casaubon had arrived in this country not
long before, and was present at this ceremony.3
Heylyn asserts that Bancroft overruled the objection of
Bishop Andrewes by reminding him that the higher order
included the lower, and that there were instances of bishops
being made by one single ordination ; and herein he is
followed by Bishop Skinner, and Collier inclines to him.
But Bishop Hussell, in his History of the Church in Scotland,
very impartially remarks that the authority of Spottiswoode
on this occasion cannot be set aside, as he was not only
present, but deeply interested in the discussion.1
In the course of this year appeared our prelate's Responsio
adApologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini quam nuper edidit contra
Prcefationem Monitoriam Jacobi Dei gratia M. Britannice etc.
Regis. He observes that Bellarmine's zeal for the Pope's
deposing power had only made the foreign princes jealous
of his principles and of his works/ and that he had now found
it convenient to come down from this high ground, and to
fill his book with patches of his commonplaces, already before
the world in a controversial and theological form ; and
accordingly we find the Bishop's Answer assuming through
several chapters the character of theological theses.
In the first chapter he shews with various illustrations the
uncertainty of the worshipping of the host, and refutes the
answers of Eomanists who defend, as he says, a hypothetical
worship. Formerly it was always provided that the condition
was understood, i If thou art Christ I adore thee / but faith is
not an hypothesis but an hypostasis, not a supposition but
a substance. He shews that there was a time when con-
substantiation was allowed in the Church of Rome. Thus
he quotes with approbation the words of Biel on the Canon
of the MasSj who says that the canon of Scripture does not
define whether the body of Christ is in the Eucharist by
transubstantiation or by consubstantiation. To the same effect
he. brings in Durandus, Peter de Alliaco, Cardinal of Cam-
bray, and John Picus Mirandula, who was nevertheless
cleared from all imputation of heresy by Pope Alexander
the Sixth himself. The mode of the mystery we do not,
says Bishop Andrewes, presumptuously define. We leave it
with the mystery of the Incarnation. We shall hear him
again speak more explicitly on this topic.
Bellarmine had alleged the mendacious authority of
Maurice Cheneys, who wrote of The Life and Martyrdom of
the Carthusians, and had aspersed the Lord Protector Crom
well. Bishop Andrewes vindicates his memory, and eulogizes
his great judgment and abilities.1 He proceeds to give a
sample of the lying legends of the Carthusian. He checks
and overthrows the Cardinal's boast of the universality of
his Church, and of the multitudes of converts made especially
in America, referring him to Acosta. Of the converts of the
Jesuits in Japan, he says that they are only made hypocrites
twofold more the children of hell than themselves.2 Touching
upon the Scotch reformation, he highly lauds the memory of
the martyrs Hamilton and Wishart, but with King James
withholds all commendation from John Knox and those who
acted with the same uncourtly spirit.3
As to the intercession of saints, he quotes Origen who
places it amongst the hidden things of God, a thing probable
but uncertain.4 Thence to nearly the end of the chapter our
prelate discusses the arguments and authorities adduced by
Bellarmine for the invocation of saints.
The second chapter proves that the cause of the King
contending against the Pope in regard of the duty of his
subjects to swear to him civil allegiance, is not one peculiar
to him but equally affecting the interests of all Catholic and
orthodox princes.
In the third he returns to treat of Papal power, opposing
St. Paul's What have we to do to judge them that are without?
to Thomas Aquinas, who attributes to the Church a power of
deposing infidel sovereigns.5
In the fourth chapter he overthrows Bellarmine's com
parison of kings and cardinals. The priest blesses the king,
the king benefits the priest. Which is greater, a good word
or a good deed ? David and Solomon blessed the whole Church,
in which the priesthood himself was included, whom Hezekiah
called his sons. The King in holy writ deposed the high-
priest, not the high-priest the king. He gives the history of
the rise of the Cardinals, and everywhere lays open the
unfaithful manner of Bellarmine in ecclesiastical history.
In the fifth chapter he vindicates his Sovereign from the
various charges of Bellarmine. Bellarmine had not been
altogether misinformed respecting the partiality of King
James for his E-omish subjects in Scotland. It is true indeed
the insurgent lords were in 1594 banished the kingdom and
their houses destroyed, but they would not have had oppor
tunity to rise in arms and to renew their treasons had not the
King shielded them in the preceding year from their just
deserts.1
Bishop Andrewes speaks with the utmost candour of the
Puritans, and in a language and spirit wholly unknown to
Wren, Laud, Montagu, and Heylyn. With him they are
not men more in error than the Komanists, as a living divine
writes of those whom he calls Zuinglians, that they are in
greater error concerning the Eucharist than those who believe
transubstantiation.
" Puritanorum ea religio non est, quorum nulla est religio
sua atque propria: disciplina est. Quod ipsum tamen de
Puritanis generatim dictum volo, deque iis inter eos, qui
prseterquam quod discipline suse paulb magis addicti sunt,
ccetera sobrie magis sapiunt ; qui, quantum vis formam illam
perdite depereant, in reliqud tamen doctrind satis orthodoxi
sunt. Nee enim nescius sum, censeri, adeoque esse, eo in
numero (non minus quam in societate vestra) cerebrosos
quosdam, pronos in schisma nimis. Etiam non deesse, qui
quoad religionis capita qusedam, vix per omnia sani sunt.
Quos ego hie, quos ubique exclusos volo. Mihi ab exteriori
regiminis format Puritani sunt, non autem a religions, quce
eadem et est et esse potest, ubi facies externa non eadem."
"The King (in his Basilicon Doron) does not mean there
the religion of the Puritans, for they have no distinct and
peculiar religion, but discipline. And this I would have
applied (not to the Scotch only but) to the Puritans generally,
and to those among them who, except that they are too
violently addicted to their order of church government, are
in other things sufficiently sober-minded ; and these, however
infatuated in their devotedness to their * platform? are yet
sufficiently orthodox in the rest of their doctrine. For I am
not ignorant that there are numbered, and indeed are amongst
them, some unreasonable men (as in your society) over-
inclined to schism ; nay, that there are not wanting some who
are scarcely sound in all things as regards some points of
religion. And these I would exclude in this my mention
of them here and in every other place. But with me they
are Puritans from their exterior form of discipline, but not
from their religion, which both is the same and can be, where
the external face of discipline is not the same."1
In the sixth chapter he vindicates the historical passages
of his Tortura Torti, and defends Rufus in the case of Anselm,
and Henry the Second in the case of Thomas a Becket? He
denies the saintship of St. Hugh of Lincoln, who opposed
the raising of money to aid Richard the First.
St. Augustine's De Mirabilibus Sacrce Scriptures is by
Bellarmine, in his book of ecclesiastical writers, on the
authority of Aquinas, denied to be his. Bishop Andrewes
referred to it to prove out of Augustine that that Father
placed the Maccabees amongst the Apocryphal books...
Erasmus indeed early ranked this work with those that had been erroneously ascribed to St. Augustine, and it has accordingly been placed amongst
the spurious works that go by his name in the Benedictine edition, and in the 47th section of the 4th chapter of Walchii Bibliotheca Patristica, p. 275.
Bishop Cosin has, in his Scholastical History of the Canon
of Scripture, reprinted at the Clarendon Press, fully met all
the pleas, deduced by the Romanists from the writings of
St. Augustine in favour of the First and Second Book of
the Maccabees and the other Apocryphal books retained by
their Church.
Certain passages of St. Augustine appear at first sight to
favour their cause, and are always alleged by them for the
sake of proving the equal authority of the Apocryphal
with those books to which modern usage restricts the term
canonical, a term formerly applied more indefinitely than
at present, and so applied, it is admitted, by St. Argustine
himself, in these passages, namely, in the 8th chapter of his
second book De Doctrind Christiana, and in the 36th chapter
of his 18th book De Civitate Dei.
But it is evident from other passages in his works that as
the Canon Fidei, the Eule of Faith , St. Augustine allowed
only the Jewish canon. Thus, in one of his treatises
against the Donatists, his second book against the Epistle
of Gaudentius (c. xxiii), he says : " Et hanc quidem Scrip-
turam quse appellatur Maccabseorum, non habent Judsei
sicut legem et Prophetas et Psalmos quibus Dominus
testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus, suis dicens, Oportebat
impleri omnia quce scripta sunt in lege et PropJietis et Psalmis
de me : sed recepta est ab ecclesia non inutiliter, si sobrie
legatur vel audiatur, maxime propter illos Maccabseos qui pro
Dei lege, sicut veri martyres a persecutoribus tarn indigna
atque horrenda perpessi sunt," &c. — Op. torn. vii. Pars Prior,
p. 436, Lugduni, 1562. " And this Scripture which is called
(the book of) Maccabees, the Jews regard not as the law, the
Prophets, and the Psalms, to which the Lord bears testimony
as to his witnesses, saying, All things must le fulfilled which
were written in the law and in the Prophets and in the Psalms
concerning me (Luke xxiv. 44) ; but it is received by the
Church not unprofitably if it be read or heard with caution,
especially on account of those Maccabees who endured such
undeserved and dreadful sufferings at the hands of their
persecutors, as true martyrs for the law of God." So in
citing Ecclesiasticus he says, " Quse non tanta firmitate
proferuntur quse scripta non sunt in canone Judseorum." —
De Civ. Deij 1. xvii. c. 20. " Which passages are not brought
forward with such a weight of authority, not being in the
Jewish canon."
Besides Bishop Cosin's Scholastical History of the Canon
of Scripture, the reader may refer to the first chapter of the
second book of Dr. John Gerhard's Confessio Catholica, Dr.
John Eainold's Censura Apocryphorum Vet. Test. 1611,2 vols.
4to., Dr. Field's Boole of the Church, book iv. c. 22, 23, 24,
and the Preface to the third part of L. Joh. Gottleb Carpzov's
Introductio ad Libros Canon. Vet. Test. Lips. 1721.
That laborious collator of manuscripts, but most dogmatical
judge of them, Dr. Tregelles, in his Account of the Printed
Text of the Greek Testament^ a work extremely superficial
in its notice of the history of the textus receptus, affirms
amongst other paradoxes that " we reject the Apocrypha in
spite of tradition." There is no one article forced upon the
Church of Rome more clearly in opposition even to her own
tradition, than the reception of the Apocryphal Books into
the Old Testament canon. Upon this ground we stand.
In consequence of the tradition of the Jewish Church, con
firmed by our Lord himself ; in consequence of the tradition of
the Primitive Church ; in consequence of the tradition of the
whole Church to the Council of Trent, we reject the Apocrypha.
But of all such evidence as must needs enter into such questions,
Dr. Tregelles has proved himself a most incompetent judge from
the uncritical and inconsistent decisions he has in so many
instances affirmed in his critical works. In these he con
stantly selects his evidence, passes over numerous and weighty
allegations of his predecessors in the field of sacred criticism,
and commends the most improbable, and those not always the
most ancient, readings, by way of illustrating Bengel's rule,
which is accordingly given in the larger and more inelegant
type of the most modern printers, " proclivi scriptioni prcestat
arduum."z Griesbach, however, more fearlessly followed out
his own rule than Dr. Tregelles has had the boldness to do.
Our prelate defends the Protestant interpretation of the
words of institution in the Eucharist. Bellarmine had said
that they (the Protestants) involved the words This is my
body in a thousand figures. He retorts after the usual, and
indeed unanswerable manner, that neither can the Romanists
without a figure reconcile to their interpretation the words,
This is the cup which is poured out.
In the eighth chapter he unfolds the legendary impiety of
Rome respecting the mother of our Lord. He urges against
the Jesuitical Bellarmine the hymns that are sung to her;
he returns to the topic of the invocation of saints ; he treats
of the innovation of private masses and of the mutilation
of the Eucharist; he exposes the folly of the Cardinal's
evasions, one of which is, that St. Luke in the Acts only
speaks of breaking of bread, therefore they took (he
argues) the Lord's Supper only in one kind. So then,
when in the 14th chapter of his Gospel he relates that our
Lord went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees
(according to the Hebrew idiom) to eat bread, we must
suppose that they drank nothing.1 But subterfuge and dis
honesty of every kind are allowed to Romish controversialists,
who are always understood to wage war upon the human
understanding. Hence Bishop Andrewes proceeds again to
transubstantiation2 and its concomitants, adoration and pro
cession. He points out the absurdity of the very term works
of supererogation, when applied to those who have not paid
to God that entire and unsinning obedience which they owe
to Him.3 He suffers not Bellarmine to escape touching the
baptism of bells. Nay, they are blessed, not baptized, says
Bellarmine. Not so Stephen Durantus in his book of the Rites
of the Church then lately published at Rome ; there we read
they are u baptized but not for the remission of sins." It is a
holy dedication, which, as Bishop Andrewes observes, is also
the end of baptism. But in the Pontifical the bell is exorcised.
No, he was too great for Bellarmine the pious Cardinal, the
admiration of the more moderate and enlightened children
of the Church in England. " But if in any places," writes
Bellarmine, " it is called baptism, it is from this that names
are given to the bells." More than this, we have in the
Pontifical, tinctum in aqua — washed in water. The water
is hallowed. It is said, ll this commixture of salt and water
is made a salutary sacrament in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But in the new Pon
tifical of Clement VIII. the words " efficiatur salutare sacra-
mentum" are omitted, and in their stead is read, u pariter
fiat /" " quid autem fiat" continues Bishop Andrewes, " cogi-
tandem relinquitur."1 Nay, there are even sponsors on this
solemn occasion ; and as a child, so is the bell clad in robes
of white : " nugse quidem sed preciosae sunt has : calumnies
non sunt. Neque nugse tamen ; vera enim gravamina Ponti-
ficis legato in Comitiis Norimbergse, 1522, exhibita : Pontifici
quoque ipsi transmissa, Germanise totius nomine."
From the baptism of bells we return to the worship of
images. Bishop Andrewes reminds Bellarmine that Hezekiah
himself was an iconoclast. Hence we pass on to Purgatory,
which Bellarmine finds at least implicitly contained in Genesis,
where it is written, " surrexit Abraham a facie mortui" (in
the Vulgate u ab officiofuneris"2), from the Burial office, that is,
from prayers for the good of her soul now in Purgatory.3
Thus was Scripture not only called, but treated as a nose of
wax. Bellarmine waxed warm upon Purgatory, and roundly
affirmed that hell awaited those who believed not purgatory.
" This," replies our prelate, a savours more of Tortus, and is
a more fit speech for some evil Tortus than for a holy cardinal,
and one in which is much less of charity than of faith."
" There is juster reason that no purgatory should remain for
them that believe it not ; but that as they believe in heaven,
so they should prepare for that place ; as they believe a hell,
so they should seek by all means to avoid it. But they that
believe a purgatory, let them very carefully take heed lest,
being deceived by the position of the ways, they should go to
hell instead of purgatory ; for they are places very near each
other, if we believe the Cardinal. The Pope, whilst he
deludes many of your religion with his indulgences, with the
hope of going only to purgatory, hath brought them to hell,
who, perchance, if they had feared only hell (and they would
have feared if that expectation had not utterly blinded them),
might have avoided it."1
The remainder of this chapter consists of a most able
refutation of the Pope's supremacy — the pride, as purgatory
embodies — the avarice of Eome.
From the ninth to the end of the twelfth chapter our
prelate treats of the prophecies in the New Testament relating
to Antichrist; first, in the second chapter of St. Paul's
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, then in the Book of
Revelation. Bishop Andrewes all along regards the Pope
as Antichrist, Eome as Babylon ; the name of Antichrist he,
following Irenseus, conceives to be Latinus. How pitifully
did Mr. Newman deal with the memory of Bishop Newton,
because, with Bishop Andrewes, he maintained a view of
Antichrist so little in accordance with the system he then
favoured.2
Bishop Andrewes vindicates Wicliff and his followers
from the charge of sedition, and imputes to the calumnious
spirit of his opponents the anarchical doctrines ascribed to
him.3 Thus did he differ in spirit from that zealous reformed
Catholic De Heylyn, who all but anathematizes Wicliff as
an uucatholic heresiarch. Our prelate proceeds to vindicate
Luther from similar charges.
I know not what to say to our prelate's words, " But no
man sought the life of the King in Scotland." Certainly his
own words at another time appear the contrary to these. In
his first sermon on the Gowrie Conspiracy he describes the
actors as bloody-minded, and as no better than assassins.
" Said not Absalom to his assassins, When I give you a sign,
see you smite , kill him, fear not, have not I commanded you ?
Said not they the same to him whom to that end they had
armed and placed to do that wicked act?"4 Here then he
must needs acquit that conspiracy of the intent of assassina
tion. Yet in his sermon four years after the publication of
this work, when in 1614 he preached the anniversary of the
Gowrie Conspiracy again, after an interval of four years, he
attributed to the conspirators the design of no less a hurt than
the loss of his Majesty's life.1 I fear there was in the mind of
our prelate, whilst at this point of his controversy, some subtle
distinction that would have fitted rather Bellarmine than his
own candour and simplicity.
Most worthy of him indeed are these golden words : tl Thus
is the Church the pillar of truth, not as that on which the truth
rests, but which herself rests upon the truth. But this pillar
does not hang in the air; it has a base and a foundation, and
where but in the Word of God? When it sets forth that
(Word) unto us, we know that it hath a good foundation, and
rest upon it fearlessly and with a willing mind."2
The remainder of the Eesponsio is a confirmation of the
charges which the King had brought against Bellarmine, of
falsifications of history, &c., a minute and detailed account
of which would of itself form a volume.
In October Isaac Casaubon came to England. He was
born at Geneva February 18th, 1559, where he was made
Professor of Greek, and married Florence, daughter of Henry
Stephens, the celebrated printer. He removed to Moritpelier
as the Greek Professor there, and in 1603 was made Librarian
to Henry IV. After the assassination of his Prince, he on
the 16th October this year arrived here with Sir Henry Wotton.
James had previously invited him to England, and became
his cordial patron. On October 26th he spent some hours,
to his great delight, with Bishop Andrewes.
CHAPTER XII.
Archbishop Allot — Bishops Buckeridge and Thompson — Isaac Casaubon, Cardinal Perron, and King James — Christmas 1611.
ON the death of Archbishop Bancroft, November 2, 1610,
Dr. George Abbot, who had sufficiently proved his learning
by his works and by his sermons at Oxford, where he was
elected Master of University College in September 1597, and
had been made Dean of Winchester in 1599, Bishop of Lich-
field and Coventry 1609, and of London January 20th this
same year, was raised to the see of Canterbury in consequence
of the King's promise to his late able and energetic minister
and favourite, the Earl of Dunbar. This motive is assigned
as the ground of Abbot's promotion in a letter from George
Calvert (afterwards Lord Baltimore) to Sir Thomas Edmunds,
March 10th, 1611. The King at the same time bore testi
mony to Abbot's learning, wisdom, and sincerity. It has
been surmised that had Andrewes succeeded Bancroft, the
Church of England would have been saved the storms that
followed. But both Abbot and Andrewes lived to be super
seded by Laud, whose ambition was as unrivalled as his
impetuosity, and whose secularity predominated above that
of all his contemporaries. Andrewes had not the firmness of
Abbot, whose integrity appeared in repeated instances, to the
honour of the age in which he lived and of the Church over
which he presided. He nobly stood forth on the side of
justice against the suit instituted by the Lady Frances
Howard for a divorce from her husband the Earl of Essex.
This first brought upon him the King's displeasure. His
influence declined as that of Villiers and Laud increased. In
1618 he would not suffer the Boole of Sports to be read in
his parish-church of Croydon. To the last he promoted the
Protestant interest. In the summer of 1627 he again nobly
withstood the unconstitutional course of his sovereign, by
refusing to license Dr. Sibthorpe's sermon, preached at North
ampton, in vindication of the compulsory loan. This led to
his being most illegally deprived of his power, which was
handed over by a commission to Laud and four other prelates.
While living in forced seclusion in his house at Ford, which,
with Lambeth, Croydon, Bekesbourne, and Canterbury, alone
at this time remained to his see, (the other twelve had been
taken from it since the Reformation,1) about Christmas he
was released from restraint and invited to court, but only to
suffer hereafter further indignities, Laud still reigning supreme,
and being selected in his stead to baptize the infant Prince,
Charles II., in May 1630. He died in his seventy-first year,
at Croydon Palace, August 4th, 1633. Dr. Hook has taken
from Fuller whatsoever makes against Abbot as to the charge
of undue severity toward the clergy, and omitted all thai;
Fuller added in his commendation. He has however survived
the censures of Clarendon himself; neither will his memory
suffer from the more recent attack of that abortive undertaking,
the Biographical Dictionary of the Society for the Diffusion
of Useful Knowledge, in which he is described as " a zealous
Calvinist and a furious Protestant." Of the intemperance of
his zeal, or of any indication of his furiousness, history is silent.
Antony Wood himself, the historian of his University, is
more just to his character.
In answer to the charges of remissness brought against
Abbot, the testimony of Racket, in his Life of Williams, may
suffice. He says that with regard to the High Commission
Court the Lord Keeper was not satisfied in two respects ; first
in the multiplicity of causes brought into it, secondly in the
severity of its censures. Archbishop Abbot was rigorously
just, which made him shew less pity to delinquents. Sentences
of great correction, or rather of destruction, have their epochs
from his predominancy in that court. And after him it
mended, says Hacket, like sour ale in summer. It was not
so in his predecessor Bancroft's days, who would chide stoutly,
but censure mildly. He considered that he sat there rather
as a father than as a judge.
On November 13 Andrewes was, for the first time since
his translation to Ely, included in a committee, with all their
lordships then present, for a conference with the Commons on
the following day at 3 p.m. in the Painted Chamber.
We return to Casaubon. On Wednesday the 14th No
vember Casaubon, with Overall, Dean of St. Paul's, with
whom he was taking up his abode at this time, dined with
our prelate, probably at Ely Palace in Holborn. The Bishop
had not yet published his answer to Bellarmine. Andrewes
read his work to his guests, and had Casaubon with him
again on the 15th and 17th, and on the Monday and Tuesday
following. On the Monday he again consulted with Casau
bon on his forthcoming treatise. Andrewes entrusted him
with the manuscript to peruse at his leisure. He commends
the Bishop's learning and his agreement with Christian
antiquity, and expresses his wish that his method and spirit
were followed by the divines of his own native land, in a
letter to Mountague, Bishop of Bath and Wells.1
On Tuesday, December 25th, Christmas-day, Andrewes
preached before the King at Whitehall from the gospel for the
day, Luke ii. 10, 11. He speaks of the angels' sermon, and
after that the hymn Glory le to God on high. It was the custom
after the Restoration, if not before it, to have a second anthem
after the sermon. It might be that this might suggest to
Andrewes his remark, uthe whole service of this day, the
sermon, the anthem, by angels all." The anthem thus
concluded both the morning and evening service at St. Paul's,
according to the Eev. James Clifford's Divine Services and
Anthems. This little manual was published in 1660, the
second edition in 1663, another in 1664, being compiled by
the Kev. James Clifford, a Minor Canon of St. Paul's, who
died in 1700. The order of the Cathedral service as there
observed is extracted from this rare and interesting little
volume in the Preface to the Kev. John JebVs second volume
of Choral Responses and Litanies of the United Church of
England and Ireland. This very valuable collection contains
two sets of Preces by Amner of Ely, whom Andrewes ordained
deacon, with a large body of Cathedral music composed by
Henry Molle, Robert Ramsay, and Loosemoore, the incom
parable organists of Peterhouse, Trinity, and King's Colleges
about 1630. The common Cathedral chants in use in Clif
ford's time are given in the Appendix,1 and in the earlier
and more ancient part of the volume are several elaborate
chants, the memorials of a more noble, enriched, and varie
gated kind of chant in use before the Restoration, far worthier
of the divine compositions to which they were so carefully
and appropriately adapted.
To return to our prelate. His genuine piety shines forth
conspicuously in this sermon upon the need and nature of
salvation, and the universal neglect of it. There is indeed
in his sermons very generally, although there are occasional
exceptions, the same glow of devotion which has made his
Prayers so valuable, prayers which have, after the Liturgy,
perhaps met with more general acceptance than any others.
That his sermons should be in some measure open to the
exceptions of such critics as the late Archdeacon Hare, is only
what might be expected from a mind so fancifully exuberant
as that of Andrewes.
We may, however, be justly thankful for the late Arch
deacon Hare's vigilance in regard of the recent edition of our
prelate's Sermons. But in his remark in p. 499 of the Notes to
his Mission of the Comforter he was not aware that in the
second edition we have the reading of which he doubted " in
the very next words." Archdeacon Hare indeed, as a theo
logian, was not the best qualified to sit in judgment on Bishop
Andrewes. Hare's note on Inspiration, written in a flippant
spirit and throwing no light upon the subject, but rather
heightening its inevitable mysteriousness, is but one of various
symptoms that Archdeacon Hare was at times led away with
a love of bewilderment, the not unnatural effect of his foreign
predilections.
On January 17th, 1611, Isaac Casaubon was, upon the
death of Dr. Nicholas Simpson, of Corpus Christi College,
Oxford, (whose son John was of the same College and Preben
dary of the seventh stall in 1614,) preferred to the eighth
stall in Canterbury Cathedral ; he was a layman at this time.
After this the King granted him, on the 19th, a pension of
£300 per annum during pleasure.1 His son Meric, who was
confirmed by Bishop Andrewes, was born at Geneva 1599.
He was educated at Christ Church, Oxford. Bishop An
drewes preferred him to Bledon in Somersetshire. He was
afterwards Vicar of Minster and Monkton in the Isle of
Thanet, the latter of which he resigned for the rectory of
Ickham, a few miles to the east of Canterbury. He was
made Prebendary of the ninth stall there June 19, 1628,
survived the Restoration, and died July, 1671, aged 75 years,
and was buried in the newer south transept.
On Easter-day, March 24, 1611, Bishop Andrewes
preached again before the King at Whitehall, from Psalm
cxviii., The stone which the builders re/used, the same
stone is become the head of the corner. The latter part of
this sermon has been largely quoted for its quaintness f the
former and more excellent has been suffered to rest in the
folio edition. It abounds indeed with beauties, but the pun
ning upon the text, and the making the King the head, not
of one angle but of three, England, Scotland, and Ireland, is
but little suited to that whereto it is annexed. Admirable,
however, as are very many passages in this discourse, it is
not as a whole comparable to that upon the same occasion
in the preceding year, nor is that in point of eloquence equal
to those that treat of the narrative of the resurrection.
And so his Whitsunday sermon for this year, had it been
less diffuse and less singular in its illustrations, which to our
ears at least sounds sometimes trivial, sometimes jocular, would
have deserved very considerable commendation. But there
are passages in it that should scarcely be quoted, and which
are only equalled for impropriety in his sermons upon the
Temptation in the wilderness, where presumption is likened
to gunpowder. This sermon, upon the Sending of the Holy
Ghost, was preached before the King at Windsor on Whit
sunday May 12.
On June 9th Bishop Andrewes assisted at Lambeth at the
consecration of Dr. Buckeridge to the see of Rochester, and of
Dr. Giles Thompson, his old schoolfellow at Merchant Taylor's,
to that of Gloucester. Dr. Buckeridge was born at Shinfield,
near Beading, was President of St. John's College, Oxford, 1606,
where he was succeeded by Laud in 1611, Rector of North
Fambridge near Maldon, and of North Kilworth, Leicester
shire (near Rugby), Vicar of St. Giles' Cripplegate, Preben
dary of Rochester 1587, of Hereford, and Archdeacon of
Northampton on the same day, March 23, 1604, Canon of
Windsor 1606. On the death of Bishop Felton he was
translated from Rochester to Ely, April 17, 1628, having
meanwhile preached Bishop Andrewes' funeral sermon in
1626. He died May 23, and was buried May 31 in Bromley
church, Kent, without any memorial.
Giles Thompson was born in London, educated at Merchant
Taylor's School, an exhibitioner of University College, Oxford,
1571, Fellow of All Souls' College 1580, Proctor 1586,
Divinity Reader at Magdalene College, Chaplain to Queen
Elizabeth, Canon Residentiary of Hereford May 23, 1594,
Rector of Pembridge, Herefordshire (near Leominster), Dean
of Windsor February 2, 1603. He died the year following
his consecration, without ever having visited his diocese, June
14, 1612. He was buried in St. George's Chapel, Windsor.
• He was one of the translators of the Bible.
On June 22 Andrewes was appointed one of the first
Governors of the Charterhouse.
Casaubon had very favourably represented to the King
the learning of Cardinal Perron, and had presented him with
some of the Cardinal's poems. This favour Perron acknow
ledged in a letter to Casaubon, in which he artfully laid the
ground of the controversy which now forms the second volume
of his works. He withheld from King James the name of
Catholic, upon which Casaubon replied in the King's name
that his Majesty was much surprised thereat, seeing that he
believed all that the ancients believed with unanimous consent
to be essential. To this Perron replied in a long and laboured
epistle dated Paris, July 15, 1611. This letter is prefixed to
his longer controversy, and is to be found in the translation of
the first four books of the Cardinal's Reply, printed at Douay
in folio, by Martin Bogart, 1630, and dedicated to ' Henrietta
Maria of Bourbon, Queen of Great Britain? Casaubon was
appointed by the King to answer Perron's letter of the 15th
of July, and to give in Latin the mind of the King himself
upon it. Casaubon' s Answer was put into the hands of
Andrewes and Overall, then Dean of St. Paul's, if not also
of Morton, then Dean of Winchester, and Montagu, Bishop of
that see. Isaacson, Bishop Andrewes' secretary, appears to
have acted as Casaubon' s amanuensis.1
Soon after Casaubon had completed his Epistle to. Fronto
Ducceusj he accompanied Andrewes out of town on the 20th
June. They returned together to town on the Saturday, and
on Sunday, June 30th, were honoured with an invitation to
the King.
On July 3rd Andrewes, Overall, Casaubon, and others
dined with the Lord Mayor.
On the 16th Andrewes set out for Cambridge with
Casaubon. After halting probably at Royston or at Ware
for that night, they arrived on Wednesday the 17th at Cam
bridge, and were lodged at Peterhouse by Dr. John Richard-
son the Master. The Master's lodge at that time consisted of
several apartments between the library built by Dr. Perne,
and the hall, which then retained a handsome oriel, with a
high-pitched roof and lantern. The present lodge on the
opposite side of Trumpington-street belonged to Dr. Charles
Beaumont, Fellow of Peterhouse, and son of Dr. Joseph
Beaumont, Eegius Professor of Divinity in the place of
Bishop Gunning, and Master of Peterhouse 1662, in the
room of the pious and munificent Bernard Hale, Archdeacon
of Ely. Dr. Charles Beaumont, his son, dying March 17,
1726, left this house to the Masters of the College for ever.
He left also a large sum for the purchase of advowsons, and
many valuable MSS. to the library.
Dr. John Bichardson was born at Linton on the south
confines of Cambridgeshire, bordering upon Essex. He was
brought up at Clare Hall,1 of which College he was B.A. in
158J, or, as we write, 1582. He was thence elected to a
fellowship at Emmanuel College, where he proceeded M.A.
in 1585, and D.D. 1597. He succeeded Dr. Overall as Kegius
Professor of Divinity at Cambridge in 1607. He was ap
pointed one of the translators of the Bible in the same class
with Lively, Chaderton, Dillingham, Andrewes, Spalding, and
Bynge. To these were deputed the historical books from
1 Chronicles inclusive, and the Hagiographa, namely, Job to
Ecclesiastes inclusive. In 1609 he was made Master of Peter-
house, having been previously made Fellow of Emmanuel
College by the founder himself, Sir Walter Mildmay. On
Saturday, May 27th, 1615, he was, between 3 and 5 P.M.,
admitted to the mastership of Trinity College, Cambridge.
He was also Bector of Upwell, a parish with the church
mostly in Norfolk, partly in Cambridgeshire. He resigned
his professorship in 1617, and was succeeded by Dr. Collins.
In the mastership of Peterhouse he was followed by Thomas
Turner, B.D.
Thomas Turner was born at Burnby in Yorkshire, three
miles south-east of Pocklington, between York and Beverley.
He was B.A. of Peterhouse 1596, chosen a Fellow there,
M.A. 1600, B.D. 1609, and D.D. 1616. He was also Hector
of Stokehammond in Buckinghamshire, three miles south of
Fenny Stratford, and was installed Prebendary of Leicester
St. Margaret's, August 23rd, 1612. He died in 1617.
Our prelate was lodged at Peterhouse, as being one of the
two Colleges in which the Bishops of Ely have a special
interest, as having been founded and endowed by various
occupants of that see. To this day the Master and Fellows
of Peterhouse, now called St. Peter's College, are admitted
to the mastership and fellowships, as the clergy of the diocese
are to their spiritual preferments, by the Bishops of Ely.
Peterhouse existed as a corporate society as early as 1274,
for in that year a charter recognises their existence as the
Warden and Scholars of Peterhouse.1 It has been objected
that Hugh de Balsham, Bishop of Ely, the founder, left at
his death 300 marks for new buildings. He however had
previously placed his scholars in two hostels in Trumpington-
street. He also assigned to it the advowson of Triplow,
which, although the presentation has been of late in the
hands of the Bishop of Ely, was in the last century appro
priated to Peterhouse. The College found benefactors in
Thomas de Insula, Bishop of Ely 1345, and his predecessors
Hotham and Montacute, or Montague, who gave the advowson
of Cherryhinton to Peterhouse in 1344. The rectory, to
which a manor was annexed, was appropriated to the College
in 1395 by Bishop Fordham. Dr. Richardson was doubtless
known to Andrewes, as being in the same company of trans
lators of our present incomparable version of the Scriptures.
He was also, like Andrewes, of a most munificent spirit:
he gave £100 u towards the building of a new court, front,
and gate towards the street, now finished," says Fuller, in his
History of the University of Cambridge. Probably Andrewes
would also find himself more at home at Peterhouse than at
his own College, where Harsnet was now Master, who was
compelled some years after to resign in consequence of an
opposition headed by Andrewes' own favourite Matthew
Wren, who was at this time a Fellow of Pembroke Hall.
Wren was an undoubted and invaluable benefactor to both
Pembroke Hall and to Peterhouse. He carefully catalogued
the muniments of the latter College, a benefit that has been
both felt and owned very recently by that venerable founda
tion.
On Thursday July 18 Casaubon dined with Dr. Kichardson,
and after that arrived at Ely with the Bishop, who forthwith
went to the Deanery to pay his respects to Dr. Tindall the
Dean, also President of Queens' College, Cambridge. He
was of a noble Norfolk family. He was son to Sir Thomas
Tindall, of Hockwold near Brandon in Norfolk. Sir William
was made Knight of the Bath by Henry VII. at the creation
of Arthur Prince of Wales, and was then declared heir to the
kingdom of Bohemia in right of Margaret his great grand
mother, niece of the King of Bohemia, and daughter to the
Duke of Theise. Dr. Humphrey Tindall, or Tyndale, was
great-grandson of this Sir William.1 He was at this time
very infirm, and died October 12th, 1614, and was buried in
the Cathedral. He had been made Chancellor of Lichfield
and Archdeacon of Stafford both on the same day, February
21, 1586, by Bishop Overton, and retained these preferments
to his death. He was also Vicar of Soham.
On Sunday July 21st Casaubon attended with Andrewes
at the Cathedral. He informs us that the Bishop daily
attended divine service there whilst he was in residence.
On the 24th July, Wednesday, Casaubon took a survey of
Ely itself and of the Cathedral, especially admiring the
octagon lantern.
On the following Wednesday, July 31 (our 9th August),
the Bishop accompanied him to the Cathedral very early
in the morning, and they together took especial notice of the
lantern tower. At that time the choir was immediately
under it.
On the 4th August, being the first Sunday in the month,
the holy Sacrament was administered, the Bishop and Casau
bon being present.
On Monday, 5th, the anniversary of the Gowrie Conspiracy
was observed at the Cathedral. The Dean and the other
clergy met the Bishop at the great west door, and psalms
were chanted as they proceeded up the nave. After morning
service the Bishop himself preached, and a few worshippers
remained to receive the holy Communion.
On Tuesday, August 6th, the Bishop took Casaubon with
him, on his way to Wisbeach, to his palace at Downham1
]fa]i.di, which was his favourite residence, and in the chapel
of which it was his frequent practice to hold his ordinations.
On Wednesday the Mayor and ten burgesses, with a
company of about one-hundred-and-fifty on horses, met the
Bishop at his entering into Wisbeach.
On Thursday a sermon was preached at the church, the
beauty of which Casaubon did not fail to observe. He went
afterwards to the Castle where some Jesuits and recusants
were confined.
On Friday the 9th the Bishop and Casaubon went on
horseback to inspect the dykes on the other side of Wisbeach
from that by which they entered. After going four or five
miles at a walking pace they lost their way. On their return
the Bishop's horse threw him, but the good providence of
God so ordered it that he received no hurt either from his fall
or whilst between the horse's feet.1
On Saturday the 10th, after having read some Psalms
together, as was the Bishop's custom, they went to the
Assizes, at which the Bishop presided. They then returned
to Downham Market.
On Wednesday the 14th Casaubon and his wife went to
the quarry near Ely.
On Monday the 19th the Bishop accompanied him on his
horse to see the country around and beyond Ely.
On Wednesday the 21st the Bishop gave a great dinner
to the nobility and gentry of the neighbourhood.
On Thursday the 29th Casaubon returned to London.
On the 22nd September Andrewes held an ordination in
the chapel of his palace at Downham Market. He ordained
Deacons Samuel Stubbin, B.A. of Emmanuel College 1609,
and M.A. 1612, and William Bawley, M.A., Fellow of
Corpus Christi College, chaplain to Lord Bacon, and Eector
of Landbeach near Cambridge, where he died, aged seventy-
nine years, June 18, 1667. Bacon valued our prelate's
learning, and sent to him the MS. of his Cogitata et Visa for
his remarks upon it, as he had done upon previous occasions.
In another letter, addressed to King James October 12,
1620,1 Bacon mentions that the Bishop was acquainted for
nearly thirty years with his intention of writing the Novum
Organon.
After his retirement he also dedicated to Bishop Andrewes
his Advertisement touching a Holy War, concluding in these
words: "This work I have dedicated to your lordship in
respect of our ancient and private acquaintance, and because
amongst the men of our times I hold you in special rever
ence."2 Andrewes usually spent July, August, and Sep
tember in his diocese, and so he, soon after this ordination,
returned to London.
On the 13th October, Saturday, he took Casaubon with
him from London to Ware, and on Saturday the 19th they
reached Koyston, and were the King's guests at his house
there in Armingford-street. It is still to be seen, with the
private garden, in which is a mulberry-tree from one which
the King himself is said to have planted, which fell down
about twelve years since. They remained two days with the
King.
On the 4th of November Casaubon was again with
Andrewes.
On the 14th they again set out together to Eoyston, spent
the greater part of Friday the 15th with the King, and
returned.
, Casaubon was with Andrewes again on the 25th.
On the next day he wrote to Daniel Heyne. He relates
that on October 22nd the King commanded him to attend
him to London. There were present Archbishop Abbot and
Bishop Andrewes. Andrewes begged of Heyne through
i Casaubon to make his house his home when he was not
: under Casaubon' s roof. Casaubon relates how he was con-
.stantly with Andrewes about this time, and that this great
I prelate supplied to him the place of De Thou, such was his
[profound learning, and so great his affability.3
On Monday, December 2nd, he again went to the King at
Royston with Andrewes, and remained with him there the
next day.
He was again in attendance upon Andrewes on the 7th
on account otf a letter from Mountagu, Bishop of Bath and
Wells, written for the King respecting the returning of the
papers with which he and Andrewes had been entrusted.
These related to the letter to Cardinal Perron, which Casau-
bon was than preparing under the King's direction.1
Toward the end of this year (1611) was printed at London
by Robert Barker the King's printer, Elenchus Eefutationis
Torturce Torti pro Reverendissimo in Christo Patre Domino
Episcopo Eliensi (Andrewes) adversus Martinum Becanum
Jesuitam. Author e Richardo Tlwmsonio Cantabrigiensi : A
Confutation of the Jesuit Martin Becaris Refutation of Bp.
Andrewes 's Tortura Torti. This little volume is a 12mo of
104 pages, dedicated to the author's friend, Sir Thomas
Jermyn. It is written with much point, spirit, and ability.
The author animadverts upon the misrepresentation of Becan,
who for the King's supremacy substitutes primacy?
Becan would have his readers imagine that Andrewes and
King James were at variance respecting the Pope's being
Antichrist. We have already seen the opinion of both upon
that topic. The King only conceded, that whilst he held
to his own opinion respecting Antichrist, he would not place
his opinion thereon amongst articles of faith.3 Thomson
alleges the remarkable coincidence with Rev. xvii. of the
name long engraven on the Papal tiara, mystery. This most
remarkable circumstance, admitted by Lessius, himself a
zealous partisan of the Romish see, was denied by Bossuet,
who was exposed by M. Christian Gotthilf Blumberg in his
Exercitium anti-Bossueticum^ 1695, and again farther esta
blished in his Mysterium Papali coronce adscriptum, 1702,
against Dr. John Louis Hanneman, Professor of Medicine
at Kiel.
Thomson objects to Bellarmine the fact that the King
of Spain was by hereditary right invested with the entire
authority of a legatus a later e in the kingdom of Sicily, having
power to absolve, excommunicate, forbid appeals to Rome,
&c. This he proves by the very words of Ascanius Colonna,
one of the College of Cardinals, in p. 161 of his work upon
the kingdom of Sicily against Baronius.1
The author, Richard Thomson, was Proctor in 1612 of
Clare Hall, in which year occur also as Proctors, Stephen
Haget of Queens' College, and Henry Bird of Trinity Hall.2
This Thomson or Thompson is said to have been the same
with the author of another Latin treatise (unless indeed that
was a posthumous treatise), which was published at Ley den
in 1618, Ricardi Thomsonis Angli Diatriba de Amissione et
Inter cisione Gratice et Justifications , 1618. The author who
wrote in defence of Andrewes was incorporated of the Uni
versity of Oxford July 1, 1596, according to Wood, who at
the same time concludes his account of him with this obser
vation : u One of both his names was as a M. of A. of Cambr.
incorporated in this University 1593, which I take to be
the same with this," namely, the author both of the Elenchus
and of the Diatriba. However, our author, the author of
the Elenchus, is doubtless truly described by Anthony Wood
as a u Dutchman born of English parents," for he was an
eminent tutor at Clare Hall in 1604, prior to which the pious
Nicholas Ferrar was entered at that College. In a life
abridged from one written by Dr. Turner, Bishop of Ely, and
published in the Christian Magazine for July 1761 (p. 356),
we have the following notice of him and of Clare Hall at that
time. " In his (Ferrar' s) thirteenth year Mr. Brooks himself
(who kept a school near Newbury, Berkshire,) would needs
carry his young scholar to settle him in the University,
declaring that he was more than ripe for it, and alleging his
i loss of time if he staid any longer at school. He placed him at
• Cambridge at Clare Hall, famous for a set of the most eminent
men of their times in their several faculties ; Dr. Butler for
i physic, Mr. Lake, who was after advanced to be Secretary of
State, Mr. Kuggle (the celebrated author of Ignoramus] for his
exquisite skill in all polite learning, Dutch Thomson, as we
quote him still at Cambridge, Mr. Parkinson, and Dr. Austin
Lindsell, afterwards Lord Bishop of Peterborough, and at
last of Hereford, for their profound knowledge in divinity.
The last of these, who was the general scholar, was pleased
to receive a youth of such great hopes into his own tuition."1
The other Thomson, incorporated M.A. at Oxford in
1593, was Eichard Thomson of Trinity College, Cambridge,
B.A. 1587-8, M.A. 1591.
The Jesuit Becan was this year answered also by the
Rev. Hobert Burhill, of Corpus Christi College, Oxford,
whom Bishop Andrewes afterwards rewarded with the rectory
of Snailwell, in the county of Cambridge, and about three
miles north of Newmarket. Burhill's vindication of the
Bishop is entitled, Pro Torturd Tortij contra Martinum
Becanum Jesuitam^ Responsio Roberti Burhilli Angli. Lon-
dini : Excudebat Eobertus Barkerus, serenissimce, Regice Ma-
jestatis Typographus. Anno Dom. 1611. It is dedicated to
Prince Henry. In his epistle to the reader he mentions that
his references are to the Cologne edition of Tortus, 1608, and
to the London edition of the Tortura, 1609.
Becan had displayed the usual arts of his fraternity, and
in so doing sometimes contradicted Bellarmine whom he
professed to defend, by assuming a liberality inconsistent
with the ultramontanism of the Cardinal. He also dealt in
Pembroke Hall 1563, and M.A. 1566. He was born at Ipswich, and was the
most eminent physician of his age. Dyer in his account of Clare Hall has made
him the same with another benefactor to that foundation, noticing him as " John
Freeman Butler, Esq."* He attended Prince Henry in his last illness November
1612. He gave a chalice of solid gold for the divine service, and a handsome
carpet to cover the Communion-table, and also left by his will two curious
flagons, the one of crystal, the other serpentine tipped with silver, and all his
books in folio. There is a mural monument to his memory, with his bust, on
the south side of the chancel of Great St. Mary's, Cambridge. He died January
9th, 1618, in his 83rd year.
the popular misrepresentations of the royal supremacy, and
continually laboured to pervert the meaning of his oppo
nents. Burhill reminded him that whilst he had boasted of
having refuted both the King and the Bishop in regard of the
oath of allegiance, he had passed over a third author, George
Blackwell; whom not very long before Clement VIII. had
appointed arch-presbyter of England. Blackwell had written
to demonstrate both the equity of the oath, and the falsity of
the Papal claim to depose princes.
Becan studied insolence and invective, treating both the
King and our prelate with disrespect, and professing to
depreciate the learning and talent of the latter in his very
title-page, which ran as follows, Refutatio Torture Torti, seu
contra Sacellanum Regis Anglice quod causam Regis sui negli-
genter egerit, ' A Refutation of the Tortura Torti, or against
the Chaplain of the King of England because he had slight
ingly handled the cause of his King.' Burhill objects to him
the inconsistency of this charge of negligence on the Bishop's
part with his own admission, Si verba spectem satis cultus et
elegans es / si laborem ac diligentiam, non culpo otium: at
multa alia sunt quce non ceque probem? 'If I look to the
style, you are sufficiently ornate and elegant; if to the pains
and diligence, I have not to blame want of care. But there
are many other things which I cannot equally approve.'
Burhill justly charges Becan with making common cause
with those traitors, Nicholas Sanders and the proto-pseudo
martyr of the Jesuits in England, Edmund Campian. He
proceeds to remind Becan that not only the Gallican and
Venetian divines, but amongst the Spanish, Francesco de
Victoria, Dominic Bannes, Medina, Ledesna, and Sotus
denied that the clergy were jure divino exempt from the
I civil power, (p. 62). He maintains the royal supremacy on
I the now, alas, deserted doctrine that the end of Christian
government is somewhat higher than the advancement of
mere secular prosperity. The Church of Kome he does not
hesitate to charge with spiritual adultery as the scarlet whore
of the Apocalypse (purpurata meretrix). (p. 85.) He takes
notice of the perversion of Scripture by Baronius, who, stirring
up Pope Paul V. against the Venetians, admonished him that
the Apostle Peter's was a twofold office, to feed and to slay,
because it was said to him, Rise Peter , kill and eat. Acts x. 13.
(p. 85.) He claims for the Sovereign the right as well of dis
solving as of calling together ecclesiastical assemblies, and of
interposing to set aside useless controversies, and for the sup
pression of religious factions, (p. 106.) Also the power
of annulling unjust censures, and of nominating in eccle
siastical elections, (pp. 106, 107.) He denies to the Sove
reign the right of imposing canons by his sole authority,
or of condemning as heretical that which has not hitherto
been pronounced heretical, (p. 108.) He notices the extra
vagant claims of the Pope in the 7th section (p. 85) of the
Book of Ceremonies, to " all power in heaven and in earth."
(p. 109.) He recognizes the Augustinian idea of the invisible
church, namely, those who through internal grace are members
of the body of Christ, (p. 134.) He objects to Becan that
there is no unity in his Church in regard of essentials if
Bellarmine is to be followed, who repeatedly affirms that the
Pope's power of deposing princes is an article, nay, one of the
chief articles of the Catholic faith, (p. 145.) He refers to
various Komish writers who had taught the contrary, and
here he makes use of that great storehouse of Protestant
evidence, Flacii Illyrici Catalogus Testium Veritatis. (p. 146.)
Becan, he says, must needs confess that there are three preva
lent opinions respecting the Pope's dominion over princes, that
of Baronius and the Canonists, that the Pope is directly lord
of the world and judge of kings ; that of Bellarmine and of
the Jesuits, that he is so not directly but indirectly ; and that
of the Ghibelines and those who hold with them, that he has
no such lordship and authority either directly or indirectly,
(p. 147.) He exposes the historical falsehoods of Bellarmine
in the 21st chapter of his book upon the Sacraments in his
polemical works, and of Binius, at p. 1494 of the third volume
of the Councils, respecting the pretended submission of the
Greeks to the Church of Rome in the Council of Lateran 1215,
(by a mistake printed 1195, p. 152), and at the Council of
Lyons 1274, and thirdly at that of Florence in 1439.
Toward the end of this the 15th chapter Burhill with his
Sovereign applies the Apocalypse to the Church of Kome,
and in the great diminution of the revenues of that church
which ensued upon the Reformation, sees the commencement
of the punishmet predicted against that apostate communion
in the 16th verse of the 17th chapter, (p. 161.) In the 12th
chapter Burhill exposes the sanction which both Popes and
Jesuits had given to the assassination of Henry III. of France,
and the democratic doctrine of Bellarmine that kings derived
their rights from the people, the Pope from God alone, and
further illustrates the tenet that no faith is to be kept with
heretics, (p. 204.) He here takes occasion to expose the in
consistency of Becan, who in one place had admitted that
the Council of Constance had granted John Huss a safe-
conduct, and in another had denied that the Council had
made any promise to him. Burhill unveils the fallacies
by which Becan would with others blind the public to the
reality of this obnoxious tenet, and cites numerous autho
rities of the Romish Church who had insisted upon it:
Simanca, Conrad Brunus (1. iii. De Hcereticis, c. 15, n. 6, et seq.
in Tractatibus illustrium Jureconsultorum de Judiciis crimi-
nalibus sanctce Inquisitionis] , Francis Burchardt (in Autonomid,
parte iii. c. 13), Joh. Paul Windeck (in Deliberatione deHcere-
sibus extirpandw) , Ayala (De Jure Belli, 1. i. c. 6, n. 8), Molanus
(De Fide Hcereticis Servandd, 1. iv. c. 7) ; and so Cardinal
Hosius, in his Epistles to Henry King of Poland, " Never suffer
yourself by any consideration to be bound to the fulfilment of
those things that you have promised, because an oath ought
not to be an obligation of iniquity."
In the 20th chapter Burhill lays open the impious secret of
the whole history of Jesuitism, the utter prostration of mind
and conscience to the will of the superior, which forms the basis
of the Jesuit's preparation for his career of perfidy and crime.
So the Jesuit of old went forth to subjugate the world to
the Pope, as in after times he has been seen endeavouring to
subjugate Popes themselves to the greatness of his own order.
Our author, in an earlier section of his work, refers with the
highest commendation to Dr. Thomas Morton's Catholic
Apology for Protestants, 1. i. c. 9. Morton was then Dean of
Winchester, and was in 1615 consecrated to the see of
Chester, translated to Lichfield and Coventry 1618, and thence
to Durham in 1632.
On Wednesday, Christmas-day, our prelate preached be
fore the King at Whitehall, from John i. 14. Excellently
does he instance the force of the term flesh, as implying our
nature. So St. Augustine of holy Scripture, in the 2nd
chapter of the 14th book On the City of God: Scepe etiam
ipsum hommenij id est naturam hominis carnem nuncupat,
modo locutionis a parte totum significans? Nothing can be
more perspicuous than the manner in which Andrewes here
makes use of his learning, applies the Nicene Creed, and sets
forth the doctrine of the Church on this great article, the
union of the two natures in one person intended by the ex
pression, ' the taking of the manhood into God?
Beyond all praise is the simple pathos of his transition
from the doctrine viewed in itself to the doctrine in its relation
to us and to our nature, the wonderful humiliation which it
manifested in Christ, all that in the mystery of the incarnation
which is not simply the object of our faith but of our love.
It is perhaps true that the very faultiness of the style, the
continual mixture of English and Latin, yet frequently, as
here, adds to the point of those antitheses which are so touch-
ingly brought into our prelate's discourses.
Certainly the rejection of that simplicity, which in Bishop
Andrewes is always eifective because it spurns all elaborate
ness of construction and expression, gives to the best of our
modern sermons a comparative coldness and ineffectiveness
that cannot be too deeply regretted. Men scorn as over-
prettinesses what is too simple to be natural to them or to
the vitiated taste which they profess to esteem it their duty
to pamper. Upon such, with whom a preaching next to
foolish has the greatest attractions, the works of Bishop
Andrewes would be thrown away; they could not appreciate
that fertility of the imagination, that combination of simple
imagery, which, like the parables of our Saviour, is of uni
versal adaptation. Let the reader study the point so promi
nent in almost every sentence of this discourse. We may
read and hear many long and overstrained compositions, out
of which none shall be able to carry away so complete and
so concise a lesson as this of the grace and truth of the Word:
il Grace is to adopt us, truth to beget us anew ; for, of his own
will he hath begotten us, by the word of truth."
What are many of our sermons to this one paragraph?
tl Good hope we now have, that he being now flesh, all flesh
may come to him, to present him with their requests. Time
was when they fled from him, but ad factum carnem jam
veniet omnis caro. For since he dwelt amongst us, all may
resort unto him, yea, even sinners ; and of them it is said,
Hie recipit peccatores et comedit cum eis, He receiveth them,
receiveth them even to his table."
And here we will conclude this chapter. It is brief, and
comprises but one year of the life of our prelate; but we
cannot better end than with the mention and memorial of His
incarnation, who, by taking our flesh, assured us of his love,
that love in which is bound up our true, our eternal good.
For now " He seeth us daily in himself; he cannot look upon
his flesh but he must think upon us. And God the Father
cannot now hate the flesh which the Word is made."
CHAPTER XIII.
The Version 0/1611— Dr. Gell— Bishop Marsh — Luther— Tyndale—
Coverdale — Cranmer's Bible — Geneva Bible — Dr. Whitaker on
the Old Testament — Tregelles — Matthcei — Valla's Collations —
Complutensian New Testament — Erasmus — Stephens — His MSS.
of the New Testament — Beza.
IT was in the course of this year, 1611, that the present
Version of the Holy Scriptures appeared. I cannot pass over
this opportunity of attempting, however briefly and inadequately, to pay my passing tribute to this noble work, a work destined to abide the shock of peradventure one and another coming attack; a work well able to abide every effort of the innovating spirit of our own or future generations that may
be directed against it. The Rev. Frederick Henry Scrivener, M.A., who has now established his reputation for accuracy and completeness as a collator of the Biblical MSS. preserved in our own country, in his Supplement to the Authorized English Version of the New Testament* remarks of King James's version of the Bible: "I hardly need observe that it has received the highest panegyrics from Biblical scholars of every shade of theological sentiment, from the date of its
publication to the present time. For more than a century after its completion almost the only person of respectable acquirements and station who wrote against it, was Dr. Robert Gell, whose twenty discourses or sermons on this subject
(London, 1659, folio) I have not been able to meet with.
They are not in the British Museum nor in Sion College
Library. Judging from Lewis's description of the book,
my loss has not been great. Gell had taken up a foolish
and very unfounded notion that the Calvinistic bias of some
of the translators had a prejudicial effect on the version: but
Gal. v. 6 is the only text I can discover to which he objects
on this ground.2 The New Testament he thought to be
worse rendered than the Old, and he complains that the
order of the words in the original is wholly neglected (Heb.
x. 34). Lewis also mentions Matt. xx. 23, 1 John iii. 20, as
passages which Dr. Gell thought capable of improvement;
but if he gives us any" thing " approaching to a fair analysis
of the contents of these sermons, they never could have endangered the reputation of the translation which they as sailed."
[PARAGRAPHS OMITTED]
Dr. Dobbin published in 1854 a collation of this MS.
throughout the Gospels and Acts with the Greek text of
Wetstein and with certain MSS. in the University of Oxford.
Mr. Scrivener, whose accuracy is now established beyond
question, observes, from a careful comparison of this and the
celebrated Leicester MS., that we can hardly resort to the
Codex Montfort, as Tregelles suggests (Home's Introduction
to the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 216), for the readings of the
Codex Leicestrensis in those parts of the Apocalypse which
are defective in the latter MS."3
CHAPTER XIV.
Easter 1612 — Andrewes a Governor of the Charterhouse — His speech
concerning Vows — His Whitsunday sermon — Ordination at Down-
ham — His 5th of November sermon — And on Christmas-day —
Casaulorfs Answer to Cardinal Perron — Dr. Collins.
WE find Casaubon again with Andrewes on the 3rd of
February, 1612, in company with Overall, the only two
Englishmen with whom he says in his diary he was on terms
of intimacy.
On Maundy Thursday, April 9th, he dined at Ely House,
Holborn, with our prelate. He after dinner was present with
his wife at the washing of the feet of some poor men, quce fit,
he says, in hdc ecclesid egregie. In 1639 Charles is said to
have kept this day at York, where Wren, Bishop of Ely,
washed the feet of thirty-nine poor old men in warm water,
and dried them with a linen cloth. Afterwards Curie, Bishop
of Winchester, washed them over again in white wine, wiped,
and kissed them.
Our prelate, on April 12, Easter-day, 161 2, preached before
King James at Whitehall Chapel, from 1 Cor. v. 7, 8, on the
Christian Passover, deriving from this place the Easter
festival. He cites 2 Sam. xii. 13, according to the Vulgate,
The Lord hath transferred, or passed over thy sins, that is, to
another : and so the Septuagint. The death of the firstborn
passed over to the Lamb. Our souls are dearer to us than
our firstborn, and both our sin and curse pass over from us to
Christ.
The Passover was both sacrificed and eaten. But in rigour
of speech neither the Passover nor the Eucharist is a sacrifice ;
there is in the latter no immolation.1
And here Bishop Andrewes speaks explicitly against the
real presence of the present Via Media. He denies all eating
of Christ's glorified body. Let us keep the feast he refers to
the participation of Christ, not as glorified but as suffering.
" He, as at the very act of his offering, is made present to us,
and we incorporate into his death, and invested in the benefit
of it. If an host could be turned into him now glorified as
he is, it would not serve. Christ offered is it. Thither we
must look. To the serpent lift up, thither we must repair, even
ad cadaver" [to the dead body]. Thus a spiritual, not a real
corporeal presence was the doctrine of Bishop Andrewes.
Nothing can be more severe than his allusion to the mass ; he
calls it Anti- Christ's goat? Nor can this surprise us when
we reflect that he regarded that service as idolatrous, and
therefore antichristian.
Our prelate was appointed one of the first governors of
the Charterhouse, and one of the overseers of the founder's
will, in which capacity he attended his funeral in the chapel
of the Charterhouse May 28th. He also addressed a letter to
Button's executors, directing them to pay the sum of £10,000
for the repair of Berwick-bridge, in fulfilment of the provisions
of his will, which directed a certain sum to be applied to
charitable uses.1 Thomas Button, Esq., the founder, was born
at Knaith, near Gainsborough in Lincolnshire. About seven
years before his death he purchased the manor of Castle
Camps in Cambridgeshire, and resided there, and left it with
the advowson of the living to the Charterhouse. Dr. Nicholas
Grey, the first Master of the Charterhouse, was appointed to
the rectory. It is at present held by the Kev. George
Pearson, B.D., who after having taken his degree at Em
manuel College was chosen to a fellowship at St. John's, and
was made Christian Advocate in 1834.
In the Trinity term 1612 he delivered his speech in the
Star Chamber concerning vows, in the Countess of Shrews
bury's case. Elizabeth Cavendish, Countess of Shrewsbury,
was sent to the town on a charge of having been adviser to
Arabella Stuart, to whom she was aunt. She answered every
question that related to .herself only, but begged to be excused
answering to anything that could implicate her unfortunate
relative. The King ordered her to appear before certain
commissioners, who fined her to the amount of £20,000, and
moreover condemned her to discretionary imprisonment. The
Countess pleaded that she had made a vow not to answer.
Our prelate maintained its unlawfulness. A lawful vow he
defined l a deliberate promise to God made of something ac
ceptable to him.' The Countess had vowed thus, said Bishop
Andrewes, l 0 Lord, I promise thee that being never so law
fully examined, I will not answer,' but l if all should make the
like, not to answer any, then were justice quite overthrown and
could not proceed. The overthrow of justice can be no matter
of vow.' Such examination as that in question was warranted
by the law of God in Dent. xiii. 14, and xvii. 4. Again, God's
own practice was designed as a pattern to judges. He asked
Adam of his sin in Paradise. Herod and Jephtha both vowed
unlawfully. A vow ought not to be indefinite. David vowed
the like, to be the death of Nabal ; but upon better advice
(being put in mind by Abigail, it would be no scruple nor
upbraiding to his conscience if he shed no blood, and so kept
not his heady vow) he did not keep it.
He concludes, in the quaint manner of the age, with an
assurance that the Countess may safely vow never to make
any such vow more.
Upon May 31 he took his turn at the chapel on Whit
sunday, and preached from Acts xix. 1 — 3, upon the divinity
of the Holy Ghost, against the Socinians who were about that
time agitating their controversies in this country. Excellent
are his remarks upon the true Christian motives in distinction
from the merely political, moral, and philosophical. Whatsoever
is done from a selfish end, and from no higher, is not reli
giously done, but only that of which God is the centre, which
is done to his glory, and not for our own but for his name.
He quotes Isa. xxvi. 18, according to the Septuagint, and
Psa. li. 10 as it stands, not in the text but in the margin of
our authorized version, ' constant? The great impediments
to the coming of the Holy Spirit to us he sums up thus —
pride, lust, and malice, that is, every form of uncharitableness.
To invite the Spirit to us, he exhorts to the frequenting of
the sanctuary, to prayer, to the preached word and meditation
upon it, and to the sacraments. Of the Word he saith, " The
Holy Ghost is Christ's Spirit, and Christ is the Word. And
of that Word, the Word that is preached to us is an abstract.
There must needs then be a nearness and alliance between
the one and the other. And indeed (but by our default) the
Word and the Spirit, saith Esay, shall never fail nor ever
part, but one be received when the other is."
We find our prelate, at his palace at Downham on the 27th
July, writing as follows to Sir Thomas Lake :
"SIR, — Since my coming hither to Downham I have
received information from Mr. D. Felton, that the Bishop of
Chichester, waxing weary of his mastership of Pembroke
Hall, intendeth very shortly to make it over to one who, save
that he hath for (e) bid his turn (a man may say it in charity),
that many years hath (and this year especially) shewed himself
unworthy of such a place ; one Muriell, concerning whom the
Sub- Almoner can very well inform you. I wish the House
well, as I am bound. I know that wish well to D. Felton.
And his Majesty hath freely been pleased to signify his good
liking of him, and to wish him some preferment, and even
this place itself (if it like you to remember so much), upon
some occasion heretofore in this kind. The better sort of
Fellows do wish for him, and, as now it standeth, I might
say, the greater. But it is certainly intended by the Bishop
to make an election of fellowships before he gives over, that
shall be brought in only on condition to give their voice after
ward as he shall appoint them. I write you for no end but
only to set you about good works. And a blessed deed would
you do if you shall help the College (hitherto of good report)
and a worthy Master, such as I hope D. Felton would be ;
which otherwise is like even to sink and come to nothing if it
light not in the better hands. Sir, I desire you for his sake,
for mine, but specially for the College's, to add this to the
number of the rest of your good deeds, and prevent this evil,
and be a means that a good House may have a good head,
which I much desire, because then I shall be in hope once
more to see that College, which otherwise I am not like.
I prescribe nothing, neither doth it become me : but if his
Majesty please to interpose his authority or commendation,
there is conceived good hope, which in what sort it may best
be, none can better devise than yourself, to whom therefore
I leave it ; this being my desire that it may appear I have
not been wanting to my motion for the good of that poor
College. You shall, as for many others, so for this, look for
your reward at the hand of God, to whose blessed keeping
now and ever I commend you. From Downham in the Isle
of Ely, the 27th July, 1612, where I yet am in expectation
that from Gaines. I shall see you and my Lady. Utinam.
tl Yours ever to my power,
Very assured,
"L. ELIENSIS."
In August Bishop Andrewes was attacked with an aguish
fever, from being in the open air too late in the evening. To
this illness Isaacson, his first biographer, alludes where he
says, "He was not often sick, and but once till his last sickness in thirty years before the time he died, which was at Downham in the Isle of Ely, the air of that place not agreeing with the constitution of his body. But there he seemed to
be prepared for his dissolution, saying oftentimes in that
sickness, It must come once, and why not here? And at other
times before and since he would say, The days must come
when, whether we will or nill, we shall say with the Preacher,
I have no pleasure in them." To this illness Andrewes him
self alludes in his Latin letters to Isaac Casaubon, dated the
Vigil of St. Bartholomew, i. e. August 23rd, and the Nativity
of the Virgin, September 8th.
In the first Andrewes invites Casaubori to come with his
wife and revive his spirits, and exchange the great heat of the
metropolis for the cooler air of Downham. He cannot forego
a pun, a semi-double pun upon this subject, Nam Dunamias
mira caloris dSwafjula, nee sestus, quod sciam, ullus restate hac
tot&. He then refers, for a proof of his comparison, to his
illness occasioned by too late exposure to the evening air.
He urges him to devote his principal attention to his Exerci-
tationes in Baronium, and to pass over the tribe of inferior
writers whom Home had, as the Bishop observes, jesuitically
set on him to draw him off from his great work against Baro-
nius. He alludes by name to Erycius Puteanus, who, as the
editor of the eleventh volume of our prelate's works observes
in a note, had just published his Strictures in Casaubonum.
He makes no very favourable mention of Peter de Moulin,
and speak of his sirenlike influence with the King. He condemns the controversy then in agitation, as likely to lead to nothing but the introduction of new distinctions in the language of theology. I would rather, he adds, two or three
lines from antiquity than as many books of these men, which
savour of nothing but the love of novelty. He then expresses
his hope that the King may not intermeddle with these disputes, which in his opinion threatened to break out into a disease. He concludes with a cordial invitation to Casaubon to come now and see on his way Stourbridge Fair, the most
celebrated in all England ; or, if that will not induce him, the Hebrew copy of St. Matthew in the library of Corpus Christi College. He holds out to him the enjoyments of the country, the trial of his skill in deer-shooting, and promises
to detain him but a few days.
In his second letter, also from Downham, he expresses his
regret that Casaubon could not accede to his request, and says,
"I shall owe to London what I cannot have at Downham."
He again urges him respecting his work against Baronius,
and again advises him not to lose too much time amidsl
chronological questions of only secondary importance. He
alludes to Eichard Thompson of Clare Hall, and to his being
proctor that year ; Thompsonus valet, et novum magistratum
meditatur, in eoque totus est. He was in the same company
with Andrewes as one of the translators of the Bible. He was
intimate with Casaubon. Peter du Moulin, a French refugee
on account of religion, was collated by Archbishop Abbot to
the fourth stall at Canterbury in 1615.
On September 20th Andrewes ordained the following
deacons in the chapel of the Palace at Downham:
Theodore Bathurst, M.A., Fellow of Pembroke Hall.
Alexander Bolde, M.A., Fellow of Pembroke Hall.
Walter Balcanqual, M.A., Fellow of Pembroke Hall,
Dean of Eochester 8th March, 1625, and of Durham May 13,
1639. He was sent by the King to the Synod of Dort, died
on Christmas-day 1645, and was buried at Chirk in Denbigh
shire.
Bathurst was B.A. 1606, M.A. 1608, B.D. 1615, D.D.
1620. Bolde was B.A. 1607, M.A. 1610, and B.D. 1618 ;
chosen Fellow of Pembroke Hall 1610. Balcanqual was B.D.
1616, D.D. 1620. His supplicat for B.D. says, " 7 years after
M.A.," but no record exists of his B.A. or M.A. degree.
John Martin, Queens' College, Cambridge, B.A. 1609,
M.A. 1612.
On November 5 the King and Queen were absent from
the chapel at Whitehall on account of the illness of Prince
Henry. Our prelate discoursed excellently, but not without
some quaintnesses, from Lam. iii. 22, It is the Lord's mercies
that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
With no small skill does he by comparison illustrate the
greatness of this our national deliverance. He makes nume
rous allusions to the history of the plot, allusions such as may
for ever set at rest the artful misrepresentations which the Jesuits
of former and of the present time have invented to palliate this
truly Eomish atrocity. Thus he reminds his audience that
the conspirators were " bound" by oath, bound secondly "by
their sacrament of penance. Thither they went in an error, as
if it had been some fault ; but they found more than they went
for : went/or absolution, received a flat resolution. It was not
only no sin, but would serve to expiate their other sins ; and
not only expiate their sins, but heap also upon them an
increase of merit. In effect, that our consumption would
become their consummation. Bound last with the sacrament
of the altar and so made as sure as their Maker could
make it."
Andrewes attributes the unriddling of the celebrated letter,
to the King under the special guidance of God.
On the following day, November the 6th, between seven
and eight in the evening, Prince Henry died of an epidemic
fever.
On December 7th Bishop Andrewes was present at the
funeral of the Prince at Westminster Abbey. Archbishop
Abbot preached the funeral sermon from Psa. Ixxxii. 6, 7 :
/ have said ye are gods ; and all of you are children of the
Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of
the princes.
We find Andrewes preaching again at Whitehall on
Christmas-day from the Epistle for the day, and most chris-
tianly setting forth the condescension of the Son of God in
visiting our world, "as if a great prince should go into an
hospital to visit and look on a foul diseased creature."
Towards the end of this year appeared Casaubon's Answer
to Cardinal Perron. It was published in Latin, in quarto, by
John Norton, 1612, either in November or December. This
was a further exposition of his Majesty's faith, in answer to
the Cardinal who had withheld from him the name of Catholic.
The King professes to believe one Catholic Church made up
of many communions. He maintains an unity of faith and
doctrine, of charity and hope; but if any depart from the
integrity of Christian doctrine, he leaves Christ. From such
the Scriptures bid us depart. Cardinal Perron had quoted
largely from St. Austin. The King replies that the Church is
much changed from what it was in St. Augustine's days. Then
there was an unity of faith by which error could be easily
detected. But after the division of the empire the Church itself
also was divided. The King affirms that to be doctrine
necessary to salvation which is drawn from the fountain of the
Scriptures through the channel of the consent of the ancient
Church. Our Church has succession both of persons and
doctrines. The Church of England would willingly prove
before any free Council that her intent in the Reformation
was to restore the primitive model. We have departed from
the innovations of Rome, but not from the old Catholic
Church. We had a long time borne an intolerable yoke of
exactions which alone would have justified separation ; and
the Church of Rome had used against us both secret and
open violence, and received in her bosom and still cherished
the most manifest traitors and called them martyrs, and con
tended for their innocence daily against all laws human and
divine. The King notices Bellarmine's personal favours to
the conspirators, as indeed has been already observed.
The King animadverts upon the addition of auricular con
fession to the essentials of religion, and upon the enforcement
of celibacy, and traces the self-flagellation of the more religious
members of the Church of Rome to the custom of the priests
of Baal. He maintains the distinction of essentials and non-
essentials, and points out agreement in the few points that are
truly essential as the only way to unity. Those, he says, are
simply necessary which the Word of God expressly commands
to be believed, or which the ancient Church has elicited by
necessary consequence from the Word of God.
The King highly commends unforced and voluntary
celibacy, and here fails not to express his detestation of the
doctrine advanced by some of the Romish jurists and theo
logians, that concubinage and fornication are more tolerable
in a priest than marriage. The King had often said that, for
his part, he would never have dissolved monasteries if he had
found them faithfully abiding by their proper regulations.
With respect to what should be considered primitive
antiquity, the King is willing to have the first five centuries
after the Christian era so regarded, and the rule of Vincent
of Lerins admitted. But with respect to all appeals to
antiquity, his Majesty will nevertheless have the Scriptures
to be the sole foundation of faith, and only source from which
things necessary to salvation are to be drawn. The Fathers
he admits in the next order as expositors of what is in the
Scriptures, not as propounders of independent articles of
belief.
Upon the Keal Presence the authority of Bishop Andrewes
(before alluded to) in his second work against Bellarmine is
adduced as declaration of his Majesty's faith. Concerning the
sacrifice of the mass there is no proper sacrifice ; the Eu
charist is, as St. Chrysostom explains in his Homilies on the
Epistle to the Hebrews, not a sacrifice, but a commemoration
of one.
Touching prayers for the dead, praying for the rest and
peace of the departed was an early practice. This the King
confesses. So the ancient Church signified its belief in the
resurrection. li But although the English Church," adds the
King, " does not condemn this observance in the former ages,
it does not conceive itself bound now to retain it, and that for
many and most special causes : first, because it is persuaded
that the custom began without any precept from Christ. Again,
it cannot le proved to have been as old as the Apostles. Neither
were they such prayers as are now offered for the dead.
Lastly, the custom soon introduced superstition."
Of invocation of saints the King observes, that men have
been brought to repose more on the saints than in Christ, and
to fear to comply with his call, but first they must go to his
holy mother. So, instead of the Psalms men used the Hours
of the Blessed Virgin Mary^ and the Legends. Here his
Majesty takes occasion to condemn the Psalter of the Virgin.
The King firmly believes that the saints pray for us, but that
the practice of the Church of Eome in the point of invocation
is the highest impiety. The worship of saints the King dates
from the fourth century. His Majesty then in conclusion,
having answered Perron, objects to him and his communion,
the saying the divine service in an unknown tongue, the half-
communion, solitary masses, and the worship of images.
Under the first head he notices the opposition of the Eomish
Church to the translation of the Scriptures, the trouble into
which Benedict Kenatus was brought by his labours in that
way, and the confession of the Douay translators that they
undertook their version, "being forced by the importunity of
heretics.
Such is the King's answer to Perron, prepared indeed
probably in the preceding year, but delayed until the latter
end of 1612. It does not profess to enter upon the whole or
even upon the greater part of the Komish controversy. It is
full of deference to Christian antiquity, but that deference
is bounded by the true Protestant principle, that the Holy
Scriptures are the sole foundation of faith, and it is broadly
admitted that corruption of doctrine justifies departure from
the communion to which we might have before belonged.
Towards the end of this year appeared Increpatio Andrece
Eudcemono-Johannis Jesmtce} de infami Parallelo^ et renovata
assertio Torturce Torti, pro clarissimo Domino atque antistite
Eliensi. Auctore Samuele Collino, Etonensi, S. Theol. Doctorej
Eeverendissimo Patri ac Domino Arcliiepiscopo Cantuariensi
a Sacris. Excudebat Cantrellus Legge, inclytce Academics
Cantabrigiensis Typographus. Anno Salutis 1612.
The Parallelus of Eudsemon Johannes (L'Heureux) has on
the title-page this motto :
Cypr. 1. ii. Epist. 6, ad Martyres.
Steterunt Torti Torquentibus fortiores.
It is written in a virulent and abusive spirit. Its allegations
from history are minutely examined and exposed with that
combination of vivacity and learning for which Dr. Collins
was distinguished.
Dr. Collins maintained indeed, as Jewel had done before,
that Augustine was himself implicated in the destruction of
the British monks, as having counselled the war against them.
He observes that if even this is disclaimed, it is admitted that
as a prophet he foretold their massacre with approbation.
This cannot be denied, unless we conjecture that the predic
tion was but one of the many legends which Venerable Bede
credulously inserted in his Church History. It appears that
the reading now followed had been altered in some MSS. to
soften down the bitterness of spirit implied in this account
of Augustine. Ab hostibus was read by some, by others
ab eisdem, which Dr. Collins gives as the reading of two
MSS. in the library of Balliol College. The recent editor of
Bede, the Rev. Joseph Stevenson, Vicar of Leighton Buzzard,
gives A.D. 613 as the year of the massacre of the monks, upon
the authority of the Annals of Munster, according to Ussher.
Collins in his preface expatiates on the excellencies of his
patron Archbishop Abbot, and bears testimony to his having
reconciled many of the opposite party to episcopacy. He
describes his course as one of fidelity and integrity in every
diocese to which he had been promoted, and speaks of his
popularity as having been earned without descending to any
base expedients. He justifies the commendation of his sove
reign, who said of Abbot that it had not repented him that he
had made that man. It would indeed have been better for
James had he always retained the same regard for the Arch
bishop, or rather had his regard been more consistent.
CHAPTER XV.
Page 364
Casaubon — Daniel Heyn — Andrewes's Comparison of the Churches of
England and Rome — Whitsunday Sermon 1613 — The two Sacra
ments — The Nullity — Divine Right of Kings — Easter-day Sermon,
1614 — Rev. Norwich Spaceman — The Earl of Northampton — Of
the Royal anointing — Of the Jesuits — Archdeacon Wigmore —
Andrewes's Sermon on the name Immanuel.
ON the first Sunday of the new year, 1613, we find
Casaubon amongst those who received new-year's gifts from
the King, with whom he was upon the following Tuesday the
5th January. He was also with the King upon the following
Sunday, the 10th. On Saturday the 16th he saw the book of
Andreas Eudaemon Johannes (L'Heureux) against him, "a
book," he notes, " sufficiently worthless." On Sunday the
last day of January he was again with the King. On Tuesday
he was in great trouble, being unable to obtain from a friend
his MS. upon Baronius. From this trouble he was freed the
next day, when his papers were returned to him. On that
Tuesday also he was with the King. On Sunday the 7th
February he received the Holy Communion at the French
Church with his wife and daughter Joanna. This day brought
him to the close of his 54th year. On the 13th he was present
at the naval spectacle exhibited in honour of the marriage
of the King's daughter Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia, of which
he was also a spectator on the following day, Sunday the 14th.
He was again with the King on Sunday the 21st.
About this time he was engaged in preparing a treatise
upon the holy Eucharist and on transubstantiation, which was
to have been inserted into his Exercitationes in Baronium?
Upon the various subjects connected with the doctrine of the
Eucharist his mind appears from his diary to have been still
in an unsettled state. He seems to have imagined that the
doctrine of the Fathers considerably differed both from the
transubstantiation of the Church of Kome and from the
several systems of the Eeformed Churches. The probability
is that he had never devoted his time so uninterruptedly to
the study of theology, as to have had the opportunity of tran
quilly considering the whole controversy in all its length and
breadth. Of the Fathers he seems never to have made
himself at home with St. Augustine. He was a more
constant student of St. Chrysostom, an admirer of St. Basil's
Epistles, and read in Theodoret. His diary2 contains remarks
upon St. Ambrose on certain of the Psalms. He commends
the treatise of Augustine, De utilitate credendi. Dr. Morton,
Dean of Winchester, afterwards raised to the see of Durham,
cautioned Casaubon on one occasion of the injury he might
bring upon himself by his freedom of speech respecting the
presence of Christ in the Eucharist.3 Some on this account
suspected that he held with Eome, others with Luther. Mon
tague, Bishop of Bath and Wells, had animadverted upon his
conversation. However, his mind does not appear to have
been thoroughly convinced at any time upon this subject.
Thus toward the end of 1613, within a year of his death, he
notes in his diary, " To-day I read the Dialogue of (Ecolam-
padius on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and admired his
learning and expertness in the Greek Fathers. I would by
no means have missed reading it. Thanks to the Lord Jesus.
Amen." He moreover was anxious that his son Meric should
not disown the Reformed French Church, but communicate as
well with that as with the Church of England.4 He was, not
withstanding some manifest waverings even after his coming
to England, attached to the cause of the Eeformation, and
especially to the Church of England. But his reverence for
patristic learning alienated him from Du Moulin and many of
the French Protestants. He was too ready to magnify the
obscurity of Scripture, and gathered rather too precipitately
from Cyprian and Tertullian, that which did not exist in their
days, auricular confession.1 In short, he addicted himself to
no system.
On the 24th February 1613 we find Bishop Andrewes
thus addressing the Right Hon. Sir Dudley Carleton, then
Ambassador at Venice.
" MY VERY GOOD LORD, — The speech which hath passed
between Mr. Chamberlain and me was but matter of ordinary
talk, such as might very well have received satisfaction on
my part without this trouble of your Lordship. But since it
hath liked your Lordship to vouchsafe it so much pains,
I cannot but be glad, for by this means I am honoured by
letter from you. As it falleth out when new things happen
(such as this was) enquiry is made into the occasions of them.
Howbeit, of this partie I think no man, surely myself never
made the reckoning, as I hold it, for any great matter, whether
it were won or lost. There be some other there where your
Lordship is, whom I hold for other manner" [of] "men, of
whom I would have been glad seriously to have understood
the course, if I had been so happy as to have had speech with
the gentleman your Lordship's Secretary more than once, or
yet with Mr. Chamberlain, whom I see nothing so often as
my desire is. And as for that he hath lately written, I think
it will not be thought much ever to see the light, unless upon
some matter (as they use to term it). The revising of the
Council of Trent were a matter of much better consequent,
being performed as it is hoped, there to be. God certainly,
and to man's reason under him, Princes must take up this
business, and by other means than by the pen. Whereunto
happy shall the Embassador be that shall be the minister and
otherwise co-operate to it. My Lord, the less hable I am,
and more am I bound to thank you for your honourable and
kind offers. I found great courtesy at your Secretary's hands
with all due respect. But the times will require much at
tendance, and he, I know, will be loth to omit any that may
the leastwise hinder the affairs in his trust. Were mine
ability higher ought,1 or of any moment, I would most
willingly offer it to be disposed by your Lordship ; and such
as it is, I do offer it, if it may be in any ways fit to be used
by you. Praying your Lordship to accept these poor lines in
pledge thereof, I so, with my very loving remembrance, com
mend you to the blessed keeping of God, who send you that
honor and reputation that is meet there, and that happie
return hither which you desire.
" At my house in London,
" 24 Feb. 16 jf styl. Anglic.
" Your Lordship's
" Ever very assured,
"L. ELIE."
On Thursday the 12th of March Casaubon called on the
French Ambassador, Bishop Andrewes, and others.
On the 20th he was agreeably occupied with the reading
of Pacian.2
On the 23rd March he was invited by the Prince, the son
of the Margrave of Baden, and was afterwards detained for
some time from his studies in most agreeable conversation
with Grotius.
The 1st of April Casaubon was in consultation with An
drewes.
On the 4th April, and not on the 8th (as it is by a mistake
in the folio edition), being Easter-day, Bishop Andrewes
preached excellently before the Court at Whitehall from the
Epistle for the day, Col. iii. 2, upon the spiritual resurrec
tion that must, in this life, precede the resurrection of the
body. We must cry to him who rose this day to draw us
after him, and not leave us still in our graves of sin. The
soul must first rise, and then draw the flesh upward with it.
" For, as well observeth Chrysostom, these two were not thus
joined (the spirit and the flesh I mean) that the flesh should
pull down the spirit to earth, but that the spirit should exalt
the flesh to heaven."1
He reminds his courtly audience how all are ready to seek
on earth the things above, as the sons of Zebedee sought a
place on earth at Christ's right hand, " not so much as good-
wife Zebedee' s two sons (that smelt of the fisher-boat), but
means was made for them to sit there."
In the following we meet with his own peculiar force and
ingenuity : " And if Nature would have us no moles , Grace
would have us eagles to mount where the body is. And the
Apostle goeth about to breed in us a holy ambition, telling us
we are ad altiora geniti, born for higher matters than any
here : therefore not to be so base-minded as to admire them,
but to seek after things above. For, contrary to the philo
sopher's sentence, Quce supra nos nihil ad nos. Things above
they concern us not ; he reverses that ; yes (and we so to
hold), Ea maxime ad nos, They chiefly concern us." The
things, he says, we chiefly seek, are with Christ above ; rest
and glory. Most felicitously does he observe that it is only
in heaven that these are found in union. Here rest is in
glorious, and glory is restless. There they dwell together,
and that for ever and ever.
The 5th and 6th April Casaubon was with the King. On
Wednesday the 7th he dined with Overall at the Deanery,
St. Paul's, with his wife and Grotius. Much conversation
passed between them. On Thursday the 8th Grotius called
upon Andrewes at Ely House. There were present Dr.
Steward, about this time Fellow of All Souls' College, having
been a Commoner of Magdalene Hall, Oxford, in 1608, Dr.
Kichardson, Master of Peterhouse, the Kegius Divinity Pro
fessor at Cambridge, and another divine. Archbishop Abbot,
who mentions this meeting in a letter to Sir Ealph Winwood,
adds that Grotius surprised them all by his freedom and
loquacity.2
On Friday the 9th Casaubon was at court, and complains
that he lost part part of the day. On Sunday the llth he
was at the Royal Palace at Greenwich with the King, to
gether with his wife and part of his family.
On the 12th we find Casaubon writing to Daniel Heyn,1
and making mention of the admiration in which both the
King and Bishop Andrewes held the learning of Grotius.
He entreats that Heyn will not be in London in the months
of July, August, and September, during which Andrewes
was from the metropolis. Our prelate had expressed his
earnest desire to see Heyn.
In Wolf's Casauboniana we have the following remi
niscence of his conversations with Andrewes and Overall.
The Bishop of Ely and Dean of St. Paul's often told me that
he (the learned Dr. Whitaker) at the beginning held the
Fathers and the ancient Church in great esteem, and approved
that doctrine which was based upon their unanimous agree
ment. But when upon his marriage into the leading family
of the Puritans he wholly cultivated their intimacy, he all of
a sudden began to confine his admiration to Calvin ; and I
have often heard the Dean of St. Paul's affirm, that when
serious disputes arose at Cambridge amongst the theologians,
some defending the new, others the old doctrine, he more than
once went to Whitaker and asked him the reason why he
preferred the opinions of Calvin alone to the consent of the
ancient Church, he at length had proceeded so far as to say
expressly that he was prepared to defend all the opinions of
Calvin, and that it was his purpose to take an opportunity of
so doing."2
Whitaker, according to Gataker in Fuller 'sAbelRedivivus,
was twice married. Both his wives were women "of good
birth and note." One was of the Thoresby family, descended
from an uncle of Ralph Thoresby, the antiquary of Leeds.3
We have seen that Overall took a middle course between the
teaching of Whitaker on the one hand and the Semi-Pelagians
on the other. The reader will find a reference to this topic in
the 5th chapter of this volume.
There have been those who looked upon Casaubon as but
comparatively ill employed upon theological controversies.
He could not, with his bias to classical learning and devoted-
ness to it, do equal justice to the vast fields of ecclesiastical
history and dogmatic theology. In his diary he frequently
complains of the difficulties in which he found himself involved.
A remarkable instance we have in p. 1018,1 " In Cypriani loco
una ecclesia, una Cathedra, haesi, et conatus sum lucem afferre,"
I was in difficulty respecting that place of Cyprian, 'one
church, one see,' and endeavoured to obtain that which would
throw light upon it.
This passage, taken from Cyprian's Epistles, was alleged by
Cardinal Bellarmine in the 16th chapter of his second book
of Controversies, and is fully treated of in the 36th chapter of
Field's Book of the Church.
" There is," saith he, tl one God, one Christ, one Church,
one chair founded upon Peter by the Lord's own voice. No
other altar may be raised, nor other new priesthood appointed,
besides that one altar and one priesthood already appointed.
Whosoever gathereth anywhere else scattereth. (Cyprian's
8th Ep. 1st book.) Surely it is not possible that the Cardinal
should think, as he pretendeth to do, that Cyprian speaketh of
one singular chair ordained by Christ for one Bishop to sit in,
appointed to teach all the world. For the question in this
place is not touching obedience to be yielded to the Bishop
of Kome, that Cyprian should need to urge that point, but
touching certain schismatics which opposed themselves against
him ; and therefore he urgeth the unity of the Church and of
the chair, to shew that against them that are lawfully placed,
with consenting allowance of the pastors at unity, others may
not be admitted ; and that they who by any other means get
into the places of ministry, than by the consenting allowance
of the pastors at unity amongst themselves, are in truth and
in deed no Bishops at all. So that Cyprian, by that one chair
he mentioneth, understandeth not one particular chair ap
pointed for a general teacher of all the world to sit in, but the
joint commission, unity and consent of all pastors, which is
and must be such as if they did all sit in one chair."1
On Tuesday, April 13, Bishop Andrewes preached at
Greenwich previously to the departure of Prince Frederic, the
Count Palatine, and his consort Elizabeth. His text was
Isaiah Ixii. 5. He contends against our present Version that
it should be thus read, And the bridegroom shall rejoice over
the bride, and thy God shall rejoice over thee. In the Bidding
prayer which follows the introductory portion of the sermon
he includes the Churches that are in Great Britain and
Ireland, and the two Palatinates. In the sermon itself he
deduces the worship of the Romish Church from Samaria*
Not so certain in our day who profess a most inconsistent
veneration for our prelate. In treating of the espousals with
Sion, he draws a brief sketch of the Church of England and
contrasts it with that of Rome, and in language at which those
who advocate the recently cast up Via Media would shudder.
Of Jewel's Apology he remarks, ' En ecclesiae nostrae Apolo-
giam vere gemmeam? He proceeds, u Go round about Sion
and survey her. One canon reduced to writing by God
himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils,
five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period, the
three centuries that is before Constantine and two after,
determine the boundary of our faith. Those whom the old
Catholic Church without the new patchwork of the Romish
does not suffice, those whom the aforesaid (bounds) do not
suffice, without drinking to the very dregs the abuses and
errors, to say nothing of fables and frauds which afterward
began to possess the Church, let them enjoy them."
Bishop Andrewes proceeds : " Let them espouse themselves
to God by a faith not written ; Sion (it is certain) was not so
espoused. Let them adore they know not what in their reliques,
and so in their hosts. This comes from the mount of Samaria,
not from Mount Sion. Let them pray, let them perform their
rites in a language they know not, without understanding,
without edification (if the Apostle had a right understanding
of the matter). Not thus did Sion pray ; these are not the
songs of Sion. Let them call upon him in whom they do
not believe ; let them resort more assiduously and frequently
to saints in whom they do not believe, than to Christ. It was
not thus in Sion. Let them prostrate themselves and bow
themselves before a painted or a graven likeness. Sion would
have rent her garments at this. Let them halve the Eucha
rist ; in the supper of Sion it was never thus taken, but only
whole. Let them there adore the divinity concealed under
the species and made from the bakehouse [de pistrino factum].
Sion would have without doubt shuddered and started back
from this."
" What when they adore their Pope placed and sitting
upon the altar ? when they set up a man (to use the mildest
terms) encompassed with infirmities, often illiterate, often
unclean, very often and at this time a mere canonist,1 when
they set up such an one for a pillar of faith and religion, as
one who is, to wit, infallible. Would Sion have endured
this?"
On Sunday the 18th Casaubon, after attending the Frencl
Church with his family, was first with the King and after
wards with his " most beloved Grotius." Casaubon appears
to have concealed from the King his partiality for Bertiu
and Arminius and their party ; a partiality perceptible in hi
diary, in which in 1611 2 we find, "To-day I was much en
gaged in reading the treatises of Arminius, a subtle theologian
and, as I have heard, an excellent man." And again at page
896, " I saw the epistle written by King James to the State
against Vorstius, Arminius, and Bertius, full of the stronges
invective. Arminius he calls the enemy of God, and him anc
Bertius lost heretics. I commend the zeal of the illustriou
Sovereign in the cause of religion, but we know that grav
and most learned men by no means think thus of Bertius anc
Arminius."
On Monday the 19th he spent some hours with Overal
and with Grotius. Grotius supped with him. On Tuesday
he was again with Grotius and the French and Dutch Am
bassadors.
On Monday the 26th April he dined with the genial and
kind-hearted Morton, who had been promoted from the
Deanery of Gloucester to that of Winchester in 1609, when
Abbot, afterwards Archbishop, was raised to the see of
Lichfield and Coventry. He notices in his diary the erudition
displayed in Morton's works against both the Puritans and
Papists. Morton shewed him the art of preparing potable
gold, a liquor distilled from beaten gold, or elixir. The
principal ingredients, says Casaubon, which they use are
white salt, the most pungent vinegar, and some third sub
stance. The elixir was drunk before dinner, diluted in wine.
Casaubon tasted it, and found it not ungrateful to the palate.
On Tuesday the 27th Casaubon was again with the King.
On the following Sunday he and his children with him were
with the King, after he had taken the holy Communion with
his family.
On Tuesday the 4th of May he went to the King and to
Archbishop Abbot and other friends to take his farewell
previously to leaving London for Oxford. On Thursday he
went to Eton to the learned Provost, Sir Henry Savile, who
on the Friday took him to Oxford in his carriage. On the
same day he went over most of the Colleges and Halls,
" admiring the piety and magnificence of our ancestors."
On Saturday he completed his survey of the Colleges, and
after dinner heard a disputation in the schools, at which Dr.
Abbot presided, whom he describes as a man of the most
eminent learning.
On Sunday the 9th he heard two learned discourses as
far as his imperfect knowledge of our language could gather.
He dined with Dr. William Goodwin, Dean of Christ Church.
Dr. Goodwin or Godwyn had been made Prebendary of Bole
in the church of York, by that excellent prelate Archbishop
Piers, September 7, 1590, which stall he resigned on being
promoted to the Chancellorship, October 25, 1605, by his
learned and pious successor, Archbishop Hutton. He was
installed Dean of Christ Church September 13, 1611, and
was by the eloquent Dr. King, Bishop of London, made
Archdeacon of Middlesex September 23, 1616. After serving
the office of Vice-Chancellor four times he died June 11, 1620,
in the 65th year of his age, and was buried in the chapel
immediately to the north of the choir of Christ Church. He
had succeeded Bishop King in the Deanery.
Casaubon was Sir Henry Savile's guest at Merton College
until Monday the 10th, when the Dean received him at the
deanery, Saville leaving Oxford the same day.
On Tuesday Casaubon visited the Bodleian Library, and
there perused and made some extracts from ChoniateV
Thesaurus Orthodoxies.
On Wednesday he resumed his perusal of Choniate in the
Bodleian, and was present at a Latin sermon and some dis
putations in the divinity school. He devoted some hours
also to Hebrew with a very learned Jew whom he found
there. "So," he writes, "I console myself for the absence
of my wife, of whom I have yet received no intelligence. But
do thou, 0 Lord, keep her and my whole house in the fear of
thy name." Casaubon was a man of the most affectionate
spirit. He had a most congenial partner in his wife, and his
life appears to have been bound up in hers.
On Thursday he heard the discourse of a very learned
man, but with regret that he could not perfectly understand
it. Afterward he dined with the Vice-Dean and several other
very eminent persons in the hall of Christ Church. This
forenoon he gave to the reading of the Talmud. After dinner
he completed his perusal of Choniate. He looked through Leo
& Castro on Isaiah. This author, who flourished in the 16tl
century, undertook to set up the text of the Septuagint above
the Hebrew. Casaubon also looked through the Comments
of St. Basil upon Isaiah, with which he was much pleased,
remarking that it extended only to the 16th chapter, and
observing that it was not however to be compared with that
by St. Chysostom, also imperfect. He had completed the
perusal of this latter in July 1611. In his diary he remarks
that in this work Chrysostom has surpassed himself. The
Friday was taken up with the study of Hebrew and with
Basil on Isaiah.
On Saturday he was again in the divinity school, and says
that nothing ever gave him such satisfaction upon the subject
of faith and works as did Abbot, afterwards Bishop of Salis
bury. In his Casauboniana we have the following, Thomse
distinctio vera \fides justificat causative, opera justificant osten-
sive, "Faith justifies as a cause, works as giving evidence."1
And as Cranmer defended the language of the Reformation
upon justification from the Fathers, whom he had carefully
and deeply studied, so does Casaubon derive from them the
tQim justification by faith only, which he observes rests upon
similar passages of the ancients, in Ambros. Rom. iii., Basil,
Sermon on Humility, Chrysost. on Rom. iii. 26, Hilary on
Matt. viii.
Sir Henry Savile's edition of Chrysostom in eight folios
appeared this year. Casaubon vindicates St. Chrysostom on
the doctrine of justification, and refers to his discourses on the
Epistles where he gives his interpretation of our Lord's giving
himself a ransom for us, 1 Tim. ii. 6. Estius refers to the
commentaries of Hesselius for the doctrine of Augustine, Leo,
Chrysostom, and other of the Fathers on the mediatorship of
Christ. Suiceri Thesaurus and Petavii Dogmata Ecclesiastica
will also assist the enquirer into this head of patristic theology.
Wolf, in his notes to his Casauboniana , also refers for the
doctrine of St. Chrysostom on justification, to Du Pin, and
to Dr. Mayer's Chrysostomus Luther anus 1680, which he
maintained in a second and apologetic treatise in 1686 against
John Francis Hack a Jesuit. For a general collection of
patristic testimonies, Wolf refers to Menzer's Exegesis Augus-
tance. ConfessioniSj art. 4; Dr. John Gerhard's Loci Communes
Tlieologici; and Helvicus in Vindicatione Locorum Vet. Testa-
mentij p. 181.
On Sunday the 16th Casaubon attended at the University
Church both morning and afternoon, and dined in the hall of
Magdalene College, where the day was observed with a
sumptuous entertainment. The President of that noble
College was Dr. "William Langton, who had succeeded Dr.
John Harding November 19th, 1610.1
On Monday the 17th Casaubon was engaged upon the
first volume of the Councils edited at Home, and dined with
Dr. Abbot at Balliol College, who gave a splendid banquet
to his guests. After dinner Casaubon devoted some hours to
the perusal of some of the works of Claude D'Espence. This
celebrated author, who died in the 60th year of his age in
1571, incurred censure by maintaining that the primitive
Church paid no worship to images. His commentaries on the
Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, and his writings
on the Eucharist, obtained for him no small celebrity in the
Romish communion.
On Tuesday the 18th Casaubon gave a part of his MS.
into Abbot's hands, and another portion to the Dean of
Christ Church, that he might have the benefit of their judg
ment and revision.
On Wednesday he was unwell, and was attacked with
dizziness in the morning on his way to the Bodleian Library.
He however heard a Latin sermon and an act in the divinity
school.
On Whitsunday the 23rd May he received the holy Com
munion at the Cathedral from the hands of the Dean, attended
the two sermons preached before the University, and bade
farewell to his friends.
Upon Whitsunday Bishop Andrewes, preaching at White
hall, discoursed upon Eph. iv. 30. He familiarly illustrates
the words from the six men in the 9th chapter of Ezekiel, sent
to set a mark upon the foreheads of those who sighed and cried
for all the abominations of Jerusalem, and from the angels in
the Apocalypse who were not to execute their awful commission
until the chosen number had been marked with the seal of the
living God. And so of the Passover he observes, u The
Lamb slain, there is redemption ; the posts stroken with
hyssop dipped in the blood, there is the signature.
Bishop Hall and the inimitable Dr. Richard Sibbes have
also written upon this memorable passage, Grieve not the
Spirit.
Andrewes quaintly speaks of some who are but label-
Christians, u content with a label without any seal to it all
their life long. And of those label-Christians we have meetly
good store. As the Spirit of God they like him well enough
to have their breath and life and moving from him, yea,
arts and tongues too if he will ; but as the Holy Spirit, not
once to be acquainted with him."
The seal of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper he declares
to be supplementary of the defect of the seal of Baptism, that
where that can be set to but once and never repeated more,
this other should supply the defect thereof, as whereby if we
have not preserved the former figure entire and whole, we
might be as it were new signed over again."
On Monday the 24th of May Casaubon left Oxford and
arrived at Sir Henry Savile's, Eton. Upon Tuesday he left
Eton for London. On Wednesday he dined with the French
Ambassador. On Trinity-Sunday, the 30th, after attending
service at 7 A.M., he waited on the King, who received
him, as was his wont, very graciously. In the evening he
supped with the Lady Killigrew and some other friends. On
Sunday the 6th of June he waited on the King again, as he
was accustomed on that day, and so on the 13th. On the
16th his Exercitationes against Baronius began to appear in
print. On the 19th and on Sunday the 20th he was again
with the King. On the 23rd the Jewish teacher left him
whom he had brought with him from Oxford. On July 6th
he was the whole day in the College, Westminster, with the
Dean of Christ Church. On July 9th he spent some hours
with two eminent persons from the Netherlands, Relbe and
Scholiers, who narrated the sufferings of their countrymen
from Jesuit tyranny. On July llth he was with the King at
Theobald's. July the 13th his little daughter Mary met with
a sad casualty. But amongst the many domestic cares that
weighed upon his mind in the absence of his beloved partner
at this time, he was refreshed with the sight of his infant son
James. The reader will bear with me for recording, though
occasionally, instances of Casaubon's domestic life and depth
of affection. Those are traitors to learning and science who
will not bend to the amenities of social life, and evince no
sympathy with that humanity, which is ever less ennobled by
knowledge than by love. On the 24th, by command of his
royal master, he made choice of some volumes from the library
of the late Prince Henry. On the 31st he paid his respects to
Prince Charles.
On the 1st of August he with his daughter received the
holy Communion. On the 2nd he resolved to return to his
treatise on the holy Eucharist (which he had laid by for some
time), with the hope of inserting it in this edition. On the
4th he laid aside again all thoughts of resuming that treatise
for the present.1
On the 1st of September he was cheered by the return of
his wife. On the 5th they happily received the holy Com
munion together with their daughter Gentilis. On the 7th
he was with Archbishop Abbot, and learnt from him the
apostacy of his friend Charrier to the Church of Kome. Dr.
Benjamin Charrier had been chaplain to Archbishop Whitgift,
and composed the epitaph on his monument in Croydon
church. When Dr. William Barlow was raised to the see
of Lincoln, Dr. Charrier or Carrier succeeded him in the
seventh stall of Canterbury. On the 19th he waited on the
King and had much and important conversation with him
upon various subjects.
On September 19 Andrewes ordained at Downham Edmund
Topcliffe, M.A., deacon, and John Martin, M.A., priest. Top-
cliff and Martin, both of Queens' College, Cambridge, were
both B.A. 1609, and M.A. 1612.
In the course of this year (1613) T. F., i. e. Thomas
Fitzherbert, a Jesuit, attacked our prelate's Answer to Bel-
larmine in a sophistical and scurrilous Adjoinder to the Sup
plement of Father Parsons Discussion, quarto, to which he
annexed his attack upon the Bishop, in which he refused him
his episcopal title, entitling it A Reply to Dr. Lancelot
Andrewes' Absurdities in his Answer, &c. This truly Jesu
itical writer was born at Swinnerton, between Stone and
Eccleshall in Staffordshire, and was son of William, fourth
son of Sir Anthony Fitzherbert, of Norbury near Ashbourn,
the celebrated lawyer. His parents were zealous Papists.
He was called home from Oxford when the Pope forbad those
of his communion to attend the established worship. In
1572 he was imprisoned for recusancy. After his release he
absconded, went to London, and there entertained Father
Parsons and Father Campian, whom he assisted with all
conveniences on their arrival in England 1580. He retired
with his lady into France in 1582, and there pleaded for
Mary Queen of Scots with the King of France. There his
wife died. He went into Spain to serve the interests of his
Eomish countrymen at the court. He attended the Duke of
Feria in his tours. At Rome he studied for the priesthood
at the English College, and being ordained priest, was made
agent for the English clergy, and so continued twelve years to
1609. He joined the Jesuits in 1614, the year after he had
written against Bishop Andrewes, and was answered in 1617
with great learning and ability by the deeply erudite Dr.
Collins, Provost of King's College, Cambridge, and Regius
Professor tof .Divinity. In 1621 Fitzherbert wrote his 01-
tumesce of T. F. to the Epphata of Dr. Collins, who also took
up his pen against Fitzherbert in his Pseudo-Martyr in defence
of the Oath of Allegiance. Lond. quarto, printed by John
Donne. He died in 1640,1 Master of the English College at
Rome.
On September 25 sentence of divorce was pronounced by
which a separation ensued between the Earl of Essex and the
Lady Francis Howard, daughter of the Earl of Suffolk. This
affair had occupied the commission about four months, the
King meanwhile repeatedly complaining of the delay, and
interesting himself in the progress of the investigation in a
manner that reflected little honour upon him. It was but
too evident that the whole was a device to indulge the lawless
passion of the royal favourite Kobert Carr. Much was
expected from Bishop Andrewes from his known learning
and skill in casuistry, but he was extremely reserved and
seldom appears to have given an opinion during the whole
period of the enquiry. But it was ever observed of him that
he was slow in answering and resolving questions, being wont
to defend himself with those words of St. James, Let every
man be slow to speak, slow to wrath.1 The pliant Neile was
constantly upon the watch for opportunities of recommending
himself to the favour of the King, and of injuring the primate
Abbot, whose integrity shone forth from first to last. The
part which both Neile and Buckeridge, Neile' s creature, took
in this most undignified and unpopular affair, doubtless tended
in no small degree to confirm in their disaffection to the Church
such of the laity as were inclined to the Puritans, and was a
great stumblingblock in the way of the more thoughtless and
irreligious of the courtiers. These especially made sport of
the subservient Neile, whose folly appears to have been as
highly estimated by the King as all the wisdom and learning
of Bishop Andrewes.2 Abbot relates how on one occasion the
latter would have absented himself, but the King commanded
his attendance.3 The primate still urged that a reconciliation
of the parties should be set on foot ; but Andrewes spoke
against it on the ground that it was now too late, and might
only give occasion to some deadly practices of the one against
the other. The Countess proved herself in the event equal to
any atrocity. Thus far our prelate was almost prophetic;
but the advice of Abbot, though perhaps less politic, was
more in accordance with his character as a Christian and his
office as a bishop.
Twofold evidence exists to shew that at the first Andrewes
was disinclined to the Nullity, and it was at the very time
attributed to the endeavours of his royal master that he
altered his judgment.1 Archbishop Abbot observes, "My
Lord of Ely for a great while was in dislike of the separation,
(as I have credibly heard he opened himself to Sir Henry
Savile) until such time as the King spake with him, and then
his judgment was reformed. But truth it is that amongst
us he said nothing."
At the last there were found for the divorce Andrewes,
Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, Neile, Bishop of Lichfield and
Coventry, Buckeridge, Bishop of Kochester, Sir Julius Cassar,
Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Parry, Attorney-General,
and Sir Daniel Donne, Master of the Requests. These met
and pronounced the sentence of Nullity September 25. The
remaining Commissioners not agreeing to the sentence ab^
sented themselves, namely, Archbishop Abbot, Dr. King,
Bishop of London, Sir John Bennet, Dr. Francis James, and
Dr. Thomas Edwards. Fuller in his Worthies notes that an
intimate friendship subsisted between his father (for some time
a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,) and Bishop Overall
(of the same College). Hence probably he learnt the anec
dote which he has inserted in the tenth book of his Church
History, and which is corroborated by Abbot's Narrative
touching the Divorce : lt Bishop Overall discoursing with
Bishop King about the divorce, the latter expressed himself
to this effect : ' I should never have been so earnest against
the divorce, save that because persuaded in my conscience of
falsehood in some of the depositions of the witnesses on the
lady's behalf.'"2
The divorce was effected : the guilty parties were united
in adulterous bonds with great solemnities. The murder of
Sir Thomas Overbury by poison soon discovered that profli
gacy was not their only guilt. They were spared the utmost
severity of the law, but lived in mutual hatred and disgust,
an exemplary punishment to each other. Thus ended the
career of Kobert Carr, Earl of Somerset. Pitiable it is to
find the name of Andrewes in any way connected with that
of individuals so unworthy of the ill-placed regard of his and
their royal master. But it is not my object to erect an idol.
It cannot be justified that so upright as Andrewes un
doubtedly was in many respects, he should have given his
sanction to the Nullity.
On October 16th Casaubon was again with Andrewes.
On November 5 he preached upon the divine right of
kings, from the words of Solomon, or rather of God by him,
By Me kings reign. Usurpers he excepts from the kings
here spoken of, adducing the 4th verse of the 8th chapter of
ffosea, They have set up kings, but not by Me : they have made
princes, and 1 knew not."1' He fails not to condemn in the
most pointed language the pretended power of the Pope to
loose this Scripture, By Me kings reign, and after his custom
makes a personal address to the King. His style sometimes
betrays him into mere verbal arguments, and he so handles
his text as to leave out of sight that it is he who removeth as
well as setteth up kings.1 A commission was given for the
setting aside of Jehoram, and even for his death.
Upon Christmas-day our prelate preached at Whitehall
from our Lord's words, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see
my day, and he saw it, and was glad; but a sermon upon the
same words, and less broken, may be seen in his Orphan
Lectures.
These lectures have not been reprinted in the Library of
Anglo- Catholic Theology. In the concluding volume of that
edition of Andrewes it is alleged that there does not appear
sufficient evidence to justify me in ascribing the sermons, at
least in their present form, to Bishov Andrewes. (p. Ixxvii.)
No reason is given by the editor for this remarkable assertion.
I believe that this is the first time that these remains of
Bishop Andrewes have been called in question. A careful
perusal of the whole volume would have led the editor, if
indeed he was capable of sympathizing with his author, into
the full conviction that the substance of the volume was
attributable only to Andrewes ; neither is there any reason to
doubt that the sermons are given as accurately as a taker of
notes could have given them.
The author of the Preface, T. P., supposed to have been
Dr. Thomas Pierce, who at the Kestoration was made Presi
dent of Magdalene College, Oxford, fully admits the genuine
ness of these fragments and their excellence, although he
would have it believed that the Bishop was not always of the
same mind in theology, but changed, as we know did some of
his contemporaries. He professes to reprove the printer for
publishing that which he nevertheless recommends to the
perusal of the reader.
There is however no ground for admitting that Bishop
Andrewes ever changed his theological principles. Neither
is there in these posthumous Lectures any contrariety to the
teaching of those discourses which were put forth by Laud
and Buckeridge. There is not less patristic learning, not
less variety of imagination and illustration in this volume
than in the greater folio. There are the same excellencies
and the same defects, yet the latter are perhaps not so per
ceptible or so frequent in the posthumous fragments, as they
are in his more finished compositions.
Dr. Pierce would undoubtedly have withheld his services
altogether from the publishers of this volume, had it not been
known to him as the work of Andrewes. He calls the lectures
" these sacred fragments." " But having said thus much in
veneration of the author, to whom the printer hath offered
this well-meant injury, I have something to allege by way of
apology for the printer, by whose devotion of care and cost
these sacred fragments were thus collected. He knew the
fame of the author was so transcendently high, and placed so
far out of the reach of spite or envy, defamation or disgrace,
that he supposed it a lesser crime thus to communicate these
lessons as now they are, than to deprive posterity of their
advantage. He looked not so steadily upon the name and
credit of the author, as upon the interest and good of souls.
He thought the reader would esteem it, not only as an excus
able but as a commendable transgression, which being no
way injurious to more than one, will redound to the benefit of
many thousands."
Andrewes, on March 20th, 1614, admitted both to deacon's
and priest's orders on the same day the celebrated Joseph
Mede, M.A., at Ely Chapel, Holborn. Dr. Worthington, the
excellent Master of Jesus College, Cambridge, in the time of
Cromwell, relates that Mede, by his Latin tract De Sanctitate
relativd, &c. so gained the esteem of our Bishop, that Mede
shortly after having need of the King's favour concerning his
election to a Fellowship, Andrewes stood his firm friend, and
not only maintained his right then, but afterwards desired
him for his household chaplain. Mede declined this honour
that he might more fully enjoy his beloved retirement in
Christ College, Cambridge. It was reserved to a late Master
of that College, the late Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Kaye, to erect
a memorial in the College chapel, of Mede, More, and Cudworth
Very excellent is his Easter-day sermon, April 24, 1614
from the second chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Philip-
pians, on the voluntary humiliation of Christ and his exaltation
But it may well be questioned whether he does not fall into
error in regard of the words, u and hath given him a name,'
which he explains after the schoolmen, of the grace of union
or of Christ's human nature being united or assumed into the
Godhead. Well does he observe that this very name of Jesus
is one of the names of God, for beside him is no Saviour.
This whole passage is well illustrated in Dr. Waterland's
Lady Moyer's Lectures.
Upon the following Sunday the Kev. Norwich Spackman
preached before the King at Whitehall, from those words of
our Lord, But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have
mercy and not sacrifice, for I am not come to call the righteous
but sinners to repentance. The preacher, who was educatec
at Christ Church, Oxford, was chaplain to the Hon. Dr. James
Montagu, the munificent Bishop of Bath and Wells ; was foi
some years Vicar of Mitcham, and twenty-six years Kector
Merstham in Surrey, where he died July 1617, and was
buried in the chancel.1
Upon this Sunday, May 1st, Casaubon's son Meric received
the holy Communion, for the first time after the order of
the Church of England, at the hands of Bishop Andrewes,
who had previously examined and confirmed him. Casaubon
received with his son, and admired the adherence of Bishop
Andrewes to the ancient pattern. Probably he means his
mixing water with the wine, and breaking of the bread,
according to his own Consecration Service.
On Thursday May 5th Andrewes was appointed to meet
at eight A.M. in the Painted Chamber on a committee upon
an Act for the preservation and increase of wood and
timber.
On Sunday May 22nd Andrewes wrote as follows to the
Hon. Sir John Ogle, Knight, Lord Governor of the Forces at
Utrecht :
" MY LORD, — It happened that your letter with the book
came unto my hands at such time as the Parliament or Con
vocation began ; busy times, as you may easily conjecture.
There needed no excuse concerning the sending thereof. I
do esteem both of them (but especially your letter) as a singular
courtesie, and a great honor done unto me, and therefore do
remain, and will continue, much beholding unto you for the
same. I have read over the book with such diligence as time
would permit me. In the mean time it happened that Sir
George Douglas, of himself and of his own accord making
both acquaintance and the conference, began to discourse of
the book and the binding and the contents thereof, further
adding, that it was sent to be presented to his Majestic as
soon as I had read it over, and so insinuating himself as if
before he had known that such a book was delivered, but was
remaining in my hands. Wherefore as soon as I thought
myself able to give a sufficient reason unto his Majestic con
cerning my reading of it over, if in case it should be enquired,
I presented the same unto his Majestic (yet not without the
knowledge and consent of Mr. Latham), in whose hands it is
still, and hath been for the space of fourteen days. But I
think that the businesses of this present Parliament are so
troublesome that he hath had very little or no leisure for the
reading thereof; for as yet he never spoke anything thereof
unto me in all my service and attendance upon his Majestic,
which if he had leisure, I make no doubt but he would have
spoken of it. Neither do I think that as yet there will be any
leisure for the reading of anything of. that subject. Although
otherwise of himself he is wonderfully inclined thereunto,
yea, more than any Prince else in the world. And if, may
be, at any time he shall declare himself hereafter, and speak
his meaning concerning that book, I shall not fail (with the
first occasion that shall present itself) to acquaint you there
with. And peradventure your meaning is that I should tell
you my opinion thereof. Indeed Uitenbogard is well known for
a very learned man, as are most that are in those parts, and has
shewed himself no less herein ; and Mr. Douglas, his translator,
for his part (if I give any judgment) is not behind him with the
same. But yet to the end I deal plainly with you, for I know
that it is your desire that I should do so ; I deny not but that
there are divers passages in the book which I should not
lightly approve, or can condescend thereunto, but yet with
such a dissent as may be between Christians and brethren,
which at this present I cannot fully express myself. Like as
Mr. Latham lately for me and can sufficiently declare unto
you, for now at this present it is in the heat of the business
which until this present have gone forward but slowly wherein
my presence and attendance is so required, besides other
accidents, that I scarcely had leisure (being spoken unto by
Mr. Latham before his departure) to write this letter. I hope
hereafter to have better occasion. Until then and ever I will
be ready to perform any acknowledgment that shall be in my
power, and to shew with how great and hearty kindness I
attempt this same, in that it hath pleased you after such a,
manner to write unto me, and so to begin the first foundation
of our acquaintance, which I wish may never end so long as
life shall last. Thus very heartily recommending you with
all yours unto the protection of the Most High, I take my
leave.
" From the Court at Whitehall this 22nd May, 1614.
" Your Lordship's
" Very faithful
" LANG. ELIE."
Uitenbogardt (Johannes Vytenbogardus) was Professor of
theology and preacher at Leyden. He died in his 49th year
in 1609. The work alluded to in this letter was De Officio
Magistrates circa Sacra. This brief notice of him is taken
from Henning Witte's Diarium Biographicum, 1688.
On the 23rd Casaubon, at this time a sufferer from
strangury, dined at Ely House with Andrewes.
Upon Monday the 30th of May Andrewes was appointed
to meet at eight A.M. in the Painted Chamber with King,
Bishop of London, Neile, Bishop of Lincoln, Bridges, Bishop
of Oxford, and Montagu, Bishop of Bath and Wells, upon a
Bill which had been read a second time on the 26th for
punishing divers abuses committed on the Sabbath-day called
Sunday.
On Whitsunday, June 12th, he preached before the King
an excellent sermon at Greenwich, from Thou art gone up on
high, Psa. Ixviii., one of the best of his Whitsunday sermons,
full of the vitality of Christian doctrine. Let the reader
observe how weightily he describes our captivity under sin ;*
how touchingly he passes on to the gifts of this day.2 Of
that captivity he says, in a manner utterly foreign to those
who are content to learn but one or two instead of the thousand
lessons they might gather out of his works, t( If any have felt
it, he can understand me, and from the deep of his heart will
cry. Turn our captivity, 0 Lord"
He alludes in this sermon to God's wonderful deliverances
of our nation in 1588, and afterwards from the Popish Plot :3
the fruits of this deliverance have outlived our national
memorial of it.
At the breaking up of the Parliament the peers agreed
among themselves to give their best piece of plate, or the value
of it, in a present of money as a speedy benevolence to supply
the King's wants. The Archbishop of Canterbury began with
a basin and ewer, and redeemed it with £140 ; Bilson, Bishop
of Winchester, gave as much ; Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, £120.
This year died that most unprincipled and hypocritical
nobleman, Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton. He lived
a concealed Papist, was extremely forward in conducting the
trial of the Gunpowder conspirators, and prosecuted a man in
the Star Chamber who had called him a Papist. Archbishop
Abbot is said to have stayed the prosecution by producing
a letter of the Earl's to Bellarmine, owning his secret ad
herence to Popery. In the old family mansion at Compton
Wingates is a curious chapel in the roof, partitioned off for
the celebration of Romish worship. Mr. Howitt, in his Visit
to Remarkable Places, appears ignorant of its origin, as
he has overlooked the history of this time-serving individual.
It might have been erected by him. How remarkable
a sign of the times is it that the work here alluded to, the
work of one professing himself to be a member of the
Society of Friends, should yet laud the ages of superstition,
and commend even Romanism itself in some of its external
seductions, seductions of an openly antichristian character !
Such is the inconsistency of false liberality.
Casaubon had been informed on the 13th of December
that he was in danger of strangury. From that time his
health was in a state of perpetual fluctuation. The 23rd,
24th, and 25th of March this year he was confined to his bed.
On the 27th he revived, but was again a great sufferer on the
30th. He was on the 29th of May obliged again to consult
his friend and physician, De Maierne. Again on the 18th of
May he was compelled to betake himself to his bed. At
length from the 14th of June his complaint gradually pre
vailed, until on the 1st of July it terminated his earthly
career. Bishop Andrewes has left us a brief notice of his
last illness.
The ten days preceding his death he gave entirely to
spiritual things, and after signing his will his soul was alto
gether engaged upon God and heaven. He felt within himself
the harbingers of death. He died on Friday July 1st, after
he had received the Eucharist in the morning at the hands of
Bishop Andrewes. He then desired the Nunc Dimittis to be
recited, and took part himself, although his voice was failing
and the effort was a trial to him. Although he suffered much
the two last days, nothing escaped his lips but what was in
harmony with his profession as a Christian. Finally he gave
his blessing to his children and all his household. He then
composed himself to rest, and scarcely spoke afterwards. He
expired after five at noon. His remains were deposited in
Westminster Abbey before the entrance to Henry VII. 's
chapel, and were followed to their last resting-place by six
Bishops, two Deans, and almost all the clergy of the metropolis.
The sermon was preached by his faithful friend Dr. John
Overall, who had on the 3rd of April been consecrated to the
see of Lichfield.
Bishop Andrewes wrote the above narrative for the infor
mation of their mutual friend Daniel Heyn, whom he instructed
to deny the false reports of Heribert Rosweyd the Jesuit, who
gave out that he wavered in regard of his religion to the last.
He had published, shortly before Casaubon's death, a book
entitled Lex Talionis Duodecim Tabularum — The Law of
Requital of the Twelve Tables. It was intended as a reply
to his work against Baronius, and to destroy the influence of
Casaubon's name by taxing him with insincerity, dwelling
amongst other things upon the allegation that he had promised
Cardinal Perron that he would join the Church of Eome at
Whitsuntide 1610.1
On August 5th, the anniversary of the Gowrie Conspiracy,
Bishop Andrewes was in attendance upon the King at
Burleigh-on-the-Hill near Okeham. Here the King was
entertained in his first journey into England. It was then
the seat of Sir John (afterwards Lord) Harrington. His son
succeeded to his title and estates in 1613, but died in 1614.
It was afterwards purchased of the heirs by the favourite
Villiers.2 Our prelate in his anniversary sermon made the
following quaint but ingenious allusion to the first words
of his text : lt I have found David my servant ; with my holy
oil have I anointed him." " The colours of the crown are
not water colours to fade by and by ; they be laid in oil to
last and hold out all weathers. So in oil, not in water.
" And in oil, not in wine ; that is, no acrimony, nothing
corrosive in it. It is gentle, smooth, and suppling, all to teach
them a prime quality of their calling, to put in oil enough to
cherish that virtue, that the streams of it may be seen, and
the scent to be felt of all. For that will make David to be
David, that is (as his name is) truly beloved.
" Oil, and holy oil ; holy, not only to make their persons
sacred, and so free from touch or violating (all agree of that),
but even their calling also. For holy unction, holy function.
Now this holy oil troubles the Jesuit shrewdly and all those
that seek to unhallow the calling of kings. For if the holy
oil be upon them, why should they be sequestered quite from
holy things more than the other two that have but the same
oil?"
He proceeds to say that his holy oil is more than material
oil in the prophet's horn or in the priest's phial : " his drops
immediately from the true olive, the Holy Ghost." But
would he have said that all kings were so anointed? Cer
tainly not. Yet is there great significance in the application
of the emblem which we know is divinely appointed, and has
continued to this day, and not without that very design and
moral and spiritual mystery so well insisted on by our
prelate.
On the 25th of September Bishop Andrewes ordained
Richard Fletcher, M.A., and Humphrey Tovey, M.A. deacons,
and Edmund Topcliffe, M.A. priest, at Downham, in the chapel
of the palace there.
Richard Fletcher was of St. John's College, Cambridge,
B.A. 1608, M.A. 1611 ; Tovey was Fellow of Trinity College,
Cambridge, 1611, M.A. 1614, B.D. 1626, and died May 1st,
1640.
In his sermon on Saturday, 5th of November, on My son,
fear thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with them
that are given to change, he condemns both the policy of the
Romanists who put into their martyrology such as attempt
the life of kings, and the over-boldness of the Presbyterians
who observed but little modesty in their intercourse with
princes. Toward the end he thus satirizes the Jesuits : " Will
ye hear some new divinity, how some Fathers here with us
counselled their ghostly children ; the Fathers of the Society,
their sons of the Society, the wicked society of this day?
You shall see the text turned round about clean contrary,
* My sons, fear God and the Pope, (so is the new edition) ; and
as for those that would fain change things here, do meddle
with them, say Solomon what he list. Lo, a greater than
Solomon; you know where. He (as yet it stands in the gloss
to be seen) made this book of Proverbs authentical by citing
it ; and as he made it, can unmake it again at his pleasure.
Nothing in it shall bind you.' Here is the counsel crossed.
u But then how shall we do with the latter verse ? For
that take no thought. Where he tells you (this Solomon) of
destruction, it is nothing so. On with your Powder Plot
notwithstanding. You shall be so far from this (he tells you)
that if aught come to the plot or you otherwise than ye wish,
it shall be no destruction : no, but a holy martyrdom. And
guis scit f Who knows the blessed estate you shall come to
by these means ? But martyrs you shall be straight upon it
in print. And who knows whether there may not be wrought
a straw miracle to confirm as much, if need be ?
" But to put you clean out of doubt for your meddling,
you shall have of us the Fathers of the Society to meddle in
it as well as you, to make up this holy medly with you ; to
confess you, to absolve you, to swear you, to housel you, to
say mass for you, and to keep your counsel in all holy equivo
cation. You see what work was made ; how the matter was
used with this Scripture when time was ; how the Fathers of
the Society took this Father by the beard, and affronted him
and his counsel in every part of it."
On November 26 Bishop Andrewes preferred Daniel
Wigmore,1 B.D. of Queens' College, Cambridge, to the first
stall in his church at Ely. He had been ordained deacon and
priest on the same day by Bishop Heton at Downham Decem
ber 28, 1602, was made a minor canon of Ely (Dr. Tyndale
being then Dean and also President of Queens' College) in
1605, Master of the Grammar School in 1609, and in 1611
Divinity Lecturer of the Cathedral, an office most probably
conferred in those days only upon individuals well qualified
by their theological erudition to discharge its duties. It is
remarkable that he held his minor canonry together with his
prebendal stall. The first stall he quitted for the second in
March 1616, exchanging with the learned Dr. John Boys.
In that same year he was doubly preferred by Bishop An-
drewes, being made by him Archdeacon of Ely, and on the
3rd of December Rector of Northwold, between Thetford and
Downham Market.1 He was also for some time Eector of
Snailwell near Newmarket, and in the troublous times retired
to his estate at Little Shelford near Cambridge, where he
died, and was buried in 1646. He had purchased the manor
of Little Shelford of the son of Sir Toby Pallavicini.2 Gilbert
Wigmore, D.D. by royal mandate in 1661, was Eector of
Little Shelford early in the following century, and one Daniel
Wigmore appears as B.A. of St. John's College, Cambridge,
in 1702.
Upon Sunday December 18 Andrewes, being then at his
palace in Holborn, consecrated Walter Balcanqual, M. A., James
Wedderburn, M.A., and Richard Fletcher, M.A., priests in Ely
Chapel. Wedderburn was born at Dundee. He was one year,
says Antony Wood, at Oxford, for the benefit of the University
Library there. On August 26, 1615, Bishop Andrewes collated
him to the Vicarage of Waterbeach, which he exchanged in
1616 for that of Harleston or Harston, between Cambridge
and Royston. He was after this Vicar of Mildenhall, Suffolk,
and in 1626 Prebendary of Ely.1 On May 26, 1631, also
Prebendary of Whitchurch in the church of Wells, which
stall he retained till his death. That at Ely he resigned.
He was made Professor at the Scotch University of Aberdeen.
He was chosen to the see of Dumblane March 28, 1635, but
not consecrated until February 11, 1636. His abode in
Scotland was of no long continuance. He appears to have
been unfavourably received there, and is charged with inno
vating in the Semi-Pelagian direction. He therefore returned
to England. He died probably at Canterbury September 23,
1639, and was buried in the Cathedral in St. Mary's, now
called the Dean's Chapel, a very elegant addition to that
Cathedral, built by Prior Goldstone who died in 1468. His
epitaph is as follows : u Reverendissimus in Christo Pater,
Jacobus Wedderburnus, Taoduni in Scotia natus ; sacelli regii
ibidem Decanus; denique Dunblanensis sedis per annos iv
episcopus; vir antiques probitatis et fidei magnumque ob
excellentem doctritfam patrise sues ornamentum H. S. E.
Obiit An. Dom. MDCXXXIX. 23 die Sept. ^Etatis Liv."2
Upon Sunday, Christmas-day, Bishop Andrewes preached
before the King at Whitehall his truly Christian discourse
upon the name Immanuel. Here he saith : tc I shall not need
to tell you that in nobiscum (with us) there is mecum (with
me). Out of this generality of with us in gross may every one
deduce his own particular with me, and me, and me. For all
put together make but nobiscum (with us)." Then citing the
first verse of the thirtieth chapter of Proverbs, according to the
Vulgate, he adds, " The wise man out of Immanuel, (that is)
God with us, doth deduce Ithiel, (that is) God with me, his
own private interest. And St. Paul, when he had said to the
Ephesians, of Christ, l Who loved us and gave himself for us
might with good right say to the Galatians, ' Who loved me
and gave himself for me.'" He proceeds to observe that we
cannot estimate the force of these words with us aright, unless
we consider what we should have been without him ; also that
he is a sign both from above and from beneath, from above as
God, from beneath as man. He is with us not in nature only
as man, but even as sinful man. Though not like us in sin,
he is by unity of person with us even here. So St. Paul said,
he was made sin.
li With us to eat butter and honey seemeth much, and it is
so for God. What say ye, to drink vinegar and gall ? This
is much more I am sure ; yet that he did. I cannot here say
with uSj \\\ifor us ; even drank of the cup with the dregs of
the wrath of God, which passed not from him that it might
pass from us, and we not drink it.
" This, this is the great with us ; for of this follow all the
rest. With us once thus, and then with us in his oblation on
the altar of the Temple ; with us in his -sacrifice on the altar
of the cross ; with us in all the virtues and merits of his life ;
with us in his satisfaction and satis-passion both of his death;
with us in his resurrection to raise us up from the earth ;
with us in his ascension to exalt us to heaven ; with us even
then when he seemed to be taken from us, that day by his
Spirit as this day by his flesh."
Thus full of devout affection, the true spirit of holy elo
quence, was this good bishop and reverend father of the English
Church : if that name be at all applicable to mortal pastors,
then rarely better bestowed than upon him.
CHAPTER XVI.
Page 395
Bishop Andrewes with the King at Cambridge 1615 — His Easter
Sermon — Bishop Wren — Andrewes' Sermon on our Lord's Bap
tism — j)r. John Bois, Prebendary of Ely — Bishop Andrewes'
Sermon on the 5th of November — Dr. Balcanqual — Bishop An-
Sermon on Micah v.
THE first transaction in which we find our prelate engaged
in 1615 was an ordination on the 25th of February (probably
at Ely Chapel, Holborn) when he ordained William Beale,
M.A., deacon, and Christopher Wren, M.A., afterward Dean
of Windsor, and Thomas Macarness, M.A. of King's College,
priests. William Beale was B.A. not of Pembroke but of
Jesus College, Cambridge, 1610, M.A. 1613, B.D. 1620, and
D.D. 1627. He has been said, but probably without authority,
to have been Archdeacon of Caermarthen, and to have been
collated to that preferment 3rd January, 161f , but he was not
ordained at that time. The name is given in Le Neve as
Beale or Beeley. He was brother to Jerome Beale, Fellow of
Pembroke Hall 9th October, 1598, and Master in 1618. He
was born in Worcestershire, perhaps at Beoley in that county,
whence we find his name spelt both Beale and Beeley.
As his brother had been removed from Christ College to
Pembroke Hall, so had he from Trinity to Jesus College.
He was a native of Oxfordshire (according to Sherman), and
was admitted a Fellow of Jesus College in 1611. As a tutor
he was celebrated for the many pupils of illustrious rank
whom he had brought up. He was made Master of Jesus
College July 14, 1632, by Dr. Francis White, Bishop of
Ely, in the place of his unworthy successor, Dr. Eoger
Andrewes, who for his misrule was the aversion of his College,
and whom nevertheless we find loaded with preferments by
his brother the Bishop ; a point which as it cannot be com
mended, so neither ought it to be concealed.
In 1633 Dr. Beale was removed hence to the Mastership
of St. John's College. He was made Eector of Cottingham
near Buckingham in Northamptonshire, and on October 31st,
1637, of Paulerspury near Towcester, on the presentation of
the King, being in high favour with Laud, and accounted an
Anti-Predestinarian. He was deprived of his Mastership
March 13, 1644, and nominated to the Deanery of Ely 1645,
but never put in possession. Having taken part in gathering
and conveying the plate belonging to the University to the
King, he was, with Dr. Sterne, Master of Jesus College, and
Dr. Martin, Master of Queens' College, carried prisoner to
London. After having been in prison some time, but under
three years, the period assigned in Carter's History of the
University of Cambridge, he fled to Madrid in company with
Lord Cottington, the King's Ambassador. He is there said
to have lived in his family. He died at Madrid October 1st,
1651, and being denied Christian burial, was privately buried
in the Ambassador's garden.
Thomas Macarness was B.A. 1610, M.A. 1614, of King's
College, Cambridge.
The King in very disadvantageous weather visited Cam
bridge with the Prince of Wales, afterward King Charles I.
fl The King made his entry there/' wrote Mr. Chamberlain to
Sir Dudley Carleton then at Turin, " the 7th of this present
[in March] with as much solemnity and concourse of gallants
and great men as the hard weather and extreme foul ways
would permit. The Prince came along with him, but not the
Queen, by reason, as it is said, that she was not invited,
which error is rather imputed to their Chancellor than to the
scholars, that understood not these courses." The Chancellor
was Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, Lord Treasurer. He
had been elected 8th July, 1614, on the death of Henry
Howard, Earl of Northampton, and held that office till his
own death, May 28th, 1626. He was Thomas Lord Howard
of Walden before he was advanced to the title of Earl of
Suffolk by James the First in 1603. He was the son of
Thomas, fourth Duke of Norfolk, (who was beheaded on
Tower Hill in 1573), by his second wife Margaret, daughter
and sole heir of Thomas Lord Audley of Walden, K.G.
and Chancellor of England. He was restored in blood by
Act of Parliament in 1584, and in 1588, being in that
memorable engagement of the Spanish Armada, was by the
Lord High Admiral knighted at sea for his good services
therein, and made by Queen Elizabeth Lord Howard of
Walden. In the neighbourhood of Saffron Walden he built
the very noble and once extensive mansion called Audley
End. James made him first his Chamberlain, and afterwards
Lord High Treasurer. He built Audley End, designing it
for a palace for his sovereign ; and when it was completed with
all the taste and elegance of that magnificent period, the King
was invited to see it, and as he passed to Newmarket he took
up a night's lodging there ; when, after having viewed it with
great astonishment, he was asked by the Earl how he approved
of it. He answered, "Very well, but troth, man, it is too
much for a King, but it may do for a Lord High Treasurer;"
and so left it upon the Earl's hands, who is reported to have
had then an estate of £50,000 per annum. However Charles II.
purchased it, and so it became and continued a royal palace
until the reign of William III., who, finding that there was
great truth in the remark of King James, regranted it to the
family of its founder. Henry Earl of Suffolk hereupon pulled
down the greater part of it. The Earl died at Suffolk House
(which occupied the site of the present Suffolk Street) in
Westminster, May 28, 1626.
To return to the royal visit. The Lord Treasurer is said
to have expended a thousand pounds a day on this occasion.
His family appear to have constituted no small part of the
spectacle, there being few or no noble ladies present but such
as were of his own kindred ; as Alethsea the Countess of
Arundel, youngest daughter and coheir of Gilbert Talbot,
seventh Earl of Shrewsbury, married to Thomas Howard
Earl of Arundel j1 her sister the Lady Elizabeth Grey, the
Earl of Shrewsbury's second daughter, married to Sir Henry
Grey, Lord of Kuthin, son of Charles Grey, Earl of Kent ;2
the Countess of Suffolk (the Earl's second wife), Catherine,
eldest daughter and coheir of Sir Henry Knyvett of Chorlton
in Wilts, Knt. ;3 with her daughters, namely, Frances her second
daughter, not long after too well known by her divorce from
the Earl of Essex and subsequent marriage with Robert Carr,
Earl of Somerset ; and Catherine, Countess of Salisbury, the
third daughter of the Countess of Suffolk f together with the
Lady Walden, Elizabeth, daughter and coheir to George,
Lord Hume, Earl of Dunbar ;5 and lastly, Elizabeth, daughter
and sole heir of William Basset, Esq., after whose death she
was married to William Cavendish, Duke of Newcastle.6
Fuller relates that the King's entertainment at Cambridge
cost the Earl of Suffolk five thousand pounds and up
wards ;7 and Chamberlain that the Earl spent twenty-six tun
of wine in five days. He lodged and kept his table at St.
John's College, but his lady and her retinue at Magdalene
College, of which her grandfather Audley, Lord Chancellor,
was a kind of second or co-founder. To him the College owes
its present name, having been previously called Buckingham
Hall (1519) from Edward Stafford, third Duke of Bucking
ham. The King and Prince Charles lay at Trinity College,
where the plays were represented. The hall was so well
ordered for room, that above two thousand persons were
accommodated.
On the first day, Tuesday the 7th of March, the King
attended a Divinity Act which was kept by Dr. Davenant,
Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity and President of
Queens' College. He disputed on three questions. Nulla
est temporalis Papce potestas super Reges in ordine ad bonum
spirituale. The affirmative had been maintained by Bellar-
mine (lib. v. De Rom. Pont. cap. 6), who professed to mode-
rate the doctrine taught up to his time respecting the power
of the Pope, by changing his dominion over all things into an
indirect instead of a direct power. Augustinus Triumphus,
of the order of Eremites of St. Augustine, of the country of
Ancona, and who was present at the Second Council of Lyons
in 1274 (called the Fourteenth General Council, when a
forced union of the Greek and Latin Churches took place
under Pope Gregory X. and the Emperor Michael Palgeologus,
and which lasted but a few years owing to the imperiousness
of Pope Martin IV.), had taught without reserve the direct
dominion of the Roman Pontiff over the whole world in
things both political and ecclesiastical. In this he had been
followed by Alvarus Pelagius, a Spaniard of the Friars
Minorites, Penitentiary to the Pope and Bishop of Corunna,
early in the next century, and many others. Bellarmine indeed
only threw a veil over the monstrosity of the papal claims by
asserting an indirect in the place of a direct dominion. Others
however continued to affirm the Pope's dominion in the more
undisguised form, as Augustinus Steuchus of Eugubium or
Gubbio (at the foot of the Apennines above Perugia), who
died in 1550, and a host besides, whose names are given in Dr.
John Gerhard's Confessio Catholica.1 Bellarmine, whilst he
learnedly refuted the older opinion, as Dr. Field shews at
length in the 44th chapter of his 5th book Of the Church, gave
back to the Pope with his left hand all that he appeared to
take from him with his right ; grounding his power to depose
princes and to dispose of their kingdoms on his right in
or dine ad lonum spirituale, " that is, in a kind of reference to
the procuring and setting forward of the spiritual good."
This claim the learned Dr. Field exposes and refutes in the
45th and 46th chapters of his 5th book.2
In this Act the eminently learned and pious Davenant,
afterward Bishop of Salisbury, was answerer, and the muni
ficent and very able Eegius Divinity Professor and Master of
Peterhouse, Dr. John Richardson, one of the opposers. In
behalf of the excommunicating of kings, Dr. Kichardson
vigorously pressed the practice of St. Ambrose, who excom
municated the Emperor Theodosius. The King with some
warmth replied, Profecto fuit hoc db Ambrosio insolentissime
factum; upon which Dr. Richardson answered, "Responsum
vere regium et Alexandro dignum; hoc non est argumenta
dissolvere sed dissecare," (a truly royal answer and worthy of
Alexander, "this is not to untie but to cut arguments"), and
sitting down desisted from any further dispute.
The second thesis was, Infallibilis fidei determinatio non est
annexa cathedrae, Papali. Dr. Field states the general opinion
in the Romish Church at this time to have been, that the Pope
whether he might err personally or not, yet could not tl define
for falsehood," i. e. could not err as Pope. Bellarmine main
tained, but as Field proved, falsely, that all "Catholics" con
sented that the Pope with a General Council could not err.1
The third thesis was, Gceca obedientia est illicita. This
was against that doctrine of implicit and unquestioning obe
dience which is the foundation of the Jesuit system, and
which makes it therefore an essentially dangerous, irreligious,
and immoral institution, namely, that the mind, will, and con
science of the members of that Society should be one and the
same with the mind, will, and conscience of their superior.
So Ignatius Loyola, in the epistle De Virtute Obedientice at the
end of the Rules of the Society : " Obedience comprehends not
only the execution, that one should do what he is commanded,
and the will, that he should do it willingly, but also the
judgment, that whatsoever the superior thinks and enjoins,
the same should appear true and right to his inferior, in so far
as I have said the will can bend the understanding by its
own power."2
The first night's entertainment was a comedy made and
acted by St. John's men. It is but slightingly alluded to by
Chamberlain in that letter to Dudley Carleton from which so
much of our information respecting the royal visit is drawn.
A Law Act was moderated by Dr. Henry Mutlow, first
Gresham Professor of Civil Law. He had been a Fellow of
King's College, was Proctor in 1589 and 1593, a Burgess of
Parliament, many years Public Orator ; he died 1634, aged
eighty years, and was buried at St. Mary's.
The second night, March 8, the celebrated comedy of
Ignoramus was acted to the great entertainment of the King,
who was the more pleased as the whole was a satire upon the
professors of the common law, for which his imperial bias
would gladly have substituted the civil law as more in unison
with his favourite theoiy of absolute monarchy.
The author was the Kev. George Euggle, whose family
name was derived from Eugely in Staffordshire. He had
been educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was
B.A. 1594, and M.A. 1597. He was thence transferred to a
fellowship and tutorship at Clare Hall 1598, a time when
that foundation was favoured with a constellation of genius
and learning, as we have noticed elsewhere. He was born at
Lavenham in Suffolk. He was Taxor of the University in
1604, went to Oxford when the King visited that University
in 1605, and was there incorporated M.A. He resigned his
fellowship in 1620, and died about a year after. His Igno
ramus was not published until some years after his death,
first in 1630, then in eight editions to one at Dublin inclusive
in 1736, and lastly, with ample notes and a valuable life of
Euggle by Sir J. S. Hawkins, in 1787. A translation by Eobert
Codrington, M.A. of Magdalene College, Oxford, appeared in
1662, and a mutilated one in 1678, under the title of The
English Laicyer, a Comedy acted at the Royal Theatre;
written by Edward Ravenscroft, Gent., in 1678. The play was
acted by (amongst others) several members of the University
in holy orders, which was not overlooked at Oxford, where a
more discreet course had been observed in 1605. Amongst
them were Towers, afterwards Bishop of Peterborough, Bar-
grave, Dean of Canterbury, Love, Dean of Ely, and Mason
of Pembroke Hall, Dean of Sarum. Spencer Compton, then
a youth only thirteen years of age, only son of Lord Compton,
and of Queens' College, Cambridge, attracted especial observa
tion. He personated three several characters in this comedy.
Mr. John Holies, of Christ College, eldest son of Sir John
[Holies, whom he succeeded as second Earl of Clare in 1637,
was another of the actors. He was a man of honour and
courage, and remarkable for his moderation in the troubles of
the ensuing reign. He died January 2, 1665, and was
succeeded by his son Gilbert. Love, afterwards Dean of Ely,
was also with Bargrave of Clare Hall.
In the Physic Act the King's Physician, Sir Edward
Radcliffe, distinguished himself. He was brother of Dr.
Jeremiah Radcliffe, one of the Senior Fellows of Trinity
College, and also one of the translators of the Bible. He
some time lived at Orwell, where his brother was Rector,
and erected a monument to his memory. He was grandson
of Ralph, a celebrated schoolmaster at Hitchin.1 He died
September 1631, aged 78. The family still reside at the
Priory near Hitchin.
On the third night, March 9th, a comedy, Albumazar, was
acted before the King. Its author was Mr. Tomkis, scholar
of Trinity College 1594, and B.A. 1598. The comedy was
published in quarto in 1615, and again in 1634. It is re
printed in the ninth volume of Dodsley's Collection. Tomkis
was in part indebted, as was also Ruggle, to John Baptist
Porta, an Italian dramatist of the preceding century.
The last evening Melanihe, a Latin pastoral composed by
Mr. afterwards Dr. Brook,2 was acted.
Chamberlain, who did not exercise the good feeling of the
witty Corbet,3 who being asked to criticise the performances
of the University, answered that he had left his malice and
judgment at home, and came thither only to commend, admits
that the Philosophy Act was excellently kept.
After it was concluded Bishop Andrewes sent the mode
rator, the answerer, the varier or prevaricator, and one of the
repliers, who were all of his College, twenty angels each.
Wren was answerer or respondent ; Preston, tutor of Queens'
College, the celebrated Puritan, was first opponent ; Dr. Reade
of Pembroke Hall was moderator.
Alexander Eeade, B.A., was chosen to a Fellowship at
Pembroke Hall November 5th, 1605, whilst Harsnet was
Master ; Humanity Lecturer (the first of Mr. Farr's founda
tion) 1616. Mr. Farr was Henry Farr, Fellow 3rd November
1570, whilst Dr. John Young, afterward Bishop of Rochester,
was Master; he was M.A. 1574, and Junior Proctor 1586.
Reade held the same office in 1617, had a testimonial for
orders in 1618, was made D.D. and President,^, e. next to the
Master or Vice-Master, in 1624, and Perpetual Curate or
Minister of Yately, a small preferment in the gift of the
Master of St. Cross' Hospital, on the northern border of
Hampshire, east of Bramshill Park. He died about 1628.
" Their moderator was no fool ;
He far from Cambridge kept a school."
For this last information we are indebted to " A grave
poem, as it was presented in Latin by certain divines before
his Majesty in Cambridge, by way of interlude, styled Liber
novus de adventu Regis ad Cantabrigiam. Faithfully done
into English with some liberal advantage ; made rather to be
sung than read. To the tune of Bonny Nell" It is inserted
in Corbet's poems, and has been reprinted by Sir J. S. Hawkins
in his edition of Ignoramus, and by Nichols in his Royal
Progresses.
The question was whether dogs could make syllogisms,
suggested by a passage from Chrysippus in Sir W. Raleigh's
Sceptic, in which the position is affirmed. Wren, whose
abilities had early recommended him to the kind patronage of
Andrewes, pleaded a kind of divine right for the King's
hounds. Fuller in his Worthies has in his own way per
petuated this Act. After identifying him from his arms with
the worshipful family of the Wrens in Northumberland, he
adds, l He was bred Fellow of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge,
where he kept the extraordinary Philosophy Act before King
James. I say, kept it with no less praise to himself than
pleasure to the King, where, if men should forget, even dogs
would remember his seasonable distinction, what the King's
hounds could perform above others by virtue of their pre
rogative.11
On Easter-day, April 9, Bishop Andrewes preached before
the King at Whitehall a sermon of the most unparalleled
ingenuity upon those words of our Lord, Destroy this Temple,
and within three days I will raise it up again. His prose
continually reminds us throughout of Herbert's verse, the
same fertility of invention, the same facility of application.
He notes how the sign our Lord gave the Pharisees was far
greater than that which was in their thoughts. The Temple
men could raise again, but not this temple the body.
He takes occasion to condemn the avaricious sacrilege of
his times, that will leave nothing standing of the house of
God, not even the roof if it be of lead. He briefly touches on
the typical character of the Temple and its furniture, adducing
St. Ambrose, saying, " that is truly a temple wherein is. the
purification of our sins."
Toward the end he observes that we make our bodies
anything rather than temples, or if temples, temples of Ceres,
Bacchus, Venus. " But if this be the fruit of our life, and we
have no other but this, to fill and farce our bodies, to make
them shrines of pride, and to maintain them in this excess, to
make a money-change2 of all besides, Commonwealth, Church,
and all, 1 know not well what to say to it. I doubt at their
rising they will rather make blocks for hell-fire than be made
pillars in the temple of God, in the holy places made without
hands."
In the course of this year Bishop Andrewes added Matthew
Wren (afterward Bishop of Ely) to the number of his chap
lains. He had been Fellow of Pembroke College from 1605,
and on January 20, 1610, had been preferred by the same
patron to the Vicarage of Harston, and on March 26, 1614, to
that of Barton. These he resigned, Harston in November
1615, and Barton in the year following, being instituted on
the gift of Bishop Andrewes to the Rectory of Teversham this
same year, in which he was also made his chaplain, on May
15. His learning was such as to rank him amongst the first
scholars of the University ; and by his application to whatsoever
affairs concerned the interest of the Colleges to which he suc
cessively belonged, Pembroke and St. Peter's College, he has
been deservedly regarded by those societies as one of their
principal benefactors. Such merits could not fail to attach
Andrewes to him, who was himself unrivalled as a promoter
of learning and of learned men. Thus Wren was brought
into the royal presence, and all courtly favours from that time
flowed in upon him, if not in rapid yet in sure succession.
In 1621 he wras made Chaplain to Prince Charles, and accom
panied him in that imprudent and unsuccessful journey to
Spain. On his return he was in May 1624 made Eector of
Bingham in the county of Nottingham. The town itself, still
of no great size, owed what little importance it possessed to
a noble collegiate church, now no longer collegiate, but highly
interesting for its architectural features. This preferment was
of considerable value. Not long before, on the preceding 10th
November 1623, he was installed in the first stall of Win
chester through Andrewes, then Bishop of that see. On July
26, 1625, he was elected Master of Peterhouse, and in 1628
was made Dean of Windsor and Registrar of the Order of
the Garter. Some time after he was made Clerk of the
Closet, and attended the King to Scotland. In 1634 he was
promoted to a prebend in the abbey-church of Westminster,
in the room of Dr. John Wilson, and the same year was
consecrated to the see of Hereford on the death of the learned
Dr. Augustine Lindsell. In the following year he was trans
lated to Norwich on the decease of the poetical Bishop Corbett.
On the death of Bishop White he was removed to Ely.
Whilst Master of Peterhouse he collected contributions and
built the college chapel, which was dedicated March 17, 1632.
With the same liberality, on his restoration to his see after an
unjust imprisonment of eighteen years in the Tower, he built
a new chapel to Pembroke College, elegantly designed by the
famous Sir Christopher Wren, and gave to the College the
manor of Hardwick near Cambridge, to keep it in repair. The
chapel of Pembroke College cost him above £5000. The
first stone was laid on May 13, 1663, by Dr. Mark Frank,1
who had in the preceding year succeeded to the Mastership in
the place of Dr. Benjamin Laney, Bishop of Peterborough.
Bishop Wren himself consecrated it upon St. Matthew's-day,
September 21, 1665. He died at Ely House, Holborn, April
24, 1667.
As a prelate and theologian Wren possessed neither the
prudence nor the sound and solid piety of his great patron
Andrewes. He professed to adhere to him as a ritualist, but
in regard of that great practical point, the observance of the
Lord's-day, he departed from the doctrine of Bishop Andrewes.
That prelate maintained the divine institution of the day and
the sanctification of the whole of it. Not so Bishop Wren,
who although not guilty in so many instances as were objected
to him, yet acknowledged that he had excommunicated some
of his clergy for not publishing the King's declaration of the
Book of Sports?
He was very rigid in confining his clergy to the form of
the bidding prayer, which form itself was continually varied
and accommodated to the occasion in the time of Bishop
Andrewes, as may be seen in the Bidding Prayers inserted in
his Posthumous Works. Bishop Wren was not therefore
justified in the use which he made of his name in his defence.8
George Herbert used his own form,4 and the 55th canon itself
permits each minister and preacher to frame his own prayer
upon the model of the canon, unrestrained as to the very form
itself.
Wren was also over-zealous for the custom of bowing to
the altar, for which in his defence he alleged without any
ground Jewel's Defence of his Apology. There in page 203
(ed. Lond. 1565) Jewel has not one word of bowing to the
communion-table, but only, " kneeling, bowing, standing up,
and other like are commendable gestures and tokens of de
votion, so long as the people understandeth what they mean."
He more pertinently appealed to Bishop Morton on the
Institution of the Sacrament^ who however is entirely silent
upon the mystical meaning of bowing as it is now understood
by some, and as it was perhaps in the mind of Laud himself.
11 The use of bowing toward the Lord's table hath in it no
other nature or meaning than Daniel his kneeling with his
face towards Jerusalem and the Temple. For as this was a
testification of his joint society in that religious worship which
had been exercised in the Temple and altar thereof at Jeru
salem, so ours is a symbol of our union in profession with
them who do faithfully communicate at the table of the Lord."
He again has recourse to the name of Andrewes in behalf of
bowing to the holy table. But Andrewes at least, as Dr. Fuller
has left on record, did not impose upon any in any of the dio
ceses which he governed, unauthorized ceremonies. No wonder
that Wren incurred the displeasure of those who felt that from
his hands they had suffered unjustly, and who saw clearly
that overmuch zeal for such external points was incompatible
with purity of doctrine and with the maintenance of the
reformed faith. It was indeed a sort of Pharisaism that
punctiliously bowed at the altar, and the next moment
looked on with satisfaction at the congregation released from
church to dance around the maypole. This was to set up
human institutions (the Book of Sports) practically and
imperiously above divine, 'the day which the Lord hath
made.'
On April 16th the Council wrote to the Bishop to request
him to supervise the priests to be sent to Wisbeach Castle,
and to appoint learned divines to converse with those who
might desire it. Letters were sent to the neighbouring
justices cautioning them against any attempt at escape or
rescue. Orders were sent at the same time for the better
government of the said priests to Matthias Taylor, Keeper of
the Castle.
Amongst these seem to have been Alexander Faircloth,
Richard Cooper, George Muskett, and John Ainsworth.
On May 24th the Bishop wrote to the Keeper the answers
of the Council to divers points of the requests made by the
priests. Their breviaries were to be restored to them, and
they permitted to see or write to friends who wished to relieve
them without the names being known. He wrote further
that he could not allow his own house to be used for the
prisoners, as it had been during the vacancy of the see.1
The Romish historian Dod highly eulogizes George Mus
kett alias Fisher, which latter he regards as his true name.
He says that he had a brother at Attlebridge in Norfolk near
Repham in the hundred of Taverham. He was educated at
the English College at Rome, and was ordained priest there.
He resided mostly in London, and was very zealous in prose
lytizing to his communion. He and the Jesuit Fisher were
engaged for two days, April 21 and 22, 1621, in controversy
with Drs. Goad and Featly. He was in prison in 1635, being
then 53 years old. He was condemned to die, being convicted
of saying mass, but remained twenty years a prisoner under
sentence. But all this time, says Dod, he found means to
exercise his functions with the same success as if he had
enjoyed his liberty. He remained a prisoner until 1641,
having been reprieved by the Queen's intercession. He was
chosen to succeed Dr. Kellison as President of the English
College at Douay. Again the watchful zeal of Henrietta,
directed by those about her, found an opportunity of for
warding the plans of Rome and the interests of the Romish
Church. The Queen prevailed to have his imprisonment
exchanged for exile. He arrived at Douay November 14th,
1641. He died of consumption December 24th, 1645. In
his presidentship he was succeeded by Dr. William Hyde.
Muskett was called at Rome, Flos cleri Anglican* — The
flower of the English clergy.
On May 28th1 Andrewes preached before the King at
Greenwich upon our Lord's baptism. Here the peculiar gift
of his prolific genius appeared to great advantage, in illus
trating from analogy the design of our Lord's baptism as our
federal head ; the character of his baptism as the sanctification
and pattern of ours ; and the dovelike spirit of true Chris
tianity and of the true Church in contradistinction to the
vulturelike nature of the Church of Eome. " The Holy
Ghost is a dove, and he makes Christ's spouse the Church a
dove, a term so oft iterate in the Canticles and so much stood
on by S. Augustine and the Fathers, that they make no
question, no dove no Church. St. Peter," he adds, " was Bar-
Jona, the son of a dove, and without such a dovelike spirit
there is no remission of sins, no Holy Ghost in the Church."2
Upon July 9th our prelate assisted at the consecration of
Dr. Richard Milbourne to the see of St. David's. The other
prelates were Archbishop Abbot, Dr. John King, Bishop of
London, Buckeridge, Bishop of Rochester, and Dr. John
Overall, who had in April 1614 been raised to the see of
Lichfield and Coventry. Dr. Richard Milbourne was of a
Pembrokeshire family but a native of London. He was
educated at Winchester School and at Queens' College,
Cambridge, was successively Rector of Sevenoaks, Chaplain
to Prince Henry, Precentor of St. David's, and Dean of
Rochester. This last preferment he resigned in the following
year, and was succeeded by Dr. Robert Scott.3 In 1621 Dr.
Milbourne was translated from St. David's to Carlisle, and
Laud was consecrated to the former see. He died in 1624,
when Dr. Richard Senhouse was raised to his see of Carlisle.
Dr. Senhouse was also of the University of Cambridge, of
Trinity and then of St. John's College, and Chaplain first to
the Earl of Bedford and afterward of Prince Charles.
On Saturday August 5th our prelate being in attendance
upon the King, preached before him in Salisbury Cathedral,
from the four first verses of the 21st Psalm. This sermon,
preached before a concourse of people and of considerable
length, must have lost much of its effect from the unhappy
custom, for which nevertheless our prelate himself contended,
of interspersing every ten lines with Latin.
On the 25th of this month Bishop Andrewes preferred the
learned John Boys to the second stall in his cathedral of Ely.
"At the vacancy of the prebend he was sent for to London,"
writes his biographer Anthony Walker, u by Lancelot An
drewes, then Lord Bishop of Ely, who bestowed it upon him
unasked for. When he had given him, as we commonly say,
joy of it (which was his first salutation at his coming to him),
he told him ' that he did bestow it freely on him without any
one moving him thereto ; though,' said he, l some pickthanks
will be saying they stood your friends herein.' Which pre
diction proved very true."1
Under the patronage and probably at the request of Bishop
Andrewes, Boys began his comparison of the Vulgate with
the modern versions of the New Testament by Beza and
others, to point out where the moderns had needlessly varied
from the Vulgate. This work he completed to the end of the
Acts of the Apostles, but upon the death of Bishop Andrewes
desisted from his undertaking, having then entered but a little
way into the Epistle to the Romans.2 These notes, to the
end of the Acts, appeared in 1656, entitled, Veteris Interpretis
cum Beza aliisque Eecentioribus Collatio in Quatuor Evangeliis
et Apostolorum Actis. In qua annon scepius absquejustd satis
causa hi ab illo discesserint disquiritur , &c.
Thus closely connected as is the name of Boys with that
of Andrewes, it may not be out of place to add a brief notice
of him, taken from the memoirs from which has been drawn
the anecdote relating to his promotion at Ely.
His grandfather John Boys was an inhabitant of Halifax
in Yorkshire, where also his father William was born. His
father was sent to Cambridge and lodged in Michael House
(afterwards swallowed up in Trinity College), but went to
lectures to St. John's College to Mr. John Seaton, afterward
D.D. and Prebendary of Winchester, and author of a com
pendium of logic for the use of junior scholars. Mr. William
Boys entered into holy orders, but becoming a convert to the
doctrine of the Reformers, withdrew himself from the Uni
versity and took a farm at Nettlestead, between Hadleigh and
Needham Market, and married a gentlewoman named Mirable
Pooley, of an ancient and respectable family. Her son, the
learned translator, records of her that she had read the Bible
over twelve times, and the Book of Martyrs twice, besides
other books not a few.1 When Queen Elizabeth came to the
throne he took upon him to serve the cure of Elmset, between
Nettlestead and Hadleigh ; and on the death of the incumbent
was presented by the Lord Keeper to the Rectory, and not
long after to the Rectory of West Stow by his brother Mr.
Pooley, a small parish between Bury St. Edmund's and
Mildenhall. He died in his sixty-eighth year, and his widow
survived him about ten years, dying about her seventy-eighth
year.
His son John was born January 3, 1560, at Nettlestead.
His father taught him to write Hebrew when he was but six
years old, and took great pains himself in his education,
sending him also daily to school at Hadleigh, two miles from
his house at Elmset. There commenced his acquaintance
with the learned Dr. John Overall, Dean of St. Paul's and
afterwards Bishop of Norwich. He was admitted of St.
John's College under the tuition of Mr. Henry Coppinger on
the 1st of March, 1675.2 He was of the ancient family of
the Coppingers of Buxhall, between Stow Market and Laven-
ham. To St. John's College he was sent to be under Dr.
Still,1 who on the 21st of July in the preceding year had
been raised to the Mastership, being also Kector of Hadleigh.
In 1576 Dr. Still was made Archdeacon of Sudbury, and in
1577 advanced to the Mastership of Trinity College, Cam
bridge. His good management of the revenues of the latter
foundation is memorialized by Dr. Fuller in his Holy and
Profane State; and Walker, himself a Fellow of St. John's,
says of him at that College, " This is he who procured the
alteration of the College statutes, before which few Masters
continued seven years ; which gave occasion to the then
common merry saying, viz. c that the College was a good
horse, but that he would kick till Still went to court and got
new girths.' "
There were then in St. John's three Greek lectures read.
In the first grammar was taught, as is commonly now in
schools. In the second an easy author was explained in a
grammatical way. The third was of a more advanced kind.
A year was usually spent in attending upon the first course
of lectures, and two upon the second. Within six weeks,
however, Boys being a fair Greek scholar at the time of his
admission was remitted to the third and higher lecture.
Andrew Downes (in 1585 Eegius Greek Professor) then
lectured at St. John's five times a week with great diligence,
but took such delight in this young scholar as to read over to
him privately twelve of the more difficult Greek authors,
both in prose and verse. Boys was in his first year elected
to a scholarship.
York. This stall he resigned to Ambrose Coppinger, whom Dr. Toby Mathews
collated June 2, 1619. The Earl of Oxford being patron of Lavenham presented
Coppinger to it, and after resolving to keep back from him all tithe of his park
(almost half the land of the parish), on Coppinger' s offering rather to resign
than be a party to such sacrilege, retracted his ill-made resolution. But the
Earl's successor being a minor, his agent iniquitously put this exemplary person
to the cost of £1600 before he could recover the rights of the Church. He was
for forty-five years the very laborious and charitable incumbent of Lavenham,
where he died on St. Thomas' s-day, 1662, in his seventy-second year.— See
Fuller's Church Hist. b. x. c. 6.
In 1577 his tutor Henry Coppinger was advanced by the
Queen to the Mastership of Magdalene College, whereupon
he left his Fellowship and went to Magdalene and took his
pupil Boys along with him. This stretch of her prerogative
however was not suffered to pass without animadversion, for
the appointment belonged to the Earl of Suffolk. Coppinger
therefore resigned, and lost both his Mastership and Fellow
ship. Boys was readmitted to his scholarship, and in due
time chosen a Fellow, having the small-pox upon him at the
time of his election. Whilst a Fellow he continued his
studies in the summer in the University Library from four
in the morning till eight at night. He resided upon his
Fellowship, and delayed receiving holy orders the full time
that the College statutes permitted him. On Friday, June 21,
1583 (having been eight years a member of St. John's Col
lege) he was ordained deacon, and on the following day,
by dispensation, priest by Dr. Edmund Freake, Bishop of
Norwich. Such was the esteem in which Boys was held by
Dr. Whitaker (who, on the elevation of Dr. Richard Howland
to the see of Peterborough, was made Master of St. John's
on St. Matthew's-day, February 25, 1586,) that every Friday
evening he came to Boys' chamber to hear his pupils declaim.
This may be observed as an instance also of the forgiving and
kind spirit of that famous controversialist, for Boys had voted
against his election. However as he acknowledged to Walker
his sorrow afterward for the part he then took, so he probably
evinced to Whitaker, after his better knowledge of him, the
deference and regard that were his due. Dr. Whitaker died
December 4, 1595. Robert (afterwards Sir Robert) Naunton,
Fellow of Trinity College and University Orator, was ap
pointed to deliver the oration at Great St. Mary's, and Boys
in his own College. He has testified in his notes, to the
commendation of Whitaker, that under his governance learning,
if at any time, flourished and increased, but that after his death
the College was augmented in its buildings but declined in
letters. Mr. Boys was afterwards made Philosophy Lecturer,
and in the course of one year commented upon the greater
part of Plato's Timceus. These lectures were held in the
schools, the Vice-Chancellor and a great concourse of auditors
flocking to him. He was for ten years chief Greek Lecturer
in his College, and besides the College lecture read a Greek
lecture at four of the clock in the morning in his own chamber,
which was frequented by many of the Fellows. At the death
of his father, his mother by request commanding him that it
might be continued to her for a place of abode, he asked Mr.
Pooley for the living of West Stow, which he promptly gave
him, but resigned upon Mr. Pooley 's taking his mother under
his own roof.
About 1596 the Earl of Salisbury made Boys one of his
chaplains, who the same year thus became possessed of the
rectory of Boxworth in the county of Cambridge. lt When he
was about thirty-six years old Mr. Holt, Kector of Boxworth,
dying, left the advowson of that living in part of a portion
to one of his daughters, requesting of some of his friends
that, if it might be by them procured, Mr. Boys of St. John's
might become his successor by the marriage of his daughter.
Whereof when he was advertised he went over to see her, and
soon after, they taking a liking to each other, he was pre
sented to the parsonage, and instituted by Archbishop Whit-
gift, it being then the great vacation of the see1 of Ely." He
was instituted October 13, 1596. "The College at his
departure gave him £100, though I must confess," adds
Walker, " that was then custom more than courtesy."
From Boxworth he came constantly into the University to
hear the lectures of the Greek and Hebrew Professors,
Downes and Lively (the former of St. John's, the latter of
Trinity College), as also of the Regius Divinity Professor,
his friend Dr. Overall. Meanwhile he fell into debt and was
obliged to part with his library, a rare collection of classical
authors. He was, moreover, unhappy for a while in his
domestic relations, but a reunion of affection ensued, and
those affections were but the more confirmed. About twelve
of the neighbouring clergy met every Friday at each other's
house to dinner, amongst whom Boys was one. Then they
gave an account of their studies, and discussed and resolved
such questions as might be propounded.
He was employed in tuition and kept some young scholars
in his house, as well for the instruction of his own children
and those of the gentry who were entrusted to him, as of the
poorer children of his parish.
When the present translation of the Bible was commenced,
he, with Dr. Duport, Master of Jesus College, Dr. William
Branthwayt, Master of Gonville and Caius College, Ward,
afterward Master of Sidney College, Dr. Jeremiah Kadcliffe,
one of the Senior Fellows of Trinity College, Professor
Downes, Mr. afterward Dr. Ward, Fellow of Queens' College,
Prebendary of Chichester, and also by the same patron, his
old scholar, Bishop Andrewes, Rector of Bishop's Waltham,
was appointed to undertake the Apocrypha. But having
finished his portion, he also relieved another of another
College, whither he went and lodged during the week until
that second portion was finished. The several companies of
translators were engaged upon the work four years, after
which two of each company were selected to review the whole
work, and to put it to the press. Of his company Boys
himself and his friend Downes were appointed to this second
labour. These (six in all) went daily to Stationers' Hall, and
in three quarters of a year finished their task. Whilst thus
engaged the Company of Stationers paid them 30s. per week.
Boys alone, it is said, took notes of their proceedings, and
these he kept till his dying day.
Coming to the knowledge of that lay-bishop, Sir Henry
Savile, as Walker pleasantly calls him, he read over for his
edition of St. Chrysostom the greater part of that voluminous
Father in the MSS., besides the supervising of both Sir
Henry's and his friend Downe's notes. It is probable that
but for the death of Sir Henry he would have been rewarded
for this labour with a Fellowship at Eton. He was indeed
nominated to a Fellowship in the projected Theological Col
lege at Chelsea, but the College and with it his Fellow
ship soon came to nothing. Bishop Andrewes rewarded his
labours as a translator, as we have seen, in 1615. He lived
however still at Boxworth till 1628 when he removed to
Ely, not sparing himself even in his old age, but preaching
not only in his own turn, but frequently for his friends, some
times only at an hour's warning. He was often called upon to
preach funeral sermons. Twice a year he went from Ely to
his living at Boxworth to administer the holy Communion, and
preach to his parishioners. At Ely he went twice, sometimes
thrice, a day to prayers in the Cathedral to his very death,
for he survived the suppression of the Liturgy by the Kebels
only five days. In his extreme old age he would study eight
hours a day. He read walking, and in his youth often walked
from college to his mother's house at West Stow to dinner,
which was above twenty miles. This he did doubtless between
about four and twelve at noon. Such were the primitive habits
of our literary giants. Not only to Sir Henry Savile but also
to that industrious patristic antiquary, Augustine Lindsell,
Bishop of Hereford, he rendered very considerable assistance.
He was very temperate, very charitable, very devout. To
the poor of Boxworth he sent annually forty shillings at
Christmas, besides the relief he gave them at his going to
them. Some poor person he feasted for some years on the
Lord's-day at his own table. He visited the prisoners, and
often sent or carried them money. He seldom began any
thing without invoking the blessing and help of God. He used
very many rather than very long prayers. He never carried
any book into the pulpit with him but his Bible, and though
a prodigy of learning, sought nothing so much as to be under
stood by the least instructed of his congregation. His wife
departed this life May 16, 1642, and after a most painful
illness which he endured with great resignation, entreating of
his children and all who were about him that if at any time
he expressed anything which savoured of impatience they would
tell him of it, he died upon Sunday, January 14, 1643, being
eighty-three years and eleven days old. He was buried on
February 6th, Mr. Thurston of St. John's College preaching
his funeral sermon.1
Return we now from this most worthy person, well worthy
of so great and renowned a patron to the patron himself, whom
we find on the 5th of November discoursing at Whitehall
very admirably upon the divine mercy : The Lord is good to
allj and his mercies are over all his works. Here indeed
he proceeds so far as to say that the very angels have some
need of mercy. " The very seraphim have somewhat to
cover. As for the cherubim they will set mercy a seat upon
the top of their wings." He accommodates a passage of St.
Chrysostom from his Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans :
" Great is the deep of my sins, but greater the abyss of the
mercy of God ;" and adds, " Great is the whirlpool of my
wicked works, but greater is the Bethesda, the wide and deep
gulph of the mercy of God that hath no bottom. And
indeed it were not truly said, It is above all his works (all his,
and much more then above all ours,) if any of all our works
were above it. No more then there is a Lamb that taketh
away the sins of the world if there were any sin of the world
he takes not away."
On November 29th Bishop Andrewes preferred Walter
Balcanqual, Fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge, to the
Vicarage of Harston (in the place of Wren). Balcanqual
was M.A. of Pembroke College 1609, elected to a Fellowship
there September 8, 1611, B.D. 1616, and in that year was
preferred to Waterbeach near Cambridge. In 1617 he was
made Master of the Savoy, and in 1618 was sent as the
representative of the Scotch Church to the Synod of Dort,
being at that time one of the King's Chaplains. The
Mastership of the Savoy he resigned in 1618, in favour of
the rapacious and unstable Mark Antony de Dominis. In
1621 that remarkable person left this kingdom, and Balcanqual
was reinstated in the Mastership of the Savoy. In 1624 he
was made Dean of Eochester, and in 1639 of Durham. He
escaped from the siege of York and took refuge at Chirk
Castle in Denbighshire, but sinking under the fatigue died
there on Christmas-day 1645. He was buried in the church,
and Sir Thomas Middleton of Chirk Castle erected a monu
ment to his memory. Bishop Pearson wrote his epitaph.
On December 3rd Bishop Andrewes, King, Bishop of
London, and Neile, Bishop of Lincoln, assisted Archbishop
Abbot at the consecration of the incomparably learned and
indefatigably laborious Dr. Eobert Abbot, Master of Balliol
College, and Kegius Professor of Divinity in the University
of Oxford, to the see of Salisbury, on the decease of Dr.
Henry Cotton of Magdalene College in that University.
Kobert Abbot was the eldest brother of the Archbishop,
and was born at Guildford in 1560. They were both edu
cated at the Free School there, founded by Edward VI. He
was sent to Balliol College, Oxford, 1575, and upon an
oration made by him the 17th of November, the day of Queen
Elizabeth's accession, was chosen a scholar of that famous
foundation. His brother George became a student there in
1578. Eobert took his degree of M.A. in 1582. At Oxford
he first distinguished himself by his eloquence as one of the
lecturers at Carfax Church in the High Street. He officiated
also for a time at Abingdon. He was, upon the first sermon
he preached at Worcester^ admitted to a lectureship in that
city, and was soon after, in 1588, appointed Hector of All
Saints, between Bridge Street and the Cathedral. John
Stanhope, Esq., hearing him preach at St. Paul's Cross, ap
pointed him Eector of the rich benefice of Bingham in
Nottinghamshire. He was made D.D. in 1597, and on the
accession of James I. one of his Majesty's Chaplains. On
the death of Dr. Edward Lilly, late of Magdalene College
but Master of Balliol, he was elected to succeed in the Master
ship March 5, 1610, in which year the King, who greatly
esteemed him, appointed him one of the Fellows of his new
Controversial College at Chelsea. On the 2nd of November,
1610, he was collated, and on the 27th admitted, to the pre-
bendal stall of Normanton in the church of Southwell. This
was one of the three original prebends of that church.
Abbot first published A Mirror of Popish Subtleties, written
against a Cavilling Papist, in the behalf of one Paul Spence,
dedicated to Whitgift, 1594. 2. The Exaltation of the King
dom and Priesthood of Christ, being a Commentary upon the
110th Psalm , dedicated to Gervase Babington, Bishop of
Worcester. Lond. 1601. 3. Antichristi Demonstratio} dedi-
cated to the King, printed at London in 1602 and 1608. The
second edition was, by the King's command, accompanied
with his own comment upon the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th verses
of the 20th chapter of the Revelation. 4. A Defence of the
Reformed Catholic of Master William Perkins , lately deceased,
against the Bastard Counter Catholic of Dr. Bishop , Seminary
Priest, dedicated to King James, 1st part, quarto, Lond. 1606,
the 2nd part 1607, the 3rd part 1609. 5. The True Ancient
Roman Catholic, dedicated to Prince Henry, Lond. 1611 ; but
previously to this a single sermon at St. Mary's, entitled The
Old Way, quarto, Lond. 1610, translated into Latin by
Thomas Drax. It was preached on July 8th, Act Sunday,
and dedicated to Archbishop Bancroft.
On the death of Dr. Thomas Holland, also of Balliol
College, Abbot was preferred by the King to be Eegius
Professor of Divinity March 25, 1612. In the following year
appeared his able work, already referred to in these pages,
Antilogia adversus Apologiam Andrece Eudcemon Johannis
Jesuitce pro Henrico Gfarnetto proditore, dedicated to the
King. L'Heureux's Apology for Garnet, under the as
sumed name of Andreas Eudsemon Johannes, had appeared
at Cologne in 1610. His noblest work, his Commentary
on the Epistle to the Romans, lies still in MS. in the
Bodleian Library. He preached a sermon (also in MS.) at
St. Mary's, on the notes to the Geneva Bible, and clearing
Calvin from Arianism. This was against Dr. Howson, of
whom Sir Thomas Bodley makes no very honourable mention
in his Letters. Howson, however, who was more of the
courtier than of the divine, by command of the King tl turned
his edge," says Dr. Featly, tl from Geneva to Eome, and in
the next sermon he preached at St. Mary's fell fierce and foul
upon the Pope himself, threatening to loose him from his
chair though he were fastened thereunto with a tenpenny
nail."1 Howson had been educated at Christ Church, and
had been appointed Prebendary of Hereford July 15, 1587,
and of Exeter May 29, 1592, and Canon of the second stall
at Christ Church May 15, 1601. He was also Rector of
Brightwell and one of the Yicars of Bampton. He was
consecrated to the see of Oxford May 9, 1619, and translated
to Durham in 1628. He died in his seventy-fifth year, Feb
ruary 6th, 1632, and was succeeded by that illustrious prelate
Dr. Thomas Morton.
Preaching on the afternoon of Easter-day, 1615, at St.
Peter's-in-the-East before the University, Dr. Abbot attacked
Laud, Howson, and their partisans, saying that there were
men who, under pretence of truth and preaching against the
Puritans, struck at the heart, and root of that faith and religion
now established amongst us, which was the very practice of
(the Jesuit) Parsons' and Campian's counsel, when they came
hither to seduce young students, who, afraid to be expelled
if they should openly profess their conversion, were directed
to speak freely against the Puritans as what would suffice ; so
these do not expect to be counted Papists, because they
speak only against Puritans ; but because they are indeed
Papists they speak nothing against them, or if they do, they
beat about the bush, and that softly too, for fear of disquieting
the birds that are in it."
At length his all but incredible diligence in the University
was rewarded by his elevation to the see of Sarum. He was
accompanied to the borders of the diocese of Oxford to North
Hinksey by the heads of houses and many others, all lamenting
his departure. At Salisbury he was as heartily welcomed, and
on the Sunday following preached in the cathedral from Psalm
xxvi. 8 : Lord, 1 have loved the habitation of thy house, and
the place where thine honour dwelleth. And soon did he shew
the sincerity of this profession ; for finding that the cathedral
had been greatly neglected, he used his authority and influ
ence with the chapter, which led to an expenditure of £500,
a great sum in those days, upon the building.
It appears that his elevation to the episcopate was opposed
by a party at court favourable to the Church of Home ; for the
King said to him, soon after his consecration, Abbot, I have
had very much to do to make thee a Bishop, but I know no
reason for it, unless it were because thou hast written against
one, an allusion to his defence of Perkins' Reformed Catholic,
against Bishop the Seminary Priest. Abbot visited his whole
diocese in person, and preached every Lord's-day whilst he
enjoyed his health, either in the city or in the churches in its
vicinity. He was engaged in his last illness upon a Latin
reply to Eichard Thompson, commonly called Dutch Thomp
son (noticed in this volume), on falling away from grace and
justification. Thrice a-week this Prelate sent provisions to
the prison at Salisbury, and at Christmas feasted all the poor
of the city. He suffered very greatly from that most painful
complaint the stone, which brought him to his end. The
judges being then on their circuit visited him during this
illness. His last words were, Jesu, come quickly ; finish in me,
the work that thou hast begun. Then he added in Latin, Into
thy hands, 0 Lord, I commit my spirit, for thou hast redeemed
me, 0 God of truth. Save thy servant who hopeth and trusteth
only in thee. Let thy mercy , 0 Lord, be upon me. 0 Lord,
in thee have I trusted, let me never be confounded. He died
between 7 and 8 in the evening of March 2, 1618.
He was buried in his cathedral on the following Thursday
in the choir over against the Bishop's throne.
Bishop Abbot was twice married, the second time, after he
became a bishop, to Mrs. Bridget Cheynell. He left one son
and two daughters. Of these, one married Sir Nathaniel
Brent, Warden of Merton College, Oxford, whose daughter
Margaret married Dr. Edward Corbet, Hector of Haseley in
Oxfordshire, who presented some of this Prelate's MSS., in
cluding his Commentary on the Romans, to the Bodleian
Library.
Abbot was succeeded in his Professorship by a divine who
ably upheld the same theology which he had maintained,
Dr. John Prideaux, Hector of Exeter College. Dr. Prideaux
was B.A. of that College January 31, 1600. He succeeded
Dr. Holland as Eector of Exeter College April 4, 1612, and
Abbot as Eegius Professor of Divinity December 8, 1615.
He was installed Canon of the fifth stall at Christ Church
March 16, 1617, was consecrated Bishop of Worcester De
cember 19, 1641, and on August 3, 1642, resigned the Eec-
torship of his College. He died July 20, 1650, in his
seventy-fourth year, and was buried at Bredon in Worcester
shire. His Fasciculus Controversiarum was published at
Oxford in 1649, and dedicated by him to William Hodges,
Henry Button, Rowland Crosby, Edward Best, Eleazar
Jackson, Emanuel Smith, William Lole, and other his
brethren in the ministry in his diocese.
At Salisbury succeeded Dr. Martin Fotherby, the author of
Atheomastix, published in folio in 1622, of Grimsby in Lincoln
shire, a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Prebendary
of Canterbury. He died March 12, 1620.
Bishop Fotherby 's Atheomastix was published two years
after his death, but then only two out of four books saw the
light. The work, a small folio, abounding in classical and
other learning, was entitled, "Atheomastix, clearing Four
Truths against Atheists and Infidels :
1. That there is a God.
2. That there is but one God.
3. That Jehovah our God is that one God.
4. That the Holy Scripture is the word of that God.
All of them proved by natural reasons and secular authorities.
Lond. 1622." It was dedicated to the Right Hon. Sir Robert
Naunton, Secretary to the King.
Bishop Andrewes had upon last Christmas-day treated of
the first prophecy cited in the New Testament. He now took
the second, namely, that of Micah, foretelling the birthplace
of Christ, Bethlehem (the house of bread) Ephrata (fruitful).
He enlarged upon the twofold sense of the word rendered
ruler , as implying both guidance and protection. His whole
discourse he, as his manner was, drew out of his text with a
facility peculiarly his own, but doubtless much assisted by his
patristic studies. Thus, as Christ came forth from eternity,
so he is our guide, leader, and shepherd to bring us thither.
The words themselves raised this association of ideas in the
mind of the preacher. Very many would meditate upon
them a thousand times and not light upon a similar combi
nation. Excellently does he enforce humility as the grace
which the comparative obscurity of the place, and all the
circumstances of our blessed Redeemer's birth, was designed
to teach us. Alluding to Ephrata (fruitful) he well remarks :
"We fall still upon one extreme or other: if fertile, then
proud ; if humble, then barren." There is much contained in
this, not that true humility will be unfruitful, but a mere
sentimental self-abasement will ever excuse itself the works of
obedience.
The King was disabled by the gout from attending at the
Royal Chapel, but heard the sermon and received the Eucha
rist in private.
CHAPTER XVII.
Page 424
Cosin — Drusius — Whitsunday 1616 — The King at Burleigh-on-the
Hill — Andrewes a Privy Councillor — Thomas Earl of Arundel —
Amner — Beale — The King's Progress to Scotland — Andrewes at
Durham 1617.
JOHN COSIN, at the Restoration Bishop of Durham, one of
the most diligent ecclesiastical antiquaries of his age, was in
1616 invited both by Bishop Andre wes and by Overall, Dean
of St. Paul's, to become his librarian. He attached himself
to the latter. The Deanry of St. Paul's offered facilities of
literary intercourse with the learned both of our own nation
and of the Continent, perhaps above any other ecclesiastical
residence.
On February 12 died the learned John Drusius, one of
those eminent foreigners who are said both by Bishop Bucke-
ridge and by Isaacson to have enjoyed the patronage and
munificent friendship of Andrewes. He came over to
England from Flanders in 1567, was admitted of the Uni
versity of Cambridge August 3, 1569, and on his return
from France 1572, was entered at Merton College, Oxford,
and read lectures on Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriac at Merton
and Magdalene Colleges, and afterward in the Public Schools ;
but in 1576 he left Oxford for a Professorship at Leyden, and
thence removed to the University of Franeker, in Friesland.
At Franeker Sixtus Amama succeeded to some share of his
reputation.
Andrewes was called upon as usual to preach before the
King at Whitehall on Easter-day, March 31. His sermon on
this occasion is not so remarkable as many that preceded it.
But whatsoever is his subject it is sure to be amply illustrated
in his hands.
Upon Whitsunday, May 19,1 he preached before the King
at Greenwich, upon our Lord's words to his Apostles, Receive
the Holy Ghost. In the introduction he says, u Now what is
here to do, what business is in hand, we cannot but know, if
ever we have been at the giving of holy orders. For by these
words are they given, Receive the Holy Gfhostj whose sins y6
remit j &c., were to them, and are to us even to this day, by
these and by no other words. Which words, had not the
Church of Rome retained in their ordinations, it might well
have been doubted (for all their Accipe potestatem, &c., Receive
thou authority to sacrifice for the living and for the deadj)
whether they had any priests at all or no. But, as God
would, they retained them, and so saved themselves. For
these are the very operative words for the conferring this
power, for the performing of this act." He next refutes the
Eomish tenet that holy orders are a sacrament, denying that
it confers grace, the grace being but in office or function.
Again, Christ alone instituted sacraments, but this ceremony
he instituted with breathing upon the parties, which ceremony
hath since been changed to laying on of hands. But such a
change is inadmissible in a sacrament.
Very full of meaning is his unfolding the symbol of wind
and of breath as betokening in Scripture the Holy Ghost.
" For as for this let it not trouble you, that it is but breath,
and breath but air, and so, one would think, too feeble 5 as
indeed what feebler thing is there in man than it ? The more
feeble, the more fit to manifest his strength by. For, as weak
in appearance as it is, by it were great things brought to pass.
By this puff of breath was the world blown round about.
About came the philosophers, the orators, the emperors.
Away went the mist of error ; down went the idols and their
temples before it."2
With equal beauty does he apply in the patristic manner
to the Apostles the words of the 8th Psalm, Out of the mouth
of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained praise.
In this sermon, as elsewhere, he removes the gross notion
of the real presence, insisted on even now by not a few.
Christ's body is received, he says, even as the Holy Ghost
was, that is, not the substance but the virtue of it. Both are
tl truly received in the same sense." So too Jeremy Taylor
on the Eeal Presence. He also notes how this passage con
demns those who are sent only by themselves, who take that
to them which none ever gave them.
The Spirit of Christ, he observes here as elsewhere, is not
an artificial but a constant principle and power working upon
the will: " Of ourselves to move: not wrought to it by any
gin, or vice, or screw made by art. Else we shall move but
while we are wound up for a certain time till the plummets be
at the ground, and then our motion will cease straight. All
which1 (but these last especially) are against the automata ,
the spectra, the puppets of religion, hypocrites. With some
spring within their eyes are made to roll, and their lips to
wag, and their breast to give a sob. All is but Hero's pneu-
matica} a vizor, not a very face ; an outward show of godli
ness, but no inward power of it at all."
The grace of apostleship he interprets to be the office itself,
for it is a grace to be a conduit of grace any way. The
anointing was no inward holiness, " but the right of ruling
only. So here it is no internal quality infused, but the grace
only of their spiritual and sacred function. Good it were and
much to be wished, that they were holy and learned all ; but if
they be not, their office holds good though." These again as
conduits may, by transmitting the water, make the garden to
bear both herbs and flowers, though themselves never bear
any. Those who built the ark were yet drowned themselves.
In the month of August our prelate was in attendance
upon the King at Burleigh-on-the-Hill, and on Monday the
5th, the anniversary of the Gowrie Conspiracy, preached
before him from the 2nd chapter of Esther. Ahasuerus
Bishop Andrewes takes to be the same with Artaxerxes
Longimanus. He notes in this discourse how contrary the
Komish doctrine of the seal of confession is to the 1st verse
of the 5th chapter of Leviticus, and altogether unchristianizes
the Komanists.
But though this may by some "be condemned in him as
inconsistent with some passages in his works, and as against
certain favourite opinions respecting the essential nature of
the Apostolical succession, it is no more than the Holy Ghost
doth, when by St. Paul he asks, " What agreement hath the
temple of God with idols ?" 1 So Bishop Andrewes, speaking
of Bellarmine and King James, a The King in die hoe (in
this day) neither heathen, I am sure, nor that can have the
least touch of idolatry fastened on him. He that shamed not
to say i No Christian] and hath been fain since to eat his
word; he durst not say an idolater, that would soon have
rebounded back upon himself. And no idolater is a Christian,
nor Christian an idolater, I am sure."2
This is one of many instances in which the truth will force
itself a way out of the pulpit, however it may be racked or
fettered in the Schools. Even Laud (according to Stilling-
fleet in his preface to his work on The Idolatry of the Romish
Communion) held the Eomanist to be an idolater. Idolatry
excluded from the Jewish Church, and it is incumbent for
those who maintain that the practice of it is compatible with
Christianity to shew their warrant out of the Holy Scriptures.
On the following day the King knighted at Burleigh Sir
Francis Bodenham.1
On September 2nd Bishop Andrewes ordained Edward
Catherall, M.A., deacon, and William Beale, M.A., and
Humphrey Tovey, M.A., priests, in the chapel of Downham
Palace. Catherall was B.A. of Jesus College 1614.4 One
William Tovey, B.D., occurs as Prebendary of the first stall
at Worcester October 15, 1586.1 He was also Prebendary of
Hereford March 17, 1588. He died in 1598.2
On September 29 Bishop Andrewes was admitted into the
King's Privy Council/ but his custom was always to with-
1 Hardy's Le Neve, vol. iii. p. 79. 2 Ibid. vol. i. p. 503.
3 Bilson, Bishop of "Winchester, had died June 18th (he was buried by night
in "Westminster Abbey), and had been succeeded by the King's not unworthy
favourite the pious and munificent Dr. James Montagu, Bishop of Bath and
Wells. He was brother of that most loyal and Christian patriot Edward, first
Lord Montagu of Boughton in Northamptonshire, whose third brother Sir Henry
was first Earl of Manchester, father of Edward, Earl of Manchester in the suc
ceeding reign, and ancestor of the Dukes of Manchester. Our prelate was edu
cated in Christ College, Cambridge. " He was afterwards Master" [the first]
"or rather nursing father" (says Fuller) "to Sidney College" [1595—1608]
" for he found it in bonds to pay 20 marks per annum to Trinity College for the
ground whereon it is built, and left it free, assigning it a rent for the discharge
thereof." Fuller records, both in his Worthies and in his History of the University
of Cambridge, how this prelate expended a hundred marks to bring running
water into the King's Ditch, to the great conveniency of the University.
On the death of Dr. George Boleyn, Prebendary of Canterbury and Chichester,
and Dean of Lichfield, Montagu was preferred to that Deanry, and installed
July 16, 1603. On the death of Dr. Eedes, Dean of Worcester, he was presented
to that Deanry, December 20, 1604, being succeeded at Lichfield by Dr.
"William Tooker, of whom see an account in Bliss's Wood's Athence Oxonienses.
On the death of Bishop Still, Master of Trinity College and Bishop of Bath and
Wells (B.A. 1561, M.A. 1565, of Christ College, Cambridge), known not only
by the memory of his talents in his several offices, but as the author of the
second English comedy in point of time, Gammer Gurton's Needle, Montagu
was, on April 17, 1608, consecrated to the see of Bath and Wells, Andrewes
with four other prelates assisting Bancroft at his consecration. Whilst Bishop
of that see he completed the abbey at Bath, the west part of the nave of which
was still uncovered. He was now, on the death of the learned Bishop Bilson,
translated to Winchester, which was said to have been the occasion of Andrewes
being appointed a Privy Councillor to compensate in some measure for his
disappointment. "This honour was done the bishop to put him in heart upon
the distaste he had in missing the bishopric of Winchester ; but, for aught I
hear, he is yet as silent as Mr. Wake's nuncio, the new cardinal." — Chamberlain
to Sir Dudley Carleton, October 12, 1616. (Birch's Court of James /., vol. i.
p. 429.) Lloyd in his State Worthies says of Andrewes, "He did not concern
himself much with civil politics. He would say when he came to the council-
table, ' Is there anything to be done to-day for the Church ? ' If they answered
* Tea,' then he said, ' I will stay ;' if ' No,' then he said, ' I will be gone.' '»
The flippant John Chamberlain will not have our prelate to have preached at
court this Christmas, but confined to his house, " being surprised by a sudden
surfeit of pork that had almost carried him away."
draw as much as possible from all state affairs. No greater
proof could he give of his freedom from ambitious motives. It
is true that a courtier's life was in those days a dangerous
one and that was sure to make enemies ; but ambition always
calculates upon labours and adventures, and is generally of a
subtle if not intriguing nature.
On November 4th Andrewes was present at the creation
of Charles, Prince of Wales.
Our prelate's 5th of November sermon is one of the most
remarkable of that series, abounding however with pleasantries
and witticisms, well deserved indeed by those at whom they
were pointed. Irony, though forbidden by some moderns, is
confirmed by precedents from both the Old and New Testa
ment.
On December 8th Bishop Andrewes assisted at the conse
cration of the very pious and learned Dr. Arthur Lake to the
see of Bath and Wells, and that excellently devout author,
Dr. Louis Bayley, to that of Bangor.
His Christmas-day sermon, taken from the 85th Psalm,
is excellent throughout, and is probably one of the best known
of all his discourses. His personifying of the divine attributes
and the reconciling of them all in the sacrificial death of the
Lamb of God, these render this sermon as favourite an illus
tration of the doctrine of the atonement, as Hooker's cele
brated sermon from Hdbdkkuk i. 4 (The wicked doth compass
about the righteous] is of the doctrine of justification.1 This
same day Thomas Earl of Arundel, who had been educated in
the Eomish religion, and had lately travelled through Italy,
seeing that religion in all its deformity, abjured it, and
received the holy Communion in Whitehall Chapel. The
same day also Montagu, now Bishop of Winchester (upon
the death of Bilson), preached before the King ; and in the
afternoon Dr. King, Bishop of London, preached at St. Paul's ;
Buckeridge, Bishop of Eochester, also in his own church of
St. Giles', Cripplegate, was much commended.
Thomas Earl of Arundel was the son of Philip Howard,
son of the daughter of Henry Fitzalan, the eleventh and last
Earl of that surname. He, " not able to digest the wrongs
and hard measure offered unto him, by the cunning sleights
of some envious persons, fell into the toil and net pitched for
him, and being brought into extreme peril of his life, yielded
up his vital breath in the Tower. But his son Thomas, a most
honourable young man (in whom a forward spirit and fervent
love of virtue and glory most beseeming his nobility, and the
same tempered with true courtesy, shineth very apparently),
recovered his father's dignities, being restored by King James
and Parliament authority."1 Thus Holland in his edition of
Camden. Thomas was restored to his titles in 1603.
It has been remarked, probably with justice, that the great
and repeated reluctance which Elizabeth evinced, previously
to the final condemnation of his father the Duke of Norfolk in
1572, may relieve her memory of the charge of hypocrisy so
recklessly urged against her by the advocates of her rival the
Queen of Scots.
On the 1st of March, 1617, Andre wes ordained John
Amner, Bachelor of Music, Deacon at Ely Chapel, the chapel
of the noble palace of the Bishops of Ely, Holborn. Amner
was organist of Ely Cathedral and master of the choristers.
He had been admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Music at
Oxford in May 1613.2 He composed and published sacred
hymns of three, four, five, and six parts, for voices and viols.
Lond. 1615, quarto. He set the 6th Psalm, old version, as
an anthem. The words are given as the 141st anthem in
Clifford's Collection, published soon after the Eestoration.
On the 16th of March Andrewes collated his friend Jerome
Beale to the third stall in Ely Cathedral, vacant by the death
of Dr. Kobert Tinley, Prebendary and Archdeacon of Ely.
To the Archdeaconry Andrewes preferred his friend Daniel
Wigmore, who held that dignity to his death in 1646, and to
whom he had given the second stall in his cathedral in 1615.
Wigmore was also Rector of Northwold in Norfolk and Snail-
well in Cambridgeshire. He was probably of a Somersetshire
family. He purchased the manor of Little Shelford of Sir
Toby Pallavicini, and dying in 1646, was buried at Little
Shelford. One of his family, Dr. Gilbert Wigmore, was Eector
of Little Shelford after the Bestoration, and living to a great
age was Eector there in 1709.
Beale was born at Gloucester, and educated first at Christ
College, Cambridge, and on October 9, 1579, was elected to
a Fellowship at Pembroke College, being then B.A. An-
drewes on September 25, 1616, preferred him to the Vicarage
of Barton near Cambridge, and on July 13, 1615, to the
Eectory of Willingham. He was also Eector of Nuthurst
near Horsham in Sussex, probably by the favour of the same
patron. When Dr. Nicholas Felton, Bishop of Bristol and
Master of Pembroke College, was translated to the see of Ely,
Beale was elected to succeed him in the Mastership, February
21, 1619. He was amongst the most eminent scholars in his
University, in great favour with the King, who made him his
chaplain and sub-almoner, and appears as a constant corre
spondent of Isaac Vossius.1 Like Andrewes he was a great
student of patristical learning. Doublet makes honourable
mention of Beale and Balcanqual as amongst the most devoted
friends of Vossius.2 In the collection of epistles to Vossius is
one from Pembroke Hall by Beale, April 2, 1628, highly
commending Vossius's History of Pelagianism. For this
Vossius received the unbounded thanks of Laud,3 and due
acknowledgments, but with some animadversions from the
pious and learned Dr. Ward, Master of Sidney Sussex Col
lege.4 In a letter of Andrew Colvin's to Vossius, Wren,
Beale, and Creighton are memorialized as the most learned
individuals belonging at that time (1629) to the University of
Cambridge.5 Creighton succeeded George Herbert as Public
Orator, and was in his old age raised to the see of Bath and
Wells.6 Dr. Beale died in 1630, being succeeded in his
Mastership by Dr. Benjamin Laney, successively Bishop of
Peterborough, Lincoln, and Ely.
In this same month1 (March 1617) Andre wes with Dr.
Valentine Carey, Dean of St. Paul's and Master of Christ
College, Cambridge, and Laud, now Dean of Gloucester and
Chaplain to the King, attended his Majesty upon his visit to
Scotland. On Sunday March 30,2 the King being at Lincoln
attended divine service at the cathedral, being met at the great
west entrance by Andrewes, his old servant Montagu, Bishop
of Winchester, and his most humble of servants and entirely
devoted of courtiers, Dr. Neile, Bishop of Lincoln, who
preached before him. After the sermon the King (we read)
healed fifty persons of the King's evil. He dined at the
Bishop's palace, formerly one of the most elegant specimens
of both late and early Gothic in this kingdom.3 After dinner
the King went in his carroche in private to St. Catherine's.
On Tuesday April 1 Chancellor Eland preached before the
King in his chamber of presence.4
From Lincoln the King went to Newark, and thence
to Worksop, Doncaster, Pontefract, and York, where on
April 11 he attended service at the Minster. On the
12th he rode with his train to Bishopthorpe, and dined
with the aged but most sprightly and cheerful Toby Mathew,
Archbishop.1
On Sunday the 13th Dr. Mathew preached a learned
sermon before him, after which there were brought to him
seventy persons to be cured of the King's evil. This day
the King and all his court • dined with the Lord Mayor, and
after dinner knighted Sir Robert Ayscough the Lord Mayor,
and Sir Richard Hutton the Eecorder. This same year Sir
Richard was made a judge of the Common Pleas.2
On Monday the 14th the King rode to Sheriff Hutton
Park, and there knighted Sir Richard Harper of Derbyshire,
Sir John Hippisley, and Sir William Bellassis of Durham.3
On Tuesday April 15 Dr. Phinehas Hodson, of the Uni
versity of Cambridge, who had in September 1611 been made
by Toby Mathew Chancellor of York, preached before the
King at the Manor House.4 Probably it was through the
Archbishop that Dr. Hodson was either now or before Chaplain
to the King.
On Wednesday April 16 the King was entertained at
Aske Hall in the parish of Easby, the seat of Talbot Bowes,
Esq.5 On the skirts of the high country and looking down
the fertile vale of Gilling, with swelling lawns in front, and a
long sweep of rising woods beyond, Richmondshire has not
perhaps a single residence which surpasses Aske in point of
situation.
On the 17th the King was received at the palace Bishop
Auckland by Dr. William James, successor to Toby Matliew
in the see of Durham. There he spent Good Friday, and on
Saturday the 19th entered Durham. The 20th being Easter-
day Bishop Andrewes preached in the cathedral on the sign
of the prophet Jonas, with his usual ingenuity laying open
the whole scope and force of the words. First he exposed
the hypocrisy and impenitent hardheartedness of the Phari
sees, worshippers of their own imaginations, literally an
adulterous generation, contradicting themselves with a mali
cious mind in asking yet another after so many signs.
But u the worse the men, the more importune ever, and
the harder to satisfy."1 Yet Christ in his goodness gives
them a sign, and the greatest of all signs. Other prophets
had raised the dead, none had raised themselves. Christ
would compare himself to the prophet Jonah, that prophet
who was a sinner and a fugitive. He came in the simili
tude of sinful flesh, and accordingly would make sinful
flesh his similitude. Jonah was sent to the Gentiles, and
sent the first in order of time of all the sixteen, the four great,
the twelve less. So Jonah was every way a sign of salvation
to us sinners of the Gentiles. Jonah and none but he had
the honour to be a kind of expiatory sacrifice, when by his
being cast out the ship was saved. And he alone gave a type
of the resurrection. He came forth the third day by special
grace, not by the course of nature. Incomparable is our
prelate's comparison of Jonah in the whale to the security
of the state of death. " There he was, but took no hurt there.
1. As safe, nay more safe there than in the best ship of
Tharsis : no flaw of weather, no foul sea could trouble him
there. 2. As safe, and as safely carried to land: the ship
could have done no more. So that upon the matter he did
but change his vehiculum [carriage], shifted but from one
vessel to another ; went on his way still. 3. On he went, as
well, nay better than the ship would have carried him ; went
into the ship, the ship carried him wrong, out of his way clean
to Tharsisward ; went into the whale, and the whale carried him
right, landed him on the next shore to Ninive, whither in
truth he was bound, and where his errand lay. 4. And all
the while at good ease as in a cell or study, for there he
indited a psalm, expressing in it his certain hope of getting
forth again. So as in effect where he seemed to be in most
danger, he was in greatest safety. Thus can God work. And
the evening and the morning were Jonah's second day."
We may add, how great a proof is here of the faithfulness
of God's protection and the omnipotence of his providence.
What darkness should bring us into the deep of despair who
are commanded to trust in such a God, whose miracles in the
world of spirits never cease, and whose tender pity is as great
toward the meanest and poorest of his children now as once
toward the prophet Jonah? This is a sign as well for the
comfort of his children as for the conviction of his enemies.
But how triumphantly did our prelate pursue the com
parison : Jonah but given up for dead, Christ really so, taken
down from his cross, laid in, sealed up in his grave, a stone
rolled on him, a watch set over him. The whale, not Jonah,
delivered the prophet, but Christ by his own power broke
the bars of death and loosed the sorrows of hell, of which it is
impossible he should be holden. Jonas rose but to the same
state, mortal still. Christ rose never to die more. Jonas
was but cast out upon the dry land, but Christ was received
into glory. And in sign of it the place whereon Jonas was
cast was dry land or cliffs, where nothing grows. The place
wherein Christ rose was a well-watered garden, wherein the
ground was in all her glory, fresh and green and full of
flowers at the instant of his rising this time of the year.
And yet behold a greater than all these. For Jonas when
he came forth, came forth and there was all, left the whale as
he found it. Christ slew the whale that devoured him • he
was the death of death.
Our good bishop fails not towards the conclusion to teach
that lesson of faith in God's providence touched upon above,
and to speak of the great deliverance of all from the power of
Satan the spiritual Leviathan.
CHAPTER XVIII.
Page 436
The King's progress to Scotland — Whitsunday 1617 — Carey and
Laud — Grotius " Delmperio Summarum Potestatum circa Sacra"
— Felton, Bishop of Bristol.
THE King's visit to Scotland was professedly to discharge
some points of his kingly office in reforming abuses both in
the church and commonwealth. But in attempting these
changes he outran the zeal and prudence of the Scottish
Bishops, who themselves with great moderation interposed,
and prevented consequences that the Sovereign himself was
too disinclined to provide for, ever as ready to exalt his
prerogative as he was unable to maintain his claims. Hence
his visit was ineffectual, and served only to increase mutual
prejudice and aversion.
On June the 8th, being Whitsunday, Bishop Andrewes
preached before him in Holyrood chapel, saying many ad
mirable things upon our Lord's first sermon upon his com
mission; dwelling much upon the guilt of assuming the
ministry without being sent, since Christ himself went not
before he was sent ; highly commending the ancient Fathers
as those who were endued with a greater measure of the
Spirit than men in later ages (which, had he confined it to the
apostolic age, might peradventure have been true), and excel
lently unfolding the design of our Saviour's commission to
bind up the broken-hearted, to deliver us from captivity, and
to bring with him the true year of jubilee. " On this day of
salvation the sun never goes down." Our Lord's commission,
he observed, was only to them that are of a broken spirit.
Elias healed none but the poor widow of Sarepta ; Eliseus,
only Naaman after his spirit came down ; Christ, none but
such as were of a contrite spirit.
" The right hammer," he remarks, tl to break the heart is
the sight of our sins. And I will say this for it, that I never
in my life saw any man brought so low with any worldly
calamity as I have with this sight. And these I speak of
were not of the common sort, but men of spirit and valour,
that durst have looked death in the face. Yet when God
opened their eyes to see this sight their hearts were broken,
yea, even ground to powder with it, contrite indeed."
Toward the end of this sermon he notes that the " jubilee
ever began with no other sound but even of a cornet made of
the horns of a ram. Of which horns they gave no other
reason but that it was so in reference to the horns of that ram
that in the thicket was caught by the horns and sacrificed in
Isaac's stead, even as Christ was in ours, to shew that our
jubilee has relation to that special sacrifice so plainly pre
figuring that of Christ's."
On June 21 Mr. Chamberlain thus wrote to Sir Dudley
Carleton : " Our churchmen and ceremonies are not so well
allowed of, the rather by an accident that fell out at the
burial of one of the guard who died there, and was buried
after the English fashion ; and the Dean of St. Paul's [Valen
tine Carey] preaching, desired all the assembly to recommend
with him the soul of their deceased brother to Almighty God,
which was so ill taken that he was driven to retract it openly
and to confess he did it in a kind of civility rather than
according to the perfect rule of divinity. Another exception
was taken to Dr. Laud's putting on a surplice when the corpse
was to be laid in the ground.1 So that it seems they are very
averse from our customs, insomuch that one of the bishops,
Dean of the chapel2 there to the King, refused to receive the
Communion with him kneeling."
On the King's return Dr Morton, then Bishop of Chester,
preached before him at Hoghton in the hundred of Blackburn,
Lancashire, August 17. About 10 or 11 in the evening there
was a mask of noblemen, knights, gentlemen, and courtiers
before the King in the middle round in the garden of Hoghton
tower.1 Very frequent instances occur of the Sovereign's
profanation of the Lord's-day in his progresses, even in this
his tour of ecclesiastical reformation.
On August 26 Mr. Thomas Dod (uncle to the pious Non
conformist, usually called Dod the decalogist,) preached before
the King, who was so pleased with him that he made him
one of his chaplains in ordinary.2
Upon July 9 (N.S.) we find Grotius writing to Isaac
Vossius, commending to him his book De Imperio Summarum
Potestatum circa Sacra, and requesting him to shew it to
those of whom he thinks highly, especially to Bishop An-
drewes.3 The same year he wrote to Overall, referring to his
judgment his book against the Socinians, and touching at
some length upon his book De Imperio Summarum Potes
tatum, expressing at the same time his fears that it will not
be altogether satisfactory to Andrewes and others in England.
In this work he sets the authority of the chief magistrate in
religion sufficiently high, and enters with his usual learning
upon various topics relating to the discipline and government
of the Church in the earlier ages. He establishes the power
of princes in matters of religion. They have authority to
restrain and punish evil of every kind, authority over every
soul, over both clergy and laity ; he is the minister of God to
thee for good, good of every kind without limitation. He is
appointed that we may live a quiet and peaceable life, not
only in all honesty but in all godliness. For the true happi
ness of a state is that it love God and be loved of him ; that
it acknowledge him for its king, itself for his people, as
St. Austin excellently says/ who also adds, that those kings
are happy who make their power subservient to his majesty,
to the entire promotion and advancement of his worship. So
the Emperors Theodosius and Honorius in their epistle to
Marcellinus, i For we seek no other end by the toils of war,
we purpose nought else by the counsels of peace, than that
the people of our empire may with full affection observe the
true worship of God.' So Theodosius in his epistle to Cyril,
1 It is the office of the emperor to provide that his subjects
live not only peaceably but piously.' And therefore Isidore
of Pelusium saith that the same is the end both of the priest
hood and of the kingly power, namely, the salvation of their
subjects. Aristotle, reasoning only by the light of nature,
comes to a similar conclusion. But to proceed to the Scrip
tures, kings are commanded as kings, in their office, to observe
the whole law of God, to serve the Lord, to salute his
Christ. As St. Augustine saith, ' Kings then fulfil the divine
command when they enjoin good and forbid evil, not only in
its relation to human society but also to true religion.'2 And
Isidore of Seville, * Let the princes of this world know that
they must render an account to God for the Church which is
entrusted by Christ to their protection. For whether the
peace and order of the Church be strengthened by faithful
princes, or whether it be brought to nought, he demands of
them an account who hath committed the Church to their
power.3 With regard to the practice of the Church, the
ecclesiastical historian Socrates has summed it up in those
words of his, ' From the time that the emperors became Chris
tian all ecclesiastical affairs depended upon their authority.'4
Constantine is called on an old inscription the patron of
religion and of the faith. The Emperor Basil, calling the
Church the ship universal, saith that the guidance of it is by
God entrusted to him. And so in the epistle to Lucius,
ascribed to Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome, the king is called
ecclesiastically the Vicar of God. To this doctrine agreed
the reformed Confessions of Belgium, of Switzerland, of Basle ;
to this the Church of England, to this the writings of
Musculus, Bucer, Jewel, Whitaker, Rainolds, and more lately
of King James, of Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, of Burhill, Tooker,
Casaubon, and Paroeus. The same was asserted in the volu
minous works of Melchior Goldastus.
Again, the very nature of religion, which inclines men to
peace, obedience, the true love of their country, and of justice
and equity, commends it to princes as a fit object of their care
and protection. The very enemies of Christianity have testified
to its great moral efficacy, and to the purity of its precepts.
Add to this, that doctrine and worship themselves have no
small influence upon the manners and happiness of mankind.
This is obvious in the doctrine, for instance, of the spirituality
of the divine nature. From the all-seeing presence of God it
follows at once that we should do nothing offensive to him.
From the fulness of his knowledge and prescience flows this
consolation, that nothing can happen to the good but for their
good. Nor said Plato without cause that it was not to be
endured that any should teach that God was the author of
evil actions. Had Silius Italicus, instead of
Heu primse scelcrum causse mortalibus segris
Naturam nescire Deum,
written Dei, he had written truly enough.
Amongst inferior reasons for the ecclesiastical supremacy
of the civil power may be placed the great influence of the
priesthood, and the danger of the more ambitious part of
them. Curtius himself bears witness that the multitude will
sooner follow their priests than their generals. Add to this,
that all changes in religion, if not by general consent and
manifestly for the better, are always dangerous to the state. For
these two last reasons even those confess that the actions of
the priesthood should be subjected to the supreme power, who
deny such subjection where inconsistent with the due exercise
of their spiritual function. So John Paris, Francis Victoria,
and Roger Widdrington.1
In the second chapter he gives the history of the union and
disjunction of the spiritual and civil power, and shews that they
are not naturally opposed, but were for a long time joined in
the same person, as in the patriarchal age, but severed both
under the Mosaic and Christian dispensations. This however
he would so restrict as that it should not be understood that
every business of a secular kind is inconsistent with the exercise
of the spiritual function. On the other hand, the Christian
Emperors took to themselves ecclesiastical titles, not assuming
them officially but in a wider sense, to signify their general
overseership and care of the Church.
In the third chapter he considers the power of the civil
magistrate to oblige, and to what actions it extends ; also of
the lawfulness and unlawfulness of resistance. Passive obe
dience is due where the chief magistrate is neither bound by
law nor created by it ; so the Roman Emperors were obeyed .
by the early Christians • so David did not lift up his hand
against Saul, who, though a tyrant, was a king by a positive
and unconditional ordinance. But where the chief magistrate
is rather primus than summus, the first not the absolute head,
the nobles may, upon just cause, take up arms against him.2
He then condemns the doctrine that the chief magistrate
may make laws in opposition to the Word of God, a necessary
error of those who would mould all institutions anew upon the
principle that wealth alone is to legislate, wealth alone to be
had in honour, wealth to draw all things to itself.
So the civil magistrate cannot lawfully forbid preaching
and the administration of the sacraments, or alter the divinely
instituted form or substance of the sacraments, or the law of
marriage, or innovate, that is, make new articles of faith, or
essentially new kinds of worship, or new sacraments. But
his power does extend to the circumstantials of religion, as to
the age that shall qualify for the episcopate, the laws relating
to residence and non-residence ; also that the priest shall utter
the canon of baptism and of the holy Communion with an
audible voice, &c. He may also take away whatsoever
ministers occasion to the violation of God's commandments.
So Hezekah removed the high places and ground to powder
the brazen serpent. So Josiah abolished idolatry and the
idolatrous priesthood. So the Christian Emperors shut up the
Pagan shrines and temples. He may also punish profane-
ness, as Nebuchadnezzar ordered those to be punished who
should speak against the God of the Hebrews.1 So too
Grotius decides against the Puritans that the laws of the civil
magistrate can bind in all things not contrary to Scripture, and
make that binding which before was not so. This he ratifies
by the Augustan and Bohemian Confessions.2 These positions
he defends against objectors, and further explains in the
three following chapters, after which he proceeds to treat of
the history, origin, and limits of the power of Councils.
In his ninth chapter he gives his opinion upon absolution
and the power of the keys, and denies that the acts concerning
them are properly acts of jurisdiction. He follows Peter
Lombard,3 who defines the power of absolution to be the
power of shewing to men that they are, or declaring that they
are, bound or loosed, as the priest pronounced who were
leprous and who free from the leprosy.4 He adduces Cyprian,
Ambrose, and Augustine.5 The same appears to be the
doctrine of Jewel in the early part of his Apology. On the
history of absolution let me refer my reader to the 24th
chapter in Field's Appendix to the third book Of the Church,
and to the ninth book of Forbes' Instructiones Historico-
Theologicce.
In his tenth chapter he treats of the election of pastors,
and here he regards the Apostles themselves as presbyters.
In the eleventh chapter he discusses at large the name and
office of the bishop, pleading for its apostolic origin, but
denying it to be of divine right, since many appointments
were equally apostolical for which no such high distinction is
claimed. He shews that episcopacy cannot be repugnant to
Scripture, from the 12th chapter of the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, God appointed in the Church first apostles,
secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers. So it is plain that
distinction and disparity of ranks is not antichristian. And
here he affirms that he truly follows Zanchius, Chemnitz,
Hemmingius, Calvin, Melancthon, Bucer, and Beza. Jerome
he treats more fairly than does Saravia, who with much
special pleading endeavours to disprove that Father entirely
in his celebrated Epistle to Evagrius. He says truly enough,
that when the Fathers speak of custom they do not exclude
apostolical institution. So Augustine, i Whatsoever the whole
Church observes, and that though not set up by Councils, has
been always retained, is most rightly believed to have been de
livered by no other than apostolical authority.'1 Epiphanius
himself attests that some places were suffered to remain with
out bishops, but adds that in such places none could be found
worthy of the episcopate. Even in the case of ordination the
concurrence and cooperation of presbyters were required.2
^ Meanwhile," observes Grotius, u I see not how it can be
refuted that where there are no bishops, ordination may be
validly conferred by a presbyter, as William of Auxerre, the
school divine, has long since admitted."3 He proceeds to
vindicate the foreign churches who did not perpetuate epis
copacy, and treats also fully of lay elders, proving, as in the
case of bishops, that they are not of divine right, but that
they are not contrary to the Holy Scriptures. This work was
translated in 1651.
In a letter from John Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carleton,
dated October 31, Chamberlain states that on the receipt of
Sir Dudley Carleton's letter of the 19th, he went to Bishop
Andrewes, who received him with great kindness, and expos
tulated with him for the very long interval which he had
suffered to elapse without seeing him. He delivered him Sir
Dudley's proposition, " and withal upon long conference
something you had written touching the Arminians counte
nancing themselves with some of his letters. Whereupon he
fell into a long speech of a writing that the Archbishop
Whitgift had got from him in some parts of that argument,
and that he knows not what became of it, for he never gave
a copy of it, but only one to Mr. Hooker, who promised to
return it, but never did. But he expressed not all the while
which opinion he inclined to, but still insisted if they had any
writing of his they should shew it ; concluding that I should
assure you that they have no letter of his, and with that
vehemency that he would give me leave to send you his head
in a platter if they could shew any letter of his. He told
me further that Grotius when he was here dined once with
him, and supped another time ; but other communication than
passed at table he had none with him, though he under
stands since that he gave out and fathered many things
upon him that were neither so nor so. Surely he hath a
wonderful memory, for he not only calls to mind any matter
that passed at any time, but the very time, place, persons,
and all other circumstances, which seemed strange to me in a
discourse of almost two hours."1
On the 5th of November Andrewes preached before the
King at Whitehall Chapel on Luke i. 74, 75. He in this
sermon reminded his hearers of our memorable national
deliverance in 1588. His wit remarkably discovers itself
throughout this discourse as a holy ingenuity, full of practical
point. He speaks much of reverence in worship. But let it
be remembered to the credit of Laud, that he first broke off
the custom of breaking off the prayers for the sermon upon
the King's coming into the chapel.
On the 30th of November Bishop Andrewes collated his
brother Roger to the fourth stall in Ely Cathedral, which he
held till his death in 1635. He was then succeeded in his
stall by John Harris, M.A., Rector of Passenham on the
borders of Northamptonshire, near Stony Stratford.
The Dean of Ely at this time was Dr. Henry, son of Dr.
Julius Caesar, brother of Sir Julius Caesar, Master of the
Rolls, and son of Julius, physician to Queens Mary and
Elizabeth, a most munificent benefactor to Jesus College,
Cambridge, although himself of the University of Oxford.
The other prebendaries were Dr. John Boys, one of the
translators of the Bible, Eector of Boxworth, who had been
preferred by Andrewes himself; Daniel Wigmore, Arch
deacon of Ely, another of the Bishop's friends ; Jerome Beale,
also in the enjoyment of the same honour; the learned and
pious Andrew Willet, whose works have fallen into undeserved
neglect. He was as a Biblical scholar not inferior to any of
his contemporaries ; his life in Fuller's Abel Redivivus was
written by his son-in-law Dr. Peter Smith of King's College,
Cambridge. John Hills, B.D., Master of Catharine Hall,
Cambridge, Archdeacon of Lincoln, his patron being Bishop
Barlow, Eector of Fulbourn All Saints, the place of his nativity.
He was buried at Horsheath near Newmarket September
1626. He had been raised to the Mastership of Catharine
Hall from a Fellowship at Jesus College. Dr. John Duport,
Master of Jesus College, Precentor of St. Paul's, Vicar of
Fulham, Middlesex, and Eector of Bosworth and Medbourn
in his native county of Leicester ; and lastly, Dr. James
Taylor, Eector of Westmill, Hertfordshire, where he was
buried. He died March 19, 1624.
Our prelate on the 5th of December joined in a letter to
the King respecting the retrenchment of his expenses.1
Upon December 14th Andrewes, with Dr. King, Bishop of
London, Buckeridge, Bishop of Eochester, Marc Antony de
Dominis, late Archbishop of Spalatro, and Overall, Bishop of
Lichfield and Coventry, assisted Abbot at the consecration of
Dr. George Montagu to the see of Lincoln, and of Andrewes7
most worthy, learned, and upright friend Dr. Nicholas Felton,2
Master of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, to the see of Bristol.
There he succeeded Dr. John Thornborough, who had but
a contentious and disturbed rule in that see. He was now,
on the death of that eminent prelate Dr. Parry, translated to
Worcester.
Dr. George Montagu was bom at Cawood in Yorkshire,
north-west of Selby, and educated at Queens' College, Cam-
bridge, was Lecturer in Gresham College, Master of the
Savoy, Rector of Great Cressingham, Norfolk, January 25,
1603, on the presentation of Lord Keeper Egerton, and
November 22, 1609, Eector of Cheam on the presentation of
the King. He succeeded Neile as Dean of Westminster
December 10, 1610. He resigned this Deanry upon this his
consecration to the see of Lincoln, and was succeeded in it
by Dr. Thomas Fuller's uncle, Dr. Eobert Townson, who was
born in Cambridge and educated also at Queens' College in
that University. He was translated to London July 20,
1621, on the death of Bishop King, and to Durham early in
1628 on the promotion of Neile to Winchester, and a few
months afterward to York. He was succeeded at Durham by
Howson. He was elected to York June 26th, was enthroned
October 24th, and dying (probably 6th of November) that
same year, was buried in Cawood Church. Hugh Holland
wrote an epitaph upon him. His tomb is in the chancel with
his bust in his lawn sleeves. He was succeeded at York by
Harsnet, Bishop of Norwich.
Of Dr. Felton the reader may find several notices in my
Memorials of Dr. Thomas Fuller.1 He was the son of a
merchant of Yarmouth. He was B.A. of Pembroke Hall,
Cambridge, 1580, and was elected to a Fellowship, M.A. 1581,
B.D. 1591, Eector of St. Antholin's and St. Mary-le-Bow,
London, and of Great Easton near Dunmow in Essex, and of
Blagden or Blagdon near Bristol, Somersetshire, Prebendary
of St. Paul's, London, 4th March, 1616. On the translation
of Andrewes to Winchester Felton was removed from the see
of Bristol to that of Ely, being elected March 2nd, 1619, and
confirmed March llth. He died October 5th, 1626, and was
buried under the Communion-table in the chancel of St.
Antholin's, London, without any memorial. At Ely he was
succeeded by Dr. John Buckeridge, Bishop of Eochester.
He was a prelate of eminent piety and integrity, and of no
less learning, for which he was appointed one of the trans
lators of the Bible. " He had," says Fuller in his Church
History? " a sound head and a sanctified heart, was beloved
of God and all good men, very hospitable to all and charitable
to the poor." Andrewes assisted in procuring for him the
Mastership of Pembroke Hall, which he held from 1616 to
1619.
In the course of this year appeared Epphata to F. T.
(Thomas Fitzherbert, mentioned under 1613) ; or, the Defence
of the Right Reverend Father in God the Lord Bishop of
Elie, Lord High Almoner and Privy Councillor to the King's
most excellent Majestic. Concerning his Answer to Cardinal
Bellarmine's Apologie : against the slanderous cavils of a
nameless Adjoinder ; entitling his book in every page of it,
A Discoverie of many foule absurdities, falsities, lies, &c.,
wherein these things chiefly are discussed (besides many other
incident) :
1. The Pope's false Primacie claiming by Peter.
2. Invocation of Saints, with Worship of Creatures and
Faith in them.
3. The Supremacie of Kings both in Temporal and
Ecclesiastical Matters and Causes, over all States and
Persons, &c., within their Realms and Dominions.
By Dr. Collins, Chapleine to His Majestic. Apoc. xviii. 7.
Give her torture (an allusion to the title of the Bishop's book,
Tortura Torti}. Printed by Cantrell Legge, Printer to the
University of Cambridge, 1617. This work was, for abun
dance of learning, force of argument, and felicity of illustration
and application, not unworthy the great reputation of its
author, who was accounted one of the most learned theologians
and scholars of his age, and who at school had given early
promise of the ability which distinguished him at the Uni
versity. He was a constant guest at Buckden at the table
of the munificent and hospitable Williams, with Dr. Samuel
Ward and Dr. Brownrigg, afterwards Bishop of Exeter. He
was born at Eton, where he was also educated ; was from a
Fellowship raised to the Provostship j^f King's College 1615,
succeeded Dr. Richardson, Master of Trinity College, as
Regius Professor of Divinity 1617, and was, on the death of
Dr. Duport, Master of Jesus College, Cambridge, collated by
Bishop Andrewes to the seventh stall at Ely February 9th,
1618. He was deprived in 1644, and died, aged 75, Sep
tember 16th, 1651, and was buried in King's College chapel.
He fully exposes the weakness, incompetence, and sophistry
of Fitzherbert. This elaborate work is one of many proofs
how valuable is the study of the Fathers to those who have
sufficient learning to profit from them, and how dangerous it
is merely to dabble in them, as Fitzherbert appears to have
done. But in truth we need never look into the writings of
those who adhere to Kome for right views of the Fathers.
Their learned men are fully aware that the Fathers often and
in many things make against them. Hence we find the
theory of development anticipated by Bishop Fisher.
As some in our own time have done, so Fitzherbert caught
at Andrewes' words, that Christ is to be adored in and with
the sacrament. "The Bishop grants that Christ is to be
worshipped, and that he is to be worshipped in the sacrament,
which he infallibly accompanieth, and effectually assisteth :
ergo, with you he is a Pontifician, and maintaineth your cause,
and letrayeth his own. No such thing, gentle sir. To make
him yours, more goes to it than so. Especially these two,
corporal presence, and transubstantiation or conversion. These
are the two main badges or rather buttresses of your Cyclops,
neither of which is to be found in the Bishop's writing, and
God knows is far off from his belief." " Though again, when
we say that Christ is in the sacrament (because we would not
be mistaken), we say not that he is there after a corporal
manner : nay, that your own Captain and Cardinal dis-
claimeth, corporaliter esse Christum in Sacramento; but we
say not so much as that his flesh is there, or his body there at
all, not only after a bodily or fleshly manner. Christus, saith
St. Leo, quadragesimo post resurrectionem die, coram dis-
cipulis elevatus in coelum, corporalis praesentise modum fecit,
&c. Christ made a period of his bodily presence, being lifted
up into heaven before^he face of his disciples the fortieth
day after his resurrection. And St. Austin, out of those words,
Matt, xxvi., Non semper habebitis me vobiscum, with other
like in St. John xii., resolves it plainly that secundum carnem
non semper, according to the flesh he is not always with
us. (Tract. 109 in Joh.) It were not hard to produce divers
more to the same purpose. Yea, si esset in terra, non esset
sacerdos. (Heb. viii.) If Christ were on the earth, he could be
no priest, &c. So as you destroy his priesthood, while you
stand for such presence, to commend your sacrifice. I say,
therefore, neither bodily nor in body at all." The contrary
to this is insisted upon by the late Archdeacon Wilberforce
in his work upon the Eucharist ; and accordingly whilst he
affixes a literal, Dr. Collins gives a more just and reasonable
interpretation to Cyril's Catecheses, where the author of that
uncertain book touches upon the Eucharist. For Rivet did
not without reason call the authorship of the Catecheses in
question.1 In a note Dr. Collins ridicules those who make
Christ's body to be a figure of itself in the Sacrament.2
Collins was, besides his other preferments, Eector of
Braintree, Essex, February 15, 1611, and of Fen Ditton
in 1643. He was ejected thence by the Earl of Manchester.
He had declined the see of Bristol. He was the son of Master
Baldwin Collins, whom the Queen for his piety used to call
Father Collins.
Dr. Collins quotes that most admirable passage from St.
Augustine, in which he limits adoration to him who is the
source of our felicity, thus shutting out at once every kind of
worship besides, whether addressed to men or angels : u Solus
ille colendus est, quo solo fruens, beatus fit cultor ejus, et quo
solo non fruens, omnis mens misera est, etsi qualibet re alia"
perfruatur." (Contra Faustum Manichceum, lib. xx. c. 5.3)
" He alone is to be adored by the enjoyment of whom alone
the worshipper is made happy, and without the enjoyment of
whom alone the mind is miserable, whatsoever else it may
enjoy."
Dr. Collins defends the imputation of our Saviour's
righteousness to us (p. 376), and quotes St. Jerome; and,
on the other hand, for the imputation of the sin of Adam,
St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio in Baptism., that Adam's
eating the forbidden fruit was so ours, that of itself it was
enough to condemn us.
He speaks of regeneration as including the whole life
of a Christian ; we are regenerating here all the time of
our life. (p. 377.) He applies the 7th chapter of the Epistle
to the Komans to the regenerate, as did St. Augustine, and as
Bishop Andrewes also did in his Boole of Devotions, p. 379.
Dr. Collins defends Calvin, who says that Christ bade his
disciples receive^ not adore the sacrament. Calvin would
have us refrain from worshipping the sacrament of the Eu
charist for safety's sake : " Quia non tutum. Nam ut Christum
illic rite apprehendant pise animae, in ccelum erigantur necesse
est." (Instit. lib. iv. c. 17, § 36.) "It is not safe; for that
the faithful may duly apprehend Christ in that sacrament,
it is requisite that their minds should be lifted up to heaven."
Dr. Collins observes that St. Augustine and St. Ambrose
interpreted the footstool of God — the earth is my footstool,
Isa. Ixvi. 1, of our Lord's human nature. So Augustine on
Psa. xcviii. (Psa. xcix.), where he is careful not to be mis
understood, as though he intended the presence of Christ
bodily in the Eucharist, as the sequel clearly demonstrates.
CHAPTER XIX.
Page 451
Andrewes and Grotius, 1618 — Condemnation of Trash — Peter du
Moulin — Dr. Preston — Andrewes translated to Winchester —
Christmas 1619 — The King at Farnham 1620 — Consecration of
St. Mary's Chapel near Southampton — Tilenus.
WE find Chamberlain again with Andrewes in February.
He wrote to Sir Dudley Carleton on the 14th: " I made an
errand to Ely House to have shewn the Bishop the Pope's
determination 'twixt the Franciscans and Jacobins, if he had
not seen it ; as likewise what you wrote concerning Grotius
to make him more wary hereafter, though, for aught I ever
heard, he hath used caution enough that way ; but he was at
Lambeth." He found him at home a few days after, and he
informed Chamberlain "that he had had letters lately, and
that before Christmas one came to him for an answer; but
being presently to preach at court, and not finding himself
well at ease, he made his excuse. But I perceived by this
that he holds him for a very learned and able man : yet I doubt
not but this little conference will serve him for a caveat
hereafter. I lent him the Pope's determination 'twixt the
Franciscans and Jacobins, and the censure of the Sorbonists
upon the Archbishop of Spalatro's books, which I met with all
by chance, none of which he had, or had seen."1
Our prelate preaching before the King at Whitehall on
April 5, Easter-day, 1618, prefaced his sermon with a suitable
application of his text, 1 Cor. xi. 16 : But if any man seem
to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches
of God, to the question of the authority of the Church in
things ceremonial.1 This passage is similarly applied by
the learned Dr. John Forbes in his Theologia Moralis, who
quotes Calvin upon it.2 Andrewes proceeds to the conditions
to be regarded in the putting forth of Church authority, that
all customs be agreeable to the general custom of the Church :
especially is a custom to be commended if it be ancient and
from the Apostles.
The third part of this sermon is a learned dissertation upon
the various computations of the time of Easter in the first
four centuries, and a reference to many patristic testimonies
of the observance of the festival. That the Apostles them
selves instituted this festival he maintains on the ground of
St. Augustine's often quoted and but too often misapplied
assertion : For such things as come to us not ly writing, but
by practise (and yet such as are observed quite through the
world], we are given to understand they were commended to
us, and were instituted either by the Apostles themselves, or by
General Councils, whose authority hath ever been accounted of
as wholesome in the Church. " Now," adds Andrewes, " what
be those things so generally observed toto orbe terrarum?
These: that the passion, the resurrection, the ascension of
Christ , and the coming of the Holy Ghost from heaven, anni-
versaria solemnitate celebrantur, are yearly in solemn manner
celebrated. And, saith he" [St. Augustine], " if there be any
beside these : for these are most clear."
When we call to mind that the Apostles would, by the
Passover and the Day of Pentecost, be annually led back to
the still more wonderful events which endeared those seasons
to their hearts, we may well conjecture that from the very
earliest they annually commemorated at those seasons the
sufferings and the resurrection of Christ, and the descent of
the Holy Ghost.
His Whitsunday sermon, May 24th, preached before the
King at Greenwich from Acts ii. 7, is not one of the most
felicitous of his discourses. He observes the tendency of the
age to turn religion into an auricular profession; but whilst
the whole is upon the effusion of the Spirit, it is not a pouring
forth worthy of the occasion. But one comparison there is in
it, which would have sufficed for a sermon of itself ; when he
remarks that as copious as was the effusion of Christ's blood,
so copious was the effusion of the Spirit, " He as liberal of
his grace , as Christ of his blood."1
Andrewes appears to have been nominated to the see of
Winchester on the ver y day of the decease of Bishop Montague
at Greenwich, 20th July, 1618. The conge d'elire for his
election is dated 29th July, 1618.
But a short time before he was, on June 23rd, put in
commission for banishing Jesuits, Seminary Priests, &c.2
This year, 1618, the King appointed Drs. Carleton, Hall,
Davenant, and Ward to represent the English Church at the
Synod of Dort.3 George Carleton was born at Norham in
Northumberland, and was educated by the famous Bernard
Gilpin, the apostle of the North, (whose zeal was emulated by
the indefatigable Edmund Bunney, of an eminent family from
the village of Bunney in Nottinghamshire, B.D., and Fellow
of Merton College, Oxford, and Prebendary of St. Paul's, of
York and Carlisle, and Kector of Bolton Percy4). He first
went to St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, and thence to Merton
College, of which he was chosen a Fellow. He was made
D.D. 1613. He held the stall of St. Dubritius in the church
of Llandaff, previously to his being appointed to the bishopric.
He was consecrated to that see a few months before he wrent
to Dort, namely, July 12, 1618, at Lambeth. Abbot was
assisted on this occasion by Dr. John King, Bishop of London,
Dr. John Buckeridge, Bishop of Eochester, Dr. John Overall,
Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and Dr. George Monteigne,
Bishop of Lincoln. Dr. Joseph Hall of Emmanuel College,
Cambridge, was at this time Dean of Worcester and Arch
deacon of Nottingham. The latter dignity he received on the
promotion of Dr. King, Dean of Christ Church, to the see of
London in 1611, and his Deamy to the promotion of that other
equally noble and illustrious divine Dr. Arthur Lake to the
see of Bath and Wells in 1616. Dr. Samuel Ward was at
this time Master of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, Rector
of Much Munden, between Ware and Buntingford, Arch
deacon of Taunton, and Prebendary of Ampleforth in the church
of York. In 1622 he succeeded Bishop Davenant at Cam
bridge as Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity. Dr. John
Davenant, uncle to the celebrated Dr. Thomas Fuller, was of
a wealthy London family, had been for a short time Vicar
of Oakington near Cambridge,1 received his education at
Queens' College, Cambridge, and was appointed President
of Queens' College 1614, on the death of Dr. Humphrey
Tindall, Dean of Ely, having been Lady Margaret's Divinity
Professor from 1609. He was in 1622 made Bishop of
Salisbury, and Carleton was in 1619 translated from LlandafF
to Chichester. Ward, Davenant, Hall, and Carleton had an
interview with King James at Newmarket previously to their
departure for Dort. Andrewes was probably with the King
at the same time, when his commissary came to Newmarket
to lay a complaint against the celebrated preacher Dr. Preston,
at this time a Fellow of Queens' College. Ward and Davenant
were again summoned to the royal presence at Royston on
the 8th of October, " where," says Fuller in his Church
History? il his Majesty vouchsafed his familiar discourse unto
them for two hours together, commanding them to sit down
by him, and at last dismissed them with his solemn prayer
that God would bless their endeavours, which made them
cheerfully to depart his presence."
On October 16th Andrewes admitted Edmund (or Edward3)
White, M.A., to be his domestic chaplain.4 He had been
admitted as a sizar at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, in
1605, was B.A. 1609, M.A. 1612.
On November 5th our prelate preached before the King at
Whitehall from Esther ix. 31 : To confirm these days of Purim,
according to their seasons, &c. Comparing the plot to that
of Haman, he observed, tl Haman was to the Jews a stranger
in nation, for he was an Agagite : a stranger in religion, for
he was an heathen man. Ours were no strangers in nation,
the same nation that we. No Turks or infidels, but professing
the same Christ that we j and better than we, say they, for
right Catholics they ; and not Christians, but (which is more
than Christians) Jesuits some of them."1
On the 10th of December Walter Balcanqual, B.D., Fellow
of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, was also sent over as in the
name of the Church of Scotland. On the 8th of March, 1625,
he was installed Dean of Rochester on the promotion of Dr.
Goodman to the see of Gloucester, but about three weeks
before the death of King James. On the 13th of May, 1639,
he was installed Dean of Durham. The same cause was
forwarded at home by Archbishop Abbot, who joined with Sir
Henry Savile in publishing Bradwardine's Causa Dei.
Dr. Hall returning home on account of ill health, Dr.
Thomas Goade was sent over to supply his place. In the late
Mr. Carwithen's History of the Church of England, Goade
is thus depreciated : " Goade, a chaplain of Abbot, of whom
nothing more can be said than that he was ready to join in
any measure which might be adopted against the Remon
strants."2 Goade was the learned son of a learned father, who
when Provost of King's College discerned the talent of Dr.
Collins, and pointed him out as his successor. This came to
pass five years after his death, two Provosts succeeding in the
interim, Dr. Fogge Newton, Rector of Kingston near Cam
bridge, where he lies buried, and Dr. William Smyth, one of
King James's Chaplains, who from his Fellowship at King's
College was chosen Master of Clare Hall in 1598, and thence
raised to the Provostship of King's College in 1612, on the
death of Dr. Newton. Goade was in the time of Bishop
King made Precentor of St. Paul's February 16, 1618,
Prebendary of the tenth stall at Winchester August 25, 1621,
Proctor of his University in 1629, and Professor of Civil Law.
in 1635. If he was ejected he was probably restored. His
successor in the Professorship was not appointed until 1666.
At the Synod of Dort met not only the divines of Holland
with those sent from England, but also from the Palatinate,
from Hesse, from Switzerland, from Herborn in Nassau, from
Bremen, Emden, and Geneva. The French Protestant divines
were not suffered to attend, the King being displeased with
the Dutch for their noncompliance with his intercession in
behalf of Barneveldt, and other political reasons.1 It was
found that not a few favourers of Socinianism concealed their
errors under colour of anti-Predestinarianism ; and this the
Lutheran historian Weismann confesses was the principal
cause of the great hostility of the Predestinarian divines to the
Remonstrants.2
The canons of the Synod of Dort have recently been
republished in Niemeyer's Collectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis
Reformatis publicatarum. Leipz. 1840.
In the course of this year Andrewes delivered his speech
in the Star Chamber against that unstable and fanatical
person John Traske. His speech was a confutation of
Traske's two judaical points, namely, that we should abstain
from all the forbidden meats enumerated in Leviticus, and
that we should observe the Jewish Sabbath or Saturday.
Some few there are still in our own country and in America
who appear to have inherited his perverseness in the latter
particular. In 1620 he put forth a recantation, entitled A
Treatise of Liberty from Jadaism, or an Acknowledgment of
true Christian Liberty , indited and published by John Traske;
of late stumbled, now happily running again in the Race
of Christianity. Bishop Andrewes himself, we have before
seen, acknowledged the moral nature and obligation of the
Lord's-day ; and so in the recantation of Traske we read, ' A
new spiritual service we are to yield. And that a Sabbath-
day we do still acknowledge, it is by virtue of the command
ment itself, as far as it is moral.'
Andrewes began his speech thus : " It is a good work
to make a Jew a Christian ; but to make Christian men Jews
hath ever been holden a foul act, and severely to be punished."
Respecting the distinction of meats he cites our Saviour's
words, that there is nothing that goeth into the mouth that
defileth a man. And he adds, " This is our ground : Sermo
Christi omnes cibos mundanSj saith Gregory Thaumaturgus
more than 1300 years since."1
He proceeds to observe that the distinction of clean and
unclean was only appointed for the Jews. He passes over
the distinction of clean and unclean in Genesis viii. 20,
probably because it was made with a view to the law of
sacrifice. He alleges not only the ceremonial nature of the
prohibition which proved that it was not a part of the moral
and eternal law, but of the law of ordinances, which was in
its own nature temporary, but the vision related in the tenth
chapter of the Acts. He observes that this distinction was
not insisted on in the fifteenth chapter. He observes from
St. Augustine that the prohibition of eating the blood was, in
like manner, but for a time.2
In his remarks on the Sabbath he, in alleging St. Atha-
nasius, attributes to him the Creed called after his name.
Dr. Waterland refers the composition of this Creed to Hilary,
Archbishop of Aries, about A.D. 430 ; Alt, in his Christliche
Cultus* ascribes it to Vigilius of Thapsus (on the coast of
the province of Byzacium or Byzacena below Carthage), about
A.D. 460.
In November commenced his correspondence with Peter
du Moulin, who on the death of Bilson betook himself to the
patronage of Andrewes, it being well known that the King
had destined him to the vacant see. Du Moulin (although, in
a work intended to answer the Jesuit Arnold, he had owned
the very rise and prevalence of episcopacy, and had highly
complimented the English prelacy,) had given offence by
affirming that in the New Testament the names bishop and
presbyter were interchanged ; that the order of bishop and
presbyter was but one and the same ; and that episcopacy was
not of divine right, meaning thereby that it was not of
indispensable obligation. The first of these three Andrewes
admitted, but complained that Du Moulin had not guarded
against the ill inferences that some might draw from it. For
the second and third he contended, admitting however that
episcopacy was not so of divine right as to be essential to
the being of a Church or to the salvation of any Christian
community. Du Moulin took the same ground with Grotius,
and both agree in witnessing that theirs was the opinion of all
the reformed Churches abroad.
Not long before Bishop Andrewes was translated to
Winchester, there appears to have been no small commotion
in the University from the popularity of the celebrated
Puritan Preston, then a Fellow of Queens' College. Fuller
thus warily (to use his own words) expresses himself hereupon
in his History of the University of Cambridge : " Master John
Preston, Fellow of Queens', suspected for inclination to non
conformity, intended to preach in the afternoon (St. Mary's
sermon being ended) in St. Botolph's Church. But Dr.
Newcombe, Commissary to the Chancellor of Ely, offended by
the pressing of the people, enjoined that service should be
said without sermon. In opposition whereunto a sermon was
made without service, whence large complaints to Lancelot
Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, and in fine to the King himself.
Hereupon Mr. Preston was enjoined to make what his foes
called a recantation, his friends a declaration sermon ; therein
so warily expressing his allowance of the Liturgy and set
forms of prayer, that he neither displeased his own party nor
gave his enemies any great advantage."1
This incident is related much more circumstantially in
Clark's Lives of Thirty -two English Divines / but both he
and Fuller place it under the Vice-Chancellorship of Dr.
Scott, Master of Clare Hall, before whose Vice-Chancellorship
Andrewes was translated to the see of Winchester ; in which
case Dr. Newcombe would not have brought a complaint
before him. According to Clark, Dr. Newcombe seeing the
crowd, commanded that only evening prayer should be read,
and no sermon preached. The incumbent entreated that for
that time Preston might be suffered to preach, as did the Earl
of Lincoln and others present. But the Commissary refused
his permission, and went home with his family. However
Preston preached from 2 Peter iii. 17, 18. There was so
much time spent in debates and messages before the Com
missary left the church, that the prayers were omitted, that so
the scholars might depart in time for their College services.
This furnishing the Commissary with farther ground of
complaint, he went the next day to the court at Newmarket
where the Bishop also was. Upon complaint made to the
King, a letter was directed to the Vice-Chancellor (Dr. Scott,
who however was not then Vice-Chancellor,) and to the other
heads to call Preston before them. He appealed to Andrewes,
and offered himself to undergo an examination by Andrewes
if he was in any way suspected of disaffection to the established
order. On Andrewes objecting to him his dislike of the Liturgy,
he replied that it was a slander of his enemies, for he thought
set forms of prayer lawful, and refused not on all occasions to
be present at prayers in College, and to read them in his turn.
The Bishop answered that he was glad, and would inform the
King, and do him all the good he could, and bade him wait
awhile, and return to him. But time passed on, and nothing
further was done. Dr. Young, " an honest Scotchman," Dean
of Winchester, told Preston plainly that the Bishop was his
greatest adversary, and desirous of his expulsion, but to save the
odium, as desirous that this should be left to the University.
Preston then waited upon Andrewes, calling upon him at once
to say what he would do, and whether he would stir in his
behalf or no. The Bishop upon this bade him come again,
and said that he would deal with the King in his behalf.
The Bishop is said to have gone to the King, and to have
advised that the harsher course should be dropped, and
Preston enjoined to deliver his opinion at St. Botolph's the
next Sunday on set forms of prayer. He the next Sunday
preached accordingly, commending as well private extem
poraneous prayer as public set forms of devotion. And there
this affair ended. We are not bound to believe that Andrewes
dissembled, as Clark represents him to have done.1
Dr. Young, Dean of Winchester, was brother of the learned
Patrick Young, who leaving Scotland was made a Chaplain
of New College, and otherwise preferred. He was an excellent
classical scholar, and translated the King's works into Latin.
His brother the Dean did not attain such celebrity, but besides
his Deanry he was appointed to the prebendal stall of Riccall
in the church of York April 30, 1613, in the place of Dr.
Henry Banks, who was appointed to the Precentorship. He
died some time after, 1642.
" On November 26th, upon report made to the Lords of
the Council by Sir Clement Edmunds, it was ordered by their
lordships that the Earl of Arundel, Dr. Andrewes, Bishop
of Winchester, the Lord Carew, Mr. Treasurer, and Mr.
Comptroller of his Majesty's Household, Mr. Chancellor of
the Exchequer, the Master of the Rolls, and Mr. Edward
Coke, or any four of them, should take consideration of the
state of the business, &c. \_i. e. of the drainage of the fens],
and prepare some opinion to be delivered to the board, of
what present course might be fit to be taken therein. The
Earl of Arundel made a journey to the fens, and treaty with
Sir William Ayloff, Knight, and Antony Thomas, Esq., and
others. They undertook to drain all the fens in Cambridge
shire, the Isle of Ely, Norfolk, Suffolk, Lincolnshire, North
amptonshire, and Huntingdonshire."2
"The work nevertheless," says Lysons, " meeting with
much opposition in the country, was carried on with little
effect." Of the subsequent vicissitudes of the drainage system
Lysons gives a concise account in his History of Cambridge
shire, to whom I remit the reader.
On Friday, Christmas-day 1618, our prelate preached an
incomparable discourse from the gospel for the day, before the
King and Court at Whitehall. Well does he observe of the
meanness of our Saviour's birth and of the glory that yet
attended it, the angels themselves making melody upon it:
"It is a course, (this) the Holy Ghost began it (here) at his
birth, and after observed it all along, Sociare ima summisj
et insolita solitis temperare ; to couple low and high together,
and to temper things mean and usual) with others as strange
every way."1
Affectingly in his own simple way does he note how the
sign by which the Lord was to be found suited the time, his
coming in humility, and the persons : " The poorest of the
earth may repair to him, being no other place but this ; and
by this sign to find him."
Yet was this sign not without glory. " It was much, from
a babe floating in the flags of Nilus, in a basket of bulrushes,
(Moses) to gather himself a people, even the nation and
kingdom of the Jews, and to deliver his law. It was infinitely
much more, from this babe (here) lying in the cratch, to work
the bringing in of the Gentiles, and the turning about of the
whole world, and to publish his gospel, the power of God to
salvation."2
Then does he open to us our sign of Christ's presence,
humility: "As St. Augustine saith well, Signum vobis si
signum in vobis , A sign for you if a sign in you."3 How
would men's minds turn from the externals to the internals of
religion, if they bore in their hearts the teaching of our prelate,
that to be but babes in Christ they must to faith join
Those who would pour contempt upon patristic reading
and upon the name of Bishop Andrewes, and have men go
no farther than to some modern commentator, or some idolized
name of the last or present century, would never come upon
so pregnant a passage, such a storehouse of illustration, as the
few following sentences.
"But then if it be signum volts'" [a sign to you] "to
some, it is for some others signum contra vos" [a sign against
you] : " and that is, the proud. For the Word of God hath
two edges : and if it go one way, that for humility, it cuts as
deep the contrary, against pride. And withal, under one
leads us to the cause straight, and shews us the malignity of
the disease of pride, for the cure whereof this so profound
humility was requisite in Christ. There was one, when time
was, took the disease of Ero similis Altissimo" [I will be like
the Most High], a and he breathed upon our first parents with
his Eritis sicut Dii" [ye shall be as gods], " and infected
them with it. To make themselves equal with God is plain
robbery (saith the Apostle, Phil, ii.) For that robbery of
theirs was the Son of God robbed (as I may say), and quite
spoiled of his glory. For their puffing up, e/eez/oxre, he was
made empty ; for their lifting up, eraTretVoxre, was he brought
thus low ; for their comparing with God, came he to be
compared to the beasts that perish; lay in their manger,
we see."
This one sermon might suggest many others to the con
templative preacher.
On February 9th, 1619, Bishop Andrewes received the
royal assent to his translation to Winchester.1
In March he was attending the King, then lying ill at
Eoyston, and was appointed to preach the Easter-day sermon
there before him on the 28th;2 but if preached, it was not
printed with the rest of his Festival Sermons.
On May 13th he was present at the funeral of Queen
Anne,3 and on the Sunday following, being Whitsunday,
preached before the Court at Greenwich in the royal chapel
there. From his text, Of a truth I perceive that God is no
respecter of persons, he acutely exposed the sophistry of the
pretended Papal infallibility. St. Peter himself owned that
hitherto he had been in error respecting the divine purpose to
open the Church to the Gentiles.
1 Andrewes was confirmed in his new see 25th of February, and obtained the
temporalities March 19th. He had been previously made Dean of the King's
Chapel.
God is no accepter of persons. This St. Peter knew, yet
he falsely reasoned that God was an accepter of one nation
above another. So inconsistent is human nature !
God accepts those who fear him ; who fear him not with a
mere servile but holy fear, a fear opposed to presumption, a
fear proceeding from a true faith, and working righteousness
not occasionally, but constantly as the very occupation of life.
The works of Cornelius were alms, prayer, and fasting. And
as to his faith, "if you will reach it further," says our prelate,
" to faith in Christ ; living in garrison among the Jews, he
could not choose but have heard somewhat of him, to move
him to throw himself down before him ; and he took him up."1
God accepts, that is, graciously, not upon a claim of merit.
The word accepted here used is but a capacity that he may be,
lays no necessity that he must be accepted.2 And " if this
fearer, this worker be accepted and not in himself, in whom
then ? Who is it ? The Apostle tells us directly, He hath
made us accepted in Ms beloved Son"z
On the 1st of September Peter du Moulin sent to our
prelate his work against the Arminians, undertaken at the
request of the Dutch Church. He speaks very modestly of
this treatise as not coming up to his own wishes, and also of
the difficulty of the subject as being a most thorny one, and
one in which it is impossible to satisfy men's judgments. But
he adds, " I shall readily think nothing of the judgments of
others, if I satisfy yours. For you alone are equal to all,
inasmuch as with me you are above all. But if I seem to you
to have undertaken a work beyond my powers, you will
nevertheless look with kindness on the attempt, and will take
into consideration the great difficulty of writing accurately
upon the most difficult subjects, and upon which men with an
ill-directed ingenuity have cast additional obscurity, in a life
full of occupation and time at the mercy of a thousand various
calls. But if I may not look for thus much, you will accept this
volume as a token of my regard and entire devotedness to you,
which is such that I had rather be corrected and taught by
you than praised by others. May God long preserve you,
most reverend prelate, and long make use of your influence to
the good of his Church.
" Farewell.
" Paris, Gal. Sept. 1619."
Du Moulin's work was translated into English in 1635
with the following title, The Anatomie of Arminianism : or
the Opening of the Controversies of these times (formerly
handled in the Low Countries] concerning the Doctrine of
Providence, of Predestination, of the Death of Christ, of Nature
and Grace, &c. By Peter du Moulin, Minister of the Church
at Paris. London : printed for Nathaniel Newbery, at the
sign of the Star in Pope's Head Alley. Anno Dom. 1635.
The translation is dedicated by Nathaniel Newbery to Sir
Henry Mildmay, Knight, Master of his Majesty's Jewels, and
Sir Henry Howe, Knight. The work was prefaced by the
author with an epistle to the Lords the States-General of the
United Provinces of the Low Countries. In this epistle King
James is commended for his sanction of the Synod of Dort.
Du Moulin expresses his regret that he could not be present
at that assembly, adding that he did what he could, by
sending to the Synod his opinion upon the subjects there
treated of. The answers he thus gave, he drew out at full
length in this treatise. From it he appears to have been
opposed to the supra-Lapsarian theory, against which he
writes very unreservedly in the sixth chapter, Of the Sin of
Adam.
Of the efficacy of the death of Christ he says : " When we
say that Christ died for all, we take it thus, to wit, that the
death of Christ is sufficient to save whosoever do believe ; yea,
and that it is sufficient to save all men, if all men in the whole
world did believe in him : and that the cause why all men are
not saved, is not in the insufficiency of the death of Christ, but
in the wickedness and incredulity of man."1
Gn the difficulties which those who maintain what is called
particular redemption have thrown in the way of those whom
they should encourage to believe in the Gospel, Dr. Chalmers
has delivered himself with an effectiveness peculiarly his own,
in the eleventh chapter of his Institutes of Theology, entitled,
On the warrant which each man has to appropriate the calls of
the Gospel to himself, and what that is which marks his doing
so.1 Let the reader also peruse the third chapter of the third
part, entitled, On the Universality of the Gospel. He will
then perceive that the doctrine of divine predestination is not
necessarily at variance with that of universal redemption. The
opposite opinion has arisen from the injudicious and un
hallowed attempts of some to harmonize their own misgivings
of the truth with their imperfect conceptions of it.
Calvin was altogether too practical to lose himself in the
artificial reasonings of such as have made it impossible for
themselves to testify to all men with St. Paul, repentance
towards God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts
xx. 21.) With Calvin, faith was the receiving of Christ as he
is offered to us in the Scriptures, that is as at once our redemp
tion and sanctification.2
Neither do we find the tenet of particular redemption coun
tenanced in the Synod of Dort, but the very contrary :
" Casterum promissio evangelii est, ut quisquis credit in
Christum crucifixum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam.
Quas promissio omnibus populis et hominibus, ad quos Deus
pro suo beneplacito mittit evangelium, promiscue et indis-
criminatim annuntiari et proponi debet cum resipiscentiae et
fidei mandato.3 ( But the promise of the Gospel is, that who
soever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but shall
have eternal life. And this promise is to be proclaimed and
set forth to all nations and individuals without exception
and without any difference, with the command to repent and
believe, to whom God, according to his own good pleasure,
sends the Gospel.'
Upon Saturday, Christmas-day, December 25th, our
prelate delivered one of his most copious and eloquent dis
courses. How many sermons might be produced from this
one. What a multitude of holy lessons does it contain, what
heavenly peace pervades it. How fit an exposition of the
angels' hymn, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace,
good will towards men. Most happily too, whilst its excellencies
are incomparable, its defects are few.
On the 5th of February, 1620, our prelate was on the
Committee of Privileges of the Lords. On the 14th he was
one of the Conference with the Commons for the uniting of
both Houses in a petition to the King for the better execution
of the laws then in force against Jesuits, Seminary Priests,
and Popish recusants.
On Saturday, February 17th, he was on a committee to
consider a Bill that had been read a second time for the con
firmation of the King's letters-patent to Sir Philip Carey,
Knight, and others, of the manor of Minster in the Isle of
Thanet. On the 21st he was to meet on the naturalization of
Sir Francis Stewart, Knight, Walter Stewart, James Maxwell,
and William Carr, Esquires. James Maxwell was afterwards
Groom of the Bedchamber to Charles I., and was with the
King when he was surprised by Colonel Joyce at Holdenby
in Northamptonshire.
On Thursday the 22nd he was appointed to meet in a
committee for clearing the passage by water from London to
beyond Oxford, at two P.M. in the council-chamber, Whitehall.
On the 1st of March he was to meet, by eight A.M. in the
committee-chamber, to enable Edmund Clough, Esq., and
other bargainers in trust to convey the manor of Temple
Newsome, &c. to Esme Stuart, Lord Aubigny, and Earl of
March, and the Lady Catharine his wife, or such as they shall
name and appoint.
On Monday the 5th of March he was appointed to meet at
eight A.M. in the Painted Chamber on an Act for the con
firmation of the Hospital of King James founded in Charter
House at the humble petition and only costs, &c., of Thomas
Sutton, Esq.
On the 9th he was to meet upon a projected academy for
the training of the younger nobility and gentry.
On the 12th, respecting abuses on the Lord's-day ; and on
a committee of grievances complained of by the House of
Commons, as also of complaints respecting the patents of gold
and silver thread.
On March 26th he attended the King to St. Paul's, one of
the most venerable Norman structures in England, and of
unusual dimensions. This was with a view to promote the
repairs of that vast edifice, upon which the munificence of the
whole church and nation was liberally expended so long as it
remained. We may be allowed to regret that it was not
restored and preserved, as peradventure it might have been,
after the great fire.
Not less to be commended is his Easter-day sermon,
preached at Whitehall in the following year April 16, being
taken from the account of our Lord's resurrection by the
Evangelist St. John.
His discourse upon the 4th of June, Whitsunday, is
among the best of that series.1 It is full of patristic learning
such as may be gathered from the commentaries of Lorinus.
Both learnedly and piously has the same place — This is he
that came ly water and blood — been treated of in the second
of Bishop Heber's Sermons in India.2
On April 27th Andrewes was on a commission for selling
some of the crown jewels, and on the 29th on the High
Commission.
On the 6th of August, 1620, he admitted Christopher
Wren, the younger brother of Matthew, and father of the
famous architect, one of his domestic chaplains. Wren
preached before him in Windsor chapel. He then received
his appointment, and with his brother accompanied the Bishop
to Farnham, where the King and his Court were feasted three
days at a cost of above £3,000.3
Buckeridge observes of this entertainment, in his funeral
sermon for our prelate, that it was as bountiful and great an
entertainment as ever King James received at a subject's
hands. Christopher, afterwards Dean of Windsor and Wolver-
hampton in 1635, was born in 1589. He was of St. John's
College, Oxford, B.D. 1620, but D.D. 1630 of the University
of Cambridge. Andrewes made him Hector of Knoyle Magna
or East Knoyle near Hindon in the south-west part of Wilt
shire. In 1628 he was appointed chaplain in ordinary to
Charles I. ; in 1635 Dean of Windsor and Wolverhampton ;
and in 1638 Kector of Haseley in Oxfordshire. His Deanry
was plundered in 1642. He died at Blechindon near Oxford,
29th of May, 1658, at the parsonage of Mr. William Holder
(who had married his daughter), and was buried in the
chancel. He was a good mathematician, and gave proofs of
that ingenuity which shone so eminently in his only son the
architect.
On Sunday September 17th Andrewes consecrated the
new chapel in St. Mary's parish, called St. Mary's Extra,
near Southampton, for the benefit of the village of Weston
and the hamlets Itchen, Wolston, Kidgway, and part of Bittern
Manor.
This form, which is every way more impressive than those
now in use, was followed by Laud at the consecration of St.
Catharine Cree, Leadenhall-street (a remarkable specimen of
the mixed architecture of his age) in 1630.1 This consecration
gave occasion to many aspersions upon Laud both before and
at his trial, and these have, with the usual veracity of blind
party-spirit, been continued by Kapin and others, as though
they had never been refuted. Happy had it been for Laud,
if he had followed the judgment of Bishop Andrewes as well
in points of doctrine as of ceremony.
Bishop Andrewes, attended by his two chaplains Matthew
and Christopher Wren, proceeded to the chapel, and at eight
in the morning, being in their proper habits, came out of the
chapel ; and the Bishop addressed Captain Richard Smith,
who gave into the hands of William Cole, the Bishop's
registrar, the instrument praying for the consecration and
constant appropriation of the chapel to the service of God.
After this the two chaplains read alternately the 24th
Psalm, and after the Doxology had been said, the Bishop
advancing nearer the porch, said, / was glad when they said
unto me. We will go into the house of the Lord. Our feet shall
stand in thy gates, 0 Jerusalem.
Then all entering the chapel, the Bishop read, with some
few accommodations to this service, the dedication prayer of
King David, the 29th chapter of the First Boole of Chronicles,
from the 10th to the 18th verse inclusive. Then followed the
prayer, * Most glorious God.' This prayer is in part taken
from one in common use at that time, and recorded to have
been offered up also at the consecration of a chapel at
Edmonton by Bishop King in 1615,1 and of another chapel
in Clay Hall in the parish of Barking, Essex, September 15,
1616, by Dr. Thomas Morton, Bishop of Chester (afterward
of Durham). It is remarkable that in the Parentalia Bishop
Wren is said to have prepared an office for consecrating a
church at Dore in Herefordshire,2 in 1634.
After the longer prayer commemorating the precedents of
such acts of consecration, followed a prayer and benediction
in the name of the Holy Trinity. Then the Bishop laying
his hand upon the font consecrated it with a short prayer, as
also the pulpit, reading-desk, communion-table, site of joining
of hands in matrimony, and the whole pavement with reference
to such bodies as should be interred beneath. Then a general
prayer of dedication for the whole church was said by the
Bishop before the communion-table. Then the morning ser
vice commenced. For the psalms were read the 84th, 122nd,
and 132nd. The first lesson was the 28th chapter of Genesisj
in which is read the dedication of Bethel by Jacob. For the
second was read the 2nd chapter of St. John from the 13th
verse to the end, in which is read the purifying of the Temple.
After the three Collects the Bishop said a fourth, full of that
humility and earnest devotion for which he was ever so
conspicuous. Then the other chaplain read the Litany, and
the Bishop concluded with a prayer, as for himself and from
himself apart from the congregation, that God would be
pleased to hear whatsoever prayers should in that place be
made according to his will. After the benediction the 132nd
Psalm was sung, and Mr. Eobinson, B.D., brother-in-law to
the founder, preached the sermon from the 16th verse of the
28th chapter of Genesis.
After the sermon a poor woman returned thanks to
Almighty God for safe deliverance. The psalm used pre
viously to the last review was the 121st. The Communion
service was then commenced by the two chaplains, standing
one on either side the holy table. Before the Epistle for the
day a special Collect was read : ' Most blessed Saviour, who
by thy bodily presence at the feast of dedication didst honour
and approve such devout and religious services as we have
now in hand, be thou present also at this time with us, and
consecrate us into an holy temple unto thyself, that thou
dwelling in our hearts by faith, we may be cleansed from all
carnal affections, and devoutly given to serve thee in all good
works. Amen.'
The Epistle was 1 Cor. iii. from ver. 16 to the end ; the
Gospel from the 10th chapter of St. John, from ver. 22 to the
end. Then after the Nicene Creed the Bishop, casting himself
down before the holy table, prayed the dedication prayer of
Solomon, 2 Chron. vi. from ver. 18 to ver. 40, praying also
at the end that God would favourably hear this congregation
as he did Solomon. Then sitting in his chair, with his head
covered, Thomas Ridley his Chancellor standing on his right
hand,*-and Dr. Barlow,1 Archdeacon of Winchester, on his
left, he read in Latin the Act of Consecration, Dedication, and
Appropriation, The chapel was named Jesus Chapel, as a
chapel-of-ease to St. Mary's parish near Southampton. The
officiating minister was to be endowed with at least 20 marks
per annum. The patronage was to be in the family of the
founder. Then a short prayer was added by the Bishop, that
God would bless this day's action unto his people. After
this those who did not communicate were dismissed.
At the Offertory was collected £4 12s. 2d., which the
Bishop ordered to be appropriated to the purchasing of a
chalice for the use of the chapel. Before the consecration
prayer of the Communion service the Bishop washed his hands,
and mixed water with the wine, according to the custom
of the Church from the age of St. Cyprian. After he had
received the holy Communion, he delivered it first to the
founder, then to his chaplains, and delivered the bread to all
the rest, one of the chaplains delivering the wine. The
Bishop read the first of the two prayers that precede the
Gloria in Excelsis, and concluded with a prayer for the
founder and for all who should hereafter enjoy the benefit
of this his munificent and pious act.
After the Bishop and a numerous company had dined at
the founder's house at Peer Tree (now called Pear Tree), the
congregation reassembled in the chapel, and one of the
chaplains read the Lord's Prayer, and for the psalms was
read alternately the 90th Psalm. The act of consignation
of the churchyard was then read, and after confirmed by the
founder and his neighbours. The time being short the second
lesson was omitted, and only the 23rd chapter of Genesis
read, being the account of the burial of Sarah. The act of
consignation and remainder of the consecration service was
read in the churchyard ; which being completed they returned
to the chapel, and sang the first part of the 16th Psalm, and
Matthew Wren preached the sermon from The zeal of thine
house hath even eaten me. After sermon, was sung the rest of
Psalm xvi., and the service, beginning at the Apostles' Creed,
proceeded in the ordinary course.
The Rev. James Bliss, M.A., of Oriel College, Oxford, the
able editor of Bishop Andrewes' Minor Works (Oxford, 1854),
and Vicar of Ogbourne St. Andrew near Marlborough, observes
of Andrewes' Form for the Consecration of a Church or Chapel,
that it was first published in 32mo in 1659, with a preface
dated May 29 of that year ; that the only copy of this edition
which he had seen was now in the Bodleian Library, and
that it was afterwards reprinted in quarto, and appended to
Bishop Sparrow's Collection of Articles. It has since been
reprinted and bound up with Bishop Sparrow's Rationale of
the Book of Common Prayer.
In a letter from Junius to Vossius dated from Paris
September 18, Junius relates that on the 15th he had met
with Tilenus. He writes of him in terms of high commend
ation as most strenuous in behalf of the truth. Tilenus
informed Junius that he was about to visit England to enjoy
an interview with the King, from whom and from Bishop
Andrewes he had received letters. The King had sent over
his physician to attend him on this journey.1
Upon Monday, Christmas-day, Bishop Andrewes preached
before the King at Whitehall, very ably and with much
learning, upon the wise men's coming to our Saviour. If any
will see the force and beauty of typical illustration, let them
read this sermon, and let them confess that many types there
are in Holy Writ besides those that are there called so.
CHAPTER XX.
Page 473
Bishop Andrewes preaches at the opening of Parliament 1621 — His
Sermon upon Fasting — Upon St. John xx. 17 — Whitsunday — *
Archbishop Abbot's calamity — Andrewes befriends Allot — Enter
tains Junius and Doublet at Farnham — Dr. Thomas Goad.
ON the assembling of the Parliament, 1621, our prelate
preached before them in the Abbey of Westminster from the
first psalm in the evening service (Psalm Ixxxii.), God standeth
in the congregation of princes ; in the midst will he judge
the gods. Upon the words God standeth, he contrasts with
God's unchangeable the mortal nature of princes, these earthly
gods ; and says, in allusion to that most solemn sanctuary of
death in which they were then met, " This could not be told
us in a fitter place : the place where we stand is compassed
about with a congregation of these fallen gods, these same
Dii caduci (fragile gods), with monuments of the mortality of
many a great Elohim (God) in their times. And let me tell
you this, that in the Hebrew tongue the grave is called a
synagogue as well as the church. All shall be gathered,
even the gods, even the whole synagogue of them, into this
synagogue at last." Very plain and earnest is the whole
sermon, treating of the presence of God, and of the duty of
being well affected toward his presence if we would stand in
the judgment.
On February 14, Ash-Wednesday, Bishop Andrewes
preached at Whitehall upon the duty of fasting, overthrowing
the cavils of those who would expunge when from the text
(Matt. vi. 16), by leaving it so at liberty as that it should
never be performed.
About the 15th or 16th of March Andre wes and Moun-
taigne, Bishop of Lincoln, in the name of all the rest, pre
sented to the King at Hampton Court a grant of subsidies
passed by the clergy of the province of Canterbury.1
Upon Easter-day, April 1st, he resumed his discourse upon
the narrative of the resurrection, as it is given in St. John's
gospel, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father,
giving the three interpretations of Chrysostom, Gregory, and
Augustine, which last is also followed and expressed with his
usual energy and conciseness by Leo the Great. The first
is that our Lord saw in her a degree of irreverence. Under
this head our prelate condemns the too familiar and irreverent
handling of the doctrine of predestination, and the familiar
taking of Christ in the sacrament, when to touch the ark itself,
that other symbol of him, was death. Yet we have those who
most familiarly pray to God and plead that they are his
children, a most irreverential excuse for this much worse than
childish practice. But even this irreverence is not without
some share of popularity, and that amongst some who profess
themselves, notwithstanding, members (not children] of the
Church of England.
The second and third interpretations however will stand
better, and may well stand together ; that our Lord forbade
her at this time, when his disciples were still full of sorrow,
to spend her moments in the enjoyment of his presence. Add
secondly, that thus too she was admonished that the touch
of faith was more excellent than to touch him corporeally,
whom the wicked could indeed also touch, and yet not be
thereby healed of their spiritual diseases.
On April 30th Andrewes attended with other peers on
Lord Bacon, to ascertain from him whether, he acknowledged
as his own the petition and confession made in his name to
the House.2
On May 2nd our prelate was appointed to take examinations
in the case of Sir John Bennet, who had been charged by
the House of Commons with abusing his office of Judge of
the Prerogative Court to purposes of corruption and fraudulent
self-aggrandisement, and was eventually committed to custody
for a short time, fined the enormous sum of £20,000, and
deprived of his office.
On the 8th of May Bishop Andrewes was on a committee
for confirming the sale of the Rectory of Dorking, heretofore
made by Charles Earl of Nottingham, and William late Lord
Howard of Effingham, deceased, to Thomas Trevor and
William Bryan and their heirs.
On the 12th of May he was appointed to meet on committee,
at two P.M. in the Painted Chamber, respecting an Act for
the making good of grants made by collegiate churches and
corporations to the late Queen Elizabeth after the 2nd of
April in the thirteenth year and before the 8th of February
in the twenty-fifth year of that Queen.
On the 18th he was again on a committee upon an Act
for the confirmation of exchange of lands between Prince
Charles and Sir Lewis Watson, Knight.
On May 20th, Whitsunday, our prelate preached before
the King at Greenwich from St. James i. 16, 17. u If," he
says, " we look forth, let it not be about us, either on the
right hand or on the left, on any place here below. Look up ;
turn your eye thither. It is an influence, it is no vapour ; an
inspiration, no exhalation: thence it comes; hence it rises
not : our spirit lusts after envy, and worse matter. (James iv. 5.)
Why should thoughts arise in your hearts? saith Christ. If
they arise they are not good; if they be good, then they come
down from above."1 The lights from above he begins with
" the light of nature, for rebelling against which, all that are
without Christ suffer condemnation. Solomon calls it the
candle of the Lord^ searching even the very bowels (Prov. xx.),
which though it be dim and not perfect, yet good it is : though
lame, yet (as Mephibosheth) it is regia proles, of the blood
royal."2
This sermon, excellent in detail, is however unhappily too
much broken up, too variegated in its texture. It might be
made the groundwork of more than one discourse upon the
noble diversity of God's heavenly gifts.
On June the 10th Andrewes was present at the delivery
of the great seal to Dr. John Williams, Dean of Westminster.1
Monteigne, Bishop of Lincoln, being elected to the see of
London on July 20th, on the death of Dr. John King, Williams
was raised to the see of Lincoln. He was elected the 3rd of
August, and consecrated on the 10th of November. He was
permitted to hold his Deanry in commendam.
On July 12th Andrewes was on a commission for examining
Lewis Bayly, Bishop of Bangor.2 Bayly was committed to
the Fleet Prison July 15th, but soon after liberated. The
most serious charges are said to have been brought against
this prelate ; they are mentioned in a letter by the celebrated
Mede of Cambridge, but his early liberation is the best answer
to them.
On July 24, 1621, there befel a great calamity to the
primate Abbot, who, upon a visit to Lord Zouch at Bramshill
Park (two miles to the west of Hartford Bridge in the north
east corner of Hampshire), shooting with the cross-bow at a
buck, and his arrow meeting with a swelling bough in the
way, had the mishap to wound one of the keepers. It was
but a flesh-wound and a slight one, but being under the care
of an heedless surgeon, the poor man died of it the next day.
The King, upon hearing it, feelingly remarked that an angel
might have miscarried in that sort. ' The Archbishop,' says
Hacket, f was an happy man in this unhappiness, that many
hearts condoled with him, and many precious stones were in
the breastplate which he wore, that pleaded for him. He was
painful, stout, severe against bad manners, of a grave and a
voluble eloquence, very hospitable, fervent against the Roman
Church, and no less so against the Arminia^ns, which in those
days was very popular.'
Laud was raised by Williams at the solicitation of Villiers
the great favourite. Abbot's first patron was the more truly
illustrious Thomas Sackville Earl of Dorset. Laud was ever
fearful of the excess of that popular aversion to Romanism
which was natural enough in a period in which it was the
ill fate of his country to be governed by a family proud of
Romish alliances. Abbot was the intrepid assertor of
Protestantism as essential to the good of the commonwealth.
Hence the friends of Laud have always depreciated his equally
honest and far more consistent, nay more honest and upright
predecessor. It could not be said of Laud as of Abbot, that
' that Archbishop was wont to dissent from the King as often
as any man at the Council-board.'1 In Abbot it was a merit,
in Laud it would have been. For years the latter was,
according to Heylyn, the King's chief adviser, in effect, after
the death of the royal favourite, his prime minister, the
flatterer of his royal master, the inquisitor of his more
exemplary brethren, of men such as Hall, who found it no
small trial to hold the episcopal office under so arbitrary a
primate.
And now the question was agitated both at home and
abroad, what penalty was incurred by Abbot lying under the
charge of casual homicide. The Romish party were not
backward to exult over him, and to shew what kind of
opinions and individuals were sure of their most cordial
aversion. But ambition magnified his difficulties in the eyes
even of some of his brethren. Hacket, the good and eloquent
Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry (a more impartial author
than Wharton would concede2), remarks of his great bene
factor Williams the Lord Keeper, that he did not come
forward in Abbot's behalf as he might have done. That he
came out of this great trouble unhurt, he owed to the good
offices of Andrewes and to the kind heart of the King — a King
who could discern merit and admire integrity.
According to Fuller, Abbot and Andrewes were not upon
terms of intimacy. It has been imagined that the latter
regarded Abbot as his undeservedly successful rival. An
drewes was probably much less at the Council-table than
Abbot, and would doubtless hear many reports to his dis
advantage from those who were immediately about the King.
Hence might arise mutual misunderstanding. But be this as
it might, tl the party," writes Fuller, " whom the Archbishop
suspected his greatest foe, proved his most firm and effectual
friend, even Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester. For
when several Bishops inveighed against the irregularity of
the Archbishop, laying as much (if not more) guilt on the act
than it would bear, he mildly checked them : ' Brethren,'
said he, l be not too busy to condemn any for uncammicals
according to the strictness thereof, lest we render ourselves in
the same condition. Besides we all know Canones qui dicunt
lapsos post actam pcenitentiam, ad clericatum non esse restitu-
endos, de rigore loquuntur disciplines, non injiciunt despera-
tionem indulgentice, (' that the Canons that say that persons
who have fallen into some offence are not, after they have
repented, to be restored to their place in the church, speak in
regard of the strict execution of discipline, but do not design
to create despair of pardon.'1) But to set at rest all doubts
and canonical scruples, he advised theJKing to grant a dis
pensation to Abbot in virtue of his royal supremacy, and so
an address was prepared praying a dispensation from the
King, and signed by Andrewes, Monteigne, Bishop of
Lincoln, Buckeridge, Bishop of Kochester, and Williams,
Bishop elect of Lincoln, Carey, Bishop elect of Exeter, and
Laud, Bishop elect of St. David's ; together with Judges
Hobart, Doddridge, Marten, and Stywarde.2 The dispensation
was granted on November 21.
By a letter from Junius to Vossius, dated London, August
18, Bishop Andrewes appears to have been at Farnham.
Their kinsman George Eataller Doublet had, about this time,
come to England.
On September 3rd we find Doublet himself writing from
London to Vossius, and most gratefully alluding to the muni
ficent hospitality and frank affection with which he and Junius
were entertained at Farnham, always supping and dining
with Bishop Andrewes in his own hall, who never failed to
drink to the health of Grotius, Vossius, and Erpenius. Bishop
Andrewes had already seen Grotius when that politic and
eminently learned person had visited this country to plead the
cause of the Remonstrants and of the edict of pacification. But
whatever the favour they appeared to obtain, and however they
might colour over their opinions, the endeavours of that party
did not prevail with the King to side with them at the Synod
of Dort. Nor until after that Synod did that party openly
profess itself in this country, and not then without some
repulses. Erpenius had been in England before Grotius,
and was ^personally well known to Andrewes. Yossius he
earnestly desired to see also.1
On November 24th Vossius wrote to Bishop Andrewes in
reply to a letter from that prelate received by the hands of
Doublet. He excuses his long delay on the ground of the
protracted illness of his wife. Everywhere indeed in his
correspondence does the affection of Yossius shine forth
unabated and undiminished by the multitude of his literary
avocations. He mentions how Junius, in all his epistles to
him, had ever reverted to the name of Andrewes with the
liveliest emotions of grateful regard.2
Junius, in a letter to Yossius from London on the 1st of
December, informs him of Abbot's casualty, and of the doubt
of the four bishops elect respecting the canonicalness of a
consecration performed by the Archbishop. Nor were there
wanting, he adds, some who were desirous of making this an
occasion of deposing Abbot, and of placing Andrewes in his
room; Andrewes himself indeed strenuously opposing the
project, and shewing himself a firm friend to the primate.
The King is here said to have appointed ten persons to take
this emergency into consideration, and Andrewes to have
brought over the greater part to milder proceedings by alleging
this canon, ' Clericus de quo dubitatur an sit regularis^ non
est irregular is."1 CA clerk of whose irregularity there is doubt,
is not irregular.' The King himself, he relates, was delighted
with the moderation of Andrewes, and told Abbot to regard
Andrewes on this occasion as the sole person to whom he
owed his escape from deprivation. Junius adds that Andrewes
would have answered Vossius earlier but for this sudden
interruption.
On the 25th of August Dr. Thomas Goad, Precentor of
St. Paul's, Chaplain to Archbishop Abbot, and who had been
sent by the King on Hall's return home to take his place
in the Synod of Dort, was installed Prebendary of the tenth
stall of Bishop Andrewes' church of Winchester. He retained
this dignity to his death in 1638. He was Proctor of the
University of Cambridge 1629, being then Fellow of King's
College. He was also LL.D., and Begius Professor of Civil
Law in that University in 1635.
This year saw the elevation of Williams and Laud to the
episcopal bench. Williams owed his rise to the King himself,
Laud to Williams, who recommended Laud to the King, and
pressed his promotion upon him in order to shew a favour to
Villiers. At the same time he recommended to the King his
secretary, the pious and highly talented Dr. John Donne, for
the Deanry of St. Paul's, Dr. Valentine Carey for the see of
Exeter, and Dr. Davenant for that of Salisbury. So Carey
and Davenant were consecrated to Exeter and Sarum, and
Laud to St. David's on the same day, November 18th, the
very Sunday after the consecration of the Lord Keeper
Williams, Dean of Westminster, to the see of Lincoln. The
King herein yielded to Williams, as he so often did to others,
against his better judgment, and after remonstrating with
Williams on Laud's restless temper instanced in his advice to
him and urgency with him respecting the affairs of the Scotch
Kirk.
CHAPTER XXI.
Bishop Andrewes* Sermon on Hypocrisy — The Archbishop of Spalatro
— The King's Letter to Preachers — William Knight — Disputes
on Predestination at Cambridge — Junius — Andrewes* Christmas
Sermon on the Wise Men.
NEVER was the pious severity of Bishop Andrewes more
effectually put forth than in his sermon against hypocrisy
preached upon March 6, 1622, Ash- Wednesday, from When
ye fast, be not as the hypocrites are. It is a masterpiece of its
kind. The worshippers indeed of their own imaginations,
who have resolved fasting, holy-days, and all religious reve
rence into Popery, will but condemn the good Bishop as a
patron of superstition. To such objectors to fasting he very
pertinently replies that as well might they object to prayer
and almsgiving, for that these also have been observed by
some to the same evil end, to obtain praise of men. Hypocrisy
is c the moth that frets in sunder all that holy or good is.'
In truth, since men have learned an easier repentance, a
repentance that only humbles them whilst they are upon
their knees, and then but with a superficial sentimentality,
they have taken upon them to despise all abstinence, and the
more because the Church directs it to be observed at set
times. And to justify themselves they turn from the Scrip
tures by which they cannot be justified, to plead other men's
abuse of that which is good; thus excusing themselves a
neglected and unpopular duty, as some excuse their attendance
upon the holy Communion.
On March 23rd Bishop Andrewes assisted at the conse
cration of Dr. Kobert Wright to the see of Bristol.
On the 30th of this month Bishop Andrewes sat in com
mission at Lambeth with Archbishop Abbot, Williams, Lord
Keeper of the Great Seal, and Bishop of Lincoln, Mountaine,
Bishop of London, Neile, Bishop of Durham, and other Privy
Councillors, upon that most eminently learned but most
worldly-minded and ambitious person, Mark Antony de
Dominis, late Archbishop of Spalatro. Bishop Neile pub
lished an account of Mark Antony de Dominis, and Hacket
in his Life of Williams exposes upon the most incontestable
evidence the double-mindedness of this unstable and in the
end most unhappy ecclesiastic. Spalatro, as appears from
Fuller,1 took the side of the Kemonstrants, and so found a
zealous advocate in that most partial of controversialists and
doubtful of historians, Dr. Heylyn.
Archbishop Abbot, in the name of the rest, by his Majesty's
special command, in a long Latin speech recapitulated the
many misdemeanours of Spalatro, especially animadverting
upon his inconstancy, who, coming hither as a refugee from
Italy, now designed to return to Eome, having for that purpose
held correspondence with the Pope without the King's know
ledge. Spalatro made answer, an answer that was regarded as
' rather a shuffling excuse than a just defence.' Then the
Archbishop in his Majesty's name commanded him to depart
the kingdom within twenty days, and never to return. His
erudition was very great, but the love of money was his snare
and his destruction. His own countrymen did not confide
in him, but received him only to imprisonment in the Inqui
sition. He probably never cordially again professed their
religion, and had his integrity been equal to his learning, he
would have gone down to his grave with fame not surpassed
by any of his contemporaries. But so it is, the greatest
talents lose no small part of their reward when once devoted
to sinister ends.
Upon Easter-day, April 21, Bishop Andrewes preached
his third sermon upon the resurrection as recorded by St. John.
Of these three, the first is the most replete with interest, but
each is well worthy of its very pious author. The last, as
more quaintly subdivided than the preceding, will be least
acceptable to modern taste.
His Whitsunday sermon is entitled one ' prepared to be
preached.' It might be that he was already suffering from
his sedentary habits, as we find he did most afflictively some
two years after. It displays his usual fertility of ideas, a mul
titude of verbal allusions, and many most pertinent observa
tions, but embraces too many topics for a single sermon. He
plainly condemns those who without gifts yet seek for places
and offices or callings in the church. Again he speaks against
le officiousness of the weak-minded, who, without either gifts
r calling, take upon themselves to meddle in public and in
rivate with divine things. e Either a calling without a gift, or
gift without a calling. What say you to them that have
either, but fetch their run for all that, and leap quite over
ift and calling, Christ and the Holy Ghost both, and chop
Qto the work at the first dash? that put themselves into
•usinesses which they have neither fitness for, nor calling
o?' And our prelate justly observes that the gift should
recede the calling : and as no man comes to Christ but by
be Holy Ghost, so no man to the catting but by the gift.
£et how fearfully, how generally, is this still lost sight of!
Still but comparatively little regard is had to the office and
dignity of the Holy Ghost, whose it is to make men overseers
of the flock which the Lord hath purchased with his own blood.
On July 4th we find Andrewes on a commission for de
fective titles.
Upon August 5th Andrewes preached at Windsor the
anniversary sermon on the Gowrie Conspiracy, from 1 Sam.
xxiv. 5. He again touched upon the treasons of the Romanists,
and on the assassination of Henry III. and IV. of France.
Chamberlain dined with Andrewes, and did not leave him
until half-past five. The weather was so hot, and he so
faint and wet, that he was fain to go to bed for some little
time after he came out of the pulpit.1
On the 15th Andrewes wrote from Farnham to his Arch
deacon to forward to his clergy copies of the King's Letter :
1. to limit preachers to such topics as are in the Articles and
Homilies ; 2. to enjoin that (except funeral sermons) none
shall preach in the afternoon, but on the Catechism or on
some text taken from the Ten Commandments or the Lord's
Prayer, and those to be most encouraged who spend the
afternoon in catechising ; 3. to restrain preaching on predesti
nation, election, or reprobation, or the universality, efficacy,
resistibility or irresistibility of grace; 4. that in respect of
the royal prerogative, they shall in their public teaching be
regulated by the Homilies upon obedience, &c.j 5. to forbid
all violent invectives against the persons of Papists and
Puritans, but modestly and gravely to touch upon the con
troversies relating to them as the text may call the preacher
to it ; 6. that the Bishops be more wary in licensing preachers,
and that lecturers be licensed only on the recommendation of
the Bishop, with a fiat from the Archbishop, and confirmation
under the great seal.2
It may well be doubted whether this was a wise extension
of the royal authority. It is especially to be noted that
Heylyn himself supposes that Laud had a hand in drawing
up these instructions.
Doublet, in a letter to Vossius from London, August 16th,
informs Vossius of William Knight of Broadgate Hall, Ox
ford, who, on Palm Sunday, had maintained in a sermon that
it was lawful for subjects to take up arms in defence of religion
against the King, and on being called into question for his
doctrine, defended himself by the authority of Parseus.
Upon this occasion Andrewes himself, with other bishops,
directed a mandatory letter to the Vice-Chancellor and Heads
of Houses at Oxford, intimating to them their judgment
in this case. Doublet with his own epistle sent to Vossius
the decree of the University of Oxford condemnatory of
Paraeus On the Romans, and speaks of the theological tem
perament of the University of Cambridge as somewhat over
heated in regard of such as were strictly for the Genevan
Eeformation, either through their great animosity to every
thing savouring of Puritanism, or through their inclination to
the opinions of the Kemonstrants. He was at Cambridge
during the Commencement. There he heard very warm
disputes upon predestination, free-will, and other kindred
points; some strongly maintaining the side of the Bemon-
strants against Dr. Balcanqual. He was informed by one
and another of the Doctors to whom he had introductions
from Bishop Andrewes, that it was a doubt which was the
greater party in the University, the Eemonstrants or the
Anti-Bemonstrants. The Vice-Chancellor himself (Dr. Leo
nard Mawe), he adds, was l remonstrantissimus' He found
many much attached to Vossius, especially Balcanqual and
Dr. Jerome Beale.1
On September 13th Vossius wrote to Bishop Andrewes,
thanking him with much affection for his kindness to his
son-in-law Francis Junius, and that at a time when Junius
was suffering from the neglect of his other friends.2
Bishop Andrewes had commended Junius to the Earl of
Arundel, the Marshal of England, who took him into his
family, and with whom he long continued.
The Earl of Arundel was one of the greatest patrons
of the fine arts whom this age produced. A part of his
noble collection remains in the hands of the University
of Oxford. He in the reign of James relinquished the
errors of Komanism, and appears to have enjoyed the con
fidence of his sovereign. The succeeding monarch created
him Earl of Norfolk, but would not raise him to the Dukedom.
He was variously looked upon, by some with suspicion, as he
would not live in dependence upon the smiles and favour of
the Court. He took no part in the subsequent commotions,
but went over to Italy, where he died at Padua October 4,
1646.
Upon Wednesday, Christmas-day, Bishop Andrewes pro
ceeded with the history of the Wise Men's coming. Here, he
said, are three stars, the star in the firmament, the star of
faith in their hearts, and Christ himself, the bright and
morning star. Their faith believed that he, though of the
Jews, had relation to them ; that benefit was to come to them
by him ; that therefore their worship was due to him. They
did the work of faith, they confessed him boldly. They had
a faith that was well grounded. They had seen his star.
They most probably were led to that star by Balaam's
prophecy, that a King should arise who should not only smite
the corners of Moab, that is Balak their enemy, for the
present ; but should reduce and bring under him all the sons
of Seth, that is, all the world. For all are now Seth's sons ;
Cain's were all drowned in the flood. The West had some
glimmering of knowledge of this star. It is seen in Virgil's
sixth Eclogue, but not having the word of prophecy they
missed it. So this, this book must be our morning light,
a more sure word of prophecy, as St. Peter saith. And
besides these, there must be a light within, in the eye. And
that must come from him and the enlightening of his Spirit.
The work of their faith they shewed in that they came. They
left their country, and so walked in the steps of the faith of
Abraham ; did Abraham's first work. They came not a short
journey, as the shepherds, but a long and wearisome one over
the deserts and rocks and insecure ways of Arabia, and in
the worst season. And they set out without delay. No
sooner did they see the star than forthwith they set out. And
having come they inquired where he was born ; they enquired
of the scribes; they went not to a conventicle but to the
church. And as they enquired themselves, so must we, and
seek Christ not by another but by ourselves.
And they came and worshipped him, not in hypocrisy, as
Herod at his birth, or the other Herod at his death. They
came and found him in a stable, and yet they turned not away.
They find him in so humble a state that he might seem more
like to be abhorred than adored of such persons. lt Will they
be as good as their word, trow ? Will they not step back at
the sight, repent themselves of their journey, and wish them
selves at home again? But so find him, and so finding,
worship him for all that ? If they will, verily then great is
their faith"
u The Queen of the south, who was a figure of these
Kings of the east, she came as great a journey as these. But
when she came she found a king indeed, King Solomon in all
his royalty • saw a glorious king and a glorious court about
him ; saw him and heard him ; tried him with many hard
questions, received satisfaction of them all. This was worth her
coming. Weigh what she found and what these here : as poor
and unlikely a birth as could be ever to prove a king, or any
great matter. No sight to comfort them, nor a word for which
they any whit the wiser : nothing worth their travell. Weigh
these together, and great odds will be found between her faith
and theirs. Theirs the greater far."
CHAPTER XXII.
Page 488
Easter, 1623 — Cluverius — Bishop Andrewes foresees the coming
dangers — The Isle of Jersey.
FROM Laud's diary we find the name of Andrewes once
more involved in secular and state affairs. On the 23rd of
February, 1623, he, with Laud, Villiers, Marquess of Buck
ingham, and the Lords Arundel and Pembroke, appear to
have made up the Commission of Grievances.
On the 26th of the same month he preached before the
Court upon the fruits meet for repentance. Better had it been
if he had more dwelt upon the motives to it. Useless indeed
is a repentance that does not exercise the heart, and humble
both the soul and the body, and put both to grief. But first
there must be the root, and he who should look for the fruit
without watering the root itself, would but fall into the
extreme of superstition by way of avoiding that of irreverence.
His Easter-day sermon for the 13th of April is not liable
to any such objections. Amongst the latest, it is also amongst
the best of Bishop Andrewes' discourses. It is taken from
the beginning of the 63rd chapter of Isaiah. There is
throughout a vividness and depth of colouring that could
proceed only from such a hand. He brings before our eyes
the winepress of redemption and the winepress of triumphal
retribution ; the first in which the Lord himself was trodden
under foot, the second in which he treads down his enemies,
hell itself, the spiritual Edom, the most inveterate of all the
foes of Israel. Over Edom, strong as it was, David cast his
shoe, that is, set his foot upon it, and trod it down. And
Bozra, as impregnable a hold as it was holden, yet David
won it, was led into the strong city ; led into it and came
thence again. So did the son of David, this day from his
Edom, death, how strongsoever, yet swallowed up in victory
this day. In 0 death where is thy victory he supposes an
allusion to ' the Eoman standard that had in it the image of
the goddess Victory.'
Here having direct occasion he passes not over the doctrine
of our justification, and that as he had done elsewhere, Christ,
he saith, * laid by his own righteousness to be clothed with
our sin : he to wear our colours that we his : he in our red
that we in his white. So we find our robes are not only
washed clean, but dyed a pure white in the blood of the
Lamb. Yea, he died and rose again both in our colours, that
we might die and rise too in his.' And again, a little after,
' He in Mount Golgotha, like to us ; that we in Mount Tabor,
like to him.'
On the 13th of June we find Vossius writing to our prelate,
expressing his grief upon the death of their common friend
Cluverius,1 who had left his young family but a poor in
heritance. But he is comforted from the consideration that
their grandmother survives, herself an Englishwoman and of
good parentage. She was preparing to come to England
to claim her property, at that time unjustly detained from her.
He begs of Bishop Andrewes to put her cause into the hands
of some honest and sufficient person. He mentions with
cordial and not undeserved commendation the unparalleled
benevolence of Andrewes, as eminent as his great learning.
He complains that antiquity finds now but few admirers, and
that solid learning is out of favour.
Upon Sunday, July 20th, Bishop Andrewes administered
to the ambassadors the oath for the observance of the articles
with Spain. This was celebrated at Whitehall Chapel with
great ceremony, all of which is fully detailed in Nichols'
Progresses of King James? The marriage-treaty, however,
and the consequent articles with it fell to the ground. Our
unhappy nation was to be ruined from another quarter.
Bishop Andrewes was appointed to preach before the King
on the oth of August, and prepared a sermon which from
some cause or other does not appear to have been delivered.
After the 5th of October, the day of the return of Prince
Charles from Spain, occurred the following incident noted
down by Bishop Wren, Chaplain both to the Prince and to
Bishop Andrewes.
"After our return from Spain, my Lord of Winchester
(among other great expressions of his respects to me) made me
promise to him that upon all occasions of my coming to
London (for I abode still at Cambridge) I would lodge with
him ; to which end he caused three rooms near the garden2
to be fitted and reserved for me ; and twice or thrice I had
lodged there.
11 And at another time, coming suddenly to London and
late, I lodged at my sister's in Friday Street ; and the next
day being Friday, I went to Winchester House to dinner,
and craved his lordship's pardon that I lodged not there;
because that my business was to treat with some country
gentlemen who lay in Holborn, whom I should not meet with
but in the evening and morning, when it would not be safe
for me to pass the bridge or the Thames ; and so after dinner
I took my leave of him, hoping to return for Cambridge on
Monday.
" But on Saturday, going to do my duty to my Lords of
Durham [Neile] and St. David's [Laud], and telling them of
my sudden return, they would needs overrule me, and made
me promise them, though I had taken leave of my Lord of
Winchester, yet to meet them next day at Whitehall at my
lord's chambers at dinner. I did so, and there we sat after
dinner above an hour. And then, I shewing them that on the
morrow my business would be dispatched, and I would be
gone on Tuesday, I took my leave again of them all. But
on Monday morning by break of day (before they used to be
stirring in Friday Street) there was a great knocking at the
door where I lay ; and at last an apprentice who lay in the
shop came up to my bedside, and told me there was a
messenger from Winchester House to speak with me. The
business was to let me know that my lord, when he came
from court last night, had given his steward charge to order
it so that I might be spoken with, and be required as from
him without fail to dine with him on Monday ; but to be at
Winchester House by ten of the clock, which 1 wondered the
more at, his lordship not using to come from his study till
near twelve. My business would hardly permit this ; yet
because of his lordship's importunity, I got up presently, and
into Holborn I went, and there made such dispatch that soon
after ten o'clock I took a boat and went to Winchester House,
where I found the steward at the Water-gate, waiting to let
me in the nearest way, who telling me that my lord had
called twice to know if I were come, I asked where his lord
ship was. He answered, in his great gallery (a place where
I knew his lordship scarce came once in a year), and thither
I going, the door was locked ; but upon my lifting the latch,
my lord of St. David's opened the door, and letting me in,
locked it again.
a There I found none but those three lords, who causing
me to sit down by them, my lord of Durham began to me :
1 Doctor, your lord here will have it so, I that am the unfittest
person must be the speaker. But this it is ; after you left us
yesterday at Whitehall, we, entering into farther discourse of
those things which we foresee and conceive will ere long come
to pass, resolved again to speak to you before you went hence.
We must know of you what your thoughts are concerning
your master the Prince. You have now been his servant
above two years, and you were with him in Spain. We
know he respects you well, and we know you are no fool, but
can observe how things are like to go.' ' What things, my
lord?' qut)th I. 'In brief,' said he, c how the Prince's heart
stands to the Church of England, that when God brings him
to the crown, we may know what to hope for?' My reply
was to this effect, that, however, I was the most unfit of any
to give my opinion herein, attending but two months in the
year, and then at a great distance, only in the closet and at
meals ; yet seeing they so pressed me, I would speak my mind
freely. So I said, f I know my master's learning is not equal
to his father's ; yet I know his judgment to be very right ; and
as for his affections in these particulars which your lordships
have pointed at, for upholding the doctrine and discipline
and right estate of the Church, I have more confidence of him
than of his father, in whom they say (better than I can) is
so much inconstancy in some particular cases.'
" Hereupon my lords of Durham and St. David's began to
argue with me, and required me to let them know upon what
ground I came to think thus of the Prince. I gave them my
reasons at large, and after many replyings (above an hour
together), then my lord of Winchester, who had said nothing
all the while, bespake me in these words : c Well, Doctor,
God send you may be a true prophet concerning your master's
inclinations in these particulars, which we are glad to hear
from you. I am sure I shall be a true prophet. I shall be in my
grave, and so shall you, my lord of Durham • but my lord of
St. David's and you, Doctor, will live to see that day that
your master will be put to it, upon his head and his crown,
without he will forsake the support of the Church.'
" Of this prediction made by that holy Father, I have now
no witness but mine own conscience and the eternal God, who
knows I lie not; nobody else being present when this was
spoken but these three lords."
Hence it would appear that whatsoever might be the
connivance of the King's advisers in the matter of the Spanish
match, they were not without their secret apprehensions.
They dreaded the return of Popery, and so questioned Wren
respecting the inclinations of the Prince. It is very certain
that Andrewes was more thoroughly imbued with a sense of
the essential evil of the Komish system than Laud, and
probably Neile himself was inferior to Andrewes in this
respect, as in every other. Neile was himself some years
younger than Andrewes, and lived to see the beginning of
those troubles of which the false friends of the Prince were
themselves so great and so guilty a cause.
Bishop Andrewes' sermon on Christmas-day, upon the
summing up of all things in Christ, displays his usual inge
nuity, piety, and learning, but is not equal in point of interest
to many of the preceding.
In the course of this year the Isle of Jersey was, after
many efforts throughout the greater part of this reign, brought
to conformity with the Church of England, and David Bandi-
nelli, an Italian and minister of St. Mary's, was appointed
Dean. A book of canons was then drawn up by the Dean
and ministers, and examined and corrected by Archbishop
Abbot, Bishop Williams, Lord Keeper, and Bishop Andrewes,
now Diocesan of Jersey. The rupture with Spain prevented
the application of the same regulations to the Isle of Guernsey.
CHAPTER XXIII.
Bishop Andrewes on Repentance and Fasting — Andrewes and Neile on
the King 's Prerogative — Meric Casaubon — The Death of King
James — Moderation of Andrewes — Fast Service — Richard Montagu
— Death of Andrewes.
BISHOP ANDREWES this year (1624) completed his doctrine
of repentance in his Ash- Wednesday sermon, February 10th.
The last five of the eight Ash- Wednesday sermons may be
regarded as one treatise. The first of them, from the 2nd
chapter of Joel, treats of repentance generally as a turning out
of the way of sin to God, a sincere turning with the heart,
and, for the manner of it, with fasting. This he commends
not only as preventive of sin but as a correction of it / wept
and chastened myself with fasting.1 For " if in very sorrow
we are to fast when the bridegroom is taken away, much more
when we ourselves, by our sins committed, have been the
cause of his taking, nay, of his very driving away from us.
And must we then fast ? Indeed we must, or get us a new
Epistle for the day, and a new Gospel too."
tl But how fast ? Two kinds of fasting we find in Scripture :
1. David's, who fasted, tasted neither bread nor aught till
the sun was down; no meat at all: that is too hard.
2. What say you to Daniel's fast? He did eat and drink,
but no meats of delight, and (namely) eat no flesh. The
Church as an indulgent mother mitigates all she may; enjoins
not for fast that of David, and yet he who can, let him receive
it for all that. She only requires of us that other of Daniel,
to forbear meat of delight (and flesh is there expressly named),
meats and drinks provoking the appetite, full of nourishment,
kindling the blood.
" And yet even this also doth the Church release to such
as are in Timothy's case, have many infirmities. It is not
the decay of nature but the chastisement of sin she seeketh.
But this must not be hypocritically taken advantage of. Then
weeping, and if we cannot weep, yet mourning is required.
Mourning they call the sorrow which reason itself can yield.
Complain and bemoan ourselves we can, and desire and pray
for some portion of the grace of tears. 0 that my head were
full of water, and mine eyes fountains of tears. And we can
humbly beseech our merciful God and Father, in default of
ours, to accept of the strong crying and bitter tears which, in
the days of his flesh, his blessed Son in great agony shed for
us. Our hearts must be rent, contrite, ground as it were
to powder, to feel that it is a bitter and an evil thing to have
turned away and forsaken the Lord. We must be angry
with ourselves, or we are not truly grieved with ourselves.
Indignation naturally seeks revenge. We must abhor our
selves for our sins, not from mere earthly principles, but for
the manifold indignities offered by our sins to God, to the
law of his justice, to the awe of his majesty, to the reverent
regard of his presence, to the dread of his power, and to the
long-suffering of his love. And let repentance be without
delay. Now is the only sure part of our time."
Then in the second discourse our prelate establishes the
duty of fasting from our Lord's own injunction in the 6th
chapter of St. Matthew, and this preceded by the constant
practice of the Old Testament saints ; the fast of Ai, under
Joshua;1 at Gibeah,2 under the Judges; at Mizpah, under
Samuel f at Hebron, under David ;4 of Jeremiah, before the
Captivity ;5 of Daniel under it ;6 of Zachary after it ;7 at
Jerusalem, of the Jews at the preaching of Joel ,8 at Nineveh,
of the Gentiles at the preaching of Jonas.1 And so the
Christians at Antioch, the prophets of the New Testament
there, as well as the prophets of the Old.2 So the rest of
Christ's ministers shewed themselves such by this proof of
fasting amongst others.3 And what themselves did, they
advised others to do, to give themselves to fasting and
prayer.4 In truth, it accompanied ever all great acts of
devotion, whether for the deprecating of evil, or the obtaining
of good.
He returns to treat of the time and circumstances. The
forty days' fast is sanctioned by Moses, Elias, and Christ, and
God gave the same number to the people of Nineveh to repent
in. We may here consider whether those go not a presump
tuous length, who deny anything of an exemplary nature in
the fast of our Saviour. As we take less pleasing meats, less
luxurious and dainty, so we may diminish the quantity and
put off the time. Cornelius fasted to three at noon, Peter to
twelve at noon.5
The third discourse is, as we have seen, against hypocrisy.
The fourth and fifth are upon the fruits of repentance. The
fruits are works meet for repentance. For spiritual sins let
us now bring forth prayer and works of devotion ; for fleshly,
bodily self-denial; for worldly, alms and works of charity,
and compassion.
'For the first Simon Magus went not through with his
bargain ; did but think the Holy Ghost had been ware for his
money, all was but thinking ; went no further than the Spirit.
St. Peter prescribes him what to do, to fall to prayer ; pray,
saith he, if it be possible, this thought of thy heart may be
forgiven thee. Prayer serves where it goes no further than
thought.
1 For the second, the king of Nineveh and his people, they
fell to fasting on all hands. What was their sin ? Nahum
will best tell us that : he wrote the burden of Nineveh. This
it was, Because of the fornications of the harlot. For that
kind of fleshly sin, that was the proper fruit.
For the third, one example shall be the King of Babylon.
He had been a mighty oppressor of his people. There have
ye now a worldly sin. Break off thine iniquities with mercy
to the poor, is Daniel's prescript to him.'1 These make up the
corrective or penal part of repentance.
But most certain it is that he denies to the best of our
works everything that is strictly of the nature of satisfaction.
' Shall we put them into the balance, to weigh the worthiness
of our fruits with the unworthiness of our sins, and the conse
quent of our sins, the wrath of God ? the dignity of the one
with the indignity of the other, and think by their dignity to
satisfy God's great indignation ? I trow not. At this beam
no fruits of ours will hold weight ; none so found worthy ; no,
not if we could, I say not, shed or pour out, but even melt
into tears, and every tear a drop of blood. The honour of
worthy in this sense belongs to the fruits of no tree but the
tree of the cross of Christ ; to his sufferings, and to none but
his.'2 To apportion to each his proper works of repentance,
that there may be no self-deception, he commends that the
minister of God be consulted. So it was of old time. ' In
the law every man was not left to himself. The offering for
sin, which was to them a fruit of repentance, it was rated ever,
ever taxed by the priest.3 According to his ordering, so it
went : he made the estimate, how much was enough, what
would serve. And here now in St. John's time — to St. John
they come with their What shall we do ? — and under the Gospel
there we see, for the Corinthian St. Paul said, This much is
enough, this shall serve : his conscience may be quiet ; I
restore him to the Church's peace. And the canons peni
tential which were made in the times under persecution, the
very best times of the Church, lay forth plainly what is to be
followed and observed in this kind.' He witnesses the general
neglect of casuistry of this kind, and laments over it. ' Truly
it is neither the least nor the last part of our learning, to be
able to give answer and directions in this point ; but therefore
laid aside and neglected by us, because not sought after by
you; therefore not studied but by very few, because it is
grown out of request quite.'
He who would faithfully treat both of repentance and the
fruits of repentance, may well consult Bishop Andrewes'
Manual for the Sick, edited by Dr. Drake in 1685.1
We find a sermon prepared to be preached on March 28th,
Easter-day, from the 18th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
the benediction toward the end of the chapter. It abounds in
pious applications of the text, but embraces too many points
to have been easily carried away by the auditory, the greatest
perhaps of all. the faults of that age of learned and truly able
preachers.
On May 29th, the day after the proroguing of Parliament,
Mr. Waller, "going to see the King at dinner, overheard a
very extraordinary conversation between his Majesty and
Bishops Andrewes and Neile, who were standing behind the
King's chair. His Majesty asked them, ' My lords, cannot
I take my subjects' money when I want it, without all this
formality in Parliament?' The Bishop of Durham readily
answered, 'God forbid, Sir, but you should; you are the
breath of our nostrils.' Whereupon the King turned and
said to Bishop Andrewes, 'Well, my lord, what say you?'
4 Sir,' replied the Bishop, ' I have no skill to judge of parlia
mentary cases.' The King answered, i No put-offs, my lord,
answer me presently.' l Then, Sir,' said he, ' I think it
lawful for you to take my brother Neile's money, for he
offers it.'"2
Bishop Andrewes' name frequently occurs upon committees
of the Peers in this and occasionally the following year. On
February 26th he was on a committee of privileges. On
March 1st he had leave to be absent. On March 8th he was
on a committee on the observance of the Lord's-day. On
March llth on the Bill respecting recusants made in the
third of this reign. On March 12th on a committee to
prevent the carrying of gold out of the country by bills of
exchange, « and, as they conceive, by the Papists.' On March
16th on a committee to enable Prince Charles to make leases
of lands parcel of the Duchy of Cornwall. On May 29th, at
eight in the morning, respecting an Act for the confirmation
and continuance of hospitals and free-schools that had been
called in question. About this time Dr. Field, Bishop of
Llandaff, was to be admonished in the Convocation House
before the Bishops, a charge having been laid against him
by the Archbishop of dealing in bribery.1 On May 31st
Andrewes was placed on a committee, " the session not to be
closed by the royal assent being given to some acts."2
In the month of August our prelate was afflicted with
a very dangerous illness at his palace at Waltham, Hants.
On the 6th of August he wrote to Dr. Fenton. His rest was
disturbed and his whole system disordered. His appetite
for meat had left him. " No drink," he says, to me." He also suffered great pain in his left side. After
detailing his symptoms, he adds : " This I hope will make
you to come. I have sent my own coach for you to be here
on Tuesday. I would it could be sooner, but not to fail of
you then. You shall never come more welcome. Till then
and for ever God have you in his keeping. Waltham, 6 Aug.
1624.
" Your very assured loving friend,
"LA. WINTON."
He complains in a P.S. that he is disappointed in respect
of his brother and his wife ; " so that," he adds, " you are like
to come alone. You shall be never a wit the loser, but better
welcome. See you come in any wise."
But we find him named in a committee on a private bill
the following 1st of December) again on Saturday, December
the 5th, to meet at eight A.M. in the Painted Chamber on a
committee for making the Thames navigable for barges, boats,
or lighters from the village of Bercott (Buscott or Burwardscot
in Berkshire) to Oxford. On that day he was also on a
commission for the banishing of Jesuits and Seminary Priests.
In December 16243 the King was a third time in Cam-
bridge (having paid two visits to the University in 1615),
and kept his court at Trinity College. Prince Charles also
was with him ; and here Monsieur de Villiariler and the
Marquis d' Effiat, Embassadors Extraordinary from the King
of France, had audience of his Majesty, who, on the 12th of
December, signed here the ratification of the treaty with
France respecting the marriage of the Prince of Wales with
the Princess Henrietta Maria. The King was confined with
the gout in his hands and arms, but the Prince, Embassadors,
and Nobility were entertained with public disputations, &c.
There was an extraordinary Commencement, when many
degrees were granted.1
i Doctors created by his Majesty's letters-patent :
Shaw, Peterhouse.
John Leslie, Trinity, took no other degree.
Anthony Topham, Trinity (Fellow), B.A. 1605, M.A. 1609, B.D. 1616.
Thomas Rayment, Peterhouse, M.A. 1606.
Laurence Burnell, John's, B.A. 1600, M.A. 1604.
Alexander Reade, Pembroke, B.A. 1604-5 — 1608.
Gabriel Moore, Christ, B.A. 1605-6, M.A. 1609.
John Towers, Queens', B.D. 1615.
Abraham Gibson, John's, B.A. 1606-7, M.A. 1610, B.D. 1617.
Thomas Warner, Emmanuel, B.A. 1604-5, M.A. 1608.
Amongst those who received the degree of M.A. were Sir Kenelm Digby
and Sir "William Fleetwood.
Richard Bagnall intruded himself, and his name not being found in the King's
list, he was three days after (*'. e. the 16th) deprived of his degree.
The King, by a letter to the University on the 17th, gave instructions that
all persons so taking their degrees should promise to perform the usual exercises
according to the statutes and customs of the University.*
Dr. Anthony Topham was Vicar of Trumpington, and 7th September, 1629,
installed Dean of Lincoln. He retired, after the loss of his preferment, to
Clayworth, to the south of the road between Bawtry and Gainsborough, and
died there October 22, 1655.
Dr. Thomas Rayment, or Raymond, of Peterhouse, was at this time Preben
dary of Milton Ecclesia in the church of Lincoln, to which he had been collated
November 17th, 1620, and installed January 19th, 1621. He was also Prebendary
of Chamberlainswode in the church of St. Paul's, London, and Archdeacon of
St. Alban's. He died in his 47th year November 4th, 1631, and was buried in
St. Paul's. The Latin inscription on his gravestone is given in Dugdale's
St. Paul's, and in Browne Willis's Survey of Lincoln Cathedral, p. 221.
* See Mr. Charles H. Cooper's Annals of Cambridge, vol. iii. p. 171.
Of this visit to Cambridge of King James with Andrewes,
Isaak Walton relates in his Life of George Herbert, " the year
following the King appointed to end his progress at Cam
bridge, and to stay there certain days ; at which time he was
Dr. John Towers of Norfolk was B.A of Queens' College, Cambridge, 1602,
M.A. 1606, Fellow of his College, B.D. 1615. His letter to Sir J}hn Lamb, to
intercede for him with Laud for the bishopric of Peterborough, is given in p. 354
of Prynne's Compleat History of the Trial and Condemnation of William Laud,
Archbishop of Canterbury. He was accordingly promoted from the Deanry, to
which he had been nominated 14th November, 1630, to the see of Peterborough
November 21, 1638. He was consecrated 1639 by Laud, Juxon, Bishop of
London, Curie, Bishop of "Winchester, Wren, Bishop of Ely, and "Warner, Bishop
of Rochester. Prynne gives also this prelate's orders for and concerning the
sermon weekly on "Wednesday in St. James's Chapel, Brackley, September 14th,
1639. These orders contain the names of the clergy appointed to preach the
lecture, the time of the service, which was nine A.M., and the order of divine
service. By these instructions it appears that the whole morning service was to
be read as now, i. e. the Morning Prayer, Litany, and the Communion Service,
" commonly called the second service." A psalm was to be sung after the Litany.
The preacher was to go up into the pulpit immediately after the Nicene Creed, in
his surplice and hood. He was to use no form of prayer before sermon, but the
bidding prayer as set down in the 55th Canon. Only he might, if he would, insert
"the names of the Universities and of his College, or of his patron, he being one
qualified by law to have a chaplain." The sermon was to be at the utmost
within the compass of an hour, and no prayer was to be used after it, but it was
to end with Glory be to God, &c. ; and after the sermon the preacher was to
return to the Communion-table, and read the prayer for the whole state of
Christ's Church, &c., and one or two of the Collects at the end of the Communion
Service, and lastly the blessing, The Peace of God, &c. If the prayers were
neglected or deserted, the lecture was to be altogether discontinued. Dr. Towers
died January 10th, 1649, and was buried in his cathedral near his predecessor
Bishop Dee, without any memorial, in the middle of the choir. The choir of
this cathedral was, until at least about the middle of the last century, much
more spacious than at present. It commenced with the last pillar but one on
either side the nave, thus standing partly beneath the lantern tower. It is
now much too contracted for the wants of the city.
Dr. Laurence Burnell was B.A. of St. John's College, Cambridge, 1601,
M. A. 1604, Chancellor of Exeter July 20th, 1624. He died in his 68th year,
November 12th, 1647.
Dr. John Lesley, of Trinity College, was Bishop of Sodor August 17, 1628,
and was translated to Raphoe in Ireland in 1633.
Dr. Reade, who was minister of Yately, Hants, has been already mentioned in
the account of the royal visit to Cambridge in 1615.
Gabriel Moore, of Christ College, was Taxor in 1616 and Proctor in 1620,
Prebendary of the first stall at Westminster March 8, 1632. He held it until
the Usurpation.
attended by the great secretary of nature and all learning, Sir
Francis Bacon (Lord Verulam), and by the ever memorable
and learned Doctor Andre wes, Bishop of Winchester, both
which did at that time begin a desired friendship with our
orator." " And for the learned Bishop, it is observable that
at that time there fell to be a modest debate betwixt them
two about predestination and sanctity of life ; of both which
the orator did not long after send the Bishop some safe and
useful aphorisms in a long letter written in Greek; which
letter was so remarkable for the language and reason of it,
that after the reading it the Bishop put it into his bosom, and
did often shew it to many scholars both of this and foreign
nations, but did always return it back to the place where he
first lodged it, and continued it so near his heart till the last
day of his life."1
This same year Bishop Andrewes preached his last
Christmas-day sermon before the King, from the 2nd Psalm^
TJiou art my Son, &c. ; first, treating of them as spoken to our
Lord; secondly, as the law preached by him to all that are
adopted into the family of God.
About this time he preferred Meric the son of Isaac
Casaubon, but far his inferior in learning, to the Rectory of
Bleadon, a small village west of Axbridge in Somersetshire.
He was bora at Geneva in August 1599, but coming over
with his father was admitted at Christ Church, Oxford, and
in 1621 published a vindication of his deceased father against
the false rumours and artifices of the Papists, Heribert Rosweid,
a Jesuit, Andrew Scioppius, Julius Caesar Bullinger, and the
traitor of 1605 (the favourite of the great Anglo-Romish
historian), Andrew Eudsemon Joannes. After the death of
Andrewes Laud became Casaubon's patron,2 and preferred
him in 1628 to a prebendal stall in Canterbury.
Fuller, in his Church History, b. xi. I. § 46, says that
Andrewes' gravity in a manner awed King James, who re
frained from that mirth and liberty in the presence of this
prelate, which otherwise he assumed to himself. However
the King highly esteemed his wit, which as it shone forth in
all his writings, his sermons not excepted, would doubtless
have given an unrivalled charm to his conversation. Those
who enjoyed the society of the late incomparable Bishop of
Lincoln will never fail to remember that unaffected playfulness
which never lost sight of the higher requisites of conversation.
Both were perhaps the greatest patristic scholars of their day,
both eminent for their benevolence, and both have left behind
them monuments of as learned piety as their several ages can
boast.
On January 1st, 1625, Andrewes was on the High Com
mission.
His royal master in his last illness desired his attend
ance, but by reason of a severe fit of the stone and gout,
at the same time, he was unable to be with him. The King,
however, had the comfort of the presence of Abbot and
Williams, both soon to lose the best of masters, and to fall
into great and undeserved disgrace. The King ended his
days in much peace of mind. He was indeed but too incon
stant, and an uncertain friend to that religion in which he
professed to die, and in defence of which he had written with
sufficient learning. He was a true patron of learning, and
protector of the rights and revenues of the Church. But he
lived in the contaminating atmosphere of flattery, from the
shameless adulation of Whitgift at the Hampton Conference1
to that of Neile standing behind his table. He was indolent
and irresolute, seeing a better way than that which he would
walk in, and thus guilty of injustice which he but inade
quately regretted. He left his throne to a son weaker and
more arbitrary, but less conciliating, and far less versed in
theoretical wisdom. He left him to young and inexperienced
counsellors, who soon aggravated the difficulties with which the
crown was already environed, and raised up a host of enemies
to the Church by attempting innovations both in doctrine and
ceremonies. Andrewes was always of an unambitious and
quiet spirit. Laud took the place which he alone was fitted
to occupy, and Villiers soon thrust aside Williams.
On Wednesday, March 24th, our prelate was one of a
committee of the Lords for the confirmation of Wadham
College and its possessions. It had been founded in 1610.
On March 27, Midlent Sunday, whilst Laud was preaching
at Whitehall, news was brought in of the King's death.1 He
died at Theobalds about three-quarters of an hour past eleven
in the forenoon. The King fell sick March 4th, on Friday.
On the 1st of April Laud received letters from the Earl of
Pembroke, Lord Chamberlain to the King, and therein a
command to preach before him and the House of Peers in the
opening of Parliament to be held on the 17th of May. This
Parliament, however, was deferred to the 18th of June, and
on the 19th Laud preached before the King at Whitehall.2
Abbot and Andrewes were both henceforth superseded
most effectually, and Laud became the real primate and
director of all ecclesiastical affairs. So on April 5th he de
livered to the Duke of Buckingham a list of divines marked
O and P, Orthodox and Puritans. Thus was all church
patronage placed at once under his influence. After this most
responsible step had been taken he received a command to go
to Andrewes, and learn from him what he would have done
in the cause of the Church, and especially in regard of pre
destination. There can be little doubt that this was in con
sequence of Laud's own suggestion. The next day being
Sunday, April 10th, he went to Bishop Andrewes, who was
then in his chamber at court. He acquainted him with what
he had received in command. Andrewes gave Laud his
answer, but the purport of it we learn from Laud's chaplain
and panegyrist Heylyn. It accorded with the moderation
and experience of Andrewes, and, by advising that nothing be
done, and no controversies stirred, checked the ardent spirit of
Laud. There can indeed be no doubt that their opinions
and whole theology varied widely. Laud denied the character
of a Church to every communion that was not episcopal ; not
so Andrewes; as may be seen in his letters to Du Moulin.
Andrewes maintained that the Pope was Antichrist, Laud
that he was not. Andrewes never deserted the doctrine of
St. Augustine on predestination; Laud was at this time, in
all probability, at least a concealed Arminian. With much
subtlety and little ingenuousness both he and Neile indirectly
answered to the charge of Arminianism when it was objected
to them in the latter part of this reign, v Laud's answer on his
trial was, ' I have nothing to do to defend Arminianism,
no man having yet charged me with the abetting any point
of it.'1
On June 6th, Whit-Monday, Laud and Andrewes dined
together with Buckeridge, Bishop of Bochester, at his house
at Bromley.
On June 7th he was on a commission for mortgaging some
of the crown lands to Edward Allen and others.2
On Friday, June 24th, Andrewes was, with Laud, Moun
tain, Bishop of London, Neile, Bishop of Durham, Buckeridge,
Bishop of Rochester, Harsnet, Bishop of Norwich, and Abbot
the Archbishop, appointed to advise concerning a public fast
and a form of prayer, to implore the divine mercy on occasion
of the spreading of the plague, and the extraordinarily wet
weather which threatened a famine ; and also to beg the divine
blessing upon the fleet now ready to put to sea. This form of
prayer was altered and enlarged from that which was put
forth in 1563, which had also been used with some altera
tions and accommodations in 1603, on occasion of the plague
that raged at the time of the late King's coronation. The
same responses were now used instead of the 95th Psalm,
and for the psalms the seven penitential psalms, the 6th,
32nd, 38th, 51st, 102nd, 130th, and 143rd, were read at the
morning prayer; and at the evening prayer the 9th, 39th,
86th, 90th, and 91st. The lessons were Deuteronomy xxviii.
and xxx., 1 Kings viii., 2 Sam. xxiv., Joel ii., Jonah iii.,
i Wharton's History of Laud's Troubles and Trial, p. 352. 2 Rymer.
St. Matthew vi. or viii. or ix., and St. Luke xiii. or xxi. The
prayer, '0 almighty, most just, and merciful God,' was
altered so as to be less pointedly opposed to Eomanism : for
the words hitherto used, f thou hast delivered us from all
horrible and execrable idolatry,' were substituted, 'thou
hast delivered us from superstition and idolatry.' To this
form was appended as a preface the prayer for the High
Court of Parliament, since excellently altered and inserted
into the Liturgy. After 'the welfare of our sovereign and
his kingdoms,' it proceeded, 'Lord, look upon the humility
and devotion with which they are come into thy courts ; and
they are come into thy house in assured confidence upon the
merits and mercies of Christ (our blessed Saviour), that thou
wilt not deny them the grace and favour which they beg of
thee. Therefore, O Lord, bless them with all that wisdom
which thou knowest necessary to speed and bring great
designs into action, and to make the maturity of his Majesty's
and their counsels the happiness and the blessing of this
commonwealth. These and all other necessaries for them,
for us, &c. For the second lesson at the evening service were
appointed 1 Cor. x. to the 16th verse, I Cor. xiii., or 2 Cor.
ix., or 1 Thess. iv. The homily put forth in 1603 was
printed at the end of the prayers.
On the 23rd of July the Bishop promoted his brother
Dr. Roger Andrewes, Master of Jesus College, to the sixth
stall in Winchester Cathedral, on the death of William Barlow,
Archdeacon of Salisbury.
On September 8tli Andrewes was on a commission for
charitable uses, to inquire into the disposition of the property
of Andrew Windsor, Esq., who had bequeathed property for
the support of eight poor persons in an almshouse founded by
himself at Farnham. The gift was declared good.1
This year a third of the inhabitants of London and of the
suburbs died of the plague. Andrewes gave 100 marks
during this time to the parish of St. Saviour's, Southwark.
Buckeridge adds in his funeral sermon, that since the year
1620 he gave in private alms to the sum of £1340.
In Secretary Conway's Letter Book is the following
minute : "To Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester, to
admit Dr. Middleton to the place of Confessor of the House
hold," October, 1625. This was the occasion of the following
letter from our prelate :
" R.T. HON. AND MY VEET GOOD LoED,
"Your lordship's from Salisbury of the 25th October came
not to my hand till this day the 4th November, lest your lordship
should impute the delay of mine answer to any neglect of dutie.
May it please your lordship to be advertised that there hath nothing
been done in this matter of the Confessorship but with the know
ledge and by order of his Majestic.
" Mr. Beckett, the confessor that now is, and that hath been for
a great part of the time of our late Sovereign Lord King James
(whose remembrance be ever in blessing) had the grant of that place
not by me, but by Bishop Montague my predecessor, then Dean of
the Chapel, to whom appertaineth the gift of that place, to appoint
one of his own chaplains (as by the Book of the Household appeareth,
and as ever hath been used).
"It hath ever been the most gracious goodness of the Kings and
Queens, his Majestie's precedessors, so far to commiserate their poor
servants, as if the hand of God were upon them (as upon Mr.
a stall in that cathedral, and made him Archdeacon of Chichester 23rd February,
1608, as he had previously made him Chancellor October 16th, 1606. He was
the first who commenced a College Register. He was undoubtedly deserving of
promotion, for his learning obtained for him a place amongst the translators of
the Bible in the reign of King James. He died in 1635. He was succeeded in
his stall at "Winchester by Dr. Thomas Buckner, in his Mastership by Dr.
William Beale, brother of Jerome, Master of Pembroke College. His stall at
Southwell he resigned in 1631, and was succeeded by Dr. Henry "Willis. John
Scull was on his decease appointed Chancellor, and Laurence Pay Archdeacon
of Chichester.
Beckett it hath been now for these few years past, hath been stricken
with a palsy, not yet recovered), they could continue in their place
still, and serve them by a deputy.
" It may please his Majestic to call to mind, that not long after
his happy coming to the crown, upon the humble petition of Mr.
Beckett, his Majestic' s pleasure was to me signified by my Lord
Duke of Buckingham, and after by his Majestic himself, that he
would have Mr. Beckett continue in the place during his life;
whereupon he was orderly sworn by me. This as among the
multitude of far more weighty affairs it very well may, so it is
likely his Majestic calleth not to his remembrance. Under reforma
tion and craving pardon, I thought it to stand with my duty to
make this known. May it please it your lordship to put his Majestic
in mind thereof. And his memory being informed, his pleasure
shall be fulfilled, as becometh me.
" I beseech your lordship to bear with and to support this my
imperfect manner of writing, who have been under the hand of God
sick of an ague these seven weeks, for the most part forced to keep
my bed, where your letter found me. I remain while I live, to
pray and to wish your lordship continuance and increase of health,
honour and happiness from God, who long preserve you.
" In all duty and service
" At your lordship's commandment,
"LA. WlNTON.
" Bishop' s Waltham,
"Novemb. 4, 1625." l
Thus early was the very patronage of Andrewes as Dean
of the Chapel Koyal invaded, and that with the royal
sanction. So little reverence did the Sovereign shew to
his recently departed father's most deserving friend and
favourite. Had Abbot been removed before Andrewes from
his trials to that world for which his afflictions doubtless
ripened him, nothing can be more improbable than that
Andrewes would have been raised to Canterbury. Laud
would not have declined such an opportunity — Laud, who
was already aiming at the metropolitan functions.
On December the 8th Bishop Andrewes wrote as follows
to the Lords of the Council :
" RT. Hotf. MY VERY GOOD LOEDS,
" Your Lordships' letters of the 30th October I received on
Monday night last (the 5th of this present), wherein I am required
1 In the margin is as follows :
" (By his Majestie himself] in the gallerie at Whitehall, my Lord Chamberlain
and divers others then present."
to signify to the Lord Marquess of Winchester and to his son (the
Lord St. John) his Majestie's pleasure touching the removing of
their arms and other habiliments of war, and taking them into my
custodie.
" My Lords, I would my body were to my mind, and wish with
all my heart, that for the present state of my health, I were as able
to perform this service as I shall ever be found willing readily to
obey and to execute any of his Majestie's commands, or your Lord
ships' letters, to the uttermost of my endeavours. But at this present
God hath laid upon me the ague, the stone, and the gout all at
once. The ague hath held me these twelve weeks and more, and is
now come to plain tertian, which forceth me (being now low brought)
to keep my bed every other day. And within these three weeks I
have had at times three grievous fits of stone in the bladder, which
afflicteth me still. And to both these is now come the gout, to make
me more unhable for undertaking a journey, or taking on me a
matter of so great importance. All which, offering to your Lord
ships' grave judgment (that his Majestie's service sustain no preju
dice), I humbly desire your favourable report to his Majestie of my
weak estate. And the business requiring speed, that your Lordships
will be pleased to think of some other that are not only for the state
of their health and strength of their bodies, but besides better hable
every way than myself. Or, if it be required that I do it, that I may be
respited some time till it please God I may recover some strength to
go about it. Which I write not as any way unwilling to any of
his Majestie's service in this kind (for I shall be ever most ready to
execute it or any the like to the uttermost of my power), but only
that as my case is I have neither health nor strength to perform it.
" And here withal I have returned the letter sent to the two
Lords, expecting his Majestie's further pleasure and your Lord
ships' command, whereto my ability I will ever yield due obedience.
Beseeching God with all his graces ever to bless that most honourable
board at all your meetings, and to crown your consultations with all
prosperous success.
"At your Et. Honourable Lordships'
" Commandment,
"In all humble duty and service,
" LA. WINTON.
" Bishop's Waltham,
"Decemb. 8, 1625."
On January 16, 1626, by the King's command a con
sultation was held to resolve what should be done in the case
of Richard Mountague. This learned and able writer, now
Dean of Hereford and one of the King's Chaplains, had
given great offence, not to the Puritans only, but to many
whom it would be unjust to characterize by that name.
He had, in answer to a proselytist who troubled his parish
of Stanford Rivers near Ongar, put forth in 1624 a work
entitled A New Gag for an Old Goose, &c. This book
was severely animadverted upon by Yates and Ward,1 two
Puritan ministers of Ipswich. Antony Wotton, Divinity
Professor of Gresham College, afterwards entered into the
controversy in as severe a spirit, but with far more ability.
To Ward and Yates Mountagu replied in his Appello Ccesarem,
A Just Appeal from Two Unjust Informers. This second
work is written with gall rather than with ink, and proved its
author to be indeed what in that age would have entitled
him to be called ' a man of a stout spirit.' True it is, how
ever, that the two informers exaggerated his offences. In
Bishop Carleton Mountagu found a far more formidable
opponent. This prelate had himself taken part in the Synod
of Dort, and was well read in Christian antiquity. He wrote
piously and gravely, and without mingling false charges with
true, exposed the subtlety, sophistry, and inconclusiveness of
Mountagu, where he innovated upon the then received doctrine
of the Church. His examination of Mountagu's errors he
dedicated to King Charles, but it may be questioned whether
that monarch had either the knowledge or the impartiality
requisite for so deep and (to speak the truth) repulsive a
subject.
Upon the assembling of the Commons June 21, 1625,
amongst other subjects they took into consideration the
alleged errors of Mountagu. In the late reign the cause was
put into the hands of Archbishop Abbot, and ended in an
admonition being given to Mountagu.
Afterward the Bishops of the Arminian party, says Rush-
worth, consulted the propagation of the five articles condemned
in the Synod of Dort, [and] concluded that Mr. Mountagu,
being already engaged in the quarrel, should publish his
Appeal to Casarj at first attested by their joint authority,
which afterward they withdrew by subtlety, having pro
cured the subscription of Dr. Francis White,1 whom they left
to appear alone in the testimony, as himself ofttimes com
plained publicly. The Archbishop disallowed the book and
sought to suppress it ; nevertheless it was printed and dedi
cated to King Charles, whereby that party did endeavour to
engage him in the beginning of his reign. Mountagu himself,
on the contrary, asserts in his Epistle Dedicatory to King
Charles , that his royal father acquitted him of all the charges
that were brought against him, and gave express order to Dr.
White, Dean of Carlisle, for the authorising and publishing
thereof.
The Commons appointed a committee to examine the
errors therein, and gave the Archbishop thanks for the admo
nition given to the author, whose books they voted to be
contrary to the articles established by the Parliament, to tend
to the King's dishonour and disturbance of Church and State,
and took bond for his appearance. Hereupon the King
intimated to the House that the things determined concerning
Mountagu without his knowledge did not please him, for that
he was his servant and chaplain-in-ordinary, and he had
taken the business into his own hands ; whereat the Commons
seemed to be much displeased.2
It is reported that the King at one time thought of
leaving Mountagu to the Parliament, and to this that
reflection in Laud's Diary was supposed by some to refer:
1 1 seem to see a cloud arising, and threatening the Church of
England; God for his mercy dissipate it!' This occurs in
Laud's Diary January 29 : ' Jan. 29. Sunday. I understood
what D. B. had collected concerning the cause, book, and
opinions of Richard Mountague, and what E. C.' [King
Charles] ' had determined with himself therein. Methinks
I see a cloud rising/ &C.1
On January 16th, about a fortnight before the preceding
observation of Laud, he, with Monteigne, Neile, and Bucker-
idge, met at Winchester House, where they together with
Bishop Andrewes signed a letter, doubtless very satisfactory
to the King and sufficiently exculpatory of Mountagu. The
letter was addressed to the royal favourite, the Duke of
Buckingham :
"MAY IT PLEASE YOTTB, GltACE,
" Upon your late letters directed to the Bp. of Winchester,
signifying his Maties pleasure that, taking to him the Bps. of
London, Durham, Rochester, Oxford, and St. David's, or some of
them, he and they should take into consideration the business con
cerning Mr. Mountagu' s late book, and deliver their opinions
touching the same, for the preservation of the truth and the peace
of the Church of England, together with the safety of Mr. Mountagu' s
person, we have met and considered, and for our particulars do
think, that Mr. Mountagu in his book hath not affirmed anything
to be the doctrine of the Church of England, but that which in our
opinion is the doctrine of the Church of England, or agreeable
thereunto. And for the preservation of the peace of the Church,
we in humility do conceive that his Matle shall do most graciously
to prohibit all parties, members of the Church of England, any
further controversy of those questions by public preaching, or
writing, or any other way to the disturbance of the peace of the
Church for the time to come. And for any thing that may further
concern Mr. Mountagu's person in that business, we humbly com
mend him to his Maties gracious favour and pardon. And so we
humbly commend your Grace to the protection of the Almighty,
resting
" Yor Grace's faithful and humble servants,
" GEO. LONDON.
"B. DUNELM. LA. WlNTON.
"Jo. ROFEENS*
" GTJIL. MENEVE.
" From "Winchester House,
"January 16, 1625." 2
It is evident that the King and the Duke, probably swayed
by Laud, had previously determined upon Mountagu's ac-
quittal. This is clear from the wording of the Duke's letter.
The Bishops were to consult for the safety of Mountagu's
person. The prelates appointed to conduct the cause were all
prelates in favour at court. It is not on record that any of
them, except Andrewes, had ever appeared on the side of
the doctrine of the Church of England as maintained during
at least the greater part of the preceding reign. Both the
Archbishops were passed over, and so Williams, Bishop of
Lincoln, Davenant, Bishop of Salisbury, Carleton, Bishop of
Chichester, Morton, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry ; on
the other hand, Laud, Buckeridge, and Howson, Bishop of
Oxford, were known to be his friends. Thus the King in fact
asked the assistance of Monteigne, Neile, Andrewes, and their
assessors in shielding his chaplain Mountagu from the prose
cution of the Commons.
The House of Commons charged Mountagu with main
taining that the Church of Rome is and ever was a true
Church ; that it hath ever remained firm on the same founda
tion of the Sacraments and doctrine instituted by God ; that
no points of faith, hope, charity, and good manners are con
troverted between Protestants and Romanists; that images
may be used to raise devotion ; that in his treatise upon the
invocation of saints he had maintained that they have a more
peculiar charge of their friends, and that it may be believed
that some saints have tutelage of countries, &c. ; that he had
also taught, contrary to the 17th Article, that justified men
may fall away; that he had misquoted the 16th Article, and
sought to bring in Arminianism ; that he had factiously used
the term Puritan of such as conform to the discipline and
ritual of the Church ; and that the scope and end of Richard
Mountagu was to give encouragement to Popery, and to
lay the ground for a reconciliation with Popery ; lastly, that
he, in some things that he had written, reflected upon the
late King, and had used railing and bitter speeches to
many other persons and contemptuous to foreign reformed
churches.1
Mountagu, in his New Gag for an Old Goose, or Answer
to the late Gagger of Protestants, begins with the controversies
touching the relative places of Scripture and the Church. He
affirms that ' the written Word of God is the rule of faith
with us.' x c Unto the law and unto the prophets was a direction
of a perpetual morality, and is continued in that of our
Saviour, (John v.) Search the Scriptures, for in them you hope
to have eternal life : a rule absolute in itself, a rule most
«/ 7
sufficient unto us, for that end intended, to make the man of
God perfect in every good work.' c Plainly delivered in
Scripture are all those points which belong unto faith and
manners, hope, and charity, to wit.' But other points there
are which are obscure and open to controversy. These the
Church has power to interpret and resolve.2
He adduces Cyril of Jerusalem in his Fourth Catechism
speaking thus, ' In any point concerning the divine and holy
mysteries of our faith, not any the least thing must be tendered
without warrant of divine Scripture.' And he (Cyril) addeth,
1 Believe me not that speak and deliver these things unto you,
unless for proof of them I do bring plain and evident demon
stration out of divine writ.' Mountagu proceeds : * Was this
man a Protestant or a Papist? Those Bibles he had then
which we have now : and it seemeth that addressing his own
belief and doctrine accordingly varied not in judgment any
whit from us, who make Scripture the rule of our belief, and
in doubtful points that require determination, appeal unto the
Catholic Church for judgment in that rule.'
He then comments upon that passage so little understood,
but so much in some men's mouths, The Scribes and Pharisees
sit in Moses1 chair; all therefore whatsoever they bid you
observe, that observe and do.3 He asks, ' Do you suppose that
our Saviour approved them so well, as that he would have
had the Jews in matters of faith to rely upon them and their
decisions, as pastors of the Church in points of faith ? If this
were his meaning, what meant he then to give warning else
where, Take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees ? that is, as
the Holy Ghost expoundeth it, of their doctrine. If the
question had been put, Art thou the Christ f would he have
sent them unto the Scribes or Pharisees for resolution, or
advised the people to believe on them? We find it not
practised : the contrary we do. What then is this text in
consequence unto the point ? Surely he meant no more but
this, and in that he will declare himself a Protestant • What
soever they bid you observe out of Moses^ observe ; that is, so
long as they teach but Scripture they must be heard ; if here
they fail, then hear them not. Verba legis proferendo, in the
opinion of St. Augustine, so long as they speak law. Then
he adduces the Jesuits Maldonatus and Barradas giving the
same exposition.1
His antagonist had alleged from the 10th chapter of
St. LuJce, He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. These words,
he observes, might relate to the Apostles in the fullest sense
as having mission immediate from the Son himself, which
none ever had but they. But in relation to those after them,
it must be understood as St. Bernard understood it, with this
restriction, 'as far as man doth not gainsay the will and
commandment of the Most High.' ( A flat Protestant in his
assertion,' adds Mountagu, ' and upon reason ; for a nuncio
must go to his commission.' 2
St. Anselm he calls ' a factionist for Pope Urban, his good
lord and master.'3
As upon the authority of Scripture so of traditions, he might
have written more clearly. Thus why say that i traditions
derived from the Apostles have equal authority with their
preachings and their writings?' The love-feasts were such
traditions, and yet who would affirm that they were of equal
authority with the Eucharist, equally binding upon the ob
servance of the Church? It is not true that we hold all
apostolical traditions as binding. Such a tradition was baptism
by immersion ; yet neither is this observed by us. Such a
tradition was the order of deaconesses, yet where is it to be
found?
In animadverting upon the Komanist's allegation, that it
is our doctrine that the Church can err, Mountagu maintains
the same doctrine with some in our own day, that the Church
representative, true and lawful, cannot err in fundamentals.
The Church representative is in the second chapter of the
second part of his Appeal identified with a general council.
This is a fruitless controversy, and upon Mountagu's own
shewing, a needless one. For as all things according to
him requisite to be believed in order to salvation are in
Holy Scripture, why should general councils be called?
not to clear points of doctrine. And in points of disci
pline they may err without question, since they are liable
to err on points of fact which are always involved in the
administration of discipline. It is remarkable how those who
speak much for general councils are not careful to define
them. Even deacons spoke in antient councils. Would the
modern advocates of them be content with the antient
model?
In his fifth chapter occurs in Latin that passage which
gave just cause of offence to the House of Commons : l And
although this present Roman Church hath departed in no
small degree, not only in regard of purity of manners and
discipline, but also in regard of uncorruptness in doctrine,
from that antient Church whence it arose and was derived,
yet it hath ever stood firm upon the same foundation of
doctrine and of the Sacraments instituted by God, and recog
nises and keeps communion with the antient and undoubted
Church of Christ. Wherefore it cannot be another and a
different church from that, however unlike it in many respects.'
So then, the half-communion, idolatrous worship, and the
enjoining as essential to salvation doctrines of human origin
and no part of the Word of God, all this however unlike the
primitive Church is not so unlike it as to constitute a separate
being ! Now Mountagu admitted the gross idolatry of the
Church of Rome, and therefore the absurdity is his own.
" 1 do not, I cannot, I will not deny that idolatry is grossly
committed in the Church of Rome." This is his own testi
mony. But will any say, it is one thing for the Church to
commit idolatry, another thing for idolatry to be committed
in the Church ? He answers, that the idolatrous worship of
the image of Christ as maintained by [St. Thomas Aquinas
u is an article of faith in the Roman Church."1 To what end
we may well ask, did the Apostle write to the Corinthians,
What agreement hath the temple of God with idols?* No
wonder that the multitude have ever suspected of Popery
those who have thus palliated idolatry, and taught that it has
ceased under Christianity to be that mortal sin which it was
under the law.
Upon the question how St. Peter fell, whether totally or
finally, he forgets his usual caution, and condemns Ward and
Yates for their doctrine of final perseverance,3 forgetting that
it was the doctrine of Hooker. Here his factious use of the
term Puritan is apparent, and justifies the animadversion
both of the Commons and of the learned and pious Bishop
Carleton.
To his opponent objecting to the Protestants the doctrine
that the Pope is Antichrist, Mountagu replies that this is but
a private opinion of some men, but that for himself he inclines
to think that the Mahometan and Papal powers taken together
are the Antichrist of the Scriptures. This point he discusses
at some length in his Appeal. The reader will peruse him
with advantage upon the topics of absolution and confession.
Well had it been if, in regard of the former, the language of
Peter Lombard had satisfied himself and some other divines.
According to Peter Lombard, the priest is commissioned not
to give but to declare absolution ; and if to give, to give it
sacramentally, or in the administration of the Sacraments, and
thus only indirectly and mediately. It is no small indication
of the true feeling upon this subject that the more startling
and repulsive form of absolution was not in existence for
many centuries. It did not arise until the priesthood itself
had learnt to claim a kind of deification.
In treating of works of supererogation, Mountagu declared
himself in favour of the doctrine that Christ had given two
kinds of instructions, precepts and counsels ; precepts obliging
all, counsels left to those who were able to receive them.
This was grounded upon the 19th chapter of St. Matthew,
If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to
the poor; and, lie that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Here, as in the case of confession, he adduces the opinion of
Bishop Morton, 'that we allow the distinction of precepts
and counsels' ^ He quotes on this topic Saints Chrysostom,
Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine, deeming the authority of
the Fathers in all cases a sufficient proof of the fitness of an
interpretation of Scripture. Our Saviour's words, He that is
able to receive it, let him receive it, are indeed an irrefragable
proof that this is no superstitious distinction. But it is to be
feared that such an attestation to the excellency of a purely
spiritual life, and to the possibility of leading it, is opposed
and rudely dealt with in our age from the very prevalent
disposition to abide by a lower standard of holiness and of
self-denial than is consistent with true religion.
In treating of free-will, Mountagu seemed to affirm that
the will, unable at the first to choose good, spiritual good,
was upon our renewal able to wwk together with grace by its
own ability, by a power lodged in itself. He admits that the
Fathers did in some instances venture too far in what they
asserted of the power of the will.2
He defended his own modes of speaking upon this most
difficult point by the language of Whitaker, Chemnitz,
Perkins, and others. But indeed it is easy to conceal a man's
real opinion here under terms that are used by his opponent
in a far different sense. These writers would probably have
agreed that without the preventing grace of God the will
could not turn to him. They would have resolved every
good thought and desire into the same degree of divine grace ;
in a word, they would have resolved the goodness of man's
will from first to last into the grace of God. To his working
with us they would have ascribed it that man had a good will
kept alive in him. This is in words confessed by Mountagu,
but it is at variance with another part of his system, that the
calling of them that are saved is in consideration of their
faith, repentance, and obedience.3 This it was which identified
him with the Semi-Pelagians and Arminians. He refused
the name, and denied knowledge of the works of Arminius ;
but this one dogma, perhaps on his part incautiously owned,
left no doubt upon the more discriminating of his contem
poraries, of his real adherence to Arminianism.
Mountagu very ably and learnedly exposes and refutes the
impious doctrine of the Romanists respecting the possibility
of human perfection, or rather, of rendering to God a perfect
obedience.1
His statement of the doctrine of justification is open to
exceptions if he is not fairly read and allowed to explain
himself. At the same time he shewed a disposition to extend
the use of the term justification, so as to include in it both our
forensic justification in Christ, or by the imputation of his
righteousness, and our declarative justification by works,
which he would call our second justification. But what would
be the result? That which has already followed in the
attempt at a departure from the accustomed language of the
Church, a bringing in of opinions still less excusable than the
novel expressions under which they are veiled.
Mountagu did, it is true, use language liable to exception
in one page, but in the very next 2 he so rectified himself that
it was uncandid in his opponents to overlook all that he had
said in explanation and correction of his own words. Nor is
there any reason to suspect him here. He wrote in language
that could not be misunderstood by the Eomanists. He fully
honoured the name of Christ as our justifying righteousness,
and faith as that by which alone we lay hold of it. " In the
first signification then of justification, the which properly is
justification, we acknowledge instrumentally faith alone, and
causally God alone."
"In the second and third [to be more just inherently,
and to be declared just at last by works,] beside God and faith,
we yield to hope and holiness and sanctification and the
fruits of the Spirit in good works. But both these are not
justification, rather fruits and consequents and effects and
appendants of justification than justification, which is a
solitary act."3 " Our justification in the act thereof, is only
the work of God for Christ's sake, whose death and passion
apprehended by faith, which is the sole peculiar work of faith
to do, as it hath made an atonement betwixt God and us, so
hath it procured remission of our sins at his hands, and there
upon a new state of grace, not for any merit or deserving of
our own, which is utterly excluded in this act." " Faith that
is without charity doth not justify, but faith may yet justify
without charity. They have their several distinct acts, and
the act of faith is to justify, though both are virtues incident
to a just man."
Accordingly he explains St. Paul and St. James as speaking,
the one of the attaining of justification which is i confessed to
be the act of faith,' the other of justification now obtained,
which necessarily is not separate from works. Justus factus
through the grace of Christ, is Justus declaratus by his holy
life and conversation. And so St. James is expounded by
yourselves, or else hath access of justification, as it is also
taught by your own men."1 Now this last expression is
apparently a contradiction to the preceding, and accordingly
in the Appeal we find the sting taken out of it. He there
explains thus, ' Access unto justification is not by me made
essential unto justification, but only declaratory ,'2
Mountagu then was unjustly charged with Romanism and
with innovation in the doctrine of justification, and with equal
injustice the two informers imputed to him the Romish doc
trine of merit. He rightly notes the patristic use of mereor
as expressing simply to procure, to incur, to purchase, not to
deserve. Thus the Vulgate, ' My iniquity is greater than that
I can obtain pardon.'3
The Romanist objecting to the Protestants the opinion that
faith once had cannot be lost, Mountagu affirms that it can,
and that this is the doctrine of the Church of England, that
Judas was as much given to Christ as Peter or John, and that
Simon Magus was a sincere Christian, but afterward apos
tatized. Bishop Carleton has copiously answered and refuted
him on this point, and vindicated St. Augustine from the
tenet here imputed to him, that to some men God gave faith
and justification, and afterward left them to perish in apostacy.
It is but an adventurous assertion, that as God gave Peter and
John, so he gave Judas to Christ. If all were alike given to
him as apostles, they were not all alike given to him as heirs
of his kingdom. There was a sense in which they were not
all his. So St. John saith at the beginning of the 13th
chapter, Having loved his own which were in the world, he
loved them to the end. Again he said, / know whom I have
chosen.1 Judas was one of the world for which he did not
pray. The Apostles were both his own and his Father's in a
sense in which Judas was not. I pray for them ; I pray not
for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they
are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine ; and
I am glorified in them?
In the topic of predestination Mountagu proceeded with
some wariness, yet not able to act an entirely neutral part.
He attacked the supralapsarian doctrine, and laboured to
make it appear odious. But it may not be denied that all
things are resolvable into the divine decrees • yet let us not
hold this so as to deny that which we feel, our natural
liberty, neither let us deny that to God we owe the renewal
of the will, and that in an inscrutable manner he worketh
in them that love him to will and to do of his good pleasure.
The invocation of saints Mountagu calls 'grand foolery,'
but touches upon the impiety of offering false worship with
a gentle peradventure, ' Perhaps there is no such great impiety
in saying — St. Laurence, pray for me.'3
For lay-baptism in cases of emergency he pleads, as did
Whitgift before him in his Answer to Cartwright, ' the use
and warrant of antiquity.' He does not imagine any true
baptism independent of faith. i As in little infants the faith
of the Church, and those that present them to be baptized, is
by God reputed their own ; so the willingness and desire of
the same Church, of their godfathers and parents, is reputed
theirs.'
Upon the real presence he uses the same language with
others of his own and the preceding century, who gave "but
a handle to the Romanists to charge them with unmeaning
distinctions, whilst they professed to take literally (which
Tertullian and Augustine did not) the words of Christ, This
is my body. Allow this, and we partake of Christ's natural
body in the Eucharist, for he gave no other if he gave it at
all. Allow this, and Tertullian, Theodoret, and Augustine must
be condemned for heterodox, and with them all the believers
of their times; for they do not appear to have condemned
them for agreeing in this, that This is my body is the same
with This is the figure of my body.
We find in him the doctrine of quasi-sacramentals though
not the word. Nor is there any valid reason to the contrary.
This distinction forces itself upon us in the case of marriage,
confirmation, and ordination, which all border upon the nature
of a sacrament, being consecrated to holy ends. Yates and
Ward here shewed their Puritanism when they objected to
the form of the ordination of priests, Receive ye the Holy
Ghost; not that we are to look for that divine gift ex opere
operato. There must be fit dispositions to receive it. Simon
Magus had it not, neither do those amongst us who seek
ordination not for the work of the ministry but for its
emoluments.
Mountagu supposes, on the ground of the antiquity of the
opinion, that Christ took the saints up with him to heaven at
his ascension. He also asserted the literal descent of Christ
into the place of the damned. But our Lord went into
Paradise. And so the more antient opinion, that of Irenasus
and Tertullian, was that the only hell into which our Lord
went was Hades, the state of departed spirits, where they
lived in Abraham's bosom in the comfort of the hope of a
joyful resurrection.
He also follows some of the antients in their veneration
of the sign of the cross, pleading for its use as a token of
Anti-Puritanism. So zealous was he against ' the brethren,'
as he calls the Puritans in the very title of his appeal, Appello
Ccesaremj An Appeal from the Brethren.
Such are the Gag and the Appeal, a mass of learning and
of satire, coarse in style and full of invective; erroneous
enough, but by no means so erroneous as some of his oppo
nents represented.
Upon Bishop Andre wes' acquittal of Mountagu, given in
the above letter to the Duke of Buckingham, he has himself
been claimed as a convert to the opinions upon predestination
maintained in Mountagu' s Appeal. Yet it may admit of
doubt whether he did not act in this instance upon the grounds
of general policy, considering the attack made by the Puritans
and by the Commons on Mountagu as intended to wound the
Church of England and to elevate the Puritans. Their charges
against him were partly groundless, partly false, partly exag
gerated. It was not possible for him to have effected a
reconciliation of England and Rome on the basis maintained
in his New Gag. At the same time he was evidently desirous
of giving the Romanists every possible advantage, every
concession that seemed to him not to compromise essential
truths. His spirit was not that of a Christian, but his learning
was so great and so undoubted that it seems to have covered
all his defects. He had promised too, at the end of his last
performance, to return the royal protection with the service
of his polemical sword. And therefore, in perfect accordance
with the then principles of government, which singled out for
promotion those who were most obnoxious to unpopularity
(a rule savouring of petulance rather than of discretion, and of
weakness rather than true dignity), the King speedily raised
Mountagu to a bishopric, to the very see of his late opponent
Carleton. On August 24th, 1628, he was consecrated to the
see of Chichester by Archbishop Abbot, assisted by Laud,
now Bishop of London, by Neile, Bishop of Winchester,
Buckeridge, now Bishop of Ely, and Dr. Francis Whiter
Bishop of Carlisle. On the translation of Wren from Norwich
to Ely, Mountagu was in 1638 appointed his successor, and
Dr. Brian Duppa consecrated to Chichester. Mountagu was
elected to Norwich May 4th, 1638, and died in April 1641,
when, to make episcopacy more popular, Bishop Hall was
translated thither from Exeter.
Besides Bishop Carleton, Anthony Wotton, Yeates, and
Ward, Mountagu was animadverted upon by Dr. Matthew
Sutcliffe, Dean of Exeter, Dr. Daniel Featley, Francis Rouse,
and Henry Burton of Friday Street, London. Dr. Featley,
Abbot's Chaplain, put forth his animadversions in 1626,
entitling them, Pelagius Redivivus, or Pelagius Ratid out of
the Ashes by Arminius and his Scholars. This book consists
of two parallels, one between the Pelagians and Arminians,
the other between the Church of Eome, the Appealer, and
the Church of England, in three columns. Francis Rouse
(made by the Parliamentarians Provost of Eton) did not
direct his work by name against Mountagu, but published in
the same year his Testis Veritatis ; The Doctrine of King
James and of the Church of England plainly shewn to be one
in the points of Predestination , Free- Will, and Certainty of
Salvation. 1626. He was a member of the House of
Commons, and thus sustained a mixed character. He was
especially busy in the ecclesiastical innovations of his party,
and in opposing episcopacy. He died in January 1659.
The recommendation in the letter of the Bishops was
enforced, and the works that were written against Mountagu
were sought after and suppressed. But whether or not this
prohibition put a stop to the publication of works directly
treating of these controversies, certain it is that it was not until
a later period that the Universities declared in favour of the
Court divinity. Dr. Prideaux, afterward Bishop of Worcester,
Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, and Dr. Ward, Master
of Sidney Sussex College, and Lady Margaret's Professor of
Divinity at Cambridge, continued the Predestinarian doctrine
in their respective Universities.
On January 18th, 1626, the before-mentioned prelates met
together to prepare a form of thanksgiving for the staying
of the plague, to be used on Sundays, Wednesdays, and
Fridays.
On the 2nd of February Bishop Andrewes was present at
the coronation, and carried the golden plate for the Com
munion.
On April 12th, Wednesday, at nine A.M., Archbishop
Abbot, Andrewes, Neile, and Laud met together by the
King's command to consult concerning a sermon preached
before the King on the Fifth Sunday in Lent last past
by Dr. Goodman, Bishop of Gloucester. He had spoken
ambiguously upon the real presence in the Sacrament, and
was already suspected of Komanism. They advised together,
and gave answer to the King that some things were therein
spoken less cautiously, but nothing falsely ; that nothing was
innovated by him in the doctrine of the Church of England ;
that the best way would be that the Bishop should preach the
sermon again at some time to be chosen by himself, and should
then shew how and wherein he was misunderstood by his
auditors.1
On May 1st, Monday, Andrewes was on a commission
upon an Act concerning the issuing of citations out of the
Ecclesiastical Courts.
This is the last transaction with which we find the name
of Bishop Andrewes connected. And now let his grateful
secretary Isaacson conclude this imperfect narrative of his
life. " He was not often sick, and but once (till his last
illness) in thirty years, before the time he died, which was at
Downham in the Isle of Ely, the air of that place not agreeing
with the constitution of his body. But there he seemed to be
prepared for his dissolution, saying oftentimes in that sickness,
* It must come once, and why not here ? ' And at other times
before and since he would say, ' The days must come, when,
whether we will or nill, we shall say with the Preacher,
/ have no pleasure in them' Of his death lie seemed to
presage himself a year before he died, and therefore prepared
his oil that he might be admitted in due time into the bride-
chamber. That of qualis vita finis ita, &c. was truly verified
in him, for as he lived so died he. As his fidelity in his
health was great, so increased the strength of his faith in his
sickness. His gratitude to men was now changed into thank-
fulness to God; his affability to incessant and devout
prayers and speech with his Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier;
his laborious studies to restless groans, sighs, cries, and
tears, his hands labouring, his eyes lifted up, and his heart
beating and panting to see the living God, even to the last of
his breath."
He died on September 25th, 1626, about four of the clock
in the morning.
Thus eloquently also Bishop Buckeridge in his funeral
sermon for him : i God's house is truly called, and is indeed
the house of prayer; it accompanies all acts done in God's
house. Of this reverend prelate I may say his life was a life
of prayer. A great part of five hours every day did he spend
in prayer and devotion to God. After the death of his brother
Mr. Thomas Andrewes in the sickness time, whom he loved
dearly, he began to foretel his own death before the end of
summer, or before the beginning of the winter. And when
his brother Mr. Nicholas Andrewes died, he took that as
a certain sign and prognostic and warning of his own death,
and from that time till the hour of his dissolution he spent
all his time in prayer, and his prayerbook, when he was
private, was seldom seen out of his hands. And in the time
of his fever and last sickness, besides the often prayers which
were read to him, in which he repeated all the parts of the
confession and other petitions with an audible voice, as long
as his strength endured, he did, as was well observed by
certain tokens in him, continually pray to himself, though he
seemed otherwise to rest or slumber. And when he could
pray no longer with his voice, yet by lifting up his eyes and
hands he prayed still ; and when both voice and eyes and
hands failed in their office, then with his heart he still prayed,
until it pleased God to receive his blessed soul to himself."1
Bishop Andrewes was buried on Saturday, November llth.
The funeral procession went from Winchester House, South-
wark, where he had died 26th September. It was ordered
and directed by Sir William Segar, Garter Principal King-
of-Arms,1 Henry St. George, Bichmond Herald,2 and George
Owen, Eouge Cross.3 Neile, Bishop of Durham, chief mourner,
assisted by Dr. Boger Andrewes, the Bishop's brother, Mr.
Burrell, the husband of his sister Mary, Mr. Salmon, the
husband of his sister Martha, Mr. Boger Andrewes, the son
of his brother Thomas, and Mr. Booke, the husband of his
niece Mary, daughter of Mary Burrell. The great banner was
borne by Mr. William Andrewes, the son of his brother
Nicholas ; the four bannerolls by Mr. Prinseps, the son of his
sister Martha Salmon by her first husband; Mr. Samuel
Burrell, third son of his sister Mary Burrell ; Mr. Peter Salmon,
eldest son of Martha by her second husband ; and Mr. Thomas
Andrewes, the eldest son of his brother Thomas. The corps
assisted by Drs. Collins, Beale, Wren, and Green of Corpus
Christi College, Oxford, Bector of Stockton, Wilts. The
inhabitants of St. Saviour's parish honoured his funeral by
hanging the church with 165 yards of black baise. The
house mourners made an offering, and Mr. Archer, one of the
chaplains, received £11 17s. 7d., which he paid to the wardens
as their due, but they handsomely returned it to him and Mr.
Micklethwaite the other chaplain.4
The sermon was preached by Dr. Buckeridge, at that time
Bishop of Bochester. His text was Hebrews xiii. 16 : To do
good and to distribute forget not: for with such sacrifices God
is well pleased. He at once enters into the subject of sacrifices.
"Our head, Christ," he observes, "offered his sacrifice of
himself upon the cross; Crux altare Christi ; and the cross
of Christ was the altar of our Head, where he offered the
unicum, verumj et proprium sacrificium, the only, true, proper
sacrifice, propitiatory for the sins of mankind ; in which all
other sacrifices are accepted, and applicatory of this pro
pitiation.
" 1. The only sacrifice, one in itself, and once only offered,
that purchased eternal redemption ; and if the redemption be
eternal, what need is there that it should be offered more than
once, when once is all-sufficient ?
"2. And the true sacrifice. All others are but types and
representations of this sacrifice; this only hath power to
appease God's wrath, and make all other sacrificers and
sacrifices acceptable.
" 3. And the proper sacrifice : as the psalm saith, Corpus
aptasti mihi (Psa. xl. 6, Ixx.), * Thou hast fitted me with a
body' ; the deity assumed the humanity that it might accipere
h nobis quod offerret pro nobis (c receive of us what it might
offer for us'); being the deity could not offer, nor be offered to
itself, he took flesh of ours that he might offer for us.
u Now as Christ's cross was his altar where he offered
himself for us, so the Church hath an altar also, where it
offereth itself, not Christum in capite but Christum in membris,
not Christ the head properly, but Christ the members. For
Christ cannot be offered again and properly, no more but once
upon the cross ; for he cannot be offered again, no more than
he can be dead again ; and dying and shedding blood as he
did upon the cross, and not dying and not shedding blood,
as in the Eucharist, cannot be one action of Christ offered on
the cross, and of Christ offered in the Church at the altar by
the priest by representation only, no more than Christ and
the priest are one person : and therefore though in the cross
and the Eucharist there be idem sacrificatum, the same sacri
ficed thing, that is, the body and llood of Christ offered by
Christ to his Father on the cross, and received and partici-
pated by the communicants in the sacrifice of the altar;
yet idem sacrificium quoad actionem sacrificii or sacrificandi,
it is impossible there should be the same sacrifice, under
standing- by sacrifice the action of sacrifice; for then the
action of Christ's sacrifice, which is long since past, should
continue as long as the Eucharist shall endure, even to the
world's end ; and his consummatum est is not yet finished :
and dying and not dying, shedding of blood and not shedding
of blood, and suffering and not suffering, cannot possibly be
one action, and the representation of an action cannot be the
action itself."
He gives the true design of the term the Real Presence as
used by the Church of England, when deriving Eucharistia
from good grace, he says the Lord's Supper is so called
because "it really contains Christ, who is full of grace."
It is true he quotes this from Aquinas, but Aquinas here
conveyed a truth, if the words are taken in a spiritual sense,
expressive of the faith of both catholic antiquity and of the
Keformers of our Church. He proceeds to shew clearly out
of Aquinas himself, as Dr. Field had also done in the 19th
chapter of his Appendix to his third book Of the Church?
li Here is a representative or commemorative and partici
pated sacrifice of the passion of Christ the true sacrifice, that
is past ; and here is an eucharistical sacrifice : but for any
external proper sacrifice, especially as sacrifice doth signify
the action of sacrificing, here is not one word. And therefore
this is a new conceipt of latter men, since Thomas his time
unknown to him, and a mere novelism. And the cure is as
bad as the disease. Though Thomas gives no other reasons
why it is called a sacrifice, yet (say they) Thomas denieth it
not: for that is plainly to confess that this is but a patch
added to antiquity. And yet when he saith it is a repre
sentative or commemorative sacrifice, respectu prceteriti, in
respect of that which is past, that is, the passion of Christ,
which was the true sacrifice, he doth deny by consequent that
it is the true sacrifice itself, which is past. And if Christ be
sacrificed daily in the Eucharist according to the action of
sacrifice, and it be one and the same sacrifice offered by
Christ on the cross, and the priest at the altar, then can it not
be a representation of that sacrifice which is pasty because it is
one and the same sacrifice and action present."1
He proceeds thus : " Therefore St. Paul proceeds in the
15th verse, By Mm therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise
to God continually, that isj the fruit of our lips, giving thanks
to his name. Let us offer up to God; Christians then have
an offering : and let us offer up to God continually ; this is the
ground of the daily sacrifice of Christians that answereth to
the daily sacrifice of the Jews. And this sacrifice of praise
and thanks may well be understood the Eucharist, in which
we chiefly thank and praise God for this his chief and great
blessing of our redemption. And this and all other sacrifices
of the Church external or spiritual must be offered up and
accepted per ipsum, in, by, and through Christ. St. Paul
saith not, Ipsum offeramus. Let us offer him (that is) Christ ;
but let us offer and sacrifice per ipsum, by him, in whom only
we and our sacrifices are accepted." He afterwards affirms
that " all the offerings of the Church are the Church itself."
And then, after having again spoken of Christ having once
offered himself for us, he adds, a Neither doth Christ there
(that is) in heaven, where he now appears in the presence of
God, offer often or any more for us, but this once ; there is
appearing but no offering. And the Apostle gives the reason
of it : For then he must have often suffered since the foundation
of the world, (Heb. ix. 24, 25, 26). He appears in heaven
as our high priest, and makes intercession for us ; but he offers
his natural body no more but once, because he suffers but
once. No offering of Christ (by St. Paul's rule) without the
suffering of Christ. The priest cannot offer Christ's natural
body without the suffering of Christ's natural body."
We have lived to see St. Augustine deserted in the doc
trine both of our Lord's sacrifice and sacrament, but not so
Buckeridge. He fully shews out of St. Augustine that the
Church herself is the only sacrifice which in the Church is
offered up to God.2 He next proceeds to treat of alms, and
to shew that nothing that we can offer to God can merit
anything. We can only be justified by the imputed righteous
ness of Christ.
" What is the reason the prophet saith (Psa. Ixxi. 16),
O Lord, memorabor justitice tuce solius, I will remember thy
righteousness only, but because there is no other righteousness
worth^the remembering but only thy righteousness only? That
righteousness that is a Domino'1'' [from the Lord], " inherent
in us by sanctification of the gifts and graces of the Lord, is
not worth the remembrance, for it is a defiled cloth and dung
in itself; and were it never so good, God hath no need of it;
nay, being offered to God, he is nothing increased by it. If
thou do all good works, Deus meus es, et bonorum meorum non
indiges: Thou art my God, saith David (Psa. xvii. 2), my
goods, and therein are his good worJcs also, are nothing to
thee : God is not increased or enriched by them. If thou do
commit all manner of sins with all manner of greediness, thou
canst not defile God, nor take any thing from him ; thy evil
cannot decrease or diminish him. But it is Justitia in Domino,
Righteousness in the Lord, (that is) Christ's righteousness
communicated or imputed to us ; for Christ is made to us
wisdom from God, and justice or righteousness and sancti
fication, and redemption. And he doth not say fecit nos, he
made us righteous in the concrete, but factus est nobis, he was
made righteousness to us in the abstract, because he commu
nicates his righteousness to us, and thereby covers our naked
ness, as Jacob clothed in his elder brother's garments received
the blessing.1 And therefore the name of the Son of God is
Jehovah, Justitia nostra, the Lord our Righteousness". After
descanting farther upon this most essential topic, and exposing
the false pleas of the Church of Rome for her doctrine of
merit, Buckeridge gives a very valuable account of Bishop
Andrewes, which has already been quoted in various places,
according as the chronological order of these memorials gave
occasion. I will here add the following extracts :
" His admirable knowledge in the learned tongues, Latin,
Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, besides other modern
tongues, to the number of fifteen (as I am informed), was
such and so rare that he may well be ranked in the first
place, to be one of the rarest linguists in Christendom; in
which he was so perfect and absolute, both for grammar and
profound knowledge therein, that he was so perfect in the
grammar and criticism of them, as if he had utterly neglected
the matter itself; and yet he was so exquisite and sound in
the matter and learning of these tongues, as if he had never
regarded the grammar."
He mentions his love and encouragement of learning and
of learned men, " which appeared in his liberality and bounty
to Master Casaubon, Master Cluverius, Master Vossius, Master
Grotius, Master Erpenius, whom he attempted, with the offer
of a very large stipend out of his own purse, to draw into
England, to have read and taught the Oriental tongues
here." To these his secretary Isaacson adds Moulin, Barclay,
and Bedwell.
"He meddled little with them" (the goods of the world),
" but left the taking of his accounts from his officers to his
brothers; and when he began his will at Waltham a year
before his death, he understood not his own estate; nay,
till about six weeks before his death, when his accounts
were delivered up and perfected, he did not fully know his
own estate: and therefore in his first draught of his will
he gave but little to his kindred, doubting he might give
away more than he had ; and therefore in a codicil annexed
to his will he doubled all his legacies to them, and made
every hundred to be two hundred, and every two hundred to
be four hundred : and yet, notwithstanding this increase, he
gave more to the maintenance of learning and the poor than
to his kindred. His charity and love of God and the poor
was greater in him than natural affection, and yet he forgot
not his natural affection to them."
For many years since he left St. Giles's, Cripplegate,
Buckeridge records that he sent £5 about Christmas, besides
the number of pounds given to the poor of that parish when
he was almoner. " And," he adds, " I have reason to
presume the like of those other parishes mentioned in his
will, to which he also gave legacies : to St. Giles an hundred
pounds, where he had been Vicar ; to All-Hallows, Barking,
where he was born, twenty pounds ; to St. Martin's, Ludgate,
where he dwelt, five pounds ; to St. Andrew's in Holborn,
where Ely House stands, ten pounds ; and to this parish
of St. Saviour's in Southwark, where he died, twenty pounds :
which parishes he hath remembered for his alms to the poor,
when the land shall be purchased for the relief and use of
the poor."
u The total of his pious and charitable works mentioned in
his will amounts to the sum of six thousand three hundred
twenty-six pounds. Of which to Pembroke Hall for the
creation of two fellowships and other uses mentioned in the
codicil, a thousand pound, to buy fifty pound land per annum
to that purpose, besides a bason and ewer like that of their
foundress, and some books."
"To buy two hundred pound per annum, four thousand
pound : viz. for aged poor men, fifty pound per annum ; for
poor widows the wives of one husband, fifty pound ; for the
putting of poor orphans to prentice, fifty pound ; to prisoners,
fifty pound."
" After he came to have an episcopal house with a chapel,1
he kept monthly communions inviolably ; yea, though himself
had received at the Court the same month, in which his
carriage was not only decent and religious but also exem
plary : he ever offered twice at the altar, and so did every one
of his servants, to which purpose he gave them money, lest it
should be burthensome to them." " A great part of five
hours every day did he spend in prayer and devotion to
God."
tl He instructed his chaplains and friends to inform him of
such young men at the University as stood in need of
assistance. He of his own accord preferred men of learning,
as Boys and Nicholas Fuller the Orientalist. If any deserving
youths missed their election to the University from the great
schools of London and Westminster, he sent them to the
University at his own charge.
11 He always observed a most noble hospitality, and at the
same time paid regard to all the appointments of the Church
in regard of fasts, at Lent, Embers, and other times. He dined
at noon, giving his mornings to prayer and study. He was
averse to be interrupted by calls before that time. t( He
doubted," says Isaacson, " they were no true scholars that
came to speak with him before noon. After dinner, for two
or three hours' space, he would willingly pass the time either
in discourse with his guests or other friends, or in despatch of
his own temporal affairs, or of those who (by reason of his
episcopal jurisdiction) attended him. And being quit of these
and the like occasions, he would return to his study, where he
spent the rest of the afternoon even till bedtime, except some
friend took him off to supper, and then did he eat but
sparingly."
He suffered much by suits at law sooner than willingly
institute persons whom he suspected of simoniacal engage
ments. When Bishop of Winchester he would not renew
some leases that would have been most lucrative to himself,
when he foresaw that such renewals would tend to the injury
of his successor.
His secretary Henry Isaacson was born in St. Catharine
Coleman's parish September 1581. He was the son of
Kichard Isaacson, Sheriff of London, who died January 19th,
1620, son of William Isaacson of Sheffield, by Isabel his first
wife. Henry Isaacson died about the 7th December, 1654,
and was buried in St. Catharine's, Coleman Street, London
(since rebuilt), on December 14th.1 Isaacson is reckoned
amongst the writers of Pembroke Hall. Antony Wood
appears to have been unable to have discovered more respect
ing him than that which is here presented to the reader.
Bishop Andrewes' Devotions in Greek and Latin, Preces Privatce, fyc.,
were published at Oxford 1675, pp. 359, with a portrait (probably by no
means a good one) by Loggan, the admirable engraver of those most
beautiful folios the ' Oxonia and Cantabrigia Illustrata.' There is the
usual old view of the Sheldonian Theatre in the title-page. Upon Log-
gan's successor as University engraver, Burghers, see the second volume
of ' Hearne's Diary,' recently edited by Dr. Bliss, p. 630. This edition of
Bishop Andrewes' Devotions was put forth by Dr. John Lamphire, of New
College, Oxford, from the MSS. of Samuel Wright, the Bishop's own
amanuensis, communicated by Dr. Richard Drake, Chancellor of Sarum,
and with other fragments from the then recently edited collection of Dr.
David Stokes.
John Lamphire was the son of George an apothecary of Winchester,
and was born in St. Lawrence's parish in that city. He was educated first
at Winchester School, and then at New College, Oxford, of which he was
Fellow in 1636. He was ejected thence by the Parliamentary authorities,
practised medicine at Oxford, and lived to be restored in 1660. Being
again Fellow of New College, he was elected Camden Professor of Ancient
History August 16th, 1660, and appointed Principal of New Inn Hall
September 8th, 1662, on the ejection of Dr. Christopher Rogers of Lincoln
College. Thence he was removed to Hart Hall, of which he was made
Principal May 30th, 1663. After he had published this very neat edition
of Bishop Andrewes' Devotions in 1675 in 12mo., he obtained a more
perfect copy, which other avocations hindered him from giving to the
world. He died at Hart Hall March 30th, 1688, aged 73 years, and was
buried in the ante-chapel near the west door of New College. He was
succeeded in his professorship by that learned but somewhat eccentric
genius Henry Dodwell, for an account of whom the reader may refer to
' Hearne's Diary.' Hearne does his memory ample justice.
Dr. David Stokes was educated at Westminster School, was first
a scholar of Trinity College,1 then a Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge,
D.D. 1630, also a Fellow of Eton College, Rector of Binfield near Windsor ,
and Canon of Windsor, to which he was appointed llth July, and installed
12th July, 1628, on the promotion of Richard Montagu to the see of
Chichester. He was also preferred by Sir Henry Wotton to the Eectory of
Everdon near Daventry (in the gift of Eton College) September 19th,
1638. He assisted Walton in the Polyglott, wrote on the Twelve minor
Prophets, 1659, 8vo.
Verus Christianus, or Directions for Private Devotions and Retire
ments, with an Appendix containing some private devotions of Bishop
Andrewes.
Truth's Champion.
Some Sermons.
He was also M.A. of Peterhouse in 1618. He was elected to his
Fellowship in the place of the Rev. John Blithe, who was instituted to the
College living of Statherne in Leicestershire. Blithe founded some scholar
ships at Peterhouse. His portrait is in the hall of the College (Johannes
Blithe, Bac. Theol. Socius Collegii anno 1617), on the south side of the
hall. Dr. Stokes resigned his Fellowship in 1625. He was made D.D.
1630. The College chapel at Peterhouse was built in 1632. He con
tributed £10. He was deprived of all his preferments, and took refuge at
Oxford. He was reinstated in them in 1660, and spent the remainder of
his days in peaceful enjoyment to his death, May 10th, 1669. To his stall
at Windsor succeeded Henry Wotton, M.A., May 28th, 1669. He resigned
on May 1st, 1671. He was M.A. of Merton College, Oxford, 1660.
In Lamphire's edition of Andrewes' Prayers in Greek and Latin, Dr.
David is by a mistake called William Stokes. The beautiful copy by
Samuel Wright is a small 12mo., still in the Library of Pembroke College,
Cambridge. The portions alluded to by Lamphire as taken from Stokes,
are taken from the Appendix to his Verus Christianus, published at
Oxford.
Wright's copy, consisting of 168 pages, contains the Devotions in
Greek without any Latin translation, down to the Meditation on the Day
of Judgment at p. 252 of the Oxford edition recently set forth in the
* Anglo -Catholic Library.' The two meditations on the Last Judgment
and on Human Frailty, are from Dr. Stokes, and also many passages in
the Latin Devotions. The prayers as thus edited have been reprinted in
1828 and 1848.
The recent Oxford edition in 8vo. has a third part from the Harleian
MSS. No. 6614. That manuscript indeed is not in the handwriting of
Andrewes, as a MS. note by J. Cole asserts.
Andrewes' Manual of the Sick, first put forth with some spurious
additions in 1647 by Humphrey Moseley, a bookseller at the Prince's
Arms in St. Paul's Churchyard, was edited with fidelity in 1648, by
Richard Drake, with the other Devotions translated from Wright's MS.,
with a dedication to the Prince of Wales. The Preface to the Christian
Reader is dated on the Nativity of St. John Baptist, 1646.
Dr. Richard Drake was a scholar of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, on Dr.
Watts's foundation, March 15th, 1626, B.A. 1628, M.A. 1631, Rector of
Radwinter, between Thaxted and Walden in Essex, D.D. by royal mandate
August 2nd, 1660, Prebendary of North Alton in the Cathedral of Salis
bury September 9th, 1660. He resigned this stall on March 23rd, 1663,
having been appointed to the Chancellorship of that church on the 12th
of March. He was installed Prebendary of Bricklesworth in the church of
Sarum, February 24th, 1665. He was, as was also Dr. Stokes, one of
Walton's assistants in the Polyglott. He died in 1681.
In 1655 a volume appeared entitled Holy Devotions, with Directions
to Pray, fyc,, by the Rt. Rev. Father in God L. Andrewes, late Bishop of
Winchester. The 4th edition, printed for Henry Seile, &c. 1655.' The first
edition had appeared in 1660, with another title, Institutiones Pice, or
Directions to Pray. The initials of the Compiler are given as H. I. This
was retained in the second and third editions. The initials are those of
Henry Isaacson. He died in 1654. The date of his death (1654) accords
with H. Seile's statement in the preface to the fourth edition, that the
three previous editions had been dressed up by a kind foster-father who
now sleeps in the Lord. It is most likely, says Mr. Bliss, that the volume
was compiled By Isaacson from some of the Bishop's papers. The earlier
portion appears to be notes of sermons either made by Andrewes himself
to assist in composition, or else taken down by some of his hearers. Other
passages agree exactly with portions of his Latin Devotions, especially with
some recently published in the Oxford 8vo. edition. The volume can in
no other and stricter sense be regarded as Andrewes'. The first editor
(Isaacson) states that he had originally compiled the Devotions for his
own use.
This volume has been re-edited by a recent successor of our prelate in
the Vicarage of St. Giles', Cripplegate, Archdeacon Hale.
Milton had been sent from St. Paul's School to Cambridge, and
admitted of Christ's College there February 12th, 1625, under the tuition
of Mr. William Chappel.1 He probably wrote his Elegy on the death
of Andrewes whilst an undergraduate at Christ College. Here he took his
degree of B.A. in 1629, and of M.A. in 1632, after which he left the Uni
versity, and went to live five years with his parents at Horton in Bucking
hamshire. There he lived until the death of his mother. Her remains are
buried beneath a dark slab in the centre of the chancel, on which is this
inscription :
Heare lyeth the body of Sara Milton, the wife of
John Milton, who died
The Zrd of April, 1637.2
Milton's elegy is evidently a youthful exercise. After a poetical com
plaint that death exercises his dominion over not only the material
creation but over man himself, he presents to the reader a vision of Para
dise, and the joyful reception of Andrewes by its celestial inhabitants to his
new abode.
" A List
" of persons to whom I intend rings, as in my will mentioned," probably
six weeks before his death : Abbot ; Neile, Bishop of Durham ; Bucke-
ridge ; Laud, Bishop of Bath and Wells ; Sir Thomas Edmondes, Comp
troller of the Household ; Sir Julius Caesar, Master of the Eolls ; Sir
Thomas Lake, Secretary of State in the reign of James ; his Lady Mary ;
Sir Henry Martin, Judge of the Prerogative Court ; Dr. John Young,
Dean of Winchester ; Dr. Steward, a civilian ; Dr. Collins, Provost of
King's College, Cambridge ; Dr. Ward of Waltham, Herts ; Dr. Beale of
Pembroke Hall ; Dr. Wren of Peterhouse ; Mr. Man of Westminster,
probably a bookseller ; Mr. Eoger, late Proctor in the Court of Arches ;
Mr. Greene, Prebendary of Bristol ; Mr. William Johnson ; and Mr. Joseph
Fenton.
Prynne, whose Canterbury's Doom and Necessary Intro
duction to Laud's Trial contain a vast store of most valuable
information, doubtless frequently betrays the most exaggerated
feelings and unhappy prejudices. Nowhere is this more
apparent than in his unhandsome charges against Bishop An
drewes. He takes up with Father Giles' or Davenport's
misrepresentations of our prelate, who would persuade his
readers that Andrewes held not the doctrine of the Keformation
but of the Church of Rome respecting justification by faith.
The reader will, if he refer to the Bishop's sermon on
Jer. xxiii. 6, perceive at once the untruthfulness of such a
statement. Laud was indeed most blameable in procuring
sanctuary for so perfidious a writer in the University of
Oxford. Prynne was not less blameable in giving currency
to his falsities. See p. 424, and sequel of his Compleat History
of Laud.
Prynne speaks in one place of the Popish furniture, &c.
of Bishop Andrewes' private chapel ; in another he professes
to doubt whether Laud did not make an unwarrantable use of
Bishop Andrewes' name. Speaking of his form of conse-
cration he says, that he took his form from Bishop Andrewes
is only avowed by himself, not proved by any witnesses,
(p. 503.)
It is certainly most remarkable that if Andrewes did
observe the ceremonies comprised in the notes to the Liturgy
ascribed to him, and involved in the account of his private
chapel to be found in Prynne, pp. 121 — 124, there is evidence
that at Winchester there were in the time of Andrewes neither
rails to the Communion-table, which probably stood then in
the middle of the choir, nor bowing to it. tf From Canter
bury," says Prynne, "we shall next hunt this Romish Fox
to the cathedral of Winchester, where, keeping a visitation in
the year 1635 by Sir Nathanael Brent, his Vicar-General, he
did by his injunctions under seal enjoin them to provide four
copes, to rail in the Communion-table, and place it altarwise,
to bow unto it, and daily to read the epistles and gospels
at it. This was attested by Sir Nathanael Brent himself,
manifested by his own injunctions to that Church, and by his
articles proposed to the College of Winchester, produced and
read in the Lord's house.'7 (p. 79.) Then follow the in
junctions themselves, (p. 80.) This verifies the assertion of
Dr. Fuller that it " was the constant practice of Dr. Andrewes,
successively Bishop of Chichester, Ely, and Winchester,
never to urge any other ceremonies than those which he found
there." This remark of Fuller's drew down upon him the
indignation of Heylyn, in whose eyes Laud's greatest indis
cretions were his highest excellencies. He accordingly takes
care that they shall not be hid.
Andrewes was the most imaginative of all our older divines,
and would therefore have a natural bias toward a ceremonial
piety. He was as remarkable for pathos and simplicity as for
wit and fancy. He was an intense student of both the
Fathers and the divines of succeeding ages. As a critic he
was often led away by his excessive love of illustration. He
was perfectly free from covetousness and pride, a lover of
learning and of learned men. His infirmities were a want of
firmness in opposing the unwise and unhallowed counsels of
his sovereign ; and an undue partiality toward his kindred and
friends, whom he loaded with preferments in an age in which
pluralities were found to be a grievance — a grievance to the
cause of piety, however they might operate in favour of
learning. His own brother was unworthy of his name. He
was the object of general aversion in the College over which
Andrewes placed him. He was not however what he has
been represented even in our own time, an ambitious courtier.
He never intermeddled with state affairs. He did indeed
sometimes his sovereign's bidding where others, more faithful
in some remarkable instances, declined. But he never forced
himself into observation. His rise was due to his great
learning, piety, and munificence. His patrons were men
whose names will be had in honour so long as piety and
patriotism shall perpetuate the names of Henry, third Earl
of Huntingdon, and Secretary Walsingham. He was by his
sermons a truly pastoral prelate, and his Prayers will probably
continue to the end of time to cherish the devotion of an
innumerable company who shall follow him to his heavenly
rest.
APPENDIX.
THE FAMILY OF ANDREWES.
The name of our prelate was variously spelt, — Andrew, Andrews,
Andrewes, and Andros. The e in Andrewes was sometimes omitted
in the early part of the seventeenth century. Sir Robert Andrewes
of Normandy, knt., came over with William I., and married the
daughter and heiress of Sir Robert Winwick of "Winwick, Nor
thamptonshire, and afterward of Denton in the same county.1
In 1303 occurs John Andrew, Alderman of Redingate, Canter
bury.2 A Sir William Andrewes of Northamptonshire and Carlisle
occurs in 1234.3
Thomas Andrews of Beggar's Weston, or Weston Bigard, (or
Begard,) a few miles east of Hereford, was born in 1501, and died
in 1615. See the genealogy of this branch in Nichol's Leicestershire,
parish of System* From him was descended the late highly re
spected Gerard Andrewes, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,
Rector of St. James', Westminster, and 8th November, 1809, Dean
of Canterbury. He died, aged 75, on June 2nd, 1825.
In a window in St. Bartholomew the Less, London, over the
door in the passage into the church, are the arms and crest (painted
in glass) of Henry Andrewes, Alderman of London, 1636 : argent,
a saltire azure on a chief gules ; 3 mullets or : crest, a Moor's head
in profile.
In 1649 and 1651 Thomas, a leatherseller, son of Robert An
drewes of Feltham near Hounslow, Middlesex, and of the Fish
mongers' Company, was Lord-Mayor of London.
Jonathan Andrewes was a member of the court of Merchant
Taylors 1665, and Richard Andrewes, M.D., 1627—1634.
Sir Matthew Andrewes, knt., was one of the Elder Brethren of
Trinity House, 1625.5
Our prelate in his will makes mention of William the son of his
deceased brother Nicholas; Thomas, Nicholas, and Roger the sons
of his deceased brother Thomas, and their eldest sister Ann, married
to Arthur "Woollaston ; also her younger sister Mary. His brother
Nicholas was born in 1567, and died in 1626. His brother Thomas
was named after his father, who appears as a benefactor to All
Hallows', Barking, " 1593, towards repairs of the church, £2; to
the poor £5;" probably bequeathed. Our prelate's mother, Mrs.
Joan Andre wes, left in 1524 a bequest of £10. He also makes
mention of his sister Mary Burrell. One Alexander Burrell, B.A.,
Trinity College, Cambridge, 1706, M.A. 1710, was Yicar of Buck-
den, July 5, 1717, which he resigned in 1721, being made in 1720
Rector of Adstock near Winslow, Bucks., by Dr. Gibson, then Bishop
of Lincoln, and also Rector of Puttenham, Herts, by the same patron.
His father was also of Trinity College, B.A. 1666, M.A. 1670.
There have been about twenty members of the University of Cam
bridge of that name. The name is also spelt Burwell; Mr. Samuel
Bur well was at our prelate's funeral. Of this name was Thomas,
LL.D. of the University of Cambridge, 1661 ; Thomas, M.B. of the
same University per Literas Regias, 1662 ; Francis, A.M. of the same
University per Literas Regias, 1675 ; Thomas, M.B., King's College,
1677; and Charles, M.B., Pembroke College, 1717. The name
Burwell appears to have merged into Burrell. The children of the
Bishop's sister, Mary Burrel, were Andrew, John, Samuel, Joseph,
James, Lancelot, Mary Rooke, and her daughter Martha. His
sister Martha, born in 1577, married first to Robert Princep, by
whom she had a son Thomas. Charles Robert Princep (probably
a descendant) was B.A. St. John's College, Cambridge, 1811, M.A.
1813. At Oxford was John Princep, B.A., BaUiol College, Oct. 12,
1738. Martha was married secondly to Mr., probably Peter,
Salmon, by whom she had two sons, Peter and Thomas. The Rev.
Thomas Peter Dod Salmon was B.A. St. John's College, Cambridge,
1782, M.A. 1786, Fellow of that College, B.D. 1793, and was
living in 1811. Mr. Salmon had a sister Martha and a daughter
Anne Best. The Bishop also makes mention of his cousin Anne
Hockett. John Hockett was B.A. of Trinity CoUege, Cambridge,
1662, M.A. 1666, and a Fellow of that society. Another of the
same name was B.A. of that College 1696. He names another
cousin, Sandbrooke; also his cousin Robert and his two children;
his cousin Rebecca; his father's half-sister Joan; her first hus
band's name was Bousie. Also his godson Lancelot Lake, son of
Sir Thomas Lake. There was a Lancelot Lake, B.A. Catharine
Hall, Cambridge, 1666, M.A. 1670. Also his two godsons Robert
and Charles Barker, son of Mr. Robert Barker, " latelie the King's
printer." His principal executor was Mr. John Parker, citizen and
Merchant Taylor, of London, to be assisted by Sir Thomas Lake,
Sir Henry Martin, and Dr. Nicholas Styward or Steward. His
will was_ witnessed by Robert Bostock, Prebendary of Norton
Episcopi in the church of Lincoln, and afterward Archdeacon of
Suffolk, and (if not in 1626) Prebendary of Chichester; Joseph
Fenton, probably our prelate's physician; John Browning, Rector
of Buttermere near Hungerford, whom he had preferred to that
living in 1624, author of Six Sermons concerning Public Prayer
and the Fasts of the Church (Lond. 1636); Thomas Eddie and
"William Green, two of the Bishop's servants. Archdeacon Wig-
more also signed the three several codicils to the will.
The family of Andrew or Andrewes has seated itself in Gloucester
shire ; Plymouth, Devon ; Bisbrook, Rutlandshire ; Norfolk, Suffolk,
Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, Lancashire, "Wilts, Bucks, Hert
fordshire, Cambridgeshire, Surrey, and Hants. In Cambridgeshire
it is still represented by the Rev. Thomas Andrew of Pembroke
College, Cambridge, Yicar of Triplow ; and by another descendant,
a respectable yeoman at Litlington in the same county. In Hert
fordshire, by the father of this latter, a yeoman in the parish of
Buckland near Barkway. In Suffolk, by George W. Andrewes,
Esq., Sudbury, Suffolk. In Surrey, by the Rev. William Gerard
Andrewes, M.A., Magdalen Hall, Oxford, curate of Morden near
Mitcham, and grandson of the late Dean of Canterbury. The Rev.
Thomas Andrew of Triplow is descended of a Northamptonshire
branch of this family. Erom Northamptonshire a branch of this
family migrated about the beginning of the seventeenth century to
the neighbourhood of Canterbury. Thence Henry Andrews re
moved to London, and was cut off with his whole household, except
one infant, in the Great Plague in 1665. This infant lived to a
considerable age, and having acquired some fortune by merchandise,
thought it right to take out arms afresh in 1729. He died in 1730.
His grandson Joseph was at a very early age appointed Paymaster to
the Eorces serving in Scotland 1715. His son Joseph was created
a Baronet in 1766. His brother, James Pettit Andrews, born at
Shaw House near Newbury, 1737, was the author of a miscellaneous
collection entitled Anecdotes, Ancient and Modern, fyc. Lond. 8vo.
1789. A supplement to this volume in 1790; History of Great
Britain, 1794, vol. I., from CaBsar's invasion to the death of Richard I.
4to. Lond. In 1795 appeared a second part, to the accession of
Edward YI. The plan of this work was founded on that of Dr.
Henry. He appears to have discontinued it for the purpose of com
pleting Dr. Henry's history, which, in 1796, he brought down to
the accession of James I. He translated The Savages of Europe ;
a popular Erench novel now forgotten. In 1798 he published The
Inquisitor, a Tragedy in five Acts altered from the German, in
conjunction with his friend H. J. Pye, the Poet Laureate. He was
a contributor to the Archceologia and the Gentleman's Magazine. On
the establishment of the London Police Magistracy in 1792, he was
appointed Magistrate for Queen's Square and St. Margaret's "West
minster. He died in London August 6th, 1797. He had married
Anne daughter of the Rev. Rumney Penrose, Rector of Newbury.
He survived her twenty years. The present excellent Master of the
Grammar School, Stamford, the Rev. Erederic E. Gretton, B.D.,
late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, and author of some
valuable Parochial Sermons,1 is descended from Bishop Andrewes
both on the mother's and father's side. His father married a Clay,
and his grandfather a Pigott, the granddaughter and daughter re
spectively of Catharine and Ellen Andrewes, whose father died and
was buried at Southwell in or about 1717. Mr. G. "W. Andrews of
Sudbuiy is a younger brother of the Rev. Robert Andrews, B.D.,
who was ninth Senior Optime, Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and
B.A. 1821, of Middleton near Sudbury. The eldest brother is Lieut. -
Colonel Andrews, residing at 57, Ecclestone Square, London; and
the youngest, the Rev. "William Nesfield Andrews, of Jesus College,
Cambridge, M.A. 1832, Rector of Chilton near Sudbury 1853.
A.D. 1600.
Five days after the death of Hooker, Andrewes wrote to Dr.
Parry, afterward Bishop of Worcester :
" SALTJTEM IN CHRISTO.
" I cannot choose but write though you do not ; I never failed
since I last saw you, but daily prayed for him till the very instant
you sent me this heavy news. I have hitherto prayed Serva nobis
hunc ; now must I Da nobis alium. Alas, for our great loss ! and
when I say ours, though I mean yours and mine, yet much more
the common : with [which ?] the less sense they have of so great
a damage, the more sad we need to bewail them ourselves, who
knew his works and his worth to be such as behind him he hath
not, that I know, left any near him. And whether I shall live
to know any near him, I am in great doubt that I care not how
many and myself had redeemed his longer life, to have done good
in a better subject than he had in hand, though that were very
good. Good brother, have a care to deal with his executrix or
executor, or (him that is like to have a great stake in it) his father-
in-law, that there be special care and regard for preserving such
papers as he left, besides the three last books excepted. By pre
serving, I mean, that not only they be not embezzled and come to
nothing, but that they come not into great hands who will only
have use of them quatenus et quousque, and suppress the rest, or
unhappily all; but rather into the hands of some of them that
unfeignedly wished him well, though of the meaner sort, who may
upon good assurance (very good assurance) be trusted with them ;
for it is pity they should admit any limitation. Do this and do it
mature ; it had been more than time long since to have been about
it, if I had sooner known it. If any word or letter would do any
good to Mr. Churchman, it should not want. But what cannot
yourself or Mr. Sandys do therein? For Mr. Cranmer is away;
happy in that he shall gain a week or two before he know of it.
Almighty God comfort us over him, whose taking away, I trust
I shall no longer live than with grief remember; therefore with
grief because with inward and most just honour I ever honoured
him since I knew him.
" Your assured poor loving friend,
" L. ANDREWES.
"At the Court, Nov. 7, 1600."
About a month after this letter was written the Archbishop sent
Andrewes to Mrs. Hooker to enquire after the MSS. He did not
however succeed in obtaining any information. Upon this the
Archbishop sent for her to London, when she confessed that Mr.
Chart, a Puritan, and another minister of the same bias, had de
stroyed some of his papers as being in their opinion not such as
should see the light. However the rough drafts of the three last
books of the Eccl. Polity were discovered and delivered by Whitgift
to Dr. Spenser, who drew up as perfect a copy as he could, a tran
script of which was given to Andrewes amongst others. — Strype's
Whitgift, ii. 441.
ARTHUR T. RUSSELL, B.C.L. of St. John's college, Cambridge, stated that Thomas Andrews and Johan Andrews were religious parents, whose son, LANCELOT ANDREWES, is one of the most eloquent and munificent Prelates that ever adorned the Church of England, born A.D. 1555, in Thames-street, in the parish of Allhallows, Barking, London. Besides his education, they left him a fair estate which descended to his heir at Eawreth, a little village between Chelmsford and Rayleigh. Thomas in his latter time became one of the Society and master of Trinity House, and was descended of the ancient [family]... Anne daughter of Mr. Thomas Andrews, citizen of London, brought it to her husband Thomas Cotton, of Conington, in Cambridgeshire. This Anne must have been the bishop's niece. Her only daughter Frances married Dingley Ascham, Esq.
FROM DEAD ANGLICAN THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY -September 20, 2012:
Lancelot may have acquired his flair for languages from his father, Thomas Andrewes, who was a merchant seaman and master of Trinity House. He undertook to master a new language every year, and it is said he was fluent in 15 or 16 languages, ancient and modern, as an adult, and could read 21 languages.... Lancelot officiated at the funeral of Queen Elizabeth and was was closely involved in making arrangements for the coronation of James VI of Scotland as James I of England.
Eugene Chrisman, 830 N. 10E. Mountain Home, has Thomas' burial as June 25, 1593, Al Hallow Barking, London, Middlesex, England and has him married to the following:
1. Agnes Newport
Marriage abt. 1516, Sandon, Hertfordshire, England
2. Joan Andrews
Marriage abt. 1554, Towerhill, London, Middlesex, England
_________________
Son Lancelot Andrews' will:
to my father's half sister Johan (her first husband's name was Bousie) and each of her two children, and more kindred I know not.
__________________
Bishop Buckeridge in his funeral sermon for Lancelot Andrews said that Andrewes's parents "left him a sufficient patrimony, which has descended to his heir", and Isaacson described the parents as "honest and religious". Andrewes himself, in his private prayers, records his thanks that he was "not the sad egg of sorry crows".
Lancelot's brother Thomas was named after his father, who appears as a benefactor to All Hallows', Barking, " 1593, towards repairs of the church, £2; to the poor £5;" probably bequeathed.
_______
Thomas Andrewes, of Tower Hill, London, mariner; son of his father's first marriage.
Thomas Andrewes the younger; unclear by which marriage, though apparently not the first; named in the will of his sister Agnes, 1563, then under age; named in his father's will, 1568.
His father's Will - To Thomas my son, the younger, a feather-bed.
Thomas Andrewes, son of Thomas Andrewes and his first wife, nee Goodwin; born at Hordon-on-the-Hill, Essex; of Thames Street, Tower Ward, London; mariner; of age, 23 March 5 Mary I/4 Philip [1558], when he entered in a bond; legatee of his uncle William Goodwin, 1561, then of London; bought a messuage, a toft, a garden, 60 acres of arable, 20 acres of meadow, 40 acres of pasture and 3 acres of wood at Horndon for £160, 1587 [Essex Feet of Fine]; named in the Assessment of 1589 for Tower Ward; "having most part of his life used the seas, in his latter time became one of the Society, and Master of the Holy Trinity, commonly called the Trinity House" (Isaacson); will dated 23 June 1593, proved PCC 4 July 1593:
"I, Thomas Andrewes of the parish of All Saints Barking on Tower Hill, London, mariner; to my well-beloved wife Joan the moiety of my manor or farm in Raweth, Essex, called Borrells, and of all the lands except the advowson of the church of Raweth, which I will shall remain to my eldest son Lancelot Andrewes, clerk; also the moiety of that farm and those lands in Hordon on the Hill, and lands called Gore Oke and Clayes, and of houses in Redriffe, Surrey; to my son Nicholas the other moiety of Borrells and lands in Rawerth; the other moiety of those houses and lands in Horndon shall remain to my son Thomas; the premises in Rederiffe shall remain to my son Roger; to Martha Andrewes my daughter, L200 at 21, with remainder if she die unmarried to my daughter Mary; to the poor of Horndon where I was born, L5; to my brother William Andrewes one quarter of my ship called the White Hart; to every of my brothers and sisters by my father's side dwelling in Essex, 40s apiece; to Thomas Andrewes, son of my brother Robert Andrewes, and to Anne, sister to the said Thomas, to each a dozen of silver spoons; residue to wife Joan".
Thomas' son Lancelot Andrews' Will:
...to my father's half sister Johan (her first husband's name was Bousie) and each of her two children...
Then follows the last will and testament of John Parker, of London merchant taylor, as executor of the last will &c. of the Right Revd Father in God Lancelot Andrewes late Lord Bishop of Winchester deceased. Reference to his kinsmen ...his father's half sister Jone (her first husband's name was Bousie) and her two children.
Bishop Buckeridge in his funeral sermon said that Andrewes's parents "left him a sufficient patrimony, which has descended to his heir", and Isaacson described the parents as "honest and religious".
Andrewes himself, in his private prayers, records his thanks that he was "not the sad egg of sorry crows".
________
Memoir of the Ancestry of Dr. Lancelot Andrews
In the second volume of the Rev. William Palin's History of "Stifford and its neighbourhood," I had the honour of contributing a brief memoir of the ancestry of that eminent and learned Prelate Dr. Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester, in which I claimed for the Bishop an Essex ancestry, proving that his father and grandfather were of Horndon-on-the-Hill (where the former says he was born), in direct contradiction to the statement of the Bishop's amanuensis and biographer, Henry Isaacson, who states that he was descended from an ancient Suffolk family.
He was buried (as "Mr Thomas Andrewes") at All Hallows', Barking, in the choir, 23 June 1593 during a period shown by the registers to have been one of very high local mortality.
Married Joan, named in the will of her step-mother in law, 1592;
Executrix to her husband, 1593; will dated 1594 proved PCC 10 January
1597/8:
"I Joan Andrewes, widow, of Tower Hill in London; body to be buried with due and decent funerals and laid in the Quier of the church of All Saints, Barking, hard by the body of my late husband Thomas Andrewes, as near as conveniently it may; to son Lancelot my best salt with cover, being silver and gilt; to son Nicholas, L100; to son Thomas, servant [ie apprentice] to Mr William Cotton, draper, L130; to son Roger, L100; to daughter Mary, wife of William Burrell of Ratcliffe, shipwright, L50; to Andrewe Burrell her son, L100; to daughter Martha Andrewes L100 over and above the L200 she is to receive of me as executrix of Thomas Andrewes her father; to Alice Andrewes, the wife of William Andrewes my brother-in-law, L5; to Thomas Andrewes, second son of Matthew Andrewes my brother-in-law by his first wife, L5; to my brother-in-law William Andrewes and Richard Ireland, my third part of the ship called the Mayflower, the said Richard Ireland to be master of the same as heretofore; to son Roger a gilt tankard and a goblet (of) parcel gilt; to daughter Martha Andrewes my second salt with the cover of silver and gilt; to Joan Butler, late wife of Robert Andrewes my brother-in-law, my hooped ring of gold; to Agnes Butler her daughter, a ring of gold; to my cousin germane, Emma Fowle, L5; to my cosen William Biam, my ring of gold with death's head in it; to my sister Alice Andrewes, wife of William Andrewes, one cloth gown, a kirtle, the residue of my wearing linen, now in a little black chest; son Lancelot executor"
She was buried (as "Mistress Andrewes") at All Hallows, Barking, 7 January 1597/8.
Joane Andrewes (spelt Andrewes), widow of Thomas, who made her will in 1595, mentions therein her brothers-in-law, Matthew, William, and Robert Andrewes. We have therefore clear evidence of the existence of the father and two uncles of Bishop Andrewes whose names accord with those mentioned in the will of Thomas Andrew, the carpenter. John may have died prior to 1593, and Robert who is not named in the carpenter's will might have been a posthumous son. The orthography of the name is variable and in the wills of the Bishop and two of his brothers it is spelt Andrews.
If not proved to demonstration or with the same absolute certainty with which the Pedigree printed in Mr. Palin's work has been established, the evidence, I think, is such as to leave no reasonable doubt that Thomas Andrew the Horndon carpenter, was the grandfather of one of the greatest and most learned Prelates of the Church in England, Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester and Prelate of the Order of the Garter.
H. W. K.
* There was a good family of gentry and yeomanry of this name in that part of Essex. They had a grant of arms and occur in the Heraldic Visitations.
_________
All Hallows by the Tower:
All Hallows by the Tower is an ancient Anglican church located in the City of London, just uphill from the famous Tower of London.
History
All Hallows was first established in 675 by the now-defunct Saxon Barking Abbey and was for many years named after the abbey, as "All Hallows Barking." The church was built on the site of a former Roman building, traces of which have been discovered in the crypt.
The church was expanded and rebuilt several times between the 11th century and 15th century. All Hallows' proximity to the Tower meant that it acquired royal connections, with Edward IV making it a royal chantry and the beheaded victims of Tower executions being sent for temporary burial at All Hallows.
The church was badly damaged by a nearby explosion in 1649, which demolished its west tower, and only narrowly survived the Great Fire of London in 1666. It owed its survival to Admiral William Penn, father of William Penn of Pennsylvania fame, who saved it by having the surrounding buildings demolished to create firebreaks.
In 1926 a Roman pavement and many artifacts were discovered many feet below the church. Restored in the late 19th century, All Hallows was gutted by the Blitz in World War II and required extensive reconstruction, only being rededicated in 1957.
All Hallows by the Tower has connections with several famous persons, including:
• John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States - married here in 1797
• Judge Jeffreys, notorious "hanging judge" - married here in 1667
• William Laud, archbishop beheaded at the Tower - buried here 1645
• Thomas More, Catholic humanist, author and Lord Chancellor, refused to acknowledge Henry VIII as head of the Church - beheaded at Tower of London and buried here in 1535
• John Fisher, beheaded at the Tower - buried here in 1535
• Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Chichester, oversaw King James Bible - baptized here in 1555
• William Penn, founder of the U.S. state of Pennsylvania - baptized here in 1644
__________
Andrews Genealogy and Alliances
BY CLARA BERRY WYKER
DECATUR, ALA.
MRS. JOHN D. WYKER
1917
Methodist Book Concern Press,
Cincinnati, Ohio
From Boston Library, copied and sent me by librarian.
Genealogical Gleanings in England, p. 333:
Johan Andrewes, widow, of the Tower hill. All Saints Barking, 19 February 1594, proved 14 January 1597. My body to be buried in the choir of All Saints Barking hard by the body of my late husband Thomas Andrewes.
To my son Launcelot Andrewes my best salt with the cover, being silver and gilt. To my son Nicholas one hundred pounds. To my son Thomas Andrewes, . . . one hundred and thirty pounds (and other bequests). To my son Roger one hundred pounds. To my daughter Marie Burrell, wife of William Burrell of Ratclif, shipwright, fifty pounds. To Andrewe Burrell their son, one hundred pounds. To my daughter Martha Andrewes one hundred pounds over and above the two hundred pounds she is to receive of me as executrix of the last will &c of my husband, Thomas Andrewes, her father. To Alice Andrewes, wife of William Andrewes, my brother in law, five pounds. To Thomas Andrewes, second son of Matthew Andrewes, my brother in law, by his first wife, five pounds. To my brother in law William Andrewes and Richard Ireland, sometime my servant, my one third part of the ship called the Mayflower of the burden of four score tons or thereabouts, equally between them, upon condition that they shall aliene or sell the same and that the said Richard Ireland shall follow, attend and be master of the same ship as he hath followed, attended and been master of it heretofore. To Joane Butler, late wife of Robert Andrewes, my brother in law, my hooped ring of gold and to Agnes Butler, her daughter by my brother Robert Andrews my "gimous" rings. To Emma Fowle, my cousin germain five pounds. Lewyn, 5.
(The Launcelot Androwes or Andrewes mentioned in this will was the learned Bishop of Winchester, about whose ancestry a short paper will be found in the Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society, New Series, Vol. i, p. ^^. — Henry F. Walters.)
Above is followed by will of John Andrewes, 1649.
Page 418 :
Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester 22 September 1626, with codicils dated 1 May 1626, proved 26 September 1626.
Bequests to the poor of All hallows Barking where I was born, St. Giles without Cripplegate where I was Vicar, St. Martin's within Ludgate, St. Andrew's in Holborne and St. Saviour's in Southwalk where I have been an inhabitant; to the Master, Fellows and Scholars of the College or Hall of Mary Valence, commonly called Pembroke Hall, in Cambridge (a thousand pounds to found two fellowships and also the perpetual advowson of the Rectory of Rawreth in Essex);
to brothers' and sisters' children, viz*. William, son of brother Nicholas, deceased, the children of brother Thomas deceased (his eldest son Thomas, his second son Nicholas, his youngest son Roger, his eldest daughter Ann, married to Arthur Willaston and youngest daughter Mary), the children of sister Mary Burrell (her eldest son Andrew, her sons John, Samuel, Joseph, James and Lancelot, her daughters Mary Rooke and Martha), the children of sister Martha Salmon (her son Thomas Princep by her former husband Robert Princep, her sons Peter and Thomas Salmon, her daughter Ann Best);
to kindred removed, as cousin Ann Hockett and her two sons and three daughters, cousin Sandbrooke, cousin Robert Andrewes and his two children, cousin Rebecca, to my father's half sister Johan (her first husband's name was Bousie) and each of her two children, and more kindred I know not. To Peter Muncaster son of Mr. Richard Muncaster my schoolmaster. To Mr. Robert Barker lately the King's Printer (whom I freely forgive those sums wherein he stands bound to my brother Thomas deceased) and his two sons Robert and Charles, my godsons. To my godson Lancelot Lake. To the poor of All Saints Barking by the Tower, Horndon on the Hill, Rawreth (and other parishes) &c. &c.
My executor to be Mr. John Parker, citizen and merchant taylor of London, and overseers to be Sir Thomas Lake, Sir Henry Martin and Dr. Nicholas Styward. Hele, 109.
(See will of Johane Andrewes, the testator's
mother, and notes, ante, page 333. — Editor.)
___________
The Bishop also makes mention of his cousin Anne Hockett. John Hockett was BA. of Trinity College, Cambridge, 1662, M.A. 1666, and a Fellow of that society. Another of the same name was B.A. of that College 1696. He names another cousin, Sandbrooke; also his cousin Robert and his two children; his cousin Bebecca; his father's half-sister Joan; her first husband's name was Bousie. Also his godson Lancelot Lake, son of Sir Thomas Lake. There was a Lancelot Lake, BA. Catharine Hall, Cambridge, 1666, M.A. 1670. Also his two godsons Bobert and Charles Barker, son of Mr. Bobert Barker, "latelie the King's printer." His principal executor was Mr. John Parker, citizen and Merchant Taylor, of London, to be assisted by Sir Thomas Lake, Sir Henry Martin, and Dr. Nicholas Styward or Steward. His will was witnessed by Robert Bostock, Prebendary of Norton Episcopil in the church of Lincoln, and afterward Archdeacon of Suffolk, and (if not in 1626) Prebendary of Chichester; Joseph Fenton, probably our prelate's physician; John Browning, Bector of Buttermere near Hungerford, whom he had preferred to that living in 1624, author of Six Sermons concerning Public Prayer and the Fasts of the Church (Lond. 1636); Thomas Eddie and William Green, two of the Bishop's servants. Archdeacon Wigmore also signed the three several codicils to the will.
_________________
Ancestry of Lancelot Andrewes (b 1555), Bishop of Winchester
PART ONE
Relatively little seems to be available on the ancestry of Lancelot Andrewes, Elizabethan scholar and Bishop successively of Chichester, Ely and Winchester until his death in 1626. Similarly, various claims may be found in print and online about other Andrews families who claim descent from the Bishop's family - many of these turn out to be spurious (in particular, much of the IGI material is erroneous) but there are some notable descendants living today, including the Parker Bowles children of HRH the Duchess of Cornwall.
John Aubrey ("Brief Lives") tells us that Lancelot Andrewes was born in London and was educated at Merchant Taylors School there, before going up to Pembroke College, Cambridge. Otley in his biography "Lancelot Andrewes" (1894) states that "he was born in Thames Street in the Parish of All Hallows Barking in 1555", noting that the exact date of his birth is unknown; he records that "the family was connected with Suffolk, but very little seems known of its history" - based on statements by the Bishop's earliest biographer, Henry Isaacson, in his "Exact Narration of the Life and Death of the late... Lancelot Andrewes" (1650) ("his father was... descended from the ancient family of the Andrewes in Suffolk".)
Bishop Buckeridge in his funeral sermon said that Andrewes's parents "left him a sufficient patrimony, which has descended to his heir", and Isaacson described the parents as "honest and religious". Andrewes himself, in his private prayers, records his thanks that he was "not the sad egg of sorry crows".
The best two articles dealing with the history of the family may be found in "More About Stifford & Its Neighbourhood", by W. Palin(1872), at pp 8-13 and 70-71, summarising the research of H.W. King, and in Suffolk Manorial Families, which re-examines the former material and provides the texts of some probate records to augment it. These articles are largely correct, but include some incorrect statements, as well as omitting some important facts.
There are also a couple of unreliable references in three Harleian Society Manuscripts in the British Library (Harl MSS 1094 and 1184, and 4031), nominally papers connected with the Vistation of Northamptonshire in 1618-19 by Augustine Vincent, and an undated roll pedigree in the Society of Genealogists' Library. These provide the following originating stemma:
1. Thomas Andrewes of Carlisle, ff 1286, married Magdalen Tokett
2. Ralph Andrewes, ff 1334, married Mary Thompson
3. Ralph Andrewes, of Cockold, married Jane Witney
4. Richard Andrewes of Husdon, married Elizabeth Marcant
5. John Andrewes, married Emma Vaughan
6. Henry Andrewes, married Blanche Smythe
7. Thomas Andrewes 'of St Edes' [i.e. St Neots, Cambs], married Mary Brough
8. Richard Andrewes, of Horndon-on-the -Hill, Essex, married Joyce Bresom
9. John Andrewes, of Horndon, married Joan Cotton
10. Thomas Andrewes of Horndon, "had three wives"
11. Thomas Andrewes of London, father of L Andrewes, Doctor in Divinity, Bishop of Chichester".
It is curious that the latest (ie contemporary) generation in this pedigree should be the only one missing a Christian name! These documents have normally been treated as an ambitious, but essentially fanciful, attempt to connect various disparate Andrews families, and hence it testimony rejected in terms of accuracy.
Nevertheless, we find that it is correct in relation to what it tells us about the Bishop's father and paternal grandfather, including (as we shall see) the statement that the latter had three wives.
I have been unsuccessful in ascertaining whether there is any historical evidence for the earlier generations, and accordingly suspect they should be treated as myth.
In this course of this thread, I shall aim to examine the background of the Bishop and his siblings, and intend to use the Harleian MSS's end generations as my peg.
MA-R
PART TWO: PATERNAL ANCESTRY
Thomas Andrewes of Horndon-on-the-Hill, Essex, was the paternal grandfather of Bishop Lancelot Andrewes. According to the Vincent pedigrees he married three times. Evidence from the Essex wills (published by Fitch in his series of that county's probate records) allows us to confirm this statement, and most of what King's reconstructs of the family:
1. Thomas Andrewes, witnessed the will of Thomas Armerar of Horndon, 21 February 1558/9 (pr Archdeaconry of Essex, 3 April 1559); named in the will of William Goodwyn, his brother-in-law [see will of his daughter Agnes, infra], waxchandler of Horndon, dated 30 May 1561 (pr. Archd. Essex, 3 December 1561):
"L30 to the children of Thomas Andrewes of Horndon, i.e. to Robert
L10, to John and Matthew L5 apiece, and to Agnes L10, all at 23; to John and Matthew in addition L5 each at 23; to Lancelot Andrewes and Agnes Andrewes the son and daughter of Thomas Andrewes of London, mariner, my part of and in the ship called the Trinity of Caryte, and of and in the crayer called the Hearne of London" as "Thomas Andrewe, carpenter of Horndon-on-the-Hill", made a will:
"to the poor men's box of Horndon, 12d; to John my son a bullock and my best coat; to Thomas my son the younger a featherbed; to William my son a gold ring; to Matthew my son a bolster, pair of sheets, two platters and my best jerkin; residue to Margaret my wife whom I ordain my executrix; Robert Drywood and my son Matthew to be overseers;
witnessed by Robert Drywood, maker of this will, Matthew and John Andrewes his sons", dated 29 December [presumably 1568], proved Archd.
Essex 25 January 1568/9.
married firstly ( ) the sister of William Goodwin of Horndon; had by her Thomas, Robert, John, Matthew and Agnes.
married secondly ( ), by whom he had William, not named in any of the Goodwin wills but still living in 1597, and possibly Thomas the younger
married thirdly Margaret, his widow. She seems to have married firstly a Mr Lowe, by whom she had a daughter Agnes [see will of Agnes Andrewes, infra]; then Thomas Andrewes, and thirdly John Goodwin of Horndon, her second husband's nephew by his first marriage. Her will, dated 19 November 1592, proved Archd. Essex 17 February 1592/3, names her son Robert Goodwin, her daughter Sarah Almon; her daughter Agnes Gyles; her daughter Elizabeth Hawkins; her daughter Joan Bowsy, and "Mistress Andrewes of Tower Hill", to whom she left her "bay nag with saddle and bridle". The will of her third husband John Goodwin (dated 26 May, proved 18 June 1588 Archd. Essex) names Margaret his wife, his son Robert and his daughter Sarah. We may thus conclude that by Margaret's marriage to Thomas Andrewes, she bore Elizabeth, afterwards Hawkins, and Joan, afterwards Bowsy.
Issue:
2a. Thomas Andrewes, of Tower Hill, London, mariner; son of his father's first marriage - see part three
2b. Agnes Andrewes, daughter of her father's first marriage; mentioned in her uncle's will, 1561; unmarried; left a will dated 2 February 1562/3, proved Archd. Essex, 7 September 1563:
"Agnes Andrewe of Horndon, maiden; from the money that my brother Thomas Andrewes hath in his hands which was given me by the will of my uncle William Goodwin: to my father, my two brothers William and Robert, each 10s; to my brother Matthew 20s, and my brother Thomas the younger, 40s each at 21; to my sister Elizabeth and my sister-in-law [i.e. step-sister] Agnes Lowe, each 20s at 18; residue to my father; witness: Robert Drywood"
2c. Robert Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; mentioned in the will of his uncle, 1561, and that of his sister Agnes, 1563, then of age; mentioned in his father's will, 1568; dead by 1594, when his widow is mentioned in the will of his sister-in-law Joan Andrews;
married Joan (called "Joan Butler" in the 1594 will, so probably she remarried); had issue:
3a. Thomas Andrewes, named in the will of his uncle Thomas Andrewes, 1593
2d. John Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; mentioned in the wills of 1561 and 1568
2e. Matthew Andrewes, named in the wills of 1561, 1563 and 1568; aged under 21 in 1563; witnessed the will of James Roger of East Tilbury, 18 February 1572/3 (pr. Archd. Essex 13 June 1573); executor to his mother-in-law Alice Thomson, 1579 (Archd, Essex); married firstly ( ) the daughter of Alice Thomson of East Tilbury, by whom he had three children; married secondly ( ); engaged to marry Judith Turner at the time of making his will, proved Archd. Essex, 16 October 1599:
"Matthew Andrewes of Horndon; to my son Robert L20 at 21; to daughter Rebecca, L20 at 20 or marriage; to son William, L5; to Judith Turner, whom, had God permitted, should have been my wife, L10; residue to Nicholas Andrewes my cousin, whom I make executor"
Had issue by both marriages:
3a. William Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; named in his maternal grandmother's will, 1578; named in his father's will, 1599
3b. Thomas Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; named in his maternal grandmother's will, 1578; named in the will of his aunt Joan Andrewes, 1594 as "second son of the first marriage"
3c. John Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; named in his maternal grandmother's will, 1578
3d. Robert Andrewes, son of his father's second marriage; mentioned in his father's will, 1599, and the wills of his cousins Lancelot Andrewes, 1626, and Martha Salmon, 1650; had two children, according to the 1626 will
3e. Rebecca Andrewes, daughter by her father's second marriage; mentioned in the wills of Thomas Almon, her godfather, 1594 (Archd. Essex, 112 ER 17), her father, 1599, and her cousins Lancelot Andrewes, 1626, and Martha Salmon, 1650
2d. William Andrewes, apparently son of his father's second marriage, as not named in the wills of William Goodwin or Margaret Goodwin; named in his sister's will, 1563, then of age; named in his father's will; bequeathed an interest in a ship by his brother Thomas, 1593, and again by his sister-in-law Joan Andrewes, 1594; married Alice, named in the 1594 will
2e. Thomas Andrewes the younger; unclear by which marriage, though apparently not the first; named in the will of his sister Agnes, 1563, then under age; named in his father's will, 1568
2f. Elizabeth Andrewes, daughter of her father's third marriage; named in her sister's will, 1563, then under 18; mentioned in her mother's will, 1592, having married a Mr Hawkins; she had a daughter Susanna
2g. Joan Andrewes, daughter of her father's third marriage; not named in the will of her sister Agnes, 1563, so possibly not then born; named as "Joan Bowsy" in her mother's will, 1592; referred to as "my father's half-sister Joan - her first husband's name was Bousie" in the will of Lancelot Andrewes, 1626; married firstly Mr Bowsy/Bousie, and secondly ( ). Had two children, according to the 1626 will.
MA-R
PART TWO: PATERNAL ANCESTRY
1. Thomas Andrewes, of Horndon-on-the-Hill, carpenter; had issue, incl:
2d. William Andrewes, apparently son of his father's second marriage, as not named in the wills of William Goodwin or Margaret Goodwin; named in his sister's will, 1563, then of age; named in his father's will; bequeathed an interest in a ship by his brother Thomas, 1593, and again by his sister-in-law Joan Andrewes, 1594; married Alice, named in the 1594 will
This William was a party to a property transaction in Brentwood, Essex, 1594:
"William Greatham and Joan his wife v. William Andrewes and Alice his wife, re two messuages, a garden and an orchard in Brentwood parish of Weald; £40" (Essex Feet of Fines 1581-1603, p 120 #60)
PART THREE: PARENTS AND SIBLINGS
Perhaps the greatest level of confusion about the family of Lancelot Andrewes concerns his siblings. A quick glance at the IGI, for instance, will reveal no fewer than 15 brothers and sisters variously assigned to him. I have been able to confirm 12 only, including an unnamed sibling who died young. The spurious children credited to his parents appear to be:
(a) Ann, said per IGI to have been born in 1568, but of whom there is no trace
(b) Agnes, said per IGI to have been born in 1582, but of whom there is no trace
(c) George, of whom King states "baptised at All Hallows 1563 (and) buried there in 1571", quoting the parish registers (this is presumably the source of the identical details appearing in Boyd's Inhabitants of London). No George Andrewes is named in the parish register for the period in question, either in respect of a baptism or a burial.
(d) William, referred to in the 'Suffolk Manorial Families' pedigree, but of whom there is no other evidence.
In fact, details of Lancelot's parents and siblings are as follows:
Thomas Andrewes, son of Thomas Andrewes and his first wife, nee Goodwin; born at Hordon-on-the-Hill, Essex; of Thames Street, Tower Ward, London; mariner; of age, 23 March 5 Mary I/4 Philip [1558], when he entered in a bond; legatee of his uncle William Goodwin, 1561, then of London; bought a messuage, a toft, a garden, 60 acres of arable, 20 acres of meadow, 40 acres of pasture and 3 acres of wood at Horndon for £160, 1587 [Essex Feet of Fine]; named in the Assessment of 1589 for Tower Ward; "having most part of his life used the seas, in his latter time became one of the Society, and Master of the Holy Trinity, commonly called the Trinity House" (Isaacson); will dated 23 June 1593, proved PCC 4 July 1593:
"I, Thomas Andrewes of the parish of All Saints Barking on Tower Hill, London, mariner; to my well-beloved wife Joan the moiety of my manor or farm in Raweth, Essex, called Borrells, and of all the lands except the advowson of the church of Raweth, which I will shall remain to my eldest son Lancelot Andrewes, clerk; also the moiety of that farm and those lands in Hordon on the Hill, and lands called Gore Oke and Clayes, and of houses in Redriffe, Surrey; to my son Nicholas the other moiety of Borrells and lands in Rawerth; the other moiety of those houses and lands in Horndon shall remain to my son Thomas; the premises in Rederiffe shall remain to my son Roger; to Martha Andrewes my daughter, L200 at 21, with remainder if she die unmarried to my daughter Mary; to the poor of Horndon where I was born, L5; to my brother William Andrewes one quarter of my ship called the White Hart; to every of my brothers and sisters by my father's side dwelling in Essex, 40s apiece; to Thomas Andrewes, son of my brother Robert Andrewes, and to Anne, sister to the said Thomas, to each a dozen of silver spoons; residue to wife Joan".
He was buried (as "Mr Thomas Andrewes") at All Hallows', Barking, in the choir, 23 June 1593 during a period shown by the registers to have been one of very high local mortality.
marred Joan, named in the will of her step-mother in law, 1592; executrix to her husband, 1593; will dated 1594 proved PCC 10 January 1597/8:
"I Joan Andrewes, widow, of Tower Hill in London; body to be buried with due and decent funerals and laid in the Quier of the church of All Saints, Barking, hard by the body of my late husband Thomas Andrewes, as near as conveniently it may; to son Lancelot my best salt with cover, being silver and gilt; to son Nicholas, L100; to son Thomas, servant [ie apprentice] to Mr William Cotton, draper, L130; to son Roger, L100; to daughter Mary, wife of William Burrell of Ratcliffe, shipwright, L50; to Andrewe Burrell her son, L100; to daughter Martha Andrewes L100 over and above the L200 she is to receive of me as executrix of Thomas Andrewes her father; to Alice Andrewes, the wife of William Andrewes my brother-in-law, L5; to Thomas Andrewes, second son of Matthew Andrewes my brother-in-law by his first wife, L5; to my brother-in-law William Andrewes and Richard Ireland, my third part of the ship called the Mayflower, the said Richard Ireland to be master of the same as heretofore; to son Roger a gilt tankard and a goblet (of) parcel gilt; to daughter Martha Andrewes my second salt with the cover of silver and gilt; to Joan Butler, late wife of Robert Andrewes my brother-in-law, my hooped ring of gold; to Agnes Butler her daughter, a ring of gold; to my cousin germane, Emma Fowle, L5; to my cosen William Biam, my ring of gold with death's head in it; to my sister Alice Andrewes, wife of William Andrewes, one cloth gown, a kirtle, the residue of my wearing linen, now in a little black chest; son Lancelot executor"
She was buried (as "Mistress Andrewes") at All Hallows, Barking, 7 January 1597/8.
Issue:
(1) Lancelot Andrewes, born circa 1555; educated at Merchant Taylors school and Pembroke College, Cambridge; successively Dean of Westminster, Bishop of Chichester, Ely and Winchester; Dean of the Chapel Royal; died 25 September 1626; buried at St Saviour's, Southwark [tomb extant] (Alum. Cantab.); aged 71 and some months at his death (Funeral Certificate, College of Arms, I.8/31 and I.23/30); unmarried; will proved PCC, 109 Hele and 23-24 Skynner: inter alia named "cousin Sandbrooke; cousin Ann Hockett, her two sons and three daughters; my father's half-sister Johan (her first husband's name was Bousie) and each of her two children; my brother Thomas, deceased; my cousin Robert Andrewes and his two children; my cousin Rebecca"
(2) Judith Andrewes, buried at All Hallows, Barking, April 1559 (PR)
(3) Agnes Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 30 September 1561 (PR); named in the will of her great-uncle, William Goodwin, 1561; buried at All Hallows, Barking, 19 June 1571 (PR)
(4) (child), buried at All Hallows, Barking, 6 December 1563, during a period of severe local mortality (PR)
(5) Sarah Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 30 May 1564 (PR); presumably died young
(6) John Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 30 January 1565/6; buried there 3 February 1575/6 (PR)
(7) Nicholas Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 23 February 1566/7 (PR); bequeathed property in Essex by his father, 1593; named in his mother's will, 1594; grocer, of the parish of St Brides, Fleet Street, October 1598 (London Subsidy Rolls); residual beneficiary of his uncle Matthew Andrewes, 1599; appointed to the Registrarship of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster Abbey for life, 3 December 1602 ("Lancelot Andrewes", P. Welsby, London 1958); received assignation of a lease of tithes at Erbury and Chilton from Henry Isaacson, 1620 (Norfolk RO, GIL/1/333/717 x 4); late of St Saviour, Southwark, administration PCC 25 September 1626; married and left issue (NB his son and heir, William Andrewes (1602-1640), was Rector of Nuthurst, Sussex, and did not emigrate to America.
(8) Mary Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 23 October 1570 (PR); named in her father's will, 1593, and her mother's will, 1594; died at Lambeth Marsh, her will dated 28 February 1655 with codicil of 20 February 1656/7 proved PCC 15 October 1657; married by 1594 William Burrell, of Ratcliffe, shipwright; armiger; "one of the Commissioners for the Royal Navy for 15 years" (Vis. London, 1633-4, Vol I, p 125); died 1630; will proved PCC 1631 (87 St John); had issue, from whom descended Admiral Rooke, and Andrew Parker-Bowles
(9) Sarah Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 30 December 1571 (PR); presumably died young
(10) Thomas Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 13 March 1572/3 (PR); apprenticed to William Cotton, citizen and draper of London; inherited property at Horndon from his father, 1593; named in his mother's will, 1594; admitted Freeman of the Drapers' Company, 1597 (Roll of the Drapers' Company of London); will proved PCC 1625 123 Clarke; married by licence dated 19 September 1598 Alice Clay, and left issue.
(11) Roger Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 12 December 1574 (PR; not 1575, as usually stated, or 1576, as alleged by King); educated at Pembroke College, Cambridge; Rector of Nuthurst, Chancellor and Archdeacon of Chichester; Master of Jesus College, Cambridge (Alum. Cantab.); "overbearing and quarrelsome, (he) treated his college with contemptuous disregard and seems to have resided very little; he neglected the financial the financial affairs of the college, which were his responsibility, and finally embezzled certain sums of money; it was only due to the royal favour in memory of (his) late brother that in 1632 he was permitted to resign instead of being dismissed" ("Jesus College Cambridge, A. Gray, 1902, pp 84-90); died 10 September 1635 (Le Neve's Fasti); buried at Cheriton, Hants, 11 September 1635 (Alum. Cantab.); will proved PCC, 1635 (Prob 11/169); married Philippa Blaxton, but had no issue.
(12) Martha Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, 24 March 1576/7 (PR); named in her father's will, 1593, and her mother's will, 1594; called "now wife of Robert Salmon and late wife of Robert Princippe lately deceased, 12 July 1597 (Huntingdon RO, Con 3/5/9/13); will dated 27 May 1650, proved PCC 7 July 1653:
"Martha Salmon of London, widow, late wife of Robert Salmon, deceased; 20s to the preacher at her interment at All Hallows, Barking; to loving friend and cosen Captain John Stevens, L200 on trust for her daughter, and L5 and 40s for a ring in remembrance; to sister Mary Burrell, L20; to cosen Mr Sambrooke, 40s to buy him a ring; cozens Mrs Cator and Mrs Ireland, L3 each; to Robert Andrewes and Rebecca Andrewes, L3 each; late deceased brother's trustees, L50 for setting up young beginners in trades or handicrafts as per his will"
married firstly Robert Princep, and had a son, Thomas, baptised at St Bride's Fleet Street, 23 November 1595 (IGI); married secondly, 26 January 1597 at St Olave Hart Street (PR) Robert Salmon, Master of Trinity House, 1617; of Leigh-on-sea, Essex (East Anglian & Essex Countryside Annual, 1964, p 65). Left issue.
(13) Sarah Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, 24 March 1576/7 (PR); presumably died young.
MA-R
PART THREE: PARENTS AND SIBLINGS
Thomas Andrewes, of Thames Street, Tower Ward, London; mariner; will dated 23 June 1593; buried at All Hallows', Barking, 23 June 1593
Given the dates of his will and his burial, we may conclude that the Bishop's father died 23 June 1593. There was a virulent outbreak of bubonic plague in London during 1593; Stowe reports nearly 11,000 deaths in twelve months.
PART FOUR: GOODWIN ANCESTRY
I visited Horndon-on-the-Hill this morning; it is a very pleasant village, with various mediaeval buildings remaining in good condition. The church is open for visitors on a Tuesday and Saturday mornings, and the Bell still functions as an inn. A plaque outside commemorates Thomas Higbed, of Horndon House, who on 26 March 1555 was burnt at the stake in the courtyard for adhering to the Protestant cause.
1. ( ) Goodwin; had issue:
2a. (daughter), married as his first wife Thomas Andrewes of Horndon-on-the-Hill (died 1568), and left issue
2b. William Goodwin, of Horndon-on-the-Hill, waxchandler; left a will dated 30 May 1561, proved Archd. Essex 3 December 1561:
"to my eldest son Robert, my messuage called the Bell in Horndon; to my sons Thomas and John each L10 at 23; to Joan Goodwin my maidservant, 40s at marriage; to Lancelot Andrewes and Agnes Andrewes the son and daughter of Thomas Andrewes of London, mariner, my part of and in the ship called the Trinity of Caryte, and of and in the crayer called the Hearne of London; whereas the said Thomas by his obligation dated 23 March in the fourth and fifth years of the late King and Queen Philip and Mary [i.e. 1557/8, not 1556/7 as printed by Fitch in his edition of Essex Wills] standeth bound to me in L40 for payment of L30, i.e. L5 yearly at Michaelmas until L30 be paid, which obligation I will shall be cancelled, and that he shall stand bound to Robert my son for payment of L30 to the children of Thomas Andrewes of Horndon, i.e. to Robert L10, to John and Matthew L5 apiece, and to Agnes L10, all at 23; to John and Matthew in addition L5 each at 23; residue to Robert, whom I make my executor"
left issue:
3a. Robert Goodwin, eldest son; executor and residual benefiary of his father, 1561, from whom he inherited the Bell at Horndon; named in the will of his brother John, 1588 [infra]; dead by 1590; married Elizabeth Bretton, daughter of Robert Bretton; died a widow; her will proved Archd. Essex 4 June 1590:
"Elizabeth Goodwin of Horndon, widow: to John and Robert Goodwin, my sons, such right as I now have in three tenements, a barn, an orchard and a croft which my father Robert Bretton did give between me and my sister Hearde in Horndon; if they both die without heirs, to my daughter Susan Carter; to John and Robert, four kine and ten sheep which are let to farm to one Williams of East Tilbury; to Repent Savage, 10 shillings; to Susan my mourning gown, my best hat, 11 pieces of pewter in a spruce chest, the said chest, my best salt, two latten candlesticks, my best ***, best petticoat etc etc; to Joan Savage my daughter, my two bedsteads in the bed loft, a great chest etc etc; to my sister Heard, my warming pan and a pair of great cob- irons; residue to Robert Heard and Robert Bretton my brother, whom I ordain executors, desiring them to see my two sons brought up; my brother Heard shall have Robert, and my brother Robert shall have John".
Issue:
4a. John Goodwin, named in his uncle's will of 1588, and his mother's will proved 1590
4b. Robert Goodwin, named in his uncle's will of 1588, and his mother's will proved 1590
4c. Susan Goodwin, named in her mother's will; married Mr Carter
4d. Joan Goodwin, named in her mother's will; married Repent Savage, named in his mother-in-law's will
3b. Thomas Goodwin, named in his father's will of 30 May 1561, then aged under 23
3c. (daughter), referred to in the will of her brother John, 1588 (infra); married Mr Norden
3d. John Goodwin, named in his father's will of 30 May 1561, then aged under 23; bequeathed 4s by Robert Bretton of Langdon Hills, 1566; beer-brewer of Horndon; administration of his nuncupative will dated 26 May 1588 granted Archd. Essex, 18 June 1588:
"to brother Robert Goodwin's two sons, John and Robert, 40 shillings a piece at 21; to Susanna Hawkins, a cow at 18 or marriage; to sister Norden, a winter gown; residue to wife Margaret, son Robert and daughter Sarah, to be equally divided"
married Margaret, third wife and widow of Thomas Andrewes of Horndon, his uncle by marriage; she died his widow, 1592; will dated 19 November 1592, proved Archd. Essex, 17 February 1592/3:
"to Robert Goodwin my son, the bedstead that I lie on, with the featherbed, half dozen of my best flaxen napkins, etc etc, the Book of Acts and Monuments [Foxe], the New Testament, and the book of Latymer's Sermons; to Sarah Almon my daughter, the next bedsteadle with the new feather bed, a flaxen tablecloth, etc etc; to Agnes Gyles my daughter, a featherbed, the great kettle, etc etc; to Elizabeth Hawkins my daughter, my spice mortar, a chafer with feet, a kettle, etc etc; to Joan Bowsy my daughter, a featherbed, a dozen of pewter and a good tablecloth; to Susan Hawkins, a brass pot and a kettle; to Mistress Andrewes of Tower Hill, my bay nag with the saddle andbridle; residue to Robert, whom I make executor; witnesses: Thomas Taylor, Robert Drywood, Robert Taylor".
Issue:
4a. Robert Goodwin, named in his parents' wills, 1588 and 1592
4b. Sarah Goodwin, named in her parents' wills, 1588 and 1592; married Mr Almon [probably Thomas Almon of Horndon-on-the-Hill, will pr. Archd. Essex, 1594 112ER17].
There are a number of other Goodwin wills at Chelmsford, including some earlier (eg Thomas of Horndon, 1543; Joan of Horndon, widow, 1552) which I have not yet seen; these likely shed further light on the Goodwin family of Horndon-on-the-Hill.
MA-R
From: Brad Verity
Date: 21 Apr 2007
______________
Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626), born in the parish of All Hallows, Barking, he was a scholar at the Coopers' Free School in Ratcliff. Whilst at Coopers he came under the influence of school master Thomas Ward who played a pivotal role in young Lancelot's life. He went on to study at Pembroke College, Cambridge, and in 1580 was ordained, quickly progressing to higher offices within the church. He shone as a scholar and was said to be fluent in fifteen ancient and modern languages; Andrewes was soon noticed in royal circles by Queen Elizabeth's Chief Minister and spymaster Francis Walsingham leading to him becoming her Chaplain in Ordinary. Upon her death in 1603 Lancelot Andrewes preached the sermon at her funeral, and then went on to participate in the coronation of King James I. Under the new King his rise in the church was rapid: in 1605 he was made Bishop of Chichester and Lord High Almoner. In 1609 he became Bishop of Ely and in 1619 Bishop of Winchester and Dean of the Royal Chapel. He narrowly missed becoming Archbishop of Canterbury. Upon his death seven years later he was buried in what is now Southwark Cathedral. Amongst his many ecclesiastical achievements Bishop Andrewes oversaw the translation of the King James version of the Bible and, following the unsuccessful attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament in 1605, Lancelot was asked to prepare a sermon to be presented to the King. In his sermon he justified the need to commemorate the deliverance of The King and Country: to 'always remember the fifth of November!' He defined the celebrations which became the foundations of events that continue some 400 years later. Lancelot Andrewes remained a close confidant of the King and accompanied him on his Scottish mission to persuade the Scots that it was preferable to pay more attention to rituals like the Holy Communion through an Episcopalian approach and move away from the heavy sermons of Presbyterianism. Liverymen might be interested to know that on Saturday 14 January 1933 during the building of the Bishop Andrewes' Church in St Helier, Morden, the foundation stone was laid by the then Master of the Company, Harold Griffin JP, Great Grandfather of Liveryman and Society President Celia Campbell and Liveryman and Past President of the Society, Sharon Ashby. The above trowel was presented to him as a commemoration of the event. In June of that year the church was consecrated by the Bishop of Southwark with the company and school playing their part in the service.
____________
Lancelot Andrews' Catholicity:
On September 25th most of the Anglican Communion commemorates the day on which Lancelot Andrewes died. Monday, about 4 O'clock in the morning, died Lancelot Andrews, the most worthy bishop of Winchester, the great light of the Christian world." (Laud 3:126)
And what a light he was in his time and still is. Those who value the catholicity of the Church and the beauty of holiness in worship, also offer a big thank you on this day as he safeguarded the Catholic heritage in the English Church in its formative years of the Reformation period under Elizabeth I. One cannot read Andrewes' sermons or use his prayers without being aware of the centrality of the Eucharist in his life and teaching, as well as teaching the Catholic faith according to the Fathers in his sermons.
So it is not surprising that for many in the seventeenth century Andrewes was considered the authority on worship, and so what he practised in his beautiful chapel, designed for Catholic worship, became their standard for the celebration of the Liturgy. The 1662 Prayer Book, following Andrewes' practice, restored the rubrics for the manual acts at the offertory and consecration. In modern times Eliot referred to Andrewes as "the first great preacher of the English Catholic Church".
There is no doubt therefore that Andrewes saw himself as standing in that long line of Christian tradition embedded in antiquity, and a part of the wonder and loveliness of creation. Indeed Andrewes was a man of prayer and learning whose preaching and piety was noted as far away as Venice. Each day of his life, from 4.am to noon was spent in prayer and study.
During those fifty years Andrewes ministry touched all walks of life. He was chaplain to reigning monarchs for forty years; constant preacher at Court especially for James I.
Andrewes' began his ministry (a ministry that was to last fifty years) c.1578, a time when the Puritans were trying their hardest, especially through pamphlets and parliaments to model the English Church on the Genevan. This would have meant discarding the episcopal and apostolic ministry, the Prayer Book, downplaying the sacraments and dismantling the structure of cathedrals. However their demands were always thwarted by Queen Elizabeth. She and the Archbishop of Canterbury (Whitgift) both appointed Andrewes as one of their chaplains, and prevailed on his skills as a preacher and theologian to address many of the issues raised by Puritans in the late 16thC. So his preaching and lecturing and later on when a bishop his Visitation Articles always stressed amongst other things the observance of Prayer Book services to be taken by a properly ordained minister, the Eucharist to be celebrated reverently, infants to be baptised, the Daily Offices to be said, and spiritual counselling to be given where needed.
One cannot read Andrewes' sermons or use his prayers without being aware of the centrality of the Eucharist in his life and teaching. It had been the heart of worship in the early Church when the local bishop and people came together constantly to celebrate Christ's glorious death, and partake of His most blessed Body and Blood. That partaking fell into disuse in the mediæval church and was replaced instead by adoration of the Host at the elevation during the Canon. For Andrewes the Eucharist was the meeting place for the infinite and finite, the divine and human, heaven and earth. "The blessed mysteries ... are from above; the 'Bread that came down from Heaven,' the Blood that hath been carried 'into the holy place.' And I add, ubi Corpus, ubi sanguis Christi, ibi Christus". We here "on earth ... are never so near Him, nor He us, as then and there." Thus it is to the altar we must come for "that blessed union [which] is the highest perfection we can in this life aspire unto." Unlike his contemporary Puritans it was not the pulpit but the altar, glittering with its candles and plate, with incense wafting to God, that was the focal point for worship in Andrewes' chapel.
The reason that Andrewes placed so much importance on reverence in worship came from his conviction that when we worship God it is with our entire being, that is, both bodily and spiritually. At a time when little emphasis was placed on the old outward forms of piety Andrewes maintained, "if He hath framed that body of yours and every member of it, let Him have the honour both of head and knee, and every member else."
During those fifty years Andrewes ministry touched all walks of life. He was chaplain to reigning monarchs for forty years; constant preacher at Court especially for James I; vicar of an important London parish, St. Giles, Cripplegate; and a prebendary of St. Paul's Cathedral for fifteen years. He was also Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge for a similar period; a prebendary and then Dean of Westminster Abbey for a total of eight years; Almoner and Dean of the Royal Chapel and finally a bishop for twenty-two years. He therefore not only held influential positions but also ministered to many who held important positions of State. Yet his congregations came from all walks of life, apart from royalty, politicians and gentry, there were actors, artisans, musicians, students, common folk and clerics. Contemporaries admired his preaching and piety, and eagerly awaited the publication of his sermons. Whilst he was a prebendary of St. Pancras stall at St. Paul's he restored the ancient office of confessor. Accordingly, "especially in Lent time" he would "walk duly at certain hours, in one of the Iles of the Church, that if any came to him for spirituall advice and comfort, as some did, though not many, he might impart it to them."
So it is not surprising that for many in the seventeenth century Andrewes was considered the authority on worship, and so what he practised in his beautiful chapel, designed for Catholic worship, became their standard for the celebration of the Liturgy. As Andrewes was steeped in the teachings of the Fathers and the liturgies of both Eastern and Western churches it meant that in intention and form he followed the 1549 Prayer Book more than the 1559. His practice shaped the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637 (adopted by the American Episcopal Church in the 1789), and the reshaping of the Liturgy in the English Church in 1662. The 1662 Prayer Book, following Andrewes' practice, restored the rubrics for the manual acts at the offertory and consecration. Since then all Prayer Books compiled in various parts of the Anglican Communion are closer to the 1549 Prayer Book - a liturgy in Cranmer's eyes to be only a stop-gap, but for Andrewes it reflected the practices and beliefs of the Church for over a thousand years.
As a preacher Andrewes was highly esteemed by contemporaries and later generations. In modern times Eliot referred to Andrewes as "the first great preacher of the English Catholic Church" who always spoke as "a man who had a formed visible Church behind him, who speaks with the old authority and the new culture, whilst his sermons "rank with the finest English prose of their time, of any time." As well as teaching the Catholic faith according to the Fathers his sermons also reflected an appreciation of beauty as well as knowledge of commerce, trade, art, theatre, navigation, husbandry, science, astronomy, cosmography, fishing, nature, shipping, and even the new discoveries of the world.
But Andrewes himself would have said, as indeed he did to Sir Francis Walisingham, that his whole life and teaching were indebted to the Fathers, especially the Eastern. One has only to be reasonably familiar with the Fathers, to see how much of their teachings were preached by him. For example the Cappadocian Fathers on the Eucharist, the Trinity and Christology, Cyprian on prayer, Anselm on sin and Bernard on atonement.
There is no doubt therefore that Andrewes saw himself as standing in that long line of Christian tradition embedded in antiquity, and a part of the wonder and loveliness of creation. As Dean Church said of him: "He ... felt himself, even in private prayer, one of the great body of God's creation and God's Church. He reminded himself of it, as he did of the Object of his worship, in the profession of his faith. He acted on it in his detailed and minute intercessions." Indeed Andrewes was a man of prayer and learning whose preaching and piety was noted as far away as Venice. Each day of his life, from 4.am to noon was spent in prayer and study. It is a shame that very few Anglicans know anything about this most important divine during the Reformation period in England, or of their heritage. The period in which Andrewes lived was perhaps "the golden years" of what became known as Anglicanism.
____________
The darker side of the chief King James Bible translator, Lancelot Andrewes
One of the most amazing feats of history was the creation of the King James Version of the Bible in the years leading up to 1611. A committee of bickering scholars pulled together one of the two greatest works of English literature–great, at least, in their formative influence on the language and culture of English-speaking nations–with the other being the plays of Shakespeare.
The "lead mule" on this herculean project was perhaps the most brilliant man of his age, and one of the most pious, Lancelot Andrewes. A fascinating figure in his own right, Andrewes was not only a scholar and a spiritual man, but also a master of ecclesiastical politics. Like all people, he was not without flaws, and Adam Nicolson, author of God's Secretaries, looked unstintingly into those flaws as well as the greatness of the man. Here is some of what Nicolson discovered:
[You should know that a prebendary is a post connected to an Anglican or Catholic cathedral or collegiate church and is a type of canon. Prebendaries have a role in the administration of the cathedral. A prebend is a type of benefice, which was usually drawn from specific sources in the income from the cathedral estates.]
26 "By midsummer [1603], London under plague now looked, sounded, and smelled like a city at war. It was by far the worst outbreak England had known. Here now, grippingly, and shockingly, the first and greatest of the Bible Translators appears on the scene. It is not a dignified sight. Lancelot Andrewes was a man deeply embedded in the Jacobean establishment. [Jacobitism was a political movement in Great Britain and Ireland that aimed to restore the Roman Catholic Stuart King James II of England and his heirs to the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland.] He was forty-nine or fifty, Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge. He was also Dean of Westminster Abbey, a prebendary of St. Paul's Cathedral, drawing the income from one of the cathedral's manors, and of Southwell Minster, one of the chaplains at the Chapel Royal in Whitehall, who under Elizabeth had twice turned down a bishopric not because he felt unworthy of the honour but because he did not consider the income of the sees he was offered satisfactory. Elizabeth had done much to diminish the standing of bishops; she had banished them from court and had effectively suspended Edmund Grindal, the Archbishop of Canterbury whose severe and Calvinist views were not to her liking. Andrewes, one of the most astute and brilliant men of his age, an ecclesiastical politician who in the Roman Church would have become a cardinal, perhaps even pope, was not going to diminish his prospects simply to carry an elevated title."
26-7 "Andrewes plays a central role in the story of the King James Bible, and the complexities of his character will emerge as it unfolds—he is in many ways its hero; as broad as the great Bible itself, scholarly, political, passionate, agonized, in love with the English language, endlessly investigating its possibilities, worldly, saintly, serene, sensuous, courageous, craven, if not corrupt then at least compromised, deeply engaged in pastoral [27] care, generous, loving, in public bewitched by ceremony, in private troubled by persistent guilt and self-abasement—but in the grim realities of plague-stricken London in the summer of 1603, he appears in the worst possible light. Among his many positions in the church, he was the vicar of St Giles Cripplegate, just outside the old walls to the north of the city."
27 "The church was magnificent, beautifully repaired after a fire in 1545, full of the tombs of knights and aldermen, goldsmiths, physicians, rich men and their wives. The church was surrounded by elegant houses and the Jews' Garden, where Jews had been buried before the medieval pogroms, was now filled with 'fair garden plots and summer-houses for pleasure . . . some of them like Midsummer pageants, with towers, turrets and chimney-tops.'"
28 "Andrewes wasn't there. He had previously attended to the business of the parish, insisting that the altar rails should be retained in the church (which a strict Puritan would have removed), doubling the amount of communion wine that was consumed (for him, Christianity was more than a religion of the word) and composing a Manual for the Sick, a set of religious reassurances, beginning with a quotation from Kings: 'Set thy house in order, for thou shalt die.' And he certainly preached at St. Giles's from time to time. But throughout the long months of the plague in 1603, he never once visited his parish."
For the king to absent himself [to the country to avoid the plague] was only politic. But for the vicar of a parish to do so was another question."
28 "The mortality had spread to Westminster. In the parish of St Margaret, in which the Abbey and Westminster School both lie, dogs were killed in the street and their bodies burnt, month after month, a total of 502 for the summer. The outbreak was nothing like as bad as in Cripplegate, but Andrewes, who as dean was responsible for both Abbey and school, with its 160 pupils, was not to be found there either. He had ordered the college closed for the duration and had gone down himself to its 'pleasant [29] retreat at Chiswick, where the elms afforded grateful shade in summer and a 'retiring place' from infection'. He might well have walked down there, as he often did, along the breezy Thameside path through Chelsea and Fulham 'with a brace of young fry, and in that wayfaring leisure had a singular dexterity to fill those narrow vessels with a funnel'. He was lovely to the boys. 'I never heard him utter so much as a word of austerity among us,' one of his ex-pupils remembered. The Abbey papers still record the dean's request in July 1603 for 'a butler, a cooke, a carrier, a skull and royer' – these last two oarsmen for the Abbey boat – to be sent down to Chiswick with the boys. Richard Hakluyt, historian of the great Elizabethan mariners, and Hadrian à Saravia, another of the Translators, signed these orders as prebendaries of the Abbey. Here, the smallness of the Jacobean establishment comes suddenly into focus. Among the Westminster boys this summer, just eleven years old, was the future poet and divine George Herbert, the brilliant son of a great aristocratic family, his mother an intimate of John Donne's. From these first meetings in a brutal year, Herbert would revere and love Andrewes for the rest of his life. Meanwhile, in Cripplegate, the slum houses were boarded up, the poor died and in the streets the fires burned. Every new case of the disease was to be marked by the ringing of a passing bell down the street. Each death and burial was rung out too so that 'the doleful and almost universal and continual ringing and tolling of bells' marked the infected parishes. From far out in the fields, you could hear London mourning its dead. In the week of 16 September, the outbreak would peak at 3,037 dead. Proportionately, it was a scale of destruction far worse than anything during the Blitz."
29-30 "Was Andrewe's departure for Chiswick acceptable behavior? Not entirely. There was the example of the near-saintly Thomas Morton, one of John Donne's friends and the rector of Long Marston outside York, later a distinguished bishop, who, in the first flush of this plague epidemic as it attacked York in [30] the summer of 1602, had sent all his servants away, to save their lives, and attended himself to the sick and dying in the city pesthouse. Morton slept on a straw bed with the victims, rose at four every morning, was never in bed before ten at night, and travelled to and from the countryside, bringing in the food for the dying on the crupper of his saddle."
30 "Alongside this, Andrewes's elm-shaded neglect of the Cripplegate disaster looks shameful. While he was at Chiswick, he preached a sermon on 21 August that compounded the crime. 'The Rasor is hired for us,' he told his congregation, Hakluyt and Herbert perhaps among them, 'that sweeps away a great number of haires at once.' Plague was a sign of God's wrath provoked by men's 'own inventions', the taste for novelty, for specious newness, which was so widespread in the world. The very word 'plague' – and there is something unsettling about this pedantic scholarship in the face of catastrophe – came from the Latin plaga meaning 'a stroke'. It was 'the very handy-worke of God'. He admitted that there was a natural cause involved in the disease but it was also the work of a destroying angel. 'There is no evill but it is a sparke of God.' Religion, he said, was filled by Puritan preachers with 'new tricks, opinions and fashions, fresh and newly taken up, which their fathers never knew of'. The people of England now 'think it a goodly matter to be wittie, and to find out things our selves to make to our selves, to be Authors, and inventors of somewhat, that so we may seem to be as wise as God, if not wiser'. What could be more wicked than the idea of being an Author? Let alone wittie? Newness was the sin and novelty was damnable. 'That Sinn may cease, we must be out of love with our own inventions and not goe awhoring after them . . . otherwise, his anger will not be turned away, but his hand stretched out still.'"
30-1 "The educated, privileged and powerful churchman preaches his own virtue and ignores his pastoral duties, congratulating himself on his own salvation. The self-serving crudity of this [31] did not escape the attentions of the Puritans. If Andrewes sincerely believed that the plague was a punishment of sin and 'novelty', and if he was guiltless on that score, then why had he run away to Chiswick? Surely someone of his purity would have been immune in the city/ And if his pastoral duties led him to the stinking death pits of Cripplegate, as they surely did, why was he not there? Did Andrewes, in other words, really believe what he was saying about the omnipotent wrath of the Almighty?"
31 "In a way he didn't; and his hovering between a vision of overwhelming divine authority and a more practical understanding of worldly realities, in some ways fudging the boundaries between these two attitudes, reveals the man. Henoch Clapham, the angry pamphleteer, lambasted Andrewes in his Epistle Discoursing upon the Present Pestilence. All Londoners, Andrewes included, should behave as though plague was not contagious. Everybody should attend all the funerals. There was no need to run away. It was a moral disease. If you were innocent you were safe. And not to believe that was itself a sin. How innocent was Andrewes in running to save his own skin? Did the innocent require an elm-tree shade? Clapham was slapped into prison for asking these questions. To suggest that the Dean of Westminster was a self-serving cheat was insubordinate and unacceptable. Andrewes interrogated him there in a tirade of anger and attempted to impose on him a retraction. Clapham had to agree (in the words written by Andrewes):"
31 " 'That howsoever there is no mortality, but by and from a supernatural cause, so yet it is not without concurrence of natural causes also . . . That a faithful Christian man, whether magistrate or minister, may in such times hide or withdraw himself, as well corporeally as spiritually, and use local flight to a more healthful place (taking sufficient order for the discharge of his function).'"
31-2 "Clapham refused to sign this and stayed in prison for eighteen months until he finally came up with a compromise he could [32] accept: there were two sorts of plague running alongside each other. One, infectious, was a worldly contagion, against which you could take precautions. The other, not infectious, was the stroke of the Angel's hand. A pre-modern understanding of a world in which God and his angels interfered daily, in chaotic and unpredictable ways, was made to sit alongside something else: the modern, scientific idea of an intelligible nature. The boundary between the two, and all the questions of authority, understanding and belief which hang around it, is precisely the line which Andrewes had wanted to fudge."
32 "If this looks like the casuistry of a trimming and worldly churchman, there were of course other sides to him. Down at Chiswick, as throughout his life, the time he spent in private, about five hours every morning, was devoted almost entirely to prayer. He once said that anyone who visited him before noon clearly did not believe in God. The prayers he wrote for himself, first published after his death in 1648 as Preces Privatae, have for High Church Anglicans long been a classic of devotional literature. Andrewes gave the original manuscript to his friend Archbishop Laud. It was 'slubbered with his pious hands and watered with his penitential tears'. This was no rhetorical exaggeration: those who knew him often witnessed his 'abundant tears' as he prayed for himself and others. In his portraits he holds, gripped in one hand, a large and absorbent handkerchief. It was a daily habit of self-mortification and ritualized unworthiness in front of an all-powerful God, a frame of mind which nowadays might be thought almost mad, or certainly in need of counseling or therapy. But that was indeed the habit of the chief and guiding Translator of the King James Bible: 'For me, O Lord, sinning and not repenting, and so utterly unworthy, it were more becoming to lie prostrate before Thee and with weeping and groaning to ask pardon for my sins, than with polluted mouth to praise Thee.'"
32-3 "This was the man who was acknowledged as the greatest preacher of the age, who tended in great detail to the school children in his care, who, endlessly busy as he was, would nevertheless wait in the transepts of Old St Paul's for any Londoner in need of solace or advice, who was the most brilliant man in the English Church, destined for all but the highest office. There were few Englishmen more powerful. Everybody reported on his serenity, the sense of grace that hovered around him. But alone every day he acknowledged little but his wickedness and his weakness. The man was a library, the repository of sixteen centuries of Christian culture, he could speak fifteen modern languages and six ancient, but the heart and bulk of his existence was his sense of himself as a worm. Against an all-knowing, all-powerful and irresistible God, all he saw was an ignorant, weak and irresolute self:
33 " 'A Deprecation
33 " 'O Lord, Thou knowest, and canst, and willest
the good of my soul.
Miserable man am I;
I neither know, nor can, nor, as I ought
will it.'"
33 "How does such humility sit alongside such grandeur? It is a yoking together of opposites which seems nearly impossible to the modern mind. People like Lancelot Andrewes no longer exist. But the presence in one man of what seem to be such divergent qualities is precisely the key to the age. It is because people like Lancelot Andrewes flourished in the first decades of the seventeenth century – and do not now – that the greatest translation of the Bible could be made then, and cannot now. The age's lifeblood was the bridging of contradictory qualities. Andrewes embodies it and so does the King James Bible."
86 "At the same time, Bancroft began to hire the men for the great translation and here it was breadth and inclusiveness which dictated the choice. The first Westminster company, charged with translating the first books of the Bible, had Lancelot Andrewes, Dean of Westminster Abbey, as its director. He was known as 'the Angell in the pulpit', the man more versed in modern and ancient tongues than any other in England, who could serve, it was thought, as 'Interpreter-General' at the Day of Judgement, but he had other skills, and another track record, which confirmed him as a member of the core establishment and recommended him to Bancroft and the king."
86 "He had been used before in important political work, some fifteen years earlier when Bancroft was working for Whitgift rooting out the Separatist congregations in London. Andrewes, then in his mid-thirties and already recognized as the coming man, and as the cleverest preacher in England, could be relied on to do Bancroft's work for him. Highly detailed accounts survive of what Andrewes did for the ecclesiastical establishment: a representation, in other words, of what Bancroft would have known of him, the grounds on which he chose him as one of the principal Translators. Once again, it is not a dignified picture: his governing qualities are those of a man who knows how to exercise power."
86-7 "Through the second half of the 1580s, the more extreme Separatist puritans, who considered each congregation a self-sufficient church of Christ, became the target of a campaign led by Richard Bancroft. They were to be found in private houses all around London, holding private conventicles in which their [87] inspirational preachers were, it was reported to Bancroft, 'esteemed as godds'. Bancroft, who in another life would clearly have been an excellent detective, had his spies in place. As a central player in the Crown establishment, he would have had an array of inducements to hand: money, prospects, threats, the persuasive words of a man with access to power. Those tools gave him access to all kinds of secret meetings. 'After the Minister hath saluted everie one, both man and woman, at theire comynge into the Chamber with a kysse', one report of such a Separatist meeting described, shocked at its impropriety,"
87 " 'a large Table beinge prepared for the purpose (which holdeth fortie or fiftie persons) he taking the chayre at the end thereof, the rest sitt down everie one in order: . . . the Minister himself having received [communion] in both kyndes: the breade and the wyne which is left, passeth downe, and everye man without more a doe is his owne Carver.'"
87 "The state church could not tolerate the freedom or the priestlessness of such behavior. Many Separatists – and they were overwhelmingly young, idealistic people, a tiny minority, perhaps no more than a couple of hundred in England as a whole – fled to the Netherlands but others were arrested and, eventually, some fifty-two were held for long periods in the string of hideous London gaols [jails]: the Clink, the Gatehouse, the Fleet, Newgate, the Counter Woodstreet, the Counter Poultry, Bridewell and the White Lion, some of the prisoners shut in the 'most noisome and vile dungeons', without 'bedds, or so much as strawe to lye upon . . . and all this, without once producing them, to anie Christian trial where they might have place given them, to defend themselves'. One of them, the eighteen-year-old Roger Waters, was kept in irons for more than a year."
87-8 "Their leaders, honest, fierce men, the spiritual forebears of the future Massachusetts colonists, were to be interrogated (or 'conversed with' as Bancroft described it; the meetings were known among the Separatists themselves as 'Spanish conferences') [88] by the more brilliant and trustworthy members of the Church of England. Andrewes was at their head. Bancroft instructed him to interrogate Henry Barrow, the leading Separatist who had been arrested in 1587 and kept in the Fleet."
88 "Andrewes visited the gaol accompanied by another divine, William Hutchinson. Their descent into the Separatists' hell is a moment of sudden, film-like intensity, when the passionate realities of early modern England come starkly to life. The entire context of the King James Bible is dramatized in these prison meetings: holiness meets power, or at least one version of holiness meets another; the relative claims of society and the individual, and the legitimacy of those claims, clash; the individual conscience grates against the authority structures of an age which senses incipient anarchy at every turn and so is obsessed with order; the candid plays against the cynical, worldliness against a kind of stripped Puritan idealism; and the godly comes face to face with the political."
88-9 "With Barrow, in March 1590, Hutchinson and Andrewes began kindly. They were sitting in the parlour of the Fleet prison [89] (one of the better of the London prisons, 'fit for gentlemen')." Barrows expressed his desire " 'to obtain such conference where the Book of God might peaceably decide all our controversy'. That phrase, innocuous as it might sound, was salt in the eyes for Andrewes. It released a flood of hostile questions. All the issues of order and authority, the great political questions of the day, streamed out over his prisoner-conversant. 'Whie,' Andrewes said, 'the booke of God cannot speake, which way should that decide owr controversies?" That was the central question of the Reformation: did Christians not need a church to interpret God for them? Or could they have access to the godhead without help, with all the immediacy of the inspired? Barrow replied in the spirit of Luther: each soul could converse with God direct, unmediated by any worldly church, his thoughts and actions to be interpreted by the words of scripture itself."
89 " 'Dr Andrewes: But the spirits of men must be subject unto men, will you not subject your spirit to the judgment of men?
" 'Barrow: The spirit of the prophets must be subject to the prophets, yet must the prophets judge by the word of God. As for me I willingly submit my whole faith to be tried and judged by the word of God, of all men.
" 'Dr Andrewes: All men cannot judge, who then shal judge the Word?
" 'Barrow: The word, and let every one that judgeth take hede that he judge aright htereby; 'Wisdom is justified of her children.' (Matthew 11:19)"
89-90 "Andrewes thought he spotted error. 'This savorth of a pryvat spyrit,' he said. Nothing was more damning in his lexicon than that phrase. The privateness of the Puritan spirit was its defining sin, its arrogance and withdrawal in the face of communal and [90] inherited wisdom, treating the word of God, the scriptures, not as a common inheritance, whose significance could be understood only within the tradition that had grown and flowered around it, but as a private guidebook to a personal and selfish salvation. The heart of the Puritan error was that social divisiveness, that failure to join in, its stepping outside the necessity of order, its assumption that the Puritan himself was a member of God's elect, and the rest could look to the hindmost [look out for themselves]. How could a society be based on that predestinarian arrogance?Increasingly, for churchmen such as Andrewes [and here is the Establishment position], it seemed that the true church could only be inclusive, one in which God's grace would descend on believers not through some brutal predestinarian edict but through the sacraments, through the ceremony of the church."
[a paragraph cut out here]
90 "Barrow responded sharply. It was not a private spirit but 'the spirit of Christ and his Apostles'. They had been happy to be judged by the word of God and so was Barrow. This, for Andrewes, so crushingly aware of his own sin, was too much.
" 'Dr Andrewes: What, are you an apostle?
" 'Barrow: No, but I have the spirit of the apostles.
" 'Dr Andrewes: What, the spirit of the apostles?
91 " 'Barrow: Yea, the spirit of the apostles.
" 'Dr Andrewes: What, in that measure?
" 'Barrow: In that measure that God hath imparted unto me, though not in that measure that the apostles had, by anie comparison, yet the same spirit. There is but one spirit."
91 "That was not an unreasonable answer: God had blown his spirit into Adam, and it was acceptable to think that the life of men was a divine gift. But Andrewes, revealing himself here in a way he would rarely do later in life, curiously narrowed and harsh . . . clung to his hostility. They argued over the difference between a schism and a sect. Then, in an emblematic moment of the English Reformation, angry, impassioned, pedantic, scholarly, they called for a dictionary. The heretic and his interrogator pored together over the Greek-Latin Lexicon of Joannes Scapula (Basel, 1580) to try and sort out the etymologies of the two words, but they could come to no shared conclusion."
91-2 "Andrewes then uttered one of the most despicable remarks he ever made. Barrow said his imprisonment had been horrible. He had been there for three years and the loneliness of it, the sheer sensory deprivation, the nastiness of the conditions, had sunk him deep into depression. Andrewes's reply, witty, supercilious, a pastiche of the sympathetic confessor, is still shocking 400 years later: 'For close imprisonment', he told Barrow, 'you are most happie. The solitarie and contemplative life I hold the most blessed life. It is the life I would chuse.' It is Henry barrow, martyr to his beliefs, who emerges from this confrontation as the holy man. 'You speak philosophically,' he told Andrewes with some self-control, 'but not Christianly. So sweete is the harmonie of God's grace unto me in the congregation, and the conversation of the saints at all times, as I think my self as a sparrow on the house toppe when I am exiled thereby. But could you be content also, [92] Mr. Androes, to be kept from exercise and ayre so long together? These are also necessarie to a natural body.'"
92 "The poor man was lonely, longing for his friends and for a sight of the sky, from which the intolerance of the state had excluded him. Andrewes's breathtaking insouciance continued until the last. In conversation, he had used the word 'luck.' For fundamentalists [sic] such as Barrow, there was no such thing: all was ordained, everything from the death of a sparrow to the execution of a heretic was the working out of God's providence. Calvin had written, in a famous passage, that to believe in luck was a 'carnal' way to look at the world. Barrow told the departing Andrewes 'there was no fortune orluck. To prove luck [Andrewes] torned in my Testament to the 10 of Luke, verse 31, 'By chance there went down a certain priest that way.' And torned in a leafe upon the place, and as he was going out willed me to consider of it.'"
92 "That folded-down page of the Puritan's Bible, Andrewes's all-too-complacent knowledge of the scriptural text, 'the poor worne bodie' of the prematurely aged Barrow (he was about thirty-seven, a couple of years older than Andrewes) standing in the room, silenced by the rising self-congratulatory confidence of the young Master of Pembroke College, prebendary of St Paul's, vicar of St Giles Cripplegate, a candidate for the bishopric of Salisbury, sweeping out of the prison parlour door, with his departing quip, his patronizing flourish: could you ask for a more chilling indictment of established religion than that?"
92-3 "Three years later Barrow's life ended in execution, for denying the authority of bishops, for denying the holiness of the English Church and its liturgy and denying the authority over it of the queen. Andrewes saw him again on the eve of his death. The prisoner had been transferred to Newgate . . . and he was high on his impending martyrdom. He was reminded by one of those present of the Englishmen who had been martyred by the Roman Catholics in the reign of Queen [93 Mary for their defence of the very church which Barrow now denied. ' "These holy bonds of mine" he replied, (and therewith he shooke the fetters which he did wear) "are much more glorious than any of theirs."' Andrewes argued with him again over points in the Geneva Bible. Barrow would have none of it and he told his adversary that his 'time now was short unto this world, neyther were we to bestow it unto controversies'. He was finally executed early in the morning on 6 April at Tyburn, where the mallows and bulrushes were just sprouting in the ditches."
93-4 "Andrewes could put the knife in. What little one can judge from contemporary portraits – the Jacobean image is so much less revealing than the Jacobean word – shows a narrow and shrewd face, a certain distance in the eyes, as if the person had withdrawn an inch or two below the surface of the skin, but that surface was bien soigné [well washed, cleaned], a well-trimmed beard, a well-brushed moustache. He could look the church's adversaries in the eye, and he was clever enough to slalom around the complexities of theological dispute: not only a great scholar but a government man, aware of political realities, able to articulate the correct version of the truth. He was . . . useful for his extensive network of connections. It is clear that in 1604 he played a large part in selecting the men for his, and perhaps also for Barlow's, company. Several themes emerge: there is a strong Cambridge connection(Andrewes had been an undergraduate and fellow there and was still Master of Pembroke College); an emphasis on scholarly brilliance – more so than in the other companies; a clear ideological bent in choosing none who could be accused of Puritanism, however mild, and several who would later emerge as leading anti-Calvinists in the struggles of the 1620s; there was also a connection with Westminster Abbey, where ANdrewes had been appointed dean. . . . [94] In this marrying of leverage and discrimination, it is a microcosm of the workings of Jacobean England: the right men were chosen and part of their qualifications for being chosen was their ability to work the systems of deference and power on which the society relied."
94 "They met in the famous Jerusalem Chamber, the fourteenth-century room in what had been the abbot's lodgings at Westminster, where Henry IV had died; now it was part of Andrewes's deanery. It was where the chapter usually met, on which Andrewes had secured for his brother Nicholas the valuable post of registrar for life. Such nepotism was habitual and habitually condemned. Ten years before, Andrewes had preached at St Paul's (in Latin), lashing the indigent clergy for their corruption: 'You are extremely careful to enrich your own sons and daughters,' he had told them. 'You are so careful of the heirs of your flesh that you forget your successors.' One of the Translators, in the Cambridge company dealing with the central section of the Old Testament, was Andrewes's brother Roger. Judging by every other aspect of Roger's life we know of, he was almost certainly there on Lancelot's recommendation: when Lancelot had become Master of Pembroke, he made Roger a fellow; when he became Bishop of Chichester, he made Roger a prebendary, archdeacon and chancellor of the cathedral. When Lancelot moved on to Ely in 1609, Roger became a prebendary there and also Master of Jesus College, Cambridge, which was in the gift of the Bishop of Ely. At Jesus, Roger was not a success. He argued with the fellows, neglected the financial affairs of the college and was finally sacked in 1632 for stealing college funds. Meanwhile, when in 1616 his saintly brother was translated to Winchester, the richest see in England, Roger received another prebend there."
Works by Lancelot Andrewes
Devotions of Bishop Andrewes. Vol. I
Bishop Andrewes was one of the foremost Biblical scholars of his time. He also was one of the translators of the King James Version of the Bible and was King James' favorite preacher. The Devotions of Bishop Andrewes was originally entitled, Preces Privatae, which translates to "Private Devotions." They are the private, intimate prayers of a very public and pious man. Andrewes was not motivated to write these devotions out of a desire to publish them. These devotions were written from Andrewes' heart out of love and devotion for our Lord. Andrewes is said to have spent five hours in prayer every day. Included in the collection are devotions for the morning and evening that he employed during his time alone with God.
_________
HISTORY OF THE ANDREWS FAMILY, a Genealogy of Robert Andrews and his derscendants 1635 to 1890 by H. Franklin Andrews, Attorney at Law
Audubon, Iowa
William E. Brinkerhoff 1890
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1890. by
H. FRANKLIN ANDREWS, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
RECEIVED
JAN 17 1893
WIS. HISTORICAL SOC;
We should hardly do justice to the family history, if we omitted to refer to Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, D. D. and will quote from his biography:
Lancelot Andrews, D. D., Bishop of Winchester, one of the most illustrious of the prelates of England, was born in 1555 in Thames street, Allhallows, Barking, London. His father Thomas, was of the ancient family of the Suffolk Andrewes; in his later years he became master of Trinity House.
Lancelot was sent while a mere child to the Cooper's Free School, Ratcliff, in the parish of Stepney. From this the youth passed to Merchant Taylor's School, then under the celebrated Richard Mulcaster. In 1571 he was entered at Pembroke College, Cambridge. He was here one of the first four scholars upon the foundation of Dr. Thomas Watts, successor of the venerable* Nowell. Contemporaneously he was appointed to a scholarship in Jesus College, Oxford, at the request of the founder (Dr. Price), by Queen Elizabeth. In 1574-5, he took his degree of B. A. ; in 1576 he was chosen to a fellowship at his college; in 1578 he proceeded M. A. ; in 1580 he was ordained, and in the same year his name appears as junior treasurer; in 1581 he was senior treasurer, and on July 11 was incorporated M. A. at Oxford.
On passing M. A. he was appointed catechist in his college and read letters upon the Decalogue, afterward published causing a furor of interest far and near, as his first quaint biographer Isaacson tells. The notes of these lectures printed in 1642, authenticate themselves; later editions have been suspiciously enlarged, and otherwise altered for the worse.
The notes are historically valuable and inportant, inasmuch as with Bishops Jewell and Bilson, he teaches in them, that Christ is offered in a sacrament, that is, his offering represented and a memory of his passion celebrated.
Nothing can be more definite or emphatic than Andrewes' repudiation of a real external sacrifice in the bread and wine.
From the university Andrewes went into the North by invitation of Henry Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon, lord president of the North. In 1585 he is again found at Cambridge taking his degree of B. D. In 1588 he succeeded Crowley in the vicarage of St. Giles, Cripplegate. Here he delivered his most penetrative and striking sermons on the Temptation in the wilderness, and the Lord's Prayer—the former published in 1592, the latter in 1611. In a great sermon on April 10, Easter week, 1588, he most effectively, and with burning eloquence, vindicated the Protestantism of the Church of England against the Eomanists. It sounds oddly to have "Mr. Calvin" adduced herein and elsewhere as a new writer, with lavish praise and affection. Passing other ecclesiastical advancements, Andrewes was preferred by Grindal, at the suit of Walsingham, lo the prebendary stall of St. Pancras in St. Paul1s, London, in 1589. The prebendary had "the courage of his opinions," for Sir John Harington records that Sir Francis Walsingham his patron, having laboured to get him to maintain certain points of ultra- Puritanism, he refused, having, as the garalous knight, in his State of the Church of England, cunningly remarks, "too much of the AvSpoS. in him to be scared with a councillor1s frown or blown aside with his breath," and accordingly answered him plainly, that "they were not only against his learning, but his conscience." On September 6, 1589, he succeeded Fulke as master of his own college of Pembroke, being at the time, one of the chaplains of Archbishop Whitgift. His mastership of Pembroke was a success in every way. In 1589-90, as one of the twelve chaplains of the queen, he preached before her, a singularly outspoken sermon (March 4, 1590). In this year, on October 13, he preached his introductory lecture at St. Paul's upon undertaking to comment upon the first four chapters of Genesis. These form part of the Orphan Lectures, of the folio of 1657, than which there is no richer contribution to the theological literature of England, notwithstanding the imperfection of the notes in some cases. He was an incessant worker as well as preacher. He delighted to move among the people, and yet found time to meet with a society of antiquaries, whereof Raleigh, Sidney, Burleigh, Arundel, the Herberts, Saville, Stow, and Camden, were members. What by his often preaching testifies Isaacson, at St Gile's, and his no less often reading in St Paul's, he became so infirm that his friends despaired of his life. His charities were lavish, and yet discriminative.
The dearth of 1594 exhibits him as another Joseph in his care for the afflicted and poor of "the Israel of God." In 1595 appeared The Lambeth Articles, a landmark in our national church history. Andrewes adopted the doctrine of St Augustine as modified by Aquinas. Philosophically, as well as theologically, his interpretations of these deep things remain a permanent advance in theological-metaphysical thought. In 1598 he declined offers of the two bishoprics of Ely and Salisbury, his "noloepiscopari" resting on an intended alienation of the lands attached to these sees. On Nov. 23, 1600, was preached at Whitehall his memorable sermon on Justification, around which surged a controversy that is even now unspent. The preacher maintained the evangelical view as opposed to the sacerdotal.
On July 4, 1691, he was appointed Dean of Westminster,and his sedulousness over the renowned school is magnified by Bishop Hacket in his Life of Archibishop Williams. On July 25, 1603, Andrewes assisted at the coronation of James I. In 1604 he took part in the Hampton Court Conference, and better service, was one of the committee to whom we owe our authorised version of Holy Scripture. The Dean frequently preached before the king, and his majesty's own learning, given him by George Buchanan, made him a sympathetic hearer.
Many of these sermons are memorable from their results and place in our eclesiastical history. In 1605 he was appointed, after a third declinature, bishop of Chichester. In 1609 he published his Tortura Torti, in answer to Bellarmine's Matthceus Tortus. This work is one of many born of the gunpowder plot and related controversies. It is packed full of learning, and yet the argument moves freely. Nowhere does Audrewes' scholarship cumber him. It is as a coat of mail, strong but mobile. In this same year he was transferred from Chichester to Ely. His studiousness here was as intent as before. He again assailed Bellarmine in his Responsio ad Apol- ogiam, a treatise never answered. From 1611 to 1618 Andrewes is to be traced as a preacher and controversialist in season and out of season. In 1617 he attended the king to Scotland. In 1618 he was translated to the see of Winchester. In this year he proceeded to the Synod of Dort. Upon his return he became in word and deed a model bishop, while in every prominent ecclesiastical event of the period he is seen in the front, but ever walking in all beauty of modesty and benignity. His benefactions were unprecedented. His learning made him the equal friend of Grotious, and of the foremost contemporary scholars.
His preaching was unique for its combined rhetorical splendor and scholarly richness, and yet we feel that the printed page poorly represents the preaching. His piety was that of an ancient saint, semi-ascetic and unearthly in its self-denial, but rooted in a deep and glowing love for his Lord. No shadow rests on his beautiful and holy life. He died Sept. 25, 162(5, and the leaders in church and state mourned for him as for a father. Brittanica. ]
Walter records this of him; Neal, bishop of Durham, and bishop Andrewes were standing together behind the king's chair at dinner, when king James turned to them and said "My lords, can not I take my subjects' money when I want it without all this formality in parliament?" bishop Neal readily answered, "God forbid, sire, but you should, you are the breath of our nostrils." The king then turned to bishop Andrewes; "Well, my lord, and what say you?" "Sir," said Andrewes, "Ihave no skill to judge of parliamentary cases." The king answered, *'No put offs, my lord, answer me immediately." "Then sir," said he, "I think it lawful for you to take my brother Neal's money, for he offers it."
King James had such a veneration for this excellent prelate that he refrained from all levity in his presence. He was made a privy councilor by king James I, and was in no less esteem with king Charles I. His was a life of prayer, a great portion of five hours every day was spent in the exercise of devotion.
his last sickness he continued, while awake, to pray audibly, till his strength failed; and then by lifting his eyes, he showed that he still prayed. He was a patron of learning, being master of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, beside fifteen modern languages. He had brothers, Thomas, and Nicholas. — [Andrews Memorial. ]
This great man lived in the reigns of three sovereigns of England; queen Elizabeth, and kings James I, and Charles I, with whom he was personally acquainted. He died only two years before the organization of the Mass. Bay Company. The subject of colonization had been agitated for years prior to that time. It is very probable that one of his charitable nature would have been actively interested in the subject, which may have influenced his kindred to emigrate to America.
__________
Annals of St. Mary Overy; an historical & descriptive account of St. Saviour's church & parish William Taylor 1/1833
Lora Tatum: "According to the "Annals of Saint Mary Overy" written by William Taylor in 1833, book two of the parochial registries states that Mr. Nicholas Andrewes, "the Bishops Brother", was buried at what is now the Southwark Cathedral on August 12, 1626. In the same book is the burial record for Lancelott Andrewes, "Lord Bishop of Winton" on November 11, 1626, also at the Southwark Cathedral."
Before transcribing portions of the book, the following history of the Cathedral is helpful:
Southwark Cathedral
The Cathedral and Collegiate Church of Saint Saviour and Saint Mary Overy, Southwark
A church has stood on the site of Southwark Cathedral for over 1,000 years. In 606 a convent was established on the south bank of the River Thames at the place from which the ferry used to cross over to the City of London. In 1106 an Augustinian Priory was established under the Normans and some Norman stonework can still be seen at the west end and north side. It has the distinction of being the first 'gothic' church to be built in London and much of that early work can still be seen in the choir and retro-choir of the present church (1212). The Augustinian canons ministered to pilgrims and travellers, to the sick and the needy of the area and the Word of God was faithfully preached and the sacraments celebrated. As part of their ministry, the Hospital of St Thomas was established (now located opposite the Houses of Parliament). In 2006 the Cathedral celebrated 1400 years of Christian witness and service.
Following the Reformation, the church was sadly neglected but the gospel continued to be faithfully preached and the people of the parish cared for and taught. A parish school - now the Cathedral School - was opened in 1704 following in the work already established in schools founded from the parish under a charter from Queen Elizabeth I. A new nave was built in 1890. By the end of the 19th century, a new Diocese was needed to cater for the growing population of south London and Surrey. In 1905 the church became Southwark Cathedral, the mother church of the new Diocese of Southwark. ...
A new nave was built in 1890. By the end of the 19th century, a new Diocese was needed to cater for the growing population of south London and Surrey. In 1905 the church became Southwark Cathedral, the mother church of the new Diocese of Southwark.
The life, diversity and character of the area are revealed in the tombs and monuments within the church. Among them is that of John Gower (c. 1330-1408), poet and friend of Chaucer, whose Canterbury Tales begin in Southwark. Across the nave is a memorial to William Shakespeare, who spent much of his life in Southwark, and above it, a stained glass window depicting scenes from his plays. Edmund Shakespeare, John Fletcher and Philip Massinger are all buried in the Cathedral. Lancelot Andrewes, who translated the first five books of the Bible into English, is buried by the High Altar. He is a founding father of the Church of England. In the grounds is buried Mahomet, Chief of the Mohegan Tribe from New England and a memorial to him can be found in the churchyard. In 1607 John Harvard was born in the parish of St Saviour and on 29th November of that year was baptised in the church. These events and Harvard's subsequent emigration to the new colonies in America and the founding of what we now know as Harvard University, began a strong link between the Cathedral and the people of the United States of America that continues to develop and which was celebrated in 2007, the 400th anniversary year of John Harvard's birth. In the grounds is buried Mahomet, Chief of the Mohegan Tribe of New England, USA and in November 2006, Her Majesty The Queen unveiled a lasting memorial to him in the presence of the present day members of the Tribe.
The Cathedral today Situated on the south bank of the River Thames adjacent to London Bridge in the heart of a burgeoning business community.
THE BOOK
Annals of St. Mary Overy; an historical and descriptive account of St. Saviour's church and parish William Taylor January 1, 1833
Page 100
In this aisle are also Monuments to the memory of— "
PAGE 101
We next entered the "Ladye Chapel" where we found several persons assembled, who were examining with considerable interest the recently discovered coffin of Bishop Andrewes.
"How fortunate," said my companion, "that our visit should have been paid at so interesting a moment; admiring, as I do, the character and writings of this excellent prelate, I would not on any account have missed the opportunity of seeing this last home of his mortality. A rude casket this to contain so bright a gem! But, I have seen the velvet coffin with its glittering studs, surrounded by the costly trappings of funereal splendour, the sable plumes, and blazoned heraldry, with less emotion far, than that which now I feel."
The accompanying sketch was made at the time, together with the following memoranda:
The removal of the little chapel which stood eastward of the Lady Chapel, having been determined on, the workmen commenced their labour by taking down the monument of Bishop Andrews; entombed in which they found the prelate's coffin, in an excellent state of preservation, it having been closely bricked up in an arch, as shewn on the plate. It is formed of lead, and bears the initials " L A" on the lid ; attached to it is a massive iron frame work with large rings at the head and foot. It rested on a cross of brick-work, the foot of the coffin, on the upper part of the cross, which was placed eastward. The whole has been carefully removed and re-erected in the Lady Chapel, at the back of the altar screen.
I endeavoured to draw the attention of the Antiquary to the architectural beauty of the place, but he was too much engaged in the contemplation of the interesting object before him; let us enter into his feelings, and briefly view the illustrious character of the pious prelate.
He was born in London, A. D. 1555, in the parish of Allhallows Barking, of religious parents; his father during a large portion of his life was a mariner, but was afterwards a member and master of Trinity House. He was descended from an ancient family in Suffolk of the same name.
So great an aptitude did he evince, even in childhood, for learning, that his two first school masters, " Master Ward " and "Master Mulcaster," foreseeing the result, are said to have contended for the honour of his breeding. From Master Ward, master of the Coopers' Free School in RadclifFe, he was sent to Master Mulcaster, master of the Merchant Tailors' Free School, where he soon took the lead of all the other scholars, making such progress in the Greek and Hebrew languages, as recommended him to the notice of Thomas Wattes, D. D. prebend and residentiary of St. Pauls and arch deacon of Middlesex, who, having founded some scholarships at Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, bestowed the first upon him.
Here we soon find him contending with Thomas Dove (afterwards Lord Bishop of Peterborough), who was also eminent for his talent, for a fellowship which he gained. In the mean while, Hugh Price having built Jesus College, in Oxford, hearing of his fame, named him in his foundation as one of its first fellows. It was his custom to spend one month annually, with his parents, but even this was devoted also to the attainment of the knowledge of some language or art which he had not yet learned. He preferred, as a recreation, studying alone (or with some selected companion), the sublime beauties of creation, to participating in the ordinary amusement of his day.
PAGE 103
After he had been some time Master of Arts, he applied himself to the study of Divinity with such effect, that being chosen Catechist in the College, and purposing to read the ten commandments every Saturday and Sunday, at 3 o'Clock afternoon, that being the hour of catechising, divers persons, not only out of the other colleges, but from the country also, re sorted thither as to a Public Divinity Lecture.
Henry, Earl of Huntingdon, hearing of his fame, sent for him, and thought himself much honoured by his accompanying him into the north, whereof he was president, and where his preaching converted many, recusants, priests, and others, to the protestant religion.
Sir Francis Walsingham, Secretary of State to Queen Elizabeth, also took especial notice of his abilities, and was the means of preferring him to the Vicarage of St. Giles' Without Cripplegate, London; he was afterwards (through the interest of Sir Francis) Prebendary and Residentiary of St. Pauls, and Prebend of the Collegiate Church of Southwell. His labours at this time were incessant, preaching at St. Giles', and reading at St. Pauls, he became so infirm that his friends despaired of his life.
He was afterwards elected master of Pembroke Hall, a place of much credit but little benefit, on which he spent more than he received by it.
He was Chaplain to Queen Elizabeth, who was so much delighted with his piety and zeal, that she first made him Prebend and afterwards Dean of Westminster. Her successor, King James, selected him as his choicest advocate to vindicate his regality against his adversaries, and be stowed upon him the Bishopric of Chichester, which he held about four years, he also made him Lord Almoner, and soon after added the Parsonage of Cheam, in Surrey, to his commendam.
He was afterwards Bishop of Ely during nine years, in which time he was made Privy Counsellor, first of England, then of Scotland in his
PAGE 104
attendance upon the King thither. He was afterwards preferred to the Bishopric of Winchester and the Deanery of the King's Chapel, which pre ferments he held to his death, which happened about eight years after, in the reign of King Charles, with whom he was as great a favourite as with his father before him : all these honours having been conferred on him without any effort on his part for their attainment.
He was singularly pious and devout both in his private prayers and public services : so reverend and holy was his deportment, and that of his family, at the monthly communions held in his chapel, that those who were accidentally present at the service, often expressed a desire to end their days in the Bishop of Ely's Chapel.
He was eminently charitable during his life, clothing the poor, relieving the sick, and administering to the various wants of suffering humanity; and at his death, leaving by his will various sums for similar purposes. He left Four thousand pounds to purchase Two hundred pounds land per Ann., for ever, to be distributed by fifty pounds quarterly, as follows : — To aged poor men and decayed, especially sea-faring men, fifty pounds ; to poor widows, the wives of one husband, fifty pounds ; to the binding of poor orphans apprentices, fifty pounds ; and to the relief of poor prisoners, fifty pounds.
He also left Two hundred pounds to be distributed immediately after his decease, among maid-servants of honest report who had served one master or mistress seven years.
In all the offices which he filled, he evidently conducted himself as the steward of God, and as one who was to give an account of the important trust committed to him.
He was careful to keep in good repair the houses of all his spiritual preferments, and spent much money in that way.
PAGE 105
He was exceedingly anxious that the ministerial offices should be filled by men eminent for piety and learning, and to effect this, sought for and patronized humble merit : such persons he would send for without their knowing why, entertain them at his house and confer the preferment upon them, defraying all the incidental charges for a dispensation, or a faculty, and even of their very journey: the same principle was also observed in the election of scholars who were to be sent from the Free Schools to the University, here disregarding all letters from great personages in favour of insufficient scholars, he was careful to select the possessors of merit.
As Almoner he was remarkable for his fidelity, keeping more exact account of this trust than of his own affairs.
He was grateful to all from whom he had received benefits, particularly to those who had the care of his early education.
That he was liberal is evident from the magnificent reception and entertainment which he gave to King James, when that Prince visited him at Farnham Castle, on which occasion he spent three thousand pounds in three days. He was also eminent for his hospitality to scholars and strangers, committing to his attendants the care of making liberal provision for such, and joining them at dinner with such amiable deportment, that his guests would often profess that they never came to any man's table where they received better satisfaction in all points, and that his Lordship kept Christmas all the year round.
He was through the various periods from childhood to old age, indefatigable in study, to which with the exception of two or three hours which he cheerfully spent with his guests after dinner, he devoted his time. By his industry he had attained to the knowledge of fifteen tongues if not more; it has been jocosely said in reference to his knowledge of languages, that had he lived at the time, he might almost have served as interpreter
PAGE 106
general at the confusion of tongues. Yet he was modest withal ; let one instance of this suffice, when preferred by King James to the Bishopric of Chichester he pleaded his imperfections and insufficiency to undertake such a charge, and caused to be engraven about the seal of his Bishopric, those words of St. Paul, " et ad hcec quis idoneus ? " (and who is sufficient for these things ?)
He generally hated all vices, but three more especially, Usury, Simony, and Sacrilege. The Sanctity of his manners is said to have awed the mirth and levity of King James while in his presence.
Such was the character of this amiable prelate, that biographers appear to have exhausted the vocabulary for words to express his many virtues. As his life was exemplary so was his death ; twelve months before that event he seemed conscious of its approach, and applied himself incess antly to prayer and humiliation before God whom he earnestly longed to see. Towards the close of his life the manuscript of his " Private Devotions " was scarcely ever out of his hands ; it was found worn in pieces by his fingers and wet with his tears. He closed his useful life at Winchester House, on the 25th day of September, 1626, in the 71st year of his age.
His remains were entombed in a splendid monument which stood in a little chapel eastward of the Lady Chapel, the entrance to which is shown in the interior view of the Lady Chapel ; at his funeral, he having been a great benefactor to the Parish, the inhabitants honoured the solemnity by hanging the Church and Chancel with 165 yards of baize. The house mourners made an offering, and Mr. Archer one of the chaplains re ceived £11. 17s. 7d., which he paid to the wardens as their due, but they handsomely returned it to him and Mr. Micklethwaite (the other chaplain). It is worthy of passing remark that his lordship's steward was also buried here on the same day, as appears by an entry in the parish registry.
PAGE 107
His Funeral Sermon was preached in St. Saviour's Church, by the Right Rev. John, Lord Bishop of Ely, on Saturday the 11th of November, 1626, from Hebrews, 13th chapter and 16th verse: "To do good, and to distribute forget not : for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." This was six weeks after his death, and from an expression in the sermon we may collect that it was preached over the remains of the Bishop : it has already been stated that the coffin was found entombed in the monument, not buried ; the time necessary for preparing the monument for the reception of the remains, may probably account for the unusual length of the intervening space between the time of his death, and the preaching of his funeral sermon*
The monument of the Bishop as it now appears is in fact but a part of the original erection; there was then a fair canopy supported by black marble pillars, and an elegant epitaph written by his lordship's domestic chaplain, these were destroyed by the falling in of the roof in 1676, when the chapel received considerable injury by a fire. The restoration of the canopy and original epitaph, whether we view it as a matter of taste, or as a mark of respect for the memory of this virtuous prelate, would be highly creditable to the parish. The epitaph was as follows:
"LECTOR. SI CHRISTIANUS ES, SISTE: MORJE PRETIUM KBIT, RON NESCIBB TE, QUI VIR HIC SITUS SIT. EJUSDEM TECUM CATHOLICS ECCLESI* MEMBRUM, SUB EADEM FELICIS RESURRECTIONIS SPE, EANDEM D. JESU PR^ESTOLAXS EPIPHANIAM, SACBATISSIMUS ANTISTES, LANCELOTUS ANDREWES, LONDINI ORIUN- DUS, EDUCATUS CANTABRIGI* AVLM PEMBROCH : ALUMNORUM, SOCIORUM, PRiEFECTORUM UNUS, ET NEMIM SECUNDUS . LINGUARUM, ARTIUM, SCIENTIARUM, HUMANORUM, DIVINORUM OMNIUM INFINITUS THESAURUS, STUPENDUM ORACULUM; ORTHODOX* CHRISTI ECCLESI* DICTIS, SCRIPTIS, PRECIBUS, EXEMPLO . INCOM PARABLE PROPAGNACULUM : REGIN* ELIZABETH* A SACRIS, D. PAULI LONDINI RESIDENTIARIUS, D. PETRI WESTMONAST. DECANUS, EPISCOPUS CICESTRENSIS, ELIENSIS, WINTONIENSIS, REGIQUE JACOBO TUM AB ELEEMOSYNIS, TUM AB UTR1USQUE REGNI CONSILIIS, DECANUS DENIQUE SACELLI REGII . IDEM
______
* In Moss' History of St. Saviour's Church, it is stated that " he was buried the 27ih of Sep tember, six days after his decease," this is certainly an error; Henry Isaacson, his friend and amanuensis, who wrote his life, says he died the 25th of September, and his funeral sermon it appears was preached the 11th of November, as above stated, which agrees with the entry in the parish registry, which states that he was buried the 11th of November, 1G26.
PAGE 108
EX INDEFESSA OPERA IN STUDIIS, SUMMA SAPIENTIA IN REBUS, ASSIDUA PIETATE IN DEUM, PROFUSA LARGITATE IN EGENOS, RARA AM.SNITATE IN SUOS, SPECTATA PROBITATE IN OMNES, iETERKUM ADMI- RANDUS : ANNORUM PARITER, ET PUBLICS FAMfi SATUR, SED HONORUM PASSIM OMNIUM CUM LUCTU DE- NATUS, CC3LEBS HINC MIGRAVIT AD AUREOLAM CC2LESTEM, ANNO REGIS CAROLI II0. JETATIS SU.fi LXXI°. CHRI6TI MDCXXVI0. TANTUM EST, LECTOR, QUOD TE M(ERENTES POSTERI NUNC VOLEBANT, ATQUE UT EX VOTO TUO VALEAS DICTO SIT DEO GLORIA."
TRANSLATION
" Reader, if thou art a Christian, stay; it will be worth thy tarrying, to know how great a man lies here. A member of the same Catholic Church with thyself, under the same hope of a happy resur rection, and in expectation of the same appearance of our Lord Jesus, the most holy Bishop Lancelot Andrewes ; bom at London, educated at Cambridge, at Pembroke Hall, one of the Scholars, Fellows, and Masters of that Society, and inferior to none : an infinite treasure, an amazing oracle of languages, arts and sciences, and every branch of human and divine learning : an incomparable bulwark of the Orthodox Church of Christ, by his conversation, writings, prayers and example.
"He was Chaplain in ordinary to Queen Elizabeth; Residentiary of St. Paul's, in London; Dean of St. Peter's, Westminster ; Bishop, first of Chichester, then of Ely, and lastly of Winchester ; Almoner to King James, Privy Counsellor of both kingdoms, and Dean of the Royal Chapel. He merits eternal admiration, for his indefatigable application to his studies, his consummate experience and skill in business, his constant piety towards God, his liberality and charity to the poor, his uncommon affability and humanity to those about him, and his unshaken integrity towards all. Full of years and reputation, to the regret of all good men, he died a bachelor, and exchanged this life for a crown of glory, in the second year of King Charles^ the seventy-first of his age, and that of Christ, 1626. Reader^ farewell, and give glory to God."
He has left abundant evidence of his industrious application and study in his numerous works, among which are the following:
He has left abundant evidence of his industrious application and study in his numerous works, among which are the following:
"Ninety-six Sermons on various occasions, chiefly suited to the festivals and fasts of the Church of England.
"A Manual of Private Devotions, and Meditations for every day in the Week.
"A Manual of directions for the Visitation of the Sick. — An Exposition of the Ten Commandments. — Posthumous and Orphan Lectures preached in St. Giles* and St. Paul's Church. — Holy Devotions, with direc tions to pray. — His Opera Posthuma. Concioad Clerum pro gradu Doctoris. Ad Clerum in Synodo Provinciali coram Rege habita V° August, 1606. In discessu Palatini XIII0 April, 1613. Theologica determinatio de Jurejurando. De Usuris. De Decimis. — Responsiones ad 3 Epistolas Petri Molieni. — An
PAGE 109
Answer to the 18 and 20cc. of Cardinal Perous' reply. — A Speech in the Star Chamber against Master Thaske. — Another there concerning Vows, in the Countess of Shrewsbury's Case. — Responsio ad Forti librum, ad Apologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini.
"There are also several controversial tracts of this learned Prelate's extant. He had also a part in the translation of the Bible, from Genesis to the second book of Kings.
In the introduction to the Archaeologia is the name of Lancelot Andrews, as one of the earliest members of the Antiquarian Society, he was elected a member in 1604.
In the hall of Pembroke College, Cambridge, there is a painting of Bishop Andrewes, with his armorial bearings: date 1618, and several portraits of him have been engraved; but by far the best is that which appeared as a frontispiece to his sermons, J. Payne Fecit, 1635, the others appear to be copies of this.
Before quitting this subject, I feel it a duty to contradict a statement which appears in " Cassan's Lives of the Bishops of Winchester," and also in a modern edition of " Bishop Andrewes' Meditations, &c." it is as follows, " Not many years ago, his (the Bishop's) bones were dispersed to make room for some corpse : and the hair of his beard and a silken cap were found, undecayed, in the remains of the coffin." That remains were discovered as above described, is very probable, but certainly they were not the remains of Bishop Andrewes, whose eoffin was found undisturbed when the tomb was removed, and has been very properly replaced without mo lestation, in its little cell as before. In this Chapel stand the two Stone Coffins* engraved on the plate of " Priory Remains, SfC." figures 9 and 10. They appear to be of considerable antiquity, but as the lids are wanting, it is
PAGE 110
difficult to form an opinion as to their age, the shallowness of them would suggest the idea that the lids were hollow, so that they were probably of the prismatic form, which would carry them back to a very early period. We have no account of the discovery of them, but they were probably found when the church was paved, as they were seldom placed at any great depth. Stone coffins occur as early as the year 695, and were not quite obsolete before the reign of Henry VIII.
"Memento mori," said Antiquarius, (whose attention was arrested by the cadaverous figure represented on the plate of Sepulchral Remains, fig. 2,) " now were we not in the church, I would venture a wager that you have some marvellous legend concerning this grim personage." -
"You are right," quoth I, " for tradition says this is the veritable effigy of 0X0 3J0f)tt ©ilftg, the father of the foundress of the Church ; though unfortunately for the story, such monuments were not in fashion till some centuries after the time that gentleman lived, if such a being ever existed. There is a curious tract in the British Museum entitled ' The true History of the Life and sudden Death of Old John Overs, the rich Ferry sudden Death of Old John Overs, the rich Ferryman of London, shewing how he lost his Life by his own Covetousness. And of his Daughter Mary, who caused the Church of St. Mary Overs in Southwark to be built; and of the Building of London Bridge.' and a rare story it is, believe me." "I see" said the old gentleman "you long to tell it, so let's have it ?" and he seated himself with all the composure of a genuine antiquary, to hear it patiently. "The tract opens at considerable length with a statement of the nature of the sin of covetousness, and an exhortation to the reader to avoid that error. It then proceeds to illustrate the subject by the case of John Obers a ferry-man, who, before there was any bridge, ferryed the good folks of old 'betwixt Southwark and Church-yard alley, that being the high road way betwixt Middlesex and Sussex, and London: 'it then goes on to state how he gat marvellous riches thereby; that he kept many servants, ' yet was of so covetous a mind, that he would not even in his old age, spare his own weak body, nor abate anything of his unnecessary labour, only to save the charges.' Having described his character, it proceeds to relate that he had an only Daughter, 'of a beautiful aspect, and pious disposition, that he had care to see her well and liberally educated, though at the cheapest rate, that he would not allow any man, of what condition or quality soever, (by his good will) to have a sight of her, much less the least access to her ; that a young gallant took the advantage of the opportunity when he was picking up his penny fares, to be admitted into her company ; that the first interview pleased well, the second better, and the third concluded the match ; and how in all this interim, the poor silly old ferry-man, not dreaming of any such passages as are before spoken of but thinking all things as secure by land as he knew tliey were by water, continued in his former course, (which was as near as lean relate to you J in this manner following.' It then goes on to state a variety of his penu rious habits, such as feeding his servants on black puddings, when that commodity was sold at a penny a yard London measure, yet even begrudging that, saying when he gave them their allowance, ' Jiere you hungry rogues, you will undo me with eating,' — That he kept no cats, as the rats and mice voluntarily left the house, for there were no fragments or crumbs left by the servants to feed them, &c. — But now comes the tragedy: it occurred to him, (careful soul) that if he could for one day counterfeit himself to be sick, and the next day to die, his loving family would not, of course, be so unman nerly or unnatural as to taste any food 'till they had consigned him to his parent earth, purposing however to revive, and recover the next morning;
PAGE 112
his amiable daughter like a good child, consented to her father's scheme, and so he was laid out for dead : but alas ! how are our best plans often frustrated ; no sooner had the old gentleman screwed his countenance into a decent sort of a sepulchral aspect, and a light been placed at his head and another at his feet, as was the custom of those days, than his 'prentices and servants rejoiced at the event, began to caper and dance about the corpse ; and worse than all, that one ran into the kitchen and brought the brown loaf, a second brought the 1 Essex Cheese,' a third drew a ' Black Jack of the Four Shilling Beer,' &c— but flesh and blood could not endure all this, he rose up in his sheet with a candle in each hand, and would have rated them for their boldness, when one of them supposing it to be his ghost, or some other supernatural visitant, seized a broken oar and sent him who had so often ferryed others, himself a fate for old Charon.
" His daughter's lover who was in the country, hearing the news hastened, to come to London, but alas ! with more haste than good speed, for riding post, in his hurry he brake his neck : poor Mary, overpowered with the accumulation of ills, would fain have gone mad, but altering her plans, all the good folks being comfortably buried, (though by the way, her father was taken up again and dropt into an unconsecrated hole beneath the gallows at St. Thomas-a- Watering,) she betook herself to a religious life, and founded the famous church in which we now stand dedicating it to the honor of the blessed Virgin Mary." " Marvellous ! " said Antiquarius, " I have heard many traditions but this indeed out-herod's Herod." I begged the antiquary's pardon, as I now do that of my reader, for the intrusion of so light a subject, but really the tradition and the figure, and the church, have now become so united, that they appear to claim a passing notice even from the most rigid historian.
Page 113
This figure is probably only a part of a monument, there is a similar one in Clerkenwell Church. Mr. Lethieullier, who is quoted by Gough in his Sepulchral Monuments, says he has observed a figure of this make in almost all the cathedral and conventual churches in England, and scarcely ever more than one. There were several other monuments in this chapel, which will be described in the respective places to which they have been removed. Since the period of our visit, this beautiful portion of the church has undergone a most careful restoration, at a cost of £2,500. raised by a public subscription; the work has been conducted under the superintendence of G. Gwilt, Esq. F.S. A. whose valuable services it is but justice to record, were given gratuitously to this laudable undertaking: nothing can exceed the care bestowed on the work by that gentleman, the traces of whose mas terly hand are visible, not only in the general design, but also in the finishterly hand are visible, not only in the general design, but also in the finish of the most minute details, the whole having been conducted with that spirit which should ever characterize such undertakings, a feeling of veneration for the talent of the original designers. During the progress of this work the Piscina engraved on the plate of Architectural Fragments, fig. 8, was discovered at the N. E. corner of the chapel, where it has been before conjectured the altar for the service of " Our Ladye" probably stood, which opinion this discovery has a tendency to confirm. Under the floor of the wooden enclosure at this corner of the chapel, where the sittings of the Consistorial Court were formerly held, a slab was found on which is the following inscription rudely engraved : — " Nicholas Norman, Waterman, late Servante to the King's Maiestie, and Elizabeth his Wife, were here bvryed, hee the 25 of May, 1629, and shee the 15 of Janvarie followeinge, who lived 16 yeares together in the holie state of matrimonie, and do here rest in hope of a ioyfvll resvrrection."
PAGE 114
Near this stone, at a short distance from the surface, was discovered at the same time, a little coffin rudely formed in chalk, in which were remains of "Some happy babe, who privileg'd by fate To shorter labour, and a lighter weight, Received but yesterday the gift of breath, Ordered to-morrow to return to death." On the same spot was found the leaden seal of a Papal Bull, exhibiting (as was usual with those of latter times) the heads of St. Paul and St. Peter on one side, with the inscription " spaspe," and on the other side, which is much obliterated, appears to have been the following " innocetivs pp VI." Against one of the pillars of the chapel there is a small tablet with the following inscription, — " The Gift of Robert Buckland, Glover," it seems probable, as he was a donor to the parish, that this was placed over a tablet on which the nature of his bequests were inscribed. " In 1628, by deed, he gave to eight pensioners 9£d. per week each, payable out of Harden Farm, at Harcsfield, Kent. " In 1639, by deed, he gave to ten poor men 10s. each, on Christmas day, £100. for an annuity. " In 1647, by deed, he gave to the poor in general, a messuage or tenement at Dartford in Kent, £20. yearly, two pounds of which are payable to the Wardens for their trouble." Leaving the Chapel of " Our Ladye " we next entered the south aisle of the choir, where are monuments inscribed with the following names :* — On a very small black tablet with a gilt border, near the altar screen, " William Mayhew, who deceased the 16th of April, 1609." A plain white marble monument by Soane, with the following inscription, —
______
* To have printed the inscriptions at length would have occupied too much space, but as church histories have sometimes been produced as evidence iu courts of law, when time had obliterated the monu mental record, 1 have deemed it a duty to print names and dates.
______
PAGE 115
" In the Bishop's Vault are deposited the remains of Abraham Newland, late Chief Cashier to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, whom he served with fidelity from the year 1747, to the 17th of September, 1807, when, under the pressure of age and infirmity, he availed himself of an honourable retirement, having for thirty years sedulously employed the powers of an unusually energetic mind to the various and important duties of the office of Chief Cashier. He was born in this parish, on the 4th of May, 1730, and he died at Highbury, on the 21st of November, 1807." " John Paine, died 5th March, 1820, aged 13 months." " Richard Holditch and Ann his wife. Also, Anna Howell, daughter of the above Richard Holditch, died January 22nd, 1789, aged 42. Anna Howell died May 11th, 1799, aged 32 years. Ann Holditch died May 10th, 1817, aged 71." A very neat mural monument of marble — " To the Memory of Mrs. Betty Farmbr, died 12th May, 1808, aged 49. Mr. Richard Farmer died 9th May, 1819, aged 79. Richard Farmer their son, died 16th April, 1825, aged 38. John Farmer their eldest son, died 28th December, 1826, aged 47 years." " Mrs. Mary Richards, wife of Richard Richards, died May 11th, 1821, aged 49. Also their children : John died in infancy ; Thomas died September 22nd 1810, aged 2 years; Phoebe died August 1st, 1814, aged 21 years ; Anna Maria died December 2nd, 1814, aged 3 years ; Joseph died February llth, 1819, aged 24. Also Sarah, his second wife, died May 12th, 1830, aged 61." Painted on a framed panel, is the following inscription, — " Here lyeth buried the body of Mr. John Gawen, Citizen and Clothworker of London, who died the 4th of March, 1647, aged 71." Arms : Ermine, on a saltiere engrailed, five fleur-de-lis, Or. " Mrs. Jane Bradford, died 17th January, 1825, aged 54 years. Mr. James Bradford died 7th February, 1829, aged 45 years." On a plain white marble tablet is the following inscription, — " Sacred to the memory of William Winkworth, late Chaplain of this Parish. Pious without ostentation ; zealous with discretion ; active in the cause of distress ; humble and laborious in the ministry of the word ; he fell asleep in Jesus, a debtor to grace, August 22nd, 1804, in his 54th year." Mr. Winkworth was born at Blewberry, near Wallingford, August 22ud, 1750. O. S. He was ordained Deacon at Oxford, June 10, 1781: and Priest at Winchester House, Chelsea, the 14th of July, 1782, to the parish of Morden, in this County, the Rev. J. W. Peers, D.D. being then Rector. He was elected Chaplain to the County Gaol of Surry, in December, 1778; and to this Church, 30th of April, 1794. These appointments, together with the Lectureship of St. Paul's, Shadwell, in Middlesex, he held at the time of his death.* * Moss's History of St. Saviour's Church.
PAGE 116
A plain white marble slab — " Sacred to the Memory of Mr. Wiluam Butler; died October 17th, 1815, aged 77." Buried in the Bishop's Vault. " Joseph Devey, Esq. died March 1st, 1816, aged 64 years. Mrs. Martha Devey, died March 12th, 1827, aged 68 years." In this aisle is the entrance to the Great Vault, a murky cave, where death seems to hold his court amid solemn heaps of mouldering remains that speak volumes on mortality. A few years since two bodies were found here in a wonderful state of preservation, apparently without any attempt having been made by art to keep them from that decay which is the common lot of humankind.f It is supposed that they had lain for upwards of seventy years, but tho' time had so long spared them, he has since seized his victims, the bodies being now in a rapid state of decomposition. Attached to one of the great pillars which support the tower, is the brass plate engraven on the plate of Monumental Remains; it was formerly on the floor of the Lady Chapel, but, being the last of these interesting records, it has been placed here with a view to its preservation.^ The monuments in the South Transept next engaged our attention ; this portion of the church is rich in sculptured tributes to the memory of the dead, many of the monuments having been removed to this spot from other parts of the building in consequence of necessary alterations and repairs : f Such instances are by no means uncommon, but have occurred in several other Churches of the Metropolis; the probable cause may be some property in the wood of the coffins in which they were deposited, of rapidly imbibing the moisture of the bodies. There have been found in Poland a kind of natural mummy, or human bodies preserved without the assistance of art: these lie in considerable numbers in some of the vast caverns in that country. Mr. Hardy in his notices of Bourdeaux, says, that in the vault under the Tower of St. Michael, are nearly sixty bodies placed standing or sitting against the wall, some near three hundred years old, the skin having the appearance of leather. J The conduct of those Collectors, whose sacrilegious pilferings have removed so many of these useful links from the chain of history, cannot be too severely censured : I say collectors, for the Antiquary who studies with a view to illustrate history, knows too well the value of an arms or monumental legend to wish it anywhere bat on the tomb to which it belongs.
PAGE 117
every man of taste must feel indebted to the present Warden of the Great Account, Edward Sells, Esq. for his care in preserving them from destruction, and rendering them by the most economical expenditure highly ornamental to the fabric. In the first recess on the east side of the south transept is a most beautifully executed marble monument, removed from the Magdalen Chapel, " Sacred to the Memory of the Rev. T. Jones, A.M. late of Queen's College, Cam bridge, and Chaplain of this Parish, who died June 6th, 1762, aged 33. This monument is erected by John and Joseph Street, Gent., as a memorial of the edification they received from his faithful labours in the ministry, A. D. 1770. — Also Mrs. Jane Jones, relict of the above Mr. Thomas Jones, died, April 30th, 1782, in the 54th year of her age." The above inscription is on the front of the tomb encircled by a wreath; on the tomb is a bust of the deceased between two cherubs, one having in his left hand a book, entitled Articles of Religion, the other hand pointing to the bust ; the other holding a torch reversed : under the bust are two books, one the Holy Bible, in the other which is opened, is written "John V. 39, Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me." At the back of the monument are the arms of the family, — Gules on a fess Or, three mascles sable, between three cinquefoils argent. The Rev. T. Jones was one of the Chaplains of St. Saviour's Church, and admired for the zeal with which he enforced the gospel truths ; prefixed to a volume of his works published a year after his decease, is a brief memoir of him by his friend the Rev. W. Romaine, who says, speaking of hiin in connection with this parish, — " There is an alms-house in the parish, called the college, and some small stipend for doing duty in it. Mr. Jones thought it was not right to take the money unless he did the duty, accordingly he began to read prayers, and to expound the scripture in the college chapel, and went on for some time. The congregation used to be very large, and the success was very great. Many souls were in this place first awakened, who are now walking in the faith and fear of God, adorning the gospel of our Saviour. Bui here he was stopped and
PAGE 118
refused the use of the chapel. After this he set up a weekly lecture in his church, but he had not preached it long, before he was denied the use of the pulpit. However he was not discouraged, he went on giving away good books, some of which he carried in person to every house in the parish ; catechising the children, who came weekly to his house for that pur pose ; and paying religious visits among his parishioners, when they used to talk freely of the state of their souls. By these methods he tried to win his people to Christ, besides the stated duties of his office; in performing of which he seemed to set God always before him, and to be greatly drawn out in love to his hearers, of whom a very great number I trust did frequent his ministry, not led thither by the ease of his delivery, the sweetness of his voice, or the smoothness of his periods, but because they felt the weight and importance of the doctrines preached. Several I am myself acquainted with, who will I hope be his joy and crown of rejoicing in the day of the Lord Jesus." He was for some years afflicted with a disorder, which his bio grapher states " kept him low, and often brought him near death's door:" he died young, and to the last was anxious for the spiritual welfare of his flock, during a long illness borne with patience, he was always studying and contriving something for their welfare, and his frequent ejaculatory prayer Svas " Lord feed thy sheep, Lord feed thy sheep." His sermons were not written, as he himself states, with studied elegance of style, being frequently begun on the Saturday in the afternoon and preached on the following day, so numerous were his avocations that he had not time to embellish them with pretty conceits; in his preface to his sermons he says, " I do not desire to please the fancies, but to affect the hearts of all my readers." Over Jones' monument is placed a neat monumental tablet with the following inscription, — " Within the rails, by the communion table, lyeth interred the body of Mr. James Shaw, and his wife Mrs. Alice Shaw, who departed this life the 13th day of November, 1693, aged 84 years. Also the body of her nephew, Captain Joseph Williams, and his daughter Alice Shaw Overman, wife of William Overman, Gent., who departed this life the 28th day of December, 1697, aged 26 years and 10 days." On the frieze of the monument is the following: "Mr. James Shaw, departed this life the 18th day of February, 1670." On the base " Memento Mori."
The monument is surmounted by the family arms : (viz.) Or, a
PAGE 119
cheveron between three lozenges ermines. Crest, on a helmet and wreath of his colours, six arrows in saltiere gules, feathered and headed, or, tied of the first. The whole formerly rested on a death's head. On the left of Jones's monument is a black marble tablet with this inscription, — " Neare vnto this place lyeth the body of Mistris Margrit Maynard, the daughter of Master John Maynard, Minister of Mayfered in Svssex, who departed this life March the 14th, 1653, being aged 13 years, 10 monthes, and 14 dayes." On the right of Jones's is the curious little monument engraved on the plate of Monumental Remains, it consists of a diminutive effigy of a man in a winding sheet, an emaciated figure, lying on a marble sarcophagus, at the back is a black tablet, on which is the following inscription, in letters of gold, —
PAGE 129
The Parochial Records will next occupy our attention; among the Baptisms are the names of several children of players, a circumstance easily accounted for by the vicinity of the Globe Theatre, &c. at Bankside.
PAGE 130
Among the Burial Registries are the following, —
1572, August 17. — Mr. Randal Oge, Sergeant at Arms to the Earl of Desmond.
1579, Julye 26. — And the same daye for the buryinge of the bowells of Robt. Home, Byshoppe of Winchester, in the quire. ...... 26s. 8d. 1595,
June 13.— William Wickham, B. of Winchest.
1597, Dec. 10. — Mr. Graye, a Priest, from the olde Ladye Montacute's house.
1603, Dec— Alice Pinke buried, aged 112.
1605, October 31. — Mr. Francis Dacres, son to my Lord D acres, in the church.
1607. — Edmond Shakespear, player, in ye church. 1609,
November 16. — Richard Johnson, Gent. Coroner of his Majesty's Household and of the Verge.
1614, January 3. — Sir George Brown, Knt. 1625,
Auguste, 29. — Mr. John ffletcher a man in the church.
The above named John Fletcher, the dramatic poet, died of the Plague in 1625, his name is distinguished from the hundreds by which it is surrounded by the addition of Mr. Of his death we have the following memorandum from the Aubrey MSS. " In the great plague, 1625, a knight of Norfolk or Suffolk, invited him into the country, he staid but to make himself a suit of cloaths, and while it was making fell sick of the plague and died ; this I had/rom his Tailor, who is now a very old man and Clerk of St. Mary Overy's." Edward Philips, speaking of this author, says " he was one of the happy triumvi rate of the chief dramatic poets of our nation in the last foregoing age, among whom there might be said to be a symmetry of perfection, each excelling in his peculiar way ; Shakes- pear in wit ; Fletcher in courtly elegance, wit, and invention, qualities which he possessed
PAGE 131
in so great a degree that it is said to have been part of the business of his contemporary Beaumont, to lop the luxuriance of the branches thereof; and Ben Jonson in his elaborate pains and knowledge of authors."
1626, August 12.— Mr. Nicholas Andrewes, the Bp9 Brother.
1626, Nov. 11.— Lancelott Andrewes, Ld BisP of Winton.
Raphe Henrie, the Bisp. Stuarde.
1639, March 18. — Philip Massenger, Stranger.
This great dramatic poet, who in the opinion of several able criticks, ranks immediately under Shakespeare, died in his own house on the Bankside, he went to bed in good health (says Langbaine), and was found dead in the morning : thus as he had passed through life with but few friends to endear it, in death he had none to administer consolation or even close his eyes: he was followed to the grave by a few comedians, and the event is simply registered in the parish annals as above. His writings were perfectly free from the licentiousness and impiety of the age in which he wrote, and which were so great at that period that new regulations were constantly necessary for the restraining of them.
The registries bear awful testimony of the dire ravages of disease in this parish, during the Plagues of 1625 and 1665 : and it is a remarkable fact, that at that period (when he that wrote must have felt that in a few hours his own name might be added to the dismal list) the registries are kept with the greatest care, and the entries appear minutely accurate. In the month of August, 1625, the number buried was 764, the number in the corresponding period of the preceding years averaging about 40 ; but in the great Plague of 1665, the number of burials was 1124 in the month of September, that of the corresponding month of 1664 being but 54. " From plague pestilence and famine, good Lord deliver us."
There are a few facts yet remaining to be noticed in connection with the Church.
At page 27 mention has been made of the marriage of the Princess of Milan to Edmund Holland, Earl of Kent; from another account we add that the King himself gave away this lady at the church door,* and afterwards conducted her to the banquet at Win chester Hall. The Princess remembered the scene of her espousals in her will which was dated 2 Henry VI. bequeathing to this convent, with others, 6000 crowns for masses after her death, to be said for the souls of her husband and herself. Like most of our great churches this appears not to have been wanting in relioks; during the recent repairs a stone corbel was found with remains of a Latin inscription which has been trahslated " Relics of St. Thomas." * Formerly part of the marriage ceremony was performed at the church door, the parties did not enter the church till that part of the office where the Minister now goes up to the altar and repeats the psalm. Chancer in his prologue to the Canterbury Tales, describing the Wife of Bath, says — " Houibondei at the chucks dors had (he had five.)"
________
MEMORIES OF THE LIFE AND WORKS OF THE RIGHT HONORABLE AND RIGHT REV. FATHER IN GOD LANCELOT ANDREWES, D.D.
THE LIFE OF BISHOP ANDREWES.
MEMORIES OF THE LIFE AND WOKKS
OF
THE RIGHT HONORABLE AND RIGHT REV. FATHER IN GOD
LANCELOT ANDREWES, D.D. LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER.
BY THE KEY ARTHUR T. RUSSELL, B.C.L.
OF ST. JOHN S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
VICAR OF WHADDON, CAMBRIDGESHIRE.
CAMBRIDGE:
FOR THE AUTHOR BY J. PALMER, SIDNEY STREET.
1860.
J. PALMER, PRINTER, SIDNEY STREET.
TO THE HONOURABLE AND REVEREND
HENRY COCKAYNE GUST, M.A.,
CANON OF WINDSOR, AND RECTOR OF COCKAYNE HATLEY
IN THE COUNTY OF BEDFORD, &c.
APPENDIX.
THE FAMILY OF ANDREWES.
The name of our prelate was variously spelt, — Andrew, Andrews,
Andrewes, and Andros. The "e" in Andrewes was sometimes omitted
in the early part of the seventeenth century. Sir Robert Andrewes
of Normandy, knt., came over with William I., and married the
daughter and heiress of Sir Robert Winwick of "Winwick, Northamptonshire, and afterward of Denton in the same county.
In 1303 occurs John Andrew, Alderman of Redingate, Canter
bury. A Sir William Andrewes of Northamptonshire and Carlisle
occurs in 1234.
Thomas Andrews of Beggar's Weston, or Weston Bigard, (or
Begard) a few miles east of Hereford, was born in 1501, and died
in 1615. See the genealogy of this branch in Nichol's Leicestershire,
parish of System* From him was descended the late highly respected Gerard Andrewes, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, Rector of St. James', Westminster, and 8th November, 1809, Dean of Canterbury. He died, aged 75, on June 2nd, 1825.
In a window in St. Bartholomew the Less, London, over the
door in the passage into the church, are the arms and crest (painted
in glass) of Henry Andrewes, Alderman of London, 1636: argent,
a saltire azure on a chief gules; 3 mullets or: crest, a Moor's head
in profile.
In 1649 and 1651 Thomas, a leatherseller, son of Robert Andrewes of Feltham near Hounslow, Middlesex, and of the Fishmongers' Company, was Lord-Mayor of London.
Jonathan Andrewes was a member of the court of Merchant Taylors 1665, and Richard Andrewes, M.D., 1627—1634.
Sir Matthew Andrewes, knt., was one of the Elder Brethren of Trinity House, 1625.
Our prelate in his will makes mention of William the son of his deceased brother Nicholas; Thomas, Nicholas, and Roger the sons of his deceased brother Thomas, and their eldest sister Ann, married to Arthur "Woollaston ; also her younger sister Mary. His brother Nicholas was born in 1567, and died in 1626. His brother Thomas was named after his father, who appears as a benefactor to All
Hallows', Barking, " 1593, towards repairs of the church, £2; to the poor £5;" probably bequeathed. Our prelate's mother, Mrs. Joan Andrewes, left in 1524 a bequest of £10. He also makes mention of his sister Mary Burrell. One Alexander Burrell, B.A., Trinity College, Cambridge, 1706, M.A. 1710, was Yicar of Buckden, July 5, 1717, which he resigned in 1721, being made in 1720 Rector of Adstock near Winslow, Bucks., by Dr. Gibson, then Bishop of Lincoln, and also Rector of Puttenham, Herts, by the same patron.
His father was also of Trinity College, B.A. 1666, M.A. 1670. There have been about twenty members of the University of Cambridge of that name. The name is also spelt Burwell; Mr. Samuel Burwell was at our prelate's funeral. Of this name was Thomas, LL.D. of the University of Cambridge, 1661; Thomas, M.B. of the same University per Literas Regias, 1662 ; Francis, A.M. of the same University per Literas Regias, 1675 ; Thomas, M.B., King's College, 1677; and Charles, M.B., Pembroke College, 1717. The name Burwell appears to have merged into Burrell. The children of the Bishop's sister, Mary Burrel, were Andrew, John, Samuel, Joseph,
James, Lancelot, Mary Rooke, and her daughter Martha. His sister Martha, born in 1577, married first to Robert Princep, by whom she had a son Thomas. Charles Robert Princep (probably a descendant) was B.A. St. John's College, Cambridge, 1811, M.A. 1813. At Oxford was John Princep, B.A., BaUiol College, Oct. 12,
1738. Martha was married secondly to Mr., probably Peter, Salmon, by whom she had two sons, Peter and Thomas. The Rev. Thomas Peter Dod Salmon was B.A. St. John's College, Cambridge, 1782, M.A. 1786, Fellow of that College, B.D. 1793, and was living in 1811. Mr. Salmon had a sister Martha and a daughter Anne Best. The Bishop also makes mention of his cousin Anne Hockett. John Hockett was B.A. of Trinity College, Cambridge, 1662, M.A. 1666, and a Fellow of that society. Another of the same name was B.A. of that College 1696. He names another cousin, Sandbrooke; also his cousin Robert and his two children; his cousin Rebecca; his father's half-sister Joan; her first husband's name was Bousie. Also his godson Lancelot Lake, son of Sir Thomas Lake. There was a Lancelot Lake, B.A. Catharine
Hall, Cambridge, 1666, M.A. 1670. Also his two godsons Robert and Charles Barker, son of Mr. Robert Barker, " latelie the King's printer." His principal executor was Mr. John Parker, citizen and Merchant Taylor, of London, to be assisted by Sir Thomas Lake, Sir Henry Martin, and Dr. Nicholas Styward or Steward. His will was witnessed by Robert Bostock, Prebendary of Norton Episcopi in the church of Lincoln, and afterward Archdeacon of Suffolk, and (if not in 1626) Prebendary of Chichester; Joseph Fenton, probably our prelate's physician; John Browning, Rector of Buttermere near Hungerford, whom he had preferred to that living in 1624, author of Six Sermons concerning Public Prayer and the Fasts of the Church (Lond. 1636); Thomas Eddie and "William Green, two of the Bishop's servants. Archdeacon Wig-
more also signed the three several codicils to the will.
The family of Andrew or Andrewes has seated itself in Gloucestershire; Plymouth, Devon ; Bisbrook, Rutlandshire ; Norfolk, Suffolk, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, Lancashire, "Wilts, Bucks, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Surrey, and Hants. In Cambridgeshire it is still represented by the Rev. Thomas Andrew of Pembroke
College, Cambridge, Yicar of Triplow ; and by another descendant, a respectable yeoman at Litlington in the same county. In Hertfordshire, by the father of this latter, a yeoman in the parish of Buckland near Barkway. In Suffolk, by George W. Andrewes, Esq., Sudbury, Suffolk. In Surrey, by the Rev. William Gerard Andrewes, M.A., Magdalen Hall, Oxford, curate of Morden near Mitcham, and grandson of the late Dean of Canterbury. The Rev. Thomas Andrew of Triplow is descended of a Northamptonshire branch of this family. Erom Northamptonshire a branch of this
family migrated about the beginning of the seventeenth century to the neighbourhood of Canterbury. Thence Henry Andrews removed to London, and was cut off with his whole household, except one infant, in the Great Plague in 1665. This infant lived to a considerable age, and having acquired some fortune by merchandise, thought it right to take out arms afresh in 1729. He died in 1730.
His grandson Joseph was at a very early age appointed Paymaster to the Forces serving in Scotland 1715. His son Joseph was created a Baronet in 1766. His brother, James Pettit Andrews, born at Shaw House near Newbury, 1737, was the author of a miscellaneous collection entitled Anecdotes, Ancient and Modern, fyc. Lond. 8vo. 1789. A supplement to this volume in 1790; History of Great Britain, 1794, vol. I., from CaBsar's invasion to the death of Richard I. 4to. Lond. In 1795 appeared a second part, to the accession of Edward VI. The plan of this work was founded on that of Dr. Henry. He appears to have discontinued it for the purpose of completing Dr. Henry's history, which, in 1796, he brought down to the accession of James I. He translated The Savages of Europe; a popular French novel now forgotten. In 1798 he published The Inquisitor, a Tragedy in five Acts altered from the German, in conjunction with his friend H. J. Pye, the Poet Laureate. He was a contributor to the Archceologia and the Gentleman's Magazine. On the establishment of the London Police Magistracy in 1792, he was appointed Magistrate for Queen's Square and St. Margaret's "West minster. He died in London August 6th, 1797. He had married Anne daughter of the Rev. Rumney Penrose, Rector of Newbury. He survived her twenty years. The present excellent Master of the Grammar School, Stamford, the Rev. Erederic E. Gretton, B.D., late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, and author of some valuable Parochial Sermons, is descended from Bishop Andrewes both on the mother's and father's side. His father married a Clay, and his grandfather a Pigott, the granddaughter and daughter respectively of Catharine and Ellen Andrewes, whose father died and
was buried at Southwell in or about 1717. Mr. G. "W. Andrews of Sudbuiy is a younger brother of the Rev. Robert Andrews, B.D., who was ninth Senior Optime, Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and B.A. 1821, of Middleton near Sudbury. The eldest brother is Lieut. Colonel Andrews, residing at 57, Ecclestone Square, London; and the youngest, the Rev. "William Nesfield Andrews, of Jesus College, Cambridge, M.A. 1832, Rector of Chilton near Sudbury 1853.
A.D. 1600.
Five days after the death of Hooker, Andrewes wrote to Dr. Parry, afterward Bishop of Worcester:
" SALTJTEM IN CHRISTO.
"I cannot choose but write though you do not; I never failed since I last saw you, but daily prayed for him till the very instant you sent me this heavy news. I have hitherto prayed Serva nobis hunc; now must I Da nobis alium. Alas, for our great loss! and when I say ours, though I mean yours and mine, yet much more the common: with [which?] the less sense they have of so great a damage, the more sad we need to bewail them ourselves, who knew his works and his worth to be such as behind him he hath not, that I know, left any near him. And whether I shall live to know any near him, I am in great doubt that I care not how many and myself had redeemed his longer life, to have done good in a better subject than he had in hand, though that were very good. Good brother, have a care to deal with his executrix or executor, or (him that is like to have a great stake in it) his father-in-law, that there be special care and regard for preserving such papers as he left, besides the three last books excepted. By preserving, I mean, that not only they be not embezzled and come to nothing, but that they come not into great hands who will only have use of them quatenus et quousque, and suppress the rest, or unhappily all; but rather into the hands of some of them that
unfeignedly wished him well, though of the meaner sort, who may upon good assurance (very good assurance) be trusted with them; for it is pity they should admit any limitation. Do this and do it mature ; it had been more than time long since to have been about it, if I had sooner known it. If any word or letter would do any good to Mr. Churchman, it should not want. But what cannot yourself or Mr. Sandys do therein? For Mr. Cranmer is away; happy in that he shall gain a week or two before he know of it.
Almighty God comfort us over him, whose taking away, I trust
I shall no longer live than with grief remember; therefore with
grief because with inward and most just honour I ever honoured
him since I knew him.
"Your assured poor loving friend,
" L. ANDREWES.
"At the Court, Nov. 7, 1600."
About a month after this letter was written the Archbishop sent Andrewes to Mrs. Hooker to enquire after the MSS. He did not however succeed in obtaining any information. Upon this the Archbishop sent for her to London, when she confessed that Mr. Chart, a Puritan, and another minister of the same bias, had destroyed some of his papers as being in their opinion not such as should see the light. However the rough drafts of the three last books of the Eccl. Polity were discovered and delivered by Whitgift to Dr. Spenser, who drew up as perfect a copy as he could, a transcript of which was given to Andrewes amongst others. — Strype's Whitgift, ii. 441.
THE BOOK
MY DEAR SIR, The following pages, designed as a tribute to the memory of one of the most eloquent and munificent Prelates that ever adorned the Church of England, will, I trust, form also no unfitting memorial of my grateful regard for yourself, to whose kindness I was indebted for the second Vicarage which I have held under Her Majesty's Free Chapel of St. George, Windsor. I trust it will be seen by every candid reader that my aim has been to represent the subject of this volume as he was, neither exaggerating nor depreciating his...
CHAPTER I.
LANCELOT ANDREWES was born A.D. 1555, in Thames street, in the parish of Allhallows, Barking, London, of religious parents, who, besides his education, left him a fair estate which descended to his heir at Eawreth, a little village between Chelmsford and Rayleigh. (Morant professes that lie was unable to discover what this property was. ) His father Thomas in his latter time became one of the Society and master of Trinity House, and was descended of the ancient family of the Andrewes in Suffolk. Lancelot was early sent to the Coopers' Free School, KatclifF, in the parish of Stepney. This school was founded in the reign of Henry the Eighth by Nicholas Gibson, grocer, who in 1538 served the office of Sheriff. It was intended for the education of sixty children of poor parents, under a master and usher, and to it were attached an almshouse and chapel. Here Andrewes was
placed under Mr. Ward, who, discovering his abilities, persuaded his parents to continue him at his studies and to destine him to a learned profession. His young scholar did not prove unmindful of his kindness, but when raised to the see of Winchester, promoted his son Dr. Ward to the living of Bishop's Waltham. At this place, which is a small market-town ten miles north-east of Southampton, the Bishops of Winchester had a residence from the time of Bishop Henry de Blois, brother of king Stephen. This place was the favorite resort of the famous Wykeham. The palace was destroyed in the civil wars. From Mr. Ward Andrewes
was sent to the celebrated Richard Mulcaster, then master of Merchant Taylors' School. Mulcaster was a strict disciplinarian, having been trained under the stern Udal at Eton. Thence he went to King's College, Cambridge, in 1548, but removed to Oxford, where his learning was so highly esteemed that in 1561 he was appointed the first master of Merchant Taylors' School, which was founded in that same year by the munificent Sir Thomas White. Here Mulcaster continued until 1596, and was appointed master of St. Paul's School, from which he was preferred by the Queen to the rich rectory of Stanford Kivers, near Ongar, 1598. In 1609 he was deprived by death of a beloved wife, with whom he had lived happily fifty-six years. He did not long survive, but died April 15, 1611. Amongst Andrewes contemporaries at Merchant Taylors' were Giles Thompson, afterwards Bishop of Gloucester, Thomas Dove, afterwards Bishop of Peterborough, and Ralph Hutchenson, who was president of St. John's College, Oxford, from 1590 to his
death, January 17, 1605. On his leaving Merchant Taylors' School in 1571, Andrewes was entered at Pembroke College, Cambridge. On 9th September in this same year Dr. Thomas Watts, of Christ's College, Cambridge, (who in 1560 was
appointed archdeacon of Middlesex, in the place of the venerable Alexander Nowell,) being then prebendary of Totenhale in St. Paul's, and in 1571 also dean of Bocking, founded seven scholarships at Pembroke College, called Greek scholarships. The four first scholars upon this foundation were Andrewes and Dove, Gregory Downhall, and John Wilford. About the same time Andrewes was, with Dove, Wilford, and William Plat, appointed to a scholarship in Jesus College, Oxford, at the request of the founder, by Queen Elizabeth. It would appear that he was nominated to a scholarship at Oxford previously to his admission, or at least residence, at Cambridge. He left Merchant Taylors' School on St. Barnabas Day, June 11, 1571, and the royal charter of foundation whence Jesus College dates its institution, is dated 27 June, 13 Eliz. 1571. By this charter Dr. Hugh Price, or Ap Rice, (LL.D., of Oxford, 1525, and supposed to have been educated at Oseney Abbey), Treasurer of St. David's, was permitted to settle estates on the said college to the yearly value of £160., for the sustentation of eight fellows and eight scholars, all appointed in the first instance, according to Dr. Price's mind, by Queen Elizabeth.
" What he did when he was a child and a schoolboy, it is not now known," says his grateful biographer Isaacson, "but he hath been sometimes heard to say, that when he was a young scholar in the University, and so all his time onward, he never loved or used any games or ordinary recreations, either within doors, as cards, dice, tables, chess, or the like ; or abroad, as bats, quoits, bowls, or any such; but his ordinary exercise and recreation was walking either alone or with some companion with whom he might confer and recount his studies." To the last he took great delight in those meditations that are, as it were, inspired by the
beholding of the works of God.
His custom was, after he had been three years at the University, (when he took his degree of B.A. in 1574-5,) to come up to London once a year to visit his parents, always about a fortnight before Easter, and to stay with them about a month, never intermitting his studies. And, until he was a bachelor of divinity, he even used to perform these journies on foot.
In October 1576 he was chosen to a fellowship at his college, and Dove, the unsuccessful candidate, was continued as a tanquam-socius by a liberality not unusual in those times. In 1578 he took the degree of M.A.1 In 1580 he was ordained, and the same year his name appears in the College books as Junior Treasurer. In 1581 he was Senior Treasurer, and on July 11 was incorporated M.A. of the University of Oxford, on the same day with William Pemberton of Christ College, afterwards the incumbent of High Ongar.
After he had been some time Master of Arts he was appointed catechist in his college, and read his lectures upon the decalogue at the hour of catechising (three in the after noon) every Saturday and Sunday; and such was his reputation as a student and a divine, that many came to the chapel, now (since the chapel founded by Bishop Wren) the College library*; and these not only from other colleges, but even from the country. So report both his biographer Isaacson and Jackson the editor of these very lectures. They were put forth from notes in 1642, and entitled, The Moral Law expounded; and in the same volume were reprinted his Sermons on the Temptation in the Wilderness, and on Prayer. The lectures were a second time edited in 1650, and again in 1675, in a comparatively modern style, and with many enlargements and additions. The edition of 1675 is by no
means so accurately printed as that of 1642. Of the substance of the work there can be no doubt that it is the production of our prelate. John Jackson the first editor was probably one of the Assembly of Divines, Preacher of Gray's Inn and of the University of Cambridge. Sparke was a Puritan, and has introduced his own likeness in an engraving of Laud's Trial.
We have witnessed in our own times an extreme jealousy of all summaries of the Gospel. Not so Bishop Andrewes, who, in his introduction to these lectures, observes, in defence of catechising by the help of summaries, that "our Saviour
catechising Nicodemus made an epitome or abridgement of the Gospel under one head: So God loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him might not perish, but have everlasting life."
After an introduction vindicating the practice of cate
chising, Andrewes proceeded to speak of the spirit in which
the catechized should come to this exercise; and in this,
which forms the second chapter, the later is more copious
than the earlier edition. But both appear to be taken
from notes, and neither can claim to be the original, for
each edition possesses its peculiar marks of the style and
learning of our author. In the third chapter the catechist
proves with great variety of classical and patristical illus
tration, that true happiness is to be found only in God.
Then he proceeds to shew that the surest way to come
unto God is by faith. Nor is there fear of credulity when
we believe God, who neither can deceive nor be deceived.
Now faith is grounded, says Andrewes, upon the word of
God, though published and set forth by man.1 We cannot
come to God by reason, for God transcends reason, nor
can we know anything of the essences of things. And as
to credulity, the endless differences of philosophers upon
the nature of the chief good shew that the uncertainty of
the way of reason is most favorable to credulity. And so
in the things of common life there is likewise frequent and
inevitable necessity for faith.2
But faith doth not exclude reason as corroborative of
revelation. So St. Paul appeals to natural reason in the
first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. And, adds our
catechist, " having thus submitted ourselves to belief, and
strengthened it with reason, we must look for an higher
teacher. For though faith be a perfect way, yet we being
imperfect walk imperfectly in it ; and therefore in those
things which transcend nature and reason, we must believe
God only, and pray to Him, that by the inspiration of His
Holy Spirit, we may be directed and kept in this way."
And " because this inspiration cometh not all at once at
the first, we must grow to perfection by little and little,
and come up by degrees till it please Him to send it in
full measure to us. He that believeth shall not make haste."
Excellently then does he treat of the proofs of the being
of a God, especially from the existence of moral sentiments
and of a conscience in man.1 Next are summed up the proofs
of a particular providence, in which chapter he affirms the
principle, that God is his own end, and that he wills all
things for his own honour.2 Then follow very elaborate
discourses upon Heathenism, Judaism, Mahometanism, and
the evidences of Christianity. He then proceeds to treat
of the rule of interpretation, and does not, as do some
who make use of his name, treat the Scriptures as practically
useless until a meaning is assigned to them out of the Fathers
or by the Church. He does not refer us either to the one
or to the other as the rule of interpretation, but will have
us seek the literal meaning of each passage, consult the text
in the original tongues, compare Scripture with Scripture,
learn the intent of those expressions or idioms that are peculiar
to Scripture, as the crucifying of the flesh, the mortifying
of concupiscence, &c. ; consider the scope of the passage,
as, what was God's intent in setting down the law, in
giving a prophecy, in working a miracle, &c., as St. Paul to
Timothy reasoneth from the end of the law, against those
that made evil use of the law; and lastly, have regard to
the context. These rules he prefaces with a quotation from
St. Augustine, " Let us ask by prayer, seek by reading,
find out by meditation, taste and digest by contemplation."
It may be observed that in this part of the lectures we
meet with a very plain proof that the latter edition was not
taken from the bishop's own manuscript, and that it does not
deserve the high commendation it gives itself in the titlepage.
Thus in p. 54 we read (Rule) 4. " To be acquainted with the
phrase of the Holy Ghost, and this is to be gotten by the
knowledge of the dialect, idiom, or style of the Holy Spirit,
as the apostle speaks, by use to discern it, 'as the crucifying of
the flesh, mortifying the concupiscence, &c., for sometimes the
Holy Ghost in Greek sends us to the Holy Ghost in Hebrew.
Holy Ghost useth divers idioms that are not to be found in
other writers ; as, the crucifying of a man's flesh, the mortify
ing of his concupiscence, &c. Therefore we must be perfect in
these ; and as Heb. 5, ver. last, have our senses exercised, that
we may know the Holy Ghost when he speaketh. Often we
shall meet with TOVT earl ^eOep^vevofjievoVj this is being
interpreted; the Holy Ghost in Greek referreth us to the
Holy Ghost in Hebrew."
The second editor has endeavoured to incorporate his own
with Bishop Andrewes' doctrine. It is to be observed more
over, that whereas the larger additions to the author are dis
tinguished as such by the editor, he has also inserted glosses
and limitations which are indeed put in italics; but neither are
these the only additions, for it is owned in the preface that
there are some additions left by mistake in the same character
with the rest. Very remarkable is our author's reason for
the introduction of the new covenant ; it is in perfect harmony
with the great principle of his theology, that God is all in all :
"The reason of this second covenant was, that now Adam
having lost his own strength by breach of the first, all power
and strength should be new from God in Christ, and all the
glory be given to him. For if Adam had stood by his own
strength in the first, howsoever God should have had most
glory, yet Adam should have had some part thereof for using
his strength well and not abusing it when he might, but kept
his standing. But that God might have all the glory, he
suffered the first covenant to be broken, and permitted man to
fall, for which fall he was to make satisfaction, which he could
not do but by Christ, nor perform new obedience but by the
grace of God preventing us, and making us of unwilling
willing, and of unable able to do things in that measure that
God will require at our hands." He discourses of the order
that should be observed in preaching. He will have the law
preached first because by it alone men are humbled ; then he
will have them brought to that covenant by which they can
be saved. ..
In his traces of the moral law amongst the heathen' he
notices their observance of the number seven as the number
of rest, and the number most pleasing to the gods, and their
practice of mourning seven days, of naming their children on
the seventh day, &C.
Under the exposition of the first commandment are most
learnedly and piously treated all the religious affections, faith,
hope, love, humility, patience, reverence also prayer, thanks
giving, obedience, integrity, and perseverance; and their contraries, unbelief, despair, pride, love of the world, self-love, &c.
Under the second commandment he derives the use of
pictures in churches from the Gnostics in Irenasus, and gives
the four causes of the introduction of images, condemning it
at the same time as the beginning of great abuses. These
causes are the policy of heretics aiming by their imitation of
the heathen to conciliate them ; secondly, desire to preserve
the memory of the dead ; so the people had the likeness of
Malesius, Bishop of Constantinople, in their rings, and in
their houses. Thirdly, wealth, by reason of which they desired to please their eyes and to have their churches as rich as themselves. Lastly, the idleness, absence or ignorance of their pastors. Paulinus, Bishop of Nola in Campania,
having occasion to travel into Syria and Egypt, and having
none to preach to his people till his return, thought good
(because he would have something to teach them in his
absence) to paint the whole history of the Bible on the walls
of his church, so that their preachers were none other but
painted walls. But this is no way to be commended in him,
and the effect proved accordingly. For it fell out that for
want of better teachers the people became ignorant, and be
cause their pastors became but dumb images, therefore dumb
images became their pastors."
Our author charges upon the second council of Nice the
paying supreme worship to images themselves. The later editor of his lectures inserts a correction, affirming that
the council was misrepresented to the councils of Frankfort
and Paris. But the reader will find this point fully treated
of in Bishop Stillingfleet upon the Idolatrous Practices of the
Romish Church* and Andrewes fully justified.
Under this commandment Andrewes discourses of all
the parts of divine worship, preaching, prayer, thanksgiving,
sacraments, and discipline. " St. Paul," he tells us, " not only
preached, but made it an ordinance of God, to save them that
believe."2 Upon the sacraments and discipline the later is far
more copious than the earlier edition, which, from its extreme
brevity, was probably taken from notes very defective them
selves upon these particulars. If this part of the work be
our author's, he decides that children are believers " by their
godfathers and godmothers and parents who present them
and desire to have them baptized in the faith of Christ."
The sacrifice of the Eucharist he does not make a repetition of
Christ's sacrifice, but an oblation of ourselves to God and
a sacrifice of thanksgiving. The only other sense in which
our author ever calls the Lord's Supper a sacrifice is as
a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice. He disclaims in
his Easter-day Sermon for A.D. 1612, the application of
the term sacrifice in the strict and literal sense. He saith,
" by the same rule that theirs [the passover] was, by the
same may ours be termed a sacrifice. In rigour of speech
neither of them : for (to speak after the exact manner of
divinity) there is but one only sacrifice veri nominis properly
so called ; that is Christ's death, and that sacrifice but once
actually performed at his death, but ever before represented
in figure, from the beginning; and ever since repeated, in
memory, to the world's end." And a little after, in the same
sermon : lt So it was the will of God, that so there might
be with them a continual foreshewing, and with us a con
tinual shewing forth the Lord's death till He come again.
Hence it is, that what names theirs carried, ours do the like, and the Fathers make no scruple at it ; no more need we." We
do not find here that theological confusion of language which
would lead us to suppose that the Eucharistic elements them
selves were a sacrifice available to the forgiveness of sins;
a confusion into which those have fallen perhaps unwittingly,
yet really, who have sought to make of the Eucharist a real
sacrifice and not a commemoration of a sacrifice. These
contend for a real; Bishop Andrewes, Bishop Jewel, Bishop
Bilson for a figurative sacrifice, a memorial of Christ's death,
in which the offerers were as much the people as the priests ;
so Bishop Bilson : " Christ is offered daily but mystically,
not covered with * qualities and quantities of bread and wine,
for those be neither mysteries nor resemblances to the death
of Christ: but by the bread which is broken, by the wine
which is drunk, in substance creatures, in signification sacra
ments, the Lord's death is figured and proposed to the
communicants, and they for their parts, no less people than
priests, do present Christ hanging on the Cross to God the
Father, with a lively faith, inward devotion, and humble
prayer, as a most sufficient and everlasting sacrifice for the
full remission of their sins and assured fruition of His
mercies." And again, he explains Peter Lombard in his
fourth book and twelfth distinction, saying, " Christ is offered
in a sacrament," by these words, u that is, his offering is
represented, and a memory of his passion celebrated." And
so Dr. Field (who has nevertheless been alleged to prove
the doctrine of Johnson, Hickes, and their followers) sums
up all in this, " The sacrifice of the altar is only the sacrifice
of praise and thanksgiving, and a mere representation and
commemoration of the sacrifice once offered on the Cross."
Equally careful is Buckeridge, Bishop of Ely, to guard
against all idea of a real external sacrifice, denying in plain
terms that the Eucharist is an external proper sacrifice.
CHAPTER II.
Andrewes on the Fourth Commandment — Of holy places — Of the
Church's deposit — Of Circumcision — Of the fear of God — Of grace.
— Andrewes goes into the north with the Earl of Huntingdon —
Sir Francis JValsingham becomes his patron — He is made Vicar
of St. Giles', Cripplegate — Preaches at the Spital in 1588 — His
censure of highmindedness — His honourable notice of Augustine
and Calvin — Vindication of Protestant munificence — Censure of
simony and sacrilege — Of Justification — He preaches before the
Queen in 1589 — Is made Prebendary of Southwell and of St.
Paul's, and Master of Pembroke College — His Clerum.
IN the sixth chapter our author exposes the excuses of the
Romanists in regard of image-worship, and herein follows the
very same course that is taken in the Homily upon Peril of
Idolatry. In his exposition of the fourth commandment he
observes that men would probably have neglected worship
altogether, "if God had not provided a particular day for
himself and settled it by a special commandment ; as we see
in those that talk of a perpetual Sabbath, who come at length
to keep no day at all." His judgment did not suffer him to
be led away with the presumptuous folly of those who dis
covered that, Adam had no need of a Sabbath. He regarded
the fourth commandment as partly moral and partly cere
monial, which appears to be virtually admitted by Bishop
White himself, who says that "the common and natural
equity of the commandment is moral."1 Andrewes derives
the Lord's Day, with St. Augustine, from Holy Scripture; this is the day that the Lord hath made. And so St. Athana-
sius affirms that u the Lord changed the Sabbath to the Lord's
Day."1 " So," observes our author, "though the Sabbath or
seventh day from the creation be ceased, yet there is another
day still remaining, because the end of keeping a day is
immutable from the beginning, to wit, that God might be
honoured by a solemn and public worship." But the whole
of this subject is more fully considered and more accurately
recorded in his Lectures preached in St. Paul's: "Of all the
days in the week we shall see the seventh day to be the fittest
to retain and keep in memory the commendation of this
benefit and work of creation. When God had performed this
great work of creation, he took order also, because it was the
greatest benefit which as yet the world had or knew of, that
the seventh day should be always had in remembrance, be
cause he had fully perfected all the work in it ; and the very
same reason which made the Jews' Sabbath on the seventh
day, doth now also move Christians to keep it on the first day
in the week ; for it is God's will that the lesser benefit should
surcease and give place to the greater, Jer. xxiii. 7, and that
the benefit of creation as the lesser, should yield and give
place to the work of redemption, which is the greater benefit."
But the Sabbath of Sinai, adds our author, had three other
accessory ends : first, political, which was bodily rest, Exod.
xxiii. 12; secondly, ceremonial, that is commemorative of the
creation, and typical of Christ's rest in the grave, of our rest
from sin, and of eternal rest in heaven: thirdly, an end
peculiar to the Jews, the commemorating of their deliverance
out of Egypt, Deut. v. 15 ; wherefore the Jews say that they
have a double right and interest in the Sabbath.
In regard of the sanctification of the day, he condemns all
labor, pastimes, journeyings, and such agricultural works as
are forbidden in Exodus xxxiv., bounding these rules by
that of our Saviour, God will have mercy and not sacrifice.
The eighth chapter treats of the duty of fasting, a duty unhappily for the most part altogether neglected, or magnified
as an end instead of a way to an end.
Again, if the love of ease will condemn fasting, so the
love of money will as easily condemn all care of the house
of God as superstitious. But justly does our author satirize
this desecrating sort of religion. " The Sabbath is the day
of rest, and when we hallow it, we call it the Lord's rest.
So Psalm cxxxii. 14, we see the Lord will give the same
name to the place, This is my rest ; concerning which, as
the Apostles took order, as that the exterior part of God's
worship might be performed decently and in order ; so on
the other side, that the place of God's worship should be
so homely and so ordered, that the table of the Lord's Supper
where, one saith well, the dreadful mysteries of God are
celebrated, were fitter to eat oysters at, than to stand in the
sanctuary of the Lord ; this is so far from pomp that it is
far from decency. And it is a thing that would be thought
of: it is not the weightier matter of the law, yet not to be
neglected. As our working, travelling, &c. shew that we
esteem not that day, so the walls and windows shew that we
are not esteemers of his sanctuary."
From holy things he proceeds to treat of 'holy persons,
and of that power which is in the law of God alone to hold
communities together by checking those sins that cannot,
from their very nature, be restrained by human enactments ;
sins which nevertheless have been the destruction of empires.
Here he speaks of the great mischief which the corruption
of law and oppressive delays, &c. had brought upon our
own country.
In the later edition, which is much more ample upon
the subject of ceremonies than the earlier, having a whole
page by way of introduction which that has not, Andrewes
calls the Scriptures, the volume of both covenants, the
depositum committed to the Church.
Circumcision he calls here and elsewhere a sacrament
affirming that to the sacraments of circumcision and of the
passover succeeded baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Of the fear of God lie saith, tl The reason why though
we may and ought to obey God out of love, yet it hath
pleased him to command fear, is threefold: 1. to overthrow
the vain speculation of some erroneous people, that dream
of an absolute perfection in this life. The wise man saith,
Blessed is the man that feareth alway. And either there
is no perfection in this life, or fear is superfluous; he that
cannot fall need not fear. 2. Inasmuch as the children of God
often feel in themselves a feebleness in faith, a doubt in hope,
coldness in prayers, slowness in repentance, and weakness
in all the other duties, in some more, in others less, according
to the measure of the Spirit communicated to them, as it was
in king David ; therefore fear is necessary to recover them
selves, and he that loseth it not, his heart shall never be
hardened, nor fall into mischief. Though all other duties
fail, yet if fear continues, we shall never need to despair.
3. Because the excellent duty of love, the effect of fear, might
not fail and grow careless. In the Canticles the spouse
fell asleep with her beloved in her arms, and when she awoke
her beloved was gone : in her bed she sought him but found
him not. So that if there be not a mixture of fear with love,
it will grow secure and fall asleep and lose her beloved.
Therefore that we may be sure to keep our love awake, when
we think we have Christ in our arms, there must be a mixture
of fear with it. So for these three reasons fear is necessary,
even for them that think themselves in a perfect state. And
withal Solomon tells us, the fear of the Lord is the beginning
of wisdom : so did his father before him. And the same
Solomon concludes his book of the Preacher with, Fear God
and keep his commandments, for this is the end of all and
the whole duty of man. And in another place he saith, The
fear of the Lord is the fountain of life to avoid the snares
of death. As faith is the beginning of Christian religion,
as the first principles in every science are of things to be
believed, so is fear the first work or beginning of things
to be done : and as servile fear is the first work, so a reverend
and filial fear is the last work and conclusion of all things."
He thus speaks of the grace of God. tl As Nebuchad
nezzar ascribed the building of great Babel to his own power,
and made his own glory the end of it ; so, on the contrary,
we also say of hope, it makes God the author of all the
good it looks for, and makes His glory the end of all. For
first, it makes us go out of ourselves and trust only in God,
and wholly rely upon Him as the sole efficient cause of
good to us. We must wholly depart out of ourselves • we
must not conceive that there is any sufficiency in ourselves,
but that all our sufficiency is of God, not so much as to
think a good thought, therefore much less to have a will
to do it; but that it is God that works the velle [willing]
and consequently the perficere [perfecting] both the will and
the deed in us. We must not ascribe any part or help
to ourselves : for our Saviour saith, Without Me ye can do
nothing. Upon which place St. Augustine noteth, it is " not
any great thing, but nothing at allj and not that we can
perfect nothing, but do nothing at all. And as it makes
God the cause and first beginning, so the last end too, by
giving the glory of his graces in us to him : and the reason
is plain in the Apostle, That no flesh should glory in his
presence, but as it followeth, that he that glorieth should glory
in Him. (\ Cor. i.)"1
The same pious doctrine is contained and vindicated very
fully in his sermon upon 2 Cor. iii. 5, Not that we are sufficient
of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency
is of God? There he saith, " If we begin to do any good
thing, it is God who began a good work in us. Phil. i. 6.
In consideration of which place Augustine saith of the Pela
gians, Audiant qui dicunt, i a nobis esse cceptum, a Deo esse
eventum] the beginning is from us, the completion is from
God. Here let them learn of the Apostle, that it is the
Lord that doth begin and. perform the good work."
And thus much of his catechetical lectures, the value
of which is by no means exaggerated in Jackson's Dedication
to Parliament, where they are called and said to have been
reputed "a very library to young divines, and an oracle
to consult at, to laureate and grave divines."
From the University Andrewes went into the north on the
invitation of Henry Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon and Lord
President of the North. Whilst with him he is said "both by
Isaacson and Bishop Buckeridge to have had great success in
converting several both priests and laymen to the Protestant
religion.
"After this," adds Buckeridge in his funeral sermon for
our prelate, "Mr. Secretary Walsinghame took notice of him,
and obtained him of the Earl, intending his preferment, in
which he would never permit him to take any country
benefice, lest he and his great learning should be buried in
a country church. His intent was to make him Reader of
Controversies in Cambridge, and for his maintenance he as
signed to him (as I am informed) the lease of the parsonage of
Alton in Hampshire, which after his death (in 1590) he returned to his lady, which she never knew nor thought of.
In 1583, November 27, Nicholas Felton, afterward Bishop
of Ely, and, like Andrewes, one of the most upright and
popular prelates of his time, was elected to a fellowship
at Pembroke College. In 1585 Andrewes took his degree
of B.D., and in 1588 appears to have succeeded Robert
Crowley (Veron's successor in 1563) in the vicarage of
St. Giles', Cripplegate. Crowley died on June 18, and was
buried in the chancel.
Andre wes, on April 22, 1585, read his Thesis de Usuris1
as his exercise for the degree of B.D. His Sermons on
the Temptation in the Wilderness, first published in 1592,
and those on the Lord's Prayer, first published in 1611, were
probably delivered, not at Cambridge as a recent editor of
Isaacson's Life of Andrewes conjectures, but at St. Giles',
Cripplegate. Dr. Hopkins, Bishop of Deny, also published
a very valuable series of Sermons on the Lord's Prayer
towards the latter end of this century. Amongst other
eminent divines who have written upon it, are John Smith,
1609, Dr. John Boys, 1622, Perkins of Cambridge, Dr.
Henry King, 1638, Joseph Mede, 1658, and William Gouge.
In 1586 appeared A Choice of Emblems and other Devises
for the most part gathered out of sundry writers, Englished
and Moralized, and divers newly devised by Geoffrey Witney,
&c. Imprinted at Leyden in the house of Christopher Plantyn,
by Francis Baphelengius, 1586. Dedicated to Robert Earl
of Leicester, with his arms opposite the dedication. In the
second part, p. 224, Matth. xxiv. To M. Andrewes, Preacher.
The Martyrs. " Sic probantur." And under it the Pharisee
giving alms and blowing his trumpet at the same time.
Others are:
p. 217, to Mr. Elcocke, preacher.
to Mr. Rawlins, preacher.
to Mr. Knewstubs, preacher.
to Mr. James Jonson.
to Mr. Howlte, preacher.
Andrewes, whilst at Cambridge, united, it is said, with
the Rev. John Knewstubs, B.D., a native of Westmoreland
and fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, Dr. Chaderton,
afterwards first master of Emmanuel College, Mr. Culverwell,
(Ezekiel Culverwell) of Emmanuel College, vicar of Felstead
in Essex, author of a Treatise of Faith, 1633, also A ready
Way to remember the Scriptures, 1637 ; also John Carter,
A.M. of Clare Hall, and some others, in weekly meetings
for prayer and expounding the Scriptures. Mr. Carter,
afterwards rector of Belstead in Suffolk, wrote A Commentary
of Christ's Sermon upon the Mount. He died, aged 80 years,
February 22, 1634. " At their meetings," says Samuel
Clarke in his Lives of Thirty-two English Divines, p. 133,
"they had constant exercises : first they began with prayer,
and then applied themselves to the study of the Scriptures.
One was for the original languages ; another's task was
for the grammatical interpretation ; another's for the logical
analysis; another's for the true sense and meaning of the
text ; another gathered the doctrines ; and thus they carried
on their several employments, till at last they went out, like
Apollos, eloquent men and mighty in the Scriptures : and
the Lord was with them, so that they brought in a very
great harvest unto God's barn."
On Wednesday, April 10, in Easter-week 1588, Andrewes
preached from 1 Tim. c. vi. 17—19, at the Spital. This discourse is in many respects inferior to none of the ninety-six
sermons with which it is embodied. In all the great and
essential features of a Christian sermon it is perfect, and abounds
with that fertility of illustration, and that witty and at times
satirical wisdom which marked its author. But indeed truth
is a continual satire upon the world; and he who would
faithfully portray men's passions and set them before their
own eyes must pass for a satirist. But all is here delivered
with an affection not less evident than that fearlessness which
shines so nobly in this most faithful of preachers. How
does he hold up to view all the meanness of pride, all the
folly of covetousness, all the cruelty and oppression of the
proud rich man! How does he urge his authority as a
messenger from God, upon the rich and the great !
He delivered not an essay but a discourse, written not
with a view to reading but to delivery. He therefore raises
up and meets the objections of his hearers, and answers to
the supposed charge of personality in a manner that those
indeed do not need who are always careful to destroy the
force of particular precepts by unmeaning generalities. And
at least he reminds his congregation that they must one
day give an account of the use to which they shall turn that
which they have heard at his mouth.1 He calls God to
witness that he has delivered his own soul/ and with all
this holy earnestness is nothing but truth in all sobriety and
gravity, as it is drawn from the all-searching and all-powerful
word of God.
After instancing the highmindedness of Nabal, Abner,
and Mieaiah, he adds, " These were, I dare boldly affirm,
highminded men in their generations. If any be like these
they know what they are. If then there be any that refuse
to be pruned and trimmed by the word of God ; who either,
when he heareth the words of the charge, Uesseth himself
in his heart and saith, Tush, he doth but prate; these things
shall not come upon me, though I walk still according to
the stubbornness of mine oivn heart;3 either in hearing the
word of God, takes upon him (his flesh and blood and he)
to sit on it and censure it; and say to himself one while,
'This is well spoken,' when his humour is served; another
while, 'This is foolishly spoken, now he babbleth,' because
the charge sits somewhat near him; either is in the Pharisee's
case, which, after they have heard the charge, do (as they
did at Christ) eK/jbVKrrjpl^eLVj jest and scoff, and make them
selves merry with it, and wash it down with a cup of sack,
and that because they were covetous; if in very deed the
word of God be to them a reproach,5 and they take like
delight in both, and well were they if they might never
hear it ; and, to testify their good conceit of the word, shew
it in the account of the ephod, which is a base and con
temptible garment in their eyes, and the word in it and ,
with it, (this is Michal's case) : whosoever is in any of these
men's cases, is in the case of a highminded man, and that
of the highest degree, for they lift themselves up, not against
earth and man, but against heaven and God himself. 0 be
loved, you that be in wealth and authority, love and reve
rence the word of God. It is the root that doth bear you;
it is the majesty thereof that keepeth you in your thrones,
and maketh you be that you are : but for Ego dixi Dii estis
(a parcel-commission out of this commission of ours) the mad
ness of the people would bear no government, but run head
long, and overthrow all chairs of estate, and break in
pieces all the swords and sceptres in the world ; which you of
this city had a strange experience of in Jack Straw and his
meiny,1 and keep a memorial of it in your city-scutcheon, how
all had gone down, if this word had not held all up. And
therefore honour it, I beseech you; I say, honour it. For
when the highest of you yourselves which are but grass, and
your lordship's glory and worship which is the flower of this
grass, shall perish and pass away, this word shall continue
for ever. And if you receive it now with due regard and
reverence, it will make you also to continue for ever."2
Touching upon the words, the rich in this worldy he re
marks, " Sure it is thought of divers of the best writers both
old and new (I name of the new Mr. Calvin, and of the old
St. Augustine^} that this addition is a diminution &c. — for
being of this world, they must needs savour of the soil ; be as
this world is, (that is) transitory, fickle, and deceitful."3
In this sermon he most amply vindicates the Protestantism
of the Elizabethan age from the false accusations of the
Romanists, who gave out that it was a faith without good
works. After commending the liberality of the city of London,
he proceeds, " I will be able to prove, that learning, in the
foundation of schools and increase of revenues within col
leges ; and the poor, in foundation of alms-houses and increase
of perpetuities to them, have received greater help within this
realm in these forty years last past, since (not the starting up
of our Church, as they fondly used to speak, but since) the
reforming of ours from the errors of theirs, than it hath, I say,
in any realm Christian not only within the selfsame forty
years (which were enough to stop their mouths), but also
than it hath in any forty years upward, during all the time of
Popery: which I speak partly of mine own knowledge, and
partly by sufficient grave information to this behalf. This
may be said and said truly."1
To simony and sacrilege he thus alludes. Treating of the
good that might be done to the Church by the rich men of the
city whom he likens to Tyre, called a cherub stretching its
wings over the ark to signify what protection it should yield
to the Church, he says : " And much good might be done, and
is not, in this behalf, and that many ways. I will name but
one, that is, that with their wings stretched out, they would
keep the filth and pollution of the sin of sins (whereof you
heard so bitter complaint both these days) of simony and
sacrilege, from falling on the ark, and corrupting and putrify-
ing it, which it hath almost already done : that seeing the
Pope do that he doth (howsoever some have alleged the
Papists' great detestation of this sin and of us for this sin, for
a motive ; it is all but dissembling ; their hand is as deep in
this sin as any man's) ; I say, seeing the Pope doth as he doth,
that is, as he hath dispensed with the oath and duty of subjects
to their prince, against the fifth commandment: with the
murder, both violent with daggers and secret with poison, of
the sacred persons of princes, against the sixth ; with the un-
cleanness of the stews and with incestuous marriages, against
the seventh ; so now, of late, with the abomination of simony,
against the eighth; having lately (as it is known by the
voluntary confession of their own priests), by special and ex
press warrant of the see apostolic, sent hither into this land
his license dispensative to all patrons of his mark to set up
simony, and to mart and make sale of all spiritual livings
which they have or can get to the uttermost penny, even (if
it were possible) by the sound of the drum ; and that with
a very clear conscience (so that some portion thereof be sent
over to the relief of his seminaries, which by such honest
means as this come to be now maintained). Seeing thus do
the Papists, and we (loth to be behind them in this gain of
blood) make such merchandize with this sin, of the poor
Church and her patrimony, as all the world crieth shame of
it : to redeem the orderly disposing them to the Church's
good, were a special way for you rich men to do good in these
days. Neither as these times are do I know a better service,
nor which (I am persuaded) will please God better than this,
or be better accepted at his hands."
Towards the end he answers the sophism of the Ehemist
translators, who from the text would deduce that good works
are a foundation. This they insert in a note, without any
reason, and to insinuate an untruth, namely, that they are the
foundation of justification. tl The ground whereon every
building is raised, is termed fundamentum. The lowest part
of the building immediately lying on it is so termed too. In
the first sense, Christ is said to be the only foundation : yet
the apostles, because they are the lowest row of stones, are
said to be foundations in the second. So, among the graces
within us, faith is properly in the first sense said to be the
foundation; yet in the second do we not deny, but as the
apostle calleth them, as the lowest row next to faith, charity
and the works of charity may be called foundations too.
Albeit the margin might well have been spared at this place ;
for the note is here all out of place. For, being so great
schoolmen as they would seem, they must needs know it is
not the drift of the apostle here in calling them a foundation,
to carry our considerations into the matter of justifying, but
only to press his former reason of uncertainty there, by a con
trary weight of certain stability here : and so their note comes
in like Magnificat at matins." Afterwards he thus dis
tinguishes : " But if you shall have grace to make choice of
God's plot which he hath here levelled for you to raise upon,
0 quantum dignum pretiof that will be worth all the world
in that day: the perfect certainty, sound knowledge, and
precious assurance you shall then have, whereby you shall be
assured to be received, because you are sure you are Christ's,
because you are sure you have true faith, because you are sure
you have framed it up into good works. And so shall they
be a foundation to you-ward, by making evident the as
surance of salvation : not naturd to God-ward, in bringing
forth the essence of your salvation."1
On the 19th May, 1589, Lancelot Andrewes was admitted
to the prebendal stall of North Muskham, in the church of
Southwell, in the place of John Yonge, D.D., at this time
Bishop of Eochester. Yonge was B.A. of Pembroke Hall,
Cambridge, 1551, M.A. 1555, B.D. 1563, and D.D. 1569.
On May 3rd, 1564, he was made Prebendary of Cadington
Major, in St. Paul's, London, which stall he held until 1579.
From a fellowship he was chosen to be Master of his college
in the place of Whitgift, that year preferred to the mastership
of Trinity College, where he had been educated. On the
26th April, 1572, Yonge was promoted to the 10th stall in
Westminster Abbey, in the place of Edmund Freke, Bishop
of Kochester. This stall he was permitted to keep in com-
mendam with his bishopric of Eochester, to which he was
consecrated March 16th, 1578, on the translation of Dr. John
Pierse to Salisbury. He died at Bromley in Kent, the
ancient seat of the Bishops of Eochester, in his 72nd year,
on the 10th April, 1605, and was buried at Bromley. Dr.
Christopher Sutton, the pious author of Disce vivere^ &c.,
succeeded to his stall at Westminster.
North Muskham is about three miles north of Newark.
This stall was founded probably by Thomas II. Archbishop
of York from 1109 to 1114, and endowed with a part of the
great tithes of North Muskham, with the great tithes of
Caunton (between Newark and Worksop), and with certain
temporals in North Muskham and Caunton.2 Andrewes re
tained this stall until he was raised to the see of Ely, when it
was conferred upon his brother Dr. Eoger Andrewes, after
wards Master of Jesus College, Cambridge.
On the 29th May Andrewes was, on the death of Dr.
Thomas Sampson, the Puritan Dean of Christ Church (where
he was succeeded in 1565 by Thomas Godwyn), preferred by
Grindal, Bishop of London, at the suit of the same patron
who had obtained for him his stall at Southwell, Sir Francis
Walsinghame, to the prebendal stall of St. Pancras, in St.
Paul's, London, which he also held until his translation from
Chichester to Ely in 1609, when he was succeeded by his
friend and fellow-collegian the very pious and learned Dr.
Eoger Fenton, also one of the translators of the Bible with
himself and his brother, and afterwards preferred by himself
to the parsonage of Chigwell, in Essex. Fenton was regarded
in his college as only inferior to Andrewes himself.1
Andrewes acknowledged these favours in a letter to Sir
Francis Walsinghame, as follows :
"I do in humble manner crave pardon of your Honour, in that
I have not myself attended in the re-delivery of the enclosed, to
render to your Honour my bounden duty of thanks for the contents
thereof. Being, besides mine exercise tomorrow, on Monday morn
ing, at the feast of my father's company, to preach at Deptford,2
I promised myself from your Honour a favourable dispensation for
the forbearing of my presence till then, what time I shall wait on
your Honour, as well in regard of your Honour's great bounty to
me these years past, which, while I live, I am bound to acknow
ledge, as now for the instant procurement of these two prebends,
the one of them no sooner ended, than the other of them straight
begun. They are to me both sufficient witnesses of your Honour's
care for my well-doing, and mindfulness of me upon any occasion.
My prayer to God is, that I may not live unworthy of these so
honourable dealings, but that in some sort I may prove serviceable
to your Honour, and to your Honour's chief care, this Church of
ours. What your Honour hath, and farther shall vouchsafe to
promise in my name, in this or aught else, shall be, I trust, so satis
fied, as shall stand with your Honour's liking every way. So
recommending to your Honour the perfecting of your Honour's own
benefit, with my very humble duty I end.
"The Lord Jesus, of his great goodness, grant unto this realm
long to enjoy your Honour. Amen. May 24 [1589]. Your
Honour's in all humble duty and service, so most bound, "L. ANDREWES."
Sir John Harrington relates that Sir Francis Walsinghame
had previously laboured to bring Andrewes to maintain some
state points of Puritanism. "But," he adds, "he had too
much of the av&pos in him to be scared with a councillor's
frown, or blown aside with his breath, and answered him
plainly that they were not only against his learning but his
conscience."
He further mentions that Andrewes' stall at St. Paul's
was that of the Confessioner or Penitentiary ; and that while
Andrewes held this place, his manner was especially in Lent
to walk at stated times in one of the aisles of the cathedral,
that if any came to him for spiritual advice and comfort, as
some did, though not many, he might impart it to them.
On the 28th August died Dr. William Fulke, Master of
Pembroke Hall, and previously fellow of St. John's College,
Cambridge. His refutation of the notes appended to the
Rhemish Translation of the New Testament forms a storehouse
of patristic learning and of sound theology. He was buried
at Depden, near Bury, in Suffolk. Andrewes, who was about
this time chaplain to Archbishop Whitgift, was chosen to the
vacant headship. Strype, in his Life of Whitgift, relates that
Andrewes was, for his well-known adherence to ecclesiastical
conformity, denied his grace of D.D. in the first congregation
of Dr. Preston's admission of him. This Dr. Preston, then
Vicechancellor, was not the celebrated Puritan, but Thomas
Preston, LL.D., Master of Trinity Hall.2 On this occasion
he delivered the thesis 'Decimae non sunt abrogandse,' pub
lished in the collection of his posthumous works. On Sep
tember 6th he was admitted Master of Pembroke College, and
on taking his degree preached ad Clerum from Prov. xx. 25,
It is a snare to the man who devour eth that which is holy ; a
passage of holy scripture which is altogether disallowed by
multitudes as utterly inapplicable under the Christian dis
pensation. It was indeed in the time of Charles the First,
when almost the whole nation was given to extremes both in
religion and politics, a fashionable doctrine with all pseudo-
patriots that either sacrilege had ceased to be a sin, or that
there was nothing holy, no kind of property of which it could
be said that it belonged to God, and was inalienable.
The bidding prayer was doubtless Andrewes' own compo
sition, full of antithesis. tl May God," he prays, il preserve
to it [the Church militant] his truth so lately recovered from
the thickest clouds of error : may he restore it when it shall
seem good to him, its unity now well-nigh lost through the
dissensions of the Christian world."
He begins his sermon with observing that whereas the nine
first chapters are evidently connected, the remainder appear to
be a collection taken down from Solomon's mouth by others
without regard to the order of subject. He touches upon the
free-will offerings of the people in the days of David and Saul,
1 Chron. xxvi. 27, 28. This proverb, he notes, might have
been the reply of Solomon to some of his courtiers, who like
those in Haggai might think that the house of God needed
not a roof (i. 4), or who might ask with Judas, l to what is all
this waste f He remarks, as he might have justly done in
our times, " We daily enlist soldiers many, brave and good,
but provision for them we find not. We are ever saying
much of the diffusion of light, nothing of the supplying of the
oil." He then treats — 1. of sacred things, 2. of those who
devour them, 3. of their guilt and punishment. Under the
first he shews that sacred revenues both by way of oblation
and tax are included. The Church both under the old and
new covenant had the same liberty granted it of accepting
property. This is clear from the last chapter of Leviticus, and
from the liberty which the apostles recognized, of the first
Christians laying at their feet whatsoever offerings they
thought fit. Acts iv. 35. Then as to revenues by way of
impost, there is a sacred portion in every man's property. So
Abraham the father of the faithful, guided in this (we may
not doubt) by the Holy Ghost, and an example wheresoever
justly imitable, bound himself to the giving of tithe. The
Old Testament Church had a power of taxing itself, (see
Nehem. x. 32), and, by parity of reasoning, the Christian.
Thus in Acts xxiv. 17, we read not only of alms but of
offerings, the offerings being things devoted to religious not
to eleemosynary uses. He quotes St. Augustine : u God may
thus speak, Thou, 0 man, art thyself mine ; mine is the earth
thou tillest; mine the seeds thou sowest; mine the beasts
thou makest to labour ; mine the showers 5 mine this heat of
the sun ; all are mine ; thou who only puttest to thine hand,
deservedst only the tenth, but to thee my servant I give thee
nine parts ; give to me the tenth." He notices the unwilling
ness of the people to give as proceeding in no small degree
from the springing up of the abuse of impropriations. He
refers to the complaints of the Scotch Church preferred to
the Parliament in 1565.
In speaking of persons he blames the clergy themselves as
guilty, through their own negligence and sloth, of being ac
cessory to such sacrilegious alienations. The punishment of
sacrilege he instances in both profane and sacred history ; in
the former, from Cambyses, Brennus, and Crassus • in sacred
history, from the fate of Dathan, Achan, Belshazzar, Athaliah,
and Judas. He enlarges upon the sure destruction which
sacrilege entails upon the state, and upon its injurious conse
quences as discouraging learning in the Church.
His biographer Isaacson relates that when he became
master of his college, a he found it in debt, being of a very
small endowment, then especially, but by his faithful provi
dence he left above eleven hundred pounds in the treasury of
that college, towards the bettering of the estate thereof."
CHAPTER III.
Dr. Andrewes preaches before the Queen in Lent 1589-90 — His
Lectures on the Creation and Fall — Udal, the Puritan, 1591 —
Thesis on the Oath ex officio — Of the worshipping of imaginations,
1592 — Convocation Sermon, 1593 — Greenwood and Barrow — The
Dearth of 1594.
ON March 4, 1590, Ash- Wednesday, we find Andrewes,
being now one of the Queen's twelve chaplains, preaching
before the Queen at Whitehall, from Psalm Ixxviii. ver. 34,
When Tie slew them they sought him, and they returned, and
enquired early after God.
This sermon contains many striking illustrations of the
sin and folly of delay in the things of God, and of the
power of religion as it is seen in the fears of such as have
yet all their life boasted themselves in a fancied independence
of God. u They^ that a little before, grievously provoked the
most high Gody with speeches little better than blasphemy :
Can God do this ? Is there a God amongst us ? or is there
none? And so, instead of qucerebant Deum, qucerebant an
Deusj made a question whether there were any to seek:
that is, even the very wicked, and (of all wicked the worst)
the profane atheists, they sought even at last, they sought.
This is the triumph of religion: the riotous person, the
hypocrite, the atheist, all shall seek."
Andrewes again preached before the Queen at Greenwich
on the following Wednesday, March 11, from Psalm Ixxv.
ver. 3, The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved:
I bear up the pillars thereof; discoursing upon the two pillars
of a state, religion and justice, and illustrating his subject
from the history of Saul and David. He did not with some,
who yet feign reverence of his memory, set up prayer against
preaching, which he included in the sublime duty of praise,
as the proclaiming of God to his creatures; but with the
devout George Herbert would have prayer and preaching
go hand in hand. ft So that not only Moses and Paul by
calling on the name of God, but Elias and Jeremie by
teaching the will of God (not by prayer only, but by
preaching) are, the one an iron pillar, the other the chariot
and horsemen of Israel in his time."
He reads 2 Kings xi. ver. 12, with the Vulgate, making
the ceremony of the coronation there spoken of to be the II putting not only the diadem imperial, but the book of
the law also, upon the King's head," to remind them that
"that book should be as dear to them as their crown, and
they equally study to advance it."
Andrewes, on the 6th of April, lost his faithful friend
and patron, Sir Francis Walsinghame, who died at his house
in Seething-lane, Great Tower-street, about midnight and
was buried at St. Paul's the next evening, about ten, without
pomp or publicity.
On October 13, he preached his introductory lecture at
St. Paul's, upon undertaking to comment upon the four first
chapters of Genesis. These he continued to the 12th February, 1592, upon which day he delivered that upon Gen. iii. 13,
And the Lord God said unto the woman, What hast thou
done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and
did eat. The remaining lectures1 to the end of the fourth
chapter were preached in his parish church at St. Giles',
Cripplegate, where he resumed them on the 18th June, 1598,
and completed them on February 17, 1600. These were
published in 1657 with the following title, " Apospasmatia
sacra: or, a Collection of posthumous and orphan Lectures :
delivered at St. Paul's and St. Giles' his Church, by the Eight
Honourable and Reverend Father in God Lancelot Andrews,
Lord Bishop of Winchester. Never before extant." It may
be observed that our prelate himself did not write his name
Andrews as in this title page, but Andrewes. Some of these
lectures are from very sparing, others from very copious notes.
They abound in learning and in pious applications of the
history of which he treats. Here we have the same zeal
against sacrilege, the same honest denunciation of faction
and schism which we find in his convocation sermon, the
same delight in the works of God which made his solitary
walks his most pleasant recreation when a youth, the same
familiar knowledge of the Fathers, the same doctrine of the
grace of God, sanctifying all that came from his lips.
Treating of the divine rest spoken of in Genesis ii. 2, he
saith, We say then, that he rested not from preserving and
governing, though he did rest from making.
" Hermes, by the light of reason, could say that it were
very absurd to think that God should leave and neglect the
things he had made; and God imputeth it as a fault to
the ostrich, Job xxxix. ver. 18, 19, to leave her eggs without
care and regard in the sands; therefore God himself will
be free from that blame and blemish which he condemneth
in others. As we say of the Father, so we say of the Son,
which is the Word of God, Psalm xxxiii. ver. 9, He commanded
and they were made; there is creation : He said the word and
stood fast; which is the second work of preservation
and guiding. Also Psalm cxlviii. ver. 5, 6, He first made them
with his word, which is the first work of creation long since
ended, and he gave them a law which they should not break,
which is the other work of establishing and governing things
made. So Col. i. ver. 17, Paul speaking of Christ, saith,
By Him all things have their being, or existence ; and Heb.
i. ver. 3j By Him all things have their supportance, and are
held up.
"If God had his work six days before he rested in
creation, and if Adam had his work in the state of innocency,
then it is much more meet now, that man should go forth
to his labour until the evening, Psalm civ. ver. 23. They
which are not in the works of men. Psalm Ixxiii., but lie on
their beds imagining mischief, they shall not rest in the
Lord, because God made them for good works to walk in
them, Ephes ii. ver. 10.
"There are a number of superfluous creatures, as one
calleth the idle ones, of whom if we should demand, what
is thy calling or work? they cannot say, we are exercised
in the works of men; neither do they work in the will
of God. Therefore if they do anything, they busy themselves
in meddling about other men's matters.
"It is strange to see how busy we are in taking in hand
evil things, and how earnest we are in doing them, and how
constant in not giving them over, or ceasing from such
works. Judas can watch all night to work his treason; but
Peter and the rest could not watch one hour to pray with
Christ.
"Husbandmen in their works for earthly things are
earnest; they follow his counsel (Eccles. xi. 6) not to cease
sowing from the morning until the evening, but will make
an end. But in the works of God we cannot follow his
counsel, to do all that thou takest in hand with all thy power
and strength.
"The last use which we are to make of this is, that which
the Apostle gathereth out of the Hebrews (iv. 10). As
God did rest from his works, so let us from ours. We must
esteem our righteousness and best works as filthy rags,
yea as very dung, Phil. iii. 8, and say as Job did, 1 feared
my own works. Job ix. 28, Vulgate. Thus we must rest
from our own works because there is no safety or quietness
in them, but leave our own righteousness, that we may rest
in Christ and in the works he hath wrought for us."
These lectures Dr. Andrewes continued at St. Paul's
through the months of January, February, April, May, June,
July, August, October, and November, 1591.
On January the 8th in that year we find him not only
one of the witnesses, but appointed one of the executors
of Dean Nowell's will (most providently made by that
venerable man now ten years before his decease). As guard
ian of John Dean, in whose education No well had been at
great expense, Nowell was in the receipt of the interest
of £2,600, lent upon bonds to different companies of merchants in London, of which income, amounting to £135 per annum, it was Nowell's desire that no part should be applied to the emolument of his widow, but the whole laid out in
deeds of charity. Of £100, half to be sent to Oxford, half
to Cambridge. Of that sent to Cambridge, Dr. Andrewes,
master of Pembroke Hall, Dr. Neville, master of Trinity
College (tutor to George Herbert, and in 1597 dean of
Canterbury), Dr. Tyndale, president of Queens' College, and
this same year dean of Ely, and Dr. Chaderton, master
of Emmanuel College, were to dispose ; £4. being annually
reserved to Alexander Whitaker, scholar of Trinity College,
and £4. to his brother Samuel of Eton College, sons of Dr.
Whitaker, master of St. John's College, deceased.
Alexander Nowell was admitted scholar of Trinity College,
Cambridge, April 16, 16023 : he was admitted to the degree
of B.A. in 1604, and of M.A. in 1608. He was not elected
to a fellowship. The registers make no mention of his
brother Samuel.
Under January 21, 1591, the following register is entered
in the registry of St. Olave's, Hart-street : "Master Walter
Devereux, second son to the Earl of Essex, in my lady
Walsinghame's house; Sir Thomas Parrot [Perrot] and Sir
William Knollys, Knts., and my lady, the mother, were wit
nesses. Mr. Doctor [Andrewes] preached and baptized the
child."
Sir William Knoilys, or Knowles, was afterwards treasurer
of the household to King James, by whom he was created
Baron Knowles, May 3, 1603, Viscount Wallingford 1616,
and by Charles I., in the first year of his reign, Earl of
Banbury. His mansion was Greys Kotherfield, (whence
the name of his barony EotJierfield) to the west of Henley-
on-Thames; a house which in times past Walter Grey
the archbishop of York [1216—1256] gave freely unto
William Grey his nephew, the inheritance whereof by the
Baron of D'Eincourt was devolved upon the Lovels.
In the baptismal register of St. Olave's, Hart-street, is
the following, dated January 22, 1591 : " Kobert Devereux
Viscount Hereford," (afterward General of the Parliament)
"son and heir of Robert Earl of Essex, in my Lady Walsing
hame's house" (in Seething-lane4) mother to the countess;
Sir Francis Knollys and the Lord Rich, with the Countess
of Leicester," (daughter of Sir Francis Knollys, and widow
of Walter Earl of Essex as well as of Robert Earl of
Leicester, and grandmother to the infant,) witnesses. Dr.
Andrewes preached and baptized the child.
Sir Francis Knollys was a Knight of the Garter and
treasurer to the Queen's household. He had been an exile
in Germany in the reign of Queen Mary. He was descended
from Sir Robert Knollys who greatly signalized himself in
the wars with France under Edward III. Sir Robert also
assisted in the suppression of Wat Tyler's rebellion, and
was of a spirit as munificent as heroic. He contributed
to the building of Bochester-bridge, founded a college at
Pontefract, where Constance his lady was born, and was
a great benefactor to the White Friars in London, in whose
church he was buried in August 1407, being then at least
ninety years old.
The first lord Kich was Lord-Chancellor for five years in
the reign of Edward VI. He was well descended and allied
in Hampshire, and was much employed under Cromwell in
the suppression of abbies; umost of the grants of which
lands," says Fuller, "going through his hands, no wonder if
some stuck upon his fingers."
On St. Matthias-Day, February 24th, Andrewes preached
at Greenwich before the queen, from Psalm Ixxvii. 20, setting
before her the pattern of the divine government, the gentle
ness with which the great Shepherd of Israel led his flock.
He treated very tenderly, and in the true pastoral spirit, of the
value of the flock committed to her royal charge, all alike by
nature given to disobedience, but God's flock and people, and
the lowest and meanest of them dear to Christ. He quoted
those impressive words of St. Augustine upon Inasmuch as
ye did it to the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me;
u Thou nearest the least, and thou despisest them ; hear also
these words, my brethren, and, believe me, the saving of the
least of these is no small glory." He reminded the queen
that the office of princes is to lead their people to God, and
urged the necessity of a public ministry as well of religion as
of civil justice ; the hand as well of Aaron as of Moses.
In May Dr. Andrewes was, together with Nowell, appointed by archbishop Whitgift to confer with Udal, then in prison.
Udal had been convicted under a very large interpretation
of the 23 Eliz. cap. 2, which was enacted for the punishment
of seditious words against the queen. His offence was a passionate invective against the bishops in a work entitled The
Demonstration of Discipline which Christ hath prescribed in
his Word, for the government of his Church in all times and
places until the world's end. The preface gave especial
provocation, and a virulent specimen of it was inserted in the
indictment. " Who can deny you without blushing (he
writes to the bishops) to be the cause of all ungodliness,
seeing your government is that which giveth leave to a man
to be anything saving a sound Christian?" and more in a still
severer strain. Udal was treated with much injustice, and
after a somewhat turbulent trial and much overbearing, was
convicted on July 23, 1590; but his learning and reputation
were such that Whitgift is said to have interceded for him
and to have delayed judgment. He was however, in March
1591, brought to the bar at South wark and condemned to die
as a felon. Whitgift is said to have procured his reprieve.
In prison he wrote a Hebrew grammar, and was visited by
several of his friends. Andrewes conferred with him upon all
the points then in controversy between the Church of England and the maintainers of the new discipline, but without
success. He appears however to have respected both An
drewes and Nowell, and to have been regarded by them with
unfeigned sympathy if not esteem. Great efforts were made
in his behalf, and his friendly visitants themselves promised
him their kind offices, but he was disappointed of all his
hopes, and at last died broken-hearted in prison. Great
numbers attended his funeral at St. George's, Southwark.
Andrewes is said to have been a member of a Society
of Antiquaries, to which belonged Sir Walter Kaleigh, Sir
Philip Sidney, Lord Burleigh, Henry Earl of Arundel, the
two Herberts, Earls of Pembroke, Sir Henry Saville, John
Stowe, and William Camden. It began in the earlier
part of the reign of queen Elizabeth, and its great object
was the preservation of MSS. dispersed by the suppression
and dissolution of monasteries. They met first at the house
of Sir Robert Cotton, under the patronage of archbishop
Parker. So Dr. Moore, p. 2, The Gentlemans Society at
Spalding. (Pickering, 1851.)
In July 1591, Dr. Andrewes read in the Divinity School
at Cambridge his Theological Determination upon the law
fulness of the oath ex officio on the ground of Scripture.
He maintained the affirmative as implied in the very authority
of the magistrate, which was over the soul as well as the
body, Rom. xiii. 1. If it was lawful in Abraham to make
his servant take an oath, in the case of Jacob and Joseph,
and of Jacob and Esau; much more in causes of a weightier
kind, and by the authority of greater persons. This power
he urged was involved in Exodus xxii. 8, If the thief be
not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto
the judges to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. He alleged also Numbers v. 19, Levit. vi. 3,
and 1 Kings viii. 31. In cases involving the life or death
of the party he makes an exception, instancing the case
of Jeremiah (xxxviii. 14). But where the public weal is
concerned, whether in church or state, recourse may be had
to extraordinary modes of discovering guilt. Thus Joshua
proceeded by lot, and so Achan was taken and punished.
(Josh. vii. 16.) Amongst other reasons and illustrations
he adduced Levit. v. 1, and Ezra x. 11. Micaiah answered
when thus put upon his oath (1 Kings xxii.), and our Lord
himself (Matth. xxvi. 63).
Of the limits of an oath or of that which determines its
equity, he remarks, that Scripture lays down a threefold rule,
(1) " in truth, in righteousness, in judgment" (Jer. iv. 2), that
is, "I will speak nothing but the truth in the name of
the Lord; (2) concerning those things which fall within my
knowledge (things possible) and according to the requirements of the law itself; (3) not hastily, but with deliberation.
In January and February 1592, Dr. Andrewes proceeded
with his lectures on the third chapter of Genesis at St. Paul's,
but does not appear to have resumed them until June 18, 1598,
and then at his church of St. Giles', Cripplegate. On
January 9, 1592, he preached there his sermon entitled
Of the worshipping of imaginations, from Acts ii. 42, as
one of a series upon the Commandments. Here he refutes
the pleas of the Puritans pretending in everything to follow
the Apostolic model, and yet no man thinks himself bound
(says Andrewes) to abstain from eating things strangled and
blood. And so of their love-feasts and their celebrating
their sacrament after supper. He here defends the reading
of the Apocrypha from St. Jude's quoting the apocryphal
book of Enoch. He declares for the Apostolic origin of
episcopacy, and disputes against that of lay-elders, citing
St. Chrysostom, that in his time only the wiser of the
presbyters were suffered to preach, the simpler sort to baptize. The distinction between elders and doctors he shews
to have had no existence at least in the minds of the antient
commentators Chrysostom, Jerome and Augustine. He
shews how the Popish mass is an imagination, since, contrary
to the text (as the Syriac translates it), in their sacrament
there is no breaking of bread, inasmuch as after consecration
there is, according to them, no bread to break, and the body
of Christ is now impassible. He calls the Eucharist a sacrifice,
as it is the renewing of covenant with God in virtue of Christ's
sacrifice. The partaking of the bread he calls the partaking
of Christ's true body. Lastly he animadverts upon the
long and extemporaneous prayers of the Puritans, with their
tautology and incoherence. This and another are the only
two of his many parochial sermons which Laud and Buckeridge seem to have thought worthy of preservation.
In the course of this year, 1592, Andrewes' Seven Sermons
on the Temptation were first printed, with the following
title: tl The Wonderful Combat (for God's glory and man's
salvation) between Christ and Satan opened, in seven most
excellent, learned, and zealous Sermons upon the Temptations
of Christ in the Wilderness. Seen and allowed. London:
printed by John Charlwood for Richard Smith: and are
to be sold at his shop at the west door of St. Paul's, 1592.
This edition was called in as soon as printed, as appears
from a notice of it in p. 1324 in Herbert's Ames. They were
reprinted in 4to. in 1627 for J. Jaggard and Michael Sparke;
the latter reprinted them, with Robert Milbourne, Richard
Cotes and Andrew Crooke, in his edition of Andrewes' Lectures
on the Decalogue.
The other parochial discourse is from Jer. iv, 2, on the
third commandment, and was preached at St. Giles', Cripple-
gate, on June llth. He interprets our Lord as designing
to free the divine law in his Sermon on the Mount from
the false glosses of the Pharisees, not as giving a new law.
He observes that an oath may be lawfully made without
including an express mention of the name of God. "Howbeit
yet the Fathers (well weighing that speech of St. Paul's,
1 Cor. xv. 31, where he speaketh on this wise, By our rejoicing
which we have in Christ Jesus our Lord, &c., wherein his
oath is not immediately by the Name of God, but by a
secondary thing issuing from it,) have thought it not abso
lutely necessary that in every oath the Name of God should
be mentioned, but sufficient if reductive. It is ruled in
divinity, that such things as presently are reduced to God,
will bear an oath." This he instances in swearing by the
Holy Gospel
The first edition of Andrewes' Sermons on the Temptation -
has an epistle dedicatory to Sir John Puckering, Knt, Lord-
Keeper of the Great Seal of England.
This volume contains the bidding prayers used by Andrewes before his parochial sermons.
"Two most excellent Prayers which the preacher commonly
used before his exercises.
"That the name of God may be glorified by this our
assembly, and his holy Word blessed to the end he hath
ordained it: let us in all humbleness present ourselves before
the mercy-seat of God the Father, in the name and mediation
of Christ Jesus his dear Son, through the sanctifying of
his Holy Spirit, with our unfeigned humble acknowledgment both of our own unworthiness to receive any of his
graces, and unableness when we have received them to make
right use of them. And both these by reason of our manifold
sundry sins and offences, amongst the rest, of this one (as
a chief one) that we divers times have been hearers of his
divine and precious Word, without care or conscience to
become the better thereby: let us beseech him, in the
obedience of the life and sacrifice of the death of Christ Jesus
his dear Son, to receive both us and this our humble confession; to pardon both this and the rest of our sins, and
to turn from us the punishments deservedly due unto them
all; especially that punishment which most usually he doth
exercise at such meetings as this, which is, the receiving
of his Word into a dead and dull heart, and so departing
with no more delight to hear nor desire to practise than
we came with; that so, through the gracious assistance of
his good Spirit, inward, adjoined to the outward ministry
of his Word at this present, the things which shall be spoken
and heard may redound to some glory of his everlasting-
blessed name, and to some Christian instruction and comfort
of our own souls, through Jesus Christ our only Lord and
Saviour."
This prayer ended he proceedeth again in this manner:
a And as the Church of Christ, wheresoever it is at this
present assembled and met together, is mindful of us that
be here, so it is our parts and duties in our prayers to
remember it, recommending unto the majesty of Almighty
God the prosperous and flourishing estate thereof: beseeching
God the Father, for Christ Jesus his Son's sake, to be merciful
to all his servants, even his whole militant church, scattered
far and wide over the face of the whole earth : both preserving
it in those truths that it hath recovered from the sundry gross
and superstitious errors of the form erage, and restoring it
also unto that unity (in his good time) which it hath almost
lost and daily loseth through the unchristian and unhappy
contentions of these days of ours.
11 And in this Church let us be mindful of that part thereof
which most especially needeth our remembrance, that is,
the poor afflicted members of Christ Jesus, in what place,
for what cause, or with what cross soever: that it would
please God to minister into our hearts the same spirit of
compassion and fervency, now in the time of their need,
that we would wish should be ministered into theirs in
the time of our need, for them to become suitors for us.
And let us wish them all from the Lord (in his good time)
the same joyful deliverance, and till his good time be, the
same measure of patience that we would wish unto our own
souls, or would have them entreat and pray for at his hands
for us, if ever our case shall be as theirs is at this present.
" And forasmuch as those churches or members of churches
which enjoy the outward benefits of the Lord, as of health,
plenty, peace and quietness, do many times as much and (for
the most part) much more need the prayers of Christ his
faithful congregation, than those that are under his hand in
the house of affliction, let us beseech him for them also, that
he will give unto each and every of them a thankful receiving
of those his benefits, a sober using of them, and a Christian
employing of them, to his glory that hath sent them.
u And in these our prayers let us be mindful also of the
Church and country wherein we live, yielding first and fore
most evermore, our unfeigned and hearty thanksgivings for
all his mercies and gracious favours vouchsafed this land of
ours : and namely, for our last no less gracious than marvellous
deliverance from our enemies, and for all those good signs and
tokens of his loving favor which ever since and daily he
sheweth towards us.
tl And together withal let us beseech him, that whilst these
days of our peace do last, he will open our eyes to see and in
cline our hearts to seek after those things which may make
for the continuance and establishing of this peace long
amongst us.
"And (as by especial duty we all stand bound) let us
commend unto his Majesty his chosen servant Elizabeth our
Sovereign by his grace, of England, France, and Ireland
Queen, Defendress of the Faith, and over all estates and per
sons within these her dominions (next and immediately under
God) supreme Governess : let us beseech God (daily more and
more) to persuade her Highness' heart that the advancement
and flourishing of this kingdom of hers consisteth in the ad
vancement and flourishing of the kingdom of his Son Christ
within it; that it may be therefore her Majesty's special care and
study, that both her Highness in that great place wherein God
hath set her, and every one of us in the several degrees wherein
we stand, may be as careful to testify unto the whole world
a special care and endeavour that we have for the propaga
tion of the gospel of his Son, as Christ Jesus hath shewn
himself by many arguments both of old and of late (and
that of weight) that he hath carried and still carrieth a special
care of the preservation and welfare of us all.
" Let us commend also unto God the several estates of
the land, for the right honourable of the Nobility and of
her Highness' Privy Council, that they may be careful (from
the Spirit of the Lord) to derive all their counsels ; that
so God which sendeth the counsel may send it good and
happy success also, and may confound and cast out the
counsels of the enemy.
lt For the estate of the clergy, the right reverend Fathers
in God, in whose hand the government of the Church is,
and all other inferior ministers, that he will give unto
each and every of them sufficient graces for the discharge
of their functions, and together (with the graces) both a faith
ful and a fruitful employing of them.
" For the estate of magistracy, and namely for the gover
nors of this honourable city, that they together with the
rest, according to the trust that is reposed in them, may
be no less careful speedily without delay, than incorruptly
without partiality, to administer justice to the people of God.
u For the estate of the commons, that they all, in a Christian
obedience towards each and every of their superiors, and in
a godly love, with the fruits and duties thereof one towards
another, may walk worthy of that glorious calling whereunto
they are called: and that the blessings of the Lord may
not only be with us for our times, but successively also
be delivered to our posterity, let us beseech God that he
will visit with the Spirit of his grace the two Universities,
Cambridge and Oxford, all schools of learning and places
of education of youth; that they being watered with the
dew of his blessing, may yield forth such plants as may
both serve for a present supply of the Church's need, and
also in such sort furnish the generations that are to come
that our posterity also may be counted unto the Lord for
a holy seed and a Christian generation as we ourselves are.
li And thus recommending ourselves unto the prayers of
Christ his Church, as we have commended Christ his whole
Church by our prayers unto the majesty of Almighty God,
reposing our trust and confidence neither in our own prayers
nor in the Church's prayers, but in the alone mediation of
Christ Jesus our advocate, let us unto him as unto our
sole intercessor offer up these our supplications, that he
may present them to God his Father for the effectual obtaining of these and whatsoever graces else he knoweth needful for his whole Church and for us, calling upon him as himself in his Gospel hath taught us, Our Father, &c."
Isaacson informs us that Andrewes read the lecture at
St. Paul's three times a- week in term time. " And indeed,"
he adds, " what by his often preaching at St. Giles', and
his no less often reading in St. Paul's, he became so infirm
that his friends despaired of his life."
Of his charities in his parish of S. Giles', Cripplegate,
Buckeridge says, in his funeral sermon, "The first place he
lived on was S. Giles', there I speak my knowledge; I do not
say he began — sure I am he continued his charity: his
certain alms there was ten pound per annum, which was
paid quarterly by equal portions, and twelve pence every
Sunday he came to church, and Jive shillings at every
Communion.'' As prebendary of St. Pancras he built the
prebendal house in Creed-lane, and recovered it to the
church.
On February 20, 1593, Dr. Andrewes preached the Convocation sermon at St. Paul's, from Acts xx. 28. He refers to the notice of this passage in the 14th chapter of the 3rd book of Irenseus against Heresies, as shewing that he
held the distinction of the episcopate and of the presbytery.
Towards the beginning of his discourse he reprobates the
great abuse of preaching by the idle and unlearned in those
times ; he also admonishes his audience of the need they
have to look well to their flocks, and remarks that the narrow
scrutiny of their lives and manners so common amongst
the laity is the effect of their remissness in their pastoral
charge. Nobly does he urge the consideration that (l this
congregation which we call the Church and which so many
amongst us so lukewarmly and slothfully tend, are, if we
believe Peter, partakers of the divine nature, (2 Pet. i. 4);
if John, citizens of heaven ; if Paul, the future judges of
the angels," 1 Cor. vi. 3. Towards the end of this discourse
he animadverts upon the boldness of some who at that time
ventured to impugn the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Next
he speaks, and that in the very strongest terms, of the Romish
emissaries, and of the unaltered spirit of Rome still thirsting
for blood. After this he notices the factious spirit of the
Puritans, more ready to give laws to the Church than to
receive them. He speaks of some who made light of the
Sacraments and treated them as superfluous, proscribed the
Apostles' Creed, would not use the Lord's prayer, and sought
to introduce a state little better than anarchy itself. He
predicts that if these evils are not restrained our Sion will
soon be turned into Babel.
He next faithfully reproves the evil custom of admitting
unfit persons to the ministry, men whose lives are a scandal
to the Church, and the cause, as he admits, of loud complaint,
and that not without foundation. Nor does he spare the
bishops themselves, but alludes very openly to the iniquitous
and impious practice of that age, of bishops, on their advancement to their sees, impoverishing their bishoprics by in equitable exchanges of estates for great tithes,1 &c. Indeed, queen Elizabeth first strove to deteriorate by this kind of
temptation the whole prelacy, and then punished the natural
effect of her own misconduct, the popular contempt that was
cast upon her prelates, and that tended more perhaps than
any other cause to strengthen the Puritans. This very year
Dr. Marmaduke Middleton, Bishop of St. David's, was suspended by the High Commission Court.
Of the Convocation, Collier relates that, "excepting the
grant of two subsidies little or nothing was done. On the
11th of April, the day after the dissolution of Parliament, the
Convocation was dissolved by the queen's writ."
On March 21, Dr. Andrewes, with Dr. Parry, afterwards
Bishop of Worcester, Dr. Philip Bisse, Archdeacon of Taunton, and Dr. Thomas White, Prebendary of Mora and Canon
Kesidentiary of St. Paul's, was sent to Mr. Henry Barrow
to exhort him to recant his errors. This conference took no
effect, and so on April 6th, Barrow and John Greenwood, the
one a layman the other in holy orders, were executed at
Tyburn. These men, from the enumeration of their delinquencies as recorded by their judges, deserved rather to be sent to Bedlam than to Tyburn. They held that "the Church of England was no true church, and that the worship in this
communion was downright idolatry; that praying by a form
was blasphemous, and that all those who make or expound
any printed or written catechisms, are idle shepherds." Their
more venial offences were the maintaining that every parish
should choose its own pastor, that every lay elder is a bishop,
with other points of 'schismatical and seditious doctrine,' as
their indictment ran.
On Friday,5 March 30th, Dr. Andrewes preached before the queen at St. James's, from St. Mark xiv. 4, 6. Andrewes
here uncritically follows the conjecture of St. Augustine that
this Mary was Mary Magdalene, and the penitent woman
mentioned in the 7th chapter of St. Luke's Gospel. He re
flects in this sermon upon the prodigality of that age in
sumptuous feasting, in princely apparel, in burdensome reti
nues, in magnificent houses. Alluding to the complaint of
Judas, To what end is this waste? he says, "The case is
like, when they that have wasted many pounds, complain of
that penny waste which is done on Christ's body the Church.
Or when they that in their whole dealings (all the world sees)
are unreformed, seriously consult how to reform the Church."
Again he observes, "The kindliest way to have Judas' complaint redressed, is to speak and labour that Mary Magdalene's example may be followed."
The following year was a time of dearth, as we find from
li The renewing of certain Orders devised by the, special commandments of the Queers Majestic for the relief and stay of the present dearth of grain within the Realm in the year of our Lord 1586, now to be again executed this year 1594, dfcc., published by Christopher Barker. It was probably for a collection on account of this dearth that Andrewes preached in the Court at Richmond, from the parable of Dives and Lazarus, on Tuesday, March 5, 1594.2 This is indeed one
of the most profitable of his discourses, and contains many
topics and illustrations worthy of special observation.
On the following day he preached before the queen at
Hampton Court on Remember Lot's wife. He spoke much
of the frequency of such relapses, and very ably treated of
the peculiar nature and heinousness of her sin and greatness
of her punishment. He concluded with a high commendation
of the perseverance of the queen as one who had from the
beginning of her reign to this time been faithful to the true
religion; one who (like Zorobabel) first by princely magnanimity laid the corner-stone in a troublesome time; and since, by heroical constancy, through many both alluring proffers and threatening dangers, hath brought forth the
headstone also, with the prophet's acclamation 'Grace, grace
unto it.' "
In November the queen, to satisfy the complaints of her
parliament, issued a commission to examine into the state
of the ecclesiastical courts. For the diocese of London, Dr.
Richard Fletcher, bishop of Worcester, Dr. Andrewes, and
Dr. Stanhope, a civilian, were appointed commissioners.
CHAPTER IV.
The Lambeth Articles, 1595.— Dr Andrews' Review of them.— He
adopts the Augustinian doctrine as modified by Aquinas.
THE late eminently learned and candid bishop of Lincoln,
Dr. Kaye, has observed of St. Augustine, that the high
estimation in which his authority was held may be traced
equally in the writings of the Reformers and in the discussions
of the theologians at the Council of Trent. Of the state
of our nature after the fall, he observes, that the framers
of our Articles not only adopted the opinions, but in the
concluding paragraph (of the 10th Article) have used the
very language of Augustine.
Neither is there any adequate proof that any of the Reformers departed from the doctrine of St. Augustine, or differed from one another upon the peculiar and essential tenets of that father, whose theology entered even into all the forms
of devotion that had been used in our own country and over Western Christendom from the fifth century. It may be seen from the Formula Concordise itself, which was promulgated and subscribed in 1579, that the original doctrines
of Luther were at that time recognized as the unaltered faith
of the Lutheran Communion. Melancthon himself in 1551
subscribed to the doctrine of St. Augustine on Original Sin,
which doctrine was affirmed in the Saxon Confession, a Confession drawn up by Melancthon himself. He had previously maintained the same in his Apology of the Confession of Augsburg. Yet Weismann and others have claimed Me-
lancthon as a dissentient from St. Augustine even in the lifetime of Luther.
The opinions of Cranmer as early as 1537 are easily
discernible in the Institution of a Christian Man, and in
his annotations upon the king's proposed corrections of that
book, in which it is obvious that the king with Gardiner
dissented from St. Augustine. Indications are not wanting
in the history of the English Reformation that the same
diversity of bias marked the two great parties of that age,
the friends of the Reformation herein adhering to the antient,
of the Papacy to the modern church of Rome, even when
abroad this mark of severance was not so observable.
The year before Cranmer with Ridley drew up the forty-
two Articles, since reduced to thirty-nine, and which were
placed in the hands of Knox, Grind al, and others previously
to publication, he thus expressed himself in his Answer
to Dr. Smith:
"And yet I know this to be true, that Christ is present
with his holy church, which is his holy elected people , and
shall be with them to the world's end, leading and governing
them with his Holy Spirit, and teaching them all truth
necessary for their salvation. And whensoever any such be
gathered together in his name, there is he among them,
and he shall not suffer the gates of hell to prevail against
them. Nor although he may suffer them by their own
frailty for a time to err, fall, and to die ; yet finally, neither
Satan, hell, sin, nor eternal death shall prevail against them.
But this holy church is so unknown to the world, that no
man can discern it but God alone, who only searcheth
the hearts of all men, and knoweth his true children from
other that be bastards. This church is the pillar of truth
because it resteth upon God's Word."
In the following year appeared the Articles. There can
be no doubt respecting the mind of their framers as regards
their interpretation of them. Enough has been adduced to
justify the assertion of the late Bishop of Lincoln, that a if
they can be said to have followed the guidance of any uninspired teacher, that teacher was Augustine, who for more than ten centuries had exercised through his writings an unbounded influence over the Western Church." That influence continued to prevail in both our universities to the time of Andrewes, and after his decease. It is alike visible in the works of Whitaker, and in Andrewes' Judgment of the Lambeth Articles. But Andrewes pleaded for the modification of the Augustinian doctrine which had been introduced by Aquinas, maintaining at the same time that it introduced no essential variation, and did not affect the cause but the order which the Almighty observes in the act of predestining.
The first indication of a departure from the received doctrine
was on the part of Dr. Baro, the Lady Margaret's Divinity
professor at Cambridge. He was a learned Frenchman,
Peter Baro Stempanus, a licentiate of Civil Law in the
university of Bourges, admitted to his professorship in 1575,
having the great lord Burleigh for his patron; D.D. of
the university of Cambridge 1576. He gave offence to
the university by some antipredestinarian opinions delivered
in his lectures upon Jonah. And upon this occasion Dr.
Whitaker drew up the Lambeth Articles in November 1595.
That same year, on the 5th May, William Barrett, a fellow
of Caius College, was cited to appear before the Heads of
Houses for an Act sermon for his degree of B.D. preached
on the 29th April. He had maintained that no man could
be assured in this life of his own salvation but by revelation,
that the faith of all men could fail, that therefore the assurance
of final perseverance was both proud and wicked; that there
was no distinction in faith (such as between a true and living
and a dead faith), but in the persons believing ; that no man
could or ought to believe that his sins were forgiven; that
sin is the first cause of reprobation; that Calvin lifted up
himself above Grod; adding contumelious language against
Peter Martyr, Beza, Zanchius, Junius and others, and calling
them Calvinists. He was compelled to read a retractation,
but evinced symptoms of unwillingness immediately after so
doing departed the university, joined the Church of Rome,
and returned to England, where, adds Fuller, in his History
of the University of Cambridge, he led a layman's life until
the day of his death.
To settle these contentions Dr. Whitaker drew up nine
Articles, and these were laid before Whitgift the primate,
to whom the university deputed Whitaker and Dr. Humphrey
Tyndall, president of Queens' College and dean of Ely, to
represent the state of the controversy. Whitaker was admitted in his own age to be inferior in learning and acumen to none of his contemporaries. Bellarmine himself so respected his learning that he placed his portrait in his study.
He was born in 1547, the first year of Edward VI., at
the manor of Holme in the parish of Burnley. Holme is
situated between Burnley and Todmorden, and to the east
of Blackburn. Having been first educated probably at
Burnley, he was sent for to London by his maternal uncle,
that accomplished scholar and theologian, Alexander Nowell,
the composer of the smaller and also of the greater Catechism
of the Church of England, recently edited both by the present
able Regius Divinity professor at Oxford, Dr. Jacobson,
and by the Parker Society. Dean Nowell placed his nephew
at St. Paul's School. Thence he was sent to Trinity College,
Cambridge, and was elected to a fellowship in that noble
foundation. He translated his uncle's larger catechism into
Greek. He now applied himself to the study of theology,
and his voluminous works bear ample testimony to the depth
of his patristic and general erudition. He was accordingly
appointed at the early age of thirty-three to succeed Dr.
William Chaderton, bishop of Chester and afterwards of
Lincoln, as Regius professor of Divinity in his university.
When the mastership of St. John's College, Cambridge,
became vacant by the promotion of Dr. John Howland to
the see of Peterborough, who was consecrated at Lambeth
February 7th, 1585, Whitaker was, by special mandate from
the queen, admitted to the mastership on the 25th February,
1586, Rowland being permitted to retain the mastership
a year after his consecration.
Whitgift wrote to Dr. Matthew Hutton, Archbishop of
York, and formerly a fellow of Trinity (Whitgift's) College.
Hutton hereupon drew up a Latin summary of Predestination,
taken especially from St. Augustine. On November 10th,
Dr. Fletcher, Bishop of Worcester, and now Bishop elect of
London, Dr. Eichard Vaughan, Bishop elect of Bangor, trans
lated two years after to Chester, and thence, on Bancroft's
promotion to the primacy, to London, and some other divines
met Whitaker, Tyndall, and Whitgift at Lambeth, and the
bishops agreed upon the Articles after some few alterations.
It was designed to enforce subscription to them, but the queen
resented it as a violation of her prerogative.
In 1651 a brief history of these Articles was published,
and annexed to them two minor treatises purporting to be the
judgment of Andrewes upon them and his censure of the
censure of Barrett. Dr. Andrewes had been for some years
chaplain to Whitgift, and was doubtless already known as
one of the most learned theologians of the age.
In his review of the nine articles he first remarks, "The
four first articles are concerning predestination and reprobation,
of which it is said by the Apostle, 0 the depth, and by the
Prophet, a great deep. (Rom. xi. 33, Psalm xxxvi. 6.)" Here
we may observe that Andrewes follows St. Augustine, who
in like manner refers that wonderful conclusion of the 11th
chapter of the epistle to the Romans to these mysteries.
Then Dr. Andrewes acknowledges that he has followed
the counsel of St. Augustine, and abstained from the time
of his ordination (sixteen years) from disputing and from
preaching upon these points. And considering the great
danger of abuse, and that but few of the clergy can skillfully
handle these subjects, and that very few are competent to
hear of them with profit, he would advise that silence should
be enjoined on both sides.
The first article affirmed that God from all eternity had
predestinated some to life, and had reprobated others. Upon
this he notes : "That there are in the mind of God, in that
his eternal (whether one may call it foreknowledge or) know
ledge by which he sees those things which are not as though
they were, some who are predestinate, others who are reprobate, I think is beyond all doubt. They are the words of Scripture, before the foundation of the world, that is, that God chose us from eternity, and, when he had chosen, predestinated us, Ephes. i. 4, 5 ; and that he chose us out of the
world, John xv. 19; wherefore, he chose not all that are
in the world, but some. Otherwise there would be no election."
Here we may observe that whereas in the antipredestinarian sense all are predestinate alike, though to different ends, Andrewes uses the term of the elect alone. Secondly, in John xv. 9, he supposes that Judas was excluded, which
is certain indeed, for the words were not spoken until after
he had left the Apostles. Thirdly, he applies this place
to predestination unto life, in which again he follows St.
Augustine, but not so those who here leave that father and
accuse him of being tainted with Manichasism.
Then Andrewes proceeds to justify from Scripture the
use of the term reprobate, but advises that it should be
expressed that these are predestinated through Christ, those
reprobate on account of sin. And here there has arisen
a strife of words, it having been sometimes objected to
Calvin and to Augustine that they deny that sin is the
cause of reprobation, and resolve all into the mere pleasure
or decree of God. The truth is that if there were no sin
there could be no rejection; and again it is equally true
that if God had determined to include all in the number of the elect, there had been no rejection. Both Calvin and Augustine therefore teach that men are reprobated as sinners, and that reprobation follows naturally upon a decree of election. And so Dr. Andrewes adds, "But those whom he chose not and by choosing approved (as the nature of election carries with it) he reprobated. And scripture uses the words rejecting (Rom. xi. 2), reprobating (Heb. xii. 15)."
The second article is: "The moving or efficient cause
of predestination unto life, is not foresight of faith, or of
perseverance, or of good works, or of anything that is in
the person predestinated, but only the good-will and pleasure
of God."
Dr. Andrewes advised the addition "of God in Christ";
for that first God had respect to his beloved Son, "but
not to us first (as some think) and to him last, and that
for our sakes. For we could not be predestinated to the
adoption of sons but in his natural son, nor could we be
predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, unless
first the Son be ordained to whose image we are to be conformed. Wherefore I would also add to this article l the good- will of God in Christ.' ''
Next he expresses his disapproval of the separation of
the divine prescience from the divine predestination. This
indeed sounds to modern ears antipredestinarian; but let
the explanation be received, and the proposition that the
will of God includes bold foreknowledge and fore-ordination
will be seen to be at once perfectly compatible with the
belief of predestination.
"Next it may be enquired in the second place, whether
this sole will of God's good pleasure includes or excludes
his foreknowledge. I at least think that these two, namely
foreknowledge and fore-ordination, are by no means to be
severed, but to be joined (as do the Apostles). Neither do
I here dare presumptuously to advance my own opinion,
or to condemn the Fathers, who for the most part affirm
that we are elected and predestinated according to foreknowledge of faith, as Beza himself confesses on 11 Horn. 2 ed., f Here the Fathers are by no means to be heard who refer this to foresight.'' But in this (as it always appeared to me) they speak rather of the series and order which God observes
in the act of predestinating, than of the cause of predestination. But the chain some are wont to form in this way, others in that, as seems best to them. The Fathers seem to me to have been of this opinion, that there could be no
election if it were not thus connected : first that God loves
Christ, then us in Christ which the Apostle saith, that
he accepts us in the beloved (Ephes. i. 6); secondly, that
he confers on us so accepted grace and faith thirdly, that he
elects us thus endowed and thus differenced (discretes) from
the rest* fourthly, that he predestinates us who are elect."
Certainly the nature of election requires this, as it
cannot be nor can be conceived, where there is no difference
whatsoever between him who is chosen and him who is rejected. So Gecumenius, after the opinion of the Greeks, p. 323: When he saith) according to election, he shews that he distinguished between them, for no person chooses one from
another unless there is some difference in him. So Augustine
to Simplician, 1, 2: But election does not precede justification
(foreseen) but justification election. For no one is chosen
unless already differing from him who is rejected whence
I cannot see how God can be said to have chosen us before
the foundation of the world but by foreknowledge.
"Nor otherwise the schoolmen: Thorn. 1st, Q. 23, Act 4.
'Predestination presupposes election, and election love? That
is, first he made them to be chosen, then he chose them;
he loved them that he might endow them; he chose the gifts
that he conferred. And this seems to me to be the opinion
of the most reverend archbishop of York [Mr. Button], For
thus he: * What did God love from eternity in Jacob when
as yet he had done no good thing? certainly that which
was his own, that which he purposed to give him.
Certainly the Apostle himself does not doubt to join
in this article the purpose and the grace given, and that
from all eternity, since the grace given could only exist
in the divine foreknowledge: that is together with the eternal
purpose of God, he foresaw before all time the grace itself
also which he would give.
Nor does any inconvenience result hence (as I can see)
if God, that he may crown his own gifts in us, thus chooses
his own gifts in us, to wit the things which he gave first
by loving us, that afterward he might choose them thus
given. And so both love, which is the act of grace by which
God makes a difference, and election, which is the act of
judgment by which he chooses those who are thus distinguished, are preserved. And thus election will remain.
"For the chain of the moderns plainly takes away all
election, by which chain God is made to appoint these
to salvation and those to eternal perdition by the first act
and that absolute, together and at once, neither considered
as existing together in any similar condition [nee in ulla
massa] nor in any way distinguished one from another by
his own gifts: after which destination, what place there
is for election I cannot understand, or how this destination
itself can be called election.
"But this whole question, as I said, is rather of the
order in which God proceeds, in our conception of things
who know but in part, than of the cause as respects the
act itself, which is in God one and that perfectly simple;
or if of the cause, it ought not to be understood of the cause
of the first act, but of the cause as respects the integral effect
in predestinating (as it is called).
It is enquired also whether the integral act (in our
conception) is made up of several acts, or whether the first
is the sole act? and if they are many and diverse, what
is the order, what the chain of acts?
"Predestination, which cannot be without foreknowledge,
is not but of good works. (Aug. de Proudest. Sanctorum, c. 10.)
They are elect before the foundation of the world by that
predestination in which God foresaw his own future acts.
(c. 17, § 34.)"
Here we must remark that the first quotation is equivalent
to what goes a little before in the chapter from which it
is quoted: 'Predestination is the preparation of grace,' i.e. the
providing for its being given, 'but grace is the giving itself.'
"Will any one, dare to say that God did not foreknow
to whom he would grant that they should believe?" — De Dono
Perseverantise, 14, § 35, and c. 17 passim.
The third article is, that the number of the predestinate
is certain, and can neither be increased nor diminished. Dr.
Andrewes here only notes that they are the very words
of St. Augustine at the beginning of the third chapter of
his Book De Correptione et Gratia, and adds to these
a passage from Prosper de Vocatione Gentium, but citing it
under the name of St. Ambrose, to whom it was sometimes
but erroneously attributed.
The fourth article is: "Those who are not predestinated
to salvation shall be necessarily condemned for their sins."
He would have the word necessarily as being a new mode
of expression changed to without doubt.
The fifth article is: "A true, living, and justifying faith
and the Spirit of God sanctifying is not extinguished, does
not fail and come to naught in the elect either totally or
finally."
Andrewes remarks upon this: " No one ever said (I believe) that faith fails finally in the elect. It does not then fail. But that it does not fail, arises, I think, from the nature of its subject, not from its own ; from the privilege of the person, not of the thing. And this on account of apostates, who ought not to be condemned on the ground of their falling away from a faith which was never a true and living faith.
"But whether the Holy Spirit can be taken away or extinguished for a time, I think may yet be enquired into. I confess that I am in doubt.
"Or FAITH.
Thou standestly faith: Be not highminded, but fear;
otherwise thou also shalt be cut off, Rom. xi. 20, 22. Is not
this an unmeaning precept, if faith cannot fail?
"1. Beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the
wicked, fall from your own steadfastness, 2 Pet. iii. 17.
"2. Look that no man fail of the grace of God, Heb. xii. 15.
Ye are fallen from grace who are in the law, Gal. v. 4. (Some of these passages are not quoted accurately.)
"3. Take not thy Holy Spirit from me. Psalm li. 13.
"4. Quench not the Spirit, 1 Thess. v. 19.
"On what ground can it be shewn that these prayers and
precepts are not a mere mockery, if we can in no way fall
from the firmness of our faith, or fail of grace, if the Spirit
could in no way be taken away or extinguished?
Although I am not ignorant that this [cannot be lost
totally] can be so interpreted, as that it cannot be utterly
altogether or entirely, although it may be lost as a whole, that
is, so lost as that no room shall be left of returning thither
whence they have fallen."
Bivetus, who was contemporaneous with the Synod of
Dort, thus expressed himself in his thesis on Final Perse
verance — that those who once had true faith could not become
enemies to God, or utter infidels.1 The same is the explica
tion which Hooker gives of the indefectibility of faith, in his
second sermon, in which he observes: "Directly to deny the
foundation of faith is plain infidelity; where faith is entered,
there infidelity is for ever excluded : therefore by him which
hath once sincerely believed in Christ, the foundation of
Christian faith can never be directly denied." The Synod
of Dort, if candidly judged by its own admissions, will be
admitted to intend no more than that which was affirmed by
Hooker, however it may use greater ambiguity of expression
when it speaks of the predestinate not falling from the grace
of adoption, the condition of justification."3 Its meaning is
that God still deals with them as his children he does not
utterly take his lovingkindness from them, but as he did not
leave Peter to himself after he had denied him, so neither does
he leave them. To say that he sees no sin in them in their
departures from him, is not less contrary to the Synod of Dort
itself than it is to both reason and religion.
And thus understood we see that Andrewes himself allowed
the Lambeth article maintaining that the elect never totally
fall from grace. And this is clearly consistent with both
those exhortations and prayers which are adapted in Holy
Scripture to the weakness of our mortal nature, by reason of
which we cannot always stand upright, as we confess in the
Collect for the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany a collect derived
from Gregory the Great, himself a follower of St. Augustine.
If indeed it is but just to admit an opponent to explain his
own terms, we may see from Bishop Morton's reply to Dean
White in the Conferences concerning Montague's works, that
the falling from the grace of justification (itself a sufficiently
ambiguous term) was intended to denote, the total and irreversible loss of the divine favour.
The sixth article was, Of the assurance of salvation:
"A truly faithful man, that is, one who is endowed with
justifying faith, is certain, with the conviction [plerophoria] of
faith, of the remission of his sins, and of his eternal salvation
through Christ." Andrewes would have substituted for the
assurance of faith the assurance of hope, on the ground that
we had not the same certainty of a conditionate as of a purely
categorical proposition. To this however may be opposed
St. Paul's conviction of security in the approach of death, in
the fourth chapter of his Second Epistle to Timothy, Hence
forth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness. Neither
is less certainty implied in his Epistle to the Philippians,
when he writes, I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire
to depart and to be with Christ which is far better, (i. 23.)
The seventh article, On the conferring of grace, is as
follows:
"Saving grace (gratia salutaris) is not given, communicated, and granted to all men by which, if they will, they can be saved."
The observations attributed to Andrewes oppose to this
that some previous dispositions are not only offered but conferred upon all men, and that saving grace would be conferred upon all, were they not wanting to it. And to this effect is cited an earlier work of Augustine upon the Creation against
the Manichgeans, written in A.D. 390, the year before he was
ordained priest. These remarks are in harmony with the
known opinions of Andrewes' learned contemporary Bishop
Overall.
Bishop Andrewes, in his Whit-Sunday Sermon 1612, thus
speaks of the operation of the Holy Spirit : "And this (of
blowing upon one certain place) is a property very well fitting
the Spirit. Ubi vult spirat. To blow in certain places, where
itself will; and upon certain persons, and they shall plainly
feel it, and others about them not a whit. There shall be an
hundred or more in an auditory; one sound is heard, one
breath doth blow : at that instant, one or two and no more;
one here, another there; they shall feel the Spirit, shall be
affected and touched with it sensibly: twenty on this side
them and forty on that shall not feel it, but sit all becalmed,
and go their way no more moved than they came. Ubi vult
t) is most true."
This certainly is not consistent with these anonymous
remarks which long after the death of Andrewes were put
forth in his name. The Remonstrants indeed were desirous
of his patronage, and said that they had letters of his which
he challenged them to produce. He is supposed to have
alluded to these strictures on the Lambeth articles in a conversation in 1617, but we know nothing of their history, only that they were published by some person or persons who retained neither the doctrine of Andrewes nor of Overall, but wholly favoured that of the Remonstrants.
The eighth article is : "No man can come unto Christ
unless it shall have been given him, and unless the Father
shall have drawn him. And all men are not drawn by
the Father to come to the Son."
Andrewes, or whosoever the author of these strictures is,
adds, "not drawn so as that they come"; and would have
it added, "that the cause of their not being drawn or so
drawn is the depraved will of man, not the absolute will
of God." This indeed is in harmony with the remarks upon
the seventh article.
The ninth article is: It is not placed in the will or power
of every man to be saved."
The suggested form is, lt It is not placed in the free will of
any man, saving when made free by the Son, to be saved,
or in the power of any, unless it be given him from above."
Then, after observing that every one will explain the words
in his own sense either by addition or subtraction, the writer
recommends silence on both sides, and ends by submitting
both himself and his opinions to the judgment of the queen.
Having now given a full view of the scope of the Judgment
of the Bishop of Winchester on the Lambeth Articles^ I leave
it to the reader to decide upon the authenticity of the Judgment. It is singular that in the preface to these minor treatises of Andrewes and Overall (if indeed they are theirs), no allusion is made to them, no account is given of the
manner in which they were transferred to the hands of the editor; only they are annexed to Ellis's Defence of the Thirty-nine Articles ; the theology of which is not even that of Overall, as it observes, and truly according to the doctrine of St. Augustine, that men are said to cooperate in respect of subsequent, not of preventing grace.
The Judgment upon the Lambeth Articles is followed by
the Censure of the Censure of Barrett. It relates simply
to one point, the question whether the justified ought to
feel certain of their salvation, or in other words, that they
shall persevere to the end. Andrewes probably was not
the author of this censure. It is written with a degree of
warmth in favour of Barrett which Andrewes was not likely
to have evinced. Neither does it embrace more than one
of many points for which Barrett was censured. It is questionable whether Andrewes would have denied that to some at least the Spirit gave an assurance that he would abide with them for ever. Of his so abiding and working in
the soul to the end, he thus speaks in his Whit- Sunday Sermon 1620, above twenty years after the date of these pieces published iu 1600. "How take we notice of the Spirit? How knew they the angel was come down into
the pool of Bethesda, but by the stirring aud moving of
the water? So by stirring up in us spiritual motions, holy
purposes and desires, is the Spirit's coming known. Specially
if they do not vanish again. For if they do, then was it
some other flatuous matter which will quiver in the veins,
(and unskilful people call it the life-blood), but the Spirit
it was not. The Spirit's motion, the pulse, is not for a while
and then ceaseth, but it is perpetual, holds as long as life
holds, though intermittent some time for some little space."1
That the Holy Spirit never utterly forsakes the elect,
but that they "have that grace which excludeth sin from
reigning, and that this grace once had by them is never
totally nor finally lost," is affirmed by Field in his Book
of the Church, and, after his manner, explained with a clear
ness and minuteness that will enable the reader to judge
fully of the grounds of his opinion, and to see the working
of the more scholastic minds in that age of intense theological
investigation.' Field moreover shews that these are at least
no new opinions, but to be found in the works of the celebrated Hugo de Sancto Victore in the twelfth century, and in those of John Duns Scotus in the fourteenth. Even some amongst the members of the Romish communion have confessed that Calvin and Augustine were substantially agreed, as may be seen in the 399th chapter of the fourth book of John James Hottinger's Fata Doctrine de Prcedestinatione et Gratia Dei salutari?
Dr. Andrewes Sermon on the Love of Souls, Good Friday 1597. —
Andrewes refuses two Bishoprics, 1598 — Preaches before the Queen
on Ash- Wednesday. — Sermon on the Eucharist — On Justification —
St. Paul and St. James — On the power of Absolution — Ontance.
THE learned Whitaker on his return from Lambeth took cold
which turned to fever and brought him speedily to his happy
and peaceful but early end, on the 4th of December 1595,
in his forty-seventh year. He was buried on the 10th, Dr.
Goad the Vice-chancellor, provost of King's College, preaching
the funeral sermon at the university church, and Eobert,
afterwards Sir Eobert, Naunton, the Public Orator, delivering
a funeral oration in Latin. Dr. John Overall, fellow of
Trinity College, was elected to his professorship.
Overall had maintained a middle way between the theology
of his times and that of the Antipredestinarians. He taught
that God vouchsafed a certain measure of grace to all men,
but secured salvation to the elect by a still more abundant
measure. He taught that some had true faith and grace for
a time and then fell away, but that those who are believers,
who are included in the divine decree of election, cannot
either totally or finally fall or perish, but by a special and
efficacious grace so persevere in a true and lively faith, that
at length they are brought to eternal life. This he maintained
at the Hampton Court Conference.1 He complained that some
had exaggerated the doctrine of the indefectibility of faith,
and had denied that the elect upon the commission of the
greatest sins were ipso facto subject to the divine wrath and
in a state of damnation until they repented. Overall was
neither altogether a follower of Augustine nor of Calvin, but
partly borrowed from Ambrose Catharinus, who taught that
some were saved by special, others by their right use of
common grace. Catharine of Sienna, archbishop of Conza,
maintained at the same time in the Council of Trent, and
afterwards in his writings, that the righteous might be certain
of their justification. He also maintained that the inward
intention of the minister was not requisite to the validity of
the Sacraments. Overall's system has been given from two
of the Harleian MSS. in the British Museum, by the Rev.
Wm. Goode, in his Effects of Infant Baptism? Overall and
others after him have adduced St. Augustine as teaching that
some have true faith and grace for a while, and yet fall away,
whilst to the elect salvation is secured by the gift of final
perseverance. There are a few passages in his works which
favour this opinion, but of the principal of these the authen
ticity is not universally admitted, and it is certain that in his
Tractatus in Joannem and some other of his Treatises he
maintains the contrary. The reader may see these passages
fully given by Dr. John Forbes, in the 20th chapter of the
eighth Book of his Instruction's Historico-TJieologicce?
On Sunday April 4, 1596, Andrewes preached before
the court at Greenwich. This sermon, from 2 Cor. xii. 15,
is upon the love of souls, ( soul-love,' and upon the love
of Christ to us. Nothing can excel the fervour, the tenderness, and the truly Christian charity that distinguish this truly apostolical discourse. O that all who profess to admire this venerable father and prelate of our Church would read,
and that not once but often, the divine instruction, the paternal
charge which he here has left to posterity, a savour of holy
love never to fail. He shews how it was the love of Christ
that kindled in St. Paul such a love of souls, a love indeed
copied from his. This love, a love not to be overcome by
unkindness, this he reminds us is the only true Christian
love; and what is all to that love of Christ which loved
us not as but more than his own life? He hath changed
the rule of the law ; no longer is it, Thou shalt love thy neighlour as thyself, but, as I have loved you. " And if St. Paul
were loved when he raged and breathed blasphemy against
Christ and his name, is it much if, for Christ's sake, he
swallow some unkindness at the Corinthians' hands? Is
it much, if we let fall a duty upon them, upon whom God
the Father droppeth his rain, and God the Son drops, yea
sheds his blood,— upon evil and unthankful men?"
On the 14th October died the bishop of Salisbury, Dr.
John Coldwell. He was the first married bishop of Salisbury
after the Reformation. His name was also spelt Gold well.
He was B. A. of St. John's College, Cambridge, 1554 ; M.A.
1558, and M.D. 1564. He was in 1571 made archdeacon
of Chichester whilst Curteis the late dean was bishop of
that see. He resigned this dignity in 1575. On the death
of Dr. Thomas Willoughby^ean of Rochester and prebendary of Canterbury, he was preferred to the deanery, and installed 26th September, 1582.
After the see of Salisbury had been kept vacant three
years, on the translation of Dr. John Piers to York, Coldwell
was consecrated to Sarum, December 26th, 1591, at Lambeth
by Whitgift, assisted by Aylmer bishop of London, Cowper
bishop of Winchester, Fletcher bishop of Bristol, and Under
bill bishop of Oxford. Dying October 14, 1596, he was
buried in Salisbury Cathedral, in the same grave where
bishop Wyville had been buried in 1484. Andrewes declined the vacant see, as he would not impoverish it.
On Good-Friday, March 25th, 1597, Dr. Andrewes
preached before the court, from Zech. xii. 10, And they shall
look upon me whom they have pierced; and set forth our
Saviour's sufferings in a discourse never perhaps surpassed
but by himself.
There have not been wanting some who have ventured
to affirm that our Lord endured suffering equal to what the
redeemed would otherwise have endured; that in short he
suffered the pains of hell itself. Others again have gone
into" a contrary extreme, and have explained away our Lord's
words on the cross, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken
me? More piously and cautiously our learned and devout
preacher: "It is the soul's complaint ; and therefore, without
all doubt, his soul within him was pierced and suffered,
though not that which (except charity be allowed to ex
pound it) cannot be spoken without blasphemy; not so much,
(God forbid!) yet much, and very much; and much more
than others seem to allow, or how much, it is dangerous
to define."
He was invited to attend the annual election and examination at Merchant Taylors' School, but did not go. There was present its venerable patron, Dr. Gabriel Goodman, dean of Westminster. Mr. William Juxon, afterward archbishop Juxon, made a Latin oration.
Juxon was born at Chichester of a good family. He was
the son of Richard Juxon of^hat city. From Merchant
Taylors' School he succeeded to a fellowship at St. John's
College, Oxford. He applied himself to the law, and was
a student of Gray's Inn about 1603 ; but afterwards, taking
orders, was in 1609 instituted to the vicarage of St. Giles'
Oxford, in the gift of his College. Buckeridge was at that
time president of St. John's College, and Laud was electee
to succeed Buckeridge in that office 10th May, 1611, Bucke
ridge being then bishop elect of Rochester. With Lauc
Juxon contracted an intimate friendship. He was also
sometime rector of Somerton to the south-east of Deddington
in Oxfordshire, where his coat-of-arms was, if it is not still
in the east window of the chancel. When Laud was made
bishop of St. David's in 1621, Juxon was elected president o
St. John's on the 29th December, appointed to the deanery
of Worcester in 1628, when Dr. Joseph Hall was made bishop
of Exeter, and in 1633 was bishop elect of Hereford, but
consecrated to the see of London. Laud was his friend with
the king, who made him in 1632 Clerk of the closet. In
1635 he was constituted Lord High Treasurer. This pro
duced great envy amongst the courtiers, as no ecclesiastic
had held that office since the reign of Henry VII. He resigned it in 1641. He attended his sovereign on the scaffold, and afterward retired to his manor of Little Compton in Gloucestershire, but close upon Oxford and Worcestershires.
He was raised to the see of Canterbury in 1660, and died
at Lambeth June 20th, 1663, aged 81. He was a most
munificent prelate, of great patience and moderation.
Bishop Buckeridge relates in his funeral sermon for
Andrewes, that "when the bishoprics of Ely and Salisbury
were void, and some things were to be pared from them, some
overture being made to him to take them, he refused them
utterly. If it please you," adds Buckeridge, "I will make
his answer for him, Nolo episcopari, and I will not be made
a bishop, because I will not alienate bishops' lands." This
was probably in A.D. 1598, when Dr. Henry Cotton was pro
moted to the see of Sarum, .and not long after Dr. Heton to
that of Ely, who in 1609 was succeeded by Andrewes at that
time bishop of Chichester. On June 16th Andrewes, as
prebendary of St. Pancras, presented Harsnet, also of Pem
broke Hall, to the vicarage of Chigwell in Essex.
In June he resumed his lectures on the third chapter of
Genesis at St. Giles', Cripplegate, after an interval of about
seven years.
On Sunday, October 1, before the administration of the
Holy Communion, he preached at St. Giles', from Isaiah vi. 6,
applying the passage as typical of Christ by whom alone our
iniquities are taken away, and especially to the Holy Eucharist
in which the remission of sins is dispensed; wherefore, as he
observes, in the ancient church at the celebration of the Communion, the priest stood up and said as the seraph doth here, 'Behold this hath touched your lips ; your iniquity shall be taken away, and your sin purged.'1 And here he does not deny, as do some who speak much of him, the assurance of
forgiveness of past sins to those who come with true faith to
this holy sacrament. It was his custom to speak most
patristically of the Eucharist, but he calls the participation
a spiritual feeding.
On October 15th he preached from Matthew vi. 1, against
desire of vainglory. He said excellently, " God hath given
us the joys and use of all his creatures, but reserveth the
glory of them to himself. Therefore the apostle saith, Do all
to the glory of God; for though he giveth us the use of all
things, yet, My glory will I not give to another".
On Sunday, December 3rd, he preached from 2 Peter i. 9.
In this sermon he thus treats of justification. "At the first
the doctrine of faith in Christ was hardly received; for men
thought to be saved only by works: and when they had once
received it, they excluded the doctrine of good works. All
the difficulty that St. Paul found in the work of his ministry
was to plant faith, and to persuade men that we are justified
before God by faith in Christ without the works of the law.
But St. Peter and St. James met with them that received the
doctrine of faith fast enough, but altogether neglected good
works. But because both are necessary, therefore St. Paul in
all his Epistles joins the doctrine of faith with the doctrine of
works. This is a faithful saying, and to be avouched that
they which believe in God, be careful to shew forth good works?
Therefore with the doctrine of the grace of God, he joins the
doctrine of the careful bringing forth of good works. The
saving grace of God hath appeared, and teacheth us to deny
ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly and right
eously and godly in this world. The doctrine of grace is not
rightly apprehended, until we admit of the doctrine of good
works. Wilt thou know, O man, that faith is dead without
works? Was not Abraham our father justified by works,
when he offered his son Isaac? Therefore St. Peter saith,
that is no true faith which is not accompanied with virtue and
godliness of life. It is true that good works have no power
to work justification, because they do not contain a perfect
righteousness. And inasmuch as they are imperfect, there
belongs the curse of God unto them: Cursed is he that con-
tinueth not in all things, &c. (Gal. iii.) So far are they from
justifying, but yet they are tokens of justification. God had
respect unto Abel and to his sacrifice. (Gen. iv.) God first
looked upon his person, and then upon his sacrifice. For
before the person be justified, his works are not accepted in
God's sight. The best works if they proceed not of faith are
sin. Our Saviour saith, No branch can bring forth fruit of
itself, except it abide in the vine. Therefore if we do any
good works, they proceed from our incision and engrafting
into Christ, by whom they are made acceptable unto God.
"Paul saith, Abraham was justified by faith before works,
not when he was circumcised, but when he was uncircumcised.
But James saith, Abraham our father was justified by works.
To reconcile the apostles we must know, that the power of
justification which is spoken of in Paul is effective, but that
which James speaketh of is declarative. It -was Abraham's
faith that made him righteous, and his works did only declare
him to be justified. Therefore Paul saith, that albeit good
works have no power to justify, yet they are good and profit
able for men. For they declare our justification which is by
faith ; and by them we make ourselves sure of our calling and
election."
On the Sunday after Christmas-day, December 31, he
preached from John viii. 56, Your father Abraham rejoiced to
see my day, and he saw it, and was glad. From the same
words he preached before king James on Christmas-day 1613.
Whosoever will carefully compare the two discourses will find
that although the earlier is divided similarly with the latter,
and some passages are common to both, yet they are far from
being the same, and the parochial is by no means inferior to
the court sermon, nay has some advantage over it ; although of
it we have but notes, those notes however very copious.
On the Sunday after Epiphany, January 7, 1598, he discoursed learnedly and with a fertility of illustration peculiarly his own, upon Psalm xlvii. 10, The princes of the people are gathered together, even the people of the God of Abraham: for
the shields of the earth belong unto God: he is greatly exalted.
The Epiphany he calls Christ's second nativity ; "for as he
was born at Bethlehem of his mother the Virgin, so hath
he another birth foretold by the prophet, I will think of
Eahab and Babylon; behold Palestina, Tyrus, and Ethiopia,
lo! there is he born, Psalm Ixxxvii. 4.
"This," he saith, " God hath from all times revealed, that
the gate of faith should be opened to the Gentiles to enter
into the flock of Christ. This was shewed by Abraham's
matching with Keturah a Gentile ; by Moses matching him
self with Zipporah a Midianite and a Gentile; by Solomon
matching with Pharaoh's daughter; as in the genealogy of
Christ's birth Solomon is matched with Eahab, Boaz with
Kuth, to signify that Christ should save both Jews and
Gentiles. The same was shewed by the stuff whereof the
tabernacle was made; by the first temple which was built
upon the ground of Araunah a Gentile, with timber sent by
Hiram a Gentile; and by the second temple which was
founded by Cyrus and Artaxerxes, heathen princes."
On March 23, 1598, Andrewes succeeded Bishop Bancroft
in the eleventh stall at Westminster.
On Friday, February 2, 1599, being the festival of the
Purification of the Blessed Virgin, he preached at his parish-
church of St. Giles', from the history of Hannah, 1 Sam.
xxvii. 28. The presentation of Samuel, and Samuel himself,
he regards as typical of our Lord; and indeed the great
similarity of the song of Hannah and of that of the Virgin,
the miraculous birth as of Christ, so in a manner of Samuel,
and the meeting of the triple office of prophet, priest, and king
in Samuel, together with the singular inoffensiveness and
purity of his character, and his love to the unthankful, all
most amply vindicate the typical application of this history to
our Lord as the fulfilment, the true Samuel of the Israel of
God.
On the following Sunday, being the administration of the Holy Communion, he preached excellently upon our conflict with the old serpent, from Rev. ii. 7, To Mm that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the
Paradise of God.
On the 21st of the same month, being Ash- Wednesday,
and the time that the earl of Essex was setting out on the
Irish expedition, Dr. Andrewes, being one of the Queen's
chaplains, preached before her at Richmond from those most
seasonable words, When thou goest out with the host against
thine enemies , keep theefrom all wickedness? Having treated
of the justifiableness of war both offensive and defensive,
quoting to this purpose the Septuagint version of the text,
and alleging Jacob's war to win from the Amorite with
his sword and bow,3 he shewed the folly of trusting in
human power, from the defeat in the valley of Achor; he
urged the need of the prayer of the prophet and of the priest,
from the intercession of Moses whereby Israel prevailed over
Amalek; and the utter inconsistency of those who were
themselves in rebellion against God going forth to punish
rebels. Nor did he fail to point out most plainly how peace
was the blessing, war the scourge of God. Towards the
end he adduced the exemplary fidelity of Uriah as an ex
ample to all in like manner to forbear, now of all times
especially, from sin.
On Friday, August 24, St. Bartholomew's day, he preached
at his own church, Cripplegate, on the assurance of hope;
nor can any one who is familiar with his writings fail to
recognize him throughout.
We find him, according to his custom on all holy days,
preaching at his parish-church on St. Michael's day, Saturday,
September 29, from Eev. xii. 7, 8; a sermon displaying,
as we have seen in some former instances, his eminent
patristic learning. He shews that Christ cannot be the
Michael of the heavenly host, for that he is called 'one
of the first princes,' but Christ is the King of Kings.
He notices, and very largely, the conjecture of the Fathers,
that the fallen angels would not submit to adore Christ
in our nature, and to see our nature exalted above their
own. He forgets not to remind his congregation of the
war in which they themselves ought to be engaged, assured
that the enemy shall not prevail over those who faithfully
resist him. He touches also upon that reverence we ought
to have of the presence of the angels as well in the house
of God as at other times.
On Sunday, October 7, being the celebration of the holy
Eucharist, he preached from those most gracious and divine
words of our Lord, All that the Father giveth me shall come
to me and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
"Howsoever," he saith, "a man may know himself to be
a sinner, that is, to have an unclean soul, yet he is not
to despair, because Christ, by the confession of his enemies,
is such an one as doth not only receive sinners, but eats
with them; yea, he not only receiveth them that deserve
to be cast out as unworthy to inherit the kingdom, but
doth also wash, sanctify, and justify them in his own name
and by the Spirit of God."
Such was the diligence of Dr. Andrewes, that besides
preaching on the Festivals and Sundays, he also delivered
many of his lectures this year upon Genesis on other
week-days.
In A. D. 1600, on March 30, Low-Sunday, he preached
at Whitehall his well-known discourse upon the power of
absolution, from John xx. 23. He maintained from these words
a ministerial power of absolution granted to the Apostles, not as
apostles but as ministers of Christ, and from them derived to all
others; "yet not so that absolutely without them God cannot
bestow it on whom or when he pleaseth; or that he is bound
to this means only and cannot work without it. For gratia,
Dei non alligatur mediis [i. e. the grace of God is not tied
to means], the grace of God is not bound but free, and can
work without means either of word or sacrament; and as
without means so without ministers, how and when to him
seemeth good. But speaking of that which is proper and
ordinary, in the course by him established, this is an ecclesi
astical act committed as the residue of the ministry of re
conciliation to ecclesiastical persons. And if at any time
he vouchsafe it by others that are not such, they be in that
case ministri necessitatis non officit, in case of necessity
ministers, but by office not so." To shew the previous
existence of a like power he refers to Job xxxiii. 23, to the
priest's being ever a party in sacrifices, and to the prophet
Nathan's being commissioned to declare to David the remission
of his sin in God's name. He observes that besides this
there are divers acts instituted by God and executed by us,
which all tend to the remission of sins, namely, the two
sacraments, the Word of God itself, and prayer. The word
he interprets of the word preached.
He also treats of the need of the key of knowledge to
open to men the true nature of repentance and the works
of repentance, which is not only sorrow for sin, but a holy
revenge upon ourselves for it, with works of restitution, &c.
His doctrine of repentance may indeed be most fully and
practically learnt from that little volume which alone might
have obtained for his name the veneration of all ages of
the Church, his Manual for the Sick.
He is said to have been called upon to explain himself
to the Secretary of state in regard of this sermon, his doctrine
being unusual for that time and strange in the ears of his
audience. It is observable that it is confessedly imperfect,
and deals very much in generalities. His quotation from
St. Augustine belongs not to private but to public confession,
as both Fulke remarks in his Confutation of the Notes
in the Rhemish New Testament, and also Dr. John Gerhard
in his Confessio Catholica. Fulke farther refers his readers
to his Confutation of Dr. Aliens Books, Pt. I., from c. 10 to
the end.
Some would explain the words, Whosesoever sins ye remit
they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain
they are retained, as though they had been, whosesoever sins
ye declare forgiven, when ye preach pardon to the penitent,
they shall be forgiven; and whosesoever sins ye declare
still unforgiven, because of their unbelief, heaven shall con
firm your words. Thus, indeed, Jeremiah and the prophets
are said to do what they declare shall be done, (Jer. i. 10),
See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the
kingdoms to root out and to pull down, and to destroy and
to throw down, to build and to plant, compared with c. xviii.
ver. 7.
Andre wes was present on St. Barnabas' Day, June llth,
at the annual election and examination at Merchant Taylors'
School, and with three other (London?) clergymen, Dr. Grant
of the university of Cambridge, master of Westminster
School, and Drs. Montford and Hutchinson of the university
of Oxford, was appointed to nominate four persons to the
Merchant Taylors' Company for the living of St. Martin's,
Outwich. A minute account of the proceedings may be found
in Dr. Wilson's History of Merchant Taylors' School, in
which he has done ample justice to the memory of Andre wes,
and that with no small industry and ability.
Dr. Thomas Montford, or Mountfort, was the son of John
Mountfort of Norwich. He was of the university of Oxford,
was admitted to the rectory of Anstey near Barkway, Jan. 25,
1584. On May 26, 1585, he was made prebendary of the first
stall, Westminster, took the degree of D.D. at Oxford July 4,
1588, and on March 24, 1596, was admitted to the stall
of Harleston in St. Paul's, and became a canon residentiary
on the presentation of the queen. On May 7, 1602, he was
collated to the vicarage of St. Martin-in-the-fields by bishop
Bancroft, and in 1612 appears to have been also rector of
St. Mary-at-hill near St. Dunstan's in the East. He died
Feb. 27, 1631, and was buried in the chancel of Tewing near
Welwyn, of which also he had (according to Newcourt) been
rector. His son John succeeded to the rectory of Anstey on
the presentation of Charles I., having before been made prebendary of Sneating in the church of St. Paul by bishop
King, 14 Nov. 1618. He was presented by Trinity College
to the vicarage of Ware, Herts. 1633, but held it only for
about a year. He was ejected from Anstey in 1643.
Dr. Edward Grant was master of Westminster School,
prebendary of the sixth stall at Ely 1589, rector of Barnet
in Middlesex and Tatsfield near Godstone in Surrey, vicar
of Benfleet in Essex and Foulsham in Norfolk, prebendary
of the twelfth stall at Westminster, 27 May, 1577. He
died in October 1601, and was buried in the abbey, but
no memorial was erected for him there.
Dr. Kalph Hutchinson was archdeacon of St. Alban's.
CHAPTER VI.
Andrewes Sermon on Justification, 1600.
ON November 23rd Dr. Andrewes preached at Whitehall
his celebrated sermon on Justification, for a more copious
notice of which no apology will be required.
This sermon is a very ample dissertation upon Jer. xxiii. 6.
This is the name whereby they shall call him, the Lord our
Righteousness. First he shews how this is the chief of names
in the account of God himself. God is salvation and peace,
but both these are branches of this name and effects of it.
He then remarks that this name is peculiar to our Lord.
Others are said to do, he alone to be righteousness. "Nor is
this (he adds) a question of names merely. The name of God
has virtue in it. By the name of Christ we are justified, so
St. Paul (1 Cor. vi. 11); forgiven, so St. John (I Joh. ii. 12);
saved, so St. Peter (Acts iv. 12). Now this name is compounded of three words, Jehova, Justitia, Nostra.
Because his righteousness and only his righteousness is worth
the remembering; and any other's besides his is not ment
to be mentioned. For, as for our own righteousness which
we have without him, Esay telleth us, it is but a defiled
cloth, and St. Paul that it is but dung; two very homely
comparisons, but they be the Holy Ghost's own, yet nothing
so homely as in the original, &e.
"Our own then being no better, we are driven to seek
for it elsewhere. He shall receive his righteousness, saith
the prophet (Psalm xxiv. 5), and the gift of righteousness,
saith the apostle (Eom. v. 17). It is then another, to be
given us and to be received by us, which we must seek
for. And whither shall we go for it ? Job alone despatcheth
this point. Not to the heavens or stars; for they are unclean
in his sight. Not to the saints; for in them he found folly;
nor to the angels, for neither in them found he any steadfast
ness. Now if none of these will serve, we see a necessary
reason why Jehova must be a part of this name. And this
is the reason why Jeremie, here expressing more fully the
name given him before in Esay, Immanuel, God with us,
instead of the name of God in that name (which is M),
setteth down by way of explanation this name here of
Jehova. Because that El and the other names of God are
communicated to creatures; as the name of El to angels,
for their names end in it ; Michael, Gabriel, &c. And the
name of Jah to saints, and their names end in it; Esaiah,
Jeremiah, Zechariah. To certify us therefore that it is
neither the righteousness of saints nor angels that will serve
the turn, but the righteousness of God and very God, he
usetli that name which is proper to God alone ; ever reserved
to him only, and never imparted by any occasion to angel
or saint, or any creature in heaven or earth.
"Righteousness. Why that? If we ask, in regard of
the other benefits which are before remembered, salvation
and peace, why 'righteousness' and not salvation nor peace?
it is evident. Because (as in the verse next before the
prophet termeth it) righteousness' is the branch; and these
two, salvation and peace, are the fruits growing on it. So
that, if this be had, the other are had with it."
"Jehovah, Righteousness. For except justice be satisfied,
and do join in it also [the counsel of salvation], in vain
we promise ourselves that mercy of itself shall work our
salvation: which may serve for the reason why neither
Jehova potentia or Jehova misericordia are enough, but it
must be Jehova justitta, and. justitia a part of the name."
But if he be righteousness, and not only righteousness, but ours too, all is at an end; we have our desires. . . . For if he be, as the Apostle saith, factus nobis,
made unto us righteousness, and that so as he becometh ours, what can we have more? What can hinder us, saith St. Bernard, but that we should ' use him and his righteousness; use that which is ours to our best behoof, and work our salvation out of this our Saviour.'
And more significant it is by far to say Jehovah our
justice, than Jehovah our Justifier. I know St. Paul saith
much; that our Saviour Christ shed his blood to shew his
righteousness, that he might not only be just, but a justifier
of those which are of his faith, Rom. iii. 26. And much
more again in that when he should have so said, To him
that believeth in God, he chooseth thus to set it down, To him
that believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly ; making
these two to be all one, God, and the justifier of sinners.
Though this be very much, yet certainly this is most forcible,
that he is made unto us by God very righteousness itself.
(1 Cor. i. 30.) And that yet more, that he is made righteousness to us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. v. 21. Which place St. Chrysostom well weighing, this very word righteousness, saith he, the Apostle
useth to express the unspeakable bounty of that gift, that he hath not given us the operation or effect of his righteousness, but his very righteousness, yea his very self unto us. Mark, saith he, how everything is lively and as full as
can be imagined. Christ, one not only that had done no sin, but that had not so much as known any sin, hath God made (not a sinner, but) sin itself; as in another place (not accursed, but) a curse itself; sin in respect of the guilt, a curse in respect of the punishment. And why this? To the end that we might be made (not righteous persons; that was not full enough, but) righteousness itself; and there
he stays not yet — and not every righteousness, but the very righteousness of God himself. What can be further said? What can be conceived more comfortable? To have him ours, not to make us righteous but to make us righteousness,
and that not any other but the righteousness of God ; the
wit of man can devise no more. And all to this end, that
we might see there belongeth a special Ecce to this name,
that there is more than ordinary comfort in it ; that therefore
we should be careful to honour him with it, and so call
him by it, Jehovah our righteousness.
There is no Christian man that will deny this name, but
will call Christ by it, and say of him that he is Jehova justitia
nostra, without taking a syllable or letter from it. But it is
not the syllables, but the sense that maketh the name. And
the sense is it we are to look unto; that we keep it entire in
sense as well as in sound, if we mean to preserve this name of
justitia nostra full and whole unto him. And as this is true,
so is it true likewise that even among Christians all take it
not in one sense ; but some, of a greater latitude than other.
There are that take it in that sense which the prophet Esay
hath set down: In Jehova justitia mea, that all our righteous
ness is in him, (Isaiah xlv. 24) ; and we to be found in him,
not having our own righteousness, but being made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor. v. 21.) There are some other, that though in one part of our righteousness thay take it in that sense, yet in another part they shrink it up, and in that make it but a proposition causal, and the interpretation thereof
to be, l from Jehova is my righteousness.' Which is true too,
whether we respect him as the cause exemplary, or pattern,
(for we are to be made conformable to the image of Christ); or whether we respect him as the cause efficient. This meaning then is true and good, but not full enough ; for either it taketh the name in sunder, and giveth him not all, but
a part of it alone, or else it maketh two senses, which may
not be allowed in one name.
"For the more plain conceiving of which point, we are to be put in mind that the true righteousness (as saith St. Paul) is not of man's device, but hath his witness from the law and the prophets ; which he there proceedeth to shew out of the
example first of Abraham and after of David. In the Scrip ture then there is a double righteousness set down; both in the Old and New Testament.
"In the Old, and in the very first place that righteousness is named in the Bible, Abraham believed, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness: a righteousness accounted. And again (in the very next line) it is mentioned, Abraham will teach his house to do righteousness: a righteousness done. In the New likewise. The former, in one chapter (even the fourth to the Eomans), no fewer than eleven times, Eeputatum est illi adjustitiam: a reputed righteousness. The latter in St. John: My beloved, let no man deceive you; he that doeth
righteousness is righteous: a righteousness done, which is nothing else but our own just dealing, upright carriage, honest conversation. Of these, the latter the philosophers themselves conceived and acknowledged; the other is proper
to Christians only, and altogether unknown in philosophy.
The one is a quality of the party; the other an act of the
judge declaring or pronouncing righteous : the one ours by
influence or infusion ; the other by account or imputation."
Then he proceeds from the context to fix upon the term
the forensic and imputative sense, and observes that the
tenor of the Scripture touching our justification all along
runneth in judicial terms to admonish us still what to set
before us. The usual joining of justice and judgment continually all along the Scriptures shew it is a judicial justice we are to set before us. The terms of a judge, It is the Lord that judgeth me, 1 Cor. iv. 4. A prison: kept and shut up
under Moses, Gal. iii. 23. A bar : We must all appear before the bar, 2 Cor. v. 10. A proclamation : Who will lay any thing to the prisoner's charge? Rom. viii. 33. An accuser: The accuser of our brethren, Eev. xii. 10. A witness : Our
conscience bearing witness, Horn. ii. 15. An indictment upon
these : Cursed is he that continueth not in all the words
of the law to do them, Deut. xxvii. 26. And again, He that
breaketh one is guilty of all, James ii. 10. A conviction:
That all may be guilty, or culpable, before God. Yea, the
very delivering of our sins under the name of debts; of the
law under the name of a handwriting; the very terms of an
advocate, 1 John ii. 2; of a surety made under the law;
of a pardon, or, being justified from those things which by
the law we could not; all these wherein for the most part
this is still expressed, what speak they but that the sense of
this name cannot rightly be understood, nor what manner
of righteousness is in question, except we still have before our
eyes this same cor am regejustojudiciumfaciente?
"For it is not in question, whether we have our inherent
righteousness or no, or whether God will accept it or reward
it, but whether that must be our righteousness coram rege
justo judicium faciente ; which is a point very material and in
nowise to be forgotten. For without this, if we compare our
selves with ourselves, what heretofore we have been, or, if we
compare ourselves with others, as did the Pharisee, we may
take a fancy perhaps, and have some good conceit of our
inherent righteousness. Yea, if we be to deal in schools by
argument or disputation, we may peradventure argue for it
and make some shew in the matter. But let us once be
wrought and arraigned coram rege justo sedente in solio, let us
set ourselves there, we shall then see that all our former con
ceit will vanish straight, and righteousness (in that sense) will
not abide the trial.
"Bring them hither then, and ask them here of this name,
and never a saint nor father, no, nor the schoolmen them
selves, none of them but will shew you how to understand it
aright. In their commentaries, it may be, in their questions
and debates they will hold hard for the other ; but remove it
lither, they forsake it presently, and take the name in the
right sense."
Then he adduces the examples of Job, David, Daniel,
[saiah, Paul, and amongst the fathers, of Ambrose, Augus
tine, and Bernard.
He then touches upon the devotional writings of the school
men, and the half admissions of Bellarmine and Stapleton,
conceding an imputation of the sufferings, but excluding the
imputation of the obedience, or as it is sometimes called, the
active righteousness of Christ.
Next he proceeds upon abstract grounds, the finite nature
of our righteousness, its disproportion to our infinite reward,
" especially if we add hereunto that as it cannot be denied but
to be finite, so withal, that the antient fathers seem further
to be but meanly conceited of it ; reckoning it notv to be full
but defective, not pure but defiled ; and if to be judged by
the just judge, districts, or cum districtione examinis (they be
St. Gregorie's and St. Bernard's words), indeed no righteous
ness at all." Here Bishop Andrewes adduces that remarkable
passage from St. Chrysostom, which Mr. Faber has also given
at full length in his work upon Justification, from his eleventh
homily on the second Epistle to the Corinthians, where that
father declares that a justifying righteousness must needs be
without spot, and that therefore the righteousness of God by
which we are justified is not of works but of grace.
Adducing an admission of Stapleton's, that our righteous
ness needs indulgence, he observes, ll Now indulgence (we
know) belongeth unto sin, and righteousness, if it be true,
needeth none."
Bellarmine is then shewn to destroy his own doctrine by
qualifying it first, and next by entirely setting it aside, which,
remarks our reverend preacher, "is enough to shew, when
they have forgot themselves a little out of the fervor of their
oppositions, how light and small account they make of it
themselves, for which they spoil Christ of one half of his
name."
Then he insists upon the jealousy of God in regard of this
name, that He will not give his glory to another. " As we are
justified in this name, so we are to glory in it, according to
the prophet. For this very purpose the apostle asks, where is
boasting then f as if he should admonish us, that this name
is given with express intent to exclude it from us and us
from it. And therefore in that very place where he saith, ' He
is made unto us from God righteousness,' to this end (saith
he) he is so made, ut qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur [that
he who glorieth might glory in the Lord]. All which I put
you in mind of to this end, that you may mark that this
nipping at this name of Christ is for no other reason but that
we may have some honour ourselves out of our righteousness."
Then he gives an instance of this in the confession of
Bellarmine, who makes justification to be on the title of merit,
because it is more honorable so to receive it than simply on
the title 6f inheritance ; " So that it seemeth he is resolved,
that rather than they will lose their honour, Christ must part
with a piece of his name, and be named Justitia nostra only
in the latter sense: which is it, the prophet after (in the
twenty-seventh verse of this chapter) setteth down as a mark
of false prophets; that by having a pleasant dream of their
own righteousness, they make God's people to forget his name ;
as indeed by this means this part of Christ's- name hath been
forgotten."
Such is the doctrine of good and learned Bishop Andrewes :
they must be blind indeed who see not at once how unlike
and opposed to the teaching of Mr. Newman and his ad
vocates, as also of Jeremy Taylor, Archbishop Sharpe, Bishop
Bull, Bishop Tomline, and others who have stumbled at this
stone, and have, with all their talents, only laboured to ob
scure that great and most essential article of Christian faith,
which our prelate, believing with his heart, knew so well
how to defend.
CHAPTER VII.
The election at Merchant Taylors' School, WQl—Andrewes is made
Dean of Westminster — His Sermon on giving to C(esar his due —
Oversees Westminster School — Preaches before the Queen for the last
time in 1602 — Coronation of King James — Sermon on the Plague,
1603 — He is at the Hampton-court Conference — Is appointed a
translator — His famous Good-Friday Sermon, 1604, and 1605 —
He is made Bishop of Chichester.
ON St. Barnabas-day, June 11, 1601, we find Dr. Andrewes,
with his old schoolmaster Mulcaster, and Dr. Goodman, dean
of Westminster, Dr. Hutchinson, president of St. John's
College, Oxford, Dr. Eoger Marbeck, and Sir Eobert Wroth,
knt., attending at the election and dinner at Merchant
Taylors' School. It was at this time that Dr. Andrewes
first patronised Matthew Wren, afterwards bishop of Norwich
and Ely. Wren was born in St. Peter's Eastcheap, 1585.
His father Francis was a citizen and mercer of London.
Wren lost his election to St. John's College, Oxford, upon
which Dr. Andrewes procured his admission at Pembroke
College, Cambridge, on the 23rd of the same month.
This election was the last public occasion at which Dr.
Goodman appeared. He died on June 17, and Andrewes
was appointed to succeed him as dean of Westminster July 4,
and Dr. Adrian Saravia was presented to the stall which
Andrewes vacated, and installed on July 5.
In this year the learned Andrew Willet, prebendary of
the fourth stall at Ely (July 22, 1584), in which he succeeded
his father, Thomas Willet, M.A., as he did also in the
rectory of Barley, Herts., was, amongst many excellent col
leagues (ten in number), of whom were Dr. Downame, bishop
of Derry (who wrote the most complete work that has ever
appeared upon Justification, and also a very learned and
elaborate work upon Antichrist), Dr. George Meriton (dean
of York in 1617) that famous preacher, and others of no
mean note, chosen to answer the Divinity Act in the Com
mencement House, Cambridge : ll An. 1601, Publicis Comitiis,
Eespondente Dre. Willet, Quasst.
" Peccatum sola causa damnationis.
" Decimse jure divino debentur."
Meriton, Downame, Milburne, &c., S.T.P., eodem anno."
Milburne was B.A. of Queens' College, Cambridge, 1581,
elected fellow July 7, 1582, before he had completed twelve
terms, and perhaps migrated from Trinity College. He was
made M.A. 1585, treasurer of the College, 1589. He was of
a Pembrokeshire family, but born in London and educated
at Westminster School. He was rector of Cheam in Surrey,
and of Sevenoaks in Kent in 1611, chaplain to prince Henry,
precentor of St. David's according to Anthony Wood, but
his name does not occur in Hardy's Le Neve's Fasti. On
the death of Dr. Thomas Blague (by a mistake in Hasted's
Kent said to have been master of Clare Hall) he was made
dean of Rochester 4th December 1611, and consecrated to the
see of St. David's by Abbot, assisted by Andrewes, King,
bishop of London, Buckeridge, bishop of Rochester, and
Overall, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, July 9th, 1615.
Thence he was translated to Carlisle on the death of Dr.
Robert Snowden, llth September, 1621. He died in 1624,
and was buried in the churchyard of Carlisle cathedral.
Richard Senhouse, dean of Gloucester, was his successor at
Carlisle, as Laud, a previous dean of Gloucester, had succeeded
him at St. David's.
In the llth volume of Bishop Andrewes' works, printed
at Oxford in 1854, is given for the first time, A Discourse
written by Doctor Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, against second
Marriage, after Sentence of Divorce with a former Match, the
party then living. In Anno 1601. Besides the two copies
in the British Museum (Birch MSS. 4149, art. 38, p. 320,
and Lansdowne MSS. 958) there is a third in the University
Library at Cambridge. This last has been marked probably
by its original owner as unworthy of Bishop Andrewes.
However, in the Articles of Visitation for the years 1619 and
1625, immediately following the Discourse, the question is
asked, "Do any being divorced or separated, marry again,
the former wife or husband yet living?" (p. 120.)
The author of the Discourse, after giving that interpretation
which is usually pleaded in behalf of this view to Matth. xix. 9,
Rom. vii. 2, and 1 Cor. vii. 11, alleges the 9th Canon of the
Council of Eliberis, the 17th Canon of the Council of Milevum,
Origen's 7th Homily upon St. Matthew, St. Jerome's Epistle
to Amandus (torn i. col. 296 A.), St. Ambrose on 1 Cor. vii.
(or rather Hilary the Deacon), Op. torn. ii. Append, col. 133,
the Epistle of Innocent I. to Exuperius (§ 6. Cone. torn. ii.
col. 1256 C.), and to St. Augustine de Adulterinis Conjugiis,
1. 2, c. 4.
The author, towards the conclusion, alleges that otherwise
an encouragement is held out to the adulterer, if he is at
liberty, having broken his vows, to marry again. He refers
to St. Jerome on Matth. xix. 9, and to St. Ambrose on
Luke xvi. 1, 8, § 4, though, observes the editor, the meaning
appears to be mistaken. The decision of the Reformers,
both English and Continental, was in favour of the validity
of the second marriage of the innocent and injured party after
divorce on the ground of adultery. The Eeformatio Legum,
a noble monument of the high spiritual aims and apostolic
simplicity of Cranmer and his associates in that great work,
permitted such marriages. That they but walked in the steps
of primitive antiquity is avouched by the authority of the
most learned and impartial student of the fathers whom the
present century has seen, the late bishop of Lincoln. In his very
valuable work upon Tertullian he observes, " that the Roman
Catholic notion of the indissolubility of marriage was then
unknown. Tertullian on all occasions affirms that it may be
dissolved on account of adultery: and though his peculiar
tenets would naturally lead him to deny to either party the
liberty of marrying again, yet he admits that such marriages
actually took place in the church."1
In 1821 was republished by the late munificent dean of
Westminster, Dr. Ireland, Nuptice Sacrce, or, an Enquiry into
the Scripture Doctrine of Marriage and Divorce, addressed to
the Two Houses of Parliament. First published in 1801, and
now reprinted by desire. In this very able and elaborate
treatise, its learned author traces this notion of the indis
solubility of marriage to the Shepherd of Hermas. For
the history of this apocryphal writing the reader may consult
the Dissertation of Ittigius de Patribus Apostolicis, § 55 — 65.
Ittigius is opposed to the opinion advocated in Dr. Burton's
Lectures,2 that the works bearing the name of Hermas were
written by a brother of Pius, bishop of Rome, in A.D. 141
or 142. The late venerable Dr. Routh observes its con
demnation by all the Councils of the Catholic Church, as
affirmed by Tertullian de Pudicitid, c. 16. See Routh's
Scriptorum Eccles. Opusc. torn. i. p. 176, Oxon. 1832, and
'Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, 3rd ed. p. 242.
A second marriage, upon divorce on account of adultery,
was allowed the innocent party to the time of archbishop
Bancroft, who was swayed by some divines in the opposite
direction. Amongst these perhaps was Edmund Bunney,
who wrote very zealously against such marriages, but did
not make good his claim to the general authority of the
fathers on his side. This Edmund Bunney added the
arguments of the books and chapters to the London edition
of Calvin's Institutes in 1576. He was, like Bernard Gilpin
the apostle of the north, an indefatigable preacher, travelling
about the north of England to supply as far as possible
the then great lack of preachers. He was B.D. and fellow of
Merton College, Oxford, rector of Bolton Percy, prebendary
of Oxgate in St. Paul's, March 20, 1564, subdean of York
1570 ; he resigned the subdeanery in 1575, and was made
prebendary of Wistow in St. Peter's, York, October 21, 1575.
On July 2, 1585, he was admitted to the first stall in Carlisle,
which he resigned in 1603. The village of Bunney, seven
miles south-east of Nottingham, took its name from his
family. He sometime before his death, which occurred
Feb. 6, 1612, gave up his paternal inheritance to his brother
Richard. His effigy and monument are against the wall of
the south aisle of the choir in York-minster, near the monu
ment of archbishop Lamplugh.
But by far the most learned treatise that has appeared
upon this subject, is the posthumous work of that prodigy
of learning, Dr. John Rainolds, sometime dean of Lincoln
and afterward president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford,
in the reign of James the First. There antiquity is clearly
shewn to be far more in favour of the permission of a second
marriage after divorce on the ground of adultery than against it.
Heylyn, in his Life of Laud, calls the prohibiting of such
marriages the Romish doctrine. The Greek Church has
on the other hand always allowed them.
Of the authorities cited in the Discourse ascribed to An-
drewes, the Council of Eliberis forbids the remarriage of the wo
man, but makes no mention of the man. Origen, in Tract. 7 in
c. 19 MattL, spoke of divorces not granted for adultery, but for
lighter reasons after the custom of the Jews : St. Jerome, with
Athenagoras and the so-called Apostolical Constitutions, con
demned all second marriages : St. Ambrose, on Luke xvi., did
not refer to these marriages, but reproved men for marrying
after they had put away their chaste wives : St. Augustine
himself, in his Retractations, acknowledged his partial dis
satisfaction with what he had previously advanced upon this
subject : ' Scripsi duos libros de conjugiis adulterinis, quan
tum potui secundum scripturas, cupiens solvere difficillimam
qusestionem. Quod utrum enodatissime fecerim nescio, imb
verb non me pervenisse ad hujus rei perfectionem sentio,
quamvis multos sinus ejus aperuerim, quod judicare poterit
quisquis intelligenter legit.' (1. 2, p. 83. Lugd. 1563.)
To this should be added his concession in his book De Fide
et Operibus, c. 19, p. 98, torn. iv. Et in ipsis divinis sententiis
ita obscurum esty utrum et iste cui quidem sine dubio adulterant,
licet dimittere, adulter tamen habeatur si alteram duxeritj ut
quantum existimo, venialiter ibi quisque fallatur '.
It should be borne in mind that for a long time in the
Western church, where Scripture was regarded as leaving
every liberty of opinion, there St. Augustine's opinion was
received as the rule.
St. Chrysostom is plain for the dissolubility of marriage,
Horn. 19, in 1 Cor. 7 : tl The marriage is dissolved by fornica
tion, neither is the husband a husband any longer." This
testimony is allowed by Covarruvias in 4 1. Decretal, Part 2,
c. 7, D 6.
Theophylact, on St. Luke c. xvi., says expressly that our
Lord's words here must be supplied from St. Matthew.
Bellarmine has recourse to a chapter fathered on the
Council of Basle by Pope Eugenius IY. St. Basil's Canons
9 and 21, approved by General Councils (Cone, in Trullo,
Canon 2), authorize the man to marry again after divorce
from an adulterous wife, and check the custom that would
forbid the same liberty to a woman divorced from an adult
erous husband.
The reader may find many other authorities in Dr. Kai-
nolds ; he may also consult the 14th chapter of the seventh
book of the Theologia Moralis of Dr. John Forbes, and the
2nd chapter of the third part of the second book of Dr.
John Gerhard's Confessio Catholica.
On November 15th the Dean of Westminster preached at
Whitehall, upon giving to Caesar his due, instancing out of
both the Old and New Testament the duty of obedience to
princes be they good or bad ; for it is not to Tiberius but to
Cassar that the tribute is due, (not to the person but to the
office). The gospel recognizes the doctrine that every man
must regard his property as belonging of right to God and to
Csesar, himself being interested in it but as a third person •
a doctrine consonant enough to reason and revelation, but
not very acceptable to the philosophy of covetousness, which
would misrepresent it as subversive of the laws of property,
whereas it is the only true foundation of them. Certain
it is that in proportion to the prevalence of more selfish
principles, property has been rendered insecure by the natural
revulsion that always follows the oppression of covetousness.
Whilst dean of Westminster, Dr. Andrewes frequently
superintended the school in person ; but bishop Hacket shall
relate in his own words the sedulousness with which he
fostered that school, and the delight which he took in en
couraging the studious. In his Life of Archbishop Williams
Hacket says : " He had heard much what pains Dr. Andrewes
did take both day and night to train up the youth bred
in the public school, chiefly the alumni of the college so
called. For more certain information he (Williams) called
me from Cambridge, in the May before he was installed,
to the house of his dear cousin Mr. Elwes Winn in Chancery-
lane, a clerk of the Petty Bag, a man of the most general
and gracious acquaintance with all the great ones of the land
that ever I knew. There he moved his questions to me
about the discipline of Dr. Andrewes. I told him how strict
that excellent man was to charge our masters that they
should give us lessons out of none but the most classical
authors ; that he did often supply the place both of the head-
schoolmaster and usher for the space of an whole week
together, and gave us not an hour of loitering time from
morning to night : how he caused our exercises in prose and
verse to be brought to him, to examine our style and pro
ficiency ; that he never walked to Chiswick for his recreation
without a brace of this young fry; and in that wayfaring
leisure had a singular dexterity to fill those narrow vessels
with a funnel. And, which was the greatest burden of
his toil, sometimes thrice in a week, sometimes oftener,
he sent for the uppermost scholars to his lodgings at night,
and kept them with him from eight till eleven, unfolding
to them the best rudiments of the Greek tongue and the
elements of the Hebrew grammar; and all this he did to boys
without any compulsion of correction, nay, I never heard
him utter so much as a word of austerity among us."
Hacket adds, after a rapturous eulogy, that this good
and great prelate was the first that planted him in his tender
studies, and watered them continually with his bounty. It
is recorded of Duppa, bishop of Winchester, on his monument
in Westminster Abbey, that he learnt Hebrew of Lancelot
Andrewes, at that time dean. Dr. David Stokes was also
at Westminster School at this time.
On Ash- Wednesday, 1602, dean Andrewes preached be
fore the queen at Whitehall, February 17, from Jer. viii. 4 — 7,
a very ingenious and forcible sermon against neglecting and
delaying of repentance. Towards the conclusion he notes
how the very season of Lent, coming earlier in the year,
is an intimation of the duty of an early return to God.
On St. Barnabas' Day, June 11, we find him, with his
old schoolmaster Mulcaster and Dr. Friar, as an examiner
at Merchant Taylors' School.
On Thursday, March 24, 1603, died queen Elizabeth,
the prosperity of whose reign, the wisdom of whose councillors,
the security of whose subjects raised her memory upon an
imperishable basis, and deeply rooted her name in the affections of all ranks. Her remains were followed to the tomb
by fifteen hundred persons in deep mourning, and this a
voluntary attendance. Fuller observes, that most of the
London and many of the country churches had pictures or
models of her tomb. Under these were inscriptions which
may be seen in Stow's Survey of London.
On St. James's Day, July 25, Dr. Andrewes, as dean,
assisted at the coronation of king James. The plague was
meanwhile raging in London, and carried away thirty thou
sand inhabitants. Andrewes probably retired to Chiswick
to the prebendal house, and preached in the church there on
August 24, from Psalm cvi. 29, 30. Very excellently does
he urge that if not a sparrow falleth to the ground without
our heavenly Father, much less can such a visitation as
the plague be attributed to chance. He inveighs against
inventions in religion, and new modes of luxury in common
life. He enumerates the causes of plagues (or sicknesses)
mentioned in Holy Writ, namely, fornication, the sin of Peor;
pride, the sin of David;1 blasphemy, the sin of Balshakeh ;
and neglect and profanation of the Sacrament, the sin of the
Corinthians. Some in our day have, amidst their other
superstitious scruples (unscrupulous enough in points of
greater moment) been forward to censure the common appli
cation of this term 'the Sacrament' to the holy Eucharist.
Nevertheless we here find one, who is a giant in comparison
of them all, using the term without hesitation, as being
in truth not likely to lead men into error, nor inappropriate
to that sacrament which is confessedly the highest part of
Christian worship.
On the 26th of August he was put in a commission with Dr.
Eichard Field, archbishop Whitgift, the earl of Nottingham,
many of her ministers were eminently distinguished. In every season of alarm
and danger, the greatness of her mind and the dignity of her character were
strikingly displayed ; and although she ruled with absolute sway, — although she
pressed severely upon some of her conscientious subjects, who could not conform
to the ceremonies which she introduced, or which she retained in the services of
the Church, she was beheld with veneration by her people, and regarded
throughout Europe as the strenuous defender of the Protestant faith." — Dr.
Cooke's Hist, of the Church of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 128. Edinb. 1815.
1 2 Sam. c. xxiv.
Lord Admiral, the bishop of Winchester, Sir John Herbert,
Knt, Second Secretary, Sir Thomas West, Knt, Sir Julius
Caesar, Knt., a master of Requests, Sir David Dunn, Knt.,
also a master of Requests, Sir Thomas Fleming, Knt., solicitor,
Sir Edward and Sir George Moore, Sir Richard Mill, Sir
Richard Norton, Sir William Uvedale, Sir Benjamin Tytch-
borne, Knts., the Chancellor of the bishop of Winchester,
the Dean and Archdeacon, and others, for visiting the diocese
of Winchester for the punishment of recusancy, nonconformity,
fornication, adultery, misbehaviour in the church or church
yards, &c., &c.
On Saturday, January 14, 1604, he was appointed to be
present at the Hampton-court Conference, held between the
Conformists and the Puritans. The dean of the chapel, Dr.
Montague, also dean of Worcester (afterwards bishop of Bath
and Wells and then of Winchester), Dr. Thomas Ravis, dean
of Christchurch (afterwards bishop of London), Dr. Overall,
dean of St. Paul's (afterwards bishop of Norwich), Dr. Barlow,
Dr. Bridges, dean of Sarum, and Dr. Giles Thompson, dean
of Windsor (afterwards bishop of Gloucester), were summoned
with Andrewes, and were in the presence-chamber ; but only
Montague, dean of the chapel, Andrewes, Overall, Barlow and
Bridges were called in on the first day. Andrewes does not
appear to have taken any part, except that on the second day,
Monday the 16th, upon the king's making inquiry into the
antiquity of the use of the cross in baptism, Andrewes made
answer, " It appears out of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen,
that it was used in immortali lavacro".
This conference was followed by the appointment of a Com
mittee who were entrusted with the preparing the present
version of the Scriptures. Both Dr. Andrewes and his brother
Roger, a fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge, were ap
pointed translators, and besides Andrewes, four other Merchant
Taylors, Tomson, dean of Gloucester, Perin, who on November 24th was made a canon of Christchurch, Dr. Ravens, vicar of Dunmow, Essex, and Spenser, chaplain to the king,
and (on the death of the very learned Dr. Kainolds) president
of Corpus Christ! College, Oxford, and also a fellow of the
Koyal Controversial College of Chelsea. Andrewes was in that
division to which was allotted the Old Testament from Genesis
to the end of the books of Kings. Previously to the appoint
ment of the Committee of Translators, Dr. Andrewes discovered
his wonderful eloquence to the king by a sermon such as hath
never been equalled in an age of greater fastidiousness but
not of greater strength.
On Good Friday, April 6th, he preached before him at
Whitehall, from Lam. i. 12, Have ye no regard, 0 all ye that
pass ~by the way ? . Consider and behold, if ever there were
sorrow Wee my sorrow, which was done unto me, wherewith the
Lord did afflict me in the day of the fierceness of his wrath f
If any discourse could ever be said to be at all worthy of the
subject, the unspeakable mystery of the love of Christ in our
redemption, this is it. Bishop Home, a great admirer of our
prelate, but not for a moment to be put in comparison with
him, is said to have delighted in using the substance of, or
preaching this sermon in a more modern style ; but indeed the
great simplicity of Bishop Andrewes is amongst his greatest
perfections. Bishop Home was too ornate and polished to be
powerful, but to Andrewes both the king and the peasant
might have listened with unequal, but both with great profit.
This passage in Lamentations, and that of Hosea, Out of
Egypt have I called my Son, with many more of the like kind,
he regarded as typical, and most perfectly applicable to our
Saviour ; a rule in accordance with the spirit of scripture and
Christian antiquity, and that tends to the more complete
understanding of the scripture testimony to Christ— an inter
nal evidence of its correctness.
In regard of the sermon itself, it is a very full and glowing
declaration of the great doctrine of our redemption accom
plished in that day of the wrath of God when the innocent
suffered for the guilty, the lamb as a sacrifice, who could not
justly suffer merely as a lamb.
"The cause then in God was wrath. What caused this
wroth? God is not wroth but with sin ; nor grievously wroth
but with grievous sin. And in Christ there was no grievous
sin, nay, no sin at all. God did it (the text is plain), and in
his fierce wrath he did it. For what cause ? For God forbid
God should do as did Annas the high-priest, cause him to be
smitten without cause. God forbid (saith Abraham) the Judge
of the world should do wrong to any ; to any, but specially to
his own Son, that his Son of whom, with thundering voice
from heaven, he testifieth all his joy and delight were in him,
in him only he was well pleased. And how then could his
wrath wax hot, to do all this unto him?
" There is no way to preserve God's justice and Christ's
innocency both, but to say as the angel said of him to the
prophet Daniel, The Messiah shall be slain, Vb^NI ve-en-lo ;
shall be slain, but not for himself. Not for himself? for
whom then? For some others. He took upon him the
person of others ; and so doing, justice may have her course
and proceed.
" Pity it is, to see a man pay that he never took : but
if he will become a surety, if he will take on him the person
of the debtor, so he must. Pity to see a silly poor lamb
be bleeding to death, but if it must be a sacrifice (such
is the nature of a sacrifice) so it must. And so Christ,
though without sin in himself, yet, as a surety, as a sacrifice,
may justly suffer for others, if he will take upon him their
persons; and so God may justly give way to his wrath
against him.
"And who be those others? The prophet Esay telleth
us, and telleth us seven times over for failing : He took upon
him our infirmities, and bare our maladies : He was wounded
for our iniquities, and broken for our transgressions. The
chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes
were we healed. All ive as sheep were gone astray, and turned
every man to his own way : and the Lord hath laid upon him
the iniquity of us all. All, all ; even those that pass to and
fro, and for all this, regard neither him nor his passion."*
The king was from the very first anxious to effect a legis
lative union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and England.
But the jealousy that arose in consequence of the king's
partiality for his Scottish courtiers defeated his intentions,
intentions that were commended to the consideration of
Parliament as early as May 19, 1603, soon after his accession.
We find his very learned and excellent kinsman John
Gordon, of the noble house of Huntley, and whom he had
made dean of Sarum in the preceding February, preaching
before him at Whitehall on the 28th of October, the 21st
Sunday after Trinity (the 7th Nov. N. s.) in favour of the
Union of Great Britain. This sermon is entitled, Henoticon,
or, A Sermon of the Union of Great Brittannie, in antiquitie
of language, name, religion, and kingdom. It was printed
by Geo. Bishop, London, 1604. This sermon, consisting
of above fifty pages, is written in an excellent style, simple,
clear, and vigorous, full of sound maxims and sound theology,
and abundantly illustrated by examples from history, both
civil and ecclesiastical. We are not to look indeed for
critical acumen. The legendary account of Joseph of Ari-
mathea, and the sway of Lucius over the whole of Britain,
are introduced into his account of our early Christianity.
For his notices of the dispersion of mankind after the flood
he refers to the Anchoratus of Epiphanius* a work the
principal object of which was indeed to set forth the doctrine
of our Lord's divinity against the Arians, and of the Holy
Ghost against the Macedonians. Gordon shewed how Divine
Providence ever favoured those kingdoms that discountenanced
idolatry and maintained the true worship of God. He
unreservedly condemned the Romish worship of the host
and of images as Gentilism under the profession of Christi
anity. He had in the preceding year, 1603, written : Asser-
tiones theological pro verd verce ecclesice nota, quce est solius
Dei adoratio, contra falsce ecclesice Creaturarum Adorationem.
Theological Theses in maintenance of a true mark of a true
Church, namely, the worship of God alone, against the false
Churctis adoration of the Creatures. Rupell, 1603, 8vo.
Gordon was of Balliol College, Oxford, but had first received
a very extensive education both in Scotland and France,
and especially in the Eastern languages. He derived the
names of Britain, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland from the
Hebrew, and commented upon them accordingly in his sermon
upon Union. He had been gentleman of three Kings' cham
bers in France, namely, Charles IX., Henry III. and IV. ;
and, adds Anthony Wood, " whilst he was in the flower
of his age he was there assailed with many corruptions as
well spiritual as temporal, and in many dangers of his life,
which God did miraculously deliver him from. At length
K. James the first of England did call him into England,
and to the holy ministry, he being then 58 years of age,
and upon the promotion of Dr. John Bridges to the see
of Oxon in the latter end of 1603, he made him Dean of
Salisbury in February 1604."1 Lord-Chancellor Egerton
gave him, in June 1608, the rectory of Upton Lovel near
Heytesbury, close by the road to Salisbury.
On the following Good-Friday, March 29, 1605, Dean
Andrewes preached before the King at Greenwich, from
Heb. xii. 2. It is difficult to say which is the more in
comparable of his three Good-Friday sermons. In this there
is not a sentence that could be spared, there is not a passage
but deserves to be studied. Truly did he live in the con
templation of his heavenly Master's love and in the view
of his cross; of looking to which he saith here, "blessed are
the hours that are so spent." The reading of these pages
makes us regret the loss of those discourses which he most
probably delivered either in his college chapel or his abbey
church at Westminster upon Christmas and Easter Day.
For truly St. Chrysostom himself was, in naturalness and
in setting forth the love of Christ, nay altogether as a divine,
far his inferior. Here we have not the undue austerity of
that age, not the unmeaning pomp of words, not the occasional
bursting forth of Christian light ; but the heart speaks from its
fulness, of that love which passeth knowledge, which despised
both pain and shame, which bowed itself to the death of
a slave, a malefactor, a derided person. Here both our love
and hope are fed; as he himself saith, "if either of these
will serve us, will prevail to move us, here it is. Here is
love, love in the cross ; who loved us and gave himself for us
a sacrifice on the cross. Here is hope, hope in the throne :
To him that overcometh will I give to sit with me in my throne.
If our eye be a mother s eye, here is love worth the looking
on. If our eye be a merchant's eye, here is hope worth
the looking after. I know it is true, that verus amor vires
non sumit de spe. (It is Bernard.) Love, if it be true indeed,
as in the mother, receiveth no manner of strength from hope.
Ours is not such, but faint and feeble and full of imperfection :
here is hope therefore to strengthen our weak knees, that
we may run the more readily to the high prize of our calling.
Early in the reign of James the plague broke out in
Oxford, so that although he received Dr. Abbot, Master of
University College and Dean of Winchester, Vicechancellor
of the university, with the proctors (of whom Laud was one)
and several doctors and other members of the university
at Woodstock, in September, he did not then venture to visit
Oxford. He was presented with the Holy Scriptures in the
name of the university, and then promised that when the
plague had abated he would visit the university.
The King however resolved on visiting the university
in August 1606, taking in his way Havering-atte-bower to
the north of Eomford, where he remained two nights, July,
Tuesday 16th and Wednesday the 17th. This Havering
had been a royal seat from the reign of Edward the Confessor,
and was frequently visited by his illustrious predecessor
Elizabeth. Thence he proceeded to Loughton Hall, westward
below the east side of Epping Forest, another resort of the
late Queen. On Saturday the 20th, the King came to the
Earl of Salisbury at Theobald's, a little to the west of Wal-
tham Abbey. Here he and the Queen remained three days.
Theobald's had been the seat of the great Lord Burleigh, where
he was often visited by Queen Elizabeth. James received it of
the Earl of Salisbury in exchange for Hatfield, frequently re
tired hither, and in 1625 here breathed his last. Charles I.
sometimes came to this place, and in 1642 the petition of both
houses of parliament was presented to him here ; and hence
he withdrew to put himself at the head of his army. During
the commonwealth the greater part was taken down, and sold
to pay the troops. James II. greatly enlarged the park.
In 1689 it was given by William III. to the Earl of Portland,
whose descendants sold it in 1702 to Mr. Prescot. Every
vestige of the ancient palace was removed in 1765, and
a new house erected about a mile from the site.
On Tuesday the 23rd, the King and Queen went to
Hatfield palace, where they stayed three days. Here the
Bishops of Ely had formerly a palace, which was conveyed
to Queen Elizabeth by Bishop Cox. James, in the fourth
year of his reign, exchanged it for Theobald's with Sir Eobert
Cecil, whom he had in 1603 made Baron of Essendine in
Rutlandshire, and in 1604 Viscount Cranborne in Dorsetshire,
and whom, on May 4, 1605, he raised to be Earl of Salisbury.
He erected the present noble mansion. Hence he went one
day to visit Sir Goddard Pemberton at Hertford Bury, of
an ancient family in Lancashire, and, some years after, sheriff
for Hertfordshire.
On Friday the 26th, the king visited Mr. Sandy, afterward
Napier, whom in 1612 he made a baronet. He had purchased
about this time the capital manor of Luton, with the fine
seat and park there called Luton Hoo, from the ancient
family of Hoo, and which since came into the hands of the
Marquis of Bute. The Queen went to Sir John Kotheram's,
a mansion on Farley Green in the parish of Luton. At Mr.
Sandy's Sir George Peryam, of Oxfordshire, received the
honour of knighthood. On the same day, Thursday the
27th, the King proceeded to Houghton Bury in the parish
of Houghton Conquest, the seat of Sir Edward Conquest,
by whom he was entertained five days. The little that now
remains of the mansion is a farm-house of brick and timber.
The male line of this family became extinct in Benedict
Conquest, esq., father of Lady Arundel (1828). The manor
was purchased by the Earl of Upper Ossory in 1741.
The Queen was entertained by Sir Robert Newdigate at
Hawnes. The house has been modernised and mostly rebuilt
by Lord Carteret, whose family has possessed the manor from
1667. Sir Roger Newdigate, the last who bore the title,
died in 1806, leaving by his will the annual prize at Oxford
for the best English verses on ancient sculpture, or painting,
or architecture.
On the 28th, it being the feast day at Houghton, the King
with his court, consisting of the Duke of Lenox, the Earls
of Northampton, Suffolk, Salisbury, Devonshire, and Pem
broke, the Lords Knowles, Wotton, and Stanhope, and Dr.
Watson Bishop of Chichester, his almoner, attended divine
service at the parish church.
On the 30th the King visited the Queen at Hawnes, and
there attended divine service. The rector of Houghton
Conquest, the Rev. Thomas Archer, preached from the Song
of Solomon, ii. 15, Take us the foxes, the little foxes which
destroy the grapes, for our vines have small grapes. Some
of his MSS. (and amongst them this sermon) were in the
possession of a late rector, Dr. Pearce, Dean of Ely and
Master of Jesus College, Cambridge. Archer was immediately
sworn one of the King's chaplains in ordinary.
During this visit the King devoted himself to his favourite
field sports in the parks of Houghton and Ampthill.
On Thursday, August 1st, the King went from Houghton
to Thurleigh, the seat of Sir Wm. Hervey, between Bletsoe
to the west and Bolnhurst to the east, above Bedford. He
had amply deserved the honours to which he afterwards rose,
by numerous acts of unparalleled valour in the memorable
1588, and on many subsequent occasions. He had been
knighted by Queen Elizabeth, and was made a baronet by
James, May 13, 1619, and in 1620 Lord Eoss in the county
of Wexford, and finally by Charles I. a baron of this realm
by the title of Lord Hervey of Kidbrook in Kent, February 7,
1628. His title became extinct on his death in 1642. He
was buried, July 8th, in Westminster Abbey with great
solemnity.
On the same Thursday, August 1st, the Queen went
from Hawnes to the seat of Oliver third Lord St. John at
Bletsoe, "the residence in times past of the Pateshulls,
after of the Beauchamps, and now of the honourable family
of St. John (1610), which long since by their valour attained
unto very large and goodly possessions in Glamorganshire,
and in our days," says the more ancient editor of Camden,
" through the favour of Q. Elizabeth of happy memory, unto
the dignity of barons, when she created Sir Oliver, the second
baron of her creation, Lord St. John of Bletnesho, unto
whom it came by Margaret Beauchamp on inheritance, wedded
first to Sir Oliver St. John, from whom these barons derive
their pedigree, and secondly to John duke of Somerset, unto
whom she bare the Lady Margaret Countess of Kichmond,
a lady most virtuous and always to be remembered with
praises; from whose loins the late Kings and Queens of
England are descended." At Bletsoe, overlooking a country
of considerable extent to the south around and beyond
Bedford, was Lady Margaret the mother of Henry VII. born.
Vestiges of the old castellated mansion were discernible some
years ago near a farm-house, the remains of the more modern
quadrangular mansion of the St. John's. This family held
lands in Oxfordshire in the reign of Henry I.
Oliver the third Lord, who had the honour of entertaining
the king, succeeded to the title in 1596, and died in 1613.
His son Oliver, the fourth baron, was in 1624 advanced
to the title of Earl of Bolingbroke. The earldom became
extinct in 1711. The barony devolved to the posterity of
Sir Kowland St. John, a younger son of Oliver the third
baron. But the family residence is a few miles northward near
Eisely at Melchbourn. In the north aisle of the venerable
and cruciform church of Bletsoe, which is the burial-place
of the noble family of St. John, is a monument with the
effigies of a knight in armour, with his lady, intended for
Sir John St. John, father of Oliver the first Lord. This son
was created Lord St. John Jan. 13, 1559. His father married
Margaret daughter of Sir William Waldegrave, of a noble
Saxon family, and by her had two daughters, Margaret who
was married to Francis second Earl of Bedford, one of the
greatest ornaments of his house.
On Saturday the 3rd of August, the King and Queen
were received for three days, at the noble mansion of Drayton
to the west of Daventry on the borders of Northamptonshire,
by Henry Lord Mordaunt. His son was created Earl of
Peterborough in 1628. On the following Tuesday the 6th,
the King, accompanied by the Queen, renewed the pleasure
he had received on his former visit to Sir Anthony (son to
Sir Walter Mildmay the founder of Emmanuel College, Cam
bridge,) at Apthorp, where he had dined in April 1603,
on his way from Scotland to London.
Apthorp is in the neighbourhood of Kingscliffe, the resi
dence for some months of the truly venerable Archdeacon
of Lincoln, the early friend of the late ever to be revered
Bishop of that see, Dr. Kaye.
Sir Walter Mildmay has been very gratefully memorialized
by the eccentric but kind-hearted George Dyer, himself
of Emmanuel College, in his interesting History of the
University of Cambridge.
Sir Walter, fifth son of Thomas Mildmay of Little Baddow
below Chelmsford, was a student of Christ's College. Fuller
observes of him, tl Sir Robert Naunton, in his Fragmenta
Regalia, did leave as well as take, omitting some statesmen
of the first magnitude, no less valued by than useful to Queen
Elizabeth, as appears by his not mentioning of this worthy
knight. True it is, toward the end of his days he fell into
the Queen's disfavour, not by his own demerit, but the envy
of his adversaries. For he being employed by virtue of his
place to advance the Queen's treasure, did it industriously,
faithfully, and conscionably, without wronging the subject,
being very tender of their privileges, insomuch that he once
complained in Parliament that many subsidies were granted,
and no grievances redressed. Which words being represented
with his disadvantage to the Queen, made her to disafFect
him, setting in a court cloud, but in the sunshine of his
countiy and a clear conscience."
" Coming to court after he had founded his college,"
(1584) the Queen told him, tf Sir Walter, I hear that you
have erected a Puritan foundation." " No, Madam," saith he,
" far be it from me to countenance anything contrary to your
established laws; but I have set an acorn, which when it
becomes an oak, God alone knows what will be the fruit
thereof." « Sure I am at this day," adds Fuller (1634), " it
hath overshadowed all the University, more than a moiety
of the present Masters of Colleges being bred therein."
Sir Anthony was son to Sir Walter. He was knighted
by Queen Elizabeth and sent over to France on an embassy
to Henry IV. in 1596. " He was at Geneva," says Fuller,
" when Theodore Beza their minister was convened before
their consistory and publicly checked for preaching too elo
quently : he pleaded that what they called eloquence in him
was not affected but natural, and promised to endeavour more
plainness for the future. Sir Anthony, by Grace coheir to Sir
Henry Sherington, had one daughter Mary, married to Sir
Francis Fane, afterwards earl of Westmoreland."
In Apthorp chapel, within Nassington park, both Sir
Anthony and his lady Grace, " one of the coheirs of Sir Henry
Sherington, knt., of Lacock in the county of Wilts, who
lived fifty years married to him, and three years a widow
after him," lie buried. He died September llth, 1617, and
his lady Grace July 27th, 1620.
The present mansion, the seat of the Earl of Westmoreland,
is neatly built of freestone, and consists of a quadrangle with
open cloisters. On the south side is a stone statue of James L,
who gave the timber for building the east and south sides.
There are chambers still called the King's and the Duke's
chamber. Among several good portraits are a quarter piece
by Vandyke, in the king's chamber, of the first Earl of West
moreland, and a full-length portrait of Frances Howard,
Duchess of Richmond and Lenox, daughter to Thomas Lord
Howard of Bindon. In the ceiling are the arms, crest, and
supporters of England in fretwork. On the staircase is a full-
length portrait of James, created Duke of Richmond in 1641,
May 8th, the faithful friend of Dr. Thomas Fuller, and a
faithful servant of Charles I., at whose interment at Windsor
he was present. Here are also portraits of the Mildmay
family here mentioned, and of Philip and Mary, supposed
to have been painted by Holbein.
The King, after enjoying his favourite sport around Ap-
thorp, went on Friday the 9th to Rockingham Castle, the
mansion of Sir Edward Watson, and the Queen to Kirby,
the seat of Sir Christopher Hatton, in the parishes of Gretton
and Bulwick, thus going southward on their way to Oxford.
Sir Edward Watson had been high-sheriff of Northampton
shire in 1591, and was knighted by the King at the Charter
house May 12, 1603. He died in 1617. The mansion and
castle are now the property of Lord Sondes, descended of Lady
Margaret, youngest daughter of Sir Edward's son, Sir Lewis
the first Earl Rockingham.
Kirby, the seat of Sir Christopher, a godson of the Lord-
chancellor Hatton, was celebrated for its gardens. Sir Chris
topher sold Holdenby to the King in 1608, resided at Kirby,
and died in 1619.
On Monday the 12th August, the King and Queen visited
Mr. Edward, brother of Sir Thomas Griffin, at Braybrooke
Castle. Scarcely any remains of the castle now exist. On
the death of Sir Thomas in 1615, he succeeded to the family
estates at Braybrooke and Dingley. His son Edward was
created Lord Griffin of Braybrooke by James II. in 1688.
The title became extinct in 1742, but revived August 3rd,
1784, in favour of John, son of Anne, sister of the last Lord.
He took the title of Lord Howard of Walden. The title
of Baron of Braybrooke was revived September 5th, 1788,
in the person of Richard Neville Aid worth, esq., on the death
of John Lord Howard of Walden. He was descended from
the ancient family of Aldworth1 of Stanlakes in Berkshire,
and in the female line from the Nevilles of Billingbear near
B infield in Berkshire, contiguous to which is the park with
the old mansion of the Lords Braybrooke.
In the afternoon their Majesties left Braybrooke Castle for
Harrowden, the seat of Lord Vaux, some miles to the south
west of Braybrooke Castle, and about two miles above Well-
ingborough. The ancient manor-house has long been de
molished. Edward the fourth Lord Vaux succeeded his
grandfather William in 1595. The first Lord was Sir Nicholas
Vaux, captain of Guisnes in Picardy, created by Henry VIII.
Lord Vaulx of Harrowden.
On Tuesday the 13th, the king and queen visited Castle
Ashby, the princely seat of Lord Compton,4 a little to the north
of the road from Northampton to Bedford. The old mansion
was enlarged in the seventeenth century under the direction
of the famous Inigo Jones. Within the stone balustrade is
wrought in open-work in Latin, Except the Lord build the
housej they labour in vain that build it.
Here they remained until Friday the 16th, when the King
proceeded to Grafton Lodge, then an honour of the King's,
but in the fifteenth century the mansion of the Widvilles or
Woodvilles. It was once the residence of the renowned
George Clifford, Earl of Cumberland. This heroic and dis
interested nobleman died October 30 this same year. But
little remains of this venerable mansion.
The Queen on the same day went to Alderton, which was
annexed to the manor of Grafton. In the reign of Queen
Elizabeth it was in the hands of William Gorges, esq., who,
dying without issue in 1589, left it to Frances, his only
daughter and heir, the wife of Thomas Heselrige, esq.
William, the Queen's host, was the son of Sir Thomas, who
had been knighted by Queen Elizabeth in 1577, and died in
1600. The son entertained the King at Alderton in August
1608, when he was knighted. He was sheriff for Leicester
shire in 1613, knight of the shire in 1614 and 1623, and was
created a baronet July 21, 1622. He died January 11, 1629,
aged 66.
On Tuesday the 20th, the King and Queen passing west
ward into Oxfordshire came to Hanwell, within four miles of
Banbury, the seat of Sir Anthony Cope, now, like so many
more of the mansions they visited, reduced to a shadow of its
former greatness. Sir Anthony, who had been knighted by
Elizabeth, is said to have been a mirror of integrity and
hospitality. His first wife was Frances, daughter of Sir
Kowland Litton of Herts. This family, becoming connected
with Hampshire in the last century, was seated at Bramshill
Park in that county, where the upright Primate Abbot met
with that unhappy casualty, July 24, 1621, whilst on a visit
there to Lord Zouch.
On the same day the King visited Sir William Pope of
Wilcote, at Wroxton Park, about a mile nearer Banbury,
"probably," says Warton, "in the old abbey house, where
he entertained the King with the fashionable and courtly
diversions of hawking and bearbating. As the King was on
a visit to Sir Thomas Watton at Halsted in Kent, near
Sevenoaks, his granddaughter Anne1 was presented to the
King, holding the following humorous epigram in her hand,
with which his Majesty was highly pleased.
See this little mistress here
Did never sit in Peter's chair,
Or a triple crown did wear,
And yet she is a POPE.
No benefice she ever sold,
Nor did dispense with sins for gold;
She hardly is a sevennight old,
And yet she is a POPE.
No King her feet did ever kiss,
Or had from her worse look than this ;
Nor did she ever hope
To saint one with a rope,2
And yet she is a POPE.
A female Pope you'll say; a second Joan.
No, sure; she is Pope Innocent, or none.
It is supposed, says Warton in his Life of Pope, to have
been written by Kichard Corbet, then a student at Christ-
church, afterwards Bishop of Norwich. His poems, with a life
of him prefixed, were edited with many additions by Octavius
Gilclirist in 1807.
Wroxton Abbey stood in the garden on the east side of the
present house. It was a priory of Augustine Canons, founded
early in the reign of Henry III. It was granted by Henry
VIII. to Sir Thomas Pope, who bestowed the site and lands,
or great part of them, on his new foundation of Trinity, which
he grafted on to Durham College, a great part of which still
remains under the appellation of Trinity College, Oxford. Sir
William, the King's host, built from the ground the present
mansion. The chapel he caused to be decorated with painted
glass by Van Ling in 1623. Wroxton Abbey is engraved
in Skelton's Antiquities of Oxfordshire.
Sir William's lady was Anne, daughter of Sir Owen Hop-
ton, lieutenant of the Tower, and relict of Henry Lord Went-
worth, Baron of Nettlestead. She died at Wroxton 1625.
On Wednesday the 21st, the King and Queen left Wroxton
for their ancient palace of Woodstock, where they remained
three nights. Woodstock was a royal residence from the reign
of Henry I.
The Earl of Dorset, the Chancellor of the University of
Oxford, had sent his instructions to the Heads of houses as
early as the month of June.
On Thursday the 22nd, on which day Philip Stringer,
Fellow of St. John's college and Solicitor to the University of
Cambridge, M.A. 1571, and some years esquire bedell, pro
bably from 1568 to 1591, came to Oxford in the afternoon,
bringing with him from the King's Attorney-general a book
ready for his Majesty's signature, for the endowing of the
regius divinity professorship of Cambridge with the livings of
Somersham and Colne in Huntingdonshire ; the Earls of Wor
cester, Suffolk, and Northampton, with Lord Carey, were in
Oxford surveying the preparations making at Christchurch
and elsewhere for the royal visit.
Edward Earl of Worcester, descended of Sir Charles
Somerset, natural son to Henry Duke of Somerset, was Master
of the Horse, and, " amongst other laudable parts of virtue
and nobility," is said to have highly favoured " the studies of
good literature."1 He was a knight of the garter, and ancestor
to his grace the Duke of Beaufort. He was one of the most
complete gentlemen of his time, and excelled in those manly
exercises, a proficiency in which then constituted so material
a part of the character of an accomplished courtier, particularly
tilting and horsemanship. He possessed abilities which quali-
fied him for the highest public offices, but avoided politics,
and chose to shine at the court and in his own house. He
died March 3rd, 1627, aged 84.1
The Earl of Suffolk, on the death of Henry Howard Earl
of Northampton in 1614, was elected Chancellor of the Uni
versity of Cambridge. He was ever in high favour with
the King, who, on his entry into England, made him his
Lord-chamberlain and afterwards Lord-treasurer. He erected
the once more than royal mansion at Audley End.
The Earl of Northampton was a scholar and a man of the
world, versed in the art of dissimulation, without honour
and principle, an accomplished and successful criminal, im
plicated in the darkest tragedy of this period, the death
of Sir Thomas Overbury ; but a contemporary speaks of him
thus : u Lord Henry Howard, brother to the last Duke of
Norfolk, a man of rare and excellent wit, and sweet, fluent
eloquence, singularly adorned also with the best sciences,
prudent in council, and provident withal."2 Thus wrote
Camden of this talented but worthless person. He was
born at Shottesham, about eight miles south of Norwich.
He was first of King's College, Cambridge, and afterwards
of Trinity Hall, where he took the degree of M.A. He was
incorporated M.A. of Oxford, April 19, 1568. His learning has
procured him a place in Lord Orford's Royal and noble Authors?
He was unable to obtain the countenance of Queen Elizabeth,
but sought to rise through the Earl of Essex, paying court at
the same time to his inveterate enemy, secretary Cecil, whose
correspondence with James passed through his hands, which
paved the way for his promotion by that monarch. Though,
as Anthony Wood says, a papist,4 he was chosen on Cecil's
death to the Chancellorship of the university of Cambridge,
in 1612. He died in 1614, June 15th, not long before
the full discovery of the crimes that succeeded upon the divorce
of his great niece the Countess of Essex with Carr, Earl
of Somerset. On his death the king conferred the earldom
of Northampton on the Lord Compton.
Lord Carey, also called Carew, was called Baron Carew
of Clopton, close upon Stratford-upon-Avon, having married
into the family that owned the manor of Clopton. He had
distinguished himself in 1595 at the siege of Cadiz, was
a favourite of Queen Elizabeth, who appointed him president
of Munster and master of the Ordnance in Ireland. In 1603
he was made governor of Guernsey, and being now vice-
chamberlain to the Queen, was created Baron Carew of Clopton
in the county of Warwick, and in 1625 Earl of Totness. He
died without issue March 27, 1629, aged 73.1 " He was,"
says Camden, " a most affectionate lover of venerable an
tiquity." Thus a similar taste united these noblemen, the
earls of Worcester, Suffolk, and Northampton, and Lord
Carey.
On Saturday the 23rd, very late in the evening, the
Chancellor of the university and Lord-Treasurer of England,
the Earl of Dorset, came to Oxford. He was welcomed at
Christchurch with an oration, and took up his lodgings at
New College. Never was Oxford graced with a more ac
complished and unsullied Chancellor. It has enjoyed indeed
one unrivalled in the field, but in the arts of peace none
ever shone with a serener brightness than this star of the
Elizabethan era. Thomas Sackville, Earl of Dorset, was
born at Buckhurst in the parish of Withiam in Sussex,
1536. He was admitted of Hart Hall, Oxford, but removed
thence, before he had taken a degree, to St. John's College,
Cambridge. As a poet he is regarded as the model of Spenser.
His life was one of vicissitude although of honour. He was
a diligent and eminent student of the law, served in parlia
ment for the county of Westmoreland in the reign of Queen
Mary, and for that of Sussex in the first parliament of
Elizabeth. He suffered a short imprisonment at Kome. On
his return he found himself in possession of a most ample
fortune by the death of his father, but his magnificence of
living brought him into difficulties, from which however
he recovered himself, having been wounded by the incivility
of an alderman who had greatly enriched himself by his
purchases of him, and who kept him sometime waiting, when
he was once obliged to apply to him. His father died in
1566. He was in the following year created Lord Buckhurst,
and in 1571 sent ambassador to France. In 1572 he was
one of the peers who sat in judgment on the Duke of Norfolk.
He was in 1586 one of the commissioners for the trial of
Mary Queen of Scots. In 1587 he was sent to the states
of Holland upon their complaints of the Earl of Leicester's
proceedings, in order to examine that affair and to compose
the differences that had arisen out of it. Although he per
formed his office faithfully, Leicester's interest with the Queen
prevailed so far as that he was confined to his house above
nine months. Upon the death of the Earl he was restored
to the favour of his sovereign, and soon after made a knight
of the garter. Sir Christopher Hatton dying on the 20th
November, 1591, Lord Buckhurst was chosen Chancellor of
the University of Oxford in preference to the Earl of Essex,
who was supported by the favourers of Puritanism. In 1598
he was appointed Lord High-Treasurer of England, and in
1601 Lord High-Steward for the trial of the Earl of Essex,
and conducted himself with remarkable candour and humanity
towards that nobleman, whose sentence of death he was
compelled by his office to pronounce. He married Cecily
daughter of Sir John Baker. His son Kobert succeeded to
his honours. His daughter Jane married Anthony Viscount
Montagu, grandson of Antony Browne who was created first
Viscount in the reign of Queen Mary, whose grandmother
was a daughter of John Neville Marquess Montacute, from
Montacute in Somersetshire, who was slain at Barnet in
1472. His daughter Mary married Henry Neville, seventh
Lord Abergavenny. King James advanced Lord Buckhurst
to the dignity of Earl of Dorset on March 13, 1604. He
died suddenly at the council-table April 19th, 1608, and
was buried with great solemnity in Westminster Abbey.
He was kind and hospitable, and generous to his tenants.
His household consisted of one hundred and twenty persons.
He was zealously pious, and an unbending upholder of the
Protestant religion.
On Saturday the 24th, the King removed to Langley,
some miles to the west of Woodstock. Some remains of the
palace were visible here in the last century. It stood near
the village of Shipton-under-Whichwood. Here the royal
party continued until their coming to Oxford on the 27th.
The Chancellor, Vicechancellor, Dr. Abbot, and the doctors
following two by two, attended at St. Mary's, it being St.
Bartholomew's Day. The preacher is said to have been
a Mr. Gryme or Graham. The church was already prepared
for the acts and sermons of the ensuing week with a raised
throne to the back of the chancel, double galleries on the
north and south sides, seats rising one above another at
the west end, and forms in the mid-space of the nave for
bachelors in divinity, &c., and masters of arts.
Doctor Gordon, who had been recently created doctor
in divinity, preached before the court on the following day,
being Sunday, and thither went the Chancellor of the uni
versity, not to Langley, but to Woodstock.
On Monday, at seven in the morning, there was an English
sermon at All Saints, and so every morning at the same hour
to Friday inclusive. This church, in the twelfth century, was
given or confirmed to the Canons of St. Frideswide. Thence
it came into the hands of the Bishops of Lincoln, in the 20th
year of Edward II., until Richard Fleming Bishop of Lincoln,
early in the fifteenth century, appropriated it to Lincoln Col
lege, of which he was the founder in 1427. The old church
was so much injured by the fall of the spire in 1699 as to
render the rebuilding of the whole indispensable, which was
accordingly done after a design from Dean Aldrich. At eight
all public lectures were read in their several schools, and from
nine till eleven they continued their disputations on Quod-
libets in the schools of arts. These disputations were between
masters and bachelors. And in the same schools from one to
three disputations were continued by bachelors and sophisters.
This day the Earl of Suffolk, Lord Chamberlain and several
other Earls and Lords came to Oxford, and reviewed the King's
and Queen's lodging in Christchurch, and the Prince Henry's
lodging in Magdalene College, and dined with the Chancellor
in the Warden's lodge at New College, with whom dined also
Dr. Abbot the Vice-Chancellor, with some other Doctors and
the Bedells.
On Tuesday the 27th of August, in the forenoon, all things
were performed as on the day before. At one in the afternoon
the Vice-Chan cellor and Doctors went to the Chancellor at
New College, and thence presently to meet the King in the
following order. First three esquire Bedells rode on footcloths,
in fair gowns, with gold chains, in velvet caps, carrying their
staves as at other times, but bare-headed, as did the Serjeant
of the Mace, who rode next behind them. Immediately after
them rode the Chancellor talking with the Vice-Chancellor,
the Vice-Chancellor bearing back about half the length of his
horse. After them six or eight Doctors also in scarlet, two by
two upon the footcloths. Then the two Proctors in their
civil hoods, upon the footcloths, riding two by two. These
were some of them heads of halls, and some of them ancient
bachelors in divinity. All these university men did wear
square caps. They stayed first at a place called Aristotle s
Wel^ being about a mile from the city. "Aristotle's Well,"
says Hearne in his Diary, " is in the midway between Oxford
and Wolvercote. Before we come to it, is another way called
Walton Well, from the old village of Walton now destroyed.
I have mentioned both these wells in my preface to John
Eowse. Aristotle's well was so called from the scholars,
especially such as studied his philosophy, going to it, and re
freshing themselves at it, there being an house for these
occasions just by it."1 But as it was a narrow place much
annoyed with dust, the Lord-Chamberlain sent word to them
to come a little forward into a fair meadow, where they all,
saving the Serjeant of the Mace, alighted from their horses,
and stayed a little while beside the highway expecting the
King. In the meantime the Mayor of the city, twelve alder
men in scarlet, and some six score commoners in black coats
guarded with velvet and laid on with Bellament lace, passed
forward by them some forty score. The Vice-Chancellor and
Doctors acquainted the Chancellor with this circumstance, who
sent his Serjeant-at-Arms to them, upon which they turned
back behind the Chancellor some twenty score.
And now the King came up on horseback, with the Queen
on his left-hand, and the Prince before them, the Duke of
Lenox carrying the sword. Esme Stuart, or (as formerly
spelt) Steward, Duke of Lenox, was son to John Lord
D'Aubigny younger brother to Matthew Earl of Lenox
upon whom Henry VIII. bestowed his niece. From this
marriage with Margaret daughter of King Henry's sister,
Margaret Queen-dowager of Scotland by her second husband
the Earl of Angus, sprang Henry Stuart Lord Darnley, father
of James I. The Chancellor first accosted the King, and
kneeled down at his feet with the rest, and kissed the
sole of his stirrup. The Vice-Chancellor accosted him with
a speech in honour of both the University and the King. As
was the custom of that age, it was mixed up with mythological
allusions. The speech is given by Sir Isaac Worke, from
which it would appear that Stringer has not recorded the
substance of it with exactness. Probably any other uni
versity would have rivalled Abbot in his praises of his Alma
Mater. Oxford had, some centuries previously, been reckoned
inferior only to Paris. But Abbot did not claim absolute
precedency for Oxford above every other university. The
Vice-Chancellor then presented the King with a splendid and
splendidly bound copy of Stephens' New Testament, which
the King looked into again and again with evident admira
tion, observing that it was a present worthy of the University
to give, and of a Prince to receive. Oxford was then famous
for its gloves : so the Vice-Chancellor also presented to the
King two pairs of Oxford gloves with a deep fringe of gold,
the turnovers being wrought with pearl. There were also
presented two pairs to the Queen, and one to the Prince. So
they went on a little forward, the Bedells preceding the King,
as also after them three Serjeants-at-Arms, and the Duke of
Lenox, sword-bearer. So they came next to the Mayor and
his brethren in office. The Town-Clerk, in the absence of
the Recorder, made a long speech in English, highly extolling
the late Queen and her government, not without dutiful al
lusions to the hopes entertained of happiness under her suc
cessor. The Mayor meanwhile laid his gold mace at the
King's feet, and afterwards presented him, in the name of the
city of Oxford, with a gold cup, having £50 of gold in it,
another to the Queen, gilt and covered, worth £40, and to
the Prince another worth £30 ; so Stringer ; but Wake, who
is rather to be followed, speaks only of a richly embossed cup
given to the King, a purse adorned with Indian pearls pre
sented to the Queen, and a smaller cup with gold coin in it
(as was also in the others) presented to the Prince.1
The procession to Oxford was headed by the Lieutenant
for the County. After the company that attended him, the
royal guard in their glittering habiliments ; then the trumpet
ers ; after them the royal herald, called after the most noble
order of the Garter ; at his right the Vice-Chancellor, at his
left the Mayor of Oxford, then the Vice-Chamberlains of
the King and Queen, Lord Stanhope of Harrington, Vice-
Chamberlain to the King, and Lord Carey of Clopton, to the
Queen : then the most noble the Earl of Dorset, High-
Treasurer of England and Chancellor of the University. On
his left Thomas, Earl of Suffolk, Lord-Chamberlain to the
King: next came the Duke of Lenox bearing the sword; then
the King, Queen, and Prince Henry on horseback. Around
them the Earls of Arundel, Oxford, Northumberland, Wor
cester, Rutland, Cumberland, Southampton, Pembroke, Essex,
Nottingham Lord High Admiral, Devon Lord-Lieutenant of
Ireland, Northampton, Salisbury Secretary of State, Mont
gomery, and Perth.
Most of these have been already noticed. Thomas, Earl
of Arundel, conformed to the Protestant religion in this reign.
He was one of the greatest patrons of the fine arts of this
period. A part of his collection is still at Oxford. Charles
created him Earl of Norfolk.
Henry Vere, Earl of Oxford, whose family was originally
from Zeeland in the Netherlands, was the eighteenth of his
race in lineal descent. He died at the siege of Breda, 1625.
Roger Manners, fifth Earl of Rutland, succeeded his father
February 24th, 1588. He was early sent to the university of
Cambridge, where he took the degree of M.A. He was an
eminent traveller and good soldier. In 1595 he visited
France, Switzerland, and Italy; was Colonel of foot in the
Irish wars in 1598. In that year, July 10th, he was incor
porated M.A. of Oxford. He was appointed Constable of
Nottingham Castle, and Chief-Justice in Eyre of Sherwood
Forest in 1600, and in 1603 was honoured with a visit from the
King. He was in that same year made Lord-Lieutenant of
Lincolnshire, and was sent ambassador into Denmark to the
christening of the King's eldest son, and to invest the King
of Denmark with the order of the Garter. He was made
Knight of the Bath at the coronation of James in 1603, and
that same year Steward .of the manor and soke of Grantham.
He married Elizabeth only daughter and heir of the famous
Sir Philip Sidney. He died without issue June 26, 1612,
and was buried at Bottesford. His Countess survived him
little more than two months. He was succeeded in his titles
and estates by his brother Francis.
Henry Percy, the most generous Earl of Northumberland,
a great friend to learning and learned men, especially of
mathematicians. He died 5th November 1632, and was
buried at Petworth in Sussex.1
The famous Bevis, whence Bevis Mount near South
ampton, is said to have been the first Earl of Southampton,
and the only one until Henry VIII. created William Fitz-
william, descended from the daughter of Marquess Montacute,
both Earl of Southampton and Admiral of England in his
old age. He married Mabel daughter of Henry Lord Clifford,
but left none to inherit his honours. He was the son of Sir
Thomas Fitz-Williams, of Aldwarke near Easingwold in
Yorkshire. He was in 1512 made one of the esquires of the
body to Henry VIII., and in 1513 had the command of
the fleet which fought the French off Brest ; and though
very severely wounded, distinguished himself in 1514 at
the siege of Tournay. After having fulfilled the office of
Vice- Admiral in the absence of the Earl of Surrey, and
that of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in 1520, he was in 1537
appointed Lord High-Admiral and Earl of Northampton, and
soon after Lord Privy-Seal, being succeeded in the Admiral-
ship by John Lord Russell. He died at Newcastle as he was
on his way to Scotland to assist in the expedition sent
against that country under the command of his friend the
Duke of Norfolk.
Next, Edward VI., in the first year of his reign, conferred
the Earldom of Southampton upon Thomas Wriothesley,
Lord Chancellor. This the King did not of his own will, but
as a minor, Wriothesley being left one of his father's executors ;
but he was very early compelled to resign the Chancellorship.
He had rendered himself execrable by taking part himself
in applying the rack to Anne Askew previously to her
martyrdom.
His grandson Henry was now Earl of Southampton. He
having taken part with the Earl of Essex in 1599, was
brought to trial and found guilty. His life was spared, but
he remained in the Tower until his release by King James,
April 10th, 1603. On the 21st of July following he was
restored to his title by a new patent. He was a nobleman
of great courage, and henceforth high in favour with his
sovereign and his court. He was a patron of learning. In
1614 Richard Brathwayt dedicated to him The Scholar s
Medley. In 1617 he, with other munificent patrons of learning,
contributed to relieve the distress of Minsheu, the laborious
author of the Guide to Tongues. He was a great promoter
of the first Virginia Company. He was sworn a Privy-
Councillor on the 19th August 1619. He made a successful
motion against illegal patents in Parliament 162 1.1 At the
sitting on the 14th March he had a dispute with the Marquess
of Buckingham which was moderated by the Prince of Wales,
but was put under restraint for some time after the adjourn
ment of Parliament. He did not however desist from serving
his country in the Parliament of 1624, but lost his life at
Bergen-op-zoom on the 10th November that year, together
with his eldest son. His son Thomas was the last Earl
of Southampton, the Lord High-Treasurer, whose name has
been commended to posterity by the pen of Clarendon.
William Herbert, third Earl of Pembroke, was son of
Henry Earl of Pembroke and of Mary the famous sister
of Sir Philip Sidney. He was bom at Wilton April 8, 1580,
and was educated at New College, Oxford. He succeeded
to his father's title January 19th, 1601, and was made E.G.
by James in 1603. In 1604 he married Lady Mary one
of the three daughters and coheirs of Gilbert Talbot, Earl
of Shrewsbury. He was in 1610 appointed Governor of
Portsmouth, and in 1616 Lord-Chamberlain of the King's
household, and that same year Chancellor of the University
of Oxford, on the death of Egerton Lord-Chancellor Ellesmere.
He was opposed to the Spanish interest. He died April 10th,
1630, at his house, Baynard's Castle, on the banks of the
Thames.
The Earl of Essex was the restored son of the late Earl
who was beheaded in 1601. He was of Merton College,
Oxford. He, after having been appointed Lord-Chamberlain
to Charles I., went over to the Parliament. He was sworn
of the King's Privy Council in 1641, when indeed the King
was endeavouring to make himself popular. The King
however took all by demanding the six members of the House
of Commons to be delivered up to him on a charge of treason,
the Lord Kimbolton, Denzil Hollis, Sir Arthur Heselrige,
Pym, Hampden, and Strode, on January 3, 1642. These
were followed by as unconstitutional acts on the part of the
Commons.1 The King now tempted Essex to disloyalty, by
requiring of him and the Earl of Holland to resign the staff
and key of their offices. So he accepted in the course of
this year the command of the Parliamentarian army. The
Earl laid down his command on the 2nd April 1644, which
was taken up by Sir Thomas Fairfax. He was unwelcome
to Cromwell and all the more violent of the popular party;
the more moderate lost a firm friend by his death, September
14, 1647.
Charles Howard, son of Lord William Howard Baron of
Effingham, was bora in 1536, and early served at sea under
his father. He was highly serviceable in putting down the
insurrection in the north under the Earl of Warwick, against
the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland. He suc
ceeded to his father's title on his death in 1572, having been
elected to represent Surrey in Parliament in the preceding
year. He was made Chamberlain of the Household in
1573, and K.G., and in 1585 Lord High-Admiral. He
signalized himself and did immortal service to his country
in the memorable year of the Armada, 1588, and again
chastising the Spanish in 1596, he was in 1598 created Earl
of Nottingham. He was as humane as he was valorous.
In 1590, a time of renewed apprehension from the Spaniards,
he was made Lord-Lieutenant of all England. In 1600 he
quelled the insurrection of the Earl of Essex, but shewed
his magnanimity by treating the Earl with the greatest
kindness possible. He was employed at the Spanish court
by James, and received with the greatest respect. He was one
of the greatest of that age of great men, and lived to enjoy
his honours and the veneration of his country for an unusual
period. He died December 14th, 1624, aged 88.
Charles Blount the eighth Lord Mount] oy, created after
wards Earl of Devonshire, was born in 1563, being the second
son of James Lord Mount] oy. He was of the University
of Oxford, M.A. June 16th, 1589.1 He studied also at
the Inner Temple. He was early a favourite at court, and
was one of the volunteers who engaged in pursuit of the
Armada with ships at their own charge. He served in the
House of Commons until 1594, when he succeeded to his
brother's title of Lord Mountjoy, and was made Governor of
Portsmouth. In 1597 he was made K.G., and was employed
in the expedition to the Azores. In 1599 he was made
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, which was subdued to order
under his government. He was continued in this office by
James I., appointed one of his Privy Councillors, and on
July 21, 1603, created Earl of Devonshire. He died in the
prime of life at the Savoy, April 3, 1606, and was buried
with great pomp in St. Paul's chapel in the Abbey.
Philip Herbert Earl of Montgomery was younger brother
of William Earl of Pembroke. Antony Wood is unsparing
in his attacks upon his memory, as one so intolerably choleric,
quarrelsome and offensive while he was Lord-Chamberlain to
Charles I., ll that he did not refrain to break many wiser
heads than his own."
The Earl of Perth was James Baron Drummond, whom
the King had advanced to that Earldom. Drimein Castle,
on the banks of the Earn in the old district of Strathern, was
the ancient seat of this family, tc advanced to highest honours
ever since that King Robert Steward the third took to him
a wife out of that lineage."
With these noblemen were Lord Knowles Treasurer of
his Majesty's household; Lord Wotton Comptroller of his
Majesty's household; Lord Erskine Captain of the yeomen
of the guard; the learned Lord Buckhurst son of the Earl
of Dorset ; and Lords Monteagle and Haddington.
Sir William Knowles (formerly Knolles) resided at Greys
Rotherfield, near Henley-on-Thames. He was created Baron
Knowles May 3, 1603, Viscount Wallingford 1616, and Earl
of Banbury by Charles I. in 1626. He had been of Magda
lene College, Oxford.
Sir Edward Wotton had been Comptroller of the household
to Queen Elizabeth, was of the Wotton family of Boughton
Malherb near Lenham in Kent, and had been created by
James Baron Wotton of Merlay, or Marley. His son and
heir Thomas Lord Wotton died in the sixth year of Charles I.,
leaving four daughters his coheirs, of whom Catherine the
eldest married Henry Lord Stanhope. So the title became
extinct.
Lord Erskine, originally Sir Thomas Erskine, was second
son of Sir Alexander Erskine of Gogar or Gogyr in Edin-
burgshire, an ancient parish now included in that of Costor-
phine. He was born in 1566, the same year with the King,
and was brought up with him from his childhood. The
King, who was not insensible to kindly affections, appointed
him one of the gentlemen of his bed-chamber 1585. He had
charters of Mitchellis, Eastertown and Westertown in the
county of Kincardine, 17th October 1594, of Windingtown
and Windingtown Hall, June 1st, 1598, and of Easterrow in
Perthshire, 15 January, 1599. He was one of the happy
instruments in the rescue of the King from the treasonable
attempt of the Earl of Gowrie and his brother Alexander
Ruthven of Perth, August 5th, 1600, and killed Euthven
with his own hand. For this signal service he had the third
part of the Lordship of Dirleton, belonging to Gowrie, conferred
on him by charter dated 15th November 1600, and in warran-
dice thereof the King's barony of Corritown in Stirlingshire.
In that charter he is designated eldest lawful son of the
deceased Alexander Erskine, Master of Marr. He accom-
panied the Duke of Lenox in his embassy to France in
July 1601. Attending James into England, he was in 1603
constituted Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard in the room
of Sir Walter Raleigh, and held that command until 1632.
He was created a Knight of the Bath at the King's coronation,
raised to the peerage with the title of Lord Dirleton, and
admitted a Privy Councillor. In 1606 he was appointed
Groom of the Stole, and created Viscount Fentown or Fenton,
18th May, being the first who was raised to that order of
nobility in Scotland. In 1615 he was made K.G., and
on March 12, 1619, Earl of Killie, a district of Fifeshire,
and formerly called Kellieshire. He had charters of Ey croft
16th July 1622, and of the barony of Restersrioth May 13th,
1624. He married Anne daughter of Gilbert Ogilvie, of
Powrie, esq., by whom he had one son and one daughter.
He died in London, June 12th, 1639, in his 73rd year, and
was buried at Pittenweem in Fifeshire. His descendants
suffered greatly for their loyalty to both Charles I. and II.
William Parker Lord Monteagle was eldest son of Edmund
Parker Lord Morley, who married the sole daughter and
heir of William Stanley Lord Monteagle, fifth son of Thomas
Earl of Derby. Lord Morley lived at a house at Mile End
Green, died at Stepney April 1, 1628, and was buried in
Stepney church. He had a grant of £200. a-year in land,
and a pension of £500. per annum for life, as a reward for
discovering the letter that led to the detection of the Gun
powder Plot in 1605. On his father's death in 1618 he
succeeded to the barony of Morley. He married Elizabeth
daughter of Sir Thomas Tresham, by whom he had three
sons and two daughters. Catherine married John Savage
Earl Rivers, from whom descended George Pitt, created
Baron Rivers 1776, who was coheir to the baronies of Morley
and Monteagle. However they were not revived in him,
but the title of Monteagle was conferred upon the Rt. Hon.
T. S. Rice in 1839, as a descendant of Sir Stephen Rice,
Chief Baron of the Irish Exchequer, created Lord Monteagle
by James II.
Lord Monteagle died at Haslingbury Morley in Essex,
the residence of the Barons Morley, now called Hallingbury
near Hatfield Broad Oak.
Viscount Haddington had as Sir John Ramsey defended
the King in the Gowrie conspiracy.
Of the ladies who graced the procession, Sir Isaac Wake
is most lavish in his praises of the beautiful and accomplished
Arabella Stuart, who afterward, as being descended from
Henry VII. , suffered so severely from the jealousy of King
James. Next are recounted Lucy Countess of Bedford, " dear
to the Muses." As servants of the Muses both Donne and
Daniel have transmitted her name to posterity. She was
daughter of John Lord Harrington of Exton in Rutlandshire,
to whom and to her mother, brother, and sister she erected
a costly tomb at Exton, sculptured by Nicholas Stone,
statuary to the King, at the cost of £1020.
With her are mentioned the Countesses of Suffolk, Not
tingham, and Montgomery. The Countess of Suffolk was
celebrated for her beauty and also for her rapacity. Pennant,
in his Journey from Chester to London,lidiS given an engraved
portrait of her from a painting at Gorhambury.
The Countess of Nottingham was the Earl's second wife,
a young Scotch lady, Margaret daughter of James Stuart
Earl of Murray, by Elizabeth daughter and coheir of James
Earl of Murray natural son to James V. of Scotland.
The Countess of Montgomery was the Lady Susan Vere,
daughter of Edward Earl of Oxford, the poet, by his first
wife Anne the daughter of Lord Burleigh. She was born
26 May 1587, and married to Philip Herbert Earl of Mont
gomery on St. John the Evangelist's Day, December 27th,
1604.
And now they approach the suburb of St. Giles, and see,
says Sir Isaac Wake, how fitly this ancient city was termed
Bellositum, a name however of comparatively modern date,
perhaps suggested by the name of the palace of Henry I.,
Beaumont, the birthplace of the valorous Richard Cceur de
Lion. Camden delights to record the beauty and salubrity
of the situation of this venerable and interesting city: a fair
and goodly city, whether a man respect the seemly beauty
of private houses, or the stately magnificence of public
buildings, together with the wholesome site or pleasant
prospect thereof. For the hills beset with woods do so
environ the plain, that as on the one side they exclude the
pestilent south wind, and the tempestuous west wind on the
other, so they let in the clearing east wind only, and the
north-east wind withal, which is free from all corruption."
It was an important city in the times of the Saxons, in
fact, one of the chief cities of England. Of fourteen of the
present churches, the majority was represented by eight
churches before the Conquest, namely, St. Peter' s-in-the-East,
St. Mary's, Carfax, St. Aldate's, St. Ebb's, St. Peter's-le-
Bailey, St. Mary Magdalene, and St. Michael. There were
also formerly several other churches, as another St. Michael,
near the South-gate, St. George since represented by the recent
church of St. George, an excellent specimen of the decorated
or curvilinear style as revived in the nineteenth century, a
monument of the good taste of the architect, and of the
munificence of the Kev. Jacob Ley, the present incumbent
of St. Mary Magdalene's. Add to these St. Budoc's, St.
Edward, St. Mildred,1 and St. Frideswide, now the Cathedral.
Down to 1771 the North and East gates were still standing,
the north joining the old church of St. Michael with its
Saxon tower, the east a little to the east of Coach-and-Horses-
lane leading to King-street, in which stand St. Alban Hall,
Merton, Corpus Christi, and Oriel Colleges. The South and
West gates, as also Little-gate, had been removed by the
middle of the last century. The West gate stood at the junc
tion of St. Ebbe's and Castle-street, in the neighbourhood of
the Franciscan Monastery or Grey Friars. In their church
was buried the celebrated Roger Bacon in 1292. Paradise
Garden, once the garden of the monks, still remains to the
south of the Castle. The site of Little-gate below St.
Ebbe's still retains its name. And just below Christ Church
Almshouses formerly stood the South-gate, and near it another
church dedicated to St. Michael.2
When the royal party entered Oxford by the road to the
west of which stand the Observatory and Infirmary, they
found the way lined on each side with the students in their
several university habits. Now might St. Giles, says Sir
Isaac Wake, have looked for the restitution of its ancient
honours. For there was a tradition that there was once
another church, of which this took the place although nearer
or within the city, which had the honour of being the Uni
versity Church before that privilege was divided between
St. Mary's and St. Peter's-in-the-East.3 The whole line of
street from St. Giles' to the Bocardo, even to the South-gate,
hard by which the King was to enter Christ Church, was
graced with members of the University, Doctors, Bachelors of
Divinity, Law, &c., all in their proper habits, all exulting at
the presence of their royal patrons. At St. John's College
fifty of the members, with the President, Ralph Hutchinson,1
came forth to congratulate their sovereign. Three youths
apparelled as three sybils came forth out of the quadrangle,
and recited, each having his several part, some Latin verses
annexed by their author Dr. Gwynne to his Vertumnus,
printed in 4to. 1607.2 These are founded upon the legend
of Macbeth and Bancho, who are said to have been met by
three sybils, who foretold that Macbeth should be a king, but
without any to succeed him, and that from Bancho, who
should not be a king himself, should descend a race of Princes.
When the King had passed through North-gate and had
come to Carfax (Quatre Vois), so called from the four prin
cipal streets meeting at that point, where on the east side of
St. Martin's stood Pennyless Beach, chiefly known to modern
readers by T. Warton's humorous description of it in his
Companion to the Guide, and Guide to the Companion. At
this point Dr. John Perin of St. John's College, who had the
year previously resigned the College living of Wartling in
Sussex (not Watling, as in Wood's Fasti, vol. i. p. 273), but
now no longer in the hands of that Society, and who was now
Greek Professor and Canon of Christ Church, addressed the King
in Greek in a brief and apposite oration. And now the King
entered the great gateway of Christ Church, not as yet adorned
with that light and lofty tower which now evinces the origi
nality of the great classical architect Sir Christopher Wren.
Sir Christopher was B.A. of Wadham College March 18,
1650, and afterwards Fellow of All Souls. He erected the
tower, with the upper parts of the two turrets which flank the
entrance, in 1682. The father of the celebrated Dr. Henry
Hammond was present on this occasion. He was Dr. John
Hammond, M.D. of the University of Cambridge, and Phy
sician to the King and to Prince Henry. He commended
Perin's oration as being in good familiar Greek. The King
heard him willingly, and the Queen still more so, as she said
that she had never heard that language before. At the foot
of the hall stairs thrones were erected for the King, Queen,
and Prince, and Mr., afterwards Sir, Isaac Wake made a Latin
oration. He was of Merton College, and had been elected
Orator in the preceding year. In 1609 he travelled in France
and Italy, and on his return became secretary to Sir Dudley
Carleton, at that time Secretary of State. He was after
wards ambassador to Venice, Savoy, and elsewhere. He was
knighted April 19, 1619, before proceeding to Savoy. In
1623 he was elected M.P. for the University of Oxford.
Some few years after this Anthony Sleep, M.A., of Trinity
College, Cambridge, was Deputy Orator in that University.
The King is said to have often remarked upon the two Orators
Wake and. Sleep; that Wake had a good Ciceronian style, but
his utterance and matter were so grave, that when he spake
before him he was apt to sleep; but Sleep the Deputy Orator
of Cambridge was quite contrary, for he never spake but he
kept him awoke, and made him apt to laugh.1 In his
oration Wake commended the King as being after Plato's
mind, a lover of wisdom,2 whence the title of his very amusing
and learned narration of this royal progress, Rex Platonicus.
He also took this opportunity of returning thanks as Public
Orator for the favour which the King had shewn the Univer
sity by conferring upon it the right of sending two repre
sentatives to Parliament.3
The King with a benignant smile evinced his readiness
to encourage the genial eloquence of the Public Orator, which
was followed up by loud and universal acclamations, im
ploring long life, glory, and eternal happiness for the King,
the Queen and Prince. The King was then conducted to
the venerable Cathedral. Before the doors splendid cushions
were placed, upon which the King offered his devotions
previously to entering in. The royal party proceeded up
the nave toward the choir under a rich canopy of crimson
taffety, carried on six staves gilt with silver, surmounted
with great silver knobs and pikes, borne by six Doctors of
Divinity in their scarlet costume. Stringer says that they
were six out of the eight canons of the Cathedral.
On each side of the nave stood the members of the College
in surplices and hoods, and the younger nobility, members
of the University, Thomas Lord Wentworth, of Nettlestead
to the north-west of Ipswich, O'Bryen Lord Thomond, de
scended of the ancient kings of Ireland, the two brothers
Somerset, and the two Stewarts, the Seymours and Sack-
villes, and the Lords Dudley and Grey.1
Just as the King was about to enter the choir Dr. King
the Dean, who was six years after raised to the see of
London, presented the King on his knees with a little book
of congratulatory verses ; the Latin verses to the King are
given by Sir Isaac Wake in his Rex Platonicus? The two
other addresses in English he presented to the Queen and
Prince. Dr. John Bridges, formerly a Fellow of Pembroke
Hall, Cambridge, afterward Dean of Salisbury, and with
Cooper Bishop of Lincoln a defender of the Church against
Martin Mar-Prelate, and now Bishop of Oxford, with the
Dean and Canons, assembled with the rest of the procession
in the choir, where the King heard divers anthems, probably
far superior to the popular adaptations of Mozart, Beethoven
and Mendelssohn now in use in our Universities. It was
the age of true Church musicians, when the marvellous Dr.
Bull3 was the King's chief Organist, and Morley, Dowland,
and the gifted family of the Tomkyns, and the brothers
Weelkes, and the other madrigalists who celebrated the
Triumph of Oriana, were rivalling the continental composers.
At this time William Stonard was organist of the Cathedral,
some of whose works remain in the Music School at Oxford,
sent by Walter Porter" (son of Henry Porter of Christ
Church, and gentleman of the Royal Chapel to Charles I.,
and Master of the Choristers, Westminster Abbey) lt to his
kinsman John Wilson, Doctor of Music and the public
Professor of the praxis of that faculty in Oxon, to be reposed
and kept for ever in the archives of the said school." Stonard
composed certain divine services and anthems, the words of
some of which are in Clifford's Collection of Divine Services and
Anthems, 1663. Of Dr. John Wilson, u now," says Anthony
Wood, of 1644, t( the most noted musician of England,"
Wood gives an account in his Fasti under that year, from
which we learn that by the mediation of Mr. Thomas Barlow,
then Lecturer of Churchill, Oxfordshire, afterward Provost
of Queens' (his) College at Oxford and Bishop of Lincoln,
with Dr. John Owen then Dean of Christ Church, he was
made Professor of Music in 1656. He had rooms allowed
him in Balliol College, was an industrious composer of music
both sacred and secular, and died, aged 78 years, Feb. 22nd,
1674, at his house at the Horse Ferry within the liberty
of Westminster. He was buried in the Little Cloisters of
the Abbey.
At Magdalene College, Richard Nicholson, B. Mus. and
Professor of 'Music, was organist. He was a madrigalist
and a contributor to the Triumphs of Oriana.
And now, after the Dean had officiated in the liturgy,
in the course of which other instruments were used in addition
to the organ, the King and Queen retired to their lodgings
at the Deanery. The Prince was accompanied through the
High-street and the Eastgate to Magdalene College. Thither
he was attended by the Earl of Worcester and Lord Knowles,
the Earls of Oxford and Essex, William Viscount Cranborne,
son and heir to Cecil Earl of Salisbury, Sheffield, Har
rington, Howard and Bruce, with the other flower of the
nobility, and with his honorary guardian Sir Thomas Cha-
loner,1 who had himself been educated at Magdalene College.
At the College gate the Prince was received by Dr. Nicholas
Bond, the President, who was Kector of Brightwell, Berks,
May 3, 1586, Chaplain to the Queen, and Prebendary of the
fifth stall at Westminster, 1582. He was constituted Presi
dent of Magdalene College by the Queen, by lapse, against
the will of the College.1 He died February 8, 1608, and
was buried in the College chapel.
The Rev. James Mable, a noted wit and orator, who was
afterwards made Prebendary of Wells, accosted the Prince
with an elegant oration. Verses were affixed to the
walls in honour of his arrival. Thence he was conducted
to the cloistered quadrangle, the most beautiful and truly
collegiate court of any university. Having surveyed these
incomparable structures and the hieroglyphical figures, the
statue of Moses whereby is represented Theology, with those
of the lawyer, the physician, the schoolmaster, the fool
making a mock of learning, the lion, the pelican, indicating
the duty of masters and teachers sternly to set themselves
against the evil-disposed youth, and to nourish the good
as parents, the Prince is conducted to his apartments in
the President's lodge. No sooner does the lodge receive
him than the College entertains him with the academic fare
of scholastic disputations. William Seymou*, second son
of Edward Lord Beauchamp and grandson of Edward Earl
of Hertford, performed the part of respondent. The opponents
were Charles Somerset sixth son of the Earl of Worcester,
Edward Seymour eldest son of the Lord Beauchamp, Mr.
Robert Gorge son of sir Thomas Gorge by the Marchioness
of Northampton, two sons of Sir Thomas Chaloner, and
Mr. William Borlace son of a Knight; to all of whom, in
testimony of his approbation, the Prince gave his hand to
kiss. The Prince then returned to the King at Christ Church,
in the hall of which a Latin Comedy, entitled Vertumnus,
was acted by the students of that College. It began between
nine and ten, and ended at one. Its tediousness and other
uninviting features are said to have wearied the royal party.
But this is on the authority of the Cambridge critic given
in NicholFs Progresses. A more favourable account is given
by Sir Isaac Wake, to whom we remit the reader.
On Wednesday, the 28th of August, the bell rang at
seven to an English sermon at All Saints. About nine
the King came in great state to St. Mary's ; the Earl of
Southampton was sword-bearer for this day. In St. Mary's
the Prince sat on the King's right hand, and on his left
Christopher de Harlay Count de Beaumont, ambassador
from the court of France, and Nicolo Malino, ambassador
from that of Venice.
The two theses for the disputants were, Saints and Angels
have no knowledge of the thoughts of men's hearts, and,
The Pastors of the Church are not bound to visit the sick
whilst a pestilence is raging. The respondent was Dr. John
Aglionby, Principal of St. Edmund Hall. Dr. Aglionby
was of Cumberland, had taken his degrees as a member and
Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford, and had been admitted
to the Principalship of St. Edmund Hall, April 4, 1601,
being at that time chaplain to the Queen. James continued
him as one of his chaplains, and appointed him one of the
translators of the Bible, for he bore a high character for
the vastness of his theological learning. He died Feb. 6,
1610, and was buried in the chancel of Islip church near
Oxford, of which church he had been Kector. His son
I George was educated at Westminster School and at Christ-
| church, where he was entered in 1619. Lord Falkland,
(when he visited Oxford, especially sought the company of
(George Aglionby. He was appointed tutor to George the
Duke of Buckingham, after he had taken his B.A.
at Christclmrch in 1623. In 1638 he was made a Preben
dary of Westminster, and in 1642, whilst attending the court
at Oxford, was nominated Dean of Canterbury, but never
installed. He died not long after, in November 1643, in his
40th year, and was buried in Christclmrch Cathedral, near
Bishop King's monument in the south aisle, but without
any memorial.
The opponents were :
1. Dr. Thomas Holland, who, when Fellow of Balliol Col
lege, had been appointed Eegius Professor of Divinity in 1589,
on the death of the celebrated Lawrence Humphrey of Magda
lene College. He took all his degrees at Balliol College, and
was elected Rector of Exeter College on the death of Thomas
Glasier, LL.D., late of Christchurch, by virtue of the Queen's
letters written in his behalf April 24, 1592. He died
March 17, 1612, and was buried in the chancel of St. Mary's,
Oxford. Wood says of him, " He was esteemed by the
precise men of his time, and after, another Apollos mighty
in Scriptures, and so familiar with the Fathers, as if he
himself was a Father ; and in the schoolmen, as if he had
been the Seraphical Doctor"1 He is said by Wood to have
been a predestinarian of the higher or supra-lapsarian kind,
as was his predecessor Humphrey. In this respect Wood2
distinguishes them from the pious and learned Abbot after
ward Bishop of Salisbury, and, like Holland, of Balliol
College. In Fuller's Abel Eedivivus he is by a mistake said
to have been educated at Exeter College. It is reported
of him that when he went any journey, he would call the
Fellows of his College together, and commend them to the
love of God, and to the hatred of Popery and superstition.
He spent all his time in his declining health in fervent prayers
and heavenly meditations, and when his end drew near, often
sighed out, Come, 0 come, Lord Jesus f I desire to be dissolved
and to be with thee. He died in his 74th year.3
2. Dr. Giles Thompson, Dean of Windsor, and in 1611
Bishop of Gloucester. He was B.A. of University College,
Oxford, July 5, 1575, and B.D. of All Souls' College, March 21,
1591 ; Bp. Andre wes assisted at his consecration to Gloucester
June 9, 1611. Andrewes, now Dean of Westminster, came
to Oxford, but probably on the Thursday, for Buckeridge
relates in his Funeral Sermon, that " when he came to Oxford
attending King James in the end of his progress, his custom
was to send fifty pound to be distributed among poor scholars."1
3. Dr. Field, Chaplain to the King. He was first entered
at Magdalene College, but was B.A. of Magdalene Hall,
November 8, 1581, M.A. June 2, 1584, B.D. January 14,
1593, D.D. of Queen's College, December 7, 1596. No
divine of his own or of any age rendered a greater theological
service to the Church than did Dr. Field, by his comprehensive
Treatise on the Church of Christ. It first appeared in 4to.
A copy of the volume in 4to. is to be seen in the library
of Magdalene Hall. The next was a much enlarged edition.
The third was published at Oxford in 1635. But as he took
a more hostile view of the Church of Kome, and one more
agreeable to the faith of his own Church than that of the
courtiers in the following reign, his work fell for a while into
unmerited neglect. It has been more than once reprinted
in the present century, and is a library of itself. James was
not insensible to his merits. He admired his preaching, and
appointed him Dean of Gloucester 1609, as he had also been
previously appointed Canon of Windsor 1603, having had
a grant from Elizabeth, 30th March 1602, of the next vacant
prebend. He was born at Hemel Hempstead, Herts. He
spent his time partly at Windsor, partly on his living in
Hampshire. He died November 20, 1626, and was buried
in St. George's, Windsor.
4. Dr. John Harding, Kegius Professor of Hebrew, to
which Professorship he was appointed whilst Fellow of Mag
dalene College, 21 September 1591. He resigned in 1598.
and was succeeded by William Thorne, A.M., Fellow of New
College, 27 July 1598.2 Thorne resigned in 1604, and
Harding had the Professorship conferred upon him a second
time.1 Harding was Proctor in 1589. He was a native
of Hampshire, and succeeded Dr. Bond in the Presidentship
of Magdalene College, February 22, 1608. He was one
of the translators of the Old Testament. He died in 1610.
5. Dr. George Byves, Warden of New College December
1599, on the resignation of Dr. Cole or Culpepper, Dean of
Chichester and Archdeacon of Berkshire. He held, as did his
two predecessors Whyte and Colepepper, the rectories of
Staunton St. John's Oxfordshire, and of Colerne (Wilts) near
Chippenham. He was preferred to the fourth stall at Win
chester, November 17, 1598, on the promotion of Dr. Cotton
to the see of Salisbury. He died May 31, 1613, and was
buried at Hornchurch, Essex, without any memorial.
6. Dr. Henry Airay, Provost of Queen's College, where
he had taken all his degrees. He was born in Westmoreland
1560, and educated under the apostolic Bernard Gilpin, by
whom he was sent at the age of nineteen to Oxford. He first
studied at St. Edmund Hall, but removed thence to Queen's
College before he took his B.A. which was on June 19,
1583. He succeeded Dr. Henry Kobinson, Bishop of Carlisle,
as Provost of his College, March 9, 1599. Laud was con
vened before him for his sermon in 1606, in which year
he was Yice-Chancellor.
He was himself of Puritan tendencies, and wrote against
bowing at the name of Jesus. His name still survives as
a commentator upon the Epistle to the Philippians.2 He
died October 10, 1616, aged 57, and was buried in his college
chapel. Christopher Potter, a Fellow of his college, erected
a monument to his memory in the old chapel. The old
chapel was begun before 1355; the new chapel on February 6,
1714, the anniversary of Queen Anne's birthday. Dr. Airay
bequeathed lands in the parish of Garsington, Oxfordshire,
to his college. Christopher Potter was much his junior,
being B.A. of Queen's College August 30, 1610. He suc
ceeded Barnabas Potter (Array's successor), Bishop of Carlisle,
as Provost of his college, June 17, 1626. He was appointed
Dean of Worcester 1635, and of Durham 1645, but died the
3rd of March following, before his installation. He was
Kector of Blechingdon, Oxfordshire, which belongs to Queen's
College.
7. Dr. Gordon Huntley, Dean of Sarum, who has been
previously noticed. He was now actually created a Doctor
of Divinity, with the ancient ceremonies of putting on the
hood, the square cap, the gold ring,1 the boots,2 the delivering
the Holy Scriptures into the Doctor's hands ; then the Yice-
Chancellor kisses his son, as the newly created Doctor is
styled, and concludes with giving him his solemn benediction.
A trumpet is now sounded, and Dr. Holland calls forth the
disputants. The respondent proclaims the theses aloud in
Latin verse. He then proceeds to maintain the first thesis,
quoting 1 Kings viii. 39, Whose heart thou Jcnowest; 1 Cor.
ii. 11, For what man Jcnoweth the things of a man, save the
spirit of man tvhich is in him? and Jer. xvii. 9, 10, The
heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked : who
can know it ? I the LORD search the heart; I try the reins.
That the dead (the saints) have no knowledge of men's
hearts, Dr. Field confirms out of St. Augustine, in the 22nd
chapter of the Appendix to his third Book. Bellarmine
indeed, after the manner of Komish controversialists, charged
Melancthon with falsehood for having asserted in his Loci
Theologicij that the papists attributed to the saints the power
of knowing the thoughts of men's minds ; yet in his answer
to the third argument, in the 20th chapter of his first Book
on the Blessedness of the Saints, he himself expressly affirmed
such a power, as Dr. John Gerhard shews in his Confessio
Catholica.3
Holland, Gordon, Field, and Ryves were the opponents
in the first; Thompson, Harding, and Airay in the second
thesis. The King himself, with the Scriptures in his hand,
took part in these exercises, examining the quotations and com
menting upon the arguments. Wake has given his obser-
vations upon the second thesis, which was maintained in the
negative. Bishop Andrewes, in his Parochial Circulars,
expressly exempted his clergy from visiting in a time of
pestilence. The King answered the passage in St. James,
Ts any among you sick, let him call for the elders of the
churchj &c.j that those who were called in that age were
called not only to pray, but also to heal. Finally, Dr. Abbot
the Vice-Chancellor gave his own learned determination upon
the two questions.
After the King had dined he came again about two, with
the Queen and Prince, to hear two disputations in the Civil
Law. The questions were, first, Whether in giving judgment
a judge is invariably bound by the legal proofs in opposition
to the truth, of which he is privately assured ? And secondly,
Whether covenants are of the nature of good faith or strict
law ? The first was affirmed ; the second was decided in
favour of sincere intention and candid, in contradistinction
to legal, interpretation. The moderator was Dr. Alberic
Gentilis,1 who, after he had been created D.C.L. at Perugia
in 1572, came over to England on account of his religion,
and obtained permission in 1580 to reside at Oxford. Queen
Elizabeth appointed him Eegius Professor of Civil Law
8th June 1587. His learned writings were all the fruit of
his tranquil studies at Oxford. He died in the beginning
of 1611, and was buried in the Cathedral.
The respondent was Dr. Anthony Blencoe, Provost of
King's or Oriel College or Hall Royal, for all these names
have been applied to Oriel. He had held the Provostship
from February 4, 1573, having previously served the office
of Proctor in 1571 and 1572. He died January 25, 1618, and
was buried in St. Mary's church, which belongs to his
college.
The opponents were :
1. William Bird, D.C.L., of All Souls1 College, son
of William Bird of Walden in Essex. He was D.C.L.
February 13, 1588, and afterwards principal Official and Dean
of the Arches, a Knight, and Judge of the Prerogative Court
of Canterbury. He died without issue, and was buried
in Christ Church, Newgate Street, London, 5 Sept. 1624.
His nephew, William Bird, D.C.L. of All Souls' College
July 4, 1622, was son of Thomas Bird of Littlebury near
Saffron Walden, was Master of the Prerogative Court of
Canterbury, and died on the 28th November 1639, aged 51,
and was buried in Littlebury church.
2. John Weston, of Christ Church, the only son of Robert,
who was Chancellor of Ireland, D.C.L. 1590. His father
Robert was D.C.L. of All Souls' July 8, 1556. He con
formed to the Protestant religion, and was made Dean of
Wells 1570. He was for six years Chancellor of Ireland,
died there 20 May 1573, and was buried in St. Patrick's
Dublin.1 John Weston was first M.A., and on July 14,
1590, D.C.L. of Christ Church, Oxford. He was installed
Canon of the sixth stall of Christ Church September 3, 1591,
and was eighteen years Treasurer of that church. He died
July 20, 1632, being about eighty years old. His epitaph
records his virtues worthy of his descent, his Ciceronian
eloquence, his aptness in casuistry, his truly Christian life,
and the painful disease that carried him to his grave.2
3. Henry Martin, of New College, D.C.L. 1592, being
at that time an eminent advocate at Doctors' Commons, as
afterwards in the High Commission Court. He became
successively Official of the Archdeacon of Berkshire, King's
Advocate, Chancellor of London, Judge of the Admiralty
Court, twice Dean of the Arches, a Knight Dec. 21, 1616,
and in 1624 Judge of the Prerogative Courts. Bishop An-
drewes left him a mourning ring. He died in 1641, aged 81. 3
4. James Hussey of New College, D.C.L. 1600, Principal
of Magdalene Hall 1602, having been previously a Fellow
of New College and Registrary of the University. He after
wards became Chancellor of Salisbury, was knighted Nov. 9,
1619, and made a Master in Chancery. He died of the
plague at Oxford the day after his arrival, July 11, 1625,
and was buried late at night in St. Mary's Church without
any funeral rites. He died in New College, and shortly after
Dr. Chaloner, Principal of St. Alban Hall, who had supped
that night with him, died also.
5. John Budden, D.C.L., B.A. of Trinity College, Oxford,
Oct. 19, 1586, but M.A. of Gloucester Hall (now Worcester
College) June 27, 1589. He was B.C.L. of Magdalene
College July 8, 1602. He became Philosophy Reader at
Magdalene College, was made Principal of New Inn Hall
June 28, 1609, there being then neither gentleman-commoner
nor commoner at New Inn Hall. He was son of John
Budden of Canford in Dorsetshire. He was admitted at
Merton College at the Michaelmas Term 1582, and thence
to a scholarship at Trinity College May 30, 1583. He was
D.C.L. 1602 5 in 1611 was appointed Regius Professor of
Civil Law, then Principal of Broadgate's Hall, to which
Pembroke College has succeeded. He died there June 11,
1620, and was buried in the chancel of St. Aldate's Church.
6. Oliver Lloyd, D.C.L. 1602, of All Souls. He was
afterwards Chancellor of Hereford, Canon of Windsor 1615,
May, 20, Dean of Hereford 1617, in which city he died
in 1625.
The second question is thus put in Wake : lt Whether
a stranger and an enemy detained by contrary winds in an
enemy's port beyond the time of an armistice, may be lawfully
killed by the inhabitants of that port ? The respondent held
the negative. The King interposed in this dispute, alleging
the saying of one, that he who judges against his conscience
builds for hell. He instanced in the unjust judgment passed
upon our Lord himself, and thus, as Wake remarks, con
firmed the words of another, who asked, What shall become
of the good citizen when the evil spirits shall have carried
away the bad man to hell f
In regard of the second question the King said, that
a prisoner detained unawares should be remitted by the
judge to the King, who can and ought to save his life. Alas
that the King did not always exemplify his own wise dicta,
but forgot both law and equity when he was tempted to
forfeit the life of a subject, as in the case of Sir Walter
Raleigh.
The evening drew on as Gentilis concluded the Act. In
the course of the Act the scholars gave & plaudits; the graver
men cried out Vivat Rex, and on the King speaking a third
time there was a general acclamation. After supper the
Ajax flagellifer was acted in the Hall of Christ Church. The
stage was varied thrice, and the actors were all clad in
suitably antique apparel. The name alone was borrowed
from Sophocles.
On Thursday the 29th, the Physic Act commenced at
nine at St. Mary's, and lasted until noon. The two questions
were: 1. Whether the dispositions of nurses were imbibed
with their milk? 2. Whether the frequent use of tobacco
was good for persons in health? The moderator was Dr.
Bartholomew Warner of St. John's College, Regius Professor
of Medicine 1597, and in 1617 superior Reader of Linacre's
Lecture. He died January 26, 1619, and was buried in
St. Mary Magdalene's Church, Oxford.
The respondent was the munificent Sir William Paddy,
M.D. of Oxford and Leyden, President of the College of
Physicians, of St. John's College, Oxford, and Physician
to the King, whom he attended on his death-bed. He was
of the county of Oxford. He was a great, and one of the
first benefactors to the Bodleian Library, although by an
oversight not mentioned as such in Dr. Ingram's very valuable
Memorials of Oxford. He has, however, not omitted to
commemorate his bounty to his college, where on the south
wall of the chapel is his monument, with an epitaph recording
his legacy of £2800. (a great sum in those days) for the
endowing of the choir, after having provided the college with
an organ. He left also £150. for the encouragement of
learning. His will, says Dr. Ingram, is dated Dec. 10, 1634,
in his 81st year, in which year he died.
The opponents were:
1. Dr. Matthew Gwinne, B.A. of St. John's College
May 14, 1578, M.A. May 4, 1582, Proctor April 17, 1588,
B.M. July 17, 1593, and M.D. on the same day. He was
the author of Vertumnus. He was Physician to the Tower
of London, the first Professor of Medicine at Gresham Col
lege, and a member of the College of Physicians. He died
in 1627.
2. Anthony Aylworth, M.D. 1582, of New College, Phy
sician to Queen Elizabeth, and Regius Professor of Medicine
in the University of Oxford, 29th June, 1582. He resigned
his Professorship to Dr. Warner of St. John's College 1597.
He was of an ancient family in Gloucestershire, born in London,
educated at Winchester School and New College. He " died
happily in the Lord" April 18, 1619. He had disputed
before Elizabeth in 1592. His two sons, Martin the elder
and Antony the younger, survived him. Martin erected
a memorial to him in New College Chapel, and was D.C.L.
of All Souls' College, Nov. 27, 1621.
3. John Gifford, also M.D. of New College, December 7,
1598, a member of the College of Physicians. li He died in
a good old age in 1647, and was buried in the parish Church
of Hornchurch in Essex, near to the body of his wife."1
4. Henry Ash worth, M.D. of Oriel College August 13,
1605. He rose to eminent practice in Cat-street, (to the
east of the present Eadcliff Library) where his son Francis
was born.2
5. John Cheynell, M.D. of Corpus Christi College
August 13, 1605. Cheynell extolled the virtues of the ob
noxious weed above all others, and with his pipe in his hand
suited the action to the word, not however omitting to vindi
cate in the sequel the royal aversion to tobacco. Wake, who
was one of those serious men who could enjoy if he could
not make a joke, has not lost this opportunity of enlivening
his narration by ample notes of the King's facetiousness
as well as the Professor's. Warner, in his peroration, ex
horted both sexes to wreak their vengeance on their pipes
by every term of reprobation which he could bring together.3
The Act concluded, the King went to New College, then
more faithfully displaying the consummate skill of its munifi-
cent architect and founder than now, when it has lost so
many of its ancient features, and has been enlarged in a more
modern style, yet venerable and majestic, and adorned as
much by nature as by art, owing more than can be expressed
to its beautiful gardens, the most impressive, although not
the most extensive in the University. At New College the
noble Chancellor kept open house daily during the King's
visit. Verses were attached to 'the walls of the college. Dr.
Kyves, the Warden, congratulated his Majesty in a Latin
speech, in the name of the Chancellor and of the members
of New College, and was on the following day added to the
number of the royal chaplains. The King sat in the hall
beneath a canopy ; Prince Henry at some distance on his right
hand ; the Queen on his left, and at the other end of the table,
opposite to the Prince, the two ambassadors. There was a
magnificent show of plate, and the Chancellor's private musi
cians played during the banquet. But the whole university
contributed to this hospitality. The King, before he rose from
the table, called the Chancellor to him, returned him his
thanks, and bade him drink out of the royal goblet.
From the banquet the King returned to St. Mary's to
hear the following disputations : the first, Whether gold can
be produced by artificial means ? Secondly, Whether imagina
tion can produce real effects ?
The moderator was Roger Porter, of Brasennose College.
The respondent was Richard Andrewes, of St. John's College,
M.B. June 1, 1607, M.D. June 1, 1608. He improved
himself by foreign travel, and was esteemed amongst the
literati of that age.
The opponents were :
1. Simon Baskerville, B.A. of Exeter College July 8,
1596, Proctor in the year following the royal visit, M.D.
1611, knighted by King Charles. He was of an ancient
Herefordshire family. He was eminent in his profession.
He died July 5, 1641, aged 68 years, and was buried* in
the north aisle of old St. Paul's.
On the same day with him was the celebrated Robert
Vilvaine, of Exeter College, also created M.D. in 1611. He
was B.A. of Exeter College May 9, 1597, M.A. July 11,
1600. Vilvain was also a theological author and student.
He, with Mr. Richard Sandy, alias Napier, Mr. William
Orphord, and Mr. William Helme, fellow-students, was
a benefactor to Exeter College, all assisting in rebuilding the
kitchen. At their expense also was the old chapel (superseded
by Dr. Hakewill's, the late chapel) turned into a library
in 1624.1 He was son of Peter Vilvain, steward of the city
of Exeter, was born in All Saints' parish, Exeter, in Gold
smith Street, and was a Fellow of Exeter College in 1599.
He resigned his fellowship in 1611, and returned to Exeter.
About 1644 Fuller's acquaintance with Dr. Vilvain com
menced. They spent much of their time together so long
as Fuller remained at Exeter. Dr. Vilvain gave a library
to the Cathedral there, and endowments, in the way of ex
hibitions, to the Grammar School. He wrote Theoremata
Theologica,) 1654, 4to., a Compendium of Clironography , 1654,
4to., and some other pieces. He died in his 87th year, Feb.
21, 1663, and was buried in the Cathedral of Exeter.
Baskerville attracted the especial notice of the King.
After he had disputed, the King, who had himself prolonged
the time of his disputation beyond what the Proctor would
have granted, said to the nobles about him, " God keep this
fellow in a right course ; he would prove a dangerous heretic ;
he is the best disputer that ever I heard."
2. Edward Lapworth, M.D., of Magdalene College (where
he had been educated) 1611, on the same day with Basker
ville and Vilvaine and Clayton of Balliol College, but pre
viously of Gloucester Hall. Lapworth was in 1618 appointed
the first Professor of Natural Philosophy at Oxford, by the
will of the founder, Sir William Sedley, Knt. and Bart. He
usually practised in the summer at Bath, where he died
May 23, 1636, and was buried in the Abbey church.
3. Thomas Clayton, of Gloucester Hall. He removed
to JBalliol College, and succeeded Dr. Warner as Regius
Professor of Medicine March 9, 1611. He was the last
Principal of Broadgates Hall 1620, and the first Master
of Pembroke College 1624. In 1607 he had been chosen
Professor of Music in Gresliam College, which place he re
signed November 17, 1610. He died in 1647, and was
buried in St. Aldate's church July 13. His son, Sir Thomas,
was also Eegius Professor of Medicine, and in 1661 Provost
of Mcrton College. He died October 4, 1693.
4. Eichard Mocket, B.A., of Brasennose College Feb. 16,
1596, M.A. of All Souls' College 1600, B.D. 1607, D.D. 1609,
Warden of All Souls' April 12, 1614, domestic Chaplain to
Archbishop Abbot, Eector of St. Clement's, East Cheap,
London, Dec. 29, 1610, which he resigned in December 1611,
when he was Eector of St. Michael's, Crooked-lane. He was
Eector of Monks Eisborough, Bucks, and of Newington,
Oxfordshire. He died July 5, 1618, aged 40, and was buried
in the college chapel, where his relation, Sir Thomas Freke,
erected a monument to his memory. His monument was
removed into the ante-chapel in 1664.
5. Eobert Pinke, born at Wenslade, Hants, 1572, Proctor
1610, M.B. 1612, B.D. 1619, D.D. 1620, Warden of New
College July 17, 1617. James, who gave himself a Latin
determination on the first question, admired his disputing.
He was seized at Aylesbury for his loyalty in raising the
University militia, and was for a time imprisoned in the
Gate-house, Westminster. He died November 2, 1647.
Dr. Brideoak, Bishop of Chichester, erected a monument
to him in his college chapel.1
6. Eobert Bolton, B.A., of Brasennose College Dec. 2,
1596, M.A. July 1602, B.D. 1609. Bolton was born at
Blackburn in Lancashire 1572. He removed from Lincoln
College to Brasennose College, of which he was made Fellow.
He was brought to true repentance and seriousness of mind
by his college tutor, Thomas Peacock, who was B.D. 1608,
a native of Cheshire. Peacock died in 1611, and was buried
in December in St. Mary's Church. He was incumbent
of Broughton in Northamptonshire, and there devoted himself
most exemplarily to his duties. He had a fluency and elo
quence truly Chrysostomian, with as great energy, so that
his sermons are to this day far from antiquated or unworthy
of perusal. He died aged 60 years in 1631. There is an
account of him in Fuller's Abel Eedivivus.
The King resolved upon hearing a second Act after but
a short interval, upon two questions appointed by himself:
Whether it be a greater object to preserve than to extend
the bounds of a kingdom ? and, Whether the origin of right
and wrong is to be sought in law or in nature ?
The moderator was Kichard Fitzherbert, of New College,
Senior Proctor. He was installed Archdeacon of Dorset
August 27, 1620, and died probably some time after 1640.
The respondent was William Ballow, of Christ Church.
He had been Senior Proctor in 1604. He was created D.D.
November 29, 1613, and died in December 1618. He was
Rector of Milton Bryant, near Woburn, Bedfordshire, Canon
of the first stall at Christ Church January 3, 1615, and dying
in 1618 was buried in the Cathedral without any memorial.
He is highly commended by Wake as a most polished scholar
and of a most courteous disposition.
The opponents were :
1. Thomas Winniff, B.A. of Exeter College July 12, 1592,
M.A. May 17, 1601, B.D. March 27, 1610, D.D. July 5, 1619.
He was born at Sherborne in Dorsetshire, was Rector of
Lamborne and Willingate Doe near Chipping Ongar, Essex,
Dean of Gloucester November 20, 1624, of St. Paul's April 18,
1631, consecrated Bishop of Lincoln February 6, 1642, but
he had no enjoyment of that dignity, but retired to Lamborne
where he had purchased both the advowson and an estate,
and there died September 19, 1654, in his 78th year. He
was raised to the see of Lincoln on account of the blameless-
ness and popularity of his character, when Charles sought
but too late to conciliate the nation by this and similarly good
appointments.
2. Simon Jux, (or perhaps Jukes) D.D. of Christ Church
1618. One probably of the same family was a benefactor
to the present chapel at Brasennose College, Rowland Jucks,
Esq.
3. Richard Thornton, Vicar of Cassington and Rector of
Westwell near Burford, Canon of the first stall of Christ-
church, July 13, 1596, Prebendary of the ninth stall at
Worcester, March 20, 1612. He died January 2, 1615, and
was buried on the 6th in the Cathedral at Oxford without
any memorial.
4. John King, D.D. of Merton College, July 6, 1615,
Canon of the twelfth stall, Westminster, on the death of
Dr. Barlow, Bishop of Lincoln 1613, and Canon of Windsor
November 23, 1616, on the decease of Murdoch Aldem. He
died August 7, 1638, and was buried in St. George's,
Windsor. Murdoch (in Wood Mardochay) Aldem succeeded
another John King, Fellow both of Peter House and of
Exeter College. Dr. King of Merton College was nephew
to King of Peter House.1 Dr. King was some time Fellow
of Merton College. He was uncle to Dr. George Aglionby,
already mentioned as the friend of Falkland, and as designated
in 1643 for the Deanery of Canterbury.2 He succeeded Dr.
King in his stall at Westminster 1638.
5. William Langton, President of Magdalene College
November 19, 1610, on the death of Dr. Harding, already
mentioned amongst those who disputed in the Divinity Act.
He was born at Langton in Lincolnshire near Wragby, of
an ancient and celebrated family. He was as conspicuous for
his modesty as for his learning. He died Oct. 10, 1626,
aged 54 years. His monument with his effigy, after the
manner of that age, is in his college chapel, with an inscrip
tion of no common character for its reality and force of
expression.3
6. John Barkham, of Corpus Christi College, is said to
have applied himself in his earlier years to heraldry, and to
have suffered his collections to be published with Gwillim's
name as the author. He was born in the parish of St. Mary
the Greater, Exeter, in 1572, entered at Exeter College,
Oxford, 1587, and removed thence to Corpus Christi College
in 1588. He wrote the life of King John published in
Speed's History, and wholly or chiefly that of Henry II.
His account of Becket is supposed to have been designed
as an answer to one written by Bolton, a Papist. Gwillim's
Heraldry was printed in folio, London, 1610. Barkham was
successively Chaplain to Bancroft and Abbot. He was
Rector and Dean of Bocking 1615, the other Dean being
Dr. Thomas Goad, Precentor of St. Paul's. Of Goad,
elsewhere mentioned, a posthumous work appeared, entitled,
Stimulus Orthodoxus, sive Goadus Redivivus. A disputation,
partly theological, partly metaphysical, concerning the necessity
and contingency of events in the world, in respect of God's
eternal Decree, written above twenty years since ~by that reverend
and learned Divine Thomas Goad, Doctor of Divinity, and
ftector of Hadleigh in Suffolk. London, for Will. LeaJce,
1669, 4&, with a Preface ~by J. G. He wrote also, Eclogce
et Musce virgiferce acjuridicce. Dr. Barkham was Prebendary
of Brownswood in St. Paul's, London, and died at Bocking
on March 25, 1643. At the conclusion of the Act the King,
in a brief speech, engaged to continue, as he had ever been,
a patron of learning and of learned men. He promised in
particular his patronage and encouragement to the University
of Oxford. He bade them continue to maintain the setting
forth of the pure Word of God, to fly from and to put to flight
all Romish superstitions, and to avoid and reject all schisms
and innovations in religion; to advance in their peculiar
studies both in theory and practice, that so their lives might
agree with their profession, God's glory, and his own
expectation be fulfilled, himself augmented in honour, and
abundant fruit meanwhile redound to themselves.1
The King and nobility were attended with acclamations
and by torchlight (for the evening had closed upon them)
to Christchurch. Others of the nobility attended Prince
Henry to Magdalene College. He occupied the middle seat
at the high table. Down the middle of the hall the noblemen
were seated, and along the sides the Fellows and other
members of the foundation. The Prince graciously bade
them keep their square caps on their heads. He drank their
healths, to which they responded, all standing. He more
than once called Magdalene his college, and himself of
Magdalene. William Grey, the younger son of Arthur
Lord Wilton, at the command of Dr. Bond the worthy
President, presented the Prince with a richly-bound MS.,
the Apologues of Pandulf Colinucius, the binding set with
pearls and enriched with ornaments of gold. Arthur Lord
Grey de Wilton was son of William Lord Grey de Wilton,
a brave soldier, who being Captain of the Castle of Guisnes
after the surrender of Calais 1558, was at length obliged to
deliver it up and yield himself a prisoner, and afterwards
to pay a ransom of 24,000 crowns, which much weakened
his estate.1 In 1560 he was made a Knight of the Garter,
and died 1562, leaving issue by Mary, daughter of Charles
Somerset, Earl of Worcester, a daughter Honora, married to
Henry Denny (who had issue by her Edward, created by
James L Earl of Norwich), and two sons, Arthur Lord Grey
de Wilton and William Arthur, the father of William at
Magdalene College in 1605, died in 1593. Edward, the son
of Sir Thomas Chaloner, presented the Prince with a pair of
splendid gloves in the name of the whole College, and an
illustrious youth, Kichard Worsley, presented him with a
volume of verses in various foreign languages. Edward
Chaloner was B.A. of Magdalene College July 8, 1607;
May 15, 1610, M.A. He removed to All Souls' College,
where he was B.D. May 30, 1617, and D.D. November
6, 1619. From his fellowship at All Souls' College he was
raised to be Principal of St. Alban's Hall December 29, 1624,
and died of the plague July 25, 1625. He had on the
evening of 10th July supped with his friend Dr. Hussey of
New College, who is supposed to have brought the plague
with him from London. He was buried in St. Mary's
churchyard.
Richard was second son of Sir Richard Worsley, the first
Baronet of that name, and Frances, daughter of Sir Henry
Neville. The family took their name from their lordship in
Lancashire, Workeseley or Workedeley.
After supper the King and Prince met again at St. John's
College, where a comedy, but in tragic measure, says Sir
Isaac Wake, representing the revolving year, was acted by the
members of that College. The scene was made in the form
of the zodiac, with the sun passing through all the twelve
signs. All kinds of allegories were introduced into this piece.
It began with the sun entering the ram, it ended with the
fishes broiled by the heat of the sun.
On Friday morning, the day of the King's departure, a
pastoral by Samuel Daniel was acted at Christ Church, and
was highly applauded. It was published shortly after with
the following title, " The Queen's Arcadia, a Pastoral Trago-
Comedie, presented to Her Majestie and her Ladies by the
University of Oxford in Christ's Church in August last
1605. At London : printed by G. Eld, for Simon Waterson.
1606." A copy of this edition is among Garrick's Plays in
the British Museum. It was reprinted in 1611, in 12mo. It
is also to be found in the edition of Daniel's Poems in 1620.1
At the same time a Convocation was held at St. Mary's.
The Bedell appears at this time to have fulfilled his office in
the old fashion to the letter, making oral proclamation of the
Convocation. The nobles began to assemble at eight. The
Earl of Northampton was the first that went in with Abbot,
Master of University College and Yice-Chancellor, and sat
on his right hand upon a form, for there was but one chair,
on which the Vice-Chancellor sat. He went in a black gown
and a regent's hood, having been before incorporated there.
And first there passed a grace for the Earls of Northum
berland, Oxford, Essex, and others, to which consent was
asked of the Doctors by the Proctors, and then the Proctors
turning to the House gave their consent by general acclama
tion, saying Placet ; so the Earl was presented, as were most
of the nobility, by Sir William Paddie. Then the Earl was
sworn to observe the privileges and statutes of the University.
The Vice-Chancellor admitted the noblemen to their degrees
standing, but remained seated whilst he admitted the knights
and others. Sir John Davies2 presented the knights and
courtiers, the Prince's servants, and others. Doctors presented
the Doctors and Bachelors of Divinity from Cambridge, and
Masters of Arts the Masters of Arts. Of Cambridge were
incorporated Dr. John Hammond, one of the King's Phy
sicians, father of the learned Henry Hammond ; George
Kuggle, first of Trinity College, then Fellow of Clare Hall,
and author of the celebrated comedy Ignoramus ; the Bishop
of Oxford, Dr. Bridges, who was of Pembroke Hall, Cam
bridge; Alexander Serle, LL.B., Thomas Howard, Earl of
Suffolk; Kobert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury; and Dr. Bar
nabas Gooch, Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge, and
highly regarded by Williams when Lord Keeper. Amongst
those who were honoured with degrees were, Esme Stuart,
Duke of Lenox, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke ; his
younger brother Philip, Earl of Montgomery ; William
Cecil, Viscount Cranbourne, who succeeded his father Robert
Cecil as Earl of Salisbury ; Theophilus Howard, Lord
Walden, Earl of Suffolk on the death of his father, the
wealthy builder of Audley House; Charles, son of the
famous Lord High Admiral ; Thomas West, Lord de la
Warr ; Grey Bridges, Lord Chandos, commonly called King
of Cotswold from the great number of his attendants when
he went to court ; William Compton, afterwards Earl of
Northampton ; Edward Bruce, Master of the Rolls and
Baron of ^Kinloss in Scotland,1 father of Thomas, Earl of
Elgin and Baron of Whorlton in Yorkshire ; Lord Erskine,
Sir Henry Neville, Sir Thomas Chaloner, John Egerton,
Knight, afterwards Earl of Bridgewater ; Sir Thomas Monson,
of Magdalene College, of Burton Hall, near Lincoln ; David
Foulis, Knight ; George More, Knight ; 2 John Digby, Esq.,
of Magdalene College, afterwards Earl of Bristol.
About nine the King went to the Bodleian Library, the
noble foundation of Sir Thomas Bodley, of the ancient family
of the Bodleighs of Dunscombe near Crediton. He was born
at Exeter March 2, 1545. His father removed with his
family to Geneva to avoid the Marian persecution, but
returned in 1558 and settled in London. In 1559 or 1560
Bodley was admitted at Magdalene College, whence he
removed to Merton College, where he took his B.A. July 26,
1563, and M.A. July 5, 1566. He was chosen to a fellowship,
and having studied under the most learned professors at
Geneva, he was appointed to read a public lecture on the
study of Greek literature in the hall of his College. In 1569
he was Junior Proctor. From 1576 to 1580 he travelled on
the Continent, then returned to Merton College, but was
afterwards employed by Elizabeth both at home and abroad
till 1597. He afterwards lived in London or at Parson's
Green, Fulham. From 1597 he employed himself in re
storing and supplying the University Library. On the 8th
of November, 1602, there was a solemn procession from St.
Mary's to the Library, for the purpose of opening it and
devoting it to the use of the University. More than two
thousand choice volumes had been deposited in it by that
time. Sir Thomas Bodley was assisted in his noble under
taking by Sir Henry Saville and Sir John Bennet. Sir
Henry was also B.A. of Merton College, Sir John Bennet of
Christ Church. The latter fell under the displeasure of the
House of Commons in 1621, was imprisoned for a short time,
fined £20,000, and deprived of his office of Judge of the
Prerogative Court. He died in the parish of Christ Church,
Newgate Street, in the beginning of 1628. The original
founder of the Library was indeed Humphrey, the good Duke
of Gloucester, son of Henry IV. about 1445. * Sir Thomas
Bodley 's work is the eastern wing of the present Library.
This was finished in 1613, the year after his death. The
western was added between 1630 and 1640. The Divinity
School, over which the original Library was built, was
founded about 1427, but not completed until 1480. The
Proscholium was a part of the work of Sir Thomas Bodley.
The remainder of the square rose from 1613 to 1619. The
effect was doubtless far superior before the removal of the
transoms from the windows of this venerable quadrangle.
The architect was Thomas Holt of York, who died Sept. 9,
1624, and was buried in Holy well churchyard.1 The King,
upon casting his eyes round the Library, expressed his
satisfaction upon seeing whence these stores of learning had
been drawn which had recently yielded him so much
satisfaction, and looking upon Bodley's effigies said, he
should rather be called Godly. Amongst other MSS. of
that kind he was shewn the Ethiopic version of the Scrip
tures, and that monument of impurity under the garb of piety,
Gaguinus de Puritate Conception** B. M. V. Paris, 1497.2
The King promised himself to become a benefactor to [the
Library. The Earl of Salisbury and Charles Lord Effingham,
son of the Lord High Admiral, seconded the King's expres
sions of good will. The King further said, that were he not
king he could have lived as an academician ; and, alluding to
the chains with which the books were then fastened to their
shelves, added that should it ever be his fate to be led
captive in chains, if his choice were given him, he would be
shut up in this prison, bound with these chains, and pass his
time with these captives for his companions. From the
Library the King went into the Divinity School, and visited
all the other schools in the quadrangle.
Next the King visited Brasenose College, of whose huge
brazen nose on the great gate Sir Isaac Wake does not fail to
remind his reader. Dr. Thomas Singleton, the Principal, at
the head of all the members of his house, accosted the King.
Dr. Singleton had been presented by Lord Keeper Egerton
to the Rectory of Whitchurch, Oxfordshire, in 1596 ; he
was made Prebendary of Bromesbury in St. Paul's, London,
10th May, 1597. Thomas Powell, B.D. of his College,
dedicated to him a sermon upon Exod. xxviii. 34, preached
at St. Mary's in 1613. He died November 29, 1614, and
was buried in the chancel of St. Mary's ; for, until the
consecration of their present chapel, which was founded
June 26, 1656, and consecrated November 17, 1686, by the
Bishop of Oxford, the Society had only a small oratory over
the buttery on the south side of the quadrangle. The King
entered into discourse with the Principal respecting Friar
Bacon, of whose brazen head a tradition went that the
prodigious nose aforesaid was a part. Koger Bacon is said
to have lectured in Little University Hall, one of the
Halls since swallowed up in Brasenose College, and once
occupying the north-east angle near the lane. Adjoining to
this was the ancient hostel called Brasenose Hall as early
as 1278, whence the College, founded in 15091 by William
Smyth, Bishop of Lincoln, took its name. The brazen head
of Koger Bacon, with its portentous nose, brings to Sir
Isaac Wake's mind a pleasant story of Thomas Aquinas
and his master Albertus Magnus. Albertus had made an
image which, by the help of machinery, could articulate a
few sounds, nay words — so the story ; and Aquinas was sent
into the room utterly unprepared for his strange companion,
whom, when he began to speak, he in his terror broke to
pieces with a staff; whereupon Albertus said, Pol, triginta
annorum opus uno momenta contrivisti; In one moment you
have dashed to pieces the work of thirty years.2 The quad
rangle of Brasenose was then beautified with flowers and
shrubs, (probably in the antique style, as once was that of
Peterhouse at Cambridge,) which the King failed not to
observe with approbation. His Majesty next visited All
Souls' College. There he was accosted by Dr. Kobert
Hoveden the Warden, who had been elected to the warden-
ship in his 28th year, 12 Nov. 1571. He was Eector of
Newington near Oxford, and had been Chaplain to Arch
bishop Parker, of whose diocese he was a native. Under
Grindal he was made Prebendary of the fourth stall at
Canterbury in 1580. The next year he was also Prebendary
of Wells, and in 1570 or 1571 of Clifton, in the Cathedral of
Lincoln. He wrote the life of Chichely, the founder of All
Souls' College.3 He died in his 69th year, March 25, 1615,
and was buried in his college chapel.
Thence passing down the High Street by the ancient
Colleges of University and Queen's, both now replaced by
more modern edifices, the King enters his son's adopted
College of St. Mary Magdalene. There Douglas Castilion
made him an oration, probably of the same family with John
Castilion, Dean of Eochester in the reign of Charles II.
and of Francis Castilion, Knight, who had been created M.A.
this same morning. The King thence returned to dinner at
Christ Church, where Dr. Edmund Lilly, who had been of Mag
dalene College and was at this time Master of Balliol College
and Archdeacon of Wiltshire, made another and valedictory
oration. His wonderful patristic knowledge made him the
admiration of his age. At the stairs' foot, where the King
entered into the Court, John Hanmer, of All Souls' College,
the Junior Proctor, made a short oration. He rose to be
Bishop of St. Asaph 1624. Upon this the Chancellor
delivered to the King his Majesty's grant of the Eectory of
Ewelme to the Regius Professor of Divinity, which the King
took and returned to the Vice-Chancellor. Then both the
King and Queen presented their hands to the Vice-Chancellor
and the Doctors to kiss, and bade them farewell, and to leave
him to take his departure without farther state. Then the
King, Queen, and Prince went all into one coach, and passed
through the town, the Mayor and other civic officers of the
city in scarlet preceding the King through the town to the
farther end of Magdalene Bridge. The Lord Treasurer
stayed till Monday next after the King's departure. He
sent to the disputers and actors £20 in money, and five
brace of bucks ; so he sent to every College and Hall venison
and money after this proportion ; to Brasenose College five
bucks and ten angels; to St. Edmund's Hall four red deer
pies and four angels. The King slept the evening of his
departure at Rotherfield Grey's near Henley, the mansion of
Lord Knowles, and on Saturday, proceeding by Bisham
Abbey, the seat of the Hobies, returned to Windsor.
On Nov. 3rd Andrewes, who had thrice nobly refused
a mitre, was consecrated to the see of Chichester1 on the
decease of Dr. Anthony Watson. He was consecrated by
Archbishop Bancroft, assisted by Dr. Eichard Vaughan,
Bishop of London, Jegon, Bishop of Norwich, Dr. Thomas
Kavis, Bishop of Gloucester, and Dr. William Barlow, Bishop
of Rochester, afterwards of Lincoln. His elevation was owing
to the King's especial regard for him.2 The King also
appointed him his Almoner, and at the same time granted, in
augmentation of the King's alms, all the goods, &c. of all
who were felones de se, as well as all deodands in England
and Wales, exempting Andrewes also from rendering an
account of his receipts from these sources.3 Andrewes re
signed the mastership of Pembroke Hall on the 5th, on which
day Wren was elected a Fellow of that Society, Andrewes
voting for him by his deputy, the President. In his
mastership Andrewes was succeeded by a far inferior person,
Dr. Samuel Harsnett, who was afterwards compelled to resign
in consequence of the complaints of the Fellows, headed by
Wren, who was himself a devoted friend of both Peter House
and Pembroke Hall.
1575; and B.D. 1582. He was made Dean of Bristol 16th April, 1590, and
installed 21st July. He was (in the place of Thomas Manton, M.A., who
succeeded Dr. Roger Goad in that preferment,) made Chancellor of Wells, and
installed 15th July, 1592, and at the same time made also (in the place of
Manton) Prebendary of Wedmore Secunda, in that Church. He was nomi
nated to the see of Chichester 1st June, 1596, elected by the Chapter on the
14th, confirmed August 14th, and the temporalities were restored to him 13th
September. He had been previously consecrated August 15th by Whitgift,
assisted by Dr. John Young, Bishop of Rochester; Richard Vaughan, Bishop
of Bangor (afterwards translated successively to Chester and London) ; and
Bilson, who on June 13th this same year was consecrated to the see of Worcester,
having been previously Fellow of New College, Oxford, and Warden of Win
chester College. Bishop Watson lived in celibacy, was Almoner to King James,
and died at his house at Cheam 10th September, 1605. He was buried in his
church there on the 19th. His will is in the Prerogative Office, London. He
left £100 to Christ's College, Cambridge, where he had been educated, and whence
he was chosen to a fellowship at Corpus Christi College. Bishop Hacket was
afterwards Rector of Cheam. On March 14th, 1606, Abbot granted a license to
Andrewes, now Bishop of Chichester, to demolish sundry ruinated and super
fluous buildings attached to the episcopal houses at Chichester and Aldingbourne
near Chichester. " Upon the house belonging to the bishopric of Chichester he
expended above £420." So his biographer Isaacson.
CHAPTER VIII.
Bishop Andrewes* Sermon on Christmas Day, 1605 — King James's
policy in regard to the Scotch Church — Bishop Andrewes' Sermon
on the anniversary of the King' s Accession, 1606 — His commenda
tions of the King — Sermon on Easter- Day — On Whit- Sunday —
Of the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit's operations — Sermon at
Greenwich before King James and the King of Denmark — His
notice of the Jesuits — The Scotch Conference and Sermons at
Hampton Court — Bishop Andrewes* Sermons on the right of
Kings to call Councils — On 5th November — On Christmas Day
— Of the merits of Christ — Sermon on Easter Day, 1607 —
On leing doers of the Word — Sermon at Romsey on 5th August
— On 5th November at Whitehall — On Christmas Day on the
mystery of Godliness — On Easter Day, 1608 — On Whit- Sunday
— At Holdenby on August 5 — Consecration of Bishop Neile —
Dr. John King, Bishop of London.
ON Christmas Day 1605, Tuesday, our prelate preached
before the King at Whitehall from Heb. ii. 16, in the then
version : For he in nowise took the angels / but the seed of
Abraham he took. In page 5 he observes, " And emergent or
issuing from this are all those other apprehendings or seisures
of the persons of men (by which God layeth hold on them,
and bringeth them back from error to truth, and from sin to
grace,) that have been from the beginning, or shall be to the
end of the world. That, of Abraham himself, whom God
laid hold of and brought from out of Ur of the Chaldeans,
and the idols he there worshipped. That, of our Apostle St.
Paul, that was apprehended in the way to Damascus. That
of St. Peter, that in the very act of sin was seized on with
bitter remorse for it. All those, and all these, whereby men
daily are laid hold of in spirit, and taken from the bye-paths
of sin and error, and reduced into the right way, and so their
persons recovered to God and seised to his use j — all these
apprehensions (of these branches) came from this apprehension
(of the seed) : they all have their beginning and their being
from this day's taking, even semen apprehendit" [he took the
seed]. " Our receiving His spirit for His taking our flesh.
This seed, wherewith Abraham is made the son of God, from
the seed wherewith Christ is made the son of Abraham."
Of the word used in the original he notes that it is the
same word that was used of St. Peter, when, being ready to
sink, Christ caught him hy the hand and saved him, and of
Lot and his daughters1 in the like danger.
lt And," he proceeds, " it may truly be said — (inasmuch as
all God's promises, as well touching temporal as eternal
deliverances, and as well corporal as spiritual, be in Christ
Yea and Amen ; Yea in the giving forth, Amen in the
performing) — that even our temporal delivery from the dangers
that daily compass us about, even from this last [the 5th of
November], so great and so fearful as the like was never
imagined before, all have their ground from this great appre
hension, are fruits of this seed here, this blessed seed, for
whose sake, and for whose truths sake, that we (though
unworthily) profess, are by him caught hold of, and so
plucked out of it."
Having set down St. Augustine's reason why more mercy
might have been shewn to us than to the angels, that they
had no tempter ; and Leo's, that not all the angels fell, but
that all fell in Adam, he adds : "And thus have they travailed,
and these have they found why he did apprehend us rather
than them. It may be not amiss; but we will content
ourselves for our inde nobis hoc — whence cometh this to us ?
with the answer of the Scriptures, whence, but from the tender
mercies of our God, whereby this day hath visited us?
Zelus Domini (saith Esay), The zeal of the Lord of hosts
shall bring it to pass. Propter magnam charitatem [for his
great love wherewith he loved us], saith the apostle. Sic
Deus dilexit [God so loved the world], saith he, he himself.
And we are taught by him to say, Even so} Lord, for so it
was thy good pleasure thus to do."
King James set the example to his son Charles of
endeavouring to effect a conformity in Scotland to the
established discipline and ritual of the Church of England ;
nor was the indiscretion of the royal father less than that
of the misguided son. In England James was as fulsomely
flattered as in Scotland he had been undutifully browbeaten.
The boldness of the Scottish clergy was at times rash and
intemperate, and could not but have been most offensive to
him ; yet to that body did Scotland owe much of its security
from the plottings of Komanism on the one hand, and of civil
despotism on the other. Those who can see nothing in the
kirk of those days to admire, are as intolerantly blind as
those who would condemn them in nothing. But the
impolicy and insincerity of James frustrated his own designs,
and laid the foundation for those troubles which afterwards
fell upon King Charles. It was insincere in him, who had
not privately alone, but publicly declared for the discipline
of the Kirk, to force upon it episcopacy. His impolicy is
repeatedly admitted by one who has spared no pains for the
most part to exculpate him.
In 1606 James early in the year proceeded to an act of the
most consummate injustice in procuring the condemnation of
six of the Presbyterian clergy upon a false charge of treason.
This took place on the 10th of January. Others were some
time hence commanded to London, apparently to hold con
ferences, really to be inquisitor! ally examined and for a while
detained, and some of them to be banished from their native
land. But we shall find them in London in the month of
August ; so we return to our prelate, whom we find, from the
31st March to the 22nd June inclusive, engaged in his par
liamentary duties in various committees ; first, on a committee
for the repeal of an Act of the 14th Eliz. concerning the length
of kersies, which forbade their being made above the length of
eighteen yards ; the committee to meet on Thursday, April
3, by eight A.M. in the Little Chamber near the Parliament
presence ; and also for the relief of John Eoger, gent, against
Kobert, Paul, and William Taylor. The House of Commons
desired a conference on the 5th of April on the silencing of
ministers, the multiplicity of ecclesiastical commissions, the
manner of citations, and on excommunication. The Bishop
was one of the Lords appointed to confer with them. The
conference was appointed to be on Monday the 14th April, at
two in the afternoon. The day was changed to the 17th. The
prelates were Abbot, Andrewes, Bilson, still Bishop of Bath
and Wells, and Rudd, Bishop of St. David's. Eeport was
made on the 28th of April.
On Easter Day April 6, he again preached before the
King at Whitehall, on Rom. vi. 9 — 11, in a manner worthy
of himself. This sermon, indeed, abounds with most pious
and profitable passages. In it he cites that saying of Bernard,
" Christ, although he rose alone, yet did not all rise ; that is,
we were a part of him. He is but risen in part, and that he
may rise all, we must rise from death also." Again, he sets
forth the true doctrine of the Church, that Christ's death was
an exhibition of Divine justice, and that his person was that
which gave virtue to his sacrifice. Of living according to
God he saith, "Then live we according to him, when his
will is our law, his Word our rule, his Son's life our example, his Spirit rather than our own souls the guide of our actions."
On the 28th of April he was appointed to meet on a com
mittee on the annexation of certain honours, castles, forests,
manors, &c. &c., and of certain diadems, jewels, crowns, &c.,
to the throne of England for ever.
On the 5th of May he made report touching the oath
ex officio which was appointed to be handled by him in
respect of the sickness of Dr. Still, Bishop of Bath and Wells.1
On the 12th May our prelate was appointed to meet on
a Bill read a second time on the 10th of that month, for the
more sure establishing and continuance of true religion.
On Whitsunday, June 8, he preached before the King at
Greenwich from Acts ii. 1 — 4. " It pleased Christ," he
saith, u to vouchsafe to grace the Church, his queen, with
like solemn inauguration to that of his own, when the Holy
Ghost descended on him in the likeness of a dove, that she
might, no less than he himself, receive from heaven like
solemn attestation."
Of the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit's operations he saith :
" And this (of blowing upon one certain place) is a property
very well fitting the Holy Spirit, He bloweth where Tie listeth.
To blow in certain places where itself will, and upon certain
persons, and they shall plainly feel it, and others about them
not a whit There shall be an hundred or more in an auditory ;
one sound is heard, one breath doth blow. At that instant
one or two and no more, one here, another there, they shall
feel the Spirit, shall be affected and touched with it sensibly ;
twenty on this side them and forty on that side shall not feel
it, but sit all becalmed, and go their way no more moved
than they came. Ubi vult spirat [He bloweth where he
listeth] is most true."2
When Christern IV. King of Denmark came on a visit to
the Queen his sister, Bishop Andrewes preached in Latin
before the two Sovereigns at Greenwich on August 5th, the
anniversary of the Gowrie conspiracy. His text was the 10th
verse of the 144th Psalm. He spoke of the Jesuits as amongst
the strange children in v. 11, Their mouth speaketh a lie, their
right hand is a right hand of iniquity. " And are not these
of ours just like them ? Only except what David calls lying
they call equivocation.'" Andrewes alludes in this sermon to
their various plots in which, by the use of poisons and powders
(not omitting the gunpowder), and of the sword, they had
plotted against our own and other Princes. In the latter
part he gives a detailed account of the Gowrie conspiracy.
This sermon was printed with his posthumous works, and in
English in the folio edition of his Sermons in 1661.
On September 7th he assisted, with Toby Matthews, the
pious and witty Archbishop of York, Dr. Thomas Eavis, the
deservedly popular Bishop first of Gloucester then of London,
and one of the translators of the Bible, and Dr. William
Barlow, Bishop of Rochester and afterwards of Lincoln, at
the consecration of Dr. William James, Dean of Durham and
President of University College, Oxford, to the see of Durham.
He thus succeeded Dr. Toby Matthew both in the deanery
and bishopric. He obtained permission to be consecrated
within the province of Canterbury.1
William James was a native of Sandbach in Cheshire. In
1559 he was admitted student of Christ Church, and took the
degrees in arts. He afterwards entered into holy orders, and
became Divinity Eeader of Magdalene College. Thence,
being at that time B.D., he was elected to the mastership of
University College, Oxford, June 12, 1572. On August 27,
1577, he was admitted Archdeacon of Coventry by Bishop
Bentham. Being appointed Dean of Christ Church he, on
September 14, 1584, resigned the mastership of University
College, On June 5, 1596, he was installed Dean of Durham,
whence he was promoted to the bishopric. He died on the
12th May, 1617, and was buried in his Cathedral. The
reader will find more in Wood's Athence Oxonienses and
Surtees' invaluable History of Durham.
li The commotions," says the late Bishop of Glasgow (Dr.
Eussell), a which continued to disturb the Scottish Church,
suggested to the King the propriety of holding a conference
with the leading members of the two parties. For this
purpose he summoned to London the Archbishops of Glasgow
and St. Andrew's, and the Bishops of Orkney, Galloway,
and Dunkeld, to represent the episcopal interest ; while, as
advocates for the Presbyterian cause, he named the two
Melvilles and five others, than whom there were none better
qualified both by talent and courage to support the tenets
of the Genevan school, whether in doctrine or discipline."
To these seven, namely, Andrew and James Melville, James
Balfour, William Watson, William Scott, John Carmichael,
and Adam Cole, the King addressed a circular letter, ex
pressing therein his anxiety to preserve that peace in the
Church which had been established when he left Scotland.
He further enumerated the measures which he had taken for
that purpose, dwelt upon the opposition which he had en
countered from the clergy, opposition which had been such
as to compel him to a severity contrary to his inclination,
and concluded by telling them that, being influenced by
this and various other weighty reasons, he saw good to
command them without fail to come to London before the
15th of September, that on that day he might begin with
them, and such others of their brethren as he knew to be learned
and experienced, and whom he had also ordered to attend,
to treat concerning the peace of the Church of Scotland, and
to make his constant and unchangeable favour to the members
of that Church so manifest, that they might be bound in duty
and conscience to conform to his godly meaning. In his usual
style he took great praise to himself for his condescension,
and plainlv intimated what consequences would follow, if the
conference did not terminate agreeably to his royal pleasure.
The learned and experienced brethren whom they w%ere to
meet were the aforesaid Bishops, not that they had been
otherwise ordained than themselves. They had the title
of Bishops, but they were not as yet canonically consecrated
as a separate order. The canonical consecration of the
Scottish Prelates did not take place until A.D. 1610. The
King had been known, notwithstanding his many public
professions of fidelity to the Kirk, to be favourable to
episcopacy. In June, 1606, he settled upon his titular
Bishops so much of the episcopal estates as had been hitherto
annexed to the crown, legalizing at the same time the
immense plunder of church property which the nobility had
secured to themselves by way of rewarding their godly zeal
for reformation. Very many of the ministers who were
favourable to the Presbyterian discipline protested, but in
vain, against this attempt to pave the way for another form
of church government.
The seven whom the King had summoned arrived in
London before the end of August.1 " To clear the ground,"
says Dr. Russell, "for the amicable contest in which the
Scottish champions were about to engage, James had pro
vided that they should all go to church and listen to a series
of discourses on the several points at issue." They had warn
ing given them to attend at Hampton Court on the 20th.
Barlow, now Bishop of Rochester, preached on the superiority
of Bishops to presbyters; then followed Dr. Buckeridge,
President of St. John's College, Oxford, and afterwards
successively Bishop of Rochester and Ely, who handled the
King's supremacy in causes ecclesiastical, often ranking the
Romanists and Presbyterians together in the matter of
rebellion. On Sunday, September 28, Bishop Andrewes
preached from Numbers x. 1, 2, upon the King's right to
call assemblies, both civil and ecclesiastical, instancing in
both the Old Testament and Apocryphal histories, and
copiously also from the ecclesiastical history for the first
eight centuries from the Christian era. He noticed the
inconsistency of those who disputed this power only upon
despairing of its being exerted on their side. After him
Dr. King, Dean of Christ Church and Abbot's successor
in the see of London, preached from the Canticles (chap. viii.
verse 11), against the Presbyterian institution of lay-elders.
Neither the sermons nor the conference produced the desired
effect. So the ministers were now examined relating to pro
ceedings which had not been specified in the letter. James
Melville had rendered himself especially obnoxious to the
King by his opposition to his policy on various occasions.
He was now, after an exhibition of intemperate zeal, committed
first to the care of the learned Dr. Overall, Dean of St. Paul's,
and then to the Tower. After about four years he was
restored to his liberty, but not to his country ; that he never
revisited, but was permitted in 1611 to accept the Divinity
Professorship at Sedan, whither he was invited by the Duke
of Boulogne. He died in 1621. His nephew James
Melville was ordered to reside in Newcastle, but was after
wards removed to Berwick, where he died. The rest were
detained awhile, but at last suffered to return to such places
in Scotland as were specified by the King.1
On 5th November Andrewes preached before the King
at Whitehall, from Psalm cxviii. 23, 24 : This is the Lord's
doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. This is the day which
the Lord hath made^ let us rejoice and be glad in it. On this
the first anniversary of that horrible and all but incredible plot,
which the Jesuits of our own day would have the world, if
possible, discredit,2 he set forth the plot and the deliverance in
language that must have thrilled the hearts of his auditors.
The court of Kome had openly rejoiced at the success of the
sanguinary plot of Charles IX. against his Protestant subjects
in 1572. He did not on this occasion spare either the Church
of Rome, which, had this plot succeeded, would, as he observed,
have canonized it, nor the Jesuits. Taking up our Saviour's
words, he spoke of it as an abomination that was to have
brought desolation. Every abomination doth not forthwith
make desolate. This had. If ever a desolate kingdom upon
earth, such had this been after that terrible blow. Neither
root nor branch left, all swept away. Strangers called in;
murtherers exalted; the very dissolution and desolation of
all ensued.
"But this, that this so abominable and desolate a plot
stood in the holy place, this is the pitch of all. For there it
stood, and thence it came abroad. Undertaken with an
holy oath; bound with the holy sacrament (this must needs be
in a holy place) ; warranted for a holy act, tending to the
advancement of a holy religion, and by holy persons called
by a most holy name, the name of Jesus. That these holy
religious persons, even the chief of all religious persons (the
Jesuits] , gave not only absolution but resolution , that all this
was well done ; that it was by them justified as lawful,
sanctified as meritorious, and should have been glorified (but
it wants glorifying, because the event failed, that is the grief;
if it had not, glorified) long ere this, and canonized as a very
good and holy act, and we had had orations out of the Conclave
in commendation of it."1 Let the reader but peruse this
discourse and carry himself back to the day when it was
delivered, the audience assembled to hear it. the presence of
the King who was to have been, with all the flower of his
own house and of his kingdom, so ruthlessly destroyed, and
he will receive an impression, it may be hoped, indelible, of
that truly marvellous interposition of the Almighty in behalf
of our religion and nation. He will, too, feel that so memo
rable an occasion could not have been left in the hands of a
more eloquent divine than our prelate. Ungrateful indeed
and insensible must have been the heart of James, who, in
spite of even that deliverance, could not rest until he had
endangered the stability of his throne and unsettled the
affections of his subjects, by seeking to unite his son, his
ill-fated son, to a Komish family.
On the 14th November Andrewes preferred to the vicarage
of Chigwell one of the greatest ornaments of his own college,
Koger Fenton, B.D., Hector of St. Stephen's, Walbrook, and
Prebendary of St. Paul's, and one of the translators of the
Bible. He was the friend of Thomas Fuller, Eector of
St. Peter's, Aldwinckle, and father of the famous Thomas
Fuller, and of the excellent Dr. Felton, Andre wes's successor
in the see of Ely. He died January 16, 1616, and was
buried in St. Stephen's, Walbrook.2
On 24th November Andrewes was on a committee upon
the Union, and again on 8th December, to restrain the multi
tude of inconvenient buildings in and about the metropolis.
On Christmas-day, Wednesday, our prelate preached
before the King at Whitehall, from Isaiah ix. 6, vindicating
this illustrious prophecy from the forced interpretation of the
Jews who apply it to Hezekiah, the vain subterfuge also of
modern Unitarianism. But, as Bishop Andrewes remarks,
u how senseless is it to apply to Hezekias that in the next
verse, Of his government and peace there should be none end •
that his throne should be established from thenceforth for ever ;
whereas his peace and government both had an end within
few years."
Here, as elsewhere, he does not confine the mediatorial
character and saving merits of our Lord to the time and
works of his public ministry, but includes therein all that
he did and all that he suffered. " If the tree be ours, the
fruit is ; if he be ours, his birth is ours ; his life is ours ; his
death is ours ; his satisfaction, his merits, all he did, all he
suffered is ours."
Bishop Andrewes served on various committees of the
Lords in February and March, 1587.
On Tuesday, March 24, being the anniversary of the
King's accession, Andrewes preached before him at Whitehall,
from Judges xvii. 6 : In those days there was no Jcing in
Israel, but every man did that which was good in his own eyes.
He spoke of the excellence of an hereditary monarchy, as
leaving no interregna, no seasons of confusion. He urged
the duty of kings, to whom God gives commission (I said ye
are gods] to take under their charge the things of God, to put
down idolatry, and to provide right instruction for their
subjects. He animadverts upon the disposition of many
of the laity in his time to intermeddle with ecclesiastical
things and persons, the people that strive with the priest.
Hos. iv. 4. Andrewes appears too courtly in this discourse.
Was it altogether true of James that he was the opposite to
Andrewes's picture of Eehoboam, one that was full of great
words, but so faint-hearted as not able to resist ought?
On April 5, Easter-day, he preached before the King at
Whitehall, from 1 Cor. xv. 20, observing how our Lord's
resurrection was the day of the feast of first-fruits.1 Very
felicitious is his observation in p. 400 : " There was a statute
concerning God's commandments, Qui fecerit ea, vivet in eis,
He that observed the commandments should live by that his
obedience. Death should not seize on him. Christ did
observe them exactly, therefore should not have been seized
by death ; should not, but was ; and that seizure of his was
death's forfeiture."
Towards the end of this sermon, as elsewhere, he speaks
in general terms of baptism as our regeneration in which we
receive the first-fruits of the Spirit, and of the constant
renovation of grace and of pardon in the Lord's Supper ;
and here he does not introduce the quasi- Romanism of some
who (like the Pharisees in regard of the prophets) speak much
of him, but do not teach the same doctrine. He does not
tell his hearers that there are but two times of absolute
cleansing, baptism and the day of judgment.2
It was in this year, and probably on May 10th, the fifth
Sunday after Easter-day, when the text occurs in the epistle
for the day, that our prelate preached before the King at
Greenwich one of his best and most ingenious discourses upon
the " doing of the Word," from St. James i. 22 ; noting one
of the great diseases of his day, the placing of all religion
in the going to hear sermons, and at the same time neglecting
to be so much as present at the prayers. And in exposing
this absurd kind of religion (so to call it), he does not with
some vilify preaching, nor teach with these that the hearers
should equally follow whatsoever they are taught from the
pulpit. He would have all that is heard to rest on the
authority and to be tried by the rule of holy Scripture. He
notes that " not so few as twenty times in the Gospel is the
preaching of the word called the Kingdom of Heaven, as a
special means to bring us thither. It is that of which St.
James in the verse before saith, It is able to save our souls;
the very words which the angel used to Cornelius, that, when
St. Peter came, he should speak words by which he and his
household should be saved."1
On Whit-Sunday, May 24th, Andrewes preached before
the King at Greenwich a sermon erroneously assigned to the
year following in the folio edition. This, which is the second
of the Whit-Sunday series, abounds more in the faults of
his style than most of his discourses. He does not proceed
far before he pours out his wit upon the Puritans. " I wish
it were not true this, that humours were not sometimes mis
taken, and mistermed the Spirit. A hot humour flowing from
the gall, taken from this fire here, and termed, though untruly,
the Spirit of zeal. Another windy humour proceeding from
the spleen, supposed to be this toind here, and they that [are]
filled with it (if nobody will give it them) taking to them
selves the style of the godly brethren. I wish it were not
needful to make this observation, but you shall easily know
it for an humour : non continetur termino suo, its own limits
will not hold it. They are ever mending churches, states,
superiors ; mending all save themselves j alieno non suo is the
note to distinguish an humour."1
Observing that the gifts for which we are to thank God on
our celebration of this day are the pastors of his church, he
says, u Must we keep our Pentecost in thanksgiving for these ?
are they worth so much, I trow ? We would be loth to have
the prophet's way taken with us (Zach. xi. 12) that it should
be said to us, as there it is, If you so reckon of them indeed,
let us see the wages you value them at; and when we shall see,
it is but eight pound a year^ and having once so much, never
to be capable of more. May not then the prophet's speech
there well be taken up ? A goodly price these high gifts are
valued at by you. And may not he justly (instead of Zachary
and such as he is) send us a sort of foolish shepherds; and send
us this senselessness withal, that, speak they never so fondly,
so they speaJc, all is well ; it shall serve our turn as well as the
best of them all ? Sure, if this be a part of our duty this day
to praise God for them, it is to be a part of our care, too,
they may be such as we may justly praise God for. Which
whether we shall be likely to effect by some courses as have
of late been offered, that leave I to the weighing of your wise
considerations."1
On 12th July he, with Dr. Eavis, Bishop of London, and
Dr. Barlow, Bishop of Eochester, assisted Archbishop Ban
croft at the consecration of Dr. Henry Parry, Dean of Chester,
to the see of Gloucester, then vacant by the translation of Dr.
Eavis to London.
Dr. Parry was the son of Henry, son of William Parry,
gentleman, of Wormbridge, about ten miles south-west of Here
ford, but was himself a native of Wiltshire, 1561. He was a
scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 13th Nov. 1576,
and Fellow and Greek Reader in that college. He was Eector
of Bredon in Worcestershire, Chaplain to Queen Elizabeth,
installed Dean of Chester 1st August, 1605, which he resigned
on his consecration at Croydon to the see of Gloucester. He
was translated to Worcester 13 July, 1610, died 12 December,
1616, and was buried in the Cathedral there. He was as
a preacher an especial favourite with King James. The
King of Denmark gave him a very rich ring for a sermon
preached before him and James the First at Eochester in
1606. He was very charitable to the poor. He built the
pulpit that was standing in the nave of Gloucester Cathedral
in the last century, but has since been removed. He pub
lished two Latin discourses, translated into English ; The Sum
of a Conference between Jolin Eainolds and John Hart touching
the head and faith of the Church, Oxford, 1619, folio; and
translated from Latin into English a Catechism of contro
verted questions in Divinity, Oxford, 1591, 8vo., which was
written by Zachary Ursinus, a Silesian, and Caspar Olevian,
commonly called The Heidelberg Catechism.1
In August Bishop Andrewes was with the King at Eomsey
in Hampshire, probably at Broadlands near Eomsey. His
Majesty's host there appears to have been Edward St. Barbe,
Esq., who, being previously of Ashington near Ilchester,
Somersetshire, married Frances, daughter and heiress of
William Fleming, Esq., of Broadlands, who died in 1606.
Edward was grandfather of the first baronet of his name.
Here Bishop Andrewes preached before the King on the
5th of August, the anniversary of the Gowry conspiracy, from
2 Sam. xviii. 32 ; shewing that it was not for Jews only,
but for Christians also, to denounce and curse the enemies
of God, of mankind, and of the church. In this sermon he
noticed the rise of the Independents, and the levelling prin
ciples of the Anabaptists of those times.
" Of the first sort of these risers (against kingly powder) are
the Anabaptists of our age, by whom all secular jurisdiction
is denied. No lawmakers they but the evangelists : no courts
but presbyteries : no punishments but church-censures. They
rise against the very state of kings : and that should they find
and feel, if they were once grown enough to make a party.
"A second sort there be (the Independents) that are but
bustling to rise ; not yet risen, at least not to this step ; but
in a forwardness they be ; proffer at it, that they do. They
that seek to bring parity not into the commonwealth by no
means, but only into the church. All parishes alike, every
one absolute, entire of itself. No dependency, or superiority,
or subordination. But, this once being had, do we not know
their second position ? — have they not broached it long since ?
The church is the house} the commonwealth but the hangings.
The hangings must be made fit for the house, that is, the
commonwealth fashioned to the church, not the house to the
hangings. No, take heed of that. And when they were
taken with it and charged with it, how sleightly in their
answer do they slip it over ! These, when they are thus got
far may rise one step higher ; and as Aaron now must not, so
perhaps neither must Moses then exalt himself above the con
gregation, seeing that all Gods people are holy no less than he"
On the 8th October Andrewes, as one of the residentiaries
of St. Paul's, presented the erudite Arabic scholar, William
Bedwell, to the Kectory of Tottenham, Middlesex. He was
one of the translators of the Bible, and had been educated
at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was B.A. in
1585, and M.A. in 1588. In 1601 he was made Kector of
St. Ethelburga, London. He was Chaplain to Sir Henry
Wotton in his embassy to Venice, where he is said to have
assisted Father Paul in his history of the Council of Trent.
He published Kalendarium Viatorium Generate, The Traveller's
Kalendar, serving generally for all parts of the world, 8vo.
1614. Also Mohamedis Imposturce: that is, a Discovery of
the manifold Forgeries, Falsehoods, and horrible Impieties of
the blasphemous seducer Mohammed / with a demonstration of
the Insufficiency of his Law, contained in the cursed Alkoran.
Delivered in a Conference had between Two Mohametans on
their Return from Mecha. Written long since in Arabick, and
now done into English by William Bedwell. Whereunto is
annexed the Arabian Trudgman, interpreting certain Arabic
Terms used by Historians : together with an Index of the
Chapters of the Alkoran , for the understanding of the con
futations of that Book. London. Imprinted by Richard Field,
dwelling in Great Wood-street, 1615. It purports to be a
translation of a work at that time 600 years old. Mr. Gough
says that Bedwell translated the Koran into English. He
was an early friend and patron of Henry Jacob, son of Henry
Jacob, one of the earliest Independents. He recommended
the younger Jacob to the notice of William Earl of Pembroke,
at whose recommendation he was admitted B.A. of Oxford,
1629. He found a patron in Laud, and adhered to him in
his troubles. He was intimate with Selden, who befriended
him in his own troubles. He died 1652. Bedwell also
published^! Brief Description of the Town of Tottenham High
Cross, 4to. 1631. In this he gave a copy of a very ancient
ballad, The Tournament of Tottenham; or, the Wooing,
Winning, and Wedding of Tibbe the Reves Daughter. This
poem, says Warton, in his History of English Poetry, is a
burlesque on the parade and fopperies of chivalry. It was
reprinted in Percy's Reliques of Antient Poetry, in Kobinson's
History, (fee., of Tottenham, 1828. He died May 5, 1632,
aged 78, and is buried in Tottenham Church.
On 5th November he preached before the King at White
hall, from the first four verses of Psalm cxxvi., enlarging upon
the greatness of that wonderful deliverance which is com
memorated on that day.
On Friday, Christmas-day, he again preached before the
King at the same place, upon the mystery of godliness , and its
manifestation in our Lord's incarnation, discoursing excel
lently upon the great humiliation and love by which this
manifestation of God was distinguished.
On Easter-day, March 27, 1608, Bishop Andrewes preached
most eloquently upon the history of our Lord's resurrection,
from St. Mark xvi. 1—7, at Whitehall.
On April 17 he assisted at the consecration of the truly
noble Dr. James Montague to the see of Bath and Wells.
On August 5, the anniversary of the Growry conspiracy, we
find Bishop Andrewes preaching before the King at Holdenby,
the once magnificent but now ruined mansion first of Sir
Christopher Hatton. His sermon, full of his usual ingenuity,
was upon David's most noble and pious answer to Abishai
when Abishai counselled him to put Saul to death. The King
on the same day rode to Bletsoe, the seat of Oliver Lord St.
John, whose third and fourth sons, Antony and Alexander,
he there knighted, as also Sir Thomas Tresham, of Newton
in Northamptonshire. On August 6 he knighted Sir Eichard
Harpur of Derbyshire, of a family now represented by Lord
Crewe.
On October 9 Bishop Andrewes with Dr. Thomas Ravis,
now Bishop of London, and Dr. James Montague, the truly
munificent Bishop of Bath and Wells, assisted Archbishop
Bancroft at Lambeth Chapel on the consecration of Dr.
Richard Neile, Dean of Westminster, to the bishopric of
Rochester. Dr. Neile owed his rise to the great Lord Bur-
leigh and to his son Robert Earl of Salisbury, to both of
whom he was successively Chaplain. He was himself the
great patron of Archbishop Laud, whom this year he made
his Chaplain, and in 1609 introduced him to the notice of the
King, before whom he preached at Theobalds.
On November 5, Dr. John King, Dean of Christ Church,
who appears as a preacher to have been esteemed next to
Andrewes, preached before the King at Whitehall.1 His
text was Psalm xi. 2 — 4. u Cruelty," he truly said, " is the
ensign and badge of that Church" [the Church of Rome].
u The habit of the harlot is according to her heart, scarlet and
purple ; her diet the diet of cannibals. * / saw her drunken,
saith the Apostle, ' with the blood of saints.' I wondered to
see her so wonderfully drunk \davp,a fjieya. Rev. xvii. 6].
The city was first founded in blood, the blood of a natural
german brother ; and the Papacy also founded in blood, the
blood of a natural liege lord and emperor."2
And again : u But from the 5th of November was three
years ; henceforth, till time shall be no more, let the name of
Nero, with the rest, rest in peace, and be buried in silence,
and instead of Syllan, Marian, Scythian, Tartarian, Barbarian,
Turkish, Spanish, let Romish, Popish, Antichristian, Catholic,
Catacatholic cruelty be a proverb, astonishment, hissing, for
all nations and ages to come."3 Towards the conclusion he
urges the King to put in execution the laws against Ro
manists.4 This sermon was published by the King's com
mand, and Dr. King was in three years advanced to the
see of London.
This very eloquent preacher and resolute and upright
prelate was born about 1559, at Wormenhall, a small village
in Buckinghamshire near Thame, being the son of Philip
King (who was nephew to the first Bishop of Oxford), and
of his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Edmund Conquest, of
Houghton Conquest, Bedfordshire. He was educated at
Westminster School and at Christ Church, Oxford. He was
elected a student of Christ Church in 1576, and in 1580 was
preferred to the Church of St. Anne's and St. Agnes, Alders-
gate. Dr. John Piers, who from 1570 to 1576 was Dean of
Christ Church, and in 1588, after having been successively
Bishop of Rochester and Salisbury, was raised to the Arch
bishopric of York, made him his private Chaplain. This most
pious and truly Christian Archbishop made him in 1590
Archdeacon of Nottingham, and probably procured his being
added to the Queen's Chaplains. Archbishop Piers died in
November, 1594, and the Queen in 1597 presented King to
the Church of St. Andrew's, Holborn, on the promotion of
Bancroft to the see of London. He had already, by his
sermons upon Jonah preached at York, proved himself the
Chrysostom of his times, but with more depth of piety and
with a more accurate theology than is to be found in the
homilies of that most earnest and ingenious father. He is
in some respects indeed far superior to Bishop Andrewes,
although in his court sermons he displays similar faults, and
spoils his own more natural method. In 1599 he was collated
to the prebendal stall of Sneating, in the place of Dr. William
Cotton, the Queen's godson, now raised to the see of Exeter.
That truly noble-minded and uncorrupt favourite of the Queen
and of his country, Egerton, the Lord Keeper, made him his
Chaplain, and in 1605 he succeeded Dr. Ravis as Dean of
Christ Church, and was for some years Vice-Chancellor of
the University. When Dr. Ravis was to be promoted to the
see of Gloucester, several of the students of Christ Church
petitioned of the King that he might succeed in the Deanry,
which request the King, a great admirer of his preaching,
graciously granted. His oratorical talent was such that Sir
Edward Coke was wont to call him the best speaker in the
Star Chamber. On September 8, 1611, he was consecrated
to the bishopric of London. But delighting in his office, and
esteeming the preaching of God's word the highest dignity,
he preached constantly in one and another church in his
diocese every Lord's Day. He died on the 29th or 30th
of March, 1621.
On November 11 we meet with the following notice of
Bishop Andrewes in a letter from John Chamberlain to
Dudley Carleton :
" I thank you for your remonstrance of the French clergy,
which will give me occasion perhaps to visit the good Bishop
of Chichester, though I doubt he be not at leisure for any
bye-matters, the King doth so hasten and spur him on in this
business of Bellarmin's, which he were likely to perform very
well (as I hear by them that can judge) if he might take his
own time, and not be troubled nor entangled with arguments
obtruded to him continually by the King, who is somewhat
pleased with a late accident fallen into Scotland, where one
Sprott, being to be executed for some other matter, confessed
somewhat touching Gowry's conspiracy that makes it hang
more handsomely together." Of Sprott and his confessions,
and of the Gowrie conspiracy, the reader may obtain sufficient
information and impartially conveyed in the 40th chapter of
Sir Walter Scott's History of Scotland, vol.. ii., 1830.1
Of our prelate's Tortura Torti mention is also made in a
letter from Dudley Carleton, Esq., to Sir Thomas Edmunds,
London, June 8th, 1609 : " The Bishop of Chichester's book is
now in the press, whereof I have seen part, and it is a worthy
work ; only the brevity breeds obscurity, and puts the reader
to some of that pains which was taken by the writer. Dr.
Morton comes after with a large volume; and Sir Edward
Hoby (who by the way is a sad mourner for his mother)
comes in like an entremets with a work of his dedicated to
the relapsed ladies ; so as Paul's churchyard is like to be well
furnished."
CHAPTER IX.
Plots of the Papists against King James — The King treats them
favourably — Duplicity of Pope Clement Till. — Watson's con
spiracy — The Gunpoivder Plot — Grounded on the Pope's Breves —
The plot referred to the Pope for his opinion — Garnet fearful lest
he should encourage recourse to arms — Greenwell and Hall —
Garnet — Lingard's plea for Garnet — Concealment of sins not yet
perpetrated formerly not allowed under the plea of confession —
Martin del Rio — Abstraction of documents from the State Paper
Office — -Abbot's Antilogia — N~ot the Jesuits alone to be blamed —
Oath of allegiance — The King's Premonition to Christian Princes
and States — His Confession of Faith — His dissertation on Anti
christ.
BEFORE the accession of King James in 1603, Pope Clement
VIII. had put Garnet, the superior or head of the English
Jesuits, in possession of epistles or breves directing the
Roman Catholics to prevent the accession of James, or of
any but a Roman Catholic, whenever the demise of Queen
Elizabeth should occur. The Romish historian, Dr. Lingard,
himself acknowledges that Garnet had these breves ; that
in 1602 Thomas Winter, afterwards one of the Gunpowder
conspirators, had arranged with the ministers of Philip III.,
King of Spain, a plan for the invasion of England,1 that the
death of Elizabeth disconcerted the project, and that " Garnet
had thought it prudent to burn the breves in favour of a
Catholic successor."2 Thus did the court of Rome and the
Jesuits plot against James even previously to his accession,
but opportunities did not favour their schemes, and so they
did what they could to conceal them. Dr. Lingard says that
the Catholics (or, as they are more appropriately designated,
Romanists) almost unanimously supported the right of James ;
and, but for their religion, their loyalty probably would have
been unanimous ; and Dr. Lingard admits that the King felt
inclined to grant them some partial indulgence. The open
toleration of their religion the country would not have en
dured. Thousands were still alive who remembered that
reign of horror which some of their degenerate posterity have
taken such pains to bury in oblivion. The nation was
imbued with too deep a spirit of unfeigned attachment to the
great truths of Christianity itself, to look upon Romanism
with the lukewarmness of the present age. It was therefore
boldly impolitic in the King to shew them so much regard
as he is acknowledged to have done. He invited them to
frequent his court ; he conferred on several the honour of
knighthood ; and he promised to shield them from the penal
ties of recusancy, so long as by their loyal and peaceable
demeanour they should deserve the royal favour. This
benefit, though it fell short of their expectations, they ac-
cepted with gratitude.1 By most it was cherished as a pledge
of subsequent and more valuable concessions ; and the Pontiff
Clement VIII., now that Elizabeth was no more, determined
to cultivate the friendship of the new King. Thus Dr.
Lingard would, as it were, introduce his reader to Pope
Clement VIII. ; but it is well inserted, a now that Elizabeth
was no more," for had her life been spared, the Pope's breves
in the hands of Garnet were to have operated to the depriva
tion of King James of his right. Dr. Lingard gravely informs
his reader that the Pope also sent strict commands in two
breves directed to the arch-priest and the provincial of the
Jesuits, to the intent that the missionaries (for this is the
name given by the Romish Church to her clergy in this most
benighted kingdom) should confine themselves to their spiri
tual duties, and discourage every attempt to disturb the public
tranquillity. These breves he should have sent earlier, for
he knew full well that his missionaries were used to such
plots and conspiracies as those which had so often endangered
the life of Elizabeth. These breves too were sent to Garnet,
the same to whom had been entrusted those treasonable breves
to keep James out of the throne of this kingdom.
Already one plot had been discovered in which two priests
were engaged, one of whom confessed that the Jesuits who
betrayed him, and that when he and they were in a state
of mutual hostility, had first led him into the crime. The
priest Watson, at the gallows, alluding to the former disputes
between himself and the Jesuits, said, " he forgave and desired
to be forgiven of all, namely, that the Jesuits would forgive
him if he had written over-eagerly against them ; saying also
that it was occasioned by them, whom he forgave, if they had
cunningly and covertly drawn him into the action for which
he suffered.1 Watson himself had his accomplices, of whom
it is not clear that all were brought to justice. So did
Romanism attempt to overturn the government when the
King had been scarcely three months upon his throne.
Thus rendered insecure by those who turned religion into
rebellion, and faith into faction, his person and kingdom were
guarded in his first Parliament by additional fences to protect
our country against the insidious policy of Rome. Fresh
cautions were framed against the missionary-priests, and
legal disabilities were attached to those who studied in the
foreign universities.2
The second plot was that of 1605, which the reader may
find palliated in Dr. Lingard's History, who is followed to
some extent by the anonymous continuator of Sir James
Mackintosh's History of England?
On May 1, 1604, the five Gunpowder conspirators, Robert
Catesby, Thomas Winter, Thomas Percy, a distant relation
and steward to the Duke of Northumberland, John Wright,
and Guido Fawkes, after having sworn each other to secresy,
received the host at the hands of John Gerard a Jesuit. The
only two who survived (for Catesby, Percy, and Wright were
slain resisting their pursuers) declared that Gerard had no
knowledge of the conspiracy. This was but a pretext. Their
assembling was itself an extraordinary proceeding. Catesby
and Winter were well-known agitators. After Catesby had
once escaped the block, he attached himself, says Dr. Lingard,
to the Spanish party amongst the Bomanists, and bore a
considerable share in their intrigues to prevent the succession
of the Scottish monarch.1 Such were the communicants • no
wonder that they made choice of a Jesuit for their celebration
of these mysteries.
We have heard Dr. Lingard in one place speaking of the
pacific disposition of Pope Clement VIII.;2 in another, he
owns that Catesby, the originator of the plot, defended it to
Garnet on the ground of the two breves of Clement VIII.
for the exclusion of the Scottish King from the succession.
"If," he argued, "it were lawful to prevent James from
coming in after his promise of toleration, it could not be
wrong to drive him out after his breach of that promise."
Thus does Dr. Lingard himself bear witness to the Pope's
duplicity. It is observable, too, that Garnet, instead of
condemning the conspirator on the simple ground of the
atrocity of his design, opposes to his plans two letters of the
Pope advising him (Garnet) to discourage all attempts against
the state ;3 letters, the sincerity of which Catesby, no inex
perienced politician, could appreciate at their real value.
But the guilt of both parties is sufficiently clear from the
result of their most conscientious conference. In conclusion,
a sort of compromise was accepted, that a special messenger
should be despatched to Borne with a correct account of the
state of the English Catholics, and that nothing should be
done on the part of the conspirators till an answer had been
received from the Pontiff."4 Thus the Jesuit and the con
spirator were both agreed that the plot might proceed with
the Pope's permission. Nay, Garnet himself, who had just
pleaded the Pope's pacific letters, was (according to Dr.
I Lingard) fearful that his Holiness would countenance the plot.
If he had not such apprehensions, why should he secretly add
a request that the Holy Father would prohibit under censure
a recourse to arms? Such was the casuistry of the Pope
and of Garnet. Garnet was but an ill teacher of loyalty
who had been judged by such a Pope traitor enough to be
the keeper of breves denying the right of James to his crown.
Dr. Lingard concedes that his martyr Garnet, who he says
was only guilty of misprision of treason, constantly practised
equivocation and falsehood when examined touching the
conspiracy, nay, even justified the confirmation of equivo
cation by the taking of oaths, or by the receiving of the
sacrament.
Bates, Catesby's man, was sent to a Jesuit by name
Tesmond, and revealed to him the whole plot in confession.
Tesmond highly applauded the design, and gave him the
host to confirm him in his purpose. So Bates confessed, as
Bishop Andrewes has recorded in his Tortura Torti* Our
prelate appears to affirm that Gerard himself administered
to the five conspirators the oath of secresy.
A third Jesuit, Oldcorn (alias Hall), after the detection of
the conspiracy, justified it.
Twice was Garnet consulted with respect to the guilt
of involving the innocent in any fatal calamity in a case of
necessity when some great end called for it. Dr. Lingard
notices but one such occasion. On the first occasion Green-
well (Dr. Lingard' s Greenway} was present with Catesby.
The second time the same question was put on Moorfields,
and a more direct answer returned, lt that] the innocent might
lawfully be blown up with the guilty, and that it would be
highly meritorious if it should bring any great advantage
to the Catholics."1
Garnet confessed that from Catesby he knew that a plot
was in agitation before he knew it in detail, and that he was
guilty both for concealing it and not preventing it.2 Nay,
Garnet said prayers and offered up masses for the success
of the plot,3 and an order was issued to all the Jesuits to use
certain special prayers for the furtherance of an object that
was in the mind of their superior (Garnet), and which was
to be a great benefit to the Catholic cause. Scarcely four
days before that memorable one in which the plot was to
have been executed, Garnet was at Coughton in Warwick
shire (the very place whither the other conspirators were to
have gathered to him, if the plot had not failed), and there
enjoined his auditors to pray for the success of the act which
was then about to take place.4
So much for the innocence of Dr. Lingard's and his
Church's martyr, Garnet.
The excuse that Dr. Lingard urges and that Bellarmine
urged in his behalf was, that he had only kept that secret
which had been delivered under the seal of confession ; but
the Komish historian admits that Garnet was brought to
some concessions even on this point, only after his trial.1 Dr.
Lingard does not enlighten his readers by telling them that
the excuse of the seal of confession was one that would not
have been allowed in France, and one on which there existed
a diversity of opinion at least at that time in his own com
munion. It is true indeed that in Ireland, if not in England,
this profane doctrine of the inviolability of treason when
communicated in confession is maintained by the Eomish
priesthood, a proof that Eomanism is as little to be trusted
now as in the darkest ages of its supremacy.
Cardinal Bellarmine, whose pen was equally ready to
write books of devotion and treatises of rebellion, affirmed
that his Church did not permit any other conduct than that
of the holy and incomparable martyr Garnet, for so this
traitor was esteemed at Kome. Bishop Andrewes adduces
various examples of the revealing of treason communicated in
confession by priests in France.2 He remarks that Bellarmine
says truly, ( permits not] for that it is certain that formerly it
did permit such disclosures. uWho," asks Bishop Andrewes,
lt is ignorant of that verse, Hceresis est crimen, quod nee confessio
ccelat?" Heresy is a crime which not even confession conceals.
The secresy for which Bellarmine pleads, and which Dr.
Lingard does not condemn, is disapproved by Alexander de
Hales, the master of whom both Bonaventura and Aquinas
learnt. It is also disclaimed utterly by Angelus & Clavasio,
an Italian who lived about A.D. 1480. He affirms that the
priest is bound to reveal any evil that is in meditation against
the state and that he shall have heard in confession. The
same is the equally decided opinion of Sylvester Prierias,
master of the Pope's Palace, who wrote against Luther.
Nicholas of Palermo, one of the greatest canonists of the
15th century, reports also that the same was the opinion of
Pope Innocent the Fourth, who died in 1254. And so Domi-
nicus a Soto, confessor to the Emperor Charles V., and present
at the Council of Trent in 1545. * But a new doctrine arose
after the time of the Reformation, and probably only with
a view to its extinction and to the concealment of the multi
plied conspiracies by which Protestant princes were assailed,
at the instigation more especially of the still tolerated and
flourishing order of Jesuits.
Garnet equivocated not only in regard of facts but of
doctrine. Upon his trial, defending himself upon the ques
tion of the Pope's deposing power, he who had been the
keeper of breves to prevent the accession of King James,
pretended that although the Pope had power to depose
Catholic princes, he made a difference in the matter of
excommunicating and deposing of princes, betwixt the con
dition and state of our king and of others, who having
sometimes been Catholics, did or shall afterwards fall back.2
Afterwards the Earl of Salisbury put the question to him,
Whether in case the Pope, per sententiam orthodoxam, should
excommunicate the King's Majesty of Great Britain, his
subjects were bound to continue their obedience? To this
Garnet denied to answer.3
The Attorney-General observed that Garnet might and
ought to have discovered the mischief for preservation of the
State, though he had concealed their persons.4 It may be
added that he might have both done this and secured the
lives of the conspirators, who, upon timely warning, might
all have fled, and would certainly have been protected by
the King of Spain in his dominions, the fomenter himself
of rebellion and treason. Dr. Lingard must have been aware
of this, who yet evidently sympathizes with these incen
diaries.
Garnet died a true Romanist, imploring the Virgin Mary
to receive him at the hour of his death, using these words
of their idolatrous hymn —
"Maria mater gratise,
Mater misericordiae,
Tu me a malo protege,
Et hora mortis suscipe." x
The atrocity and almost incredible viciousness of Garnet's
private life is set forth by Dr. Abbot (afterwards Bishop of
Salisbury) in the preface2 to his Antilogia. Bishop Andrewes
alludes in plain terms to his unlawful attachment to the female
who was permitted to converse with him when in the Tower.
Such was the man whose piety is commended by Bellarmine,
and who was regarded by some of his own communion as a
martyr, and one whose innocence was attested by a miracle.
In 1674 appeared A Discourse concerning the Original of
the Powder Plot, together with a Relation of the Conspiracies
against Queen Elizabeth^ and the Persecutions of the Protestants
in France to the Death of Henry the Fourth, &c. This work
consists of two parts, the first by the editor, the second a
translation from De Thou of his account of the Parisian
massacre in 1572, and of the Gunpowder Plot.
The author observes that " this was not the first time that
this means hath been proposed by confederates of that party,
for the destruction and murder of our princes, for it had been
long before proposed by one Moody to be laid under Queen
Elizabeth's bed and secretly fired."
But there is a passage of the Jesuit Martin Del Rio
(otherwise Delrius} in his Disquisitiones Magicce^ printed
about five years before the conspiracy, in which it is actually
anticipated and resolved that, being revealed in confession
as a thing not yet executed but resolved upon, it is most
agreeable to the sanctity of confession that it should not be
revealed. And for this resolution of this case of conscience
the Jesuit refers to the opinion of the then Pope, Clement VIII. ,
the same who conspired against the accession of King James
by sending breves to England with a view to raise to the
throne Arabella Stuart. This book of the Jesuit Del Rio,
printed about five years before the plot was discovered, may
be seen in the Bodleian Library, and after the discovery
of the plot the book was reprinted in 1617 with the same
passages retained.2 The opinion that sins deliberately intended to be committed should be revealed by the priest Del Rio condemns as dangerous and tending to withdraw men from confession ; and therefore he concludes that the
contrary opinion is altogether to be followed, that it is not
lawful to detect even treason against the State. He puts
the case, " A malefactor confesses that himself or some
other hath put powder or something else under such an
entry (or groundsel), and except it be taken away the house
will be burnt, the Prince destroyed, and as many as go into
or out of the city will come to great mischief or hazard ;" and
then resolves for the negative, that the priest ought not to
reveal this confession, owning that herein he differed from
others of his communion, but alleging that this seems to
be the mind of Pope Clement VIII. himself. Then he
proceeds to justify the concealing of such crimes by equivocation and falsehood ; nay, he must not reveal such even to the Pope. This carries with it a great air of consistency.
And here it may be observed that the Romish religion
itself is a religion of subtleties, equivocations, and evasions.
Thus both Bishop Andrewes, and after him Bishop Abbot,
in his Antilogia, expose the shuffling of Bellarmine with
respect to the Pope's deposing power over princes. Thus
the Romish distinctions respecting image- worship, and the
mediation of Christ and of the saints, and the higher and
inferior worship, the one due to him, the other to them.
Garnet was not the first equivocator ; it had grown into
a system and had been frequently practised by others before
him. And not only the Jesuit Garnet, but Black well, the
head or arch-priest of the secular or parochial clergy of that
communion in England, sanctioned a book recommending
equivocation.
The second volume of Criminal Trials, published in 1835
in the Library of Entertaining Knowledge, and printed by
Charles Knight, Ludgate Street, is entirely occupied with
the Gunpowder Plot, and is the fullest account of it that
has hitherto appeared. It professes to be for the most part
taken from the collection of original documents respecting
the plot, preserved in the State Paper Office, and arranged
and indexed some years ago by Mr. Lemon. The writer
of the preface observes that, " although it was not thought
expedient by the Privy Council of James I. to publish to
the world much information respecting the plot, it is clear
from the existence of this mass of evidence, that they were
in possession of full knowledge of its minutest details.
Perhaps no conspiracy in English history was ever more
industriously inquired into. For nearly six months the
inquiry almost daily occupied the earnest attention of the
commissioners appointed by the King to examine the
witnesses and prisoners, during the whole of which time
their labours were zealously aided by Chief Justice Popham,
Sir Edward Coke, Sir Francis Bacon, and several others of
the most acute and experienced lawyers of the day. More
than five hundred depositions of witnesses and real or sup
posed confederates were taken, a large proportion of which,
together with numerous contemporary letters and papers
relating to the transaction, are still in existence at the State
Paper office."
This writer informs us, in the next page that, " for many
years previously to the passing of the Catholic Belief Bill,
whilst the propriety of that measure was the subject of
animated discussion in every session of Parliament, proposals
for the publication of these papers were discouraged from just
and laudable motives, under a reasonable apprehension that
such a publication, sanctioned as it must have been in some
measure by the Government would have tended to prejudice
that great question" The writer who can justify such conduct
may at least be trusted in the witness which he unwillingly
bears to the reasonableness of the remaining prejudices of his
Protestant fellow-countrymen, and such witness this publi
cation does bear.
But a little after this he adds that the papers of this
collection most materially concerning Garnet and the Jesuits
are now missing. " Although the documents upon the subject
of the Gunpowder Plot preserved at the State Paper Office are
very numerous, and constitute a body of evidence of incalculable
value to the historical inquirer, the collection is not by any
means complete. Many important papers, which were par
ticularly mentioned and abstracted1 by Bishop Andrewes, Dr.
[afterwards Bishop] Abbot, Casaubon, and other contemporary
writers, and some of which were copied by Archbishop Bancroft
from the originals so lately as the close of the 17th century,
are not now to be found. It is remarkable that precisely those
papers which constitute the most important evidence against
Garnet and the other Jesuits are missing ; so that if the merits
of the controversy respecting their criminal implication in the
plot depended upon the fair effect of the original documents
now to be found in the State Paper Office, impartial readers
might probably hesitate to form a decided opinion against
them." The advocate of the Jesuits, Dr. Lingard, is silent
upon this most remarkable incident. Our author proceeds :
" The papers of particular importance upon this part of the
subject are the minutes of an overheard conversation between
Garnet and Oldcorne in the Tower, dated the 25th February,
1605-6 ; an intercepted letter from Garnet addressed to " the
Fathers and Brethren of the Society of Jesus," dated on
Palm Sunday, a few days after his trial ; and an intercepted
letter to Greenway [Green well], dated April 4, 1605-6. That
all of these papers were in the State Paper Office in 1613,
when Dr. Abbot wrote his Antilogia, is evident from the
copious extracts from them published in that work; and a
literal copy of the first of them, made by Archbishop Bancroft
many years afterwards from the state papers, is still in existence.
The originals of these documents, and many others mentioned
by Dr. Abbot and Bancroft, are, however, not to be found in
the proper depository for them; and it is undoubtedly a
singular accident that, amongst so large a mass of documents,
precisely those should be abstracted upon whose authenticity
the question so hotly disputed between the Catholics and
Protestants mainly depended."1
Dr. Lingard builds considerably upon three Jesuits, two of
them, if not all three, friends o/"as well as to the conspirators,
Gerard, Greenwell,2 and a third who wrote under the name
of Eudsemon.3 The author of the account in Knight's
Criminal Trials (Mr. Jardine) notices that his real name
was L'Heureux, that he was a native of Candia, and a very
learned Jesuit who taught theology at Padua, and was
appointed by Pope Urban VIII. Eector of the Greek College
at Koine.* And the controversy to which this Eudsemon
gave occasion, affords us an incidental proof of the authen
ticity of the papers now missing. For, says our author of
Abbot — who undertook his Antilogia in 1613, in answer to
Eudsemon-Joannes (who, having first been answered ably
and candidly by Isaac Casaubon in his Epistle to Fronto
Duceeus in 1611), rejoined in 1612 that " it is manifest from
the contents of this work (the Antilogia) that during its
composition Dr. Abbot had free access to all the docu
mentary evidence against Garnet which was in the pos
session of the government. This he would readily obtain
through his brother the Archbishop of Canterbury ; and
indeed there is a memorandum still existing in the State
Paper Office, which records that on the 9th of October, 1612,
a great number of the documents relating to the plot, together
with the Treatise of Equivocation found in Tresham's desk,
were delivered to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that on
the 1st of July, 1614, they were again returned by him to
their proper depository."1
On the night of the 5th of November there was to be a general
meeting of the friends of the conspirators at Dunchurch in War
wickshire, under the pretence of hunting on Dunsmoor Heath,
from which place, as soon as they received notice that the
blow was struck, a party was to be despatched to seize the
Princess Elizabeth at the house of Lord Harrington, near
Coventry.2 With a view to this arrangement Sir Everard
Digby (one of the conspirators) removed Lady Digby and
his family, and with them Father Garnet, to Coughton Hall,
near Alcester, in the same county, which then belonged to
Mr. Thomas Throckmorton.3 On Saturday the 26th of
October the plot was discovered by the letter to Lord
Monteagle. On Sunday the 3rd of November Sir Everard
Digby rode from Coughton to Dunchurch. Some of the
conspirators were at Ashby St. Legers, the residence of
Lady Catesby, mother of Catesby the conspirator.4 About
six o'clock in the evening, just as the conspirators Robert
Winter and his companions were about to sit down to supper
with the lady of the mansion, Catesby, Percy, the two
Wrights, and Eookwood, fatigued and covered with dirt,
arrived with the news of the apprehension of Fawkes and the
total overthrow of the main design of the plot. After a
short conference, the whole party taking with them all the
arms they could find, rode off to Dunchurch. There they
found the house (Coughton Hall) filled with a large party of
anxious and excited guests ; for, though only a few were
informed of the specific nature of the intended atrocity, all
were aware that some great and decisive blow was about to be
struck in London for the Romish cause, the intelligence of
which they were that night to receive.1
Thus, besides the conspirators, many there were that
consented ; and what were the consciences of this large
party of anxious and excited guests ? and in what rank and
condition of life were they? Gentlemen, as was the boast
of Fawkes and Greenway.2 And there is little doubt but
that the conspirators would have been joined by many, if
the plot had not so suddenly and providentially failed. But
where they expected to be received they were, after the
detection of their schemes, repulsed for having brought ruin
on the cause they had purposed to restore.3
We are told that the Romanists as a body abhorred the
plot ; yet we find one conspirator, Greenway or Greenwell,
in favour with the Pope, and others safe under the protection
of Komish Sovereigns. " Baldwin, a Jesuit in Flanders, and
Hugh Owen had been implicated in various previous plots
against the English government, and the suspicions of their
acquaintance with the Powder Plot were confirmed by the
statements of Fawkes and Winter. A requisition was
therefore made to the Archduke in Flanders to deliver up
these individuals to the English government, and also to
secure the person of Sir William Stanley, upon which much
negotiation and correspondence passed through Sir Thomas
Edmondes the English ambassador at Brussels ; and Lord
Salisbury states to Sir T. Edmondes that the object was to
confront them with the other conspirators, whose trials were
delayed for that purpose. Eventually the Archduke, after
referring to the King of Spain, refused to comply with the
requisition.
Such was the spirit of Komanism that it led foreign princes
to shelter this conspiracy and to open their arms to these
men of blood, to become partakers of their guilt, and, by
withholding from James the means of detecting the con
spirators, proving to the world that their religion sanctioned
every kind of injustice towards those who did not embrace it.
In like manner one and another of the English Romanists
secreted the Jesuit Greenway, and thus gave him oppor
tunities of escape from justice.1 There was abundant testi
mony that both Greenway and Garnet, with full knowledge
of what had happened in London, joined the conspirators at
Haddington while they were in arms against the government.2
The author of the second volume of Criminal Trials
regards the plot as a purely Jesuit plot. He writes, " It
ought to be remembered that all the avowed conspirators
belonged to the Jesuit faction."3 But this little avails to
clear the character of the Romish laity. The Treshams, the
Winters, William Lord Vaux of Harrowden, the Abingdons,
and others, are incontestable indications of the facility with
which the Romish religion enables her priesthood to corrupt
the loyalty of her laity. The Romish faith was in truth
practically indebted to the Jesuits, and hence, as it owned
them, it unavoidably partook, and ever will partake, of their
disgrace.
The very fact of the recognition of a body who justified
doing evil that good might come, who taught a system of
equivocation and perjury, and solemnly maintained the piety
of such practices, has branded the Komish Church with a
stigma that can never be erased. This was the true cause
of the severe enactments touching recusancy, resorting to
Popish worship, harbouring seminary priests, &c. The state
was never safe whilst there were Jesuits in the country. And
as every kind of disguise was resorted to by them, it only
remained for the state to treat with suspicion every individual
who taught, and to watch narrowly every individual who
professed, the Romish religion.
But, on the other hand, the whole blame of treason and
disloyalty must not be laid upon the Jesuits. They have
truly said in their own behalf, that the doctrine of the Pope's
power of deposing princes, and if so, by consequence, the
papist's duty to rebel against the deposed, was not peculiar
to them. They were the deepest politicians, the most
unscrupulous, the most conscientiously unconscientious ; but
the religion itself, which, in not disavowing the Popes who
were the authors of these treasonable doctrines, gave them
advantages in promulgating it, the religion itself is to blame.
Since the publication of the second volume of Criminal
Trials another edition of Dr. Lingard' s History has appeared,1
in which he admits the genuineness of the letter of Garnet
1 to his beloved fathers and brethren.' This letter Dr.
Lingard had previously declared a forgery, but fresh light
has broken in upon him. In this letter he confessed to his
beloved fraternity that he had implicated Greenwell or
Greenway, which he should not have done, but that he
understood that he was safe upon the continent. It was well
for Dr. Lingard to withdraw his attack upon this letter, for he
had given to his readers a misrepresentation of the contents of
the letter itself, which was detected by the author of this
second volume. " Garnet is made to say," says Dr. Lingard
'that had he not known that Greenway was in the tower,
he would have invented some other fiction.' What Garnet
is really represented to have said is the reverse of this."1
Other misconceptions (to call them by no severer a name)
Dr. Lingard has continued to indulge, misconceptions most
ably removed by the author just cited in the concluding
pages of his most interesting volume.
This author bears impartial testimony to the fidelity and
ability both of Bishop Abbot's Antilogia and of Bishop
Andrewes' Tortura Torti? A most remarkable circumstance
it is that two men could have been found zealous to palliate
a traitor such as Garnet, one a layman, the other a clergyman
of the Church of Rome, Mr. Butler and Dr. Lingard. Both
of these could not but be aware that if Garnet had but for
one week instead of for five months a previous knowledge
of the plot, he might have given notice of it, and by so doing
have gained as great a reputation for that most plotting of
all societies, as now he has obtained for them an infamy
which they will never survive.
How little sympathy with true patriotism can be tolerated
by the Eomish communion, or can consist with a zealous
adherence to that system, may be seen from the fact that in
the Circle of the Seasons — a work full of interest in a variety
of points, and recommended to the general reader by the
most plentiful interspersion of poems and quotations — it is
more than insinuated that there was no such plot as that
of 1605.
King James, notwithstanding this fresh proof of the
insecurity to which he and his kingdom stood exposed, was
inclined to lenient measures. Doubtless the firm adherence of
his royal mother to the Church of Home was the ground of
that undue regard for the Romanists which he evinced to the
very last, to the loss of his popularity, and to the ruin of his
posterity. But the kingdom, more than ever awake to the
true character of the Church of Rome, which now looked upon
Garnet as a martyr whose innocence was attested by miracles,
demanded that the public security should be protected by
greater restraints tupon the Romish party, and amongst these
restraints was the new oath of allegiance.
"That James," writes Dr. Lingard, "in the proposal
of the last measure, had the intention of gradually relieving
one portion of his Catholic subjects from the burden of the
penal laws, is highly probable ; but whether those to whom
he committed the task of framing the oath, Archbishop Abbot
and Sir Christopher Perkins, a conforming Jesuit, were ani
mated with similar sentiments, has been frequently disputed.
They were not content with the disclaimer of the deposing
power ; they added a declaration that to maintain it was
impious, heretical, and damnable." And why, it may be
asked, should Dr. Lingard object to this? What should
hinder the Pope's making use of the deposing power, if that
power was lawful and admitted to be so on religious grounds ?
But if every soul is to be obedient to the higher powers (the
civil magistrate), and that by the Word of God, why should
a Christian believe other of the Pope's assumed deposing
power, than that it is damnable in him to exercise it, or in
others to give heed to it? What worse heresy than that
which merges all power in the ecclesiastical; a heresy that
would represent the religion of nature and of revelation as
diametrically opposed? What more impious than thus to
set the ministers of the Church above the Word of God ?
There was moreover an especial reason for framing the
oath in such decided terms. The Romanists were taught
that although equivocation was a duty when priests were
to be screened and other good ends maintained, it was not
lawful to deny the faith. Thus Satan, even as a teacher
of falsehood, was careful to appear as an angel of light. But
it would have been a denial of their faith for the Jesuits
and those of the Romanists who thought as highly as they
did of the Pope's authority, to have declared that the exercise
of that power or the admission of it to the deposing of princes
was impious, heretical, and damnable.
Of these fresh restraints and of this oath King James
himself thus speaks in his Premonition to all Christian
Monarchs, Free Princes, and States: "The never enough
wondered at and abhorred Powder Treason (though the
repetition thereof grieveth, I know, the gentle-hearted Jesuit
Parsons), this treason, I say, being not only intended against
me and my posterity, but even against the whole House of
Parliament, plotted only by Papists, and they only led
thereto by a preposterous zeal for the advancement of their
religion, some of them continuing so obstinate that even at
their death they would not acknowledge their fault, but in
their last words, immediately before the expiring of their
breath, refused to condemn themselves and crave pardon
for their deed, except the Romish Church should first
condemn it : and soon after, it being discovered that a great
number of my Popish subjects of all ranks and sexes, loth
men and women, as well within as without the country, had
a confused notion and an obscure knowledge that some great
thing was to be done in that Parliament for the weal of
the Church, although, for secresy's cause, they were not
acquainted with the particulars ; certain forms of prayer
having likewise been set down and used for the good success
of that great errand ; adding hereunto, that divers times, and
from divers priests, the archtraitors themselves received the
sacrament for confirmation of their heart and observation of
secrecy ; some of the principal Jesuits likewise being found
guilty of the foreknowledge of the treason itself, of which
number some fled from their trial, others were apprehended
(as holy Garnet himself and Oldcorne were) and justly
executed upon their own plain confession of guilt ; if this
treason now, clad with the'se circumstances, did not minister
a just occasion to that Parliament House, whom they thought
to have destroyed, courageously and zealously at their next
sitting down, to use all means of trial, whether any more
of that mind were yet left in the country ; I leave it to you to
judge whom God hath appointed his highest depute judges
upon earth : and amongst other things for this purpose, this
oath of allegiance, so unjustly impugned, was then devised and
enacted. And in case any sharper laws were then made
against the Papists, that were not obedient to the former
laws of the country, if ye will consider the time, place, and
persons, it will be thought no wonder, seeing that occasion
did so justly exasperate them to make severer laws than
otherwise they would have done. The time, I say, being the
very next sitting down of the Parliament after the discovery
of that abominable treason : the place being the same where
they should all have been blown up, and so bringing it
freshly to their memory again : the persons being the
very Parliament-men whom they thought to have destroyed.
And yet so far hath both my heart and government been
from any bitterness, as almost never one of those sharp
additions to the former laws have ever yet been put in
execution.
"And that ye may yet know further, for the more con
vincing of these libellers of wilful malice, who impudently
affirm that this oath of allegiance was devised for deceiving
and entrapping of Papists in points of conscience j the truth
is, that the lower house of Parliament, at the first framing of
this oath, made it to contain that the Pope had no power to
excommunicate me, which I caused them to reform, only
making it to conclude that no excommunication of the Pope
can warrant my subjects to practise against my person or
state, denying the deposition of kings to be in the Pope's
lawful power, as indeed I take any such temporal violence
to be far without the limits of such a spiritual censure as
excommunication is. So careful was I that nothing should
be contained in this oath, except the profession of natural
allegiance and civil and temporal obedience, with a promise
to resist all contrary uncivil violence."1
The oath was as follows : tl I A. B. do truly and sincerely
acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare in my conscience
before God and the world, that our Sovereign Lord King
James is lawful king of this realm, and of all other his
Majesty's dominions and countries : and that the Pope
neither of himself nor by any authority of the Church or
see of Rome, or by any other means with any other, hath any
power or authority to depose the King, or to dispose of any of
his Majesty's kingdoms or dominions, or to authorize any
foreign prince to invade or annoy him or his countries, or to
discharge any of his subjects of their allegiance and obedience
to his Majesty, or to give license or leave to any of them to
bear arms, raise tumults, or to offer any violence or hurt to
his Majesty's royal person, state, or government, or to any of
his Majesty's subjects within his Majesty's dominions. Also
I do swear from my heart that, notwithstanding any declara
tion or sentence of excommunication, or deprivation made
or granted, or to be made or granted, by the Pope or his suc
cessors, or by any authority derived or pretended to be derived
from him or his see, against the said King, his heirs or suc
cessors, or any absolution of the said subjects from their
obedience ; I will bear faith and true allegiance to his Majesty,
his heirs and successors, and him and them will defend to the
uttermost of my power, against all conspiracies and attempts
whatsoever which shall be made against his or their persons,
their crown and dignity, by reason or colour of any such
sentence or declaration, or otherwise, and will do my best
endeavour to disclose and make known unto his Majesty,
his heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous con
spiracies which I shall know or hear of to be against him
or any of them. And I do further swear that I do from my
heart abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical, this
damnable doctrine and position, that princes which be ex-
communicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or
murthered by their subjects or any other person whatsoever.
And I do believe, and in conscience am resolved, that neither
the Pope nor any other person whatsoever, hath power to
^absolve me of this oath, or any part thereof, which I acknow
ledge by good and full authority to be lawfully ministered
unto me, and do renounce all pardons and dispensations to the
contrary. And all these things I do plainly and sincerely
acknowledge and swear, according to these express words
by me spoken, and according to the plain and common sense
and understanding of the same words, without any equivo
cation, or mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever.
And I do make this recognition and acknowledgment
heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a
Christian. So help me God."1
This oath was condemned by the Pope (Paul the Fifth)*
who in his bull dated at Rome ' at S. Mark, under the sign
of the fisherman, the 10th of the calends of October,2 1606,
the second year of our Popedom,' 3 decided that such an oath
could not be taken without hurting of the Catholic faith
and the salvation of souls, tl seeing it contains many things
which are flat contrary to faith and salvation. Wherefore we
do admonish you that you do utterly abstain from taking this
and the like oaths," &c.
The English Eomanists not being all of the mind of the
Jesuits, were divided respecting this bull. Many of them
treated it as a forgery, and amongst them Blackwell, the
head or arch-priest of the seculars.4 Upon this the Pope
drew up a second brief or bull, dated the 10th of the calends
of September,5 1607. This disobedient spirit the Pope in
this brief attributed to the suggestions of the Devil, to the
"subtlety and craft of the enemy of man's salvation;" and
he assured them that it was not without mature deliberation
that he wrote to them his first letter.6
And now the disloyalty of the English Eomanists being
thus tested, many of them bade adieu to their native country
sooner than deny this article of their faith, that the Pope is
supreme over kings and princes, to set up and to pull down
at his pleasure. Some indeed would rather dare the Papal
fulminations than commit themselves to his treasons. The'
missionaries (so Dr. Lingard calls the Romish priesthood in this
country1) were divided in opinion. Some followed Blackwell,
some the Pope. The Jesuits in general condemned the oath.2
And now observe the effect of that servile submission of
the understanding which is the very foundation of the Eomish
faith: a priest, by name Drury, thought the oath admis
sible, but " dared not prefer his private sentiments before
those of the Pope," and would rather be executed than
take the oath. If such was the effect of this Papal impiety
upon a priest, what probably would be its effect upon the
laity? Dr. Lingard all but canonizes Drury, and would
seem to intimate that the disloyalty of the priesthood was
very general. Drury tl dared not prefer his private sentiments
before those of the Pope, and of many among his brethren,
and chose to shed his blood rather than pollute his conscience
by swearing to the truth of assertions which he feared might
possibly be false."3 Thus jesuitically does this acute his
torian write about conscience. One can plainly perceive
that Romanism is not yet purified from the subtlety of
Garnet and his brethren. To Blackwell Cardinal Bellarmine
addressed a long and laboured epistle, expostulating with
him for his loyalty in regard of the oath, and pretending
that the oath struck at the Pope's spiritual supremacy.4
In 1608 the King published his Apology for the Oath of
Allegiance, against the two Breves of Pope Paulus Quintus,
and the late Letter of Cardinal Bellarmine to G. Blackwell
the Arch-priest. To this was afterwards prefixed A Premonition
to all most mighty Monarchs} Kings, Free Princes, and States
of Christendom.
Bellarmine had in his letter affirmed, with the usual
effrontery of Jesuit controversialists, that " from the beginning
of the Church's infancy even to this day it was never heard
that ever a Pope either commanded to be killed, or allowed
the slaughter of, any prince whatsoever, whether he were an
heretic, an heathen, or persecutor." The King reminds
Bellarmine of the panegyrical oration made by Pope Sixtus
the Fifth in praise and approbation of the friar that murdered
King Henry the Third of France ; and " besides that vehement
oration and congratulation for that fact, how near it scaped
that the said friar was not canonized for that glorious act,
is better known to Bellarmine and his followers than to us
here."1 " But sure I am," adds the King, " if some Cardinals
had not been more wise and circumspect in that errand than
the Pope himself was, the Pope's own calendar of his saints
would have sufficiently proved Bellarmine a liar in this case.
And to draw yet nearer unto ourselves, how many practices
and attempts were made against the late Queen's life, which
were directly enjoined to those traitors by their confessors,
and plainly authorized by the Pope's allowance. For
verification whereof there needs no more proof than that
never Pope either then or since called any churchman in
question for meddling in any of these treasonable con
spiracies; nay, the Cardinal's own S. Sanderus, mentioned
in his letter, could well verify this truth if he were alive ;
and who will look (into) his books2 will find them filled with
no other doctrine than this. And what difference there is
between the killing or allowing the slaughter of kings, and
the stirring up and approbation of practices to kill them, I
remit to Bellarmine's own judgment."
Then follows a curious list of Bellarmine's theological
contradictions, the King observing that it is the less surprising
that he should contradict himself in matters of fact, who
contradicts himself so frequently in matters of doctrine. In
the latter part of his Apology the King exposes Bellarmine's
anarchical positions respecting the regal authority, as that
obedience due to the Pope is for conscience' sake, but the
obedience due to kings is only for certain respects of order
and policy; people may for many causes depose kings, but
no flesh hath power to judge the Pope ; and that the obe
dience - of ecclesiastics to princes is not by way of any
necessary subjection, but only out of discretion and for
observation of good order and custom.1
In the Premonition the King notices the answers of the
Jesuit Parsons and of Bellarmine (under the name of Mat-
thceus Tortus) to his Apology, and having animadverted upon
Parsons in a style sententiously suited to his deserts,2 returns
to Bellarmine, and lays before his readers the insolence and
scurrility of that unprincipled advocate of the Papal su
premacy.3 He then shews the authority which the earlier
Christian kings and emperors exercised over the Popes.
The Popes depended upon the emperors for their confirm
ation, and were in a manner tributary to them to about
the end of the seventh century.4 The Emperor Otho
deposed Pope John XII. for divers crimes, and especially
for impurity.5 The Emperor Henry the Third in a short
time deposed three Popes, Benedict the Ninth, Sylvester
the Third, and Gregory the Sixth, as well for the sin of
avarice as for abusing their extraordinary authority against
kings and princes.6
The King proceeds with the history of the right of
investiture : " As Walthram testifieth that the Bishops
of Spain, Scotland, England, Hungary, from ancient insti
tution till this modern novelty, had their investiture by
kings, with peaceable enjoying of their temporalities wholly
and entirely."
He mentions how the Queen his mother would not have
the ceremony of spittle used at his baptism, and the last
message she sent to him, that although she was of another
religion than that wherein he was brought up, yet she would
not press him to change except his own conscience forced
him to it.1
The King next clears himself of the charge of heresy. " I
am such a Catholic Christian as believeth the three Creeds,
that of the Apostles, that of the Council of Nice, and that
of Athanasius, the two latter being paraphrases to the former.
And I believe them in that sense as the antient Fathers and
Councils that made them did understand them, to which three
Creeds all the ministers of England do subscribe at their
ordination. And I also acknowledge for orthodox all those
other forms of Creeds that either were devised by Councils
or particular Fathers against such particular heresies as most
reigned in their times.
el I reverence and admit the first four general Councils as
catholic and orthodox. And the said four general Councils
are acknowledged by our Acts of Parliament, and received for
orthodox by our Church.
11 As for the Fathers, I reverence them as much and more
than the Jesuits do, and as much as themselves ever craved.
For whatever the Fathers for the first five hundred years did
with an unanime consent agree upon to be believed as a
necessary point of salvation, I either will believe it also, or at
least will be humbly silent, not taking upon me to condemn the
same. But for every private Father's opinion, it binds not my
conscience more than Bellarmine's, every one of the Fathers
usually contradicting others. I will therefore in that case
follow St. Augustine's rule in judging of their opinions, as
I find them agree with the Scriptures. What I find agree
able thereunto I will gladly embrace, what is otherwise I will
(with their reverence) reject."
To the Virgin Mary the King yields the title of Mother
of God, ll since the divinity and humanity of Christ are
inseparable." "And," he adds, " I freely confess that she is
in glory both above angels and men, her own Son (that is
both God and man) only excepted."1
The worship of reliques and images the King calls without
reserve " damnable idolatry."
The Jesuits he calls Puritan-Papists, and declares that
for himself he was always inclined to episcopacy. And
whatsoever protestations of fidelity to the discipline of the
Kirk the King ever made, he probably spoke the truth when
he affirmed that his heart was at least Episcopalian ; and he
appealed to his erecting of bishoprics, in 1584, and to his
Basilicon Doron, especially to the preface to the second
edition of that work.
The remainder of the Premonition is for the most part
taken up with a dissertation proving that Rome is the Babylon
and the Pope the Antichrist of the Book of Revelation ; thus
also applying St. Paul's prophecy in the second chapter of
his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. The Church of
Rome he describes as " full of idolatries," and " so bloody
in the persecution of the saints, as (that) our Lord shall be
crucified again in his members."2
The two witnesses clad in sackcloth the King inclines to
interpret of the Old and New Testament. " And now whether
this book of the two testaments or two witnesses of Christ
have suffered any violence by the Babylonian monarchy
or not, I need say nothing. The thing speaks for itself.
I will not weary you with recounting those commonplaces
used for disgracing it, as calling it a nose of wax, a dead
letter, a leaden rule, a hundred such-like phrases of reproach.
But how far the traditions of men and authority of the Church
are preferred to these witnesses doth sufficiently appear in the
Babylonian doctrine. And if there were no more but that
little book [by Cardinal Perron] with that pretty inscription,
Of the Insufficiency of Holy Scripture, it is enough to
prove it."
CHAPTER X.
Bishop Andr ewes' " Tortura Torti" — Of the Pope's deposing power
— Of excommunication — Of binding and loosing — The Bulls against
Queen Elizabeth — The words of commission — The Gunpowder Plot
undertaken only from blind zeal — Origin of recusancy — Sacri
legious nature of Romish worship — Rome Babylon — Lord Eal-
merino — The First General Lateran no Council — Pope Innocent
III. — Uncertainty of the doctrine of the Papal supremacy —
Historical accusations against the Church of Rome — Assassination
of Henry IIL — Bellarmine's contradictions — Image worship —
Fisher and More.
IN 1609 Bishop Andrewes followed the King in his con
troversy, and replied to Bellarmine's Matthceus Tortus in
his Tortura Torti. Our author adduces a multitude of
Romanists who denied the Pope's deposing power; John
of Paris, James Almain, Johannes Major, Cardinal Zabarella,
Alberic de Rosate, Antony de Rosellis,1 the Doctors of the
Sorbonne in 1561 and 1591, the Jesuit James Bosgrave,
Blackwell the arch-priest, and others. He follows Bellar-
mine through all his evasions, as that the Pope cannot as
Pope by his ordinary jurisdiction depose princes, but as a
spiritual prince. He refutes Bellarmine's pretence that to
deny the Pope's deposing power is to deny his power to
excommunicate. The former is not included in the latter,
and so not one with it. Theodosius was under the censure
of Ambrose eight months, but none of his subjects withheld
their allegiance to him on that account. Henry the Fourth
of France had been lately crowned, and the oath of allegiance
taken fry his subjects, whilst he was under the Pope's excom
munication.1 By the greater excommunication instituted by
Christ in those words, "If he hear not the Church, let him be
to thee as a heathen man" (Matt, xviii.) that power is en
trusted to the Church, not to St. Peter only. "As an
heathen man" has its limits. It is not lawful to despoil an
heathen of his goods, or to disinherit him, much less to take
from his crown. Heathen kings are certainly exempt from
this power of deposition, but it is absurd that Christian
princes should be in a worse condition. Church censures are
founded on the law of charity, and must not be destructive
of it. Many, too, are the exceptions allowed amongst
Komanists by which the Papal excommunication itself is
nullified. So the Venetians took no notice of the Pope's
censures, and the Council of Tours in 1510 cleared King
Louis the Twelfth of them.
As to the threefold command to Peter, "Feed my sheep"
both Cyril and Augustine teach that the intent of our Lord
appears to have been, by Peter's threefold confession, to wipe
off as it were the stain of his threefold denial. Nor is it safe
to insist upon the Pope's succession from St. Peter ; neither
was the office of feeding Christ's sheep committed to him
alone. The form of election, too, has been repeatedly varied,
and is not sanctioned by Christ himself.6 And certainly
" Feed my sheep" is not the same as uslay the leaders of
my sheep, drive my sheep out of the fold, scatter my sheep,
let their pastures be trodden down and their waters troubled."
1 Keceive the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' and with them
shut out from the kingdoms of the earth ' whatsoever thou shalt
bind,' that is, whatsoever part of guilt or of treason thou shalt
bind the more closely ; 'whatsoever thou shalt loose] that is,
whatsoever bond of law, duty, faith, and oath thou shalt
loosen. There is a great gulph betwixt these.
Our prelate then shews the inconsistency of the Cardinal,
who in one place denies that King James is a Christian, and
in another affirms that he belongs to the Pope's fold, for
neither is he a judge of kings, says Bellarmine, but as they
are Christians.
From the Pope's binding he proceeds to the Pope's loosing
power, that is, as the Cardinal himself has it, his power of
dispensing with censures, laws and oaths, vows, sins, and
punishments. And here again he wittily exposes his con
fusion of words and things. " For sin, censures, and penalties
are wont to be loosed, but laws, oaths, and vows to be bound,
and to be more closely bound ; and if the Pope looseth these
also, what is it that remains for him to bind? Men have
no need to be loosed from their duty, nor from the bond of
their duty; but they are loosed from their duty when they
are loosed from law, and from the bond of their duty when
they are loosed from their oath. Nay, what is more wonderful,
he looses in the same way the law itself and offences against
the law, and both with the like facility. Be it law or be it
an offence against the law, it is all one with him. It is as
easy a thing with the Pope to loose laws as sins. But it
can scarcely be that with one key both these doors, the door
of the commandment and the door of sin, can be opened.
Perchance then there are two keys ; one for opening sins, penal
ties, censures; the other for opening laws, vows, oaths. But
certainly both these cannot be the keys of the kingdom of
heaven. But if the keys for the loosing .of sins are the keys
of the kingdom of heaven, it behoved that the keys of hell
were given for the loosing of laws and the commandments of
laws."3 So no man can be under any obligation either to
God or man, but the Pope may forthwith loose him from it !
"On this ground what shall be sure upon earth? what shall
become of all compacts, treaties, bonds of society whatsoever?
how shall we ever be hereafter sure of any man's faith or
promise?"4 Then with a pun does Bishop Andre wes loosen
the whole fabric of Jesuitical casuistry, saying, ft Potestas
haec quidem solvendi dicenda non erat, sed dissolvendi
omnia." "But surely Bellarmine," says Bishop Andrewes,
"intended to limit the Pope's power of loosing laws. He did
not intend a power to loose the laws of nature upon which
yet the duty of civil obedience is founded ; nor the laws of
the ten commandments, which are, according to Aquinas,
indispensable ; nor yet the evangelical laws, of which that
of St. Peter is one, Be ye subject to the King as supreme:
for this is the will of God. What does your Pope in this
case? Does he loose this law of Peter, and say, 'Be not
subject to the King, although he is supreme ; for this is the
will of the Pope'? I conceive not. He will not put Paul
the Fifth on a par with Peter"*
"But as to oaths David said, / am sworn and am steadfastly
purposed to keep Thy righteous judgments. Peter, if he had
lived at that time, could he have absolved David of this
oath ? Suppose any one binds himself by oath to keep the
seventh commandment, not to commit adultery, can any Pope
absolve him of this oath ? But if a man in like manner bind
himself under the fifth commandment to civil subjection,
what power has the Pope to absolve him in the one case
more than in the other? The Popes dissolve obligations to
fealty, but not to treason ; they loose what ought to be bound,
they bind what ought to be loosed. They acted the part
of jugglers in Queen Elizabeth's reign, playing fast and
loose with their own bulls. In the eleventh year of the
Queen's reign Pope Pius the Fifth published a bull excom
municating and deposing the Queen, and cursing all those
who should yield any obedience to her. Before that time the
Komanists had attended the Protestant service, but now they
absented themselves, and open rebellion broke out in the
northern counties. 'Now truly,' said Sir Edward Coke at
the trial of the traitor Garnet, ' most miserable and dangerous
was the state of Komish recusants in respect of this bull ; for
either they must be hanged for treason in resisting their
lawful sovereign, or cursed by the Pope for yielding due
obedience to her Majesty. But of this Pope it was said
by some of his own favourites, that he was a holy and
learned man, but over-credulous, for that he was informed
and believed that the strength of the Catholics in England
was such as was able to have resisted the Queen. But when
the bull was found to take such an effect, then there was a
dispensation given, both by Pius Quintus himself and Gregory
the Thirteenth, that all Catholics here might procure quiet
and peace by shewing outward obedience to the Queen, but
with these cautions and limitations ; firstly, l Rebus sic stan-
tibusj things so standing as they did; and secondly, c Donee,
publica lullce executio fieri posset, that is, until they should
grow into strength and become able to resist and overcome."1
aA wonderful workman" (says Bishop Andrewes of
Pope Gregory the Thirteenth), "with one and the same
bull he binds and he does not bind. He binds heretics, he
binds not the Catholics ; and the Catholics he binds not, and
yet he does bind. Of a truth the Pope did not redeem the
souls of men, who by perjury makes such a sport of them."2
But Bellarmine fences round this power with " when it is
expedient for the glory of God, or for the salvation of souls."
Then consult history and see whether the theory and the
practice agree. tl This power is exercised not when souls are
hazarded, but when tenths are refused, provision made against
' provisions ,' and sales of indulgences forbidden. This power
is exercised when the Pope's revenue is to be increased,
whilst so many grosses are paid for such a vow solved, so
many florins for such an oath broken, so many gold pieces for
such a law transgressed ; in all which not the glory of God,
but the dishonour of princes ; not the salvation of souls, but
the wasting of their substance is the aim. So long as his
interest is consulted, the glory of God, the salvation of souls
may go where they please."3
Our prelate then returning to the words of commission,
interprets Matt. xvi. by John xx., Whosesoever sins ye remit,
&c.4 This interpretation he supports by Augustine, Theophy-
lact, Pope Adrian the Sixth, Cardinal Hugo, Anselm, Drith-
mar, and Duns Scotus. The promise in Matt. xvi. was
fulfilled in the grant in John xx. Secondly, the promise
was to Peter, not for himself but as representing the Church.
So Origen on Matt, xvi., Jerome in his first book against
Jovinian, Augustine on the 12th chapter of St. John, as also
in other parts of his works, Ambrose on the Dignity of the
Priesthood, Leo the Great in his third sermon on the assump
tion of the Blessed Virgin, Euthymius Zigabenus1 on St.
Matthew, Rabanus Maurus in the Catena of Aquinas on
Matthew, and Hugo a Sto Victore on the Sacraments, with
others of more recent date.2 But as to the oath of allegiance
it did not enter upon the general question of the Pope's
power to dispense with oaths ; it confined itself to his power
of dispensing with this particular oath.3 From the nature
of the oath, which is not for the most part promissory but
assertory, it is plain that he has no power over it. Add to
this the inherent voidness of absolution from civil obedience,
as had been before made manifest.4 He then exposes the
sophistry of Bellarmine in his attempt to shew that the
taking of the oath involves the denial of the Pope's spiritual
supremacy,5 and animadverts upon the assertion in the
Pope's first bull, l that the oath contained many things
plainly contrary to faith and salvation.'6 He then shews
the dishonesty of Bellarmine in mixing up the oath of
supremacy imposed by Henry VIII. with this oath of
King James.7
Bellarmine professed l not to excuse' the conspiracy : ' to
accuse' Bishop Andrewes observes would have been too severe
a word for the Cardinal to use. But how does execration of
the conspiracy consist with sheltering of the conspirators G.
and G.?8 (Greenway and Gerard). This question neither Bel
larmine could then, nor can Dr. Lingard answer now, and yet
the palliator of the Jesuits and of the plot need not be believed
to execrate it more than Bellarmine. Both Lingard and Bel
larmine in some measure justify the exasperated feelings which
they say led to the plot, by representing the Eomanists as
disappointed by the King and as enduring heavy persecution.
''But the King would be safe if he only tolerated the
Komanists." That was by no means certain. Henry the Third
suffered all his subjects to enjoy the free exercise of the Romish
religion, and yet he was assassinated.1 ' No one can deny/ said
Bellarmine, ' that occasion of desperation was given.' c With
what intent,' replies Bishop Andrewes, ' was this said by you,
but to excuse it ? But what though occasion had been given ?
You know what your master saith, l( Occasion doth neither
physically nor morally work anything."2 With him, God
ministers occasion of sinning, but not thereby of excusing
sinners. He exposes the hypocrisy of Clement VIII.,3 which
has before been pointed out. As to the occasion of desperation
he proves that there was none. The plot was contrived in the
very first year of King James's reign.4 No fines were levied
for recusancy until the fifth month of the second year. No
man suffered death, or the loss of all his goods. Yet before the
King was crowned, the priests Clarke and Watson conspired
against him, and the latter on his execution affirmed that the
Jesuits had then acknowledged that they had a great design of
their own on foot, no other than that famous plot of 1605.5 The
fines for recusancy began to be gathered in July, 1604. But in
the following November, when some of the Eomanists presented
a complaint to the King, that at the beginning of his reign,
before his royal intention of not demanding the fines due in
Elizabeth's reign was known, heavy contributions had been
levied upon them, the King ordered that those sums should be
returned to them by the same persons who had collected them,
and so they recovered to the amount of 52,000 florins; and yet
in the very next month were the conspirators engaged in digging
under the walls of the parliament-house.
The reader must not expect to find suck facts recorded by
the veritable historian who has in our day so elaborately
pleaded for the pseudo-martyr Garnet. Again, the confessions
of the conspirators had attested that in some it was zeal, in
others private friendship ^ that induced them to act their detest
able part.1 Some learned men beyond sea had filled them
with the idea that their design was " not only pious, but (as
you are wont to call it) meritorious" As for the oath of al
legiance, it was expressed in the very preamble that it was
for the detecting of those who were in heart disloyal and ready
to join in such plots and conspiracies!2
The bull was false in charging persecution upon the King
and representing the Komanists as martyrs.3 It was a mis
nomer to speak of Apostolical Briefs. He might as well
have called the ink with which they were written, apostolical
ink-, or the lead with which they were sealed, apostolical lead*
Bishop Andrewes returns to speak of the insincerity of the
Popes. They do not desire to cause disobedience to princes,
but they will not suffer men to be bound to obedience. But
Paul the Fifth is willing that obedience should be rendered
to princes according to the Holy Scriptures :5 " where, if
Matthew [Tortus] speak truth, there is good hope. For this
is a new thing in the Pope, that he should define the Holy
Scriptures to be the rule of obedience." Our wish it is that
all these questions should be referred to this rule, the questions
of the Pope's deposing power, &c.6 With great force does he
afterwards observe that this power leaves all princes in pos
session of subjects who are only ' hypothetically faithful.'7
He shortly after lays before the reader the penal laws enacted
in the parliament immediately after the Gunpowder plot.8 He
then relates that in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign
there were not many besides gfcme of the Romish clergy who
absented themselves from our worship and sacraments. They
were so few that the term recusant was not then known, nor
did the law recognize it for ten years. Hence it was plain
that the bull of Pope Pius the Fifth was the cause of recusancy.
Hitherto they had been of the same religion as now, when of
a sudden they became recusants, or refused to attend the
established worship. It was not then a matter of religion, or
why did they not absent themselves from the very first ?
Why then did they cease in the eleventh year of the Queen
from attending our worship ? But what was the effect of the
bull? It introduced at once and in one mass, treason and
recusancy, and gave occasion to the state to regard them as
identical. And the effect of the bull was manifestly both.
For now came both recusancy and the northern insurrection.
Not before faith was discovered to be mixed up with perfidy,
were any penal laws devised ; laws rather fines than punish
ments.1 It is plain then that the laws and fines appointed for
recusancy are not purely laws touching religion, but of a
mixed nature; touching religion mixed up with disloyalty
towards the prince^ touching persons whose civil obedience is
determined ly the Pope's lulls. Such recusants were in the
eye of the laws, and surely without any injustice such might
be punished.2 The Romanists complained of these laws, but
Bellarmine might soothe himself, and answer his own enquiry,
' what greater punishment can be conceived ? ' if he would call
to mind the variety of deaths, even burning to death by slow
fires, which were inflicted in the reign of Queen Mary.3
" But with what colour of truth could you call our sacred
rites sacrilegious? In them is nothing sacred taken away.
Look to it, that that term suit not yours rather, in which the
letter part of the sacred prayers, namely, the mind and under
standing of the person pray ing , and the sacred cup, to wit, the
half of the Eucharist, is by a sacrilegious daring taken away ;
in which a part of divine honor and that which is sacred to
God is given to a wooden image, and stamped bread is? not
without the height of sacrilege, adored for Gfod"1
How must Tortus have writhed beneath this ecclesiastical
scourge! "And equally absurd it is in you to call it an
oath of perfidy, which was made as well for the branding of
past as for the providing against future perfidy ; which is at
this time administered against perfidy, and which will be both
in books and in our laws an eternal memorial to perfidy, and
to the perfidy of your men who bound themselves by a double
obligation to perfidy against their country itself, and against
the father of their country. But ye who dissolve faith, and
oaths the bonds of faith, to the end that men may be per
fidious ; ye who say that faith is not to be kept, that is, that
perfidy is lawful and right, do ye dare mutter anything about
perfidy, or even to name the word to your own disgrace?"2
To the objection of Queen Elizabeth's supremacy he re
turns the spiritual jurisdiction of the abbess, which is more
strictly ecclesiastical. Nay, Aquinas did not confine the
exercise of the power of excommunication to the priesthood.3
The mendacious Sanders, whom Bellarmine had highly lauded,
had the shamelessness to publish to the world that Queen
Elizabeth exercised the ministerial calling.4 But nothing
was too mendacious for the Church of Rome. There was
published an account of the (fabled) persecution in England,
in which it was affirmed that the Catholics were sown up in
the skins of beasts and given to be devoured by dogs j others
were represented as bound to mangers and left to feed upon
hay, others as having their entrails eaten out by dormice.5
It was fit that a doctrine of devils should be maintained by
such devilish means, and that false miracles should be ac-
companied with false legends. Bishop Andrewes cites in
allusion to them the second chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to
the Thessalonians, that God had sent upon them strong de
lusion that they should believe lies.1
In order to vindicate the turbulence and anarchy which
must needs follow the Pope's deposing power, Bellarmine
had ventured to represent Gregory the Great as yielding but
a forced submission to the Emperor Maurice. Our prelate
shews that Gregory taught another and a better doctrine,2 and
severely animadverts upon the opposition of these Papal prin
ciples to those which ennobled the sufferings of the Primitive
Church.3
Cardinal Bellarmine wTas possessed of the same measure of
controversial integrity with Dr. Wiseman and the Jesuit
Harding. This the reader may gather as from his larger
works, so abundantly from his Matthew Tortus*
Our prelate quotes at full length from the acts of the
various Councils5 convened by Charlemagne, and appealed to
by King James in his ' Apology,' and adduces the submission
of Pope Leo the Great (in the point of convening Councils) to
the Emperors Theodosius, Yalentinian, and Martian.6 He
refutes Bellarmine by himself, convicting him of alleging an
epistle to Damasus from the Second General Council, which
epistle Bellarmine had, in his Eecognitio or Censure of Ms own
looks, admitted to be spurious.7 When the Pope's power
waxed great, then were General Councils held in Italy, but
no General Council until nearly the completion of eleven cen
turies. Bellarmine thought no authority too great for the
Pope. He openly avowed that he could make articles to be
received "with Catholic faith."8
Bellarmine would have Rome Babylon sooner than not
have a scripture-proof that St. Peter had been there. Bishop
Andrewes retorted that he might as well have made Mark an
allegorical person as Babylon an allegorical place.1 He then
proceeds at some length to shew that Rome is the Babylon
of the Apocalypse.2 This and the whole question of Anti
christ he discusses at large in his Answer to Bellarminds
Apology.
Cardinal Bellarmine was not afraid to affirm that the
breves entrusted to that very innocent and holy martyr
Garnet, were rather favourable than unfavourable to King
James.3 Bishop Andrewes remarked that Garnet knew other
wise.4 Indeed, had they been for the King, they would have
been boasted of by him and his fraternity. But, said Bel
larmine, the Romanists had hope of King James. This was
not enough for the Pope, who in his breves forbad the
Eomanists to advance the cause of any but of such as would
not only tolerate but promote with all possible earnestness
the cause of their religion.5 Bellarmine appealed to the
King's correspondence with the Pope. This was answered
by the tl Declaration and Confession of the Lord Balmerino,
one of his Majesty's Privy Councillors, concerning some letters
which he caused to be sent without the King's knowledge
and as in his name, to Rome, to Pope Clement the Eighth,
1598.6 A question has been raised whether the King was
not insincere in this business, sacrificing his secretary to screen
himself.7
Our author gives his reason for suspecting the Council
called the first General Lateran Council, A.D. 1215, to be
a forgery. Cochlseus was the first who published it, and that
not before 1538, £ from an old manuscript,' but without adding
a word touching the way in which it came into his hands, or
anything to establish its authority. In 1535 James Merlin
published the Councils, but not a word of this. A Council
was indeed called; nothing was decreed at it. Pope Inno-
cent himself condemned the book of Abbot Joachim; he
himself condemned Almeric, and so Matthew Paris.1
Bishop Andrewes writes satirically of Pope Innocent ex
communicating King John and robbing him of his kingdom,
" 0 virum sanctum ! 0 speculum innocentise !"2 Mr. F. W.
Faber has appeared too late in the world to chastise the good
bishop's irreverent treatment of the holy Father. " We read
the history," says this writer, in a spirit worthy of Bellarmine,
" we read the history of John and his Barons j and, while we
think we are carrying away a clear view of the bigoted,
haughty, secular prelate, how unlike the original is the rude
image we have hewn from the coarse materials of Protestant
history."3 Holy man, he is cursing and anathematizing,
and tumbling the world upside down ; but, good reader, look
into his soul ; it is as clear as the azure vault of heaven.
Only a cloud of penitential sorrow is seen to pass across the
surface of that heavenly breast. He is taking away that
which is another's, and stirring up bloodshed and confusion,
but at the same time (it is Mr. Faber who writes it) he is
" full of godly fear lest his height should make him proud ;
and so, as a penitential safeguard, composing a book on the
seven penitential psalms"! How admirable a piety ! behold
him breathing out his threats against the King, and with
the same breath uttering holy meditations ; spoiling a
monarch of his crown, and glorifying the heavenly grace!
This encomium of Pope Innocent (with whom Laud is
deemed worthy to be placed) was written by one who has,
since he penned the praises of Innocent, gone over wholly
to Rome. Let him erase with his tears, if he can, the 219th
and 220th pages of the Tortura Torti. There he may read
of the Papissa,) John the Eighth, a history, be it remembered,
not of Protestant but of Romish origin, and attested by
monuments, memorials, and traditions still extant.
Bishop Andrewes shews, and principally from Bellarmine's
own writings, the uncertainty of the doctrine of the Papal
supremacy, and that it is hypothesis upon hypothesis.1 He
observes of the very first link in the succession, " As though
God would not have us to depend upon your succession, he
determined that the subject should be uncertain concerning
the first succession of all, concerning the very first successor
of Peter. You yourself know that was made twelve hundred
years and more upon Clement,
Nutat adhuc mundus, sit quartuSj sit ne secundus?
Consider the schisms and heresies of the Popes (as honest
Fuller says, three sitting down at once, Peter's chair was like
to have been broken). Alphonsus a Castro saith, Although
we are bound to believe of faith that Peter's true successor
is the supreme pastor of the whole Church, yet we are not
bound to believe with the same faith that Leo or Clement
is the true successor of Peter, since we are not bound to
believe with Catholic faith that any one of them was rightly
and canonically elected."3 One Pope, John Picus Mirandula
tells us, doubted the immortality of the soul.4
It was weakness in Bellarmine to provoke a contest which
should call forth the testimony of history. Protestant con
troversialists had only to renew the attacks of Jewel in his
Apology and Defence of his Apology, and Eome at once stood
unmasked as the universal traitor, the conspirator as well
against the thrones of the kingdoms of this world as against
truth, the throne of the eternal kingdom of God. He that
will now speak with contempt of Jewel (much more easy it is
to revile him than to refute him) must also enter the lists
with Bishop Andrewes, who follows in his track, and verifies
his historical accusations of the Church of Rome.5
Most admirable is our prelate's exposure of Bellarmine's
sophistry, by which he would even commend the oration
(panegyrical) of the assassination of Henry the Third of
France. This controversial king-killer asks, " And what
will you find in it (the Pope's speech) but praises and
admiration of the wisdom and providence of God?"1 " And
what," retorts Bishop Andrewes, tl is that work of wisdom
which he so singularly admires? That a simple monk in
his usual habit, armed with neither sword nor shield, should
have found free access to the King. But this surely is not so
very marvellous. It would have been more so if the monk,
being armed with sword and shield, had found his way to the
King. For in that he was unarmed he excited no suspicion ;
had he been armed I do not believe that he would have found
his way so readily through the midst of the King's attendants.
There was nothing in this wondering of Sixtus worthy of
admiration."2
Bishop Andrewes asks, "If it was admiration of the
divine retaliation upon the King, why, if God so avenges
the death of Cardinals, was no assassinator raised up against
Pius the Fourth, who ordered Cardinal Caraffa, and him
a most near relation to Paul the Fourth, to be strangled in
prison? or against Urban the Sixth, who had five cardinals
put into a sack and drowned in the sea, and the bodies of
two more whom he had ordered to be slain, dried in a furnace
and placed upon mules, and so borne in procession on his
journies, with the paraphernalia of their dignities?"3
Several pages are ably expended on an exposure of
Bellarmine's theological contradictions, which were but
pointed out in the King's Apology.
1. Of justification, where our author justly complains of
his 'wretched wavering.'4 Bishop Andrewes contends that
Bellarmine's doctrine of justification by an inherent, will
not stand with justification by an imputed righteousness.
Herein he is opposed by the pseudo-patristic divines of our
own age, but with as little discretion as consistency. He
calls the Eomish teachers of justification by Christ's presence
manifested in us, and of the identity of justification and
sanctification, false prophets. They tell us, tacitly charging
falsehood upon our prelate, " Truth as well as charity require
us to be very careful how we cast suspicion on others [pious
Romanists, such as the most pious and veracious Bellarmine]
in this point, in which the Church Catholic has not authori
tatively pronounced, lest we be found false witnesses against
our brethren."1 It is nothing to writers of this kind that
the Church of England has authoritatively pronounced upon
this point. What the Scriptures have been made in the
Church of Rome, the Thirty-nine Articles are made in our
own, a nose of wax. Hence u justification by faith" is made
to stand for justification by obedience, and justification by
Christ's merits for justification by Christ dwelling in us, and
justification by Christ's name for justification by the Holy
Ghost, and justification for double justification. Such are
the lucid explanations, or rather casuistical wrestings, of Mr.
Newman in his Lectures on Justification.
Bellarmine, in his book upon the Loss of Grace and State
of Sin, had fallen into a flat contradiction, affirming first,
" God does not move or incline to evil morally;" then, aGod
does move or incline to sin morally." This could only be
reconciled by being explained away, as indeed Bellarmine
found, for so he explains himself: li God does not move
to evil morally, that is, by commanding; he moves to evil
morally, that is, by ministering the occasion to it." He
should have said, as Bishop Andrewes remarks, u God does
not move by commanding." As it is, he in the first place
applies that to the genus "to move," which is true only
of the species " by commanding."
His third contradiction was doubtless to secure the Papal
primacy. First, in his book De Clericis he admitted " that
bishops succeed the apostles, and priests the seventy disciples;"
but when he comes to treat of the supreme ecclesiastial power
in his church, then " bishops do not properly succeed the
apostles." But if it were so, it would not make the more for
the Pope, for neither does he succeed the apostles as an
apostle, going throughout the world to preach the Gospel,
writing canonical books, working miracles, more than other
bishops.1
The fourth contradiction is, u Judas did not believe;"2
but in the 14th chapter of his third book on Justification,
"Judas was just and certainly good." To this Bellarmine
replied, " Make a distinction of the times." Bishop Andrewes
retorted that there was no need to do this if Judas never
believed. But so affirmed St. Chrysostom on those words of
St. Peter, " For we have believed and have known that thou
art the Christ, the Son of the living God. When Peter had
said, And we have believed, Christ excepts Judas from that
number." And so verse 64 of the 6th chapter of St. John,
For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that
believed not, and who should betray him. " Our Alcuin,"
saith Bishop Andrewes, tl clearly expresses it in these his
words upon this place, " Judas was one of the twelve not in
faith but in number, not in truth but in hypocrisy."3
The fifth contradiction was a similar absurdity with the
second. The substance of a work is its moral quality, as in
alms, that we should give our own, that we should give
to him that needeth, that we should give from the motive
of compassion. Yet Bellarmine had improperly said that
a man might perform the substance of a commandment, and
yet with sin ; a manifest contradiction.4
The sixth is that Peter never lost a saving faith, and yet
fell into deadly sin.
The seventh is, Antichrist shall be a magician and shall
secretly worship the devil, and yet he shall hate all idolatry
and rebuild the Temple. This, as he observes, can only
be reconciled by equivocation. " Perchance the Fathers of
the Society [the Jesuits] thus say, Odi diabolum, that is,
I feign that I hate him."
The eighth is, " The oblation is made by the words of
consecration," yet not by them but by the oblation of the
thing itself. The oblation is to be understood here of the act
of oblation, not of the thing offered ; of the act of sacrificing,
not of the thing sacrificed. The true action of offering is in
the words of consecration ; that is the first proposition. The
placing upon the altar ; that is the second. But the second
is not done until after the completion of the first.
The ninth is, that the end of the world cannot be known,
but that after the death of Antichrist there shall be but
five-and-forty days to the end of the world. Here Bellar-
mine was so bold as to reply, "If this be a contradiction, it is
in Holy Scripture itself, for both are found there." "The
words," said Bishop Andrewes, " are perhaps in the Apocalypse,
the meaning is in the Apocrypse of your brain. For he
revealed not that to the servant which he revealed not to the
Son; nor doth John contradict Christ."4 He proceeds to
quote against him the Jesuit Blaise de Yiegas on the 13th
chapter of the Book of Kevelation.
The tenth is, that the ten kings shall burn Rome, the
mystic Babylon ; but that Antichrist shall hate Rome, and
fight against, and burn it. But it is not so, not Antichrist,
but God shall put it into their hearts?
The eleventh is a denial that all bishops are only the
Pope's vicars, followed by the affirmative, that all their
ordinary jurisdiction is from him immediately, and in him,
and so derived to them.
In a later stage of the work our prelate very ably discusses
the guilt of Garnet and of the other Jesuits as respects the
Gunpowder Plot, beginning with the arch-incendiary, the
Pope himself, who, he observes, cannot but be suspected,
together with Claud Acqua Viva, of being long privy to the
plot.
There are some who tell us that the abuses of image-
worship have lessened in the Romish Church. In this
instance as in others false liberality is but the charity of
ignorance. So long as the Roman breviary remains, so long
will the worship of images be countenanced by the Church
of Rome. Then we have speaking and wonder-working
images recorded, and doubtless for no other end than to
uphold a superstitious and idolatrous veneration of them.
The Church of Rome professes to be unchangeable. Hear,
then, how by the mouth of her greatest oracles she vindicates
and covers the guilt of idolatry, and unblushingly makes God
a liar. "They are not idolaters," said Bellarmine, "they
do not worship idols, because they worship images of things
that exist ; but those images are not idols, for an idol is only
the image of a thing nowhere existing." Bishop Andrewes
does not omit to point out to him how plainly he contradicts
God, and commands that to be done which God threatens to
punish. u According to the novel theology of TortuSj pro
vided only a thing has existence in heaven, in earth, in the
waters, or under the earth, though it be an evil demon, a man
can bow himself before it and worship God in it."1 Thus
Bellarmine went about to prove King James nearer to Julian2
the apostate than was his own communion, a communion
which, had it not been content to patronise blasphemy, would
never have tolerated such a patron of idolatry.
Alluding to the excuse that their missionaries indeed came
over into this country, though forbidden by law, to preach
the Gospel, Bishop Andrewes reminds them that they came
not to preach Christ, but to set up as the chief article of the
faith the power of the Pope; hence their need of going in
disguise that in their doctrine they might mix up sedition,
and in religion find a hiding-place for treason. te Your gospel
is not the gospel of peace ; yours is not the conversion but the
perversion of the Gentiles ; nor is it so much the edification
of the Church as the laying of the State in ruins."1
In this work, a very storehouse upon the subject of the
Pope's supremacy, our prelate argues at considerable length
from the Epistles of Gregory the Great, removing all the
cavils of the Jesuitical Leviathan.2 He afterwards proceeds
to shew that the four later as well as the four former General
Councils were convened by Emperors independently of the
Pope.3
The King in his Apology had singled out for reprobation
the mutilation of the eucharist, private masses, and the imper
fection of the words of consecration, which are not in the
canon of the mass taken from St. Luke and St. Paul, where
alone they appear in a complete form, but from the other
Evangelists, thus neglecting altogether our Lord's words,
"given for you"* The King animadverted upon three
points. Bellarmine, by a summary method of proof, would
conclude the King to be in error in all three points by proving
him so only in one ! 5
Bellarmine had in his letter to Blackwell reminded him
that Fisher and More died martyrs for this one head of
doctrine, the Pope's headship. Bishop Andrewes draws a
comparison between John Fisher and John the Baptist.
The one said to Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have her
(his brother's wife) ; but Bishop Fisher said the reverse, i It
is lawful for thee to have her.'6 In the course of treating upon
the cause of the deaths of Fisher and More, he discovers the
number of the beast out of PaVLo Y. VICe Deo.1
In the remainder of this very able volume, and one that
so truly answers to its title. Bishop Andrewes accurately
states the doctrine of the ecclesiastical prerogatives of
Christian princes, and replies to the objections of the Bo-
manists. Nowhere can the reader find this topic more clearly
illustrated.
Our prelate concedes to the sovereign whatsoever power
was exercised by the Jewish Kings in the Old Testament,
agreeably to the Divine will, for the reformation and mainte
nance of true religion. tl Quodcunque in rebus religionis Eeges
Israel fecerunt, nee sine laude fecerunt, id ut ei faciendi jus
sit ac potestas. Leges auctoritate Regia ferendi, ne blasphe-
metur Deus, non negabitis, fecit Rex Babel (Dan. iii. 29) : ut
jejunio placetur Deus, fecit Eex Ninive (Jon. iii. 7) : ut festo
honoretur, fecit Ester, cum Purim, Machabseus cum Encaenia
promulgaret (Est. ix. 26 ; 1 Mace. iv. 56, 59). Denique iis
omnibus rebus de quibus in Codice, in Authenticis, in Capitu-
laribus a Constantino, Theodosio, Justiniano, Carolo magno,
leges latse leguntur.
..." Whatever the Kings of Israel did in the department of
religion, and did not without commendation, that to "be his
right and privilege. The power of making laws by royal
authority, that God be not blasphemed ; such, ye will not deny,
the King of Babylon made (Dan. iii. 29) ; that God might be
propitiated by a fast, the King of Mneve made (Jon. iii. 7) ;
that he should be honoured by a festival, Queen Esther
made, when she proclaimed the Feast of Purim ; Judas
Maccabeus, when he proclaimed the Feast of Dedication
(Est. ix. 28 ; 1 Mace. iv. 56, 59) ; lastly, in regard of all
those things concerning which laws were enacted by Con-
stantine, Theodosius, Justinian, Charlemagne, in the Code,
the Authenticse, and the Chapters.
" Also the power of delegating such as should pronounce
judgment concerning the law so given, which power Jeho-
shaphat exercised (2 Chron. xix. 8) ; also of binding subjects
by an oath not to violate the law so made, which power both
Asa (2 Chron. xv. 14) and Josiah (ibid, xxxiv. 32) exercised.
" But if any do anything against laws so made, though it
be for the sake of religion, as the false prophets, it is a
criminal action (Deut. xiii. 10) ; or as idolaters (ibid. 15),
or as blasphemers (Levit. xxiv. 23), or as a sacrilegious
person (Num. xv. 35), he shall have the power of punishing
such by his royal authority.
" Also the power of calling Councils by his own authority ;
even upon bringing back the ark and putting it in its own
place, which David did (1 Chron. xiii. 3) ; also concerning
the recalling the people to the worship of God, which Jeho-
shaphat did (2 Chron. xix. 4) ; also concerning dedicating
the Temple, which Solomon did (1 Kings viii. 64) ; also
i concerning its restoration when it had fallen into ruin, which
iJoash did (2 Chron. xxiv. 4) • also concerning its purifi-
Ication after it had been profaned, which Hezekiah did
\(ibid. xxix. 5).
But although he may not think that he is in vain com-
manded by God to write out for himself a copy of the law,
to have it always by him, to read it diligently, to meditate
upon it day and night, to learn out of that the worship
of God, to ceremonies themselves ; nor that this is enjoined
him, yet so that he should altogether hang upon the lips of
another, and himself in fact decide nothing as of himself, yet
nevertheless he should in these things not unwillingly consult
the mouth of Eleazar (Num. xxvii. 21), and require the law
of those whose lips keep knowledge (Mai. ii. 7) ; he should,
in making laws regarding religion, apply to those to whom
it is but just that he should apply, and whom reason points
out as the best advised in such things, and as capable of
giving the best answer concerning them. And in those
things that pertain to God, he will command Amariah the
priest, not Zebadiah the commander, to preside (2 Chron.
xix. 11).
lt As regards persons, the right of giving laws to all orders
of persons, who is (to speak in the style of Scripture) the
head, of the tribe of Levi (1 Sam. 15, 17) not less than of
the other tribes, nor less the king of the clergy than of the
laity. On the other hand, if any Abiathar carry himself
proudly, he has the right to restrain him by his edict
(Deut. xvii. 12), and even to depose Abiathar himself from
the priesthood if he deserve it.
"As regards things, he has the power to pull down the
high places, that is, of abolishing foreign worship, not only
of breaking the golden calf cast by Aaron, as did Moses,
but also the brazen serpent erected by Moses, as Hezekiah
did, and of grinding both to powder, whether it be the golden
calf leading to idolatry, or the brazen serpent leading to
superstition.
"For as relates to the regulation of those things which
respect the beauty of the house of God, which are wont to
be called things indifferent, which Joash did (2 Chron.
xxiv. 12), and which are usually those points on which
schism is grounded; as also the right of setting at rest
needless and unprofitable questions by his authority, as
Constantine did (see his Epistle to Alexander and Arms;
Socrates' Eccl Hist. 1. i. c. 7, pp. 16—18, Cantab. 1720), you
yourselves will not deny his authority.
u Lastly, if you would rather an instance from Christians,
such precedent requires that he be the overseer of them that
are without, as was Constantine (Eusebius in his Life of
Constantinejl. iv. c. 24, p. 638, Camb. 1720), and the director
of religion, which not only Charlemagne was, but also Louis
the Pious.
tl These are with us the rights of the royal supremacy,
jure divino"
CHAPTER XI
Andrewes translated to Ely, 1609 — Bishop Heton — Bishop Harsnet
— Christmas — Easter, 1610 — Andrewes at Holdenby in August —
Consecration of the Scottish Bishops — J. Casaubon — Andrewes1
ON Easter-day, 16th April, 1609, Bishop Andrewes
preached before the King at Whitehall from John xx. 19.
Very simple and ingenious to edification, very touching by
the extreme naturalness of its pathos, is this most pastoral
discourse on Christ's salutation and benediction, Peace be
unto you.
"When you hear men talk of peace," saith our most
fatherly bishop, "mark whether they stand where they
should. If with the Pharisee, to the corners, either by
partiality one way or prejudice another, no good will be
done. When God will have it brought to pass, such minds
he will give unto men, and make them meet to wish it,
seek it, and find it."
In the course of this year he published his famous answer
to Bellarmine, entitled Tortura Torti; and on September 22
was, on the death of Dr. Martin Heton, elected to the see
of Ely. There were present at the election Dr. Humphrey
Tyndall, Dean of Ely and President of Queens' College, Cambridge, and Dr. Thomas Nuce, Dr. Andrew Willet, that most laborious commentator ; John Hills, Edmund Barwell, and James Taylor, Prebendaries. Dr. Martin Heton was son of
George Heton, Esq., and Joan, daughter of Sir William
Bowes, Knight. His father was of a Lancashire family, but
himself was born in London in 1553. His father was Master
of the Merchants' House at Antwerp, and caused it to be
free for the refugees in the reign of Queen Mary. Martin
Heton was educated at Christ Church, Oxford, and in 1582
was made a Canon of the Cathedral there. In 1588 he
served the Vice-Chancellorship, and in 1589 succeeded Dr.
Laurence Humphrey as Dean of Winchester. He was consecrated on February 3, 1599, to the see of Ely at Lambeth.
Dr. Andrewes declined the bishopric, not willing to be a
gainer himself to the loss of his see, and so he made way for
Dr. Heton, and now Dr. Heton by death for him.
On November 5 the Bishop of Ely preached before the
King at Whitehall from the Gospel for the day ; a topic that
came too near to that of this day's commemoration not to
minister to our prelate abundant opportunity of comparison
and contrast, of which he availed himself with great felicity.
On the day following he was confirmed in the temporalities
of the see of Ely ; and on the 13th he, with Buckeridge, Bishop
of Rochester, assisted Archbishop Bancroft at the consecration
of Dr. George Abbot to the see of Lichfield (afterward Arch-
Willis also gives his epitaph. It relates that his wife is buried near him, and
that they had five sons and seven daughters, and thus concludes,
"To the world they living died, So dying living they abide."
Page 232
... On Christmas-day Bishop Andrewes preached a sermon
before the King at Whitehall, that is reported to have given
him especial satisfaction. Mr. Chamberlain wrote to Sir
Kalph Winwood, "The King with much importunity had
the copy delivered to him on Tuesday last, before his going
towards Eoyston, and says he will lay it still under his
pillow." This sermon is from Gal. iii. 4, 5: "When the
fulness of time was come, God sent his Son} made of a
woman, made under the law, that he might redeem them
that were under the law that we might receive the adoption of sons. Here he saith that Christ was made under the law to become our surety, made under the law when he was circumcised. Then, as St. Paul saith, he became a
debtor to the whole law; then was his name of Jesus given him, St. Luke ii. 21. To get us from under the law it was not a matter of intercession but of redemption. So were verified as in a double sense his words at his passion, If you
lay hold on me if I must discharge all, let these go their way, let the price I pay be their redemption, and so it was."
So let us rejoice with fulness of joy, " with the joy of men
that have come out of prison, have 'scaped the law, with the
joy of men that have got the reversion of a goodly heritage."1
Well worthy indeed is this joyous discourse of that most
joyful occasion which it celebrated out of so cheerful a heart.
But what an Easter2 followed, when our good prelate
descanted so fervidly upon Job's gospel, upon his triumphal
monument, and on death's epitaph : tc I am sure that my
Redeemer livethj and he shall stand the last on the earth , (or,
and I shall rise again in the last day from the earth). And
though after my skin worms destroy this body, (or, as in the
Liturgy of King James, and shall be covered again with my
skin,) I shall see God in my flesh, whom I myself (or for
myself] shall see, and mine eyes shall behold, and none other
for me, though my reins are consumed loithin me (or, and this
hope is laid up in my bosom)."3
So, he observes, St. Jerome himself applies this place
as a plain prophecy both of Christ's and of our resurrection.
Do we ask how Job came by this knowledge ? "We shall
not need to trouble ourselves to know how he knew it; not
by any Scripture. He had it not from Moses, but the same
way that Moses had it; he looked in the same mirror Abraham
did, when he saw the same person and the same day, and
rejoiced to see it." 'Shall stand? He notes, "It is well
known it is the proper word for rising and not standing.
The LXX. so turn it ; the Fathers so read it. Nee dum
natus erat Dominus (saith St. Jerome) et athleta ecclesice
redemptorem suum videt a mortuis resurgentem. He was not
yet born, and the Church's champion Job saw his Redeemer
rising from the dead."5 Whoso will meditate upon mortality
and immortality, and seek to rekindle his faith and his hope,
let him come hither for comfort, and keep this Easter with
Bishop Andrewes.
On June 4th he was commissioned to be present at the
creation of Henry Prince of Wales, which took place in the
House of Parliament on that day. On the preceding Sunday
there was a creation of Knights of the Bath, and that was
preceded on the Saturday by an aquatic spectacle, all which
the curious reader will find amply detailed in the second
volume of Nichols's Royal Progresses of James I. Within
little more than two years was this noble Prince taken away.
He died in December 1612, our prelate being present at his
funeral on the 7th of December. Thus was our country to
learn wisdom through the severe struggles of the next half
century, in which the principles of arbitrary misrule on the
one hand, and the dangers of a military despotism on the
other, were to pave the way for the more constitutional
government and the more stable and decided Protestantism
which succeeded.
In singular harmony with his Easter was his Whitsuntide,
full of ' holy comfort.' Then at Whitehall, on May 27, he
preached upon our Saviour's promise, his covenant, and con
dition : If ye love me^ keep my commandments , and I will
pray the Father , and he shall give you another Comforter , that
he may abide with you for ever.1 He who could lay open
their graves to the rich, and compel them to look down and
learn from Dives on his bed of fire to avoid that place of
torment, could as tenderly revive the disconsolate, and as
affectionately animate men to the love of Christ. But at
all times a spirit of holiness shewed in his discourses, as the
good George Herbert directs in his Priest for the Temple.
Thus Bishop Andrewes : " As Christ is our witness in heaven,
so is the Spirit here on earth, witnessing with our spirits that
we pertain to the adoption, and are the children of God;
evermore, in the midst of the sorrows that are in our hearts,
with his comforts refreshing our souls ; yet not filling them
with false comforts, but, as Christ's advocate here on earth,
soliciting us daily, and calling upon us to look to his com
mandments and keep them, wherein standeth much of our
comfort, even in the testimony of a good conscience."2
On August 5th Bishop Andrewes preached at Holdenby
in Northamptonshire, upon the divine right of kings, from
Touch not mine anointedj animadverting upon Bellarmine
and Mariana, and noticing the late assassination of Henry IV.
of France.1 He observes that u the Pope saith he can make
the Christ the Lord himself: if he could do so indeed, it
were not altogether unlike he might make the Lord's
Christ," — set up kings who can make the King of kings.2
Hitherto episcopacy had in Scotland been upon a parity
with the presbyterate in regard of ordination. The King
had already restored to the Bishops their civil jurisdiction,
which after the Reformation had been transferred to the
supreme court of justice. He now determined to bring them
nearer to the model of the English Church, and on the 15th of
October summoned Spottiswoode, Archbishop of Glasgow,
Lamb, Bishop of Brechin, and Hamilton, Bishop of Galloway,
to London, and appointed Dr. Abbot, Bishop of London,
Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, Dr. Henry Parry, Bishop of
Worcester, and Montagu, Bishop of Bath and Wells, to
give them episcopal consecration. The consecration took
place in the chapel of London House on the 21st of the
same month. Andrewes stated the necessity of ordaining
them deacons and priests before they should be elevated to
the episcopate, on the ground that they had not been canoni-
cally admitted to holy orders in Scotland. Spottiswoode
relates that Archbishop Bancroft, who was present, main
tained that this was not requisite, because where there were
no bishops, ordination by presbyters must be esteemed valid ;
and that otherwise it might be doubted whether there was
any lawful vocation in most of the reformed churches. Our
prelate acquiesced in this answer, and so the consecration
proceeded. Isaac Casaubon had arrived in this country not
long before, and was present at this ceremony.3
Heylyn asserts that Bancroft overruled the objection of
Bishop Andrewes by reminding him that the higher order
included the lower, and that there were instances of bishops
being made by one single ordination ; and herein he is
followed by Bishop Skinner, and Collier inclines to him.
But Bishop Hussell, in his History of the Church in Scotland,
very impartially remarks that the authority of Spottiswoode
on this occasion cannot be set aside, as he was not only
present, but deeply interested in the discussion.1
In the course of this year appeared our prelate's Responsio
adApologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini quam nuper edidit contra
Prcefationem Monitoriam Jacobi Dei gratia M. Britannice etc.
Regis. He observes that Bellarmine's zeal for the Pope's
deposing power had only made the foreign princes jealous
of his principles and of his works/ and that he had now found
it convenient to come down from this high ground, and to
fill his book with patches of his commonplaces, already before
the world in a controversial and theological form ; and
accordingly we find the Bishop's Answer assuming through
several chapters the character of theological theses.
In the first chapter he shews with various illustrations the
uncertainty of the worshipping of the host, and refutes the
answers of Eomanists who defend, as he says, a hypothetical
worship. Formerly it was always provided that the condition
was understood, i If thou art Christ I adore thee / but faith is
not an hypothesis but an hypostasis, not a supposition but
a substance. He shews that there was a time when con-
substantiation was allowed in the Church of Rome. Thus
he quotes with approbation the words of Biel on the Canon
of the MasSj who says that the canon of Scripture does not
define whether the body of Christ is in the Eucharist by
transubstantiation or by consubstantiation. To the same effect
he. brings in Durandus, Peter de Alliaco, Cardinal of Cam-
bray, and John Picus Mirandula, who was nevertheless
cleared from all imputation of heresy by Pope Alexander
the Sixth himself. The mode of the mystery we do not,
says Bishop Andrewes, presumptuously define. We leave it
with the mystery of the Incarnation. We shall hear him
again speak more explicitly on this topic.
Bellarmine had alleged the mendacious authority of
Maurice Cheneys, who wrote of The Life and Martyrdom of
the Carthusians, and had aspersed the Lord Protector Crom
well. Bishop Andrewes vindicates his memory, and eulogizes
his great judgment and abilities.1 He proceeds to give a
sample of the lying legends of the Carthusian. He checks
and overthrows the Cardinal's boast of the universality of
his Church, and of the multitudes of converts made especially
in America, referring him to Acosta. Of the converts of the
Jesuits in Japan, he says that they are only made hypocrites
twofold more the children of hell than themselves.2 Touching
upon the Scotch reformation, he highly lauds the memory of
the martyrs Hamilton and Wishart, but with King James
withholds all commendation from John Knox and those who
acted with the same uncourtly spirit.3
As to the intercession of saints, he quotes Origen who
places it amongst the hidden things of God, a thing probable
but uncertain.4 Thence to nearly the end of the chapter our
prelate discusses the arguments and authorities adduced by
Bellarmine for the invocation of saints.
The second chapter proves that the cause of the King
contending against the Pope in regard of the duty of his
subjects to swear to him civil allegiance, is not one peculiar
to him but equally affecting the interests of all Catholic and
orthodox princes.
In the third he returns to treat of Papal power, opposing
St. Paul's What have we to do to judge them that are without?
to Thomas Aquinas, who attributes to the Church a power of
deposing infidel sovereigns.5
In the fourth chapter he overthrows Bellarmine's com
parison of kings and cardinals. The priest blesses the king,
the king benefits the priest. Which is greater, a good word
or a good deed ? David and Solomon blessed the whole Church,
in which the priesthood himself was included, whom Hezekiah
called his sons. The King in holy writ deposed the high-
priest, not the high-priest the king. He gives the history of
the rise of the Cardinals, and everywhere lays open the
unfaithful manner of Bellarmine in ecclesiastical history.
In the fifth chapter he vindicates his Sovereign from the
various charges of Bellarmine. Bellarmine had not been
altogether misinformed respecting the partiality of King
James for his E-omish subjects in Scotland. It is true indeed
the insurgent lords were in 1594 banished the kingdom and
their houses destroyed, but they would not have had oppor
tunity to rise in arms and to renew their treasons had not the
King shielded them in the preceding year from their just
deserts.1
Bishop Andrewes speaks with the utmost candour of the
Puritans, and in a language and spirit wholly unknown to
Wren, Laud, Montagu, and Heylyn. With him they are
not men more in error than the Komanists, as a living divine
writes of those whom he calls Zuinglians, that they are in
greater error concerning the Eucharist than those who believe
transubstantiation.
" Puritanorum ea religio non est, quorum nulla est religio
sua atque propria: disciplina est. Quod ipsum tamen de
Puritanis generatim dictum volo, deque iis inter eos, qui
prseterquam quod discipline suse paulb magis addicti sunt,
ccetera sobrie magis sapiunt ; qui, quantum vis formam illam
perdite depereant, in reliqud tamen doctrind satis orthodoxi
sunt. Nee enim nescius sum, censeri, adeoque esse, eo in
numero (non minus quam in societate vestra) cerebrosos
quosdam, pronos in schisma nimis. Etiam non deesse, qui
quoad religionis capita qusedam, vix per omnia sani sunt.
Quos ego hie, quos ubique exclusos volo. Mihi ab exteriori
regiminis format Puritani sunt, non autem a religions, quce
eadem et est et esse potest, ubi facies externa non eadem."
"The King (in his Basilicon Doron) does not mean there
the religion of the Puritans, for they have no distinct and
peculiar religion, but discipline. And this I would have
applied (not to the Scotch only but) to the Puritans generally,
and to those among them who, except that they are too
violently addicted to their order of church government, are
in other things sufficiently sober-minded ; and these, however
infatuated in their devotedness to their * platform? are yet
sufficiently orthodox in the rest of their doctrine. For I am
not ignorant that there are numbered, and indeed are amongst
them, some unreasonable men (as in your society) over-
inclined to schism ; nay, that there are not wanting some who
are scarcely sound in all things as regards some points of
religion. And these I would exclude in this my mention
of them here and in every other place. But with me they
are Puritans from their exterior form of discipline, but not
from their religion, which both is the same and can be, where
the external face of discipline is not the same."1
In the sixth chapter he vindicates the historical passages
of his Tortura Torti, and defends Rufus in the case of Anselm,
and Henry the Second in the case of Thomas a Becket? He
denies the saintship of St. Hugh of Lincoln, who opposed
the raising of money to aid Richard the First.
St. Augustine's De Mirabilibus Sacrce Scriptures is by
Bellarmine, in his book of ecclesiastical writers, on the
authority of Aquinas, denied to be his. Bishop Andrewes
referred to it to prove out of Augustine that that Father
placed the Maccabees amongst the Apocryphal books...
Erasmus indeed early ranked this work with those that had been erroneously ascribed to St. Augustine, and it has accordingly been placed amongst
the spurious works that go by his name in the Benedictine edition, and in the 47th section of the 4th chapter of Walchii Bibliotheca Patristica, p. 275.
Bishop Cosin has, in his Scholastical History of the Canon
of Scripture, reprinted at the Clarendon Press, fully met all
the pleas, deduced by the Romanists from the writings of
St. Augustine in favour of the First and Second Book of
the Maccabees and the other Apocryphal books retained by
their Church.
Certain passages of St. Augustine appear at first sight to
favour their cause, and are always alleged by them for the
sake of proving the equal authority of the Apocryphal
with those books to which modern usage restricts the term
canonical, a term formerly applied more indefinitely than
at present, and so applied, it is admitted, by St. Argustine
himself, in these passages, namely, in the 8th chapter of his
second book De Doctrind Christiana, and in the 36th chapter
of his 18th book De Civitate Dei.
But it is evident from other passages in his works that as
the Canon Fidei, the Eule of Faith , St. Augustine allowed
only the Jewish canon. Thus, in one of his treatises
against the Donatists, his second book against the Epistle
of Gaudentius (c. xxiii), he says : " Et hanc quidem Scrip-
turam quse appellatur Maccabseorum, non habent Judsei
sicut legem et Prophetas et Psalmos quibus Dominus
testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus, suis dicens, Oportebat
impleri omnia quce scripta sunt in lege et PropJietis et Psalmis
de me : sed recepta est ab ecclesia non inutiliter, si sobrie
legatur vel audiatur, maxime propter illos Maccabseos qui pro
Dei lege, sicut veri martyres a persecutoribus tarn indigna
atque horrenda perpessi sunt," &c. — Op. torn. vii. Pars Prior,
p. 436, Lugduni, 1562. " And this Scripture which is called
(the book of) Maccabees, the Jews regard not as the law, the
Prophets, and the Psalms, to which the Lord bears testimony
as to his witnesses, saying, All things must le fulfilled which
were written in the law and in the Prophets and in the Psalms
concerning me (Luke xxiv. 44) ; but it is received by the
Church not unprofitably if it be read or heard with caution,
especially on account of those Maccabees who endured such
undeserved and dreadful sufferings at the hands of their
persecutors, as true martyrs for the law of God." So in
citing Ecclesiasticus he says, " Quse non tanta firmitate
proferuntur quse scripta non sunt in canone Judseorum." —
De Civ. Deij 1. xvii. c. 20. " Which passages are not brought
forward with such a weight of authority, not being in the
Jewish canon."
Besides Bishop Cosin's Scholastical History of the Canon
of Scripture, the reader may refer to the first chapter of the
second book of Dr. John Gerhard's Confessio Catholica, Dr.
John Eainold's Censura Apocryphorum Vet. Test. 1611,2 vols.
4to., Dr. Field's Boole of the Church, book iv. c. 22, 23, 24,
and the Preface to the third part of L. Joh. Gottleb Carpzov's
Introductio ad Libros Canon. Vet. Test. Lips. 1721.
That laborious collator of manuscripts, but most dogmatical
judge of them, Dr. Tregelles, in his Account of the Printed
Text of the Greek Testament^ a work extremely superficial
in its notice of the history of the textus receptus, affirms
amongst other paradoxes that " we reject the Apocrypha in
spite of tradition." There is no one article forced upon the
Church of Rome more clearly in opposition even to her own
tradition, than the reception of the Apocryphal Books into
the Old Testament canon. Upon this ground we stand.
In consequence of the tradition of the Jewish Church, con
firmed by our Lord himself ; in consequence of the tradition of
the Primitive Church ; in consequence of the tradition of the
whole Church to the Council of Trent, we reject the Apocrypha.
But of all such evidence as must needs enter into such questions,
Dr. Tregelles has proved himself a most incompetent judge from
the uncritical and inconsistent decisions he has in so many
instances affirmed in his critical works. In these he con
stantly selects his evidence, passes over numerous and weighty
allegations of his predecessors in the field of sacred criticism,
and commends the most improbable, and those not always the
most ancient, readings, by way of illustrating Bengel's rule,
which is accordingly given in the larger and more inelegant
type of the most modern printers, " proclivi scriptioni prcestat
arduum."z Griesbach, however, more fearlessly followed out
his own rule than Dr. Tregelles has had the boldness to do.
Our prelate defends the Protestant interpretation of the
words of institution in the Eucharist. Bellarmine had said
that they (the Protestants) involved the words This is my
body in a thousand figures. He retorts after the usual, and
indeed unanswerable manner, that neither can the Romanists
without a figure reconcile to their interpretation the words,
This is the cup which is poured out.
In the eighth chapter he unfolds the legendary impiety of
Rome respecting the mother of our Lord. He urges against
the Jesuitical Bellarmine the hymns that are sung to her;
he returns to the topic of the invocation of saints ; he treats
of the innovation of private masses and of the mutilation
of the Eucharist; he exposes the folly of the Cardinal's
evasions, one of which is, that St. Luke in the Acts only
speaks of breaking of bread, therefore they took (he
argues) the Lord's Supper only in one kind. So then,
when in the 14th chapter of his Gospel he relates that our
Lord went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees
(according to the Hebrew idiom) to eat bread, we must
suppose that they drank nothing.1 But subterfuge and dis
honesty of every kind are allowed to Romish controversialists,
who are always understood to wage war upon the human
understanding. Hence Bishop Andrewes proceeds again to
transubstantiation2 and its concomitants, adoration and pro
cession. He points out the absurdity of the very term works
of supererogation, when applied to those who have not paid
to God that entire and unsinning obedience which they owe
to Him.3 He suffers not Bellarmine to escape touching the
baptism of bells. Nay, they are blessed, not baptized, says
Bellarmine. Not so Stephen Durantus in his book of the Rites
of the Church then lately published at Rome ; there we read
they are u baptized but not for the remission of sins." It is a
holy dedication, which, as Bishop Andrewes observes, is also
the end of baptism. But in the Pontifical the bell is exorcised.
No, he was too great for Bellarmine the pious Cardinal, the
admiration of the more moderate and enlightened children
of the Church in England. " But if in any places," writes
Bellarmine, " it is called baptism, it is from this that names
are given to the bells." More than this, we have in the
Pontifical, tinctum in aqua — washed in water. The water
is hallowed. It is said, ll this commixture of salt and water
is made a salutary sacrament in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But in the new Pon
tifical of Clement VIII. the words " efficiatur salutare sacra-
mentum" are omitted, and in their stead is read, u pariter
fiat /" " quid autem fiat" continues Bishop Andrewes, " cogi-
tandem relinquitur."1 Nay, there are even sponsors on this
solemn occasion ; and as a child, so is the bell clad in robes
of white : " nugse quidem sed preciosae sunt has : calumnies
non sunt. Neque nugse tamen ; vera enim gravamina Ponti-
ficis legato in Comitiis Norimbergse, 1522, exhibita : Pontifici
quoque ipsi transmissa, Germanise totius nomine."
From the baptism of bells we return to the worship of
images. Bishop Andrewes reminds Bellarmine that Hezekiah
himself was an iconoclast. Hence we pass on to Purgatory,
which Bellarmine finds at least implicitly contained in Genesis,
where it is written, " surrexit Abraham a facie mortui" (in
the Vulgate u ab officiofuneris"2), from the Burial office, that is,
from prayers for the good of her soul now in Purgatory.3
Thus was Scripture not only called, but treated as a nose of
wax. Bellarmine waxed warm upon Purgatory, and roundly
affirmed that hell awaited those who believed not purgatory.
" This," replies our prelate, a savours more of Tortus, and is
a more fit speech for some evil Tortus than for a holy cardinal,
and one in which is much less of charity than of faith."
" There is juster reason that no purgatory should remain for
them that believe it not ; but that as they believe in heaven,
so they should prepare for that place ; as they believe a hell,
so they should seek by all means to avoid it. But they that
believe a purgatory, let them very carefully take heed lest,
being deceived by the position of the ways, they should go to
hell instead of purgatory ; for they are places very near each
other, if we believe the Cardinal. The Pope, whilst he
deludes many of your religion with his indulgences, with the
hope of going only to purgatory, hath brought them to hell,
who, perchance, if they had feared only hell (and they would
have feared if that expectation had not utterly blinded them),
might have avoided it."1
The remainder of this chapter consists of a most able
refutation of the Pope's supremacy — the pride, as purgatory
embodies — the avarice of Eome.
From the ninth to the end of the twelfth chapter our
prelate treats of the prophecies in the New Testament relating
to Antichrist; first, in the second chapter of St. Paul's
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, then in the Book of
Revelation. Bishop Andrewes all along regards the Pope
as Antichrist, Eome as Babylon ; the name of Antichrist he,
following Irenseus, conceives to be Latinus. How pitifully
did Mr. Newman deal with the memory of Bishop Newton,
because, with Bishop Andrewes, he maintained a view of
Antichrist so little in accordance with the system he then
favoured.2
Bishop Andrewes vindicates Wicliff and his followers
from the charge of sedition, and imputes to the calumnious
spirit of his opponents the anarchical doctrines ascribed to
him.3 Thus did he differ in spirit from that zealous reformed
Catholic De Heylyn, who all but anathematizes Wicliff as
an uucatholic heresiarch. Our prelate proceeds to vindicate
Luther from similar charges.
I know not what to say to our prelate's words, " But no
man sought the life of the King in Scotland." Certainly his
own words at another time appear the contrary to these. In
his first sermon on the Gowrie Conspiracy he describes the
actors as bloody-minded, and as no better than assassins.
" Said not Absalom to his assassins, When I give you a sign,
see you smite , kill him, fear not, have not I commanded you ?
Said not they the same to him whom to that end they had
armed and placed to do that wicked act?"4 Here then he
must needs acquit that conspiracy of the intent of assassina
tion. Yet in his sermon four years after the publication of
this work, when in 1614 he preached the anniversary of the
Gowrie Conspiracy again, after an interval of four years, he
attributed to the conspirators the design of no less a hurt than
the loss of his Majesty's life.1 I fear there was in the mind of
our prelate, whilst at this point of his controversy, some subtle
distinction that would have fitted rather Bellarmine than his
own candour and simplicity.
Most worthy of him indeed are these golden words : tl Thus
is the Church the pillar of truth, not as that on which the truth
rests, but which herself rests upon the truth. But this pillar
does not hang in the air; it has a base and a foundation, and
where but in the Word of God? When it sets forth that
(Word) unto us, we know that it hath a good foundation, and
rest upon it fearlessly and with a willing mind."2
The remainder of the Eesponsio is a confirmation of the
charges which the King had brought against Bellarmine, of
falsifications of history, &c., a minute and detailed account
of which would of itself form a volume.
In October Isaac Casaubon came to England. He was
born at Geneva February 18th, 1559, where he was made
Professor of Greek, and married Florence, daughter of Henry
Stephens, the celebrated printer. He removed to Moritpelier
as the Greek Professor there, and in 1603 was made Librarian
to Henry IV. After the assassination of his Prince, he on
the 16th October this year arrived here with Sir Henry Wotton.
James had previously invited him to England, and became
his cordial patron. On October 26th he spent some hours,
to his great delight, with Bishop Andrewes.
CHAPTER XII.
Archbishop Allot — Bishops Buckeridge and Thompson — Isaac Casaubon, Cardinal Perron, and King James — Christmas 1611.
ON the death of Archbishop Bancroft, November 2, 1610,
Dr. George Abbot, who had sufficiently proved his learning
by his works and by his sermons at Oxford, where he was
elected Master of University College in September 1597, and
had been made Dean of Winchester in 1599, Bishop of Lich-
field and Coventry 1609, and of London January 20th this
same year, was raised to the see of Canterbury in consequence
of the King's promise to his late able and energetic minister
and favourite, the Earl of Dunbar. This motive is assigned
as the ground of Abbot's promotion in a letter from George
Calvert (afterwards Lord Baltimore) to Sir Thomas Edmunds,
March 10th, 1611. The King at the same time bore testi
mony to Abbot's learning, wisdom, and sincerity. It has
been surmised that had Andrewes succeeded Bancroft, the
Church of England would have been saved the storms that
followed. But both Abbot and Andrewes lived to be super
seded by Laud, whose ambition was as unrivalled as his
impetuosity, and whose secularity predominated above that
of all his contemporaries. Andrewes had not the firmness of
Abbot, whose integrity appeared in repeated instances, to the
honour of the age in which he lived and of the Church over
which he presided. He nobly stood forth on the side of
justice against the suit instituted by the Lady Frances
Howard for a divorce from her husband the Earl of Essex.
This first brought upon him the King's displeasure. His
influence declined as that of Villiers and Laud increased. In
1618 he would not suffer the Boole of Sports to be read in
his parish-church of Croydon. To the last he promoted the
Protestant interest. In the summer of 1627 he again nobly
withstood the unconstitutional course of his sovereign, by
refusing to license Dr. Sibthorpe's sermon, preached at North
ampton, in vindication of the compulsory loan. This led to
his being most illegally deprived of his power, which was
handed over by a commission to Laud and four other prelates.
While living in forced seclusion in his house at Ford, which,
with Lambeth, Croydon, Bekesbourne, and Canterbury, alone
at this time remained to his see, (the other twelve had been
taken from it since the Reformation,1) about Christmas he
was released from restraint and invited to court, but only to
suffer hereafter further indignities, Laud still reigning supreme,
and being selected in his stead to baptize the infant Prince,
Charles II., in May 1630. He died in his seventy-first year,
at Croydon Palace, August 4th, 1633. Dr. Hook has taken
from Fuller whatsoever makes against Abbot as to the charge
of undue severity toward the clergy, and omitted all thai;
Fuller added in his commendation. He has however survived
the censures of Clarendon himself; neither will his memory
suffer from the more recent attack of that abortive undertaking,
the Biographical Dictionary of the Society for the Diffusion
of Useful Knowledge, in which he is described as " a zealous
Calvinist and a furious Protestant." Of the intemperance of
his zeal, or of any indication of his furiousness, history is silent.
Antony Wood himself, the historian of his University, is
more just to his character.
In answer to the charges of remissness brought against
Abbot, the testimony of Racket, in his Life of Williams, may
suffice. He says that with regard to the High Commission
Court the Lord Keeper was not satisfied in two respects ; first
in the multiplicity of causes brought into it, secondly in the
severity of its censures. Archbishop Abbot was rigorously
just, which made him shew less pity to delinquents. Sentences
of great correction, or rather of destruction, have their epochs
from his predominancy in that court. And after him it
mended, says Hacket, like sour ale in summer. It was not
so in his predecessor Bancroft's days, who would chide stoutly,
but censure mildly. He considered that he sat there rather
as a father than as a judge.
On November 13 Andrewes was, for the first time since
his translation to Ely, included in a committee, with all their
lordships then present, for a conference with the Commons on
the following day at 3 p.m. in the Painted Chamber.
We return to Casaubon. On Wednesday the 14th No
vember Casaubon, with Overall, Dean of St. Paul's, with
whom he was taking up his abode at this time, dined with
our prelate, probably at Ely Palace in Holborn. The Bishop
had not yet published his answer to Bellarmine. Andrewes
read his work to his guests, and had Casaubon with him
again on the 15th and 17th, and on the Monday and Tuesday
following. On the Monday he again consulted with Casau
bon on his forthcoming treatise. Andrewes entrusted him
with the manuscript to peruse at his leisure. He commends
the Bishop's learning and his agreement with Christian
antiquity, and expresses his wish that his method and spirit
were followed by the divines of his own native land, in a
letter to Mountague, Bishop of Bath and Wells.1
On Tuesday, December 25th, Christmas-day, Andrewes
preached before the King at Whitehall from the gospel for the
day, Luke ii. 10, 11. He speaks of the angels' sermon, and
after that the hymn Glory le to God on high. It was the custom
after the Restoration, if not before it, to have a second anthem
after the sermon. It might be that this might suggest to
Andrewes his remark, uthe whole service of this day, the
sermon, the anthem, by angels all." The anthem thus
concluded both the morning and evening service at St. Paul's,
according to the Eev. James Clifford's Divine Services and
Anthems. This little manual was published in 1660, the
second edition in 1663, another in 1664, being compiled by
the Kev. James Clifford, a Minor Canon of St. Paul's, who
died in 1700. The order of the Cathedral service as there
observed is extracted from this rare and interesting little
volume in the Preface to the Kev. John JebVs second volume
of Choral Responses and Litanies of the United Church of
England and Ireland. This very valuable collection contains
two sets of Preces by Amner of Ely, whom Andrewes ordained
deacon, with a large body of Cathedral music composed by
Henry Molle, Robert Ramsay, and Loosemoore, the incom
parable organists of Peterhouse, Trinity, and King's Colleges
about 1630. The common Cathedral chants in use in Clif
ford's time are given in the Appendix,1 and in the earlier
and more ancient part of the volume are several elaborate
chants, the memorials of a more noble, enriched, and varie
gated kind of chant in use before the Restoration, far worthier
of the divine compositions to which they were so carefully
and appropriately adapted.
To return to our prelate. His genuine piety shines forth
conspicuously in this sermon upon the need and nature of
salvation, and the universal neglect of it. There is indeed
in his sermons very generally, although there are occasional
exceptions, the same glow of devotion which has made his
Prayers so valuable, prayers which have, after the Liturgy,
perhaps met with more general acceptance than any others.
That his sermons should be in some measure open to the
exceptions of such critics as the late Archdeacon Hare, is only
what might be expected from a mind so fancifully exuberant
as that of Andrewes.
We may, however, be justly thankful for the late Arch
deacon Hare's vigilance in regard of the recent edition of our
prelate's Sermons. But in his remark in p. 499 of the Notes to
his Mission of the Comforter he was not aware that in the
second edition we have the reading of which he doubted " in
the very next words." Archdeacon Hare indeed, as a theo
logian, was not the best qualified to sit in judgment on Bishop
Andrewes. Hare's note on Inspiration, written in a flippant
spirit and throwing no light upon the subject, but rather
heightening its inevitable mysteriousness, is but one of various
symptoms that Archdeacon Hare was at times led away with
a love of bewilderment, the not unnatural effect of his foreign
predilections.
On January 17th, 1611, Isaac Casaubon was, upon the
death of Dr. Nicholas Simpson, of Corpus Christi College,
Oxford, (whose son John was of the same College and Preben
dary of the seventh stall in 1614,) preferred to the eighth
stall in Canterbury Cathedral ; he was a layman at this time.
After this the King granted him, on the 19th, a pension of
£300 per annum during pleasure.1 His son Meric, who was
confirmed by Bishop Andrewes, was born at Geneva 1599.
He was educated at Christ Church, Oxford. Bishop An
drewes preferred him to Bledon in Somersetshire. He was
afterwards Vicar of Minster and Monkton in the Isle of
Thanet, the latter of which he resigned for the rectory of
Ickham, a few miles to the east of Canterbury. He was
made Prebendary of the ninth stall there June 19, 1628,
survived the Restoration, and died July, 1671, aged 75 years,
and was buried in the newer south transept.
On Easter-day, March 24, 1611, Bishop Andrewes
preached again before the King at Whitehall, from Psalm
cxviii., The stone which the builders re/used, the same
stone is become the head of the corner. The latter part of
this sermon has been largely quoted for its quaintness f the
former and more excellent has been suffered to rest in the
folio edition. It abounds indeed with beauties, but the pun
ning upon the text, and the making the King the head, not
of one angle but of three, England, Scotland, and Ireland, is
but little suited to that whereto it is annexed. Admirable,
however, as are very many passages in this discourse, it is
not as a whole comparable to that upon the same occasion
in the preceding year, nor is that in point of eloquence equal
to those that treat of the narrative of the resurrection.
And so his Whitsunday sermon for this year, had it been
less diffuse and less singular in its illustrations, which to our
ears at least sounds sometimes trivial, sometimes jocular, would
have deserved very considerable commendation. But there
are passages in it that should scarcely be quoted, and which
are only equalled for impropriety in his sermons upon the
Temptation in the wilderness, where presumption is likened
to gunpowder. This sermon, upon the Sending of the Holy
Ghost, was preached before the King at Windsor on Whit
sunday May 12.
On June 9th Bishop Andrewes assisted at Lambeth at the
consecration of Dr. Buckeridge to the see of Rochester, and of
Dr. Giles Thompson, his old schoolfellow at Merchant Taylor's,
to that of Gloucester. Dr. Buckeridge was born at Shinfield,
near Beading, was President of St. John's College, Oxford, 1606,
where he was succeeded by Laud in 1611, Rector of North
Fambridge near Maldon, and of North Kilworth, Leicester
shire (near Rugby), Vicar of St. Giles' Cripplegate, Preben
dary of Rochester 1587, of Hereford, and Archdeacon of
Northampton on the same day, March 23, 1604, Canon of
Windsor 1606. On the death of Bishop Felton he was
translated from Rochester to Ely, April 17, 1628, having
meanwhile preached Bishop Andrewes' funeral sermon in
1626. He died May 23, and was buried May 31 in Bromley
church, Kent, without any memorial.
Giles Thompson was born in London, educated at Merchant
Taylor's School, an exhibitioner of University College, Oxford,
1571, Fellow of All Souls' College 1580, Proctor 1586,
Divinity Reader at Magdalene College, Chaplain to Queen
Elizabeth, Canon Residentiary of Hereford May 23, 1594,
Rector of Pembridge, Herefordshire (near Leominster), Dean
of Windsor February 2, 1603. He died the year following
his consecration, without ever having visited his diocese, June
14, 1612. He was buried in St. George's Chapel, Windsor.
• He was one of the translators of the Bible.
On June 22 Andrewes was appointed one of the first
Governors of the Charterhouse.
Casaubon had very favourably represented to the King
the learning of Cardinal Perron, and had presented him with
some of the Cardinal's poems. This favour Perron acknow
ledged in a letter to Casaubon, in which he artfully laid the
ground of the controversy which now forms the second volume
of his works. He withheld from King James the name of
Catholic, upon which Casaubon replied in the King's name
that his Majesty was much surprised thereat, seeing that he
believed all that the ancients believed with unanimous consent
to be essential. To this Perron replied in a long and laboured
epistle dated Paris, July 15, 1611. This letter is prefixed to
his longer controversy, and is to be found in the translation of
the first four books of the Cardinal's Reply, printed at Douay
in folio, by Martin Bogart, 1630, and dedicated to ' Henrietta
Maria of Bourbon, Queen of Great Britain? Casaubon was
appointed by the King to answer Perron's letter of the 15th
of July, and to give in Latin the mind of the King himself
upon it. Casaubon' s Answer was put into the hands of
Andrewes and Overall, then Dean of St. Paul's, if not also
of Morton, then Dean of Winchester, and Montagu, Bishop of
that see. Isaacson, Bishop Andrewes' secretary, appears to
have acted as Casaubon' s amanuensis.1
Soon after Casaubon had completed his Epistle to. Fronto
Ducceusj he accompanied Andrewes out of town on the 20th
June. They returned together to town on the Saturday, and
on Sunday, June 30th, were honoured with an invitation to
the King.
On July 3rd Andrewes, Overall, Casaubon, and others
dined with the Lord Mayor.
On the 16th Andrewes set out for Cambridge with
Casaubon. After halting probably at Royston or at Ware
for that night, they arrived on Wednesday the 17th at Cam
bridge, and were lodged at Peterhouse by Dr. John Richard-
son the Master. The Master's lodge at that time consisted of
several apartments between the library built by Dr. Perne,
and the hall, which then retained a handsome oriel, with a
high-pitched roof and lantern. The present lodge on the
opposite side of Trumpington-street belonged to Dr. Charles
Beaumont, Fellow of Peterhouse, and son of Dr. Joseph
Beaumont, Eegius Professor of Divinity in the place of
Bishop Gunning, and Master of Peterhouse 1662, in the
room of the pious and munificent Bernard Hale, Archdeacon
of Ely. Dr. Charles Beaumont, his son, dying March 17,
1726, left this house to the Masters of the College for ever.
He left also a large sum for the purchase of advowsons, and
many valuable MSS. to the library.
Dr. John Bichardson was born at Linton on the south
confines of Cambridgeshire, bordering upon Essex. He was
brought up at Clare Hall,1 of which College he was B.A. in
158J, or, as we write, 1582. He was thence elected to a
fellowship at Emmanuel College, where he proceeded M.A.
in 1585, and D.D. 1597. He succeeded Dr. Overall as Kegius
Professor of Divinity at Cambridge in 1607. He was ap
pointed one of the translators of the Bible in the same class
with Lively, Chaderton, Dillingham, Andrewes, Spalding, and
Bynge. To these were deputed the historical books from
1 Chronicles inclusive, and the Hagiographa, namely, Job to
Ecclesiastes inclusive. In 1609 he was made Master of Peter-
house, having been previously made Fellow of Emmanuel
College by the founder himself, Sir Walter Mildmay. On
Saturday, May 27th, 1615, he was, between 3 and 5 P.M.,
admitted to the mastership of Trinity College, Cambridge.
He was also Bector of Upwell, a parish with the church
mostly in Norfolk, partly in Cambridgeshire. He resigned
his professorship in 1617, and was succeeded by Dr. Collins.
In the mastership of Peterhouse he was followed by Thomas
Turner, B.D.
Thomas Turner was born at Burnby in Yorkshire, three
miles south-east of Pocklington, between York and Beverley.
He was B.A. of Peterhouse 1596, chosen a Fellow there,
M.A. 1600, B.D. 1609, and D.D. 1616. He was also Hector
of Stokehammond in Buckinghamshire, three miles south of
Fenny Stratford, and was installed Prebendary of Leicester
St. Margaret's, August 23rd, 1612. He died in 1617.
Our prelate was lodged at Peterhouse, as being one of the
two Colleges in which the Bishops of Ely have a special
interest, as having been founded and endowed by various
occupants of that see. To this day the Master and Fellows
of Peterhouse, now called St. Peter's College, are admitted
to the mastership and fellowships, as the clergy of the diocese
are to their spiritual preferments, by the Bishops of Ely.
Peterhouse existed as a corporate society as early as 1274,
for in that year a charter recognises their existence as the
Warden and Scholars of Peterhouse.1 It has been objected
that Hugh de Balsham, Bishop of Ely, the founder, left at
his death 300 marks for new buildings. He however had
previously placed his scholars in two hostels in Trumpington-
street. He also assigned to it the advowson of Triplow,
which, although the presentation has been of late in the
hands of the Bishop of Ely, was in the last century appro
priated to Peterhouse. The College found benefactors in
Thomas de Insula, Bishop of Ely 1345, and his predecessors
Hotham and Montacute, or Montague, who gave the advowson
of Cherryhinton to Peterhouse in 1344. The rectory, to
which a manor was annexed, was appropriated to the College
in 1395 by Bishop Fordham. Dr. Richardson was doubtless
known to Andrewes, as being in the same company of trans
lators of our present incomparable version of the Scriptures.
He was also, like Andrewes, of a most munificent spirit:
he gave £100 u towards the building of a new court, front,
and gate towards the street, now finished," says Fuller, in his
History of the University of Cambridge. Probably Andrewes
would also find himself more at home at Peterhouse than at
his own College, where Harsnet was now Master, who was
compelled some years after to resign in consequence of an
opposition headed by Andrewes' own favourite Matthew
Wren, who was at this time a Fellow of Pembroke Hall.
Wren was an undoubted and invaluable benefactor to both
Pembroke Hall and to Peterhouse. He carefully catalogued
the muniments of the latter College, a benefit that has been
both felt and owned very recently by that venerable founda
tion.
On Thursday July 18 Casaubon dined with Dr. Kichardson,
and after that arrived at Ely with the Bishop, who forthwith
went to the Deanery to pay his respects to Dr. Tindall the
Dean, also President of Queens' College, Cambridge. He
was of a noble Norfolk family. He was son to Sir Thomas
Tindall, of Hockwold near Brandon in Norfolk. Sir William
was made Knight of the Bath by Henry VII. at the creation
of Arthur Prince of Wales, and was then declared heir to the
kingdom of Bohemia in right of Margaret his great grand
mother, niece of the King of Bohemia, and daughter to the
Duke of Theise. Dr. Humphrey Tindall, or Tyndale, was
great-grandson of this Sir William.1 He was at this time
very infirm, and died October 12th, 1614, and was buried in
the Cathedral. He had been made Chancellor of Lichfield
and Archdeacon of Stafford both on the same day, February
21, 1586, by Bishop Overton, and retained these preferments
to his death. He was also Vicar of Soham.
On Sunday July 21st Casaubon attended with Andrewes
at the Cathedral. He informs us that the Bishop daily
attended divine service there whilst he was in residence.
On the 24th July, Wednesday, Casaubon took a survey of
Ely itself and of the Cathedral, especially admiring the
octagon lantern.
On the following Wednesday, July 31 (our 9th August),
the Bishop accompanied him to the Cathedral very early
in the morning, and they together took especial notice of the
lantern tower. At that time the choir was immediately
under it.
On the 4th August, being the first Sunday in the month,
the holy Sacrament was administered, the Bishop and Casau
bon being present.
On Monday, 5th, the anniversary of the Gowrie Conspiracy
was observed at the Cathedral. The Dean and the other
clergy met the Bishop at the great west door, and psalms
were chanted as they proceeded up the nave. After morning
service the Bishop himself preached, and a few worshippers
remained to receive the holy Communion.
On Tuesday, August 6th, the Bishop took Casaubon with
him, on his way to Wisbeach, to his palace at Downham1
]fa]i.di, which was his favourite residence, and in the chapel
of which it was his frequent practice to hold his ordinations.
On Wednesday the Mayor and ten burgesses, with a
company of about one-hundred-and-fifty on horses, met the
Bishop at his entering into Wisbeach.
On Thursday a sermon was preached at the church, the
beauty of which Casaubon did not fail to observe. He went
afterwards to the Castle where some Jesuits and recusants
were confined.
On Friday the 9th the Bishop and Casaubon went on
horseback to inspect the dykes on the other side of Wisbeach
from that by which they entered. After going four or five
miles at a walking pace they lost their way. On their return
the Bishop's horse threw him, but the good providence of
God so ordered it that he received no hurt either from his fall
or whilst between the horse's feet.1
On Saturday the 10th, after having read some Psalms
together, as was the Bishop's custom, they went to the
Assizes, at which the Bishop presided. They then returned
to Downham Market.
On Wednesday the 14th Casaubon and his wife went to
the quarry near Ely.
On Monday the 19th the Bishop accompanied him on his
horse to see the country around and beyond Ely.
On Wednesday the 21st the Bishop gave a great dinner
to the nobility and gentry of the neighbourhood.
On Thursday the 29th Casaubon returned to London.
On the 22nd September Andrewes held an ordination in
the chapel of his palace at Downham Market. He ordained
Deacons Samuel Stubbin, B.A. of Emmanuel College 1609,
and M.A. 1612, and William Bawley, M.A., Fellow of
Corpus Christi College, chaplain to Lord Bacon, and Eector
of Landbeach near Cambridge, where he died, aged seventy-
nine years, June 18, 1667. Bacon valued our prelate's
learning, and sent to him the MS. of his Cogitata et Visa for
his remarks upon it, as he had done upon previous occasions.
In another letter, addressed to King James October 12,
1620,1 Bacon mentions that the Bishop was acquainted for
nearly thirty years with his intention of writing the Novum
Organon.
After his retirement he also dedicated to Bishop Andrewes
his Advertisement touching a Holy War, concluding in these
words: "This work I have dedicated to your lordship in
respect of our ancient and private acquaintance, and because
amongst the men of our times I hold you in special rever
ence."2 Andrewes usually spent July, August, and Sep
tember in his diocese, and so he, soon after this ordination,
returned to London.
On the 13th October, Saturday, he took Casaubon with
him from London to Ware, and on Saturday the 19th they
reached Koyston, and were the King's guests at his house
there in Armingford-street. It is still to be seen, with the
private garden, in which is a mulberry-tree from one which
the King himself is said to have planted, which fell down
about twelve years since. They remained two days with the
King.
On the 4th of November Casaubon was again with
Andrewes.
On the 14th they again set out together to Eoyston, spent
the greater part of Friday the 15th with the King, and
returned.
, Casaubon was with Andrewes again on the 25th.
On the next day he wrote to Daniel Heyne. He relates
that on October 22nd the King commanded him to attend
him to London. There were present Archbishop Abbot and
Bishop Andrewes. Andrewes begged of Heyne through
i Casaubon to make his house his home when he was not
: under Casaubon' s roof. Casaubon relates how he was con-
.stantly with Andrewes about this time, and that this great
I prelate supplied to him the place of De Thou, such was his
[profound learning, and so great his affability.3
On Monday, December 2nd, he again went to the King at
Royston with Andrewes, and remained with him there the
next day.
He was again in attendance upon Andrewes on the 7th
on account otf a letter from Mountagu, Bishop of Bath and
Wells, written for the King respecting the returning of the
papers with which he and Andrewes had been entrusted.
These related to the letter to Cardinal Perron, which Casau-
bon was than preparing under the King's direction.1
Toward the end of this year (1611) was printed at London
by Robert Barker the King's printer, Elenchus Eefutationis
Torturce Torti pro Reverendissimo in Christo Patre Domino
Episcopo Eliensi (Andrewes) adversus Martinum Becanum
Jesuitam. Author e Richardo Tlwmsonio Cantabrigiensi : A
Confutation of the Jesuit Martin Becaris Refutation of Bp.
Andrewes 's Tortura Torti. This little volume is a 12mo of
104 pages, dedicated to the author's friend, Sir Thomas
Jermyn. It is written with much point, spirit, and ability.
The author animadverts upon the misrepresentation of Becan,
who for the King's supremacy substitutes primacy?
Becan would have his readers imagine that Andrewes and
King James were at variance respecting the Pope's being
Antichrist. We have already seen the opinion of both upon
that topic. The King only conceded, that whilst he held
to his own opinion respecting Antichrist, he would not place
his opinion thereon amongst articles of faith.3 Thomson
alleges the remarkable coincidence with Rev. xvii. of the
name long engraven on the Papal tiara, mystery. This most
remarkable circumstance, admitted by Lessius, himself a
zealous partisan of the Romish see, was denied by Bossuet,
who was exposed by M. Christian Gotthilf Blumberg in his
Exercitium anti-Bossueticum^ 1695, and again farther esta
blished in his Mysterium Papali coronce adscriptum, 1702,
against Dr. John Louis Hanneman, Professor of Medicine
at Kiel.
Thomson objects to Bellarmine the fact that the King
of Spain was by hereditary right invested with the entire
authority of a legatus a later e in the kingdom of Sicily, having
power to absolve, excommunicate, forbid appeals to Rome,
&c. This he proves by the very words of Ascanius Colonna,
one of the College of Cardinals, in p. 161 of his work upon
the kingdom of Sicily against Baronius.1
The author, Richard Thomson, was Proctor in 1612 of
Clare Hall, in which year occur also as Proctors, Stephen
Haget of Queens' College, and Henry Bird of Trinity Hall.2
This Thomson or Thompson is said to have been the same
with the author of another Latin treatise (unless indeed that
was a posthumous treatise), which was published at Ley den
in 1618, Ricardi Thomsonis Angli Diatriba de Amissione et
Inter cisione Gratice et Justifications , 1618. The author who
wrote in defence of Andrewes was incorporated of the Uni
versity of Oxford July 1, 1596, according to Wood, who at
the same time concludes his account of him with this obser
vation : u One of both his names was as a M. of A. of Cambr.
incorporated in this University 1593, which I take to be
the same with this," namely, the author both of the Elenchus
and of the Diatriba. However, our author, the author of
the Elenchus, is doubtless truly described by Anthony Wood
as a u Dutchman born of English parents," for he was an
eminent tutor at Clare Hall in 1604, prior to which the pious
Nicholas Ferrar was entered at that College. In a life
abridged from one written by Dr. Turner, Bishop of Ely, and
published in the Christian Magazine for July 1761 (p. 356),
we have the following notice of him and of Clare Hall at that
time. " In his (Ferrar' s) thirteenth year Mr. Brooks himself
(who kept a school near Newbury, Berkshire,) would needs
carry his young scholar to settle him in the University,
declaring that he was more than ripe for it, and alleging his
i loss of time if he staid any longer at school. He placed him at
• Cambridge at Clare Hall, famous for a set of the most eminent
men of their times in their several faculties ; Dr. Butler for
i physic, Mr. Lake, who was after advanced to be Secretary of
State, Mr. Kuggle (the celebrated author of Ignoramus] for his
exquisite skill in all polite learning, Dutch Thomson, as we
quote him still at Cambridge, Mr. Parkinson, and Dr. Austin
Lindsell, afterwards Lord Bishop of Peterborough, and at
last of Hereford, for their profound knowledge in divinity.
The last of these, who was the general scholar, was pleased
to receive a youth of such great hopes into his own tuition."1
The other Thomson, incorporated M.A. at Oxford in
1593, was Eichard Thomson of Trinity College, Cambridge,
B.A. 1587-8, M.A. 1591.
The Jesuit Becan was this year answered also by the
Rev. Hobert Burhill, of Corpus Christi College, Oxford,
whom Bishop Andrewes afterwards rewarded with the rectory
of Snailwell, in the county of Cambridge, and about three
miles north of Newmarket. Burhill's vindication of the
Bishop is entitled, Pro Torturd Tortij contra Martinum
Becanum Jesuitam^ Responsio Roberti Burhilli Angli. Lon-
dini : Excudebat Eobertus Barkerus, serenissimce, Regice Ma-
jestatis Typographus. Anno Dom. 1611. It is dedicated to
Prince Henry. In his epistle to the reader he mentions that
his references are to the Cologne edition of Tortus, 1608, and
to the London edition of the Tortura, 1609.
Becan had displayed the usual arts of his fraternity, and
in so doing sometimes contradicted Bellarmine whom he
professed to defend, by assuming a liberality inconsistent
with the ultramontanism of the Cardinal. He also dealt in
Pembroke Hall 1563, and M.A. 1566. He was born at Ipswich, and was the
most eminent physician of his age. Dyer in his account of Clare Hall has made
him the same with another benefactor to that foundation, noticing him as " John
Freeman Butler, Esq."* He attended Prince Henry in his last illness November
1612. He gave a chalice of solid gold for the divine service, and a handsome
carpet to cover the Communion-table, and also left by his will two curious
flagons, the one of crystal, the other serpentine tipped with silver, and all his
books in folio. There is a mural monument to his memory, with his bust, on
the south side of the chancel of Great St. Mary's, Cambridge. He died January
9th, 1618, in his 83rd year.
the popular misrepresentations of the royal supremacy, and
continually laboured to pervert the meaning of his oppo
nents. Burhill reminded him that whilst he had boasted of
having refuted both the King and the Bishop in regard of the
oath of allegiance, he had passed over a third author, George
Blackwell; whom not very long before Clement VIII. had
appointed arch-presbyter of England. Blackwell had written
to demonstrate both the equity of the oath, and the falsity of
the Papal claim to depose princes.
Becan studied insolence and invective, treating both the
King and our prelate with disrespect, and professing to
depreciate the learning and talent of the latter in his very
title-page, which ran as follows, Refutatio Torture Torti, seu
contra Sacellanum Regis Anglice quod causam Regis sui negli-
genter egerit, ' A Refutation of the Tortura Torti, or against
the Chaplain of the King of England because he had slight
ingly handled the cause of his King.' Burhill objects to him
the inconsistency of this charge of negligence on the Bishop's
part with his own admission, Si verba spectem satis cultus et
elegans es / si laborem ac diligentiam, non culpo otium: at
multa alia sunt quce non ceque probem? 'If I look to the
style, you are sufficiently ornate and elegant; if to the pains
and diligence, I have not to blame want of care. But there
are many other things which I cannot equally approve.'
Burhill justly charges Becan with making common cause
with those traitors, Nicholas Sanders and the proto-pseudo
martyr of the Jesuits in England, Edmund Campian. He
proceeds to remind Becan that not only the Gallican and
Venetian divines, but amongst the Spanish, Francesco de
Victoria, Dominic Bannes, Medina, Ledesna, and Sotus
denied that the clergy were jure divino exempt from the
I civil power, (p. 62). He maintains the royal supremacy on
I the now, alas, deserted doctrine that the end of Christian
government is somewhat higher than the advancement of
mere secular prosperity. The Church of Kome he does not
hesitate to charge with spiritual adultery as the scarlet whore
of the Apocalypse (purpurata meretrix). (p. 85.) He takes
notice of the perversion of Scripture by Baronius, who, stirring
up Pope Paul V. against the Venetians, admonished him that
the Apostle Peter's was a twofold office, to feed and to slay,
because it was said to him, Rise Peter , kill and eat. Acts x. 13.
(p. 85.) He claims for the Sovereign the right as well of dis
solving as of calling together ecclesiastical assemblies, and of
interposing to set aside useless controversies, and for the sup
pression of religious factions, (p. 106.) Also the power
of annulling unjust censures, and of nominating in eccle
siastical elections, (pp. 106, 107.) He denies to the Sove
reign the right of imposing canons by his sole authority,
or of condemning as heretical that which has not hitherto
been pronounced heretical, (p. 108.) He notices the extra
vagant claims of the Pope in the 7th section (p. 85) of the
Book of Ceremonies, to " all power in heaven and in earth."
(p. 109.) He recognizes the Augustinian idea of the invisible
church, namely, those who through internal grace are members
of the body of Christ, (p. 134.) He objects to Becan that
there is no unity in his Church in regard of essentials if
Bellarmine is to be followed, who repeatedly affirms that the
Pope's power of deposing princes is an article, nay, one of the
chief articles of the Catholic faith, (p. 145.) He refers to
various Komish writers who had taught the contrary, and
here he makes use of that great storehouse of Protestant
evidence, Flacii Illyrici Catalogus Testium Veritatis. (p. 146.)
Becan, he says, must needs confess that there are three preva
lent opinions respecting the Pope's dominion over princes, that
of Baronius and the Canonists, that the Pope is directly lord
of the world and judge of kings ; that of Bellarmine and of
the Jesuits, that he is so not directly but indirectly ; and that
of the Ghibelines and those who hold with them, that he has
no such lordship and authority either directly or indirectly,
(p. 147.) He exposes the historical falsehoods of Bellarmine
in the 21st chapter of his book upon the Sacraments in his
polemical works, and of Binius, at p. 1494 of the third volume
of the Councils, respecting the pretended submission of the
Greeks to the Church of Rome in the Council of Lateran 1215,
(by a mistake printed 1195, p. 152), and at the Council of
Lyons 1274, and thirdly at that of Florence in 1439.
Toward the end of this the 15th chapter Burhill with his
Sovereign applies the Apocalypse to the Church of Kome,
and in the great diminution of the revenues of that church
which ensued upon the Reformation, sees the commencement
of the punishmet predicted against that apostate communion
in the 16th verse of the 17th chapter, (p. 161.) In the 12th
chapter Burhill exposes the sanction which both Popes and
Jesuits had given to the assassination of Henry III. of France,
and the democratic doctrine of Bellarmine that kings derived
their rights from the people, the Pope from God alone, and
further illustrates the tenet that no faith is to be kept with
heretics, (p. 204.) He here takes occasion to expose the in
consistency of Becan, who in one place had admitted that
the Council of Constance had granted John Huss a safe-
conduct, and in another had denied that the Council had
made any promise to him. Burhill unveils the fallacies
by which Becan would with others blind the public to the
reality of this obnoxious tenet, and cites numerous autho
rities of the Romish Church who had insisted upon it:
Simanca, Conrad Brunus (1. iii. De Hcereticis, c. 15, n. 6, et seq.
in Tractatibus illustrium Jureconsultorum de Judiciis crimi-
nalibus sanctce Inquisitionis] , Francis Burchardt (in Autonomid,
parte iii. c. 13), Joh. Paul Windeck (in Deliberatione deHcere-
sibus extirpandw) , Ayala (De Jure Belli, 1. i. c. 6, n. 8), Molanus
(De Fide Hcereticis Servandd, 1. iv. c. 7) ; and so Cardinal
Hosius, in his Epistles to Henry King of Poland, " Never suffer
yourself by any consideration to be bound to the fulfilment of
those things that you have promised, because an oath ought
not to be an obligation of iniquity."
In the 20th chapter Burhill lays open the impious secret of
the whole history of Jesuitism, the utter prostration of mind
and conscience to the will of the superior, which forms the basis
of the Jesuit's preparation for his career of perfidy and crime.
So the Jesuit of old went forth to subjugate the world to
the Pope, as in after times he has been seen endeavouring to
subjugate Popes themselves to the greatness of his own order.
Our author, in an earlier section of his work, refers with the
highest commendation to Dr. Thomas Morton's Catholic
Apology for Protestants, 1. i. c. 9. Morton was then Dean of
Winchester, and was in 1615 consecrated to the see of
Chester, translated to Lichfield and Coventry 1618, and thence
to Durham in 1632.
On Wednesday, Christmas-day, our prelate preached be
fore the King at Whitehall, from John i. 14. Excellently
does he instance the force of the term flesh, as implying our
nature. So St. Augustine of holy Scripture, in the 2nd
chapter of the 14th book On the City of God: Scepe etiam
ipsum hommenij id est naturam hominis carnem nuncupat,
modo locutionis a parte totum significans? Nothing can be
more perspicuous than the manner in which Andrewes here
makes use of his learning, applies the Nicene Creed, and sets
forth the doctrine of the Church on this great article, the
union of the two natures in one person intended by the ex
pression, ' the taking of the manhood into God?
Beyond all praise is the simple pathos of his transition
from the doctrine viewed in itself to the doctrine in its relation
to us and to our nature, the wonderful humiliation which it
manifested in Christ, all that in the mystery of the incarnation
which is not simply the object of our faith but of our love.
It is perhaps true that the very faultiness of the style, the
continual mixture of English and Latin, yet frequently, as
here, adds to the point of those antitheses which are so touch-
ingly brought into our prelate's discourses.
Certainly the rejection of that simplicity, which in Bishop
Andrewes is always eifective because it spurns all elaborate
ness of construction and expression, gives to the best of our
modern sermons a comparative coldness and ineffectiveness
that cannot be too deeply regretted. Men scorn as over-
prettinesses what is too simple to be natural to them or to
the vitiated taste which they profess to esteem it their duty
to pamper. Upon such, with whom a preaching next to
foolish has the greatest attractions, the works of Bishop
Andrewes would be thrown away; they could not appreciate
that fertility of the imagination, that combination of simple
imagery, which, like the parables of our Saviour, is of uni
versal adaptation. Let the reader study the point so promi
nent in almost every sentence of this discourse. We may
read and hear many long and overstrained compositions, out
of which none shall be able to carry away so complete and
so concise a lesson as this of the grace and truth of the Word:
il Grace is to adopt us, truth to beget us anew ; for, of his own
will he hath begotten us, by the word of truth."
What are many of our sermons to this one paragraph?
tl Good hope we now have, that he being now flesh, all flesh
may come to him, to present him with their requests. Time
was when they fled from him, but ad factum carnem jam
veniet omnis caro. For since he dwelt amongst us, all may
resort unto him, yea, even sinners ; and of them it is said,
Hie recipit peccatores et comedit cum eis, He receiveth them,
receiveth them even to his table."
And here we will conclude this chapter. It is brief, and
comprises but one year of the life of our prelate; but we
cannot better end than with the mention and memorial of His
incarnation, who, by taking our flesh, assured us of his love,
that love in which is bound up our true, our eternal good.
For now " He seeth us daily in himself; he cannot look upon
his flesh but he must think upon us. And God the Father
cannot now hate the flesh which the Word is made."
CHAPTER XIII.
The Version 0/1611— Dr. Gell— Bishop Marsh — Luther— Tyndale—
Coverdale — Cranmer's Bible — Geneva Bible — Dr. Whitaker on
the Old Testament — Tregelles — Matthcei — Valla's Collations —
Complutensian New Testament — Erasmus — Stephens — His MSS.
of the New Testament — Beza.
IT was in the course of this year, 1611, that the present
Version of the Holy Scriptures appeared. I cannot pass over
this opportunity of attempting, however briefly and inadequately, to pay my passing tribute to this noble work, a work destined to abide the shock of peradventure one and another coming attack; a work well able to abide every effort of the innovating spirit of our own or future generations that may
be directed against it. The Rev. Frederick Henry Scrivener, M.A., who has now established his reputation for accuracy and completeness as a collator of the Biblical MSS. preserved in our own country, in his Supplement to the Authorized English Version of the New Testament* remarks of King James's version of the Bible: "I hardly need observe that it has received the highest panegyrics from Biblical scholars of every shade of theological sentiment, from the date of its
publication to the present time. For more than a century after its completion almost the only person of respectable acquirements and station who wrote against it, was Dr. Robert Gell, whose twenty discourses or sermons on this subject
(London, 1659, folio) I have not been able to meet with.
They are not in the British Museum nor in Sion College
Library. Judging from Lewis's description of the book,
my loss has not been great. Gell had taken up a foolish
and very unfounded notion that the Calvinistic bias of some
of the translators had a prejudicial effect on the version: but
Gal. v. 6 is the only text I can discover to which he objects
on this ground.2 The New Testament he thought to be
worse rendered than the Old, and he complains that the
order of the words in the original is wholly neglected (Heb.
x. 34). Lewis also mentions Matt. xx. 23, 1 John iii. 20, as
passages which Dr. Gell thought capable of improvement;
but if he gives us any" thing " approaching to a fair analysis
of the contents of these sermons, they never could have endangered the reputation of the translation which they as sailed."
[PARAGRAPHS OMITTED]
Dr. Dobbin published in 1854 a collation of this MS.
throughout the Gospels and Acts with the Greek text of
Wetstein and with certain MSS. in the University of Oxford.
Mr. Scrivener, whose accuracy is now established beyond
question, observes, from a careful comparison of this and the
celebrated Leicester MS., that we can hardly resort to the
Codex Montfort, as Tregelles suggests (Home's Introduction
to the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 216), for the readings of the
Codex Leicestrensis in those parts of the Apocalypse which
are defective in the latter MS."3
CHAPTER XIV.
Easter 1612 — Andrewes a Governor of the Charterhouse — His speech
concerning Vows — His Whitsunday sermon — Ordination at Down-
ham — His 5th of November sermon — And on Christmas-day —
Casaulorfs Answer to Cardinal Perron — Dr. Collins.
WE find Casaubon again with Andrewes on the 3rd of
February, 1612, in company with Overall, the only two
Englishmen with whom he says in his diary he was on terms
of intimacy.
On Maundy Thursday, April 9th, he dined at Ely House,
Holborn, with our prelate. He after dinner was present with
his wife at the washing of the feet of some poor men, quce fit,
he says, in hdc ecclesid egregie. In 1639 Charles is said to
have kept this day at York, where Wren, Bishop of Ely,
washed the feet of thirty-nine poor old men in warm water,
and dried them with a linen cloth. Afterwards Curie, Bishop
of Winchester, washed them over again in white wine, wiped,
and kissed them.
Our prelate, on April 12, Easter-day, 161 2, preached before
King James at Whitehall Chapel, from 1 Cor. v. 7, 8, on the
Christian Passover, deriving from this place the Easter
festival. He cites 2 Sam. xii. 13, according to the Vulgate,
The Lord hath transferred, or passed over thy sins, that is, to
another : and so the Septuagint. The death of the firstborn
passed over to the Lamb. Our souls are dearer to us than
our firstborn, and both our sin and curse pass over from us to
Christ.
The Passover was both sacrificed and eaten. But in rigour
of speech neither the Passover nor the Eucharist is a sacrifice ;
there is in the latter no immolation.1
And here Bishop Andrewes speaks explicitly against the
real presence of the present Via Media. He denies all eating
of Christ's glorified body. Let us keep the feast he refers to
the participation of Christ, not as glorified but as suffering.
" He, as at the very act of his offering, is made present to us,
and we incorporate into his death, and invested in the benefit
of it. If an host could be turned into him now glorified as
he is, it would not serve. Christ offered is it. Thither we
must look. To the serpent lift up, thither we must repair, even
ad cadaver" [to the dead body]. Thus a spiritual, not a real
corporeal presence was the doctrine of Bishop Andrewes.
Nothing can be more severe than his allusion to the mass ; he
calls it Anti- Christ's goat? Nor can this surprise us when
we reflect that he regarded that service as idolatrous, and
therefore antichristian.
Our prelate was appointed one of the first governors of
the Charterhouse, and one of the overseers of the founder's
will, in which capacity he attended his funeral in the chapel
of the Charterhouse May 28th. He also addressed a letter to
Button's executors, directing them to pay the sum of £10,000
for the repair of Berwick-bridge, in fulfilment of the provisions
of his will, which directed a certain sum to be applied to
charitable uses.1 Thomas Button, Esq., the founder, was born
at Knaith, near Gainsborough in Lincolnshire. About seven
years before his death he purchased the manor of Castle
Camps in Cambridgeshire, and resided there, and left it with
the advowson of the living to the Charterhouse. Dr. Nicholas
Grey, the first Master of the Charterhouse, was appointed to
the rectory. It is at present held by the Kev. George
Pearson, B.D., who after having taken his degree at Em
manuel College was chosen to a fellowship at St. John's, and
was made Christian Advocate in 1834.
In the Trinity term 1612 he delivered his speech in the
Star Chamber concerning vows, in the Countess of Shrews
bury's case. Elizabeth Cavendish, Countess of Shrewsbury,
was sent to the town on a charge of having been adviser to
Arabella Stuart, to whom she was aunt. She answered every
question that related to .herself only, but begged to be excused
answering to anything that could implicate her unfortunate
relative. The King ordered her to appear before certain
commissioners, who fined her to the amount of £20,000, and
moreover condemned her to discretionary imprisonment. The
Countess pleaded that she had made a vow not to answer.
Our prelate maintained its unlawfulness. A lawful vow he
defined l a deliberate promise to God made of something ac
ceptable to him.' The Countess had vowed thus, said Bishop
Andrewes, l 0 Lord, I promise thee that being never so law
fully examined, I will not answer,' but l if all should make the
like, not to answer any, then were justice quite overthrown and
could not proceed. The overthrow of justice can be no matter
of vow.' Such examination as that in question was warranted
by the law of God in Dent. xiii. 14, and xvii. 4. Again, God's
own practice was designed as a pattern to judges. He asked
Adam of his sin in Paradise. Herod and Jephtha both vowed
unlawfully. A vow ought not to be indefinite. David vowed
the like, to be the death of Nabal ; but upon better advice
(being put in mind by Abigail, it would be no scruple nor
upbraiding to his conscience if he shed no blood, and so kept
not his heady vow) he did not keep it.
He concludes, in the quaint manner of the age, with an
assurance that the Countess may safely vow never to make
any such vow more.
Upon May 31 he took his turn at the chapel on Whit
sunday, and preached from Acts xix. 1 — 3, upon the divinity
of the Holy Ghost, against the Socinians who were about that
time agitating their controversies in this country. Excellent
are his remarks upon the true Christian motives in distinction
from the merely political, moral, and philosophical. Whatsoever
is done from a selfish end, and from no higher, is not reli
giously done, but only that of which God is the centre, which
is done to his glory, and not for our own but for his name.
He quotes Isa. xxvi. 18, according to the Septuagint, and
Psa. li. 10 as it stands, not in the text but in the margin of
our authorized version, ' constant? The great impediments
to the coming of the Holy Spirit to us he sums up thus —
pride, lust, and malice, that is, every form of uncharitableness.
To invite the Spirit to us, he exhorts to the frequenting of
the sanctuary, to prayer, to the preached word and meditation
upon it, and to the sacraments. Of the Word he saith, " The
Holy Ghost is Christ's Spirit, and Christ is the Word. And
of that Word, the Word that is preached to us is an abstract.
There must needs then be a nearness and alliance between
the one and the other. And indeed (but by our default) the
Word and the Spirit, saith Esay, shall never fail nor ever
part, but one be received when the other is."
We find our prelate, at his palace at Downham on the 27th
July, writing as follows to Sir Thomas Lake :
"SIR, — Since my coming hither to Downham I have
received information from Mr. D. Felton, that the Bishop of
Chichester, waxing weary of his mastership of Pembroke
Hall, intendeth very shortly to make it over to one who, save
that he hath for (e) bid his turn (a man may say it in charity),
that many years hath (and this year especially) shewed himself
unworthy of such a place ; one Muriell, concerning whom the
Sub- Almoner can very well inform you. I wish the House
well, as I am bound. I know that wish well to D. Felton.
And his Majesty hath freely been pleased to signify his good
liking of him, and to wish him some preferment, and even
this place itself (if it like you to remember so much), upon
some occasion heretofore in this kind. The better sort of
Fellows do wish for him, and, as now it standeth, I might
say, the greater. But it is certainly intended by the Bishop
to make an election of fellowships before he gives over, that
shall be brought in only on condition to give their voice after
ward as he shall appoint them. I write you for no end but
only to set you about good works. And a blessed deed would
you do if you shall help the College (hitherto of good report)
and a worthy Master, such as I hope D. Felton would be ;
which otherwise is like even to sink and come to nothing if it
light not in the better hands. Sir, I desire you for his sake,
for mine, but specially for the College's, to add this to the
number of the rest of your good deeds, and prevent this evil,
and be a means that a good House may have a good head,
which I much desire, because then I shall be in hope once
more to see that College, which otherwise I am not like.
I prescribe nothing, neither doth it become me : but if his
Majesty please to interpose his authority or commendation,
there is conceived good hope, which in what sort it may best
be, none can better devise than yourself, to whom therefore
I leave it ; this being my desire that it may appear I have
not been wanting to my motion for the good of that poor
College. You shall, as for many others, so for this, look for
your reward at the hand of God, to whose blessed keeping
now and ever I commend you. From Downham in the Isle
of Ely, the 27th July, 1612, where I yet am in expectation
that from Gaines. I shall see you and my Lady. Utinam.
tl Yours ever to my power,
Very assured,
"L. ELIENSIS."
In August Bishop Andrewes was attacked with an aguish
fever, from being in the open air too late in the evening. To
this illness Isaacson, his first biographer, alludes where he
says, "He was not often sick, and but once till his last sickness in thirty years before the time he died, which was at Downham in the Isle of Ely, the air of that place not agreeing with the constitution of his body. But there he seemed to
be prepared for his dissolution, saying oftentimes in that
sickness, It must come once, and why not here? And at other
times before and since he would say, The days must come
when, whether we will or nill, we shall say with the Preacher,
I have no pleasure in them." To this illness Andrewes him
self alludes in his Latin letters to Isaac Casaubon, dated the
Vigil of St. Bartholomew, i. e. August 23rd, and the Nativity
of the Virgin, September 8th.
In the first Andrewes invites Casaubori to come with his
wife and revive his spirits, and exchange the great heat of the
metropolis for the cooler air of Downham. He cannot forego
a pun, a semi-double pun upon this subject, Nam Dunamias
mira caloris dSwafjula, nee sestus, quod sciam, ullus restate hac
tot&. He then refers, for a proof of his comparison, to his
illness occasioned by too late exposure to the evening air.
He urges him to devote his principal attention to his Exerci-
tationes in Baronium, and to pass over the tribe of inferior
writers whom Home had, as the Bishop observes, jesuitically
set on him to draw him off from his great work against Baro-
nius. He alludes by name to Erycius Puteanus, who, as the
editor of the eleventh volume of our prelate's works observes
in a note, had just published his Strictures in Casaubonum.
He makes no very favourable mention of Peter de Moulin,
and speak of his sirenlike influence with the King. He condemns the controversy then in agitation, as likely to lead to nothing but the introduction of new distinctions in the language of theology. I would rather, he adds, two or three
lines from antiquity than as many books of these men, which
savour of nothing but the love of novelty. He then expresses
his hope that the King may not intermeddle with these disputes, which in his opinion threatened to break out into a disease. He concludes with a cordial invitation to Casaubon to come now and see on his way Stourbridge Fair, the most
celebrated in all England ; or, if that will not induce him, the Hebrew copy of St. Matthew in the library of Corpus Christi College. He holds out to him the enjoyments of the country, the trial of his skill in deer-shooting, and promises
to detain him but a few days.
In his second letter, also from Downham, he expresses his
regret that Casaubon could not accede to his request, and says,
"I shall owe to London what I cannot have at Downham."
He again urges him respecting his work against Baronius,
and again advises him not to lose too much time amidsl
chronological questions of only secondary importance. He
alludes to Eichard Thompson of Clare Hall, and to his being
proctor that year ; Thompsonus valet, et novum magistratum
meditatur, in eoque totus est. He was in the same company
with Andrewes as one of the translators of the Bible. He was
intimate with Casaubon. Peter du Moulin, a French refugee
on account of religion, was collated by Archbishop Abbot to
the fourth stall at Canterbury in 1615.
On September 20th Andrewes ordained the following
deacons in the chapel of the Palace at Downham:
Theodore Bathurst, M.A., Fellow of Pembroke Hall.
Alexander Bolde, M.A., Fellow of Pembroke Hall.
Walter Balcanqual, M.A., Fellow of Pembroke Hall,
Dean of Eochester 8th March, 1625, and of Durham May 13,
1639. He was sent by the King to the Synod of Dort, died
on Christmas-day 1645, and was buried at Chirk in Denbigh
shire.
Bathurst was B.A. 1606, M.A. 1608, B.D. 1615, D.D.
1620. Bolde was B.A. 1607, M.A. 1610, and B.D. 1618 ;
chosen Fellow of Pembroke Hall 1610. Balcanqual was B.D.
1616, D.D. 1620. His supplicat for B.D. says, " 7 years after
M.A.," but no record exists of his B.A. or M.A. degree.
John Martin, Queens' College, Cambridge, B.A. 1609,
M.A. 1612.
On November 5 the King and Queen were absent from
the chapel at Whitehall on account of the illness of Prince
Henry. Our prelate discoursed excellently, but not without
some quaintnesses, from Lam. iii. 22, It is the Lord's mercies
that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
With no small skill does he by comparison illustrate the
greatness of this our national deliverance. He makes nume
rous allusions to the history of the plot, allusions such as may
for ever set at rest the artful misrepresentations which the Jesuits
of former and of the present time have invented to palliate this
truly Eomish atrocity. Thus he reminds his audience that
the conspirators were " bound" by oath, bound secondly "by
their sacrament of penance. Thither they went in an error, as
if it had been some fault ; but they found more than they went
for : went/or absolution, received a flat resolution. It was not
only no sin, but would serve to expiate their other sins ; and
not only expiate their sins, but heap also upon them an
increase of merit. In effect, that our consumption would
become their consummation. Bound last with the sacrament
of the altar and so made as sure as their Maker could
make it."
Andrewes attributes the unriddling of the celebrated letter,
to the King under the special guidance of God.
On the following day, November the 6th, between seven
and eight in the evening, Prince Henry died of an epidemic
fever.
On December 7th Bishop Andrewes was present at the
funeral of the Prince at Westminster Abbey. Archbishop
Abbot preached the funeral sermon from Psa. Ixxxii. 6, 7 :
/ have said ye are gods ; and all of you are children of the
Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of
the princes.
We find Andrewes preaching again at Whitehall on
Christmas-day from the Epistle for the day, and most chris-
tianly setting forth the condescension of the Son of God in
visiting our world, "as if a great prince should go into an
hospital to visit and look on a foul diseased creature."
Towards the end of this year appeared Casaubon's Answer
to Cardinal Perron. It was published in Latin, in quarto, by
John Norton, 1612, either in November or December. This
was a further exposition of his Majesty's faith, in answer to
the Cardinal who had withheld from him the name of Catholic.
The King professes to believe one Catholic Church made up
of many communions. He maintains an unity of faith and
doctrine, of charity and hope; but if any depart from the
integrity of Christian doctrine, he leaves Christ. From such
the Scriptures bid us depart. Cardinal Perron had quoted
largely from St. Austin. The King replies that the Church is
much changed from what it was in St. Augustine's days. Then
there was an unity of faith by which error could be easily
detected. But after the division of the empire the Church itself
also was divided. The King affirms that to be doctrine
necessary to salvation which is drawn from the fountain of the
Scriptures through the channel of the consent of the ancient
Church. Our Church has succession both of persons and
doctrines. The Church of England would willingly prove
before any free Council that her intent in the Reformation
was to restore the primitive model. We have departed from
the innovations of Rome, but not from the old Catholic
Church. We had a long time borne an intolerable yoke of
exactions which alone would have justified separation ; and
the Church of Rome had used against us both secret and
open violence, and received in her bosom and still cherished
the most manifest traitors and called them martyrs, and con
tended for their innocence daily against all laws human and
divine. The King notices Bellarmine's personal favours to
the conspirators, as indeed has been already observed.
The King animadverts upon the addition of auricular con
fession to the essentials of religion, and upon the enforcement
of celibacy, and traces the self-flagellation of the more religious
members of the Church of Rome to the custom of the priests
of Baal. He maintains the distinction of essentials and non-
essentials, and points out agreement in the few points that are
truly essential as the only way to unity. Those, he says, are
simply necessary which the Word of God expressly commands
to be believed, or which the ancient Church has elicited by
necessary consequence from the Word of God.
The King highly commends unforced and voluntary
celibacy, and here fails not to express his detestation of the
doctrine advanced by some of the Romish jurists and theo
logians, that concubinage and fornication are more tolerable
in a priest than marriage. The King had often said that, for
his part, he would never have dissolved monasteries if he had
found them faithfully abiding by their proper regulations.
With respect to what should be considered primitive
antiquity, the King is willing to have the first five centuries
after the Christian era so regarded, and the rule of Vincent
of Lerins admitted. But with respect to all appeals to
antiquity, his Majesty will nevertheless have the Scriptures
to be the sole foundation of faith, and only source from which
things necessary to salvation are to be drawn. The Fathers
he admits in the next order as expositors of what is in the
Scriptures, not as propounders of independent articles of
belief.
Upon the Keal Presence the authority of Bishop Andrewes
(before alluded to) in his second work against Bellarmine is
adduced as declaration of his Majesty's faith. Concerning the
sacrifice of the mass there is no proper sacrifice ; the Eu
charist is, as St. Chrysostom explains in his Homilies on the
Epistle to the Hebrews, not a sacrifice, but a commemoration
of one.
Touching prayers for the dead, praying for the rest and
peace of the departed was an early practice. This the King
confesses. So the ancient Church signified its belief in the
resurrection. li But although the English Church," adds the
King, " does not condemn this observance in the former ages,
it does not conceive itself bound now to retain it, and that for
many and most special causes : first, because it is persuaded
that the custom began without any precept from Christ. Again,
it cannot le proved to have been as old as the Apostles. Neither
were they such prayers as are now offered for the dead.
Lastly, the custom soon introduced superstition."
Of invocation of saints the King observes, that men have
been brought to repose more on the saints than in Christ, and
to fear to comply with his call, but first they must go to his
holy mother. So, instead of the Psalms men used the Hours
of the Blessed Virgin Mary^ and the Legends. Here his
Majesty takes occasion to condemn the Psalter of the Virgin.
The King firmly believes that the saints pray for us, but that
the practice of the Church of Eome in the point of invocation
is the highest impiety. The worship of saints the King dates
from the fourth century. His Majesty then in conclusion,
having answered Perron, objects to him and his communion,
the saying the divine service in an unknown tongue, the half-
communion, solitary masses, and the worship of images.
Under the first head he notices the opposition of the Eomish
Church to the translation of the Scriptures, the trouble into
which Benedict Kenatus was brought by his labours in that
way, and the confession of the Douay translators that they
undertook their version, "being forced by the importunity of
heretics.
Such is the King's answer to Perron, prepared indeed
probably in the preceding year, but delayed until the latter
end of 1612. It does not profess to enter upon the whole or
even upon the greater part of the Komish controversy. It is
full of deference to Christian antiquity, but that deference
is bounded by the true Protestant principle, that the Holy
Scriptures are the sole foundation of faith, and it is broadly
admitted that corruption of doctrine justifies departure from
the communion to which we might have before belonged.
Towards the end of this year appeared Increpatio Andrece
Eudcemono-Johannis Jesmtce} de infami Parallelo^ et renovata
assertio Torturce Torti, pro clarissimo Domino atque antistite
Eliensi. Auctore Samuele Collino, Etonensi, S. Theol. Doctorej
Eeverendissimo Patri ac Domino Arcliiepiscopo Cantuariensi
a Sacris. Excudebat Cantrellus Legge, inclytce Academics
Cantabrigiensis Typographus. Anno Salutis 1612.
The Parallelus of Eudsemon Johannes (L'Heureux) has on
the title-page this motto :
Cypr. 1. ii. Epist. 6, ad Martyres.
Steterunt Torti Torquentibus fortiores.
It is written in a virulent and abusive spirit. Its allegations
from history are minutely examined and exposed with that
combination of vivacity and learning for which Dr. Collins
was distinguished.
Dr. Collins maintained indeed, as Jewel had done before,
that Augustine was himself implicated in the destruction of
the British monks, as having counselled the war against them.
He observes that if even this is disclaimed, it is admitted that
as a prophet he foretold their massacre with approbation.
This cannot be denied, unless we conjecture that the predic
tion was but one of the many legends which Venerable Bede
credulously inserted in his Church History. It appears that
the reading now followed had been altered in some MSS. to
soften down the bitterness of spirit implied in this account
of Augustine. Ab hostibus was read by some, by others
ab eisdem, which Dr. Collins gives as the reading of two
MSS. in the library of Balliol College. The recent editor of
Bede, the Rev. Joseph Stevenson, Vicar of Leighton Buzzard,
gives A.D. 613 as the year of the massacre of the monks, upon
the authority of the Annals of Munster, according to Ussher.
Collins in his preface expatiates on the excellencies of his
patron Archbishop Abbot, and bears testimony to his having
reconciled many of the opposite party to episcopacy. He
describes his course as one of fidelity and integrity in every
diocese to which he had been promoted, and speaks of his
popularity as having been earned without descending to any
base expedients. He justifies the commendation of his sove
reign, who said of Abbot that it had not repented him that he
had made that man. It would indeed have been better for
James had he always retained the same regard for the Arch
bishop, or rather had his regard been more consistent.
CHAPTER XV.
Page 364
Casaubon — Daniel Heyn — Andrewes's Comparison of the Churches of
England and Rome — Whitsunday Sermon 1613 — The two Sacra
ments — The Nullity — Divine Right of Kings — Easter-day Sermon,
1614 — Rev. Norwich Spaceman — The Earl of Northampton — Of
the Royal anointing — Of the Jesuits — Archdeacon Wigmore —
Andrewes's Sermon on the name Immanuel.
ON the first Sunday of the new year, 1613, we find
Casaubon amongst those who received new-year's gifts from
the King, with whom he was upon the following Tuesday the
5th January. He was also with the King upon the following
Sunday, the 10th. On Saturday the 16th he saw the book of
Andreas Eudaemon Johannes (L'Heureux) against him, "a
book," he notes, " sufficiently worthless." On Sunday the
last day of January he was again with the King. On Tuesday
he was in great trouble, being unable to obtain from a friend
his MS. upon Baronius. From this trouble he was freed the
next day, when his papers were returned to him. On that
Tuesday also he was with the King. On Sunday the 7th
February he received the Holy Communion at the French
Church with his wife and daughter Joanna. This day brought
him to the close of his 54th year. On the 13th he was present
at the naval spectacle exhibited in honour of the marriage
of the King's daughter Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia, of which
he was also a spectator on the following day, Sunday the 14th.
He was again with the King on Sunday the 21st.
About this time he was engaged in preparing a treatise
upon the holy Eucharist and on transubstantiation, which was
to have been inserted into his Exercitationes in Baronium?
Upon the various subjects connected with the doctrine of the
Eucharist his mind appears from his diary to have been still
in an unsettled state. He seems to have imagined that the
doctrine of the Fathers considerably differed both from the
transubstantiation of the Church of Kome and from the
several systems of the Eeformed Churches. The probability
is that he had never devoted his time so uninterruptedly to
the study of theology, as to have had the opportunity of tran
quilly considering the whole controversy in all its length and
breadth. Of the Fathers he seems never to have made
himself at home with St. Augustine. He was a more
constant student of St. Chrysostom, an admirer of St. Basil's
Epistles, and read in Theodoret. His diary2 contains remarks
upon St. Ambrose on certain of the Psalms. He commends
the treatise of Augustine, De utilitate credendi. Dr. Morton,
Dean of Winchester, afterwards raised to the see of Durham,
cautioned Casaubon on one occasion of the injury he might
bring upon himself by his freedom of speech respecting the
presence of Christ in the Eucharist.3 Some on this account
suspected that he held with Eome, others with Luther. Mon
tague, Bishop of Bath and Wells, had animadverted upon his
conversation. However, his mind does not appear to have
been thoroughly convinced at any time upon this subject.
Thus toward the end of 1613, within a year of his death, he
notes in his diary, " To-day I read the Dialogue of (Ecolam-
padius on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and admired his
learning and expertness in the Greek Fathers. I would by
no means have missed reading it. Thanks to the Lord Jesus.
Amen." He moreover was anxious that his son Meric should
not disown the Reformed French Church, but communicate as
well with that as with the Church of England.4 He was, not
withstanding some manifest waverings even after his coming
to England, attached to the cause of the Eeformation, and
especially to the Church of England. But his reverence for
patristic learning alienated him from Du Moulin and many of
the French Protestants. He was too ready to magnify the
obscurity of Scripture, and gathered rather too precipitately
from Cyprian and Tertullian, that which did not exist in their
days, auricular confession.1 In short, he addicted himself to
no system.
On the 24th February 1613 we find Bishop Andrewes
thus addressing the Right Hon. Sir Dudley Carleton, then
Ambassador at Venice.
" MY VERY GOOD LORD, — The speech which hath passed
between Mr. Chamberlain and me was but matter of ordinary
talk, such as might very well have received satisfaction on
my part without this trouble of your Lordship. But since it
hath liked your Lordship to vouchsafe it so much pains,
I cannot but be glad, for by this means I am honoured by
letter from you. As it falleth out when new things happen
(such as this was) enquiry is made into the occasions of them.
Howbeit, of this partie I think no man, surely myself never
made the reckoning, as I hold it, for any great matter, whether
it were won or lost. There be some other there where your
Lordship is, whom I hold for other manner" [of] "men, of
whom I would have been glad seriously to have understood
the course, if I had been so happy as to have had speech with
the gentleman your Lordship's Secretary more than once, or
yet with Mr. Chamberlain, whom I see nothing so often as
my desire is. And as for that he hath lately written, I think
it will not be thought much ever to see the light, unless upon
some matter (as they use to term it). The revising of the
Council of Trent were a matter of much better consequent,
being performed as it is hoped, there to be. God certainly,
and to man's reason under him, Princes must take up this
business, and by other means than by the pen. Whereunto
happy shall the Embassador be that shall be the minister and
otherwise co-operate to it. My Lord, the less hable I am,
and more am I bound to thank you for your honourable and
kind offers. I found great courtesy at your Secretary's hands
with all due respect. But the times will require much at
tendance, and he, I know, will be loth to omit any that may
the leastwise hinder the affairs in his trust. Were mine
ability higher ought,1 or of any moment, I would most
willingly offer it to be disposed by your Lordship ; and such
as it is, I do offer it, if it may be in any ways fit to be used
by you. Praying your Lordship to accept these poor lines in
pledge thereof, I so, with my very loving remembrance, com
mend you to the blessed keeping of God, who send you that
honor and reputation that is meet there, and that happie
return hither which you desire.
" At my house in London,
" 24 Feb. 16 jf styl. Anglic.
" Your Lordship's
" Ever very assured,
"L. ELIE."
On Thursday the 12th of March Casaubon called on the
French Ambassador, Bishop Andrewes, and others.
On the 20th he was agreeably occupied with the reading
of Pacian.2
On the 23rd March he was invited by the Prince, the son
of the Margrave of Baden, and was afterwards detained for
some time from his studies in most agreeable conversation
with Grotius.
The 1st of April Casaubon was in consultation with An
drewes.
On the 4th April, and not on the 8th (as it is by a mistake
in the folio edition), being Easter-day, Bishop Andrewes
preached excellently before the Court at Whitehall from the
Epistle for the day, Col. iii. 2, upon the spiritual resurrec
tion that must, in this life, precede the resurrection of the
body. We must cry to him who rose this day to draw us
after him, and not leave us still in our graves of sin. The
soul must first rise, and then draw the flesh upward with it.
" For, as well observeth Chrysostom, these two were not thus
joined (the spirit and the flesh I mean) that the flesh should
pull down the spirit to earth, but that the spirit should exalt
the flesh to heaven."1
He reminds his courtly audience how all are ready to seek
on earth the things above, as the sons of Zebedee sought a
place on earth at Christ's right hand, " not so much as good-
wife Zebedee' s two sons (that smelt of the fisher-boat), but
means was made for them to sit there."
In the following we meet with his own peculiar force and
ingenuity : " And if Nature would have us no moles , Grace
would have us eagles to mount where the body is. And the
Apostle goeth about to breed in us a holy ambition, telling us
we are ad altiora geniti, born for higher matters than any
here : therefore not to be so base-minded as to admire them,
but to seek after things above. For, contrary to the philo
sopher's sentence, Quce supra nos nihil ad nos. Things above
they concern us not ; he reverses that ; yes (and we so to
hold), Ea maxime ad nos, They chiefly concern us." The
things, he says, we chiefly seek, are with Christ above ; rest
and glory. Most felicitously does he observe that it is only
in heaven that these are found in union. Here rest is in
glorious, and glory is restless. There they dwell together,
and that for ever and ever.
The 5th and 6th April Casaubon was with the King. On
Wednesday the 7th he dined with Overall at the Deanery,
St. Paul's, with his wife and Grotius. Much conversation
passed between them. On Thursday the 8th Grotius called
upon Andrewes at Ely House. There were present Dr.
Steward, about this time Fellow of All Souls' College, having
been a Commoner of Magdalene Hall, Oxford, in 1608, Dr.
Kichardson, Master of Peterhouse, the Kegius Divinity Pro
fessor at Cambridge, and another divine. Archbishop Abbot,
who mentions this meeting in a letter to Sir Ealph Winwood,
adds that Grotius surprised them all by his freedom and
loquacity.2
On Friday the 9th Casaubon was at court, and complains
that he lost part part of the day. On Sunday the llth he
was at the Royal Palace at Greenwich with the King, to
gether with his wife and part of his family.
On the 12th we find Casaubon writing to Daniel Heyn,1
and making mention of the admiration in which both the
King and Bishop Andrewes held the learning of Grotius.
He entreats that Heyn will not be in London in the months
of July, August, and September, during which Andrewes
was from the metropolis. Our prelate had expressed his
earnest desire to see Heyn.
In Wolf's Casauboniana we have the following remi
niscence of his conversations with Andrewes and Overall.
The Bishop of Ely and Dean of St. Paul's often told me that
he (the learned Dr. Whitaker) at the beginning held the
Fathers and the ancient Church in great esteem, and approved
that doctrine which was based upon their unanimous agree
ment. But when upon his marriage into the leading family
of the Puritans he wholly cultivated their intimacy, he all of
a sudden began to confine his admiration to Calvin ; and I
have often heard the Dean of St. Paul's affirm, that when
serious disputes arose at Cambridge amongst the theologians,
some defending the new, others the old doctrine, he more than
once went to Whitaker and asked him the reason why he
preferred the opinions of Calvin alone to the consent of the
ancient Church, he at length had proceeded so far as to say
expressly that he was prepared to defend all the opinions of
Calvin, and that it was his purpose to take an opportunity of
so doing."2
Whitaker, according to Gataker in Fuller 'sAbelRedivivus,
was twice married. Both his wives were women "of good
birth and note." One was of the Thoresby family, descended
from an uncle of Ralph Thoresby, the antiquary of Leeds.3
We have seen that Overall took a middle course between the
teaching of Whitaker on the one hand and the Semi-Pelagians
on the other. The reader will find a reference to this topic in
the 5th chapter of this volume.
There have been those who looked upon Casaubon as but
comparatively ill employed upon theological controversies.
He could not, with his bias to classical learning and devoted-
ness to it, do equal justice to the vast fields of ecclesiastical
history and dogmatic theology. In his diary he frequently
complains of the difficulties in which he found himself involved.
A remarkable instance we have in p. 1018,1 " In Cypriani loco
una ecclesia, una Cathedra, haesi, et conatus sum lucem afferre,"
I was in difficulty respecting that place of Cyprian, 'one
church, one see,' and endeavoured to obtain that which would
throw light upon it.
This passage, taken from Cyprian's Epistles, was alleged by
Cardinal Bellarmine in the 16th chapter of his second book
of Controversies, and is fully treated of in the 36th chapter of
Field's Book of the Church.
" There is," saith he, tl one God, one Christ, one Church,
one chair founded upon Peter by the Lord's own voice. No
other altar may be raised, nor other new priesthood appointed,
besides that one altar and one priesthood already appointed.
Whosoever gathereth anywhere else scattereth. (Cyprian's
8th Ep. 1st book.) Surely it is not possible that the Cardinal
should think, as he pretendeth to do, that Cyprian speaketh of
one singular chair ordained by Christ for one Bishop to sit in,
appointed to teach all the world. For the question in this
place is not touching obedience to be yielded to the Bishop
of Kome, that Cyprian should need to urge that point, but
touching certain schismatics which opposed themselves against
him ; and therefore he urgeth the unity of the Church and of
the chair, to shew that against them that are lawfully placed,
with consenting allowance of the pastors at unity, others may
not be admitted ; and that they who by any other means get
into the places of ministry, than by the consenting allowance
of the pastors at unity amongst themselves, are in truth and
in deed no Bishops at all. So that Cyprian, by that one chair
he mentioneth, understandeth not one particular chair ap
pointed for a general teacher of all the world to sit in, but the
joint commission, unity and consent of all pastors, which is
and must be such as if they did all sit in one chair."1
On Tuesday, April 13, Bishop Andrewes preached at
Greenwich previously to the departure of Prince Frederic, the
Count Palatine, and his consort Elizabeth. His text was
Isaiah Ixii. 5. He contends against our present Version that
it should be thus read, And the bridegroom shall rejoice over
the bride, and thy God shall rejoice over thee. In the Bidding
prayer which follows the introductory portion of the sermon
he includes the Churches that are in Great Britain and
Ireland, and the two Palatinates. In the sermon itself he
deduces the worship of the Romish Church from Samaria*
Not so certain in our day who profess a most inconsistent
veneration for our prelate. In treating of the espousals with
Sion, he draws a brief sketch of the Church of England and
contrasts it with that of Rome, and in language at which those
who advocate the recently cast up Via Media would shudder.
Of Jewel's Apology he remarks, ' En ecclesiae nostrae Apolo-
giam vere gemmeam? He proceeds, u Go round about Sion
and survey her. One canon reduced to writing by God
himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils,
five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period, the
three centuries that is before Constantine and two after,
determine the boundary of our faith. Those whom the old
Catholic Church without the new patchwork of the Romish
does not suffice, those whom the aforesaid (bounds) do not
suffice, without drinking to the very dregs the abuses and
errors, to say nothing of fables and frauds which afterward
began to possess the Church, let them enjoy them."
Bishop Andrewes proceeds : " Let them espouse themselves
to God by a faith not written ; Sion (it is certain) was not so
espoused. Let them adore they know not what in their reliques,
and so in their hosts. This comes from the mount of Samaria,
not from Mount Sion. Let them pray, let them perform their
rites in a language they know not, without understanding,
without edification (if the Apostle had a right understanding
of the matter). Not thus did Sion pray ; these are not the
songs of Sion. Let them call upon him in whom they do
not believe ; let them resort more assiduously and frequently
to saints in whom they do not believe, than to Christ. It was
not thus in Sion. Let them prostrate themselves and bow
themselves before a painted or a graven likeness. Sion would
have rent her garments at this. Let them halve the Eucha
rist ; in the supper of Sion it was never thus taken, but only
whole. Let them there adore the divinity concealed under
the species and made from the bakehouse [de pistrino factum].
Sion would have without doubt shuddered and started back
from this."
" What when they adore their Pope placed and sitting
upon the altar ? when they set up a man (to use the mildest
terms) encompassed with infirmities, often illiterate, often
unclean, very often and at this time a mere canonist,1 when
they set up such an one for a pillar of faith and religion, as
one who is, to wit, infallible. Would Sion have endured
this?"
On Sunday the 18th Casaubon, after attending the Frencl
Church with his family, was first with the King and after
wards with his " most beloved Grotius." Casaubon appears
to have concealed from the King his partiality for Bertiu
and Arminius and their party ; a partiality perceptible in hi
diary, in which in 1611 2 we find, "To-day I was much en
gaged in reading the treatises of Arminius, a subtle theologian
and, as I have heard, an excellent man." And again at page
896, " I saw the epistle written by King James to the State
against Vorstius, Arminius, and Bertius, full of the stronges
invective. Arminius he calls the enemy of God, and him anc
Bertius lost heretics. I commend the zeal of the illustriou
Sovereign in the cause of religion, but we know that grav
and most learned men by no means think thus of Bertius anc
Arminius."
On Monday the 19th he spent some hours with Overal
and with Grotius. Grotius supped with him. On Tuesday
he was again with Grotius and the French and Dutch Am
bassadors.
On Monday the 26th April he dined with the genial and
kind-hearted Morton, who had been promoted from the
Deanery of Gloucester to that of Winchester in 1609, when
Abbot, afterwards Archbishop, was raised to the see of
Lichfield and Coventry. He notices in his diary the erudition
displayed in Morton's works against both the Puritans and
Papists. Morton shewed him the art of preparing potable
gold, a liquor distilled from beaten gold, or elixir. The
principal ingredients, says Casaubon, which they use are
white salt, the most pungent vinegar, and some third sub
stance. The elixir was drunk before dinner, diluted in wine.
Casaubon tasted it, and found it not ungrateful to the palate.
On Tuesday the 27th Casaubon was again with the King.
On the following Sunday he and his children with him were
with the King, after he had taken the holy Communion with
his family.
On Tuesday the 4th of May he went to the King and to
Archbishop Abbot and other friends to take his farewell
previously to leaving London for Oxford. On Thursday he
went to Eton to the learned Provost, Sir Henry Savile, who
on the Friday took him to Oxford in his carriage. On the
same day he went over most of the Colleges and Halls,
" admiring the piety and magnificence of our ancestors."
On Saturday he completed his survey of the Colleges, and
after dinner heard a disputation in the schools, at which Dr.
Abbot presided, whom he describes as a man of the most
eminent learning.
On Sunday the 9th he heard two learned discourses as
far as his imperfect knowledge of our language could gather.
He dined with Dr. William Goodwin, Dean of Christ Church.
Dr. Goodwin or Godwyn had been made Prebendary of Bole
in the church of York, by that excellent prelate Archbishop
Piers, September 7, 1590, which stall he resigned on being
promoted to the Chancellorship, October 25, 1605, by his
learned and pious successor, Archbishop Hutton. He was
installed Dean of Christ Church September 13, 1611, and
was by the eloquent Dr. King, Bishop of London, made
Archdeacon of Middlesex September 23, 1616. After serving
the office of Vice-Chancellor four times he died June 11, 1620,
in the 65th year of his age, and was buried in the chapel
immediately to the north of the choir of Christ Church. He
had succeeded Bishop King in the Deanery.
Casaubon was Sir Henry Savile's guest at Merton College
until Monday the 10th, when the Dean received him at the
deanery, Saville leaving Oxford the same day.
On Tuesday Casaubon visited the Bodleian Library, and
there perused and made some extracts from ChoniateV
Thesaurus Orthodoxies.
On Wednesday he resumed his perusal of Choniate in the
Bodleian, and was present at a Latin sermon and some dis
putations in the divinity school. He devoted some hours
also to Hebrew with a very learned Jew whom he found
there. "So," he writes, "I console myself for the absence
of my wife, of whom I have yet received no intelligence. But
do thou, 0 Lord, keep her and my whole house in the fear of
thy name." Casaubon was a man of the most affectionate
spirit. He had a most congenial partner in his wife, and his
life appears to have been bound up in hers.
On Thursday he heard the discourse of a very learned
man, but with regret that he could not perfectly understand
it. Afterward he dined with the Vice-Dean and several other
very eminent persons in the hall of Christ Church. This
forenoon he gave to the reading of the Talmud. After dinner
he completed his perusal of Choniate. He looked through Leo
& Castro on Isaiah. This author, who flourished in the 16tl
century, undertook to set up the text of the Septuagint above
the Hebrew. Casaubon also looked through the Comments
of St. Basil upon Isaiah, with which he was much pleased,
remarking that it extended only to the 16th chapter, and
observing that it was not however to be compared with that
by St. Chysostom, also imperfect. He had completed the
perusal of this latter in July 1611. In his diary he remarks
that in this work Chrysostom has surpassed himself. The
Friday was taken up with the study of Hebrew and with
Basil on Isaiah.
On Saturday he was again in the divinity school, and says
that nothing ever gave him such satisfaction upon the subject
of faith and works as did Abbot, afterwards Bishop of Salis
bury. In his Casauboniana we have the following, Thomse
distinctio vera \fides justificat causative, opera justificant osten-
sive, "Faith justifies as a cause, works as giving evidence."1
And as Cranmer defended the language of the Reformation
upon justification from the Fathers, whom he had carefully
and deeply studied, so does Casaubon derive from them the
tQim justification by faith only, which he observes rests upon
similar passages of the ancients, in Ambros. Rom. iii., Basil,
Sermon on Humility, Chrysost. on Rom. iii. 26, Hilary on
Matt. viii.
Sir Henry Savile's edition of Chrysostom in eight folios
appeared this year. Casaubon vindicates St. Chrysostom on
the doctrine of justification, and refers to his discourses on the
Epistles where he gives his interpretation of our Lord's giving
himself a ransom for us, 1 Tim. ii. 6. Estius refers to the
commentaries of Hesselius for the doctrine of Augustine, Leo,
Chrysostom, and other of the Fathers on the mediatorship of
Christ. Suiceri Thesaurus and Petavii Dogmata Ecclesiastica
will also assist the enquirer into this head of patristic theology.
Wolf, in his notes to his Casauboniana , also refers for the
doctrine of St. Chrysostom on justification, to Du Pin, and
to Dr. Mayer's Chrysostomus Luther anus 1680, which he
maintained in a second and apologetic treatise in 1686 against
John Francis Hack a Jesuit. For a general collection of
patristic testimonies, Wolf refers to Menzer's Exegesis Augus-
tance. ConfessioniSj art. 4; Dr. John Gerhard's Loci Communes
Tlieologici; and Helvicus in Vindicatione Locorum Vet. Testa-
mentij p. 181.
On Sunday the 16th Casaubon attended at the University
Church both morning and afternoon, and dined in the hall of
Magdalene College, where the day was observed with a
sumptuous entertainment. The President of that noble
College was Dr. "William Langton, who had succeeded Dr.
John Harding November 19th, 1610.1
On Monday the 17th Casaubon was engaged upon the
first volume of the Councils edited at Home, and dined with
Dr. Abbot at Balliol College, who gave a splendid banquet
to his guests. After dinner Casaubon devoted some hours to
the perusal of some of the works of Claude D'Espence. This
celebrated author, who died in the 60th year of his age in
1571, incurred censure by maintaining that the primitive
Church paid no worship to images. His commentaries on the
Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, and his writings
on the Eucharist, obtained for him no small celebrity in the
Romish communion.
On Tuesday the 18th Casaubon gave a part of his MS.
into Abbot's hands, and another portion to the Dean of
Christ Church, that he might have the benefit of their judg
ment and revision.
On Wednesday he was unwell, and was attacked with
dizziness in the morning on his way to the Bodleian Library.
He however heard a Latin sermon and an act in the divinity
school.
On Whitsunday the 23rd May he received the holy Com
munion at the Cathedral from the hands of the Dean, attended
the two sermons preached before the University, and bade
farewell to his friends.
Upon Whitsunday Bishop Andrewes, preaching at White
hall, discoursed upon Eph. iv. 30. He familiarly illustrates
the words from the six men in the 9th chapter of Ezekiel, sent
to set a mark upon the foreheads of those who sighed and cried
for all the abominations of Jerusalem, and from the angels in
the Apocalypse who were not to execute their awful commission
until the chosen number had been marked with the seal of the
living God. And so of the Passover he observes, u The
Lamb slain, there is redemption ; the posts stroken with
hyssop dipped in the blood, there is the signature.
Bishop Hall and the inimitable Dr. Richard Sibbes have
also written upon this memorable passage, Grieve not the
Spirit.
Andrewes quaintly speaks of some who are but label-
Christians, u content with a label without any seal to it all
their life long. And of those label-Christians we have meetly
good store. As the Spirit of God they like him well enough
to have their breath and life and moving from him, yea,
arts and tongues too if he will ; but as the Holy Spirit, not
once to be acquainted with him."
The seal of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper he declares
to be supplementary of the defect of the seal of Baptism, that
where that can be set to but once and never repeated more,
this other should supply the defect thereof, as whereby if we
have not preserved the former figure entire and whole, we
might be as it were new signed over again."
On Monday the 24th of May Casaubon left Oxford and
arrived at Sir Henry Savile's, Eton. Upon Tuesday he left
Eton for London. On Wednesday he dined with the French
Ambassador. On Trinity-Sunday, the 30th, after attending
service at 7 A.M., he waited on the King, who received
him, as was his wont, very graciously. In the evening he
supped with the Lady Killigrew and some other friends. On
Sunday the 6th of June he waited on the King again, as he
was accustomed on that day, and so on the 13th. On the
16th his Exercitationes against Baronius began to appear in
print. On the 19th and on Sunday the 20th he was again
with the King. On the 23rd the Jewish teacher left him
whom he had brought with him from Oxford. On July 6th
he was the whole day in the College, Westminster, with the
Dean of Christ Church. On July 9th he spent some hours
with two eminent persons from the Netherlands, Relbe and
Scholiers, who narrated the sufferings of their countrymen
from Jesuit tyranny. On July llth he was with the King at
Theobald's. July the 13th his little daughter Mary met with
a sad casualty. But amongst the many domestic cares that
weighed upon his mind in the absence of his beloved partner
at this time, he was refreshed with the sight of his infant son
James. The reader will bear with me for recording, though
occasionally, instances of Casaubon's domestic life and depth
of affection. Those are traitors to learning and science who
will not bend to the amenities of social life, and evince no
sympathy with that humanity, which is ever less ennobled by
knowledge than by love. On the 24th, by command of his
royal master, he made choice of some volumes from the library
of the late Prince Henry. On the 31st he paid his respects to
Prince Charles.
On the 1st of August he with his daughter received the
holy Communion. On the 2nd he resolved to return to his
treatise on the holy Eucharist (which he had laid by for some
time), with the hope of inserting it in this edition. On the
4th he laid aside again all thoughts of resuming that treatise
for the present.1
On the 1st of September he was cheered by the return of
his wife. On the 5th they happily received the holy Com
munion together with their daughter Gentilis. On the 7th
he was with Archbishop Abbot, and learnt from him the
apostacy of his friend Charrier to the Church of Kome. Dr.
Benjamin Charrier had been chaplain to Archbishop Whitgift,
and composed the epitaph on his monument in Croydon
church. When Dr. William Barlow was raised to the see
of Lincoln, Dr. Charrier or Carrier succeeded him in the
seventh stall of Canterbury. On the 19th he waited on the
King and had much and important conversation with him
upon various subjects.
On September 19 Andrewes ordained at Downham Edmund
Topcliffe, M.A., deacon, and John Martin, M.A., priest. Top-
cliff and Martin, both of Queens' College, Cambridge, were
both B.A. 1609, and M.A. 1612.
In the course of this year (1613) T. F., i. e. Thomas
Fitzherbert, a Jesuit, attacked our prelate's Answer to Bel-
larmine in a sophistical and scurrilous Adjoinder to the Sup
plement of Father Parsons Discussion, quarto, to which he
annexed his attack upon the Bishop, in which he refused him
his episcopal title, entitling it A Reply to Dr. Lancelot
Andrewes' Absurdities in his Answer, &c. This truly Jesu
itical writer was born at Swinnerton, between Stone and
Eccleshall in Staffordshire, and was son of William, fourth
son of Sir Anthony Fitzherbert, of Norbury near Ashbourn,
the celebrated lawyer. His parents were zealous Papists.
He was called home from Oxford when the Pope forbad those
of his communion to attend the established worship. In
1572 he was imprisoned for recusancy. After his release he
absconded, went to London, and there entertained Father
Parsons and Father Campian, whom he assisted with all
conveniences on their arrival in England 1580. He retired
with his lady into France in 1582, and there pleaded for
Mary Queen of Scots with the King of France. There his
wife died. He went into Spain to serve the interests of his
Eomish countrymen at the court. He attended the Duke of
Feria in his tours. At Rome he studied for the priesthood
at the English College, and being ordained priest, was made
agent for the English clergy, and so continued twelve years to
1609. He joined the Jesuits in 1614, the year after he had
written against Bishop Andrewes, and was answered in 1617
with great learning and ability by the deeply erudite Dr.
Collins, Provost of King's College, Cambridge, and Regius
Professor tof .Divinity. In 1621 Fitzherbert wrote his 01-
tumesce of T. F. to the Epphata of Dr. Collins, who also took
up his pen against Fitzherbert in his Pseudo-Martyr in defence
of the Oath of Allegiance. Lond. quarto, printed by John
Donne. He died in 1640,1 Master of the English College at
Rome.
On September 25 sentence of divorce was pronounced by
which a separation ensued between the Earl of Essex and the
Lady Francis Howard, daughter of the Earl of Suffolk. This
affair had occupied the commission about four months, the
King meanwhile repeatedly complaining of the delay, and
interesting himself in the progress of the investigation in a
manner that reflected little honour upon him. It was but
too evident that the whole was a device to indulge the lawless
passion of the royal favourite Kobert Carr. Much was
expected from Bishop Andrewes from his known learning
and skill in casuistry, but he was extremely reserved and
seldom appears to have given an opinion during the whole
period of the enquiry. But it was ever observed of him that
he was slow in answering and resolving questions, being wont
to defend himself with those words of St. James, Let every
man be slow to speak, slow to wrath.1 The pliant Neile was
constantly upon the watch for opportunities of recommending
himself to the favour of the King, and of injuring the primate
Abbot, whose integrity shone forth from first to last. The
part which both Neile and Buckeridge, Neile' s creature, took
in this most undignified and unpopular affair, doubtless tended
in no small degree to confirm in their disaffection to the Church
such of the laity as were inclined to the Puritans, and was a
great stumblingblock in the way of the more thoughtless and
irreligious of the courtiers. These especially made sport of
the subservient Neile, whose folly appears to have been as
highly estimated by the King as all the wisdom and learning
of Bishop Andrewes.2 Abbot relates how on one occasion the
latter would have absented himself, but the King commanded
his attendance.3 The primate still urged that a reconciliation
of the parties should be set on foot ; but Andrewes spoke
against it on the ground that it was now too late, and might
only give occasion to some deadly practices of the one against
the other. The Countess proved herself in the event equal to
any atrocity. Thus far our prelate was almost prophetic;
but the advice of Abbot, though perhaps less politic, was
more in accordance with his character as a Christian and his
office as a bishop.
Twofold evidence exists to shew that at the first Andrewes
was disinclined to the Nullity, and it was at the very time
attributed to the endeavours of his royal master that he
altered his judgment.1 Archbishop Abbot observes, "My
Lord of Ely for a great while was in dislike of the separation,
(as I have credibly heard he opened himself to Sir Henry
Savile) until such time as the King spake with him, and then
his judgment was reformed. But truth it is that amongst
us he said nothing."
At the last there were found for the divorce Andrewes,
Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, Neile, Bishop of Lichfield and
Coventry, Buckeridge, Bishop of Kochester, Sir Julius Cassar,
Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Parry, Attorney-General,
and Sir Daniel Donne, Master of the Requests. These met
and pronounced the sentence of Nullity September 25. The
remaining Commissioners not agreeing to the sentence ab^
sented themselves, namely, Archbishop Abbot, Dr. King,
Bishop of London, Sir John Bennet, Dr. Francis James, and
Dr. Thomas Edwards. Fuller in his Worthies notes that an
intimate friendship subsisted between his father (for some time
a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,) and Bishop Overall
(of the same College). Hence probably he learnt the anec
dote which he has inserted in the tenth book of his Church
History, and which is corroborated by Abbot's Narrative
touching the Divorce : lt Bishop Overall discoursing with
Bishop King about the divorce, the latter expressed himself
to this effect : ' I should never have been so earnest against
the divorce, save that because persuaded in my conscience of
falsehood in some of the depositions of the witnesses on the
lady's behalf.'"2
The divorce was effected : the guilty parties were united
in adulterous bonds with great solemnities. The murder of
Sir Thomas Overbury by poison soon discovered that profli
gacy was not their only guilt. They were spared the utmost
severity of the law, but lived in mutual hatred and disgust,
an exemplary punishment to each other. Thus ended the
career of Kobert Carr, Earl of Somerset. Pitiable it is to
find the name of Andrewes in any way connected with that
of individuals so unworthy of the ill-placed regard of his and
their royal master. But it is not my object to erect an idol.
It cannot be justified that so upright as Andrewes un
doubtedly was in many respects, he should have given his
sanction to the Nullity.
On October 16th Casaubon was again with Andrewes.
On November 5 he preached upon the divine right of
kings, from the words of Solomon, or rather of God by him,
By Me kings reign. Usurpers he excepts from the kings
here spoken of, adducing the 4th verse of the 8th chapter of
ffosea, They have set up kings, but not by Me : they have made
princes, and 1 knew not."1' He fails not to condemn in the
most pointed language the pretended power of the Pope to
loose this Scripture, By Me kings reign, and after his custom
makes a personal address to the King. His style sometimes
betrays him into mere verbal arguments, and he so handles
his text as to leave out of sight that it is he who removeth as
well as setteth up kings.1 A commission was given for the
setting aside of Jehoram, and even for his death.
Upon Christmas-day our prelate preached at Whitehall
from our Lord's words, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see
my day, and he saw it, and was glad; but a sermon upon the
same words, and less broken, may be seen in his Orphan
Lectures.
These lectures have not been reprinted in the Library of
Anglo- Catholic Theology. In the concluding volume of that
edition of Andrewes it is alleged that there does not appear
sufficient evidence to justify me in ascribing the sermons, at
least in their present form, to Bishov Andrewes. (p. Ixxvii.)
No reason is given by the editor for this remarkable assertion.
I believe that this is the first time that these remains of
Bishop Andrewes have been called in question. A careful
perusal of the whole volume would have led the editor, if
indeed he was capable of sympathizing with his author, into
the full conviction that the substance of the volume was
attributable only to Andrewes ; neither is there any reason to
doubt that the sermons are given as accurately as a taker of
notes could have given them.
The author of the Preface, T. P., supposed to have been
Dr. Thomas Pierce, who at the Kestoration was made Presi
dent of Magdalene College, Oxford, fully admits the genuine
ness of these fragments and their excellence, although he
would have it believed that the Bishop was not always of the
same mind in theology, but changed, as we know did some of
his contemporaries. He professes to reprove the printer for
publishing that which he nevertheless recommends to the
perusal of the reader.
There is however no ground for admitting that Bishop
Andrewes ever changed his theological principles. Neither
is there in these posthumous Lectures any contrariety to the
teaching of those discourses which were put forth by Laud
and Buckeridge. There is not less patristic learning, not
less variety of imagination and illustration in this volume
than in the greater folio. There are the same excellencies
and the same defects, yet the latter are perhaps not so per
ceptible or so frequent in the posthumous fragments, as they
are in his more finished compositions.
Dr. Pierce would undoubtedly have withheld his services
altogether from the publishers of this volume, had it not been
known to him as the work of Andrewes. He calls the lectures
" these sacred fragments." " But having said thus much in
veneration of the author, to whom the printer hath offered
this well-meant injury, I have something to allege by way of
apology for the printer, by whose devotion of care and cost
these sacred fragments were thus collected. He knew the
fame of the author was so transcendently high, and placed so
far out of the reach of spite or envy, defamation or disgrace,
that he supposed it a lesser crime thus to communicate these
lessons as now they are, than to deprive posterity of their
advantage. He looked not so steadily upon the name and
credit of the author, as upon the interest and good of souls.
He thought the reader would esteem it, not only as an excus
able but as a commendable transgression, which being no
way injurious to more than one, will redound to the benefit of
many thousands."
Andrewes, on March 20th, 1614, admitted both to deacon's
and priest's orders on the same day the celebrated Joseph
Mede, M.A., at Ely Chapel, Holborn. Dr. Worthington, the
excellent Master of Jesus College, Cambridge, in the time of
Cromwell, relates that Mede, by his Latin tract De Sanctitate
relativd, &c. so gained the esteem of our Bishop, that Mede
shortly after having need of the King's favour concerning his
election to a Fellowship, Andrewes stood his firm friend, and
not only maintained his right then, but afterwards desired
him for his household chaplain. Mede declined this honour
that he might more fully enjoy his beloved retirement in
Christ College, Cambridge. It was reserved to a late Master
of that College, the late Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Kaye, to erect
a memorial in the College chapel, of Mede, More, and Cudworth
Very excellent is his Easter-day sermon, April 24, 1614
from the second chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Philip-
pians, on the voluntary humiliation of Christ and his exaltation
But it may well be questioned whether he does not fall into
error in regard of the words, u and hath given him a name,'
which he explains after the schoolmen, of the grace of union
or of Christ's human nature being united or assumed into the
Godhead. Well does he observe that this very name of Jesus
is one of the names of God, for beside him is no Saviour.
This whole passage is well illustrated in Dr. Waterland's
Lady Moyer's Lectures.
Upon the following Sunday the Kev. Norwich Spackman
preached before the King at Whitehall, from those words of
our Lord, But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have
mercy and not sacrifice, for I am not come to call the righteous
but sinners to repentance. The preacher, who was educatec
at Christ Church, Oxford, was chaplain to the Hon. Dr. James
Montagu, the munificent Bishop of Bath and Wells ; was foi
some years Vicar of Mitcham, and twenty-six years Kector
Merstham in Surrey, where he died July 1617, and was
buried in the chancel.1
Upon this Sunday, May 1st, Casaubon's son Meric received
the holy Communion, for the first time after the order of
the Church of England, at the hands of Bishop Andrewes,
who had previously examined and confirmed him. Casaubon
received with his son, and admired the adherence of Bishop
Andrewes to the ancient pattern. Probably he means his
mixing water with the wine, and breaking of the bread,
according to his own Consecration Service.
On Thursday May 5th Andrewes was appointed to meet
at eight A.M. in the Painted Chamber on a committee upon
an Act for the preservation and increase of wood and
timber.
On Sunday May 22nd Andrewes wrote as follows to the
Hon. Sir John Ogle, Knight, Lord Governor of the Forces at
Utrecht :
" MY LORD, — It happened that your letter with the book
came unto my hands at such time as the Parliament or Con
vocation began ; busy times, as you may easily conjecture.
There needed no excuse concerning the sending thereof. I
do esteem both of them (but especially your letter) as a singular
courtesie, and a great honor done unto me, and therefore do
remain, and will continue, much beholding unto you for the
same. I have read over the book with such diligence as time
would permit me. In the mean time it happened that Sir
George Douglas, of himself and of his own accord making
both acquaintance and the conference, began to discourse of
the book and the binding and the contents thereof, further
adding, that it was sent to be presented to his Majestic as
soon as I had read it over, and so insinuating himself as if
before he had known that such a book was delivered, but was
remaining in my hands. Wherefore as soon as I thought
myself able to give a sufficient reason unto his Majestic con
cerning my reading of it over, if in case it should be enquired,
I presented the same unto his Majestic (yet not without the
knowledge and consent of Mr. Latham), in whose hands it is
still, and hath been for the space of fourteen days. But I
think that the businesses of this present Parliament are so
troublesome that he hath had very little or no leisure for the
reading thereof; for as yet he never spoke anything thereof
unto me in all my service and attendance upon his Majestic,
which if he had leisure, I make no doubt but he would have
spoken of it. Neither do I think that as yet there will be any
leisure for the reading of anything of. that subject. Although
otherwise of himself he is wonderfully inclined thereunto,
yea, more than any Prince else in the world. And if, may
be, at any time he shall declare himself hereafter, and speak
his meaning concerning that book, I shall not fail (with the
first occasion that shall present itself) to acquaint you there
with. And peradventure your meaning is that I should tell
you my opinion thereof. Indeed Uitenbogard is well known for
a very learned man, as are most that are in those parts, and has
shewed himself no less herein ; and Mr. Douglas, his translator,
for his part (if I give any judgment) is not behind him with the
same. But yet to the end I deal plainly with you, for I know
that it is your desire that I should do so ; I deny not but that
there are divers passages in the book which I should not
lightly approve, or can condescend thereunto, but yet with
such a dissent as may be between Christians and brethren,
which at this present I cannot fully express myself. Like as
Mr. Latham lately for me and can sufficiently declare unto
you, for now at this present it is in the heat of the business
which until this present have gone forward but slowly wherein
my presence and attendance is so required, besides other
accidents, that I scarcely had leisure (being spoken unto by
Mr. Latham before his departure) to write this letter. I hope
hereafter to have better occasion. Until then and ever I will
be ready to perform any acknowledgment that shall be in my
power, and to shew with how great and hearty kindness I
attempt this same, in that it hath pleased you after such a,
manner to write unto me, and so to begin the first foundation
of our acquaintance, which I wish may never end so long as
life shall last. Thus very heartily recommending you with
all yours unto the protection of the Most High, I take my
leave.
" From the Court at Whitehall this 22nd May, 1614.
" Your Lordship's
" Very faithful
" LANG. ELIE."
Uitenbogardt (Johannes Vytenbogardus) was Professor of
theology and preacher at Leyden. He died in his 49th year
in 1609. The work alluded to in this letter was De Officio
Magistrates circa Sacra. This brief notice of him is taken
from Henning Witte's Diarium Biographicum, 1688.
On the 23rd Casaubon, at this time a sufferer from
strangury, dined at Ely House with Andrewes.
Upon Monday the 30th of May Andrewes was appointed
to meet at eight A.M. in the Painted Chamber with King,
Bishop of London, Neile, Bishop of Lincoln, Bridges, Bishop
of Oxford, and Montagu, Bishop of Bath and Wells, upon a
Bill which had been read a second time on the 26th for
punishing divers abuses committed on the Sabbath-day called
Sunday.
On Whitsunday, June 12th, he preached before the King
an excellent sermon at Greenwich, from Thou art gone up on
high, Psa. Ixviii., one of the best of his Whitsunday sermons,
full of the vitality of Christian doctrine. Let the reader
observe how weightily he describes our captivity under sin ;*
how touchingly he passes on to the gifts of this day.2 Of
that captivity he says, in a manner utterly foreign to those
who are content to learn but one or two instead of the thousand
lessons they might gather out of his works, t( If any have felt
it, he can understand me, and from the deep of his heart will
cry. Turn our captivity, 0 Lord"
He alludes in this sermon to God's wonderful deliverances
of our nation in 1588, and afterwards from the Popish Plot :3
the fruits of this deliverance have outlived our national
memorial of it.
At the breaking up of the Parliament the peers agreed
among themselves to give their best piece of plate, or the value
of it, in a present of money as a speedy benevolence to supply
the King's wants. The Archbishop of Canterbury began with
a basin and ewer, and redeemed it with £140 ; Bilson, Bishop
of Winchester, gave as much ; Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, £120.
This year died that most unprincipled and hypocritical
nobleman, Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton. He lived
a concealed Papist, was extremely forward in conducting the
trial of the Gunpowder conspirators, and prosecuted a man in
the Star Chamber who had called him a Papist. Archbishop
Abbot is said to have stayed the prosecution by producing
a letter of the Earl's to Bellarmine, owning his secret ad
herence to Popery. In the old family mansion at Compton
Wingates is a curious chapel in the roof, partitioned off for
the celebration of Romish worship. Mr. Howitt, in his Visit
to Remarkable Places, appears ignorant of its origin, as
he has overlooked the history of this time-serving individual.
It might have been erected by him. How remarkable
a sign of the times is it that the work here alluded to, the
work of one professing himself to be a member of the
Society of Friends, should yet laud the ages of superstition,
and commend even Romanism itself in some of its external
seductions, seductions of an openly antichristian character !
Such is the inconsistency of false liberality.
Casaubon had been informed on the 13th of December
that he was in danger of strangury. From that time his
health was in a state of perpetual fluctuation. The 23rd,
24th, and 25th of March this year he was confined to his bed.
On the 27th he revived, but was again a great sufferer on the
30th. He was on the 29th of May obliged again to consult
his friend and physician, De Maierne. Again on the 18th of
May he was compelled to betake himself to his bed. At
length from the 14th of June his complaint gradually pre
vailed, until on the 1st of July it terminated his earthly
career. Bishop Andrewes has left us a brief notice of his
last illness.
The ten days preceding his death he gave entirely to
spiritual things, and after signing his will his soul was alto
gether engaged upon God and heaven. He felt within himself
the harbingers of death. He died on Friday July 1st, after
he had received the Eucharist in the morning at the hands of
Bishop Andrewes. He then desired the Nunc Dimittis to be
recited, and took part himself, although his voice was failing
and the effort was a trial to him. Although he suffered much
the two last days, nothing escaped his lips but what was in
harmony with his profession as a Christian. Finally he gave
his blessing to his children and all his household. He then
composed himself to rest, and scarcely spoke afterwards. He
expired after five at noon. His remains were deposited in
Westminster Abbey before the entrance to Henry VII. 's
chapel, and were followed to their last resting-place by six
Bishops, two Deans, and almost all the clergy of the metropolis.
The sermon was preached by his faithful friend Dr. John
Overall, who had on the 3rd of April been consecrated to the
see of Lichfield.
Bishop Andrewes wrote the above narrative for the infor
mation of their mutual friend Daniel Heyn, whom he instructed
to deny the false reports of Heribert Rosweyd the Jesuit, who
gave out that he wavered in regard of his religion to the last.
He had published, shortly before Casaubon's death, a book
entitled Lex Talionis Duodecim Tabularum — The Law of
Requital of the Twelve Tables. It was intended as a reply
to his work against Baronius, and to destroy the influence of
Casaubon's name by taxing him with insincerity, dwelling
amongst other things upon the allegation that he had promised
Cardinal Perron that he would join the Church of Eome at
Whitsuntide 1610.1
On August 5th, the anniversary of the Gowrie Conspiracy,
Bishop Andrewes was in attendance upon the King at
Burleigh-on-the-Hill near Okeham. Here the King was
entertained in his first journey into England. It was then
the seat of Sir John (afterwards Lord) Harrington. His son
succeeded to his title and estates in 1613, but died in 1614.
It was afterwards purchased of the heirs by the favourite
Villiers.2 Our prelate in his anniversary sermon made the
following quaint but ingenious allusion to the first words
of his text : lt I have found David my servant ; with my holy
oil have I anointed him." " The colours of the crown are
not water colours to fade by and by ; they be laid in oil to
last and hold out all weathers. So in oil, not in water.
" And in oil, not in wine ; that is, no acrimony, nothing
corrosive in it. It is gentle, smooth, and suppling, all to teach
them a prime quality of their calling, to put in oil enough to
cherish that virtue, that the streams of it may be seen, and
the scent to be felt of all. For that will make David to be
David, that is (as his name is) truly beloved.
" Oil, and holy oil ; holy, not only to make their persons
sacred, and so free from touch or violating (all agree of that),
but even their calling also. For holy unction, holy function.
Now this holy oil troubles the Jesuit shrewdly and all those
that seek to unhallow the calling of kings. For if the holy
oil be upon them, why should they be sequestered quite from
holy things more than the other two that have but the same
oil?"
He proceeds to say that his holy oil is more than material
oil in the prophet's horn or in the priest's phial : " his drops
immediately from the true olive, the Holy Ghost." But
would he have said that all kings were so anointed? Cer
tainly not. Yet is there great significance in the application
of the emblem which we know is divinely appointed, and has
continued to this day, and not without that very design and
moral and spiritual mystery so well insisted on by our
prelate.
On the 25th of September Bishop Andrewes ordained
Richard Fletcher, M.A., and Humphrey Tovey, M.A. deacons,
and Edmund Topcliffe, M.A. priest, at Downham, in the chapel
of the palace there.
Richard Fletcher was of St. John's College, Cambridge,
B.A. 1608, M.A. 1611 ; Tovey was Fellow of Trinity College,
Cambridge, 1611, M.A. 1614, B.D. 1626, and died May 1st,
1640.
In his sermon on Saturday, 5th of November, on My son,
fear thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with them
that are given to change, he condemns both the policy of the
Romanists who put into their martyrology such as attempt
the life of kings, and the over-boldness of the Presbyterians
who observed but little modesty in their intercourse with
princes. Toward the end he thus satirizes the Jesuits : " Will
ye hear some new divinity, how some Fathers here with us
counselled their ghostly children ; the Fathers of the Society,
their sons of the Society, the wicked society of this day?
You shall see the text turned round about clean contrary,
* My sons, fear God and the Pope, (so is the new edition) ; and
as for those that would fain change things here, do meddle
with them, say Solomon what he list. Lo, a greater than
Solomon; you know where. He (as yet it stands in the gloss
to be seen) made this book of Proverbs authentical by citing
it ; and as he made it, can unmake it again at his pleasure.
Nothing in it shall bind you.' Here is the counsel crossed.
u But then how shall we do with the latter verse ? For
that take no thought. Where he tells you (this Solomon) of
destruction, it is nothing so. On with your Powder Plot
notwithstanding. You shall be so far from this (he tells you)
that if aught come to the plot or you otherwise than ye wish,
it shall be no destruction : no, but a holy martyrdom. And
guis scit f Who knows the blessed estate you shall come to
by these means ? But martyrs you shall be straight upon it
in print. And who knows whether there may not be wrought
a straw miracle to confirm as much, if need be ?
" But to put you clean out of doubt for your meddling,
you shall have of us the Fathers of the Society to meddle in
it as well as you, to make up this holy medly with you ; to
confess you, to absolve you, to swear you, to housel you, to
say mass for you, and to keep your counsel in all holy equivo
cation. You see what work was made ; how the matter was
used with this Scripture when time was ; how the Fathers of
the Society took this Father by the beard, and affronted him
and his counsel in every part of it."
On November 26 Bishop Andrewes preferred Daniel
Wigmore,1 B.D. of Queens' College, Cambridge, to the first
stall in his church at Ely. He had been ordained deacon and
priest on the same day by Bishop Heton at Downham Decem
ber 28, 1602, was made a minor canon of Ely (Dr. Tyndale
being then Dean and also President of Queens' College) in
1605, Master of the Grammar School in 1609, and in 1611
Divinity Lecturer of the Cathedral, an office most probably
conferred in those days only upon individuals well qualified
by their theological erudition to discharge its duties. It is
remarkable that he held his minor canonry together with his
prebendal stall. The first stall he quitted for the second in
March 1616, exchanging with the learned Dr. John Boys.
In that same year he was doubly preferred by Bishop An-
drewes, being made by him Archdeacon of Ely, and on the
3rd of December Rector of Northwold, between Thetford and
Downham Market.1 He was also for some time Eector of
Snailwell near Newmarket, and in the troublous times retired
to his estate at Little Shelford near Cambridge, where he
died, and was buried in 1646. He had purchased the manor
of Little Shelford of the son of Sir Toby Pallavicini.2 Gilbert
Wigmore, D.D. by royal mandate in 1661, was Eector of
Little Shelford early in the following century, and one Daniel
Wigmore appears as B.A. of St. John's College, Cambridge,
in 1702.
Upon Sunday December 18 Andrewes, being then at his
palace in Holborn, consecrated Walter Balcanqual, M. A., James
Wedderburn, M.A., and Richard Fletcher, M.A., priests in Ely
Chapel. Wedderburn was born at Dundee. He was one year,
says Antony Wood, at Oxford, for the benefit of the University
Library there. On August 26, 1615, Bishop Andrewes collated
him to the Vicarage of Waterbeach, which he exchanged in
1616 for that of Harleston or Harston, between Cambridge
and Royston. He was after this Vicar of Mildenhall, Suffolk,
and in 1626 Prebendary of Ely.1 On May 26, 1631, also
Prebendary of Whitchurch in the church of Wells, which
stall he retained till his death. That at Ely he resigned.
He was made Professor at the Scotch University of Aberdeen.
He was chosen to the see of Dumblane March 28, 1635, but
not consecrated until February 11, 1636. His abode in
Scotland was of no long continuance. He appears to have
been unfavourably received there, and is charged with inno
vating in the Semi-Pelagian direction. He therefore returned
to England. He died probably at Canterbury September 23,
1639, and was buried in the Cathedral in St. Mary's, now
called the Dean's Chapel, a very elegant addition to that
Cathedral, built by Prior Goldstone who died in 1468. His
epitaph is as follows : u Reverendissimus in Christo Pater,
Jacobus Wedderburnus, Taoduni in Scotia natus ; sacelli regii
ibidem Decanus; denique Dunblanensis sedis per annos iv
episcopus; vir antiques probitatis et fidei magnumque ob
excellentem doctritfam patrise sues ornamentum H. S. E.
Obiit An. Dom. MDCXXXIX. 23 die Sept. ^Etatis Liv."2
Upon Sunday, Christmas-day, Bishop Andrewes preached
before the King at Whitehall his truly Christian discourse
upon the name Immanuel. Here he saith : tc I shall not need
to tell you that in nobiscum (with us) there is mecum (with
me). Out of this generality of with us in gross may every one
deduce his own particular with me, and me, and me. For all
put together make but nobiscum (with us)." Then citing the
first verse of the thirtieth chapter of Proverbs, according to the
Vulgate, he adds, " The wise man out of Immanuel, (that is)
God with us, doth deduce Ithiel, (that is) God with me, his
own private interest. And St. Paul, when he had said to the
Ephesians, of Christ, l Who loved us and gave himself for us
might with good right say to the Galatians, ' Who loved me
and gave himself for me.'" He proceeds to observe that we
cannot estimate the force of these words with us aright, unless
we consider what we should have been without him ; also that
he is a sign both from above and from beneath, from above as
God, from beneath as man. He is with us not in nature only
as man, but even as sinful man. Though not like us in sin,
he is by unity of person with us even here. So St. Paul said,
he was made sin.
li With us to eat butter and honey seemeth much, and it is
so for God. What say ye, to drink vinegar and gall ? This
is much more I am sure ; yet that he did. I cannot here say
with uSj \\\ifor us ; even drank of the cup with the dregs of
the wrath of God, which passed not from him that it might
pass from us, and we not drink it.
" This, this is the great with us ; for of this follow all the
rest. With us once thus, and then with us in his oblation on
the altar of the Temple ; with us in his -sacrifice on the altar
of the cross ; with us in all the virtues and merits of his life ;
with us in his satisfaction and satis-passion both of his death;
with us in his resurrection to raise us up from the earth ;
with us in his ascension to exalt us to heaven ; with us even
then when he seemed to be taken from us, that day by his
Spirit as this day by his flesh."
Thus full of devout affection, the true spirit of holy elo
quence, was this good bishop and reverend father of the English
Church : if that name be at all applicable to mortal pastors,
then rarely better bestowed than upon him.
CHAPTER XVI.
Page 395
Bishop Andrewes with the King at Cambridge 1615 — His Easter
Sermon — Bishop Wren — Andrewes' Sermon on our Lord's Bap
tism — j)r. John Bois, Prebendary of Ely — Bishop Andrewes'
Sermon on the 5th of November — Dr. Balcanqual — Bishop An-
Sermon on Micah v.
THE first transaction in which we find our prelate engaged
in 1615 was an ordination on the 25th of February (probably
at Ely Chapel, Holborn) when he ordained William Beale,
M.A., deacon, and Christopher Wren, M.A., afterward Dean
of Windsor, and Thomas Macarness, M.A. of King's College,
priests. William Beale was B.A. not of Pembroke but of
Jesus College, Cambridge, 1610, M.A. 1613, B.D. 1620, and
D.D. 1627. He has been said, but probably without authority,
to have been Archdeacon of Caermarthen, and to have been
collated to that preferment 3rd January, 161f , but he was not
ordained at that time. The name is given in Le Neve as
Beale or Beeley. He was brother to Jerome Beale, Fellow of
Pembroke Hall 9th October, 1598, and Master in 1618. He
was born in Worcestershire, perhaps at Beoley in that county,
whence we find his name spelt both Beale and Beeley.
As his brother had been removed from Christ College to
Pembroke Hall, so had he from Trinity to Jesus College.
He was a native of Oxfordshire (according to Sherman), and
was admitted a Fellow of Jesus College in 1611. As a tutor
he was celebrated for the many pupils of illustrious rank
whom he had brought up. He was made Master of Jesus
College July 14, 1632, by Dr. Francis White, Bishop of
Ely, in the place of his unworthy successor, Dr. Eoger
Andrewes, who for his misrule was the aversion of his College,
and whom nevertheless we find loaded with preferments by
his brother the Bishop ; a point which as it cannot be com
mended, so neither ought it to be concealed.
In 1633 Dr. Beale was removed hence to the Mastership
of St. John's College. He was made Eector of Cottingham
near Buckingham in Northamptonshire, and on October 31st,
1637, of Paulerspury near Towcester, on the presentation of
the King, being in high favour with Laud, and accounted an
Anti-Predestinarian. He was deprived of his Mastership
March 13, 1644, and nominated to the Deanery of Ely 1645,
but never put in possession. Having taken part in gathering
and conveying the plate belonging to the University to the
King, he was, with Dr. Sterne, Master of Jesus College, and
Dr. Martin, Master of Queens' College, carried prisoner to
London. After having been in prison some time, but under
three years, the period assigned in Carter's History of the
University of Cambridge, he fled to Madrid in company with
Lord Cottington, the King's Ambassador. He is there said
to have lived in his family. He died at Madrid October 1st,
1651, and being denied Christian burial, was privately buried
in the Ambassador's garden.
Thomas Macarness was B.A. 1610, M.A. 1614, of King's
College, Cambridge.
The King in very disadvantageous weather visited Cam
bridge with the Prince of Wales, afterward King Charles I.
fl The King made his entry there/' wrote Mr. Chamberlain to
Sir Dudley Carleton then at Turin, " the 7th of this present
[in March] with as much solemnity and concourse of gallants
and great men as the hard weather and extreme foul ways
would permit. The Prince came along with him, but not the
Queen, by reason, as it is said, that she was not invited,
which error is rather imputed to their Chancellor than to the
scholars, that understood not these courses." The Chancellor
was Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, Lord Treasurer. He
had been elected 8th July, 1614, on the death of Henry
Howard, Earl of Northampton, and held that office till his
own death, May 28th, 1626. He was Thomas Lord Howard
of Walden before he was advanced to the title of Earl of
Suffolk by James the First in 1603. He was the son of
Thomas, fourth Duke of Norfolk, (who was beheaded on
Tower Hill in 1573), by his second wife Margaret, daughter
and sole heir of Thomas Lord Audley of Walden, K.G.
and Chancellor of England. He was restored in blood by
Act of Parliament in 1584, and in 1588, being in that
memorable engagement of the Spanish Armada, was by the
Lord High Admiral knighted at sea for his good services
therein, and made by Queen Elizabeth Lord Howard of
Walden. In the neighbourhood of Saffron Walden he built
the very noble and once extensive mansion called Audley
End. James made him first his Chamberlain, and afterwards
Lord High Treasurer. He built Audley End, designing it
for a palace for his sovereign ; and when it was completed with
all the taste and elegance of that magnificent period, the King
was invited to see it, and as he passed to Newmarket he took
up a night's lodging there ; when, after having viewed it with
great astonishment, he was asked by the Earl how he approved
of it. He answered, "Very well, but troth, man, it is too
much for a King, but it may do for a Lord High Treasurer;"
and so left it upon the Earl's hands, who is reported to have
had then an estate of £50,000 per annum. However Charles II.
purchased it, and so it became and continued a royal palace
until the reign of William III., who, finding that there was
great truth in the remark of King James, regranted it to the
family of its founder. Henry Earl of Suffolk hereupon pulled
down the greater part of it. The Earl died at Suffolk House
(which occupied the site of the present Suffolk Street) in
Westminster, May 28, 1626.
To return to the royal visit. The Lord Treasurer is said
to have expended a thousand pounds a day on this occasion.
His family appear to have constituted no small part of the
spectacle, there being few or no noble ladies present but such
as were of his own kindred ; as Alethsea the Countess of
Arundel, youngest daughter and coheir of Gilbert Talbot,
seventh Earl of Shrewsbury, married to Thomas Howard
Earl of Arundel j1 her sister the Lady Elizabeth Grey, the
Earl of Shrewsbury's second daughter, married to Sir Henry
Grey, Lord of Kuthin, son of Charles Grey, Earl of Kent ;2
the Countess of Suffolk (the Earl's second wife), Catherine,
eldest daughter and coheir of Sir Henry Knyvett of Chorlton
in Wilts, Knt. ;3 with her daughters, namely, Frances her second
daughter, not long after too well known by her divorce from
the Earl of Essex and subsequent marriage with Robert Carr,
Earl of Somerset ; and Catherine, Countess of Salisbury, the
third daughter of the Countess of Suffolk f together with the
Lady Walden, Elizabeth, daughter and coheir to George,
Lord Hume, Earl of Dunbar ;5 and lastly, Elizabeth, daughter
and sole heir of William Basset, Esq., after whose death she
was married to William Cavendish, Duke of Newcastle.6
Fuller relates that the King's entertainment at Cambridge
cost the Earl of Suffolk five thousand pounds and up
wards ;7 and Chamberlain that the Earl spent twenty-six tun
of wine in five days. He lodged and kept his table at St.
John's College, but his lady and her retinue at Magdalene
College, of which her grandfather Audley, Lord Chancellor,
was a kind of second or co-founder. To him the College owes
its present name, having been previously called Buckingham
Hall (1519) from Edward Stafford, third Duke of Bucking
ham. The King and Prince Charles lay at Trinity College,
where the plays were represented. The hall was so well
ordered for room, that above two thousand persons were
accommodated.
On the first day, Tuesday the 7th of March, the King
attended a Divinity Act which was kept by Dr. Davenant,
Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity and President of
Queens' College. He disputed on three questions. Nulla
est temporalis Papce potestas super Reges in ordine ad bonum
spirituale. The affirmative had been maintained by Bellar-
mine (lib. v. De Rom. Pont. cap. 6), who professed to mode-
rate the doctrine taught up to his time respecting the power
of the Pope, by changing his dominion over all things into an
indirect instead of a direct power. Augustinus Triumphus,
of the order of Eremites of St. Augustine, of the country of
Ancona, and who was present at the Second Council of Lyons
in 1274 (called the Fourteenth General Council, when a
forced union of the Greek and Latin Churches took place
under Pope Gregory X. and the Emperor Michael Palgeologus,
and which lasted but a few years owing to the imperiousness
of Pope Martin IV.), had taught without reserve the direct
dominion of the Roman Pontiff over the whole world in
things both political and ecclesiastical. In this he had been
followed by Alvarus Pelagius, a Spaniard of the Friars
Minorites, Penitentiary to the Pope and Bishop of Corunna,
early in the next century, and many others. Bellarmine indeed
only threw a veil over the monstrosity of the papal claims by
asserting an indirect in the place of a direct dominion. Others
however continued to affirm the Pope's dominion in the more
undisguised form, as Augustinus Steuchus of Eugubium or
Gubbio (at the foot of the Apennines above Perugia), who
died in 1550, and a host besides, whose names are given in Dr.
John Gerhard's Confessio Catholica.1 Bellarmine, whilst he
learnedly refuted the older opinion, as Dr. Field shews at
length in the 44th chapter of his 5th book Of the Church, gave
back to the Pope with his left hand all that he appeared to
take from him with his right ; grounding his power to depose
princes and to dispose of their kingdoms on his right in
or dine ad lonum spirituale, " that is, in a kind of reference to
the procuring and setting forward of the spiritual good."
This claim the learned Dr. Field exposes and refutes in the
45th and 46th chapters of his 5th book.2
In this Act the eminently learned and pious Davenant,
afterward Bishop of Salisbury, was answerer, and the muni
ficent and very able Eegius Divinity Professor and Master of
Peterhouse, Dr. John Richardson, one of the opposers. In
behalf of the excommunicating of kings, Dr. Kichardson
vigorously pressed the practice of St. Ambrose, who excom
municated the Emperor Theodosius. The King with some
warmth replied, Profecto fuit hoc db Ambrosio insolentissime
factum; upon which Dr. Richardson answered, "Responsum
vere regium et Alexandro dignum; hoc non est argumenta
dissolvere sed dissecare," (a truly royal answer and worthy of
Alexander, "this is not to untie but to cut arguments"), and
sitting down desisted from any further dispute.
The second thesis was, Infallibilis fidei determinatio non est
annexa cathedrae, Papali. Dr. Field states the general opinion
in the Romish Church at this time to have been, that the Pope
whether he might err personally or not, yet could not tl define
for falsehood," i. e. could not err as Pope. Bellarmine main
tained, but as Field proved, falsely, that all "Catholics" con
sented that the Pope with a General Council could not err.1
The third thesis was, Gceca obedientia est illicita. This
was against that doctrine of implicit and unquestioning obe
dience which is the foundation of the Jesuit system, and
which makes it therefore an essentially dangerous, irreligious,
and immoral institution, namely, that the mind, will, and con
science of the members of that Society should be one and the
same with the mind, will, and conscience of their superior.
So Ignatius Loyola, in the epistle De Virtute Obedientice at the
end of the Rules of the Society : " Obedience comprehends not
only the execution, that one should do what he is commanded,
and the will, that he should do it willingly, but also the
judgment, that whatsoever the superior thinks and enjoins,
the same should appear true and right to his inferior, in so far
as I have said the will can bend the understanding by its
own power."2
The first night's entertainment was a comedy made and
acted by St. John's men. It is but slightingly alluded to by
Chamberlain in that letter to Dudley Carleton from which so
much of our information respecting the royal visit is drawn.
A Law Act was moderated by Dr. Henry Mutlow, first
Gresham Professor of Civil Law. He had been a Fellow of
King's College, was Proctor in 1589 and 1593, a Burgess of
Parliament, many years Public Orator ; he died 1634, aged
eighty years, and was buried at St. Mary's.
The second night, March 8, the celebrated comedy of
Ignoramus was acted to the great entertainment of the King,
who was the more pleased as the whole was a satire upon the
professors of the common law, for which his imperial bias
would gladly have substituted the civil law as more in unison
with his favourite theoiy of absolute monarchy.
The author was the Kev. George Euggle, whose family
name was derived from Eugely in Staffordshire. He had
been educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was
B.A. 1594, and M.A. 1597. He was thence transferred to a
fellowship and tutorship at Clare Hall 1598, a time when
that foundation was favoured with a constellation of genius
and learning, as we have noticed elsewhere. He was born at
Lavenham in Suffolk. He was Taxor of the University in
1604, went to Oxford when the King visited that University
in 1605, and was there incorporated M.A. He resigned his
fellowship in 1620, and died about a year after. His Igno
ramus was not published until some years after his death,
first in 1630, then in eight editions to one at Dublin inclusive
in 1736, and lastly, with ample notes and a valuable life of
Euggle by Sir J. S. Hawkins, in 1787. A translation by Eobert
Codrington, M.A. of Magdalene College, Oxford, appeared in
1662, and a mutilated one in 1678, under the title of The
English Laicyer, a Comedy acted at the Royal Theatre;
written by Edward Ravenscroft, Gent., in 1678. The play was
acted by (amongst others) several members of the University
in holy orders, which was not overlooked at Oxford, where a
more discreet course had been observed in 1605. Amongst
them were Towers, afterwards Bishop of Peterborough, Bar-
grave, Dean of Canterbury, Love, Dean of Ely, and Mason
of Pembroke Hall, Dean of Sarum. Spencer Compton, then
a youth only thirteen years of age, only son of Lord Compton,
and of Queens' College, Cambridge, attracted especial observa
tion. He personated three several characters in this comedy.
Mr. John Holies, of Christ College, eldest son of Sir John
[Holies, whom he succeeded as second Earl of Clare in 1637,
was another of the actors. He was a man of honour and
courage, and remarkable for his moderation in the troubles of
the ensuing reign. He died January 2, 1665, and was
succeeded by his son Gilbert. Love, afterwards Dean of Ely,
was also with Bargrave of Clare Hall.
In the Physic Act the King's Physician, Sir Edward
Radcliffe, distinguished himself. He was brother of Dr.
Jeremiah Radcliffe, one of the Senior Fellows of Trinity
College, and also one of the translators of the Bible. He
some time lived at Orwell, where his brother was Rector,
and erected a monument to his memory. He was grandson
of Ralph, a celebrated schoolmaster at Hitchin.1 He died
September 1631, aged 78. The family still reside at the
Priory near Hitchin.
On the third night, March 9th, a comedy, Albumazar, was
acted before the King. Its author was Mr. Tomkis, scholar
of Trinity College 1594, and B.A. 1598. The comedy was
published in quarto in 1615, and again in 1634. It is re
printed in the ninth volume of Dodsley's Collection. Tomkis
was in part indebted, as was also Ruggle, to John Baptist
Porta, an Italian dramatist of the preceding century.
The last evening Melanihe, a Latin pastoral composed by
Mr. afterwards Dr. Brook,2 was acted.
Chamberlain, who did not exercise the good feeling of the
witty Corbet,3 who being asked to criticise the performances
of the University, answered that he had left his malice and
judgment at home, and came thither only to commend, admits
that the Philosophy Act was excellently kept.
After it was concluded Bishop Andrewes sent the mode
rator, the answerer, the varier or prevaricator, and one of the
repliers, who were all of his College, twenty angels each.
Wren was answerer or respondent ; Preston, tutor of Queens'
College, the celebrated Puritan, was first opponent ; Dr. Reade
of Pembroke Hall was moderator.
Alexander Eeade, B.A., was chosen to a Fellowship at
Pembroke Hall November 5th, 1605, whilst Harsnet was
Master ; Humanity Lecturer (the first of Mr. Farr's founda
tion) 1616. Mr. Farr was Henry Farr, Fellow 3rd November
1570, whilst Dr. John Young, afterward Bishop of Rochester,
was Master; he was M.A. 1574, and Junior Proctor 1586.
Reade held the same office in 1617, had a testimonial for
orders in 1618, was made D.D. and President,^, e. next to the
Master or Vice-Master, in 1624, and Perpetual Curate or
Minister of Yately, a small preferment in the gift of the
Master of St. Cross' Hospital, on the northern border of
Hampshire, east of Bramshill Park. He died about 1628.
" Their moderator was no fool ;
He far from Cambridge kept a school."
For this last information we are indebted to " A grave
poem, as it was presented in Latin by certain divines before
his Majesty in Cambridge, by way of interlude, styled Liber
novus de adventu Regis ad Cantabrigiam. Faithfully done
into English with some liberal advantage ; made rather to be
sung than read. To the tune of Bonny Nell" It is inserted
in Corbet's poems, and has been reprinted by Sir J. S. Hawkins
in his edition of Ignoramus, and by Nichols in his Royal
Progresses.
The question was whether dogs could make syllogisms,
suggested by a passage from Chrysippus in Sir W. Raleigh's
Sceptic, in which the position is affirmed. Wren, whose
abilities had early recommended him to the kind patronage of
Andrewes, pleaded a kind of divine right for the King's
hounds. Fuller in his Worthies has in his own way per
petuated this Act. After identifying him from his arms with
the worshipful family of the Wrens in Northumberland, he
adds, l He was bred Fellow of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge,
where he kept the extraordinary Philosophy Act before King
James. I say, kept it with no less praise to himself than
pleasure to the King, where, if men should forget, even dogs
would remember his seasonable distinction, what the King's
hounds could perform above others by virtue of their pre
rogative.11
On Easter-day, April 9, Bishop Andrewes preached before
the King at Whitehall a sermon of the most unparalleled
ingenuity upon those words of our Lord, Destroy this Temple,
and within three days I will raise it up again. His prose
continually reminds us throughout of Herbert's verse, the
same fertility of invention, the same facility of application.
He notes how the sign our Lord gave the Pharisees was far
greater than that which was in their thoughts. The Temple
men could raise again, but not this temple the body.
He takes occasion to condemn the avaricious sacrilege of
his times, that will leave nothing standing of the house of
God, not even the roof if it be of lead. He briefly touches on
the typical character of the Temple and its furniture, adducing
St. Ambrose, saying, " that is truly a temple wherein is. the
purification of our sins."
Toward the end he observes that we make our bodies
anything rather than temples, or if temples, temples of Ceres,
Bacchus, Venus. " But if this be the fruit of our life, and we
have no other but this, to fill and farce our bodies, to make
them shrines of pride, and to maintain them in this excess, to
make a money-change2 of all besides, Commonwealth, Church,
and all, 1 know not well what to say to it. I doubt at their
rising they will rather make blocks for hell-fire than be made
pillars in the temple of God, in the holy places made without
hands."
In the course of this year Bishop Andrewes added Matthew
Wren (afterward Bishop of Ely) to the number of his chap
lains. He had been Fellow of Pembroke College from 1605,
and on January 20, 1610, had been preferred by the same
patron to the Vicarage of Harston, and on March 26, 1614, to
that of Barton. These he resigned, Harston in November
1615, and Barton in the year following, being instituted on
the gift of Bishop Andrewes to the Rectory of Teversham this
same year, in which he was also made his chaplain, on May
15. His learning was such as to rank him amongst the first
scholars of the University ; and by his application to whatsoever
affairs concerned the interest of the Colleges to which he suc
cessively belonged, Pembroke and St. Peter's College, he has
been deservedly regarded by those societies as one of their
principal benefactors. Such merits could not fail to attach
Andrewes to him, who was himself unrivalled as a promoter
of learning and of learned men. Thus Wren was brought
into the royal presence, and all courtly favours from that time
flowed in upon him, if not in rapid yet in sure succession.
In 1621 he wras made Chaplain to Prince Charles, and accom
panied him in that imprudent and unsuccessful journey to
Spain. On his return he was in May 1624 made Eector of
Bingham in the county of Nottingham. The town itself, still
of no great size, owed what little importance it possessed to
a noble collegiate church, now no longer collegiate, but highly
interesting for its architectural features. This preferment was
of considerable value. Not long before, on the preceding 10th
November 1623, he was installed in the first stall of Win
chester through Andrewes, then Bishop of that see. On July
26, 1625, he was elected Master of Peterhouse, and in 1628
was made Dean of Windsor and Registrar of the Order of
the Garter. Some time after he was made Clerk of the
Closet, and attended the King to Scotland. In 1634 he was
promoted to a prebend in the abbey-church of Westminster,
in the room of Dr. John Wilson, and the same year was
consecrated to the see of Hereford on the death of the learned
Dr. Augustine Lindsell. In the following year he was trans
lated to Norwich on the decease of the poetical Bishop Corbett.
On the death of Bishop White he was removed to Ely.
Whilst Master of Peterhouse he collected contributions and
built the college chapel, which was dedicated March 17, 1632.
With the same liberality, on his restoration to his see after an
unjust imprisonment of eighteen years in the Tower, he built
a new chapel to Pembroke College, elegantly designed by the
famous Sir Christopher Wren, and gave to the College the
manor of Hardwick near Cambridge, to keep it in repair. The
chapel of Pembroke College cost him above £5000. The
first stone was laid on May 13, 1663, by Dr. Mark Frank,1
who had in the preceding year succeeded to the Mastership in
the place of Dr. Benjamin Laney, Bishop of Peterborough.
Bishop Wren himself consecrated it upon St. Matthew's-day,
September 21, 1665. He died at Ely House, Holborn, April
24, 1667.
As a prelate and theologian Wren possessed neither the
prudence nor the sound and solid piety of his great patron
Andrewes. He professed to adhere to him as a ritualist, but
in regard of that great practical point, the observance of the
Lord's-day, he departed from the doctrine of Bishop Andrewes.
That prelate maintained the divine institution of the day and
the sanctification of the whole of it. Not so Bishop Wren,
who although not guilty in so many instances as were objected
to him, yet acknowledged that he had excommunicated some
of his clergy for not publishing the King's declaration of the
Book of Sports?
He was very rigid in confining his clergy to the form of
the bidding prayer, which form itself was continually varied
and accommodated to the occasion in the time of Bishop
Andrewes, as may be seen in the Bidding Prayers inserted in
his Posthumous Works. Bishop Wren was not therefore
justified in the use which he made of his name in his defence.8
George Herbert used his own form,4 and the 55th canon itself
permits each minister and preacher to frame his own prayer
upon the model of the canon, unrestrained as to the very form
itself.
Wren was also over-zealous for the custom of bowing to
the altar, for which in his defence he alleged without any
ground Jewel's Defence of his Apology. There in page 203
(ed. Lond. 1565) Jewel has not one word of bowing to the
communion-table, but only, " kneeling, bowing, standing up,
and other like are commendable gestures and tokens of de
votion, so long as the people understandeth what they mean."
He more pertinently appealed to Bishop Morton on the
Institution of the Sacrament^ who however is entirely silent
upon the mystical meaning of bowing as it is now understood
by some, and as it was perhaps in the mind of Laud himself.
11 The use of bowing toward the Lord's table hath in it no
other nature or meaning than Daniel his kneeling with his
face towards Jerusalem and the Temple. For as this was a
testification of his joint society in that religious worship which
had been exercised in the Temple and altar thereof at Jeru
salem, so ours is a symbol of our union in profession with
them who do faithfully communicate at the table of the Lord."
He again has recourse to the name of Andrewes in behalf of
bowing to the holy table. But Andrewes at least, as Dr. Fuller
has left on record, did not impose upon any in any of the dio
ceses which he governed, unauthorized ceremonies. No wonder
that Wren incurred the displeasure of those who felt that from
his hands they had suffered unjustly, and who saw clearly
that overmuch zeal for such external points was incompatible
with purity of doctrine and with the maintenance of the
reformed faith. It was indeed a sort of Pharisaism that
punctiliously bowed at the altar, and the next moment
looked on with satisfaction at the congregation released from
church to dance around the maypole. This was to set up
human institutions (the Book of Sports) practically and
imperiously above divine, 'the day which the Lord hath
made.'
On April 16th the Council wrote to the Bishop to request
him to supervise the priests to be sent to Wisbeach Castle,
and to appoint learned divines to converse with those who
might desire it. Letters were sent to the neighbouring
justices cautioning them against any attempt at escape or
rescue. Orders were sent at the same time for the better
government of the said priests to Matthias Taylor, Keeper of
the Castle.
Amongst these seem to have been Alexander Faircloth,
Richard Cooper, George Muskett, and John Ainsworth.
On May 24th the Bishop wrote to the Keeper the answers
of the Council to divers points of the requests made by the
priests. Their breviaries were to be restored to them, and
they permitted to see or write to friends who wished to relieve
them without the names being known. He wrote further
that he could not allow his own house to be used for the
prisoners, as it had been during the vacancy of the see.1
The Romish historian Dod highly eulogizes George Mus
kett alias Fisher, which latter he regards as his true name.
He says that he had a brother at Attlebridge in Norfolk near
Repham in the hundred of Taverham. He was educated at
the English College at Rome, and was ordained priest there.
He resided mostly in London, and was very zealous in prose
lytizing to his communion. He and the Jesuit Fisher were
engaged for two days, April 21 and 22, 1621, in controversy
with Drs. Goad and Featly. He was in prison in 1635, being
then 53 years old. He was condemned to die, being convicted
of saying mass, but remained twenty years a prisoner under
sentence. But all this time, says Dod, he found means to
exercise his functions with the same success as if he had
enjoyed his liberty. He remained a prisoner until 1641,
having been reprieved by the Queen's intercession. He was
chosen to succeed Dr. Kellison as President of the English
College at Douay. Again the watchful zeal of Henrietta,
directed by those about her, found an opportunity of for
warding the plans of Rome and the interests of the Romish
Church. The Queen prevailed to have his imprisonment
exchanged for exile. He arrived at Douay November 14th,
1641. He died of consumption December 24th, 1645. In
his presidentship he was succeeded by Dr. William Hyde.
Muskett was called at Rome, Flos cleri Anglican* — The
flower of the English clergy.
On May 28th1 Andrewes preached before the King at
Greenwich upon our Lord's baptism. Here the peculiar gift
of his prolific genius appeared to great advantage, in illus
trating from analogy the design of our Lord's baptism as our
federal head ; the character of his baptism as the sanctification
and pattern of ours ; and the dovelike spirit of true Chris
tianity and of the true Church in contradistinction to the
vulturelike nature of the Church of Eome. " The Holy
Ghost is a dove, and he makes Christ's spouse the Church a
dove, a term so oft iterate in the Canticles and so much stood
on by S. Augustine and the Fathers, that they make no
question, no dove no Church. St. Peter," he adds, " was Bar-
Jona, the son of a dove, and without such a dovelike spirit
there is no remission of sins, no Holy Ghost in the Church."2
Upon July 9th our prelate assisted at the consecration of
Dr. Richard Milbourne to the see of St. David's. The other
prelates were Archbishop Abbot, Dr. John King, Bishop of
London, Buckeridge, Bishop of Rochester, and Dr. John
Overall, who had in April 1614 been raised to the see of
Lichfield and Coventry. Dr. Richard Milbourne was of a
Pembrokeshire family but a native of London. He was
educated at Winchester School and at Queens' College,
Cambridge, was successively Rector of Sevenoaks, Chaplain
to Prince Henry, Precentor of St. David's, and Dean of
Rochester. This last preferment he resigned in the following
year, and was succeeded by Dr. Robert Scott.3 In 1621 Dr.
Milbourne was translated from St. David's to Carlisle, and
Laud was consecrated to the former see. He died in 1624,
when Dr. Richard Senhouse was raised to his see of Carlisle.
Dr. Senhouse was also of the University of Cambridge, of
Trinity and then of St. John's College, and Chaplain first to
the Earl of Bedford and afterward of Prince Charles.
On Saturday August 5th our prelate being in attendance
upon the King, preached before him in Salisbury Cathedral,
from the four first verses of the 21st Psalm. This sermon,
preached before a concourse of people and of considerable
length, must have lost much of its effect from the unhappy
custom, for which nevertheless our prelate himself contended,
of interspersing every ten lines with Latin.
On the 25th of this month Bishop Andrewes preferred the
learned John Boys to the second stall in his cathedral of Ely.
"At the vacancy of the prebend he was sent for to London,"
writes his biographer Anthony Walker, u by Lancelot An
drewes, then Lord Bishop of Ely, who bestowed it upon him
unasked for. When he had given him, as we commonly say,
joy of it (which was his first salutation at his coming to him),
he told him ' that he did bestow it freely on him without any
one moving him thereto ; though,' said he, l some pickthanks
will be saying they stood your friends herein.' Which pre
diction proved very true."1
Under the patronage and probably at the request of Bishop
Andrewes, Boys began his comparison of the Vulgate with
the modern versions of the New Testament by Beza and
others, to point out where the moderns had needlessly varied
from the Vulgate. This work he completed to the end of the
Acts of the Apostles, but upon the death of Bishop Andrewes
desisted from his undertaking, having then entered but a little
way into the Epistle to the Romans.2 These notes, to the
end of the Acts, appeared in 1656, entitled, Veteris Interpretis
cum Beza aliisque Eecentioribus Collatio in Quatuor Evangeliis
et Apostolorum Actis. In qua annon scepius absquejustd satis
causa hi ab illo discesserint disquiritur , &c.
Thus closely connected as is the name of Boys with that
of Andrewes, it may not be out of place to add a brief notice
of him, taken from the memoirs from which has been drawn
the anecdote relating to his promotion at Ely.
His grandfather John Boys was an inhabitant of Halifax
in Yorkshire, where also his father William was born. His
father was sent to Cambridge and lodged in Michael House
(afterwards swallowed up in Trinity College), but went to
lectures to St. John's College to Mr. John Seaton, afterward
D.D. and Prebendary of Winchester, and author of a com
pendium of logic for the use of junior scholars. Mr. William
Boys entered into holy orders, but becoming a convert to the
doctrine of the Reformers, withdrew himself from the Uni
versity and took a farm at Nettlestead, between Hadleigh and
Needham Market, and married a gentlewoman named Mirable
Pooley, of an ancient and respectable family. Her son, the
learned translator, records of her that she had read the Bible
over twelve times, and the Book of Martyrs twice, besides
other books not a few.1 When Queen Elizabeth came to the
throne he took upon him to serve the cure of Elmset, between
Nettlestead and Hadleigh ; and on the death of the incumbent
was presented by the Lord Keeper to the Rectory, and not
long after to the Rectory of West Stow by his brother Mr.
Pooley, a small parish between Bury St. Edmund's and
Mildenhall. He died in his sixty-eighth year, and his widow
survived him about ten years, dying about her seventy-eighth
year.
His son John was born January 3, 1560, at Nettlestead.
His father taught him to write Hebrew when he was but six
years old, and took great pains himself in his education,
sending him also daily to school at Hadleigh, two miles from
his house at Elmset. There commenced his acquaintance
with the learned Dr. John Overall, Dean of St. Paul's and
afterwards Bishop of Norwich. He was admitted of St.
John's College under the tuition of Mr. Henry Coppinger on
the 1st of March, 1675.2 He was of the ancient family of
the Coppingers of Buxhall, between Stow Market and Laven-
ham. To St. John's College he was sent to be under Dr.
Still,1 who on the 21st of July in the preceding year had
been raised to the Mastership, being also Kector of Hadleigh.
In 1576 Dr. Still was made Archdeacon of Sudbury, and in
1577 advanced to the Mastership of Trinity College, Cam
bridge. His good management of the revenues of the latter
foundation is memorialized by Dr. Fuller in his Holy and
Profane State; and Walker, himself a Fellow of St. John's,
says of him at that College, " This is he who procured the
alteration of the College statutes, before which few Masters
continued seven years ; which gave occasion to the then
common merry saying, viz. c that the College was a good
horse, but that he would kick till Still went to court and got
new girths.' "
There were then in St. John's three Greek lectures read.
In the first grammar was taught, as is commonly now in
schools. In the second an easy author was explained in a
grammatical way. The third was of a more advanced kind.
A year was usually spent in attending upon the first course
of lectures, and two upon the second. Within six weeks,
however, Boys being a fair Greek scholar at the time of his
admission was remitted to the third and higher lecture.
Andrew Downes (in 1585 Eegius Greek Professor) then
lectured at St. John's five times a week with great diligence,
but took such delight in this young scholar as to read over to
him privately twelve of the more difficult Greek authors,
both in prose and verse. Boys was in his first year elected
to a scholarship.
York. This stall he resigned to Ambrose Coppinger, whom Dr. Toby Mathews
collated June 2, 1619. The Earl of Oxford being patron of Lavenham presented
Coppinger to it, and after resolving to keep back from him all tithe of his park
(almost half the land of the parish), on Coppinger' s offering rather to resign
than be a party to such sacrilege, retracted his ill-made resolution. But the
Earl's successor being a minor, his agent iniquitously put this exemplary person
to the cost of £1600 before he could recover the rights of the Church. He was
for forty-five years the very laborious and charitable incumbent of Lavenham,
where he died on St. Thomas' s-day, 1662, in his seventy-second year.— See
Fuller's Church Hist. b. x. c. 6.
In 1577 his tutor Henry Coppinger was advanced by the
Queen to the Mastership of Magdalene College, whereupon
he left his Fellowship and went to Magdalene and took his
pupil Boys along with him. This stretch of her prerogative
however was not suffered to pass without animadversion, for
the appointment belonged to the Earl of Suffolk. Coppinger
therefore resigned, and lost both his Mastership and Fellow
ship. Boys was readmitted to his scholarship, and in due
time chosen a Fellow, having the small-pox upon him at the
time of his election. Whilst a Fellow he continued his
studies in the summer in the University Library from four
in the morning till eight at night. He resided upon his
Fellowship, and delayed receiving holy orders the full time
that the College statutes permitted him. On Friday, June 21,
1583 (having been eight years a member of St. John's Col
lege) he was ordained deacon, and on the following day,
by dispensation, priest by Dr. Edmund Freake, Bishop of
Norwich. Such was the esteem in which Boys was held by
Dr. Whitaker (who, on the elevation of Dr. Richard Howland
to the see of Peterborough, was made Master of St. John's
on St. Matthew's-day, February 25, 1586,) that every Friday
evening he came to Boys' chamber to hear his pupils declaim.
This may be observed as an instance also of the forgiving and
kind spirit of that famous controversialist, for Boys had voted
against his election. However as he acknowledged to Walker
his sorrow afterward for the part he then took, so he probably
evinced to Whitaker, after his better knowledge of him, the
deference and regard that were his due. Dr. Whitaker died
December 4, 1595. Robert (afterwards Sir Robert) Naunton,
Fellow of Trinity College and University Orator, was ap
pointed to deliver the oration at Great St. Mary's, and Boys
in his own College. He has testified in his notes, to the
commendation of Whitaker, that under his governance learning,
if at any time, flourished and increased, but that after his death
the College was augmented in its buildings but declined in
letters. Mr. Boys was afterwards made Philosophy Lecturer,
and in the course of one year commented upon the greater
part of Plato's Timceus. These lectures were held in the
schools, the Vice-Chancellor and a great concourse of auditors
flocking to him. He was for ten years chief Greek Lecturer
in his College, and besides the College lecture read a Greek
lecture at four of the clock in the morning in his own chamber,
which was frequented by many of the Fellows. At the death
of his father, his mother by request commanding him that it
might be continued to her for a place of abode, he asked Mr.
Pooley for the living of West Stow, which he promptly gave
him, but resigned upon Mr. Pooley 's taking his mother under
his own roof.
About 1596 the Earl of Salisbury made Boys one of his
chaplains, who the same year thus became possessed of the
rectory of Boxworth in the county of Cambridge. lt When he
was about thirty-six years old Mr. Holt, Kector of Boxworth,
dying, left the advowson of that living in part of a portion
to one of his daughters, requesting of some of his friends
that, if it might be by them procured, Mr. Boys of St. John's
might become his successor by the marriage of his daughter.
Whereof when he was advertised he went over to see her, and
soon after, they taking a liking to each other, he was pre
sented to the parsonage, and instituted by Archbishop Whit-
gift, it being then the great vacation of the see1 of Ely." He
was instituted October 13, 1596. "The College at his
departure gave him £100, though I must confess," adds
Walker, " that was then custom more than courtesy."
From Boxworth he came constantly into the University to
hear the lectures of the Greek and Hebrew Professors,
Downes and Lively (the former of St. John's, the latter of
Trinity College), as also of the Regius Divinity Professor,
his friend Dr. Overall. Meanwhile he fell into debt and was
obliged to part with his library, a rare collection of classical
authors. He was, moreover, unhappy for a while in his
domestic relations, but a reunion of affection ensued, and
those affections were but the more confirmed. About twelve
of the neighbouring clergy met every Friday at each other's
house to dinner, amongst whom Boys was one. Then they
gave an account of their studies, and discussed and resolved
such questions as might be propounded.
He was employed in tuition and kept some young scholars
in his house, as well for the instruction of his own children
and those of the gentry who were entrusted to him, as of the
poorer children of his parish.
When the present translation of the Bible was commenced,
he, with Dr. Duport, Master of Jesus College, Dr. William
Branthwayt, Master of Gonville and Caius College, Ward,
afterward Master of Sidney College, Dr. Jeremiah Kadcliffe,
one of the Senior Fellows of Trinity College, Professor
Downes, Mr. afterward Dr. Ward, Fellow of Queens' College,
Prebendary of Chichester, and also by the same patron, his
old scholar, Bishop Andrewes, Rector of Bishop's Waltham,
was appointed to undertake the Apocrypha. But having
finished his portion, he also relieved another of another
College, whither he went and lodged during the week until
that second portion was finished. The several companies of
translators were engaged upon the work four years, after
which two of each company were selected to review the whole
work, and to put it to the press. Of his company Boys
himself and his friend Downes were appointed to this second
labour. These (six in all) went daily to Stationers' Hall, and
in three quarters of a year finished their task. Whilst thus
engaged the Company of Stationers paid them 30s. per week.
Boys alone, it is said, took notes of their proceedings, and
these he kept till his dying day.
Coming to the knowledge of that lay-bishop, Sir Henry
Savile, as Walker pleasantly calls him, he read over for his
edition of St. Chrysostom the greater part of that voluminous
Father in the MSS., besides the supervising of both Sir
Henry's and his friend Downe's notes. It is probable that
but for the death of Sir Henry he would have been rewarded
for this labour with a Fellowship at Eton. He was indeed
nominated to a Fellowship in the projected Theological Col
lege at Chelsea, but the College and with it his Fellow
ship soon came to nothing. Bishop Andrewes rewarded his
labours as a translator, as we have seen, in 1615. He lived
however still at Boxworth till 1628 when he removed to
Ely, not sparing himself even in his old age, but preaching
not only in his own turn, but frequently for his friends, some
times only at an hour's warning. He was often called upon to
preach funeral sermons. Twice a year he went from Ely to
his living at Boxworth to administer the holy Communion, and
preach to his parishioners. At Ely he went twice, sometimes
thrice, a day to prayers in the Cathedral to his very death,
for he survived the suppression of the Liturgy by the Kebels
only five days. In his extreme old age he would study eight
hours a day. He read walking, and in his youth often walked
from college to his mother's house at West Stow to dinner,
which was above twenty miles. This he did doubtless between
about four and twelve at noon. Such were the primitive habits
of our literary giants. Not only to Sir Henry Savile but also
to that industrious patristic antiquary, Augustine Lindsell,
Bishop of Hereford, he rendered very considerable assistance.
He was very temperate, very charitable, very devout. To
the poor of Boxworth he sent annually forty shillings at
Christmas, besides the relief he gave them at his going to
them. Some poor person he feasted for some years on the
Lord's-day at his own table. He visited the prisoners, and
often sent or carried them money. He seldom began any
thing without invoking the blessing and help of God. He used
very many rather than very long prayers. He never carried
any book into the pulpit with him but his Bible, and though
a prodigy of learning, sought nothing so much as to be under
stood by the least instructed of his congregation. His wife
departed this life May 16, 1642, and after a most painful
illness which he endured with great resignation, entreating of
his children and all who were about him that if at any time
he expressed anything which savoured of impatience they would
tell him of it, he died upon Sunday, January 14, 1643, being
eighty-three years and eleven days old. He was buried on
February 6th, Mr. Thurston of St. John's College preaching
his funeral sermon.1
Return we now from this most worthy person, well worthy
of so great and renowned a patron to the patron himself, whom
we find on the 5th of November discoursing at Whitehall
very admirably upon the divine mercy : The Lord is good to
allj and his mercies are over all his works. Here indeed
he proceeds so far as to say that the very angels have some
need of mercy. " The very seraphim have somewhat to
cover. As for the cherubim they will set mercy a seat upon
the top of their wings." He accommodates a passage of St.
Chrysostom from his Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans :
" Great is the deep of my sins, but greater the abyss of the
mercy of God ;" and adds, " Great is the whirlpool of my
wicked works, but greater is the Bethesda, the wide and deep
gulph of the mercy of God that hath no bottom. And
indeed it were not truly said, It is above all his works (all his,
and much more then above all ours,) if any of all our works
were above it. No more then there is a Lamb that taketh
away the sins of the world if there were any sin of the world
he takes not away."
On November 29th Bishop Andrewes preferred Walter
Balcanqual, Fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge, to the
Vicarage of Harston (in the place of Wren). Balcanqual
was M.A. of Pembroke College 1609, elected to a Fellowship
there September 8, 1611, B.D. 1616, and in that year was
preferred to Waterbeach near Cambridge. In 1617 he was
made Master of the Savoy, and in 1618 was sent as the
representative of the Scotch Church to the Synod of Dort,
being at that time one of the King's Chaplains. The
Mastership of the Savoy he resigned in 1618, in favour of
the rapacious and unstable Mark Antony de Dominis. In
1621 that remarkable person left this kingdom, and Balcanqual
was reinstated in the Mastership of the Savoy. In 1624 he
was made Dean of Eochester, and in 1639 of Durham. He
escaped from the siege of York and took refuge at Chirk
Castle in Denbighshire, but sinking under the fatigue died
there on Christmas-day 1645. He was buried in the church,
and Sir Thomas Middleton of Chirk Castle erected a monu
ment to his memory. Bishop Pearson wrote his epitaph.
On December 3rd Bishop Andrewes, King, Bishop of
London, and Neile, Bishop of Lincoln, assisted Archbishop
Abbot at the consecration of the incomparably learned and
indefatigably laborious Dr. Eobert Abbot, Master of Balliol
College, and Kegius Professor of Divinity in the University
of Oxford, to the see of Salisbury, on the decease of Dr.
Henry Cotton of Magdalene College in that University.
Kobert Abbot was the eldest brother of the Archbishop,
and was born at Guildford in 1560. They were both edu
cated at the Free School there, founded by Edward VI. He
was sent to Balliol College, Oxford, 1575, and upon an
oration made by him the 17th of November, the day of Queen
Elizabeth's accession, was chosen a scholar of that famous
foundation. His brother George became a student there in
1578. Eobert took his degree of M.A. in 1582. At Oxford
he first distinguished himself by his eloquence as one of the
lecturers at Carfax Church in the High Street. He officiated
also for a time at Abingdon. He was, upon the first sermon
he preached at Worcester^ admitted to a lectureship in that
city, and was soon after, in 1588, appointed Hector of All
Saints, between Bridge Street and the Cathedral. John
Stanhope, Esq., hearing him preach at St. Paul's Cross, ap
pointed him Eector of the rich benefice of Bingham in
Nottinghamshire. He was made D.D. in 1597, and on the
accession of James I. one of his Majesty's Chaplains. On
the death of Dr. Edward Lilly, late of Magdalene College
but Master of Balliol, he was elected to succeed in the Master
ship March 5, 1610, in which year the King, who greatly
esteemed him, appointed him one of the Fellows of his new
Controversial College at Chelsea. On the 2nd of November,
1610, he was collated, and on the 27th admitted, to the pre-
bendal stall of Normanton in the church of Southwell. This
was one of the three original prebends of that church.
Abbot first published A Mirror of Popish Subtleties, written
against a Cavilling Papist, in the behalf of one Paul Spence,
dedicated to Whitgift, 1594. 2. The Exaltation of the King
dom and Priesthood of Christ, being a Commentary upon the
110th Psalm , dedicated to Gervase Babington, Bishop of
Worcester. Lond. 1601. 3. Antichristi Demonstratio} dedi-
cated to the King, printed at London in 1602 and 1608. The
second edition was, by the King's command, accompanied
with his own comment upon the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th verses
of the 20th chapter of the Revelation. 4. A Defence of the
Reformed Catholic of Master William Perkins , lately deceased,
against the Bastard Counter Catholic of Dr. Bishop , Seminary
Priest, dedicated to King James, 1st part, quarto, Lond. 1606,
the 2nd part 1607, the 3rd part 1609. 5. The True Ancient
Roman Catholic, dedicated to Prince Henry, Lond. 1611 ; but
previously to this a single sermon at St. Mary's, entitled The
Old Way, quarto, Lond. 1610, translated into Latin by
Thomas Drax. It was preached on July 8th, Act Sunday,
and dedicated to Archbishop Bancroft.
On the death of Dr. Thomas Holland, also of Balliol
College, Abbot was preferred by the King to be Eegius
Professor of Divinity March 25, 1612. In the following year
appeared his able work, already referred to in these pages,
Antilogia adversus Apologiam Andrece Eudcemon Johannis
Jesuitce pro Henrico Gfarnetto proditore, dedicated to the
King. L'Heureux's Apology for Garnet, under the as
sumed name of Andreas Eudsemon Johannes, had appeared
at Cologne in 1610. His noblest work, his Commentary
on the Epistle to the Romans, lies still in MS. in the
Bodleian Library. He preached a sermon (also in MS.) at
St. Mary's, on the notes to the Geneva Bible, and clearing
Calvin from Arianism. This was against Dr. Howson, of
whom Sir Thomas Bodley makes no very honourable mention
in his Letters. Howson, however, who was more of the
courtier than of the divine, by command of the King tl turned
his edge," says Dr. Featly, tl from Geneva to Eome, and in
the next sermon he preached at St. Mary's fell fierce and foul
upon the Pope himself, threatening to loose him from his
chair though he were fastened thereunto with a tenpenny
nail."1 Howson had been educated at Christ Church, and
had been appointed Prebendary of Hereford July 15, 1587,
and of Exeter May 29, 1592, and Canon of the second stall
at Christ Church May 15, 1601. He was also Rector of
Brightwell and one of the Yicars of Bampton. He was
consecrated to the see of Oxford May 9, 1619, and translated
to Durham in 1628. He died in his seventy-fifth year, Feb
ruary 6th, 1632, and was succeeded by that illustrious prelate
Dr. Thomas Morton.
Preaching on the afternoon of Easter-day, 1615, at St.
Peter's-in-the-East before the University, Dr. Abbot attacked
Laud, Howson, and their partisans, saying that there were
men who, under pretence of truth and preaching against the
Puritans, struck at the heart, and root of that faith and religion
now established amongst us, which was the very practice of
(the Jesuit) Parsons' and Campian's counsel, when they came
hither to seduce young students, who, afraid to be expelled
if they should openly profess their conversion, were directed
to speak freely against the Puritans as what would suffice ; so
these do not expect to be counted Papists, because they
speak only against Puritans ; but because they are indeed
Papists they speak nothing against them, or if they do, they
beat about the bush, and that softly too, for fear of disquieting
the birds that are in it."
At length his all but incredible diligence in the University
was rewarded by his elevation to the see of Sarum. He was
accompanied to the borders of the diocese of Oxford to North
Hinksey by the heads of houses and many others, all lamenting
his departure. At Salisbury he was as heartily welcomed, and
on the Sunday following preached in the cathedral from Psalm
xxvi. 8 : Lord, 1 have loved the habitation of thy house, and
the place where thine honour dwelleth. And soon did he shew
the sincerity of this profession ; for finding that the cathedral
had been greatly neglected, he used his authority and influ
ence with the chapter, which led to an expenditure of £500,
a great sum in those days, upon the building.
It appears that his elevation to the episcopate was opposed
by a party at court favourable to the Church of Home ; for the
King said to him, soon after his consecration, Abbot, I have
had very much to do to make thee a Bishop, but I know no
reason for it, unless it were because thou hast written against
one, an allusion to his defence of Perkins' Reformed Catholic,
against Bishop the Seminary Priest. Abbot visited his whole
diocese in person, and preached every Lord's-day whilst he
enjoyed his health, either in the city or in the churches in its
vicinity. He was engaged in his last illness upon a Latin
reply to Eichard Thompson, commonly called Dutch Thomp
son (noticed in this volume), on falling away from grace and
justification. Thrice a-week this Prelate sent provisions to
the prison at Salisbury, and at Christmas feasted all the poor
of the city. He suffered very greatly from that most painful
complaint the stone, which brought him to his end. The
judges being then on their circuit visited him during this
illness. His last words were, Jesu, come quickly ; finish in me,
the work that thou hast begun. Then he added in Latin, Into
thy hands, 0 Lord, I commit my spirit, for thou hast redeemed
me, 0 God of truth. Save thy servant who hopeth and trusteth
only in thee. Let thy mercy , 0 Lord, be upon me. 0 Lord,
in thee have I trusted, let me never be confounded. He died
between 7 and 8 in the evening of March 2, 1618.
He was buried in his cathedral on the following Thursday
in the choir over against the Bishop's throne.
Bishop Abbot was twice married, the second time, after he
became a bishop, to Mrs. Bridget Cheynell. He left one son
and two daughters. Of these, one married Sir Nathaniel
Brent, Warden of Merton College, Oxford, whose daughter
Margaret married Dr. Edward Corbet, Hector of Haseley in
Oxfordshire, who presented some of this Prelate's MSS., in
cluding his Commentary on the Romans, to the Bodleian
Library.
Abbot was succeeded in his Professorship by a divine who
ably upheld the same theology which he had maintained,
Dr. John Prideaux, Hector of Exeter College. Dr. Prideaux
was B.A. of that College January 31, 1600. He succeeded
Dr. Holland as Eector of Exeter College April 4, 1612, and
Abbot as Eegius Professor of Divinity December 8, 1615.
He was installed Canon of the fifth stall at Christ Church
March 16, 1617, was consecrated Bishop of Worcester De
cember 19, 1641, and on August 3, 1642, resigned the Eec-
torship of his College. He died July 20, 1650, in his
seventy-fourth year, and was buried at Bredon in Worcester
shire. His Fasciculus Controversiarum was published at
Oxford in 1649, and dedicated by him to William Hodges,
Henry Button, Rowland Crosby, Edward Best, Eleazar
Jackson, Emanuel Smith, William Lole, and other his
brethren in the ministry in his diocese.
At Salisbury succeeded Dr. Martin Fotherby, the author of
Atheomastix, published in folio in 1622, of Grimsby in Lincoln
shire, a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Prebendary
of Canterbury. He died March 12, 1620.
Bishop Fotherby 's Atheomastix was published two years
after his death, but then only two out of four books saw the
light. The work, a small folio, abounding in classical and
other learning, was entitled, "Atheomastix, clearing Four
Truths against Atheists and Infidels :
1. That there is a God.
2. That there is but one God.
3. That Jehovah our God is that one God.
4. That the Holy Scripture is the word of that God.
All of them proved by natural reasons and secular authorities.
Lond. 1622." It was dedicated to the Right Hon. Sir Robert
Naunton, Secretary to the King.
Bishop Andrewes had upon last Christmas-day treated of
the first prophecy cited in the New Testament. He now took
the second, namely, that of Micah, foretelling the birthplace
of Christ, Bethlehem (the house of bread) Ephrata (fruitful).
He enlarged upon the twofold sense of the word rendered
ruler , as implying both guidance and protection. His whole
discourse he, as his manner was, drew out of his text with a
facility peculiarly his own, but doubtless much assisted by his
patristic studies. Thus, as Christ came forth from eternity,
so he is our guide, leader, and shepherd to bring us thither.
The words themselves raised this association of ideas in the
mind of the preacher. Very many would meditate upon
them a thousand times and not light upon a similar combi
nation. Excellently does he enforce humility as the grace
which the comparative obscurity of the place, and all the
circumstances of our blessed Redeemer's birth, was designed
to teach us. Alluding to Ephrata (fruitful) he well remarks :
"We fall still upon one extreme or other: if fertile, then
proud ; if humble, then barren." There is much contained in
this, not that true humility will be unfruitful, but a mere
sentimental self-abasement will ever excuse itself the works of
obedience.
The King was disabled by the gout from attending at the
Royal Chapel, but heard the sermon and received the Eucha
rist in private.
CHAPTER XVII.
Page 424
Cosin — Drusius — Whitsunday 1616 — The King at Burleigh-on-the
Hill — Andrewes a Privy Councillor — Thomas Earl of Arundel —
Amner — Beale — The King's Progress to Scotland — Andrewes at
Durham 1617.
JOHN COSIN, at the Restoration Bishop of Durham, one of
the most diligent ecclesiastical antiquaries of his age, was in
1616 invited both by Bishop Andre wes and by Overall, Dean
of St. Paul's, to become his librarian. He attached himself
to the latter. The Deanry of St. Paul's offered facilities of
literary intercourse with the learned both of our own nation
and of the Continent, perhaps above any other ecclesiastical
residence.
On February 12 died the learned John Drusius, one of
those eminent foreigners who are said both by Bishop Bucke-
ridge and by Isaacson to have enjoyed the patronage and
munificent friendship of Andrewes. He came over to
England from Flanders in 1567, was admitted of the Uni
versity of Cambridge August 3, 1569, and on his return
from France 1572, was entered at Merton College, Oxford,
and read lectures on Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriac at Merton
and Magdalene Colleges, and afterward in the Public Schools ;
but in 1576 he left Oxford for a Professorship at Leyden, and
thence removed to the University of Franeker, in Friesland.
At Franeker Sixtus Amama succeeded to some share of his
reputation.
Andrewes was called upon as usual to preach before the
King at Whitehall on Easter-day, March 31. His sermon on
this occasion is not so remarkable as many that preceded it.
But whatsoever is his subject it is sure to be amply illustrated
in his hands.
Upon Whitsunday, May 19,1 he preached before the King
at Greenwich, upon our Lord's words to his Apostles, Receive
the Holy Ghost. In the introduction he says, u Now what is
here to do, what business is in hand, we cannot but know, if
ever we have been at the giving of holy orders. For by these
words are they given, Receive the Holy Gfhostj whose sins y6
remit j &c., were to them, and are to us even to this day, by
these and by no other words. Which words, had not the
Church of Rome retained in their ordinations, it might well
have been doubted (for all their Accipe potestatem, &c., Receive
thou authority to sacrifice for the living and for the deadj)
whether they had any priests at all or no. But, as God
would, they retained them, and so saved themselves. For
these are the very operative words for the conferring this
power, for the performing of this act." He next refutes the
Eomish tenet that holy orders are a sacrament, denying that
it confers grace, the grace being but in office or function.
Again, Christ alone instituted sacraments, but this ceremony
he instituted with breathing upon the parties, which ceremony
hath since been changed to laying on of hands. But such a
change is inadmissible in a sacrament.
Very full of meaning is his unfolding the symbol of wind
and of breath as betokening in Scripture the Holy Ghost.
" For as for this let it not trouble you, that it is but breath,
and breath but air, and so, one would think, too feeble 5 as
indeed what feebler thing is there in man than it ? The more
feeble, the more fit to manifest his strength by. For, as weak
in appearance as it is, by it were great things brought to pass.
By this puff of breath was the world blown round about.
About came the philosophers, the orators, the emperors.
Away went the mist of error ; down went the idols and their
temples before it."2
With equal beauty does he apply in the patristic manner
to the Apostles the words of the 8th Psalm, Out of the mouth
of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained praise.
In this sermon, as elsewhere, he removes the gross notion
of the real presence, insisted on even now by not a few.
Christ's body is received, he says, even as the Holy Ghost
was, that is, not the substance but the virtue of it. Both are
tl truly received in the same sense." So too Jeremy Taylor
on the Eeal Presence. He also notes how this passage con
demns those who are sent only by themselves, who take that
to them which none ever gave them.
The Spirit of Christ, he observes here as elsewhere, is not
an artificial but a constant principle and power working upon
the will: " Of ourselves to move: not wrought to it by any
gin, or vice, or screw made by art. Else we shall move but
while we are wound up for a certain time till the plummets be
at the ground, and then our motion will cease straight. All
which1 (but these last especially) are against the automata ,
the spectra, the puppets of religion, hypocrites. With some
spring within their eyes are made to roll, and their lips to
wag, and their breast to give a sob. All is but Hero's pneu-
matica} a vizor, not a very face ; an outward show of godli
ness, but no inward power of it at all."
The grace of apostleship he interprets to be the office itself,
for it is a grace to be a conduit of grace any way. The
anointing was no inward holiness, " but the right of ruling
only. So here it is no internal quality infused, but the grace
only of their spiritual and sacred function. Good it were and
much to be wished, that they were holy and learned all ; but if
they be not, their office holds good though." These again as
conduits may, by transmitting the water, make the garden to
bear both herbs and flowers, though themselves never bear
any. Those who built the ark were yet drowned themselves.
In the month of August our prelate was in attendance
upon the King at Burleigh-on-the-Hill, and on Monday the
5th, the anniversary of the Gowrie Conspiracy, preached
before him from the 2nd chapter of Esther. Ahasuerus
Bishop Andrewes takes to be the same with Artaxerxes
Longimanus. He notes in this discourse how contrary the
Komish doctrine of the seal of confession is to the 1st verse
of the 5th chapter of Leviticus, and altogether unchristianizes
the Komanists.
But though this may by some "be condemned in him as
inconsistent with some passages in his works, and as against
certain favourite opinions respecting the essential nature of
the Apostolical succession, it is no more than the Holy Ghost
doth, when by St. Paul he asks, " What agreement hath the
temple of God with idols ?" 1 So Bishop Andrewes, speaking
of Bellarmine and King James, a The King in die hoe (in
this day) neither heathen, I am sure, nor that can have the
least touch of idolatry fastened on him. He that shamed not
to say i No Christian] and hath been fain since to eat his
word; he durst not say an idolater, that would soon have
rebounded back upon himself. And no idolater is a Christian,
nor Christian an idolater, I am sure."2
This is one of many instances in which the truth will force
itself a way out of the pulpit, however it may be racked or
fettered in the Schools. Even Laud (according to Stilling-
fleet in his preface to his work on The Idolatry of the Romish
Communion) held the Eomanist to be an idolater. Idolatry
excluded from the Jewish Church, and it is incumbent for
those who maintain that the practice of it is compatible with
Christianity to shew their warrant out of the Holy Scriptures.
On the following day the King knighted at Burleigh Sir
Francis Bodenham.1
On September 2nd Bishop Andrewes ordained Edward
Catherall, M.A., deacon, and William Beale, M.A., and
Humphrey Tovey, M.A., priests, in the chapel of Downham
Palace. Catherall was B.A. of Jesus College 1614.4 One
William Tovey, B.D., occurs as Prebendary of the first stall
at Worcester October 15, 1586.1 He was also Prebendary of
Hereford March 17, 1588. He died in 1598.2
On September 29 Bishop Andrewes was admitted into the
King's Privy Council/ but his custom was always to with-
1 Hardy's Le Neve, vol. iii. p. 79. 2 Ibid. vol. i. p. 503.
3 Bilson, Bishop of "Winchester, had died June 18th (he was buried by night
in "Westminster Abbey), and had been succeeded by the King's not unworthy
favourite the pious and munificent Dr. James Montagu, Bishop of Bath and
Wells. He was brother of that most loyal and Christian patriot Edward, first
Lord Montagu of Boughton in Northamptonshire, whose third brother Sir Henry
was first Earl of Manchester, father of Edward, Earl of Manchester in the suc
ceeding reign, and ancestor of the Dukes of Manchester. Our prelate was edu
cated in Christ College, Cambridge. " He was afterwards Master" [the first]
"or rather nursing father" (says Fuller) "to Sidney College" [1595—1608]
" for he found it in bonds to pay 20 marks per annum to Trinity College for the
ground whereon it is built, and left it free, assigning it a rent for the discharge
thereof." Fuller records, both in his Worthies and in his History of the University
of Cambridge, how this prelate expended a hundred marks to bring running
water into the King's Ditch, to the great conveniency of the University.
On the death of Dr. George Boleyn, Prebendary of Canterbury and Chichester,
and Dean of Lichfield, Montagu was preferred to that Deanry, and installed
July 16, 1603. On the death of Dr. Eedes, Dean of Worcester, he was presented
to that Deanry, December 20, 1604, being succeeded at Lichfield by Dr.
"William Tooker, of whom see an account in Bliss's Wood's Athence Oxonienses.
On the death of Bishop Still, Master of Trinity College and Bishop of Bath and
Wells (B.A. 1561, M.A. 1565, of Christ College, Cambridge), known not only
by the memory of his talents in his several offices, but as the author of the
second English comedy in point of time, Gammer Gurton's Needle, Montagu
was, on April 17, 1608, consecrated to the see of Bath and Wells, Andrewes
with four other prelates assisting Bancroft at his consecration. Whilst Bishop
of that see he completed the abbey at Bath, the west part of the nave of which
was still uncovered. He was now, on the death of the learned Bishop Bilson,
translated to Winchester, which was said to have been the occasion of Andrewes
being appointed a Privy Councillor to compensate in some measure for his
disappointment. "This honour was done the bishop to put him in heart upon
the distaste he had in missing the bishopric of Winchester ; but, for aught I
hear, he is yet as silent as Mr. Wake's nuncio, the new cardinal." — Chamberlain
to Sir Dudley Carleton, October 12, 1616. (Birch's Court of James /., vol. i.
p. 429.) Lloyd in his State Worthies says of Andrewes, "He did not concern
himself much with civil politics. He would say when he came to the council-
table, ' Is there anything to be done to-day for the Church ? ' If they answered
* Tea,' then he said, ' I will stay ;' if ' No,' then he said, ' I will be gone.' '»
The flippant John Chamberlain will not have our prelate to have preached at
court this Christmas, but confined to his house, " being surprised by a sudden
surfeit of pork that had almost carried him away."
draw as much as possible from all state affairs. No greater
proof could he give of his freedom from ambitious motives. It
is true that a courtier's life was in those days a dangerous
one and that was sure to make enemies ; but ambition always
calculates upon labours and adventures, and is generally of a
subtle if not intriguing nature.
On November 4th Andrewes was present at the creation
of Charles, Prince of Wales.
Our prelate's 5th of November sermon is one of the most
remarkable of that series, abounding however with pleasantries
and witticisms, well deserved indeed by those at whom they
were pointed. Irony, though forbidden by some moderns, is
confirmed by precedents from both the Old and New Testa
ment.
On December 8th Bishop Andrewes assisted at the conse
cration of the very pious and learned Dr. Arthur Lake to the
see of Bath and Wells, and that excellently devout author,
Dr. Louis Bayley, to that of Bangor.
His Christmas-day sermon, taken from the 85th Psalm,
is excellent throughout, and is probably one of the best known
of all his discourses. His personifying of the divine attributes
and the reconciling of them all in the sacrificial death of the
Lamb of God, these render this sermon as favourite an illus
tration of the doctrine of the atonement, as Hooker's cele
brated sermon from Hdbdkkuk i. 4 (The wicked doth compass
about the righteous] is of the doctrine of justification.1 This
same day Thomas Earl of Arundel, who had been educated in
the Eomish religion, and had lately travelled through Italy,
seeing that religion in all its deformity, abjured it, and
received the holy Communion in Whitehall Chapel. The
same day also Montagu, now Bishop of Winchester (upon
the death of Bilson), preached before the King ; and in the
afternoon Dr. King, Bishop of London, preached at St. Paul's ;
Buckeridge, Bishop of Eochester, also in his own church of
St. Giles', Cripplegate, was much commended.
Thomas Earl of Arundel was the son of Philip Howard,
son of the daughter of Henry Fitzalan, the eleventh and last
Earl of that surname. He, " not able to digest the wrongs
and hard measure offered unto him, by the cunning sleights
of some envious persons, fell into the toil and net pitched for
him, and being brought into extreme peril of his life, yielded
up his vital breath in the Tower. But his son Thomas, a most
honourable young man (in whom a forward spirit and fervent
love of virtue and glory most beseeming his nobility, and the
same tempered with true courtesy, shineth very apparently),
recovered his father's dignities, being restored by King James
and Parliament authority."1 Thus Holland in his edition of
Camden. Thomas was restored to his titles in 1603.
It has been remarked, probably with justice, that the great
and repeated reluctance which Elizabeth evinced, previously
to the final condemnation of his father the Duke of Norfolk in
1572, may relieve her memory of the charge of hypocrisy so
recklessly urged against her by the advocates of her rival the
Queen of Scots.
On the 1st of March, 1617, Andre wes ordained John
Amner, Bachelor of Music, Deacon at Ely Chapel, the chapel
of the noble palace of the Bishops of Ely, Holborn. Amner
was organist of Ely Cathedral and master of the choristers.
He had been admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Music at
Oxford in May 1613.2 He composed and published sacred
hymns of three, four, five, and six parts, for voices and viols.
Lond. 1615, quarto. He set the 6th Psalm, old version, as
an anthem. The words are given as the 141st anthem in
Clifford's Collection, published soon after the Eestoration.
On the 16th of March Andrewes collated his friend Jerome
Beale to the third stall in Ely Cathedral, vacant by the death
of Dr. Kobert Tinley, Prebendary and Archdeacon of Ely.
To the Archdeaconry Andrewes preferred his friend Daniel
Wigmore, who held that dignity to his death in 1646, and to
whom he had given the second stall in his cathedral in 1615.
Wigmore was also Rector of Northwold in Norfolk and Snail-
well in Cambridgeshire. He was probably of a Somersetshire
family. He purchased the manor of Little Shelford of Sir
Toby Pallavicini, and dying in 1646, was buried at Little
Shelford. One of his family, Dr. Gilbert Wigmore, was Eector
of Little Shelford after the Bestoration, and living to a great
age was Eector there in 1709.
Beale was born at Gloucester, and educated first at Christ
College, Cambridge, and on October 9, 1579, was elected to
a Fellowship at Pembroke College, being then B.A. An-
drewes on September 25, 1616, preferred him to the Vicarage
of Barton near Cambridge, and on July 13, 1615, to the
Eectory of Willingham. He was also Eector of Nuthurst
near Horsham in Sussex, probably by the favour of the same
patron. When Dr. Nicholas Felton, Bishop of Bristol and
Master of Pembroke College, was translated to the see of Ely,
Beale was elected to succeed him in the Mastership, February
21, 1619. He was amongst the most eminent scholars in his
University, in great favour with the King, who made him his
chaplain and sub-almoner, and appears as a constant corre
spondent of Isaac Vossius.1 Like Andrewes he was a great
student of patristical learning. Doublet makes honourable
mention of Beale and Balcanqual as amongst the most devoted
friends of Vossius.2 In the collection of epistles to Vossius is
one from Pembroke Hall by Beale, April 2, 1628, highly
commending Vossius's History of Pelagianism. For this
Vossius received the unbounded thanks of Laud,3 and due
acknowledgments, but with some animadversions from the
pious and learned Dr. Ward, Master of Sidney Sussex Col
lege.4 In a letter of Andrew Colvin's to Vossius, Wren,
Beale, and Creighton are memorialized as the most learned
individuals belonging at that time (1629) to the University of
Cambridge.5 Creighton succeeded George Herbert as Public
Orator, and was in his old age raised to the see of Bath and
Wells.6 Dr. Beale died in 1630, being succeeded in his
Mastership by Dr. Benjamin Laney, successively Bishop of
Peterborough, Lincoln, and Ely.
In this same month1 (March 1617) Andre wes with Dr.
Valentine Carey, Dean of St. Paul's and Master of Christ
College, Cambridge, and Laud, now Dean of Gloucester and
Chaplain to the King, attended his Majesty upon his visit to
Scotland. On Sunday March 30,2 the King being at Lincoln
attended divine service at the cathedral, being met at the great
west entrance by Andrewes, his old servant Montagu, Bishop
of Winchester, and his most humble of servants and entirely
devoted of courtiers, Dr. Neile, Bishop of Lincoln, who
preached before him. After the sermon the King (we read)
healed fifty persons of the King's evil. He dined at the
Bishop's palace, formerly one of the most elegant specimens
of both late and early Gothic in this kingdom.3 After dinner
the King went in his carroche in private to St. Catherine's.
On Tuesday April 1 Chancellor Eland preached before the
King in his chamber of presence.4
From Lincoln the King went to Newark, and thence
to Worksop, Doncaster, Pontefract, and York, where on
April 11 he attended service at the Minster. On the
12th he rode with his train to Bishopthorpe, and dined
with the aged but most sprightly and cheerful Toby Mathew,
Archbishop.1
On Sunday the 13th Dr. Mathew preached a learned
sermon before him, after which there were brought to him
seventy persons to be cured of the King's evil. This day
the King and all his court • dined with the Lord Mayor, and
after dinner knighted Sir Robert Ayscough the Lord Mayor,
and Sir Richard Hutton the Eecorder. This same year Sir
Richard was made a judge of the Common Pleas.2
On Monday the 14th the King rode to Sheriff Hutton
Park, and there knighted Sir Richard Harper of Derbyshire,
Sir John Hippisley, and Sir William Bellassis of Durham.3
On Tuesday April 15 Dr. Phinehas Hodson, of the Uni
versity of Cambridge, who had in September 1611 been made
by Toby Mathew Chancellor of York, preached before the
King at the Manor House.4 Probably it was through the
Archbishop that Dr. Hodson was either now or before Chaplain
to the King.
On Wednesday April 16 the King was entertained at
Aske Hall in the parish of Easby, the seat of Talbot Bowes,
Esq.5 On the skirts of the high country and looking down
the fertile vale of Gilling, with swelling lawns in front, and a
long sweep of rising woods beyond, Richmondshire has not
perhaps a single residence which surpasses Aske in point of
situation.
On the 17th the King was received at the palace Bishop
Auckland by Dr. William James, successor to Toby Matliew
in the see of Durham. There he spent Good Friday, and on
Saturday the 19th entered Durham. The 20th being Easter-
day Bishop Andrewes preached in the cathedral on the sign
of the prophet Jonas, with his usual ingenuity laying open
the whole scope and force of the words. First he exposed
the hypocrisy and impenitent hardheartedness of the Phari
sees, worshippers of their own imaginations, literally an
adulterous generation, contradicting themselves with a mali
cious mind in asking yet another after so many signs.
But u the worse the men, the more importune ever, and
the harder to satisfy."1 Yet Christ in his goodness gives
them a sign, and the greatest of all signs. Other prophets
had raised the dead, none had raised themselves. Christ
would compare himself to the prophet Jonah, that prophet
who was a sinner and a fugitive. He came in the simili
tude of sinful flesh, and accordingly would make sinful
flesh his similitude. Jonah was sent to the Gentiles, and
sent the first in order of time of all the sixteen, the four great,
the twelve less. So Jonah was every way a sign of salvation
to us sinners of the Gentiles. Jonah and none but he had
the honour to be a kind of expiatory sacrifice, when by his
being cast out the ship was saved. And he alone gave a type
of the resurrection. He came forth the third day by special
grace, not by the course of nature. Incomparable is our
prelate's comparison of Jonah in the whale to the security
of the state of death. " There he was, but took no hurt there.
1. As safe, nay more safe there than in the best ship of
Tharsis : no flaw of weather, no foul sea could trouble him
there. 2. As safe, and as safely carried to land: the ship
could have done no more. So that upon the matter he did
but change his vehiculum [carriage], shifted but from one
vessel to another ; went on his way still. 3. On he went, as
well, nay better than the ship would have carried him ; went
into the ship, the ship carried him wrong, out of his way clean
to Tharsisward ; went into the whale, and the whale carried him
right, landed him on the next shore to Ninive, whither in
truth he was bound, and where his errand lay. 4. And all
the while at good ease as in a cell or study, for there he
indited a psalm, expressing in it his certain hope of getting
forth again. So as in effect where he seemed to be in most
danger, he was in greatest safety. Thus can God work. And
the evening and the morning were Jonah's second day."
We may add, how great a proof is here of the faithfulness
of God's protection and the omnipotence of his providence.
What darkness should bring us into the deep of despair who
are commanded to trust in such a God, whose miracles in the
world of spirits never cease, and whose tender pity is as great
toward the meanest and poorest of his children now as once
toward the prophet Jonah? This is a sign as well for the
comfort of his children as for the conviction of his enemies.
But how triumphantly did our prelate pursue the com
parison : Jonah but given up for dead, Christ really so, taken
down from his cross, laid in, sealed up in his grave, a stone
rolled on him, a watch set over him. The whale, not Jonah,
delivered the prophet, but Christ by his own power broke
the bars of death and loosed the sorrows of hell, of which it is
impossible he should be holden. Jonas rose but to the same
state, mortal still. Christ rose never to die more. Jonas
was but cast out upon the dry land, but Christ was received
into glory. And in sign of it the place whereon Jonas was
cast was dry land or cliffs, where nothing grows. The place
wherein Christ rose was a well-watered garden, wherein the
ground was in all her glory, fresh and green and full of
flowers at the instant of his rising this time of the year.
And yet behold a greater than all these. For Jonas when
he came forth, came forth and there was all, left the whale as
he found it. Christ slew the whale that devoured him • he
was the death of death.
Our good bishop fails not towards the conclusion to teach
that lesson of faith in God's providence touched upon above,
and to speak of the great deliverance of all from the power of
Satan the spiritual Leviathan.
CHAPTER XVIII.
Page 436
The King's progress to Scotland — Whitsunday 1617 — Carey and
Laud — Grotius " Delmperio Summarum Potestatum circa Sacra"
— Felton, Bishop of Bristol.
THE King's visit to Scotland was professedly to discharge
some points of his kingly office in reforming abuses both in
the church and commonwealth. But in attempting these
changes he outran the zeal and prudence of the Scottish
Bishops, who themselves with great moderation interposed,
and prevented consequences that the Sovereign himself was
too disinclined to provide for, ever as ready to exalt his
prerogative as he was unable to maintain his claims. Hence
his visit was ineffectual, and served only to increase mutual
prejudice and aversion.
On June the 8th, being Whitsunday, Bishop Andrewes
preached before him in Holyrood chapel, saying many ad
mirable things upon our Lord's first sermon upon his com
mission; dwelling much upon the guilt of assuming the
ministry without being sent, since Christ himself went not
before he was sent ; highly commending the ancient Fathers
as those who were endued with a greater measure of the
Spirit than men in later ages (which, had he confined it to the
apostolic age, might peradventure have been true), and excel
lently unfolding the design of our Saviour's commission to
bind up the broken-hearted, to deliver us from captivity, and
to bring with him the true year of jubilee. " On this day of
salvation the sun never goes down." Our Lord's commission,
he observed, was only to them that are of a broken spirit.
Elias healed none but the poor widow of Sarepta ; Eliseus,
only Naaman after his spirit came down ; Christ, none but
such as were of a contrite spirit.
" The right hammer," he remarks, tl to break the heart is
the sight of our sins. And I will say this for it, that I never
in my life saw any man brought so low with any worldly
calamity as I have with this sight. And these I speak of
were not of the common sort, but men of spirit and valour,
that durst have looked death in the face. Yet when God
opened their eyes to see this sight their hearts were broken,
yea, even ground to powder with it, contrite indeed."
Toward the end of this sermon he notes that the " jubilee
ever began with no other sound but even of a cornet made of
the horns of a ram. Of which horns they gave no other
reason but that it was so in reference to the horns of that ram
that in the thicket was caught by the horns and sacrificed in
Isaac's stead, even as Christ was in ours, to shew that our
jubilee has relation to that special sacrifice so plainly pre
figuring that of Christ's."
On June 21 Mr. Chamberlain thus wrote to Sir Dudley
Carleton : " Our churchmen and ceremonies are not so well
allowed of, the rather by an accident that fell out at the
burial of one of the guard who died there, and was buried
after the English fashion ; and the Dean of St. Paul's [Valen
tine Carey] preaching, desired all the assembly to recommend
with him the soul of their deceased brother to Almighty God,
which was so ill taken that he was driven to retract it openly
and to confess he did it in a kind of civility rather than
according to the perfect rule of divinity. Another exception
was taken to Dr. Laud's putting on a surplice when the corpse
was to be laid in the ground.1 So that it seems they are very
averse from our customs, insomuch that one of the bishops,
Dean of the chapel2 there to the King, refused to receive the
Communion with him kneeling."
On the King's return Dr Morton, then Bishop of Chester,
preached before him at Hoghton in the hundred of Blackburn,
Lancashire, August 17. About 10 or 11 in the evening there
was a mask of noblemen, knights, gentlemen, and courtiers
before the King in the middle round in the garden of Hoghton
tower.1 Very frequent instances occur of the Sovereign's
profanation of the Lord's-day in his progresses, even in this
his tour of ecclesiastical reformation.
On August 26 Mr. Thomas Dod (uncle to the pious Non
conformist, usually called Dod the decalogist,) preached before
the King, who was so pleased with him that he made him
one of his chaplains in ordinary.2
Upon July 9 (N.S.) we find Grotius writing to Isaac
Vossius, commending to him his book De Imperio Summarum
Potestatum circa Sacra, and requesting him to shew it to
those of whom he thinks highly, especially to Bishop An-
drewes.3 The same year he wrote to Overall, referring to his
judgment his book against the Socinians, and touching at
some length upon his book De Imperio Summarum Potes
tatum, expressing at the same time his fears that it will not
be altogether satisfactory to Andrewes and others in England.
In this work he sets the authority of the chief magistrate in
religion sufficiently high, and enters with his usual learning
upon various topics relating to the discipline and government
of the Church in the earlier ages. He establishes the power
of princes in matters of religion. They have authority to
restrain and punish evil of every kind, authority over every
soul, over both clergy and laity ; he is the minister of God to
thee for good, good of every kind without limitation. He is
appointed that we may live a quiet and peaceable life, not
only in all honesty but in all godliness. For the true happi
ness of a state is that it love God and be loved of him ; that
it acknowledge him for its king, itself for his people, as
St. Austin excellently says/ who also adds, that those kings
are happy who make their power subservient to his majesty,
to the entire promotion and advancement of his worship. So
the Emperors Theodosius and Honorius in their epistle to
Marcellinus, i For we seek no other end by the toils of war,
we purpose nought else by the counsels of peace, than that
the people of our empire may with full affection observe the
true worship of God.' So Theodosius in his epistle to Cyril,
1 It is the office of the emperor to provide that his subjects
live not only peaceably but piously.' And therefore Isidore
of Pelusium saith that the same is the end both of the priest
hood and of the kingly power, namely, the salvation of their
subjects. Aristotle, reasoning only by the light of nature,
comes to a similar conclusion. But to proceed to the Scrip
tures, kings are commanded as kings, in their office, to observe
the whole law of God, to serve the Lord, to salute his
Christ. As St. Augustine saith, ' Kings then fulfil the divine
command when they enjoin good and forbid evil, not only in
its relation to human society but also to true religion.'2 And
Isidore of Seville, * Let the princes of this world know that
they must render an account to God for the Church which is
entrusted by Christ to their protection. For whether the
peace and order of the Church be strengthened by faithful
princes, or whether it be brought to nought, he demands of
them an account who hath committed the Church to their
power.3 With regard to the practice of the Church, the
ecclesiastical historian Socrates has summed it up in those
words of his, ' From the time that the emperors became Chris
tian all ecclesiastical affairs depended upon their authority.'4
Constantine is called on an old inscription the patron of
religion and of the faith. The Emperor Basil, calling the
Church the ship universal, saith that the guidance of it is by
God entrusted to him. And so in the epistle to Lucius,
ascribed to Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome, the king is called
ecclesiastically the Vicar of God. To this doctrine agreed
the reformed Confessions of Belgium, of Switzerland, of Basle ;
to this the Church of England, to this the writings of
Musculus, Bucer, Jewel, Whitaker, Rainolds, and more lately
of King James, of Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, of Burhill, Tooker,
Casaubon, and Paroeus. The same was asserted in the volu
minous works of Melchior Goldastus.
Again, the very nature of religion, which inclines men to
peace, obedience, the true love of their country, and of justice
and equity, commends it to princes as a fit object of their care
and protection. The very enemies of Christianity have testified
to its great moral efficacy, and to the purity of its precepts.
Add to this, that doctrine and worship themselves have no
small influence upon the manners and happiness of mankind.
This is obvious in the doctrine, for instance, of the spirituality
of the divine nature. From the all-seeing presence of God it
follows at once that we should do nothing offensive to him.
From the fulness of his knowledge and prescience flows this
consolation, that nothing can happen to the good but for their
good. Nor said Plato without cause that it was not to be
endured that any should teach that God was the author of
evil actions. Had Silius Italicus, instead of
Heu primse scelcrum causse mortalibus segris
Naturam nescire Deum,
written Dei, he had written truly enough.
Amongst inferior reasons for the ecclesiastical supremacy
of the civil power may be placed the great influence of the
priesthood, and the danger of the more ambitious part of
them. Curtius himself bears witness that the multitude will
sooner follow their priests than their generals. Add to this,
that all changes in religion, if not by general consent and
manifestly for the better, are always dangerous to the state. For
these two last reasons even those confess that the actions of
the priesthood should be subjected to the supreme power, who
deny such subjection where inconsistent with the due exercise
of their spiritual function. So John Paris, Francis Victoria,
and Roger Widdrington.1
In the second chapter he gives the history of the union and
disjunction of the spiritual and civil power, and shews that they
are not naturally opposed, but were for a long time joined in
the same person, as in the patriarchal age, but severed both
under the Mosaic and Christian dispensations. This however
he would so restrict as that it should not be understood that
every business of a secular kind is inconsistent with the exercise
of the spiritual function. On the other hand, the Christian
Emperors took to themselves ecclesiastical titles, not assuming
them officially but in a wider sense, to signify their general
overseership and care of the Church.
In the third chapter he considers the power of the civil
magistrate to oblige, and to what actions it extends ; also of
the lawfulness and unlawfulness of resistance. Passive obe
dience is due where the chief magistrate is neither bound by
law nor created by it ; so the Roman Emperors were obeyed .
by the early Christians • so David did not lift up his hand
against Saul, who, though a tyrant, was a king by a positive
and unconditional ordinance. But where the chief magistrate
is rather primus than summus, the first not the absolute head,
the nobles may, upon just cause, take up arms against him.2
He then condemns the doctrine that the chief magistrate
may make laws in opposition to the Word of God, a necessary
error of those who would mould all institutions anew upon the
principle that wealth alone is to legislate, wealth alone to be
had in honour, wealth to draw all things to itself.
So the civil magistrate cannot lawfully forbid preaching
and the administration of the sacraments, or alter the divinely
instituted form or substance of the sacraments, or the law of
marriage, or innovate, that is, make new articles of faith, or
essentially new kinds of worship, or new sacraments. But
his power does extend to the circumstantials of religion, as to
the age that shall qualify for the episcopate, the laws relating
to residence and non-residence ; also that the priest shall utter
the canon of baptism and of the holy Communion with an
audible voice, &c. He may also take away whatsoever
ministers occasion to the violation of God's commandments.
So Hezekah removed the high places and ground to powder
the brazen serpent. So Josiah abolished idolatry and the
idolatrous priesthood. So the Christian Emperors shut up the
Pagan shrines and temples. He may also punish profane-
ness, as Nebuchadnezzar ordered those to be punished who
should speak against the God of the Hebrews.1 So too
Grotius decides against the Puritans that the laws of the civil
magistrate can bind in all things not contrary to Scripture, and
make that binding which before was not so. This he ratifies
by the Augustan and Bohemian Confessions.2 These positions
he defends against objectors, and further explains in the
three following chapters, after which he proceeds to treat of
the history, origin, and limits of the power of Councils.
In his ninth chapter he gives his opinion upon absolution
and the power of the keys, and denies that the acts concerning
them are properly acts of jurisdiction. He follows Peter
Lombard,3 who defines the power of absolution to be the
power of shewing to men that they are, or declaring that they
are, bound or loosed, as the priest pronounced who were
leprous and who free from the leprosy.4 He adduces Cyprian,
Ambrose, and Augustine.5 The same appears to be the
doctrine of Jewel in the early part of his Apology. On the
history of absolution let me refer my reader to the 24th
chapter in Field's Appendix to the third book Of the Church,
and to the ninth book of Forbes' Instructiones Historico-
Theologicce.
In his tenth chapter he treats of the election of pastors,
and here he regards the Apostles themselves as presbyters.
In the eleventh chapter he discusses at large the name and
office of the bishop, pleading for its apostolic origin, but
denying it to be of divine right, since many appointments
were equally apostolical for which no such high distinction is
claimed. He shews that episcopacy cannot be repugnant to
Scripture, from the 12th chapter of the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, God appointed in the Church first apostles,
secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers. So it is plain that
distinction and disparity of ranks is not antichristian. And
here he affirms that he truly follows Zanchius, Chemnitz,
Hemmingius, Calvin, Melancthon, Bucer, and Beza. Jerome
he treats more fairly than does Saravia, who with much
special pleading endeavours to disprove that Father entirely
in his celebrated Epistle to Evagrius. He says truly enough,
that when the Fathers speak of custom they do not exclude
apostolical institution. So Augustine, i Whatsoever the whole
Church observes, and that though not set up by Councils, has
been always retained, is most rightly believed to have been de
livered by no other than apostolical authority.'1 Epiphanius
himself attests that some places were suffered to remain with
out bishops, but adds that in such places none could be found
worthy of the episcopate. Even in the case of ordination the
concurrence and cooperation of presbyters were required.2
^ Meanwhile," observes Grotius, u I see not how it can be
refuted that where there are no bishops, ordination may be
validly conferred by a presbyter, as William of Auxerre, the
school divine, has long since admitted."3 He proceeds to
vindicate the foreign churches who did not perpetuate epis
copacy, and treats also fully of lay elders, proving, as in the
case of bishops, that they are not of divine right, but that
they are not contrary to the Holy Scriptures. This work was
translated in 1651.
In a letter from John Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carleton,
dated October 31, Chamberlain states that on the receipt of
Sir Dudley Carleton's letter of the 19th, he went to Bishop
Andrewes, who received him with great kindness, and expos
tulated with him for the very long interval which he had
suffered to elapse without seeing him. He delivered him Sir
Dudley's proposition, " and withal upon long conference
something you had written touching the Arminians counte
nancing themselves with some of his letters. Whereupon he
fell into a long speech of a writing that the Archbishop
Whitgift had got from him in some parts of that argument,
and that he knows not what became of it, for he never gave
a copy of it, but only one to Mr. Hooker, who promised to
return it, but never did. But he expressed not all the while
which opinion he inclined to, but still insisted if they had any
writing of his they should shew it ; concluding that I should
assure you that they have no letter of his, and with that
vehemency that he would give me leave to send you his head
in a platter if they could shew any letter of his. He told
me further that Grotius when he was here dined once with
him, and supped another time ; but other communication than
passed at table he had none with him, though he under
stands since that he gave out and fathered many things
upon him that were neither so nor so. Surely he hath a
wonderful memory, for he not only calls to mind any matter
that passed at any time, but the very time, place, persons,
and all other circumstances, which seemed strange to me in a
discourse of almost two hours."1
On the 5th of November Andrewes preached before the
King at Whitehall Chapel on Luke i. 74, 75. He in this
sermon reminded his hearers of our memorable national
deliverance in 1588. His wit remarkably discovers itself
throughout this discourse as a holy ingenuity, full of practical
point. He speaks much of reverence in worship. But let it
be remembered to the credit of Laud, that he first broke off
the custom of breaking off the prayers for the sermon upon
the King's coming into the chapel.
On the 30th of November Bishop Andrewes collated his
brother Roger to the fourth stall in Ely Cathedral, which he
held till his death in 1635. He was then succeeded in his
stall by John Harris, M.A., Rector of Passenham on the
borders of Northamptonshire, near Stony Stratford.
The Dean of Ely at this time was Dr. Henry, son of Dr.
Julius Caesar, brother of Sir Julius Caesar, Master of the
Rolls, and son of Julius, physician to Queens Mary and
Elizabeth, a most munificent benefactor to Jesus College,
Cambridge, although himself of the University of Oxford.
The other prebendaries were Dr. John Boys, one of the
translators of the Bible, Eector of Boxworth, who had been
preferred by Andrewes himself; Daniel Wigmore, Arch
deacon of Ely, another of the Bishop's friends ; Jerome Beale,
also in the enjoyment of the same honour; the learned and
pious Andrew Willet, whose works have fallen into undeserved
neglect. He was as a Biblical scholar not inferior to any of
his contemporaries ; his life in Fuller's Abel Redivivus was
written by his son-in-law Dr. Peter Smith of King's College,
Cambridge. John Hills, B.D., Master of Catharine Hall,
Cambridge, Archdeacon of Lincoln, his patron being Bishop
Barlow, Eector of Fulbourn All Saints, the place of his nativity.
He was buried at Horsheath near Newmarket September
1626. He had been raised to the Mastership of Catharine
Hall from a Fellowship at Jesus College. Dr. John Duport,
Master of Jesus College, Precentor of St. Paul's, Vicar of
Fulham, Middlesex, and Eector of Bosworth and Medbourn
in his native county of Leicester ; and lastly, Dr. James
Taylor, Eector of Westmill, Hertfordshire, where he was
buried. He died March 19, 1624.
Our prelate on the 5th of December joined in a letter to
the King respecting the retrenchment of his expenses.1
Upon December 14th Andrewes, with Dr. King, Bishop of
London, Buckeridge, Bishop of Eochester, Marc Antony de
Dominis, late Archbishop of Spalatro, and Overall, Bishop of
Lichfield and Coventry, assisted Abbot at the consecration of
Dr. George Montagu to the see of Lincoln, and of Andrewes7
most worthy, learned, and upright friend Dr. Nicholas Felton,2
Master of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, to the see of Bristol.
There he succeeded Dr. John Thornborough, who had but
a contentious and disturbed rule in that see. He was now,
on the death of that eminent prelate Dr. Parry, translated to
Worcester.
Dr. George Montagu was bom at Cawood in Yorkshire,
north-west of Selby, and educated at Queens' College, Cam-
bridge, was Lecturer in Gresham College, Master of the
Savoy, Rector of Great Cressingham, Norfolk, January 25,
1603, on the presentation of Lord Keeper Egerton, and
November 22, 1609, Eector of Cheam on the presentation of
the King. He succeeded Neile as Dean of Westminster
December 10, 1610. He resigned this Deanry upon this his
consecration to the see of Lincoln, and was succeeded in it
by Dr. Thomas Fuller's uncle, Dr. Eobert Townson, who was
born in Cambridge and educated also at Queens' College in
that University. He was translated to London July 20,
1621, on the death of Bishop King, and to Durham early in
1628 on the promotion of Neile to Winchester, and a few
months afterward to York. He was succeeded at Durham by
Howson. He was elected to York June 26th, was enthroned
October 24th, and dying (probably 6th of November) that
same year, was buried in Cawood Church. Hugh Holland
wrote an epitaph upon him. His tomb is in the chancel with
his bust in his lawn sleeves. He was succeeded at York by
Harsnet, Bishop of Norwich.
Of Dr. Felton the reader may find several notices in my
Memorials of Dr. Thomas Fuller.1 He was the son of a
merchant of Yarmouth. He was B.A. of Pembroke Hall,
Cambridge, 1580, and was elected to a Fellowship, M.A. 1581,
B.D. 1591, Eector of St. Antholin's and St. Mary-le-Bow,
London, and of Great Easton near Dunmow in Essex, and of
Blagden or Blagdon near Bristol, Somersetshire, Prebendary
of St. Paul's, London, 4th March, 1616. On the translation
of Andrewes to Winchester Felton was removed from the see
of Bristol to that of Ely, being elected March 2nd, 1619, and
confirmed March llth. He died October 5th, 1626, and was
buried under the Communion-table in the chancel of St.
Antholin's, London, without any memorial. At Ely he was
succeeded by Dr. John Buckeridge, Bishop of Eochester.
He was a prelate of eminent piety and integrity, and of no
less learning, for which he was appointed one of the trans
lators of the Bible. " He had," says Fuller in his Church
History? " a sound head and a sanctified heart, was beloved
of God and all good men, very hospitable to all and charitable
to the poor." Andrewes assisted in procuring for him the
Mastership of Pembroke Hall, which he held from 1616 to
1619.
In the course of this year appeared Epphata to F. T.
(Thomas Fitzherbert, mentioned under 1613) ; or, the Defence
of the Right Reverend Father in God the Lord Bishop of
Elie, Lord High Almoner and Privy Councillor to the King's
most excellent Majestic. Concerning his Answer to Cardinal
Bellarmine's Apologie : against the slanderous cavils of a
nameless Adjoinder ; entitling his book in every page of it,
A Discoverie of many foule absurdities, falsities, lies, &c.,
wherein these things chiefly are discussed (besides many other
incident) :
1. The Pope's false Primacie claiming by Peter.
2. Invocation of Saints, with Worship of Creatures and
Faith in them.
3. The Supremacie of Kings both in Temporal and
Ecclesiastical Matters and Causes, over all States and
Persons, &c., within their Realms and Dominions.
By Dr. Collins, Chapleine to His Majestic. Apoc. xviii. 7.
Give her torture (an allusion to the title of the Bishop's book,
Tortura Torti}. Printed by Cantrell Legge, Printer to the
University of Cambridge, 1617. This work was, for abun
dance of learning, force of argument, and felicity of illustration
and application, not unworthy the great reputation of its
author, who was accounted one of the most learned theologians
and scholars of his age, and who at school had given early
promise of the ability which distinguished him at the Uni
versity. He was a constant guest at Buckden at the table
of the munificent and hospitable Williams, with Dr. Samuel
Ward and Dr. Brownrigg, afterwards Bishop of Exeter. He
was born at Eton, where he was also educated ; was from a
Fellowship raised to the Provostship j^f King's College 1615,
succeeded Dr. Richardson, Master of Trinity College, as
Regius Professor of Divinity 1617, and was, on the death of
Dr. Duport, Master of Jesus College, Cambridge, collated by
Bishop Andrewes to the seventh stall at Ely February 9th,
1618. He was deprived in 1644, and died, aged 75, Sep
tember 16th, 1651, and was buried in King's College chapel.
He fully exposes the weakness, incompetence, and sophistry
of Fitzherbert. This elaborate work is one of many proofs
how valuable is the study of the Fathers to those who have
sufficient learning to profit from them, and how dangerous it
is merely to dabble in them, as Fitzherbert appears to have
done. But in truth we need never look into the writings of
those who adhere to Kome for right views of the Fathers.
Their learned men are fully aware that the Fathers often and
in many things make against them. Hence we find the
theory of development anticipated by Bishop Fisher.
As some in our own time have done, so Fitzherbert caught
at Andrewes' words, that Christ is to be adored in and with
the sacrament. "The Bishop grants that Christ is to be
worshipped, and that he is to be worshipped in the sacrament,
which he infallibly accompanieth, and effectually assisteth :
ergo, with you he is a Pontifician, and maintaineth your cause,
and letrayeth his own. No such thing, gentle sir. To make
him yours, more goes to it than so. Especially these two,
corporal presence, and transubstantiation or conversion. These
are the two main badges or rather buttresses of your Cyclops,
neither of which is to be found in the Bishop's writing, and
God knows is far off from his belief." " Though again, when
we say that Christ is in the sacrament (because we would not
be mistaken), we say not that he is there after a corporal
manner : nay, that your own Captain and Cardinal dis-
claimeth, corporaliter esse Christum in Sacramento; but we
say not so much as that his flesh is there, or his body there at
all, not only after a bodily or fleshly manner. Christus, saith
St. Leo, quadragesimo post resurrectionem die, coram dis-
cipulis elevatus in coelum, corporalis praesentise modum fecit,
&c. Christ made a period of his bodily presence, being lifted
up into heaven before^he face of his disciples the fortieth
day after his resurrection. And St. Austin, out of those words,
Matt, xxvi., Non semper habebitis me vobiscum, with other
like in St. John xii., resolves it plainly that secundum carnem
non semper, according to the flesh he is not always with
us. (Tract. 109 in Joh.) It were not hard to produce divers
more to the same purpose. Yea, si esset in terra, non esset
sacerdos. (Heb. viii.) If Christ were on the earth, he could be
no priest, &c. So as you destroy his priesthood, while you
stand for such presence, to commend your sacrifice. I say,
therefore, neither bodily nor in body at all." The contrary
to this is insisted upon by the late Archdeacon Wilberforce
in his work upon the Eucharist ; and accordingly whilst he
affixes a literal, Dr. Collins gives a more just and reasonable
interpretation to Cyril's Catecheses, where the author of that
uncertain book touches upon the Eucharist. For Rivet did
not without reason call the authorship of the Catecheses in
question.1 In a note Dr. Collins ridicules those who make
Christ's body to be a figure of itself in the Sacrament.2
Collins was, besides his other preferments, Eector of
Braintree, Essex, February 15, 1611, and of Fen Ditton
in 1643. He was ejected thence by the Earl of Manchester.
He had declined the see of Bristol. He was the son of Master
Baldwin Collins, whom the Queen for his piety used to call
Father Collins.
Dr. Collins quotes that most admirable passage from St.
Augustine, in which he limits adoration to him who is the
source of our felicity, thus shutting out at once every kind of
worship besides, whether addressed to men or angels : u Solus
ille colendus est, quo solo fruens, beatus fit cultor ejus, et quo
solo non fruens, omnis mens misera est, etsi qualibet re alia"
perfruatur." (Contra Faustum Manichceum, lib. xx. c. 5.3)
" He alone is to be adored by the enjoyment of whom alone
the worshipper is made happy, and without the enjoyment of
whom alone the mind is miserable, whatsoever else it may
enjoy."
Dr. Collins defends the imputation of our Saviour's
righteousness to us (p. 376), and quotes St. Jerome; and,
on the other hand, for the imputation of the sin of Adam,
St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio in Baptism., that Adam's
eating the forbidden fruit was so ours, that of itself it was
enough to condemn us.
He speaks of regeneration as including the whole life
of a Christian ; we are regenerating here all the time of
our life. (p. 377.) He applies the 7th chapter of the Epistle
to the Komans to the regenerate, as did St. Augustine, and as
Bishop Andrewes also did in his Boole of Devotions, p. 379.
Dr. Collins defends Calvin, who says that Christ bade his
disciples receive^ not adore the sacrament. Calvin would
have us refrain from worshipping the sacrament of the Eu
charist for safety's sake : " Quia non tutum. Nam ut Christum
illic rite apprehendant pise animae, in ccelum erigantur necesse
est." (Instit. lib. iv. c. 17, § 36.) "It is not safe; for that
the faithful may duly apprehend Christ in that sacrament,
it is requisite that their minds should be lifted up to heaven."
Dr. Collins observes that St. Augustine and St. Ambrose
interpreted the footstool of God — the earth is my footstool,
Isa. Ixvi. 1, of our Lord's human nature. So Augustine on
Psa. xcviii. (Psa. xcix.), where he is careful not to be mis
understood, as though he intended the presence of Christ
bodily in the Eucharist, as the sequel clearly demonstrates.
CHAPTER XIX.
Page 451
Andrewes and Grotius, 1618 — Condemnation of Trash — Peter du
Moulin — Dr. Preston — Andrewes translated to Winchester —
Christmas 1619 — The King at Farnham 1620 — Consecration of
St. Mary's Chapel near Southampton — Tilenus.
WE find Chamberlain again with Andrewes in February.
He wrote to Sir Dudley Carleton on the 14th: " I made an
errand to Ely House to have shewn the Bishop the Pope's
determination 'twixt the Franciscans and Jacobins, if he had
not seen it ; as likewise what you wrote concerning Grotius
to make him more wary hereafter, though, for aught I ever
heard, he hath used caution enough that way ; but he was at
Lambeth." He found him at home a few days after, and he
informed Chamberlain "that he had had letters lately, and
that before Christmas one came to him for an answer; but
being presently to preach at court, and not finding himself
well at ease, he made his excuse. But I perceived by this
that he holds him for a very learned and able man : yet I doubt
not but this little conference will serve him for a caveat
hereafter. I lent him the Pope's determination 'twixt the
Franciscans and Jacobins, and the censure of the Sorbonists
upon the Archbishop of Spalatro's books, which I met with all
by chance, none of which he had, or had seen."1
Our prelate preaching before the King at Whitehall on
April 5, Easter-day, 1618, prefaced his sermon with a suitable
application of his text, 1 Cor. xi. 16 : But if any man seem
to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches
of God, to the question of the authority of the Church in
things ceremonial.1 This passage is similarly applied by
the learned Dr. John Forbes in his Theologia Moralis, who
quotes Calvin upon it.2 Andrewes proceeds to the conditions
to be regarded in the putting forth of Church authority, that
all customs be agreeable to the general custom of the Church :
especially is a custom to be commended if it be ancient and
from the Apostles.
The third part of this sermon is a learned dissertation upon
the various computations of the time of Easter in the first
four centuries, and a reference to many patristic testimonies
of the observance of the festival. That the Apostles them
selves instituted this festival he maintains on the ground of
St. Augustine's often quoted and but too often misapplied
assertion : For such things as come to us not ly writing, but
by practise (and yet such as are observed quite through the
world], we are given to understand they were commended to
us, and were instituted either by the Apostles themselves, or by
General Councils, whose authority hath ever been accounted of
as wholesome in the Church. " Now," adds Andrewes, " what
be those things so generally observed toto orbe terrarum?
These: that the passion, the resurrection, the ascension of
Christ , and the coming of the Holy Ghost from heaven, anni-
versaria solemnitate celebrantur, are yearly in solemn manner
celebrated. And, saith he" [St. Augustine], " if there be any
beside these : for these are most clear."
When we call to mind that the Apostles would, by the
Passover and the Day of Pentecost, be annually led back to
the still more wonderful events which endeared those seasons
to their hearts, we may well conjecture that from the very
earliest they annually commemorated at those seasons the
sufferings and the resurrection of Christ, and the descent of
the Holy Ghost.
His Whitsunday sermon, May 24th, preached before the
King at Greenwich from Acts ii. 7, is not one of the most
felicitous of his discourses. He observes the tendency of the
age to turn religion into an auricular profession; but whilst
the whole is upon the effusion of the Spirit, it is not a pouring
forth worthy of the occasion. But one comparison there is in
it, which would have sufficed for a sermon of itself ; when he
remarks that as copious as was the effusion of Christ's blood,
so copious was the effusion of the Spirit, " He as liberal of
his grace , as Christ of his blood."1
Andrewes appears to have been nominated to the see of
Winchester on the ver y day of the decease of Bishop Montague
at Greenwich, 20th July, 1618. The conge d'elire for his
election is dated 29th July, 1618.
But a short time before he was, on June 23rd, put in
commission for banishing Jesuits, Seminary Priests, &c.2
This year, 1618, the King appointed Drs. Carleton, Hall,
Davenant, and Ward to represent the English Church at the
Synod of Dort.3 George Carleton was born at Norham in
Northumberland, and was educated by the famous Bernard
Gilpin, the apostle of the North, (whose zeal was emulated by
the indefatigable Edmund Bunney, of an eminent family from
the village of Bunney in Nottinghamshire, B.D., and Fellow
of Merton College, Oxford, and Prebendary of St. Paul's, of
York and Carlisle, and Kector of Bolton Percy4). He first
went to St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, and thence to Merton
College, of which he was chosen a Fellow. He was made
D.D. 1613. He held the stall of St. Dubritius in the church
of Llandaff, previously to his being appointed to the bishopric.
He was consecrated to that see a few months before he wrent
to Dort, namely, July 12, 1618, at Lambeth. Abbot was
assisted on this occasion by Dr. John King, Bishop of London,
Dr. John Buckeridge, Bishop of Eochester, Dr. John Overall,
Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and Dr. George Monteigne,
Bishop of Lincoln. Dr. Joseph Hall of Emmanuel College,
Cambridge, was at this time Dean of Worcester and Arch
deacon of Nottingham. The latter dignity he received on the
promotion of Dr. King, Dean of Christ Church, to the see of
London in 1611, and his Deamy to the promotion of that other
equally noble and illustrious divine Dr. Arthur Lake to the
see of Bath and Wells in 1616. Dr. Samuel Ward was at
this time Master of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, Rector
of Much Munden, between Ware and Buntingford, Arch
deacon of Taunton, and Prebendary of Ampleforth in the church
of York. In 1622 he succeeded Bishop Davenant at Cam
bridge as Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity. Dr. John
Davenant, uncle to the celebrated Dr. Thomas Fuller, was of
a wealthy London family, had been for a short time Vicar
of Oakington near Cambridge,1 received his education at
Queens' College, Cambridge, and was appointed President
of Queens' College 1614, on the death of Dr. Humphrey
Tindall, Dean of Ely, having been Lady Margaret's Divinity
Professor from 1609. He was in 1622 made Bishop of
Salisbury, and Carleton was in 1619 translated from LlandafF
to Chichester. Ward, Davenant, Hall, and Carleton had an
interview with King James at Newmarket previously to their
departure for Dort. Andrewes was probably with the King
at the same time, when his commissary came to Newmarket
to lay a complaint against the celebrated preacher Dr. Preston,
at this time a Fellow of Queens' College. Ward and Davenant
were again summoned to the royal presence at Royston on
the 8th of October, " where," says Fuller in his Church
History? il his Majesty vouchsafed his familiar discourse unto
them for two hours together, commanding them to sit down
by him, and at last dismissed them with his solemn prayer
that God would bless their endeavours, which made them
cheerfully to depart his presence."
On October 16th Andrewes admitted Edmund (or Edward3)
White, M.A., to be his domestic chaplain.4 He had been
admitted as a sizar at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, in
1605, was B.A. 1609, M.A. 1612.
On November 5th our prelate preached before the King at
Whitehall from Esther ix. 31 : To confirm these days of Purim,
according to their seasons, &c. Comparing the plot to that
of Haman, he observed, tl Haman was to the Jews a stranger
in nation, for he was an Agagite : a stranger in religion, for
he was an heathen man. Ours were no strangers in nation,
the same nation that we. No Turks or infidels, but professing
the same Christ that we j and better than we, say they, for
right Catholics they ; and not Christians, but (which is more
than Christians) Jesuits some of them."1
On the 10th of December Walter Balcanqual, B.D., Fellow
of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, was also sent over as in the
name of the Church of Scotland. On the 8th of March, 1625,
he was installed Dean of Rochester on the promotion of Dr.
Goodman to the see of Gloucester, but about three weeks
before the death of King James. On the 13th of May, 1639,
he was installed Dean of Durham. The same cause was
forwarded at home by Archbishop Abbot, who joined with Sir
Henry Savile in publishing Bradwardine's Causa Dei.
Dr. Hall returning home on account of ill health, Dr.
Thomas Goade was sent over to supply his place. In the late
Mr. Carwithen's History of the Church of England, Goade
is thus depreciated : " Goade, a chaplain of Abbot, of whom
nothing more can be said than that he was ready to join in
any measure which might be adopted against the Remon
strants."2 Goade was the learned son of a learned father, who
when Provost of King's College discerned the talent of Dr.
Collins, and pointed him out as his successor. This came to
pass five years after his death, two Provosts succeeding in the
interim, Dr. Fogge Newton, Rector of Kingston near Cam
bridge, where he lies buried, and Dr. William Smyth, one of
King James's Chaplains, who from his Fellowship at King's
College was chosen Master of Clare Hall in 1598, and thence
raised to the Provostship of King's College in 1612, on the
death of Dr. Newton. Goade was in the time of Bishop
King made Precentor of St. Paul's February 16, 1618,
Prebendary of the tenth stall at Winchester August 25, 1621,
Proctor of his University in 1629, and Professor of Civil Law.
in 1635. If he was ejected he was probably restored. His
successor in the Professorship was not appointed until 1666.
At the Synod of Dort met not only the divines of Holland
with those sent from England, but also from the Palatinate,
from Hesse, from Switzerland, from Herborn in Nassau, from
Bremen, Emden, and Geneva. The French Protestant divines
were not suffered to attend, the King being displeased with
the Dutch for their noncompliance with his intercession in
behalf of Barneveldt, and other political reasons.1 It was
found that not a few favourers of Socinianism concealed their
errors under colour of anti-Predestinarianism ; and this the
Lutheran historian Weismann confesses was the principal
cause of the great hostility of the Predestinarian divines to the
Remonstrants.2
The canons of the Synod of Dort have recently been
republished in Niemeyer's Collectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis
Reformatis publicatarum. Leipz. 1840.
In the course of this year Andrewes delivered his speech
in the Star Chamber against that unstable and fanatical
person John Traske. His speech was a confutation of
Traske's two judaical points, namely, that we should abstain
from all the forbidden meats enumerated in Leviticus, and
that we should observe the Jewish Sabbath or Saturday.
Some few there are still in our own country and in America
who appear to have inherited his perverseness in the latter
particular. In 1620 he put forth a recantation, entitled A
Treatise of Liberty from Jadaism, or an Acknowledgment of
true Christian Liberty , indited and published by John Traske;
of late stumbled, now happily running again in the Race
of Christianity. Bishop Andrewes himself, we have before
seen, acknowledged the moral nature and obligation of the
Lord's-day ; and so in the recantation of Traske we read, ' A
new spiritual service we are to yield. And that a Sabbath-
day we do still acknowledge, it is by virtue of the command
ment itself, as far as it is moral.'
Andrewes began his speech thus : " It is a good work
to make a Jew a Christian ; but to make Christian men Jews
hath ever been holden a foul act, and severely to be punished."
Respecting the distinction of meats he cites our Saviour's
words, that there is nothing that goeth into the mouth that
defileth a man. And he adds, " This is our ground : Sermo
Christi omnes cibos mundanSj saith Gregory Thaumaturgus
more than 1300 years since."1
He proceeds to observe that the distinction of clean and
unclean was only appointed for the Jews. He passes over
the distinction of clean and unclean in Genesis viii. 20,
probably because it was made with a view to the law of
sacrifice. He alleges not only the ceremonial nature of the
prohibition which proved that it was not a part of the moral
and eternal law, but of the law of ordinances, which was in
its own nature temporary, but the vision related in the tenth
chapter of the Acts. He observes that this distinction was
not insisted on in the fifteenth chapter. He observes from
St. Augustine that the prohibition of eating the blood was, in
like manner, but for a time.2
In his remarks on the Sabbath he, in alleging St. Atha-
nasius, attributes to him the Creed called after his name.
Dr. Waterland refers the composition of this Creed to Hilary,
Archbishop of Aries, about A.D. 430 ; Alt, in his Christliche
Cultus* ascribes it to Vigilius of Thapsus (on the coast of
the province of Byzacium or Byzacena below Carthage), about
A.D. 460.
In November commenced his correspondence with Peter
du Moulin, who on the death of Bilson betook himself to the
patronage of Andrewes, it being well known that the King
had destined him to the vacant see. Du Moulin (although, in
a work intended to answer the Jesuit Arnold, he had owned
the very rise and prevalence of episcopacy, and had highly
complimented the English prelacy,) had given offence by
affirming that in the New Testament the names bishop and
presbyter were interchanged ; that the order of bishop and
presbyter was but one and the same ; and that episcopacy was
not of divine right, meaning thereby that it was not of
indispensable obligation. The first of these three Andrewes
admitted, but complained that Du Moulin had not guarded
against the ill inferences that some might draw from it. For
the second and third he contended, admitting however that
episcopacy was not so of divine right as to be essential to
the being of a Church or to the salvation of any Christian
community. Du Moulin took the same ground with Grotius,
and both agree in witnessing that theirs was the opinion of all
the reformed Churches abroad.
Not long before Bishop Andrewes was translated to
Winchester, there appears to have been no small commotion
in the University from the popularity of the celebrated
Puritan Preston, then a Fellow of Queens' College. Fuller
thus warily (to use his own words) expresses himself hereupon
in his History of the University of Cambridge : " Master John
Preston, Fellow of Queens', suspected for inclination to non
conformity, intended to preach in the afternoon (St. Mary's
sermon being ended) in St. Botolph's Church. But Dr.
Newcombe, Commissary to the Chancellor of Ely, offended by
the pressing of the people, enjoined that service should be
said without sermon. In opposition whereunto a sermon was
made without service, whence large complaints to Lancelot
Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, and in fine to the King himself.
Hereupon Mr. Preston was enjoined to make what his foes
called a recantation, his friends a declaration sermon ; therein
so warily expressing his allowance of the Liturgy and set
forms of prayer, that he neither displeased his own party nor
gave his enemies any great advantage."1
This incident is related much more circumstantially in
Clark's Lives of Thirty -two English Divines / but both he
and Fuller place it under the Vice-Chancellorship of Dr.
Scott, Master of Clare Hall, before whose Vice-Chancellorship
Andrewes was translated to the see of Winchester ; in which
case Dr. Newcombe would not have brought a complaint
before him. According to Clark, Dr. Newcombe seeing the
crowd, commanded that only evening prayer should be read,
and no sermon preached. The incumbent entreated that for
that time Preston might be suffered to preach, as did the Earl
of Lincoln and others present. But the Commissary refused
his permission, and went home with his family. However
Preston preached from 2 Peter iii. 17, 18. There was so
much time spent in debates and messages before the Com
missary left the church, that the prayers were omitted, that so
the scholars might depart in time for their College services.
This furnishing the Commissary with farther ground of
complaint, he went the next day to the court at Newmarket
where the Bishop also was. Upon complaint made to the
King, a letter was directed to the Vice-Chancellor (Dr. Scott,
who however was not then Vice-Chancellor,) and to the other
heads to call Preston before them. He appealed to Andrewes,
and offered himself to undergo an examination by Andrewes
if he was in any way suspected of disaffection to the established
order. On Andrewes objecting to him his dislike of the Liturgy,
he replied that it was a slander of his enemies, for he thought
set forms of prayer lawful, and refused not on all occasions to
be present at prayers in College, and to read them in his turn.
The Bishop answered that he was glad, and would inform the
King, and do him all the good he could, and bade him wait
awhile, and return to him. But time passed on, and nothing
further was done. Dr. Young, " an honest Scotchman," Dean
of Winchester, told Preston plainly that the Bishop was his
greatest adversary, and desirous of his expulsion, but to save the
odium, as desirous that this should be left to the University.
Preston then waited upon Andrewes, calling upon him at once
to say what he would do, and whether he would stir in his
behalf or no. The Bishop upon this bade him come again,
and said that he would deal with the King in his behalf.
The Bishop is said to have gone to the King, and to have
advised that the harsher course should be dropped, and
Preston enjoined to deliver his opinion at St. Botolph's the
next Sunday on set forms of prayer. He the next Sunday
preached accordingly, commending as well private extem
poraneous prayer as public set forms of devotion. And there
this affair ended. We are not bound to believe that Andrewes
dissembled, as Clark represents him to have done.1
Dr. Young, Dean of Winchester, was brother of the learned
Patrick Young, who leaving Scotland was made a Chaplain
of New College, and otherwise preferred. He was an excellent
classical scholar, and translated the King's works into Latin.
His brother the Dean did not attain such celebrity, but besides
his Deanry he was appointed to the prebendal stall of Riccall
in the church of York April 30, 1613, in the place of Dr.
Henry Banks, who was appointed to the Precentorship. He
died some time after, 1642.
" On November 26th, upon report made to the Lords of
the Council by Sir Clement Edmunds, it was ordered by their
lordships that the Earl of Arundel, Dr. Andrewes, Bishop
of Winchester, the Lord Carew, Mr. Treasurer, and Mr.
Comptroller of his Majesty's Household, Mr. Chancellor of
the Exchequer, the Master of the Rolls, and Mr. Edward
Coke, or any four of them, should take consideration of the
state of the business, &c. \_i. e. of the drainage of the fens],
and prepare some opinion to be delivered to the board, of
what present course might be fit to be taken therein. The
Earl of Arundel made a journey to the fens, and treaty with
Sir William Ayloff, Knight, and Antony Thomas, Esq., and
others. They undertook to drain all the fens in Cambridge
shire, the Isle of Ely, Norfolk, Suffolk, Lincolnshire, North
amptonshire, and Huntingdonshire."2
"The work nevertheless," says Lysons, " meeting with
much opposition in the country, was carried on with little
effect." Of the subsequent vicissitudes of the drainage system
Lysons gives a concise account in his History of Cambridge
shire, to whom I remit the reader.
On Friday, Christmas-day 1618, our prelate preached an
incomparable discourse from the gospel for the day, before the
King and Court at Whitehall. Well does he observe of the
meanness of our Saviour's birth and of the glory that yet
attended it, the angels themselves making melody upon it:
"It is a course, (this) the Holy Ghost began it (here) at his
birth, and after observed it all along, Sociare ima summisj
et insolita solitis temperare ; to couple low and high together,
and to temper things mean and usual) with others as strange
every way."1
Affectingly in his own simple way does he note how the
sign by which the Lord was to be found suited the time, his
coming in humility, and the persons : " The poorest of the
earth may repair to him, being no other place but this ; and
by this sign to find him."
Yet was this sign not without glory. " It was much, from
a babe floating in the flags of Nilus, in a basket of bulrushes,
(Moses) to gather himself a people, even the nation and
kingdom of the Jews, and to deliver his law. It was infinitely
much more, from this babe (here) lying in the cratch, to work
the bringing in of the Gentiles, and the turning about of the
whole world, and to publish his gospel, the power of God to
salvation."2
Then does he open to us our sign of Christ's presence,
humility: "As St. Augustine saith well, Signum vobis si
signum in vobis , A sign for you if a sign in you."3 How
would men's minds turn from the externals to the internals of
religion, if they bore in their hearts the teaching of our prelate,
that to be but babes in Christ they must to faith join
Those who would pour contempt upon patristic reading
and upon the name of Bishop Andrewes, and have men go
no farther than to some modern commentator, or some idolized
name of the last or present century, would never come upon
so pregnant a passage, such a storehouse of illustration, as the
few following sentences.
"But then if it be signum volts'" [a sign to you] "to
some, it is for some others signum contra vos" [a sign against
you] : " and that is, the proud. For the Word of God hath
two edges : and if it go one way, that for humility, it cuts as
deep the contrary, against pride. And withal, under one
leads us to the cause straight, and shews us the malignity of
the disease of pride, for the cure whereof this so profound
humility was requisite in Christ. There was one, when time
was, took the disease of Ero similis Altissimo" [I will be like
the Most High], a and he breathed upon our first parents with
his Eritis sicut Dii" [ye shall be as gods], " and infected
them with it. To make themselves equal with God is plain
robbery (saith the Apostle, Phil, ii.) For that robbery of
theirs was the Son of God robbed (as I may say), and quite
spoiled of his glory. For their puffing up, e/eez/oxre, he was
made empty ; for their lifting up, eraTretVoxre, was he brought
thus low ; for their comparing with God, came he to be
compared to the beasts that perish; lay in their manger,
we see."
This one sermon might suggest many others to the con
templative preacher.
On February 9th, 1619, Bishop Andrewes received the
royal assent to his translation to Winchester.1
In March he was attending the King, then lying ill at
Eoyston, and was appointed to preach the Easter-day sermon
there before him on the 28th;2 but if preached, it was not
printed with the rest of his Festival Sermons.
On May 13th he was present at the funeral of Queen
Anne,3 and on the Sunday following, being Whitsunday,
preached before the Court at Greenwich in the royal chapel
there. From his text, Of a truth I perceive that God is no
respecter of persons, he acutely exposed the sophistry of the
pretended Papal infallibility. St. Peter himself owned that
hitherto he had been in error respecting the divine purpose to
open the Church to the Gentiles.
1 Andrewes was confirmed in his new see 25th of February, and obtained the
temporalities March 19th. He had been previously made Dean of the King's
Chapel.
God is no accepter of persons. This St. Peter knew, yet
he falsely reasoned that God was an accepter of one nation
above another. So inconsistent is human nature !
God accepts those who fear him ; who fear him not with a
mere servile but holy fear, a fear opposed to presumption, a
fear proceeding from a true faith, and working righteousness
not occasionally, but constantly as the very occupation of life.
The works of Cornelius were alms, prayer, and fasting. And
as to his faith, "if you will reach it further," says our prelate,
" to faith in Christ ; living in garrison among the Jews, he
could not choose but have heard somewhat of him, to move
him to throw himself down before him ; and he took him up."1
God accepts, that is, graciously, not upon a claim of merit.
The word accepted here used is but a capacity that he may be,
lays no necessity that he must be accepted.2 And " if this
fearer, this worker be accepted and not in himself, in whom
then ? Who is it ? The Apostle tells us directly, He hath
made us accepted in Ms beloved Son"z
On the 1st of September Peter du Moulin sent to our
prelate his work against the Arminians, undertaken at the
request of the Dutch Church. He speaks very modestly of
this treatise as not coming up to his own wishes, and also of
the difficulty of the subject as being a most thorny one, and
one in which it is impossible to satisfy men's judgments. But
he adds, " I shall readily think nothing of the judgments of
others, if I satisfy yours. For you alone are equal to all,
inasmuch as with me you are above all. But if I seem to you
to have undertaken a work beyond my powers, you will
nevertheless look with kindness on the attempt, and will take
into consideration the great difficulty of writing accurately
upon the most difficult subjects, and upon which men with an
ill-directed ingenuity have cast additional obscurity, in a life
full of occupation and time at the mercy of a thousand various
calls. But if I may not look for thus much, you will accept this
volume as a token of my regard and entire devotedness to you,
which is such that I had rather be corrected and taught by
you than praised by others. May God long preserve you,
most reverend prelate, and long make use of your influence to
the good of his Church.
" Farewell.
" Paris, Gal. Sept. 1619."
Du Moulin's work was translated into English in 1635
with the following title, The Anatomie of Arminianism : or
the Opening of the Controversies of these times (formerly
handled in the Low Countries] concerning the Doctrine of
Providence, of Predestination, of the Death of Christ, of Nature
and Grace, &c. By Peter du Moulin, Minister of the Church
at Paris. London : printed for Nathaniel Newbery, at the
sign of the Star in Pope's Head Alley. Anno Dom. 1635.
The translation is dedicated by Nathaniel Newbery to Sir
Henry Mildmay, Knight, Master of his Majesty's Jewels, and
Sir Henry Howe, Knight. The work was prefaced by the
author with an epistle to the Lords the States-General of the
United Provinces of the Low Countries. In this epistle King
James is commended for his sanction of the Synod of Dort.
Du Moulin expresses his regret that he could not be present
at that assembly, adding that he did what he could, by
sending to the Synod his opinion upon the subjects there
treated of. The answers he thus gave, he drew out at full
length in this treatise. From it he appears to have been
opposed to the supra-Lapsarian theory, against which he
writes very unreservedly in the sixth chapter, Of the Sin of
Adam.
Of the efficacy of the death of Christ he says : " When we
say that Christ died for all, we take it thus, to wit, that the
death of Christ is sufficient to save whosoever do believe ; yea,
and that it is sufficient to save all men, if all men in the whole
world did believe in him : and that the cause why all men are
not saved, is not in the insufficiency of the death of Christ, but
in the wickedness and incredulity of man."1
Gn the difficulties which those who maintain what is called
particular redemption have thrown in the way of those whom
they should encourage to believe in the Gospel, Dr. Chalmers
has delivered himself with an effectiveness peculiarly his own,
in the eleventh chapter of his Institutes of Theology, entitled,
On the warrant which each man has to appropriate the calls of
the Gospel to himself, and what that is which marks his doing
so.1 Let the reader also peruse the third chapter of the third
part, entitled, On the Universality of the Gospel. He will
then perceive that the doctrine of divine predestination is not
necessarily at variance with that of universal redemption. The
opposite opinion has arisen from the injudicious and un
hallowed attempts of some to harmonize their own misgivings
of the truth with their imperfect conceptions of it.
Calvin was altogether too practical to lose himself in the
artificial reasonings of such as have made it impossible for
themselves to testify to all men with St. Paul, repentance
towards God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts
xx. 21.) With Calvin, faith was the receiving of Christ as he
is offered to us in the Scriptures, that is as at once our redemp
tion and sanctification.2
Neither do we find the tenet of particular redemption coun
tenanced in the Synod of Dort, but the very contrary :
" Casterum promissio evangelii est, ut quisquis credit in
Christum crucifixum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam.
Quas promissio omnibus populis et hominibus, ad quos Deus
pro suo beneplacito mittit evangelium, promiscue et indis-
criminatim annuntiari et proponi debet cum resipiscentiae et
fidei mandato.3 ( But the promise of the Gospel is, that who
soever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but shall
have eternal life. And this promise is to be proclaimed and
set forth to all nations and individuals without exception
and without any difference, with the command to repent and
believe, to whom God, according to his own good pleasure,
sends the Gospel.'
Upon Saturday, Christmas-day, December 25th, our
prelate delivered one of his most copious and eloquent dis
courses. How many sermons might be produced from this
one. What a multitude of holy lessons does it contain, what
heavenly peace pervades it. How fit an exposition of the
angels' hymn, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace,
good will towards men. Most happily too, whilst its excellencies
are incomparable, its defects are few.
On the 5th of February, 1620, our prelate was on the
Committee of Privileges of the Lords. On the 14th he was
one of the Conference with the Commons for the uniting of
both Houses in a petition to the King for the better execution
of the laws then in force against Jesuits, Seminary Priests,
and Popish recusants.
On Saturday, February 17th, he was on a committee to
consider a Bill that had been read a second time for the con
firmation of the King's letters-patent to Sir Philip Carey,
Knight, and others, of the manor of Minster in the Isle of
Thanet. On the 21st he was to meet on the naturalization of
Sir Francis Stewart, Knight, Walter Stewart, James Maxwell,
and William Carr, Esquires. James Maxwell was afterwards
Groom of the Bedchamber to Charles I., and was with the
King when he was surprised by Colonel Joyce at Holdenby
in Northamptonshire.
On Thursday the 22nd he was appointed to meet in a
committee for clearing the passage by water from London to
beyond Oxford, at two P.M. in the council-chamber, Whitehall.
On the 1st of March he was to meet, by eight A.M. in the
committee-chamber, to enable Edmund Clough, Esq., and
other bargainers in trust to convey the manor of Temple
Newsome, &c. to Esme Stuart, Lord Aubigny, and Earl of
March, and the Lady Catharine his wife, or such as they shall
name and appoint.
On Monday the 5th of March he was appointed to meet at
eight A.M. in the Painted Chamber on an Act for the con
firmation of the Hospital of King James founded in Charter
House at the humble petition and only costs, &c., of Thomas
Sutton, Esq.
On the 9th he was to meet upon a projected academy for
the training of the younger nobility and gentry.
On the 12th, respecting abuses on the Lord's-day ; and on
a committee of grievances complained of by the House of
Commons, as also of complaints respecting the patents of gold
and silver thread.
On March 26th he attended the King to St. Paul's, one of
the most venerable Norman structures in England, and of
unusual dimensions. This was with a view to promote the
repairs of that vast edifice, upon which the munificence of the
whole church and nation was liberally expended so long as it
remained. We may be allowed to regret that it was not
restored and preserved, as peradventure it might have been,
after the great fire.
Not less to be commended is his Easter-day sermon,
preached at Whitehall in the following year April 16, being
taken from the account of our Lord's resurrection by the
Evangelist St. John.
His discourse upon the 4th of June, Whitsunday, is
among the best of that series.1 It is full of patristic learning
such as may be gathered from the commentaries of Lorinus.
Both learnedly and piously has the same place — This is he
that came ly water and blood — been treated of in the second
of Bishop Heber's Sermons in India.2
On April 27th Andrewes was on a commission for selling
some of the crown jewels, and on the 29th on the High
Commission.
On the 6th of August, 1620, he admitted Christopher
Wren, the younger brother of Matthew, and father of the
famous architect, one of his domestic chaplains. Wren
preached before him in Windsor chapel. He then received
his appointment, and with his brother accompanied the Bishop
to Farnham, where the King and his Court were feasted three
days at a cost of above £3,000.3
Buckeridge observes of this entertainment, in his funeral
sermon for our prelate, that it was as bountiful and great an
entertainment as ever King James received at a subject's
hands. Christopher, afterwards Dean of Windsor and Wolver-
hampton in 1635, was born in 1589. He was of St. John's
College, Oxford, B.D. 1620, but D.D. 1630 of the University
of Cambridge. Andrewes made him Hector of Knoyle Magna
or East Knoyle near Hindon in the south-west part of Wilt
shire. In 1628 he was appointed chaplain in ordinary to
Charles I. ; in 1635 Dean of Windsor and Wolverhampton ;
and in 1638 Kector of Haseley in Oxfordshire. His Deanry
was plundered in 1642. He died at Blechindon near Oxford,
29th of May, 1658, at the parsonage of Mr. William Holder
(who had married his daughter), and was buried in the
chancel. He was a good mathematician, and gave proofs of
that ingenuity which shone so eminently in his only son the
architect.
On Sunday September 17th Andrewes consecrated the
new chapel in St. Mary's parish, called St. Mary's Extra,
near Southampton, for the benefit of the village of Weston
and the hamlets Itchen, Wolston, Kidgway, and part of Bittern
Manor.
This form, which is every way more impressive than those
now in use, was followed by Laud at the consecration of St.
Catharine Cree, Leadenhall-street (a remarkable specimen of
the mixed architecture of his age) in 1630.1 This consecration
gave occasion to many aspersions upon Laud both before and
at his trial, and these have, with the usual veracity of blind
party-spirit, been continued by Kapin and others, as though
they had never been refuted. Happy had it been for Laud,
if he had followed the judgment of Bishop Andrewes as well
in points of doctrine as of ceremony.
Bishop Andrewes, attended by his two chaplains Matthew
and Christopher Wren, proceeded to the chapel, and at eight
in the morning, being in their proper habits, came out of the
chapel ; and the Bishop addressed Captain Richard Smith,
who gave into the hands of William Cole, the Bishop's
registrar, the instrument praying for the consecration and
constant appropriation of the chapel to the service of God.
After this the two chaplains read alternately the 24th
Psalm, and after the Doxology had been said, the Bishop
advancing nearer the porch, said, / was glad when they said
unto me. We will go into the house of the Lord. Our feet shall
stand in thy gates, 0 Jerusalem.
Then all entering the chapel, the Bishop read, with some
few accommodations to this service, the dedication prayer of
King David, the 29th chapter of the First Boole of Chronicles,
from the 10th to the 18th verse inclusive. Then followed the
prayer, * Most glorious God.' This prayer is in part taken
from one in common use at that time, and recorded to have
been offered up also at the consecration of a chapel at
Edmonton by Bishop King in 1615,1 and of another chapel
in Clay Hall in the parish of Barking, Essex, September 15,
1616, by Dr. Thomas Morton, Bishop of Chester (afterward
of Durham). It is remarkable that in the Parentalia Bishop
Wren is said to have prepared an office for consecrating a
church at Dore in Herefordshire,2 in 1634.
After the longer prayer commemorating the precedents of
such acts of consecration, followed a prayer and benediction
in the name of the Holy Trinity. Then the Bishop laying
his hand upon the font consecrated it with a short prayer, as
also the pulpit, reading-desk, communion-table, site of joining
of hands in matrimony, and the whole pavement with reference
to such bodies as should be interred beneath. Then a general
prayer of dedication for the whole church was said by the
Bishop before the communion-table. Then the morning ser
vice commenced. For the psalms were read the 84th, 122nd,
and 132nd. The first lesson was the 28th chapter of Genesisj
in which is read the dedication of Bethel by Jacob. For the
second was read the 2nd chapter of St. John from the 13th
verse to the end, in which is read the purifying of the Temple.
After the three Collects the Bishop said a fourth, full of that
humility and earnest devotion for which he was ever so
conspicuous. Then the other chaplain read the Litany, and
the Bishop concluded with a prayer, as for himself and from
himself apart from the congregation, that God would be
pleased to hear whatsoever prayers should in that place be
made according to his will. After the benediction the 132nd
Psalm was sung, and Mr. Eobinson, B.D., brother-in-law to
the founder, preached the sermon from the 16th verse of the
28th chapter of Genesis.
After the sermon a poor woman returned thanks to
Almighty God for safe deliverance. The psalm used pre
viously to the last review was the 121st. The Communion
service was then commenced by the two chaplains, standing
one on either side the holy table. Before the Epistle for the
day a special Collect was read : ' Most blessed Saviour, who
by thy bodily presence at the feast of dedication didst honour
and approve such devout and religious services as we have
now in hand, be thou present also at this time with us, and
consecrate us into an holy temple unto thyself, that thou
dwelling in our hearts by faith, we may be cleansed from all
carnal affections, and devoutly given to serve thee in all good
works. Amen.'
The Epistle was 1 Cor. iii. from ver. 16 to the end ; the
Gospel from the 10th chapter of St. John, from ver. 22 to the
end. Then after the Nicene Creed the Bishop, casting himself
down before the holy table, prayed the dedication prayer of
Solomon, 2 Chron. vi. from ver. 18 to ver. 40, praying also
at the end that God would favourably hear this congregation
as he did Solomon. Then sitting in his chair, with his head
covered, Thomas Ridley his Chancellor standing on his right
hand,*-and Dr. Barlow,1 Archdeacon of Winchester, on his
left, he read in Latin the Act of Consecration, Dedication, and
Appropriation, The chapel was named Jesus Chapel, as a
chapel-of-ease to St. Mary's parish near Southampton. The
officiating minister was to be endowed with at least 20 marks
per annum. The patronage was to be in the family of the
founder. Then a short prayer was added by the Bishop, that
God would bless this day's action unto his people. After
this those who did not communicate were dismissed.
At the Offertory was collected £4 12s. 2d., which the
Bishop ordered to be appropriated to the purchasing of a
chalice for the use of the chapel. Before the consecration
prayer of the Communion service the Bishop washed his hands,
and mixed water with the wine, according to the custom
of the Church from the age of St. Cyprian. After he had
received the holy Communion, he delivered it first to the
founder, then to his chaplains, and delivered the bread to all
the rest, one of the chaplains delivering the wine. The
Bishop read the first of the two prayers that precede the
Gloria in Excelsis, and concluded with a prayer for the
founder and for all who should hereafter enjoy the benefit
of this his munificent and pious act.
After the Bishop and a numerous company had dined at
the founder's house at Peer Tree (now called Pear Tree), the
congregation reassembled in the chapel, and one of the
chaplains read the Lord's Prayer, and for the psalms was
read alternately the 90th Psalm. The act of consignation
of the churchyard was then read, and after confirmed by the
founder and his neighbours. The time being short the second
lesson was omitted, and only the 23rd chapter of Genesis
read, being the account of the burial of Sarah. The act of
consignation and remainder of the consecration service was
read in the churchyard ; which being completed they returned
to the chapel, and sang the first part of the 16th Psalm, and
Matthew Wren preached the sermon from The zeal of thine
house hath even eaten me. After sermon, was sung the rest of
Psalm xvi., and the service, beginning at the Apostles' Creed,
proceeded in the ordinary course.
The Rev. James Bliss, M.A., of Oriel College, Oxford, the
able editor of Bishop Andrewes' Minor Works (Oxford, 1854),
and Vicar of Ogbourne St. Andrew near Marlborough, observes
of Andrewes' Form for the Consecration of a Church or Chapel,
that it was first published in 32mo in 1659, with a preface
dated May 29 of that year ; that the only copy of this edition
which he had seen was now in the Bodleian Library, and
that it was afterwards reprinted in quarto, and appended to
Bishop Sparrow's Collection of Articles. It has since been
reprinted and bound up with Bishop Sparrow's Rationale of
the Book of Common Prayer.
In a letter from Junius to Vossius dated from Paris
September 18, Junius relates that on the 15th he had met
with Tilenus. He writes of him in terms of high commend
ation as most strenuous in behalf of the truth. Tilenus
informed Junius that he was about to visit England to enjoy
an interview with the King, from whom and from Bishop
Andrewes he had received letters. The King had sent over
his physician to attend him on this journey.1
Upon Monday, Christmas-day, Bishop Andrewes preached
before the King at Whitehall, very ably and with much
learning, upon the wise men's coming to our Saviour. If any
will see the force and beauty of typical illustration, let them
read this sermon, and let them confess that many types there
are in Holy Writ besides those that are there called so.
CHAPTER XX.
Page 473
Bishop Andrewes preaches at the opening of Parliament 1621 — His
Sermon upon Fasting — Upon St. John xx. 17 — Whitsunday — *
Archbishop Abbot's calamity — Andrewes befriends Allot — Enter
tains Junius and Doublet at Farnham — Dr. Thomas Goad.
ON the assembling of the Parliament, 1621, our prelate
preached before them in the Abbey of Westminster from the
first psalm in the evening service (Psalm Ixxxii.), God standeth
in the congregation of princes ; in the midst will he judge
the gods. Upon the words God standeth, he contrasts with
God's unchangeable the mortal nature of princes, these earthly
gods ; and says, in allusion to that most solemn sanctuary of
death in which they were then met, " This could not be told
us in a fitter place : the place where we stand is compassed
about with a congregation of these fallen gods, these same
Dii caduci (fragile gods), with monuments of the mortality of
many a great Elohim (God) in their times. And let me tell
you this, that in the Hebrew tongue the grave is called a
synagogue as well as the church. All shall be gathered,
even the gods, even the whole synagogue of them, into this
synagogue at last." Very plain and earnest is the whole
sermon, treating of the presence of God, and of the duty of
being well affected toward his presence if we would stand in
the judgment.
On February 14, Ash-Wednesday, Bishop Andrewes
preached at Whitehall upon the duty of fasting, overthrowing
the cavils of those who would expunge when from the text
(Matt. vi. 16), by leaving it so at liberty as that it should
never be performed.
About the 15th or 16th of March Andre wes and Moun-
taigne, Bishop of Lincoln, in the name of all the rest, pre
sented to the King at Hampton Court a grant of subsidies
passed by the clergy of the province of Canterbury.1
Upon Easter-day, April 1st, he resumed his discourse upon
the narrative of the resurrection, as it is given in St. John's
gospel, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father,
giving the three interpretations of Chrysostom, Gregory, and
Augustine, which last is also followed and expressed with his
usual energy and conciseness by Leo the Great. The first
is that our Lord saw in her a degree of irreverence. Under
this head our prelate condemns the too familiar and irreverent
handling of the doctrine of predestination, and the familiar
taking of Christ in the sacrament, when to touch the ark itself,
that other symbol of him, was death. Yet we have those who
most familiarly pray to God and plead that they are his
children, a most irreverential excuse for this much worse than
childish practice. But even this irreverence is not without
some share of popularity, and that amongst some who profess
themselves, notwithstanding, members (not children] of the
Church of England.
The second and third interpretations however will stand
better, and may well stand together ; that our Lord forbade
her at this time, when his disciples were still full of sorrow,
to spend her moments in the enjoyment of his presence. Add
secondly, that thus too she was admonished that the touch
of faith was more excellent than to touch him corporeally,
whom the wicked could indeed also touch, and yet not be
thereby healed of their spiritual diseases.
On April 30th Andrewes attended with other peers on
Lord Bacon, to ascertain from him whether, he acknowledged
as his own the petition and confession made in his name to
the House.2
On May 2nd our prelate was appointed to take examinations
in the case of Sir John Bennet, who had been charged by
the House of Commons with abusing his office of Judge of
the Prerogative Court to purposes of corruption and fraudulent
self-aggrandisement, and was eventually committed to custody
for a short time, fined the enormous sum of £20,000, and
deprived of his office.
On the 8th of May Bishop Andrewes was on a committee
for confirming the sale of the Rectory of Dorking, heretofore
made by Charles Earl of Nottingham, and William late Lord
Howard of Effingham, deceased, to Thomas Trevor and
William Bryan and their heirs.
On the 12th of May he was appointed to meet on committee,
at two P.M. in the Painted Chamber, respecting an Act for
the making good of grants made by collegiate churches and
corporations to the late Queen Elizabeth after the 2nd of
April in the thirteenth year and before the 8th of February
in the twenty-fifth year of that Queen.
On the 18th he was again on a committee upon an Act
for the confirmation of exchange of lands between Prince
Charles and Sir Lewis Watson, Knight.
On May 20th, Whitsunday, our prelate preached before
the King at Greenwich from St. James i. 16, 17. u If," he
says, " we look forth, let it not be about us, either on the
right hand or on the left, on any place here below. Look up ;
turn your eye thither. It is an influence, it is no vapour ; an
inspiration, no exhalation: thence it comes; hence it rises
not : our spirit lusts after envy, and worse matter. (James iv. 5.)
Why should thoughts arise in your hearts? saith Christ. If
they arise they are not good; if they be good, then they come
down from above."1 The lights from above he begins with
" the light of nature, for rebelling against which, all that are
without Christ suffer condemnation. Solomon calls it the
candle of the Lord^ searching even the very bowels (Prov. xx.),
which though it be dim and not perfect, yet good it is : though
lame, yet (as Mephibosheth) it is regia proles, of the blood
royal."2
This sermon, excellent in detail, is however unhappily too
much broken up, too variegated in its texture. It might be
made the groundwork of more than one discourse upon the
noble diversity of God's heavenly gifts.
On June the 10th Andrewes was present at the delivery
of the great seal to Dr. John Williams, Dean of Westminster.1
Monteigne, Bishop of Lincoln, being elected to the see of
London on July 20th, on the death of Dr. John King, Williams
was raised to the see of Lincoln. He was elected the 3rd of
August, and consecrated on the 10th of November. He was
permitted to hold his Deanry in commendam.
On July 12th Andrewes was on a commission for examining
Lewis Bayly, Bishop of Bangor.2 Bayly was committed to
the Fleet Prison July 15th, but soon after liberated. The
most serious charges are said to have been brought against
this prelate ; they are mentioned in a letter by the celebrated
Mede of Cambridge, but his early liberation is the best answer
to them.
On July 24, 1621, there befel a great calamity to the
primate Abbot, who, upon a visit to Lord Zouch at Bramshill
Park (two miles to the west of Hartford Bridge in the north
east corner of Hampshire), shooting with the cross-bow at a
buck, and his arrow meeting with a swelling bough in the
way, had the mishap to wound one of the keepers. It was
but a flesh-wound and a slight one, but being under the care
of an heedless surgeon, the poor man died of it the next day.
The King, upon hearing it, feelingly remarked that an angel
might have miscarried in that sort. ' The Archbishop,' says
Hacket, f was an happy man in this unhappiness, that many
hearts condoled with him, and many precious stones were in
the breastplate which he wore, that pleaded for him. He was
painful, stout, severe against bad manners, of a grave and a
voluble eloquence, very hospitable, fervent against the Roman
Church, and no less so against the Arminia^ns, which in those
days was very popular.'
Laud was raised by Williams at the solicitation of Villiers
the great favourite. Abbot's first patron was the more truly
illustrious Thomas Sackville Earl of Dorset. Laud was ever
fearful of the excess of that popular aversion to Romanism
which was natural enough in a period in which it was the
ill fate of his country to be governed by a family proud of
Romish alliances. Abbot was the intrepid assertor of
Protestantism as essential to the good of the commonwealth.
Hence the friends of Laud have always depreciated his equally
honest and far more consistent, nay more honest and upright
predecessor. It could not be said of Laud as of Abbot, that
' that Archbishop was wont to dissent from the King as often
as any man at the Council-board.'1 In Abbot it was a merit,
in Laud it would have been. For years the latter was,
according to Heylyn, the King's chief adviser, in effect, after
the death of the royal favourite, his prime minister, the
flatterer of his royal master, the inquisitor of his more
exemplary brethren, of men such as Hall, who found it no
small trial to hold the episcopal office under so arbitrary a
primate.
And now the question was agitated both at home and
abroad, what penalty was incurred by Abbot lying under the
charge of casual homicide. The Romish party were not
backward to exult over him, and to shew what kind of
opinions and individuals were sure of their most cordial
aversion. But ambition magnified his difficulties in the eyes
even of some of his brethren. Hacket, the good and eloquent
Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry (a more impartial author
than Wharton would concede2), remarks of his great bene
factor Williams the Lord Keeper, that he did not come
forward in Abbot's behalf as he might have done. That he
came out of this great trouble unhurt, he owed to the good
offices of Andrewes and to the kind heart of the King — a King
who could discern merit and admire integrity.
According to Fuller, Abbot and Andrewes were not upon
terms of intimacy. It has been imagined that the latter
regarded Abbot as his undeservedly successful rival. An
drewes was probably much less at the Council-table than
Abbot, and would doubtless hear many reports to his dis
advantage from those who were immediately about the King.
Hence might arise mutual misunderstanding. But be this as
it might, tl the party," writes Fuller, " whom the Archbishop
suspected his greatest foe, proved his most firm and effectual
friend, even Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester. For
when several Bishops inveighed against the irregularity of
the Archbishop, laying as much (if not more) guilt on the act
than it would bear, he mildly checked them : ' Brethren,'
said he, l be not too busy to condemn any for uncammicals
according to the strictness thereof, lest we render ourselves in
the same condition. Besides we all know Canones qui dicunt
lapsos post actam pcenitentiam, ad clericatum non esse restitu-
endos, de rigore loquuntur disciplines, non injiciunt despera-
tionem indulgentice, (' that the Canons that say that persons
who have fallen into some offence are not, after they have
repented, to be restored to their place in the church, speak in
regard of the strict execution of discipline, but do not design
to create despair of pardon.'1) But to set at rest all doubts
and canonical scruples, he advised theJKing to grant a dis
pensation to Abbot in virtue of his royal supremacy, and so
an address was prepared praying a dispensation from the
King, and signed by Andrewes, Monteigne, Bishop of
Lincoln, Buckeridge, Bishop of Kochester, and Williams,
Bishop elect of Lincoln, Carey, Bishop elect of Exeter, and
Laud, Bishop elect of St. David's ; together with Judges
Hobart, Doddridge, Marten, and Stywarde.2 The dispensation
was granted on November 21.
By a letter from Junius to Vossius, dated London, August
18, Bishop Andrewes appears to have been at Farnham.
Their kinsman George Eataller Doublet had, about this time,
come to England.
On September 3rd we find Doublet himself writing from
London to Vossius, and most gratefully alluding to the muni
ficent hospitality and frank affection with which he and Junius
were entertained at Farnham, always supping and dining
with Bishop Andrewes in his own hall, who never failed to
drink to the health of Grotius, Vossius, and Erpenius. Bishop
Andrewes had already seen Grotius when that politic and
eminently learned person had visited this country to plead the
cause of the Remonstrants and of the edict of pacification. But
whatever the favour they appeared to obtain, and however they
might colour over their opinions, the endeavours of that party
did not prevail with the King to side with them at the Synod
of Dort. Nor until after that Synod did that party openly
profess itself in this country, and not then without some
repulses. Erpenius had been in England before Grotius,
and was ^personally well known to Andrewes. Yossius he
earnestly desired to see also.1
On November 24th Vossius wrote to Bishop Andrewes in
reply to a letter from that prelate received by the hands of
Doublet. He excuses his long delay on the ground of the
protracted illness of his wife. Everywhere indeed in his
correspondence does the affection of Yossius shine forth
unabated and undiminished by the multitude of his literary
avocations. He mentions how Junius, in all his epistles to
him, had ever reverted to the name of Andrewes with the
liveliest emotions of grateful regard.2
Junius, in a letter to Yossius from London on the 1st of
December, informs him of Abbot's casualty, and of the doubt
of the four bishops elect respecting the canonicalness of a
consecration performed by the Archbishop. Nor were there
wanting, he adds, some who were desirous of making this an
occasion of deposing Abbot, and of placing Andrewes in his
room; Andrewes himself indeed strenuously opposing the
project, and shewing himself a firm friend to the primate.
The King is here said to have appointed ten persons to take
this emergency into consideration, and Andrewes to have
brought over the greater part to milder proceedings by alleging
this canon, ' Clericus de quo dubitatur an sit regularis^ non
est irregular is."1 CA clerk of whose irregularity there is doubt,
is not irregular.' The King himself, he relates, was delighted
with the moderation of Andrewes, and told Abbot to regard
Andrewes on this occasion as the sole person to whom he
owed his escape from deprivation. Junius adds that Andrewes
would have answered Vossius earlier but for this sudden
interruption.
On the 25th of August Dr. Thomas Goad, Precentor of
St. Paul's, Chaplain to Archbishop Abbot, and who had been
sent by the King on Hall's return home to take his place
in the Synod of Dort, was installed Prebendary of the tenth
stall of Bishop Andrewes' church of Winchester. He retained
this dignity to his death in 1638. He was Proctor of the
University of Cambridge 1629, being then Fellow of King's
College. He was also LL.D., and Begius Professor of Civil
Law in that University in 1635.
This year saw the elevation of Williams and Laud to the
episcopal bench. Williams owed his rise to the King himself,
Laud to Williams, who recommended Laud to the King, and
pressed his promotion upon him in order to shew a favour to
Villiers. At the same time he recommended to the King his
secretary, the pious and highly talented Dr. John Donne, for
the Deanry of St. Paul's, Dr. Valentine Carey for the see of
Exeter, and Dr. Davenant for that of Salisbury. So Carey
and Davenant were consecrated to Exeter and Sarum, and
Laud to St. David's on the same day, November 18th, the
very Sunday after the consecration of the Lord Keeper
Williams, Dean of Westminster, to the see of Lincoln. The
King herein yielded to Williams, as he so often did to others,
against his better judgment, and after remonstrating with
Williams on Laud's restless temper instanced in his advice to
him and urgency with him respecting the affairs of the Scotch
Kirk.
CHAPTER XXI.
Bishop Andrewes* Sermon on Hypocrisy — The Archbishop of Spalatro
— The King's Letter to Preachers — William Knight — Disputes
on Predestination at Cambridge — Junius — Andrewes* Christmas
Sermon on the Wise Men.
NEVER was the pious severity of Bishop Andrewes more
effectually put forth than in his sermon against hypocrisy
preached upon March 6, 1622, Ash- Wednesday, from When
ye fast, be not as the hypocrites are. It is a masterpiece of its
kind. The worshippers indeed of their own imaginations,
who have resolved fasting, holy-days, and all religious reve
rence into Popery, will but condemn the good Bishop as a
patron of superstition. To such objectors to fasting he very
pertinently replies that as well might they object to prayer
and almsgiving, for that these also have been observed by
some to the same evil end, to obtain praise of men. Hypocrisy
is c the moth that frets in sunder all that holy or good is.'
In truth, since men have learned an easier repentance, a
repentance that only humbles them whilst they are upon
their knees, and then but with a superficial sentimentality,
they have taken upon them to despise all abstinence, and the
more because the Church directs it to be observed at set
times. And to justify themselves they turn from the Scrip
tures by which they cannot be justified, to plead other men's
abuse of that which is good; thus excusing themselves a
neglected and unpopular duty, as some excuse their attendance
upon the holy Communion.
On March 23rd Bishop Andrewes assisted at the conse
cration of Dr. Kobert Wright to the see of Bristol.
On the 30th of this month Bishop Andrewes sat in com
mission at Lambeth with Archbishop Abbot, Williams, Lord
Keeper of the Great Seal, and Bishop of Lincoln, Mountaine,
Bishop of London, Neile, Bishop of Durham, and other Privy
Councillors, upon that most eminently learned but most
worldly-minded and ambitious person, Mark Antony de
Dominis, late Archbishop of Spalatro. Bishop Neile pub
lished an account of Mark Antony de Dominis, and Hacket
in his Life of Williams exposes upon the most incontestable
evidence the double-mindedness of this unstable and in the
end most unhappy ecclesiastic. Spalatro, as appears from
Fuller,1 took the side of the Kemonstrants, and so found a
zealous advocate in that most partial of controversialists and
doubtful of historians, Dr. Heylyn.
Archbishop Abbot, in the name of the rest, by his Majesty's
special command, in a long Latin speech recapitulated the
many misdemeanours of Spalatro, especially animadverting
upon his inconstancy, who, coming hither as a refugee from
Italy, now designed to return to Eome, having for that purpose
held correspondence with the Pope without the King's know
ledge. Spalatro made answer, an answer that was regarded as
' rather a shuffling excuse than a just defence.' Then the
Archbishop in his Majesty's name commanded him to depart
the kingdom within twenty days, and never to return. His
erudition was very great, but the love of money was his snare
and his destruction. His own countrymen did not confide
in him, but received him only to imprisonment in the Inqui
sition. He probably never cordially again professed their
religion, and had his integrity been equal to his learning, he
would have gone down to his grave with fame not surpassed
by any of his contemporaries. But so it is, the greatest
talents lose no small part of their reward when once devoted
to sinister ends.
Upon Easter-day, April 21, Bishop Andrewes preached
his third sermon upon the resurrection as recorded by St. John.
Of these three, the first is the most replete with interest, but
each is well worthy of its very pious author. The last, as
more quaintly subdivided than the preceding, will be least
acceptable to modern taste.
His Whitsunday sermon is entitled one ' prepared to be
preached.' It might be that he was already suffering from
his sedentary habits, as we find he did most afflictively some
two years after. It displays his usual fertility of ideas, a mul
titude of verbal allusions, and many most pertinent observa
tions, but embraces too many topics for a single sermon. He
plainly condemns those who without gifts yet seek for places
and offices or callings in the church. Again he speaks against
le officiousness of the weak-minded, who, without either gifts
r calling, take upon themselves to meddle in public and in
rivate with divine things. e Either a calling without a gift, or
gift without a calling. What say you to them that have
either, but fetch their run for all that, and leap quite over
ift and calling, Christ and the Holy Ghost both, and chop
Qto the work at the first dash? that put themselves into
•usinesses which they have neither fitness for, nor calling
o?' And our prelate justly observes that the gift should
recede the calling : and as no man comes to Christ but by
be Holy Ghost, so no man to the catting but by the gift.
£et how fearfully, how generally, is this still lost sight of!
Still but comparatively little regard is had to the office and
dignity of the Holy Ghost, whose it is to make men overseers
of the flock which the Lord hath purchased with his own blood.
On July 4th we find Andrewes on a commission for de
fective titles.
Upon August 5th Andrewes preached at Windsor the
anniversary sermon on the Gowrie Conspiracy, from 1 Sam.
xxiv. 5. He again touched upon the treasons of the Romanists,
and on the assassination of Henry III. and IV. of France.
Chamberlain dined with Andrewes, and did not leave him
until half-past five. The weather was so hot, and he so
faint and wet, that he was fain to go to bed for some little
time after he came out of the pulpit.1
On the 15th Andrewes wrote from Farnham to his Arch
deacon to forward to his clergy copies of the King's Letter :
1. to limit preachers to such topics as are in the Articles and
Homilies ; 2. to enjoin that (except funeral sermons) none
shall preach in the afternoon, but on the Catechism or on
some text taken from the Ten Commandments or the Lord's
Prayer, and those to be most encouraged who spend the
afternoon in catechising ; 3. to restrain preaching on predesti
nation, election, or reprobation, or the universality, efficacy,
resistibility or irresistibility of grace; 4. that in respect of
the royal prerogative, they shall in their public teaching be
regulated by the Homilies upon obedience, &c.j 5. to forbid
all violent invectives against the persons of Papists and
Puritans, but modestly and gravely to touch upon the con
troversies relating to them as the text may call the preacher
to it ; 6. that the Bishops be more wary in licensing preachers,
and that lecturers be licensed only on the recommendation of
the Bishop, with a fiat from the Archbishop, and confirmation
under the great seal.2
It may well be doubted whether this was a wise extension
of the royal authority. It is especially to be noted that
Heylyn himself supposes that Laud had a hand in drawing
up these instructions.
Doublet, in a letter to Vossius from London, August 16th,
informs Vossius of William Knight of Broadgate Hall, Ox
ford, who, on Palm Sunday, had maintained in a sermon that
it was lawful for subjects to take up arms in defence of religion
against the King, and on being called into question for his
doctrine, defended himself by the authority of Parseus.
Upon this occasion Andrewes himself, with other bishops,
directed a mandatory letter to the Vice-Chancellor and Heads
of Houses at Oxford, intimating to them their judgment
in this case. Doublet with his own epistle sent to Vossius
the decree of the University of Oxford condemnatory of
Paraeus On the Romans, and speaks of the theological tem
perament of the University of Cambridge as somewhat over
heated in regard of such as were strictly for the Genevan
Eeformation, either through their great animosity to every
thing savouring of Puritanism, or through their inclination to
the opinions of the Kemonstrants. He was at Cambridge
during the Commencement. There he heard very warm
disputes upon predestination, free-will, and other kindred
points; some strongly maintaining the side of the Bemon-
strants against Dr. Balcanqual. He was informed by one
and another of the Doctors to whom he had introductions
from Bishop Andrewes, that it was a doubt which was the
greater party in the University, the Eemonstrants or the
Anti-Bemonstrants. The Vice-Chancellor himself (Dr. Leo
nard Mawe), he adds, was l remonstrantissimus' He found
many much attached to Vossius, especially Balcanqual and
Dr. Jerome Beale.1
On September 13th Vossius wrote to Bishop Andrewes,
thanking him with much affection for his kindness to his
son-in-law Francis Junius, and that at a time when Junius
was suffering from the neglect of his other friends.2
Bishop Andrewes had commended Junius to the Earl of
Arundel, the Marshal of England, who took him into his
family, and with whom he long continued.
The Earl of Arundel was one of the greatest patrons
of the fine arts whom this age produced. A part of his
noble collection remains in the hands of the University
of Oxford. He in the reign of James relinquished the
errors of Komanism, and appears to have enjoyed the con
fidence of his sovereign. The succeeding monarch created
him Earl of Norfolk, but would not raise him to the Dukedom.
He was variously looked upon, by some with suspicion, as he
would not live in dependence upon the smiles and favour of
the Court. He took no part in the subsequent commotions,
but went over to Italy, where he died at Padua October 4,
1646.
Upon Wednesday, Christmas-day, Bishop Andrewes pro
ceeded with the history of the Wise Men's coming. Here, he
said, are three stars, the star in the firmament, the star of
faith in their hearts, and Christ himself, the bright and
morning star. Their faith believed that he, though of the
Jews, had relation to them ; that benefit was to come to them
by him ; that therefore their worship was due to him. They
did the work of faith, they confessed him boldly. They had
a faith that was well grounded. They had seen his star.
They most probably were led to that star by Balaam's
prophecy, that a King should arise who should not only smite
the corners of Moab, that is Balak their enemy, for the
present ; but should reduce and bring under him all the sons
of Seth, that is, all the world. For all are now Seth's sons ;
Cain's were all drowned in the flood. The West had some
glimmering of knowledge of this star. It is seen in Virgil's
sixth Eclogue, but not having the word of prophecy they
missed it. So this, this book must be our morning light,
a more sure word of prophecy, as St. Peter saith. And
besides these, there must be a light within, in the eye. And
that must come from him and the enlightening of his Spirit.
The work of their faith they shewed in that they came. They
left their country, and so walked in the steps of the faith of
Abraham ; did Abraham's first work. They came not a short
journey, as the shepherds, but a long and wearisome one over
the deserts and rocks and insecure ways of Arabia, and in
the worst season. And they set out without delay. No
sooner did they see the star than forthwith they set out. And
having come they inquired where he was born ; they enquired
of the scribes; they went not to a conventicle but to the
church. And as they enquired themselves, so must we, and
seek Christ not by another but by ourselves.
And they came and worshipped him, not in hypocrisy, as
Herod at his birth, or the other Herod at his death. They
came and found him in a stable, and yet they turned not away.
They find him in so humble a state that he might seem more
like to be abhorred than adored of such persons. lt Will they
be as good as their word, trow ? Will they not step back at
the sight, repent themselves of their journey, and wish them
selves at home again? But so find him, and so finding,
worship him for all that ? If they will, verily then great is
their faith"
u The Queen of the south, who was a figure of these
Kings of the east, she came as great a journey as these. But
when she came she found a king indeed, King Solomon in all
his royalty • saw a glorious king and a glorious court about
him ; saw him and heard him ; tried him with many hard
questions, received satisfaction of them all. This was worth her
coming. Weigh what she found and what these here : as poor
and unlikely a birth as could be ever to prove a king, or any
great matter. No sight to comfort them, nor a word for which
they any whit the wiser : nothing worth their travell. Weigh
these together, and great odds will be found between her faith
and theirs. Theirs the greater far."
CHAPTER XXII.
Page 488
Easter, 1623 — Cluverius — Bishop Andrewes foresees the coming
dangers — The Isle of Jersey.
FROM Laud's diary we find the name of Andrewes once
more involved in secular and state affairs. On the 23rd of
February, 1623, he, with Laud, Villiers, Marquess of Buck
ingham, and the Lords Arundel and Pembroke, appear to
have made up the Commission of Grievances.
On the 26th of the same month he preached before the
Court upon the fruits meet for repentance. Better had it been
if he had more dwelt upon the motives to it. Useless indeed
is a repentance that does not exercise the heart, and humble
both the soul and the body, and put both to grief. But first
there must be the root, and he who should look for the fruit
without watering the root itself, would but fall into the
extreme of superstition by way of avoiding that of irreverence.
His Easter-day sermon for the 13th of April is not liable
to any such objections. Amongst the latest, it is also amongst
the best of Bishop Andrewes' discourses. It is taken from
the beginning of the 63rd chapter of Isaiah. There is
throughout a vividness and depth of colouring that could
proceed only from such a hand. He brings before our eyes
the winepress of redemption and the winepress of triumphal
retribution ; the first in which the Lord himself was trodden
under foot, the second in which he treads down his enemies,
hell itself, the spiritual Edom, the most inveterate of all the
foes of Israel. Over Edom, strong as it was, David cast his
shoe, that is, set his foot upon it, and trod it down. And
Bozra, as impregnable a hold as it was holden, yet David
won it, was led into the strong city ; led into it and came
thence again. So did the son of David, this day from his
Edom, death, how strongsoever, yet swallowed up in victory
this day. In 0 death where is thy victory he supposes an
allusion to ' the Eoman standard that had in it the image of
the goddess Victory.'
Here having direct occasion he passes not over the doctrine
of our justification, and that as he had done elsewhere, Christ,
he saith, * laid by his own righteousness to be clothed with
our sin : he to wear our colours that we his : he in our red
that we in his white. So we find our robes are not only
washed clean, but dyed a pure white in the blood of the
Lamb. Yea, he died and rose again both in our colours, that
we might die and rise too in his.' And again, a little after,
' He in Mount Golgotha, like to us ; that we in Mount Tabor,
like to him.'
On the 13th of June we find Vossius writing to our prelate,
expressing his grief upon the death of their common friend
Cluverius,1 who had left his young family but a poor in
heritance. But he is comforted from the consideration that
their grandmother survives, herself an Englishwoman and of
good parentage. She was preparing to come to England
to claim her property, at that time unjustly detained from her.
He begs of Bishop Andrewes to put her cause into the hands
of some honest and sufficient person. He mentions with
cordial and not undeserved commendation the unparalleled
benevolence of Andrewes, as eminent as his great learning.
He complains that antiquity finds now but few admirers, and
that solid learning is out of favour.
Upon Sunday, July 20th, Bishop Andrewes administered
to the ambassadors the oath for the observance of the articles
with Spain. This was celebrated at Whitehall Chapel with
great ceremony, all of which is fully detailed in Nichols'
Progresses of King James? The marriage-treaty, however,
and the consequent articles with it fell to the ground. Our
unhappy nation was to be ruined from another quarter.
Bishop Andrewes was appointed to preach before the King
on the oth of August, and prepared a sermon which from
some cause or other does not appear to have been delivered.
After the 5th of October, the day of the return of Prince
Charles from Spain, occurred the following incident noted
down by Bishop Wren, Chaplain both to the Prince and to
Bishop Andrewes.
"After our return from Spain, my Lord of Winchester
(among other great expressions of his respects to me) made me
promise to him that upon all occasions of my coming to
London (for I abode still at Cambridge) I would lodge with
him ; to which end he caused three rooms near the garden2
to be fitted and reserved for me ; and twice or thrice I had
lodged there.
11 And at another time, coming suddenly to London and
late, I lodged at my sister's in Friday Street ; and the next
day being Friday, I went to Winchester House to dinner,
and craved his lordship's pardon that I lodged not there;
because that my business was to treat with some country
gentlemen who lay in Holborn, whom I should not meet with
but in the evening and morning, when it would not be safe
for me to pass the bridge or the Thames ; and so after dinner
I took my leave of him, hoping to return for Cambridge on
Monday.
" But on Saturday, going to do my duty to my Lords of
Durham [Neile] and St. David's [Laud], and telling them of
my sudden return, they would needs overrule me, and made
me promise them, though I had taken leave of my Lord of
Winchester, yet to meet them next day at Whitehall at my
lord's chambers at dinner. I did so, and there we sat after
dinner above an hour. And then, I shewing them that on the
morrow my business would be dispatched, and I would be
gone on Tuesday, I took my leave again of them all. But
on Monday morning by break of day (before they used to be
stirring in Friday Street) there was a great knocking at the
door where I lay ; and at last an apprentice who lay in the
shop came up to my bedside, and told me there was a
messenger from Winchester House to speak with me. The
business was to let me know that my lord, when he came
from court last night, had given his steward charge to order
it so that I might be spoken with, and be required as from
him without fail to dine with him on Monday ; but to be at
Winchester House by ten of the clock, which 1 wondered the
more at, his lordship not using to come from his study till
near twelve. My business would hardly permit this ; yet
because of his lordship's importunity, I got up presently, and
into Holborn I went, and there made such dispatch that soon
after ten o'clock I took a boat and went to Winchester House,
where I found the steward at the Water-gate, waiting to let
me in the nearest way, who telling me that my lord had
called twice to know if I were come, I asked where his lord
ship was. He answered, in his great gallery (a place where
I knew his lordship scarce came once in a year), and thither
I going, the door was locked ; but upon my lifting the latch,
my lord of St. David's opened the door, and letting me in,
locked it again.
a There I found none but those three lords, who causing
me to sit down by them, my lord of Durham began to me :
1 Doctor, your lord here will have it so, I that am the unfittest
person must be the speaker. But this it is ; after you left us
yesterday at Whitehall, we, entering into farther discourse of
those things which we foresee and conceive will ere long come
to pass, resolved again to speak to you before you went hence.
We must know of you what your thoughts are concerning
your master the Prince. You have now been his servant
above two years, and you were with him in Spain. We
know he respects you well, and we know you are no fool, but
can observe how things are like to go.' ' What things, my
lord?' qut)th I. 'In brief,' said he, c how the Prince's heart
stands to the Church of England, that when God brings him
to the crown, we may know what to hope for?' My reply
was to this effect, that, however, I was the most unfit of any
to give my opinion herein, attending but two months in the
year, and then at a great distance, only in the closet and at
meals ; yet seeing they so pressed me, I would speak my mind
freely. So I said, f I know my master's learning is not equal
to his father's ; yet I know his judgment to be very right ; and
as for his affections in these particulars which your lordships
have pointed at, for upholding the doctrine and discipline
and right estate of the Church, I have more confidence of him
than of his father, in whom they say (better than I can) is
so much inconstancy in some particular cases.'
" Hereupon my lords of Durham and St. David's began to
argue with me, and required me to let them know upon what
ground I came to think thus of the Prince. I gave them my
reasons at large, and after many replyings (above an hour
together), then my lord of Winchester, who had said nothing
all the while, bespake me in these words : c Well, Doctor,
God send you may be a true prophet concerning your master's
inclinations in these particulars, which we are glad to hear
from you. I am sure I shall be a true prophet. I shall be in my
grave, and so shall you, my lord of Durham • but my lord of
St. David's and you, Doctor, will live to see that day that
your master will be put to it, upon his head and his crown,
without he will forsake the support of the Church.'
" Of this prediction made by that holy Father, I have now
no witness but mine own conscience and the eternal God, who
knows I lie not; nobody else being present when this was
spoken but these three lords."
Hence it would appear that whatsoever might be the
connivance of the King's advisers in the matter of the Spanish
match, they were not without their secret apprehensions.
They dreaded the return of Popery, and so questioned Wren
respecting the inclinations of the Prince. It is very certain
that Andrewes was more thoroughly imbued with a sense of
the essential evil of the Komish system than Laud, and
probably Neile himself was inferior to Andrewes in this
respect, as in every other. Neile was himself some years
younger than Andrewes, and lived to see the beginning of
those troubles of which the false friends of the Prince were
themselves so great and so guilty a cause.
Bishop Andrewes' sermon on Christmas-day, upon the
summing up of all things in Christ, displays his usual inge
nuity, piety, and learning, but is not equal in point of interest
to many of the preceding.
In the course of this year the Isle of Jersey was, after
many efforts throughout the greater part of this reign, brought
to conformity with the Church of England, and David Bandi-
nelli, an Italian and minister of St. Mary's, was appointed
Dean. A book of canons was then drawn up by the Dean
and ministers, and examined and corrected by Archbishop
Abbot, Bishop Williams, Lord Keeper, and Bishop Andrewes,
now Diocesan of Jersey. The rupture with Spain prevented
the application of the same regulations to the Isle of Guernsey.
CHAPTER XXIII.
Bishop Andrewes on Repentance and Fasting — Andrewes and Neile on
the King 's Prerogative — Meric Casaubon — The Death of King
James — Moderation of Andrewes — Fast Service — Richard Montagu
— Death of Andrewes.
BISHOP ANDREWES this year (1624) completed his doctrine
of repentance in his Ash- Wednesday sermon, February 10th.
The last five of the eight Ash- Wednesday sermons may be
regarded as one treatise. The first of them, from the 2nd
chapter of Joel, treats of repentance generally as a turning out
of the way of sin to God, a sincere turning with the heart,
and, for the manner of it, with fasting. This he commends
not only as preventive of sin but as a correction of it / wept
and chastened myself with fasting.1 For " if in very sorrow
we are to fast when the bridegroom is taken away, much more
when we ourselves, by our sins committed, have been the
cause of his taking, nay, of his very driving away from us.
And must we then fast ? Indeed we must, or get us a new
Epistle for the day, and a new Gospel too."
tl But how fast ? Two kinds of fasting we find in Scripture :
1. David's, who fasted, tasted neither bread nor aught till
the sun was down; no meat at all: that is too hard.
2. What say you to Daniel's fast? He did eat and drink,
but no meats of delight, and (namely) eat no flesh. The
Church as an indulgent mother mitigates all she may; enjoins
not for fast that of David, and yet he who can, let him receive
it for all that. She only requires of us that other of Daniel,
to forbear meat of delight (and flesh is there expressly named),
meats and drinks provoking the appetite, full of nourishment,
kindling the blood.
" And yet even this also doth the Church release to such
as are in Timothy's case, have many infirmities. It is not
the decay of nature but the chastisement of sin she seeketh.
But this must not be hypocritically taken advantage of. Then
weeping, and if we cannot weep, yet mourning is required.
Mourning they call the sorrow which reason itself can yield.
Complain and bemoan ourselves we can, and desire and pray
for some portion of the grace of tears. 0 that my head were
full of water, and mine eyes fountains of tears. And we can
humbly beseech our merciful God and Father, in default of
ours, to accept of the strong crying and bitter tears which, in
the days of his flesh, his blessed Son in great agony shed for
us. Our hearts must be rent, contrite, ground as it were
to powder, to feel that it is a bitter and an evil thing to have
turned away and forsaken the Lord. We must be angry
with ourselves, or we are not truly grieved with ourselves.
Indignation naturally seeks revenge. We must abhor our
selves for our sins, not from mere earthly principles, but for
the manifold indignities offered by our sins to God, to the
law of his justice, to the awe of his majesty, to the reverent
regard of his presence, to the dread of his power, and to the
long-suffering of his love. And let repentance be without
delay. Now is the only sure part of our time."
Then in the second discourse our prelate establishes the
duty of fasting from our Lord's own injunction in the 6th
chapter of St. Matthew, and this preceded by the constant
practice of the Old Testament saints ; the fast of Ai, under
Joshua;1 at Gibeah,2 under the Judges; at Mizpah, under
Samuel f at Hebron, under David ;4 of Jeremiah, before the
Captivity ;5 of Daniel under it ;6 of Zachary after it ;7 at
Jerusalem, of the Jews at the preaching of Joel ,8 at Nineveh,
of the Gentiles at the preaching of Jonas.1 And so the
Christians at Antioch, the prophets of the New Testament
there, as well as the prophets of the Old.2 So the rest of
Christ's ministers shewed themselves such by this proof of
fasting amongst others.3 And what themselves did, they
advised others to do, to give themselves to fasting and
prayer.4 In truth, it accompanied ever all great acts of
devotion, whether for the deprecating of evil, or the obtaining
of good.
He returns to treat of the time and circumstances. The
forty days' fast is sanctioned by Moses, Elias, and Christ, and
God gave the same number to the people of Nineveh to repent
in. We may here consider whether those go not a presump
tuous length, who deny anything of an exemplary nature in
the fast of our Saviour. As we take less pleasing meats, less
luxurious and dainty, so we may diminish the quantity and
put off the time. Cornelius fasted to three at noon, Peter to
twelve at noon.5
The third discourse is, as we have seen, against hypocrisy.
The fourth and fifth are upon the fruits of repentance. The
fruits are works meet for repentance. For spiritual sins let
us now bring forth prayer and works of devotion ; for fleshly,
bodily self-denial; for worldly, alms and works of charity,
and compassion.
'For the first Simon Magus went not through with his
bargain ; did but think the Holy Ghost had been ware for his
money, all was but thinking ; went no further than the Spirit.
St. Peter prescribes him what to do, to fall to prayer ; pray,
saith he, if it be possible, this thought of thy heart may be
forgiven thee. Prayer serves where it goes no further than
thought.
1 For the second, the king of Nineveh and his people, they
fell to fasting on all hands. What was their sin ? Nahum
will best tell us that : he wrote the burden of Nineveh. This
it was, Because of the fornications of the harlot. For that
kind of fleshly sin, that was the proper fruit.
For the third, one example shall be the King of Babylon.
He had been a mighty oppressor of his people. There have
ye now a worldly sin. Break off thine iniquities with mercy
to the poor, is Daniel's prescript to him.'1 These make up the
corrective or penal part of repentance.
But most certain it is that he denies to the best of our
works everything that is strictly of the nature of satisfaction.
' Shall we put them into the balance, to weigh the worthiness
of our fruits with the unworthiness of our sins, and the conse
quent of our sins, the wrath of God ? the dignity of the one
with the indignity of the other, and think by their dignity to
satisfy God's great indignation ? I trow not. At this beam
no fruits of ours will hold weight ; none so found worthy ; no,
not if we could, I say not, shed or pour out, but even melt
into tears, and every tear a drop of blood. The honour of
worthy in this sense belongs to the fruits of no tree but the
tree of the cross of Christ ; to his sufferings, and to none but
his.'2 To apportion to each his proper works of repentance,
that there may be no self-deception, he commends that the
minister of God be consulted. So it was of old time. ' In
the law every man was not left to himself. The offering for
sin, which was to them a fruit of repentance, it was rated ever,
ever taxed by the priest.3 According to his ordering, so it
went : he made the estimate, how much was enough, what
would serve. And here now in St. John's time — to St. John
they come with their What shall we do ? — and under the Gospel
there we see, for the Corinthian St. Paul said, This much is
enough, this shall serve : his conscience may be quiet ; I
restore him to the Church's peace. And the canons peni
tential which were made in the times under persecution, the
very best times of the Church, lay forth plainly what is to be
followed and observed in this kind.' He witnesses the general
neglect of casuistry of this kind, and laments over it. ' Truly
it is neither the least nor the last part of our learning, to be
able to give answer and directions in this point ; but therefore
laid aside and neglected by us, because not sought after by
you; therefore not studied but by very few, because it is
grown out of request quite.'
He who would faithfully treat both of repentance and the
fruits of repentance, may well consult Bishop Andrewes'
Manual for the Sick, edited by Dr. Drake in 1685.1
We find a sermon prepared to be preached on March 28th,
Easter-day, from the 18th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
the benediction toward the end of the chapter. It abounds in
pious applications of the text, but embraces too many points
to have been easily carried away by the auditory, the greatest
perhaps of all. the faults of that age of learned and truly able
preachers.
On May 29th, the day after the proroguing of Parliament,
Mr. Waller, "going to see the King at dinner, overheard a
very extraordinary conversation between his Majesty and
Bishops Andrewes and Neile, who were standing behind the
King's chair. His Majesty asked them, ' My lords, cannot
I take my subjects' money when I want it, without all this
formality in Parliament?' The Bishop of Durham readily
answered, 'God forbid, Sir, but you should; you are the
breath of our nostrils.' Whereupon the King turned and
said to Bishop Andrewes, 'Well, my lord, what say you?'
4 Sir,' replied the Bishop, ' I have no skill to judge of parlia
mentary cases.' The King answered, i No put-offs, my lord,
answer me presently.' l Then, Sir,' said he, ' I think it
lawful for you to take my brother Neile's money, for he
offers it.'"2
Bishop Andrewes' name frequently occurs upon committees
of the Peers in this and occasionally the following year. On
February 26th he was on a committee of privileges. On
March 1st he had leave to be absent. On March 8th he was
on a committee on the observance of the Lord's-day. On
March llth on the Bill respecting recusants made in the
third of this reign. On March 12th on a committee to
prevent the carrying of gold out of the country by bills of
exchange, « and, as they conceive, by the Papists.' On March
16th on a committee to enable Prince Charles to make leases
of lands parcel of the Duchy of Cornwall. On May 29th, at
eight in the morning, respecting an Act for the confirmation
and continuance of hospitals and free-schools that had been
called in question. About this time Dr. Field, Bishop of
Llandaff, was to be admonished in the Convocation House
before the Bishops, a charge having been laid against him
by the Archbishop of dealing in bribery.1 On May 31st
Andrewes was placed on a committee, " the session not to be
closed by the royal assent being given to some acts."2
In the month of August our prelate was afflicted with
a very dangerous illness at his palace at Waltham, Hants.
On the 6th of August he wrote to Dr. Fenton. His rest was
disturbed and his whole system disordered. His appetite
for meat had left him. " No drink," he says, to me." He also suffered great pain in his left side. After
detailing his symptoms, he adds : " This I hope will make
you to come. I have sent my own coach for you to be here
on Tuesday. I would it could be sooner, but not to fail of
you then. You shall never come more welcome. Till then
and for ever God have you in his keeping. Waltham, 6 Aug.
1624.
" Your very assured loving friend,
"LA. WINTON."
He complains in a P.S. that he is disappointed in respect
of his brother and his wife ; " so that," he adds, " you are like
to come alone. You shall be never a wit the loser, but better
welcome. See you come in any wise."
But we find him named in a committee on a private bill
the following 1st of December) again on Saturday, December
the 5th, to meet at eight A.M. in the Painted Chamber on a
committee for making the Thames navigable for barges, boats,
or lighters from the village of Bercott (Buscott or Burwardscot
in Berkshire) to Oxford. On that day he was also on a
commission for the banishing of Jesuits and Seminary Priests.
In December 16243 the King was a third time in Cam-
bridge (having paid two visits to the University in 1615),
and kept his court at Trinity College. Prince Charles also
was with him ; and here Monsieur de Villiariler and the
Marquis d' Effiat, Embassadors Extraordinary from the King
of France, had audience of his Majesty, who, on the 12th of
December, signed here the ratification of the treaty with
France respecting the marriage of the Prince of Wales with
the Princess Henrietta Maria. The King was confined with
the gout in his hands and arms, but the Prince, Embassadors,
and Nobility were entertained with public disputations, &c.
There was an extraordinary Commencement, when many
degrees were granted.1
i Doctors created by his Majesty's letters-patent :
Shaw, Peterhouse.
John Leslie, Trinity, took no other degree.
Anthony Topham, Trinity (Fellow), B.A. 1605, M.A. 1609, B.D. 1616.
Thomas Rayment, Peterhouse, M.A. 1606.
Laurence Burnell, John's, B.A. 1600, M.A. 1604.
Alexander Reade, Pembroke, B.A. 1604-5 — 1608.
Gabriel Moore, Christ, B.A. 1605-6, M.A. 1609.
John Towers, Queens', B.D. 1615.
Abraham Gibson, John's, B.A. 1606-7, M.A. 1610, B.D. 1617.
Thomas Warner, Emmanuel, B.A. 1604-5, M.A. 1608.
Amongst those who received the degree of M.A. were Sir Kenelm Digby
and Sir "William Fleetwood.
Richard Bagnall intruded himself, and his name not being found in the King's
list, he was three days after (*'. e. the 16th) deprived of his degree.
The King, by a letter to the University on the 17th, gave instructions that
all persons so taking their degrees should promise to perform the usual exercises
according to the statutes and customs of the University.*
Dr. Anthony Topham was Vicar of Trumpington, and 7th September, 1629,
installed Dean of Lincoln. He retired, after the loss of his preferment, to
Clayworth, to the south of the road between Bawtry and Gainsborough, and
died there October 22, 1655.
Dr. Thomas Rayment, or Raymond, of Peterhouse, was at this time Preben
dary of Milton Ecclesia in the church of Lincoln, to which he had been collated
November 17th, 1620, and installed January 19th, 1621. He was also Prebendary
of Chamberlainswode in the church of St. Paul's, London, and Archdeacon of
St. Alban's. He died in his 47th year November 4th, 1631, and was buried in
St. Paul's. The Latin inscription on his gravestone is given in Dugdale's
St. Paul's, and in Browne Willis's Survey of Lincoln Cathedral, p. 221.
* See Mr. Charles H. Cooper's Annals of Cambridge, vol. iii. p. 171.
Of this visit to Cambridge of King James with Andrewes,
Isaak Walton relates in his Life of George Herbert, " the year
following the King appointed to end his progress at Cam
bridge, and to stay there certain days ; at which time he was
Dr. John Towers of Norfolk was B.A of Queens' College, Cambridge, 1602,
M.A. 1606, Fellow of his College, B.D. 1615. His letter to Sir J}hn Lamb, to
intercede for him with Laud for the bishopric of Peterborough, is given in p. 354
of Prynne's Compleat History of the Trial and Condemnation of William Laud,
Archbishop of Canterbury. He was accordingly promoted from the Deanry, to
which he had been nominated 14th November, 1630, to the see of Peterborough
November 21, 1638. He was consecrated 1639 by Laud, Juxon, Bishop of
London, Curie, Bishop of "Winchester, Wren, Bishop of Ely, and "Warner, Bishop
of Rochester. Prynne gives also this prelate's orders for and concerning the
sermon weekly on "Wednesday in St. James's Chapel, Brackley, September 14th,
1639. These orders contain the names of the clergy appointed to preach the
lecture, the time of the service, which was nine A.M., and the order of divine
service. By these instructions it appears that the whole morning service was to
be read as now, i. e. the Morning Prayer, Litany, and the Communion Service,
" commonly called the second service." A psalm was to be sung after the Litany.
The preacher was to go up into the pulpit immediately after the Nicene Creed, in
his surplice and hood. He was to use no form of prayer before sermon, but the
bidding prayer as set down in the 55th Canon. Only he might, if he would, insert
"the names of the Universities and of his College, or of his patron, he being one
qualified by law to have a chaplain." The sermon was to be at the utmost
within the compass of an hour, and no prayer was to be used after it, but it was
to end with Glory be to God, &c. ; and after the sermon the preacher was to
return to the Communion-table, and read the prayer for the whole state of
Christ's Church, &c., and one or two of the Collects at the end of the Communion
Service, and lastly the blessing, The Peace of God, &c. If the prayers were
neglected or deserted, the lecture was to be altogether discontinued. Dr. Towers
died January 10th, 1649, and was buried in his cathedral near his predecessor
Bishop Dee, without any memorial, in the middle of the choir. The choir of
this cathedral was, until at least about the middle of the last century, much
more spacious than at present. It commenced with the last pillar but one on
either side the nave, thus standing partly beneath the lantern tower. It is
now much too contracted for the wants of the city.
Dr. Laurence Burnell was B.A. of St. John's College, Cambridge, 1601,
M. A. 1604, Chancellor of Exeter July 20th, 1624. He died in his 68th year,
November 12th, 1647.
Dr. John Lesley, of Trinity College, was Bishop of Sodor August 17, 1628,
and was translated to Raphoe in Ireland in 1633.
Dr. Reade, who was minister of Yately, Hants, has been already mentioned in
the account of the royal visit to Cambridge in 1615.
Gabriel Moore, of Christ College, was Taxor in 1616 and Proctor in 1620,
Prebendary of the first stall at Westminster March 8, 1632. He held it until
the Usurpation.
attended by the great secretary of nature and all learning, Sir
Francis Bacon (Lord Verulam), and by the ever memorable
and learned Doctor Andre wes, Bishop of Winchester, both
which did at that time begin a desired friendship with our
orator." " And for the learned Bishop, it is observable that
at that time there fell to be a modest debate betwixt them
two about predestination and sanctity of life ; of both which
the orator did not long after send the Bishop some safe and
useful aphorisms in a long letter written in Greek; which
letter was so remarkable for the language and reason of it,
that after the reading it the Bishop put it into his bosom, and
did often shew it to many scholars both of this and foreign
nations, but did always return it back to the place where he
first lodged it, and continued it so near his heart till the last
day of his life."1
This same year Bishop Andrewes preached his last
Christmas-day sermon before the King, from the 2nd Psalm^
TJiou art my Son, &c. ; first, treating of them as spoken to our
Lord; secondly, as the law preached by him to all that are
adopted into the family of God.
About this time he preferred Meric the son of Isaac
Casaubon, but far his inferior in learning, to the Rectory of
Bleadon, a small village west of Axbridge in Somersetshire.
He was bora at Geneva in August 1599, but coming over
with his father was admitted at Christ Church, Oxford, and
in 1621 published a vindication of his deceased father against
the false rumours and artifices of the Papists, Heribert Rosweid,
a Jesuit, Andrew Scioppius, Julius Caesar Bullinger, and the
traitor of 1605 (the favourite of the great Anglo-Romish
historian), Andrew Eudsemon Joannes. After the death of
Andrewes Laud became Casaubon's patron,2 and preferred
him in 1628 to a prebendal stall in Canterbury.
Fuller, in his Church History, b. xi. I. § 46, says that
Andrewes' gravity in a manner awed King James, who re
frained from that mirth and liberty in the presence of this
prelate, which otherwise he assumed to himself. However
the King highly esteemed his wit, which as it shone forth in
all his writings, his sermons not excepted, would doubtless
have given an unrivalled charm to his conversation. Those
who enjoyed the society of the late incomparable Bishop of
Lincoln will never fail to remember that unaffected playfulness
which never lost sight of the higher requisites of conversation.
Both were perhaps the greatest patristic scholars of their day,
both eminent for their benevolence, and both have left behind
them monuments of as learned piety as their several ages can
boast.
On January 1st, 1625, Andrewes was on the High Com
mission.
His royal master in his last illness desired his attend
ance, but by reason of a severe fit of the stone and gout,
at the same time, he was unable to be with him. The King,
however, had the comfort of the presence of Abbot and
Williams, both soon to lose the best of masters, and to fall
into great and undeserved disgrace. The King ended his
days in much peace of mind. He was indeed but too incon
stant, and an uncertain friend to that religion in which he
professed to die, and in defence of which he had written with
sufficient learning. He was a true patron of learning, and
protector of the rights and revenues of the Church. But he
lived in the contaminating atmosphere of flattery, from the
shameless adulation of Whitgift at the Hampton Conference1
to that of Neile standing behind his table. He was indolent
and irresolute, seeing a better way than that which he would
walk in, and thus guilty of injustice which he but inade
quately regretted. He left his throne to a son weaker and
more arbitrary, but less conciliating, and far less versed in
theoretical wisdom. He left him to young and inexperienced
counsellors, who soon aggravated the difficulties with which the
crown was already environed, and raised up a host of enemies
to the Church by attempting innovations both in doctrine and
ceremonies. Andrewes was always of an unambitious and
quiet spirit. Laud took the place which he alone was fitted
to occupy, and Villiers soon thrust aside Williams.
On Wednesday, March 24th, our prelate was one of a
committee of the Lords for the confirmation of Wadham
College and its possessions. It had been founded in 1610.
On March 27, Midlent Sunday, whilst Laud was preaching
at Whitehall, news was brought in of the King's death.1 He
died at Theobalds about three-quarters of an hour past eleven
in the forenoon. The King fell sick March 4th, on Friday.
On the 1st of April Laud received letters from the Earl of
Pembroke, Lord Chamberlain to the King, and therein a
command to preach before him and the House of Peers in the
opening of Parliament to be held on the 17th of May. This
Parliament, however, was deferred to the 18th of June, and
on the 19th Laud preached before the King at Whitehall.2
Abbot and Andrewes were both henceforth superseded
most effectually, and Laud became the real primate and
director of all ecclesiastical affairs. So on April 5th he de
livered to the Duke of Buckingham a list of divines marked
O and P, Orthodox and Puritans. Thus was all church
patronage placed at once under his influence. After this most
responsible step had been taken he received a command to go
to Andrewes, and learn from him what he would have done
in the cause of the Church, and especially in regard of pre
destination. There can be little doubt that this was in con
sequence of Laud's own suggestion. The next day being
Sunday, April 10th, he went to Bishop Andrewes, who was
then in his chamber at court. He acquainted him with what
he had received in command. Andrewes gave Laud his
answer, but the purport of it we learn from Laud's chaplain
and panegyrist Heylyn. It accorded with the moderation
and experience of Andrewes, and, by advising that nothing be
done, and no controversies stirred, checked the ardent spirit of
Laud. There can indeed be no doubt that their opinions
and whole theology varied widely. Laud denied the character
of a Church to every communion that was not episcopal ; not
so Andrewes; as may be seen in his letters to Du Moulin.
Andrewes maintained that the Pope was Antichrist, Laud
that he was not. Andrewes never deserted the doctrine of
St. Augustine on predestination; Laud was at this time, in
all probability, at least a concealed Arminian. With much
subtlety and little ingenuousness both he and Neile indirectly
answered to the charge of Arminianism when it was objected
to them in the latter part of this reign, v Laud's answer on his
trial was, ' I have nothing to do to defend Arminianism,
no man having yet charged me with the abetting any point
of it.'1
On June 6th, Whit-Monday, Laud and Andrewes dined
together with Buckeridge, Bishop of Bochester, at his house
at Bromley.
On June 7th he was on a commission for mortgaging some
of the crown lands to Edward Allen and others.2
On Friday, June 24th, Andrewes was, with Laud, Moun
tain, Bishop of London, Neile, Bishop of Durham, Buckeridge,
Bishop of Rochester, Harsnet, Bishop of Norwich, and Abbot
the Archbishop, appointed to advise concerning a public fast
and a form of prayer, to implore the divine mercy on occasion
of the spreading of the plague, and the extraordinarily wet
weather which threatened a famine ; and also to beg the divine
blessing upon the fleet now ready to put to sea. This form of
prayer was altered and enlarged from that which was put
forth in 1563, which had also been used with some altera
tions and accommodations in 1603, on occasion of the plague
that raged at the time of the late King's coronation. The
same responses were now used instead of the 95th Psalm,
and for the psalms the seven penitential psalms, the 6th,
32nd, 38th, 51st, 102nd, 130th, and 143rd, were read at the
morning prayer; and at the evening prayer the 9th, 39th,
86th, 90th, and 91st. The lessons were Deuteronomy xxviii.
and xxx., 1 Kings viii., 2 Sam. xxiv., Joel ii., Jonah iii.,
i Wharton's History of Laud's Troubles and Trial, p. 352. 2 Rymer.
St. Matthew vi. or viii. or ix., and St. Luke xiii. or xxi. The
prayer, '0 almighty, most just, and merciful God,' was
altered so as to be less pointedly opposed to Eomanism : for
the words hitherto used, f thou hast delivered us from all
horrible and execrable idolatry,' were substituted, 'thou
hast delivered us from superstition and idolatry.' To this
form was appended as a preface the prayer for the High
Court of Parliament, since excellently altered and inserted
into the Liturgy. After 'the welfare of our sovereign and
his kingdoms,' it proceeded, 'Lord, look upon the humility
and devotion with which they are come into thy courts ; and
they are come into thy house in assured confidence upon the
merits and mercies of Christ (our blessed Saviour), that thou
wilt not deny them the grace and favour which they beg of
thee. Therefore, O Lord, bless them with all that wisdom
which thou knowest necessary to speed and bring great
designs into action, and to make the maturity of his Majesty's
and their counsels the happiness and the blessing of this
commonwealth. These and all other necessaries for them,
for us, &c. For the second lesson at the evening service were
appointed 1 Cor. x. to the 16th verse, I Cor. xiii., or 2 Cor.
ix., or 1 Thess. iv. The homily put forth in 1603 was
printed at the end of the prayers.
On the 23rd of July the Bishop promoted his brother
Dr. Roger Andrewes, Master of Jesus College, to the sixth
stall in Winchester Cathedral, on the death of William Barlow,
Archdeacon of Salisbury.
On September 8tli Andrewes was on a commission for
charitable uses, to inquire into the disposition of the property
of Andrew Windsor, Esq., who had bequeathed property for
the support of eight poor persons in an almshouse founded by
himself at Farnham. The gift was declared good.1
This year a third of the inhabitants of London and of the
suburbs died of the plague. Andrewes gave 100 marks
during this time to the parish of St. Saviour's, Southwark.
Buckeridge adds in his funeral sermon, that since the year
1620 he gave in private alms to the sum of £1340.
In Secretary Conway's Letter Book is the following
minute : "To Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester, to
admit Dr. Middleton to the place of Confessor of the House
hold," October, 1625. This was the occasion of the following
letter from our prelate :
" R.T. HON. AND MY VEET GOOD LoED,
"Your lordship's from Salisbury of the 25th October came
not to my hand till this day the 4th November, lest your lordship
should impute the delay of mine answer to any neglect of dutie.
May it please your lordship to be advertised that there hath nothing
been done in this matter of the Confessorship but with the know
ledge and by order of his Majestic.
" Mr. Beckett, the confessor that now is, and that hath been for
a great part of the time of our late Sovereign Lord King James
(whose remembrance be ever in blessing) had the grant of that place
not by me, but by Bishop Montague my predecessor, then Dean of
the Chapel, to whom appertaineth the gift of that place, to appoint
one of his own chaplains (as by the Book of the Household appeareth,
and as ever hath been used).
"It hath ever been the most gracious goodness of the Kings and
Queens, his Majestie's precedessors, so far to commiserate their poor
servants, as if the hand of God were upon them (as upon Mr.
a stall in that cathedral, and made him Archdeacon of Chichester 23rd February,
1608, as he had previously made him Chancellor October 16th, 1606. He was
the first who commenced a College Register. He was undoubtedly deserving of
promotion, for his learning obtained for him a place amongst the translators of
the Bible in the reign of King James. He died in 1635. He was succeeded in
his stall at "Winchester by Dr. Thomas Buckner, in his Mastership by Dr.
William Beale, brother of Jerome, Master of Pembroke College. His stall at
Southwell he resigned in 1631, and was succeeded by Dr. Henry "Willis. John
Scull was on his decease appointed Chancellor, and Laurence Pay Archdeacon
of Chichester.
Beckett it hath been now for these few years past, hath been stricken
with a palsy, not yet recovered), they could continue in their place
still, and serve them by a deputy.
" It may please his Majestic to call to mind, that not long after
his happy coming to the crown, upon the humble petition of Mr.
Beckett, his Majestic' s pleasure was to me signified by my Lord
Duke of Buckingham, and after by his Majestic himself, that he
would have Mr. Beckett continue in the place during his life;
whereupon he was orderly sworn by me. This as among the
multitude of far more weighty affairs it very well may, so it is
likely his Majestic calleth not to his remembrance. Under reforma
tion and craving pardon, I thought it to stand with my duty to
make this known. May it please it your lordship to put his Majestic
in mind thereof. And his memory being informed, his pleasure
shall be fulfilled, as becometh me.
" I beseech your lordship to bear with and to support this my
imperfect manner of writing, who have been under the hand of God
sick of an ague these seven weeks, for the most part forced to keep
my bed, where your letter found me. I remain while I live, to
pray and to wish your lordship continuance and increase of health,
honour and happiness from God, who long preserve you.
" In all duty and service
" At your lordship's commandment,
"LA. WlNTON.
" Bishop' s Waltham,
"Novemb. 4, 1625." l
Thus early was the very patronage of Andrewes as Dean
of the Chapel Koyal invaded, and that with the royal
sanction. So little reverence did the Sovereign shew to
his recently departed father's most deserving friend and
favourite. Had Abbot been removed before Andrewes from
his trials to that world for which his afflictions doubtless
ripened him, nothing can be more improbable than that
Andrewes would have been raised to Canterbury. Laud
would not have declined such an opportunity — Laud, who
was already aiming at the metropolitan functions.
On December the 8th Bishop Andrewes wrote as follows
to the Lords of the Council :
" RT. Hotf. MY VERY GOOD LOEDS,
" Your Lordships' letters of the 30th October I received on
Monday night last (the 5th of this present), wherein I am required
1 In the margin is as follows :
" (By his Majestie himself] in the gallerie at Whitehall, my Lord Chamberlain
and divers others then present."
to signify to the Lord Marquess of Winchester and to his son (the
Lord St. John) his Majestie's pleasure touching the removing of
their arms and other habiliments of war, and taking them into my
custodie.
" My Lords, I would my body were to my mind, and wish with
all my heart, that for the present state of my health, I were as able
to perform this service as I shall ever be found willing readily to
obey and to execute any of his Majestie's commands, or your Lord
ships' letters, to the uttermost of my endeavours. But at this present
God hath laid upon me the ague, the stone, and the gout all at
once. The ague hath held me these twelve weeks and more, and is
now come to plain tertian, which forceth me (being now low brought)
to keep my bed every other day. And within these three weeks I
have had at times three grievous fits of stone in the bladder, which
afflicteth me still. And to both these is now come the gout, to make
me more unhable for undertaking a journey, or taking on me a
matter of so great importance. All which, offering to your Lord
ships' grave judgment (that his Majestie's service sustain no preju
dice), I humbly desire your favourable report to his Majestie of my
weak estate. And the business requiring speed, that your Lordships
will be pleased to think of some other that are not only for the state
of their health and strength of their bodies, but besides better hable
every way than myself. Or, if it be required that I do it, that I may be
respited some time till it please God I may recover some strength to
go about it. Which I write not as any way unwilling to any of
his Majestie's service in this kind (for I shall be ever most ready to
execute it or any the like to the uttermost of my power), but only
that as my case is I have neither health nor strength to perform it.
" And here withal I have returned the letter sent to the two
Lords, expecting his Majestie's further pleasure and your Lord
ships' command, whereto my ability I will ever yield due obedience.
Beseeching God with all his graces ever to bless that most honourable
board at all your meetings, and to crown your consultations with all
prosperous success.
"At your Et. Honourable Lordships'
" Commandment,
"In all humble duty and service,
" LA. WINTON.
" Bishop's Waltham,
"Decemb. 8, 1625."
On January 16, 1626, by the King's command a con
sultation was held to resolve what should be done in the case
of Richard Mountague. This learned and able writer, now
Dean of Hereford and one of the King's Chaplains, had
given great offence, not to the Puritans only, but to many
whom it would be unjust to characterize by that name.
He had, in answer to a proselytist who troubled his parish
of Stanford Rivers near Ongar, put forth in 1624 a work
entitled A New Gag for an Old Goose, &c. This book
was severely animadverted upon by Yates and Ward,1 two
Puritan ministers of Ipswich. Antony Wotton, Divinity
Professor of Gresham College, afterwards entered into the
controversy in as severe a spirit, but with far more ability.
To Ward and Yates Mountagu replied in his Appello Ccesarem,
A Just Appeal from Two Unjust Informers. This second
work is written with gall rather than with ink, and proved its
author to be indeed what in that age would have entitled
him to be called ' a man of a stout spirit.' True it is, how
ever, that the two informers exaggerated his offences. In
Bishop Carleton Mountagu found a far more formidable
opponent. This prelate had himself taken part in the Synod
of Dort, and was well read in Christian antiquity. He wrote
piously and gravely, and without mingling false charges with
true, exposed the subtlety, sophistry, and inconclusiveness of
Mountagu, where he innovated upon the then received doctrine
of the Church. His examination of Mountagu's errors he
dedicated to King Charles, but it may be questioned whether
that monarch had either the knowledge or the impartiality
requisite for so deep and (to speak the truth) repulsive a
subject.
Upon the assembling of the Commons June 21, 1625,
amongst other subjects they took into consideration the
alleged errors of Mountagu. In the late reign the cause was
put into the hands of Archbishop Abbot, and ended in an
admonition being given to Mountagu.
Afterward the Bishops of the Arminian party, says Rush-
worth, consulted the propagation of the five articles condemned
in the Synod of Dort, [and] concluded that Mr. Mountagu,
being already engaged in the quarrel, should publish his
Appeal to Casarj at first attested by their joint authority,
which afterward they withdrew by subtlety, having pro
cured the subscription of Dr. Francis White,1 whom they left
to appear alone in the testimony, as himself ofttimes com
plained publicly. The Archbishop disallowed the book and
sought to suppress it ; nevertheless it was printed and dedi
cated to King Charles, whereby that party did endeavour to
engage him in the beginning of his reign. Mountagu himself,
on the contrary, asserts in his Epistle Dedicatory to King
Charles , that his royal father acquitted him of all the charges
that were brought against him, and gave express order to Dr.
White, Dean of Carlisle, for the authorising and publishing
thereof.
The Commons appointed a committee to examine the
errors therein, and gave the Archbishop thanks for the admo
nition given to the author, whose books they voted to be
contrary to the articles established by the Parliament, to tend
to the King's dishonour and disturbance of Church and State,
and took bond for his appearance. Hereupon the King
intimated to the House that the things determined concerning
Mountagu without his knowledge did not please him, for that
he was his servant and chaplain-in-ordinary, and he had
taken the business into his own hands ; whereat the Commons
seemed to be much displeased.2
It is reported that the King at one time thought of
leaving Mountagu to the Parliament, and to this that
reflection in Laud's Diary was supposed by some to refer:
1 1 seem to see a cloud arising, and threatening the Church of
England; God for his mercy dissipate it!' This occurs in
Laud's Diary January 29 : ' Jan. 29. Sunday. I understood
what D. B. had collected concerning the cause, book, and
opinions of Richard Mountague, and what E. C.' [King
Charles] ' had determined with himself therein. Methinks
I see a cloud rising/ &C.1
On January 16th, about a fortnight before the preceding
observation of Laud, he, with Monteigne, Neile, and Bucker-
idge, met at Winchester House, where they together with
Bishop Andrewes signed a letter, doubtless very satisfactory
to the King and sufficiently exculpatory of Mountagu. The
letter was addressed to the royal favourite, the Duke of
Buckingham :
"MAY IT PLEASE YOTTB, GltACE,
" Upon your late letters directed to the Bp. of Winchester,
signifying his Maties pleasure that, taking to him the Bps. of
London, Durham, Rochester, Oxford, and St. David's, or some of
them, he and they should take into consideration the business con
cerning Mr. Mountagu' s late book, and deliver their opinions
touching the same, for the preservation of the truth and the peace
of the Church of England, together with the safety of Mr. Mountagu' s
person, we have met and considered, and for our particulars do
think, that Mr. Mountagu in his book hath not affirmed anything
to be the doctrine of the Church of England, but that which in our
opinion is the doctrine of the Church of England, or agreeable
thereunto. And for the preservation of the peace of the Church,
we in humility do conceive that his Matle shall do most graciously
to prohibit all parties, members of the Church of England, any
further controversy of those questions by public preaching, or
writing, or any other way to the disturbance of the peace of the
Church for the time to come. And for any thing that may further
concern Mr. Mountagu's person in that business, we humbly com
mend him to his Maties gracious favour and pardon. And so we
humbly commend your Grace to the protection of the Almighty,
resting
" Yor Grace's faithful and humble servants,
" GEO. LONDON.
"B. DUNELM. LA. WlNTON.
"Jo. ROFEENS*
" GTJIL. MENEVE.
" From "Winchester House,
"January 16, 1625." 2
It is evident that the King and the Duke, probably swayed
by Laud, had previously determined upon Mountagu's ac-
quittal. This is clear from the wording of the Duke's letter.
The Bishops were to consult for the safety of Mountagu's
person. The prelates appointed to conduct the cause were all
prelates in favour at court. It is not on record that any of
them, except Andrewes, had ever appeared on the side of
the doctrine of the Church of England as maintained during
at least the greater part of the preceding reign. Both the
Archbishops were passed over, and so Williams, Bishop of
Lincoln, Davenant, Bishop of Salisbury, Carleton, Bishop of
Chichester, Morton, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry ; on
the other hand, Laud, Buckeridge, and Howson, Bishop of
Oxford, were known to be his friends. Thus the King in fact
asked the assistance of Monteigne, Neile, Andrewes, and their
assessors in shielding his chaplain Mountagu from the prose
cution of the Commons.
The House of Commons charged Mountagu with main
taining that the Church of Rome is and ever was a true
Church ; that it hath ever remained firm on the same founda
tion of the Sacraments and doctrine instituted by God ; that
no points of faith, hope, charity, and good manners are con
troverted between Protestants and Romanists; that images
may be used to raise devotion ; that in his treatise upon the
invocation of saints he had maintained that they have a more
peculiar charge of their friends, and that it may be believed
that some saints have tutelage of countries, &c. ; that he had
also taught, contrary to the 17th Article, that justified men
may fall away; that he had misquoted the 16th Article, and
sought to bring in Arminianism ; that he had factiously used
the term Puritan of such as conform to the discipline and
ritual of the Church ; and that the scope and end of Richard
Mountagu was to give encouragement to Popery, and to
lay the ground for a reconciliation with Popery ; lastly, that
he, in some things that he had written, reflected upon the
late King, and had used railing and bitter speeches to
many other persons and contemptuous to foreign reformed
churches.1
Mountagu, in his New Gag for an Old Goose, or Answer
to the late Gagger of Protestants, begins with the controversies
touching the relative places of Scripture and the Church. He
affirms that ' the written Word of God is the rule of faith
with us.' x c Unto the law and unto the prophets was a direction
of a perpetual morality, and is continued in that of our
Saviour, (John v.) Search the Scriptures, for in them you hope
to have eternal life : a rule absolute in itself, a rule most
«/ 7
sufficient unto us, for that end intended, to make the man of
God perfect in every good work.' c Plainly delivered in
Scripture are all those points which belong unto faith and
manners, hope, and charity, to wit.' But other points there
are which are obscure and open to controversy. These the
Church has power to interpret and resolve.2
He adduces Cyril of Jerusalem in his Fourth Catechism
speaking thus, ' In any point concerning the divine and holy
mysteries of our faith, not any the least thing must be tendered
without warrant of divine Scripture.' And he (Cyril) addeth,
1 Believe me not that speak and deliver these things unto you,
unless for proof of them I do bring plain and evident demon
stration out of divine writ.' Mountagu proceeds : * Was this
man a Protestant or a Papist? Those Bibles he had then
which we have now : and it seemeth that addressing his own
belief and doctrine accordingly varied not in judgment any
whit from us, who make Scripture the rule of our belief, and
in doubtful points that require determination, appeal unto the
Catholic Church for judgment in that rule.'
He then comments upon that passage so little understood,
but so much in some men's mouths, The Scribes and Pharisees
sit in Moses1 chair; all therefore whatsoever they bid you
observe, that observe and do.3 He asks, ' Do you suppose that
our Saviour approved them so well, as that he would have
had the Jews in matters of faith to rely upon them and their
decisions, as pastors of the Church in points of faith ? If this
were his meaning, what meant he then to give warning else
where, Take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees ? that is, as
the Holy Ghost expoundeth it, of their doctrine. If the
question had been put, Art thou the Christ f would he have
sent them unto the Scribes or Pharisees for resolution, or
advised the people to believe on them? We find it not
practised : the contrary we do. What then is this text in
consequence unto the point ? Surely he meant no more but
this, and in that he will declare himself a Protestant • What
soever they bid you observe out of Moses^ observe ; that is, so
long as they teach but Scripture they must be heard ; if here
they fail, then hear them not. Verba legis proferendo, in the
opinion of St. Augustine, so long as they speak law. Then
he adduces the Jesuits Maldonatus and Barradas giving the
same exposition.1
His antagonist had alleged from the 10th chapter of
St. LuJce, He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. These words,
he observes, might relate to the Apostles in the fullest sense
as having mission immediate from the Son himself, which
none ever had but they. But in relation to those after them,
it must be understood as St. Bernard understood it, with this
restriction, 'as far as man doth not gainsay the will and
commandment of the Most High.' ( A flat Protestant in his
assertion,' adds Mountagu, ' and upon reason ; for a nuncio
must go to his commission.' 2
St. Anselm he calls ' a factionist for Pope Urban, his good
lord and master.'3
As upon the authority of Scripture so of traditions, he might
have written more clearly. Thus why say that i traditions
derived from the Apostles have equal authority with their
preachings and their writings?' The love-feasts were such
traditions, and yet who would affirm that they were of equal
authority with the Eucharist, equally binding upon the ob
servance of the Church? It is not true that we hold all
apostolical traditions as binding. Such a tradition was baptism
by immersion ; yet neither is this observed by us. Such a
tradition was the order of deaconesses, yet where is it to be
found?
In animadverting upon the Komanist's allegation, that it
is our doctrine that the Church can err, Mountagu maintains
the same doctrine with some in our own day, that the Church
representative, true and lawful, cannot err in fundamentals.
The Church representative is in the second chapter of the
second part of his Appeal identified with a general council.
This is a fruitless controversy, and upon Mountagu's own
shewing, a needless one. For as all things according to
him requisite to be believed in order to salvation are in
Holy Scripture, why should general councils be called?
not to clear points of doctrine. And in points of disci
pline they may err without question, since they are liable
to err on points of fact which are always involved in the
administration of discipline. It is remarkable how those who
speak much for general councils are not careful to define
them. Even deacons spoke in antient councils. Would the
modern advocates of them be content with the antient
model?
In his fifth chapter occurs in Latin that passage which
gave just cause of offence to the House of Commons : l And
although this present Roman Church hath departed in no
small degree, not only in regard of purity of manners and
discipline, but also in regard of uncorruptness in doctrine,
from that antient Church whence it arose and was derived,
yet it hath ever stood firm upon the same foundation of
doctrine and of the Sacraments instituted by God, and recog
nises and keeps communion with the antient and undoubted
Church of Christ. Wherefore it cannot be another and a
different church from that, however unlike it in many respects.'
So then, the half-communion, idolatrous worship, and the
enjoining as essential to salvation doctrines of human origin
and no part of the Word of God, all this however unlike the
primitive Church is not so unlike it as to constitute a separate
being ! Now Mountagu admitted the gross idolatry of the
Church of Rome, and therefore the absurdity is his own.
" 1 do not, I cannot, I will not deny that idolatry is grossly
committed in the Church of Rome." This is his own testi
mony. But will any say, it is one thing for the Church to
commit idolatry, another thing for idolatry to be committed
in the Church ? He answers, that the idolatrous worship of
the image of Christ as maintained by [St. Thomas Aquinas
u is an article of faith in the Roman Church."1 To what end
we may well ask, did the Apostle write to the Corinthians,
What agreement hath the temple of God with idols?* No
wonder that the multitude have ever suspected of Popery
those who have thus palliated idolatry, and taught that it has
ceased under Christianity to be that mortal sin which it was
under the law.
Upon the question how St. Peter fell, whether totally or
finally, he forgets his usual caution, and condemns Ward and
Yates for their doctrine of final perseverance,3 forgetting that
it was the doctrine of Hooker. Here his factious use of the
term Puritan is apparent, and justifies the animadversion
both of the Commons and of the learned and pious Bishop
Carleton.
To his opponent objecting to the Protestants the doctrine
that the Pope is Antichrist, Mountagu replies that this is but
a private opinion of some men, but that for himself he inclines
to think that the Mahometan and Papal powers taken together
are the Antichrist of the Scriptures. This point he discusses
at some length in his Appeal. The reader will peruse him
with advantage upon the topics of absolution and confession.
Well had it been if, in regard of the former, the language of
Peter Lombard had satisfied himself and some other divines.
According to Peter Lombard, the priest is commissioned not
to give but to declare absolution ; and if to give, to give it
sacramentally, or in the administration of the Sacraments, and
thus only indirectly and mediately. It is no small indication
of the true feeling upon this subject that the more startling
and repulsive form of absolution was not in existence for
many centuries. It did not arise until the priesthood itself
had learnt to claim a kind of deification.
In treating of works of supererogation, Mountagu declared
himself in favour of the doctrine that Christ had given two
kinds of instructions, precepts and counsels ; precepts obliging
all, counsels left to those who were able to receive them.
This was grounded upon the 19th chapter of St. Matthew,
If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to
the poor; and, lie that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Here, as in the case of confession, he adduces the opinion of
Bishop Morton, 'that we allow the distinction of precepts
and counsels' ^ He quotes on this topic Saints Chrysostom,
Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine, deeming the authority of
the Fathers in all cases a sufficient proof of the fitness of an
interpretation of Scripture. Our Saviour's words, He that is
able to receive it, let him receive it, are indeed an irrefragable
proof that this is no superstitious distinction. But it is to be
feared that such an attestation to the excellency of a purely
spiritual life, and to the possibility of leading it, is opposed
and rudely dealt with in our age from the very prevalent
disposition to abide by a lower standard of holiness and of
self-denial than is consistent with true religion.
In treating of free-will, Mountagu seemed to affirm that
the will, unable at the first to choose good, spiritual good,
was upon our renewal able to wwk together with grace by its
own ability, by a power lodged in itself. He admits that the
Fathers did in some instances venture too far in what they
asserted of the power of the will.2
He defended his own modes of speaking upon this most
difficult point by the language of Whitaker, Chemnitz,
Perkins, and others. But indeed it is easy to conceal a man's
real opinion here under terms that are used by his opponent
in a far different sense. These writers would probably have
agreed that without the preventing grace of God the will
could not turn to him. They would have resolved every
good thought and desire into the same degree of divine grace ;
in a word, they would have resolved the goodness of man's
will from first to last into the grace of God. To his working
with us they would have ascribed it that man had a good will
kept alive in him. This is in words confessed by Mountagu,
but it is at variance with another part of his system, that the
calling of them that are saved is in consideration of their
faith, repentance, and obedience.3 This it was which identified
him with the Semi-Pelagians and Arminians. He refused
the name, and denied knowledge of the works of Arminius ;
but this one dogma, perhaps on his part incautiously owned,
left no doubt upon the more discriminating of his contem
poraries, of his real adherence to Arminianism.
Mountagu very ably and learnedly exposes and refutes the
impious doctrine of the Romanists respecting the possibility
of human perfection, or rather, of rendering to God a perfect
obedience.1
His statement of the doctrine of justification is open to
exceptions if he is not fairly read and allowed to explain
himself. At the same time he shewed a disposition to extend
the use of the term justification, so as to include in it both our
forensic justification in Christ, or by the imputation of his
righteousness, and our declarative justification by works,
which he would call our second justification. But what would
be the result? That which has already followed in the
attempt at a departure from the accustomed language of the
Church, a bringing in of opinions still less excusable than the
novel expressions under which they are veiled.
Mountagu did, it is true, use language liable to exception
in one page, but in the very next 2 he so rectified himself that
it was uncandid in his opponents to overlook all that he had
said in explanation and correction of his own words. Nor is
there any reason to suspect him here. He wrote in language
that could not be misunderstood by the Eomanists. He fully
honoured the name of Christ as our justifying righteousness,
and faith as that by which alone we lay hold of it. " In the
first signification then of justification, the which properly is
justification, we acknowledge instrumentally faith alone, and
causally God alone."
"In the second and third [to be more just inherently,
and to be declared just at last by works,] beside God and faith,
we yield to hope and holiness and sanctification and the
fruits of the Spirit in good works. But both these are not
justification, rather fruits and consequents and effects and
appendants of justification than justification, which is a
solitary act."3 " Our justification in the act thereof, is only
the work of God for Christ's sake, whose death and passion
apprehended by faith, which is the sole peculiar work of faith
to do, as it hath made an atonement betwixt God and us, so
hath it procured remission of our sins at his hands, and there
upon a new state of grace, not for any merit or deserving of
our own, which is utterly excluded in this act." " Faith that
is without charity doth not justify, but faith may yet justify
without charity. They have their several distinct acts, and
the act of faith is to justify, though both are virtues incident
to a just man."
Accordingly he explains St. Paul and St. James as speaking,
the one of the attaining of justification which is i confessed to
be the act of faith,' the other of justification now obtained,
which necessarily is not separate from works. Justus factus
through the grace of Christ, is Justus declaratus by his holy
life and conversation. And so St. James is expounded by
yourselves, or else hath access of justification, as it is also
taught by your own men."1 Now this last expression is
apparently a contradiction to the preceding, and accordingly
in the Appeal we find the sting taken out of it. He there
explains thus, ' Access unto justification is not by me made
essential unto justification, but only declaratory ,'2
Mountagu then was unjustly charged with Romanism and
with innovation in the doctrine of justification, and with equal
injustice the two informers imputed to him the Romish doc
trine of merit. He rightly notes the patristic use of mereor
as expressing simply to procure, to incur, to purchase, not to
deserve. Thus the Vulgate, ' My iniquity is greater than that
I can obtain pardon.'3
The Romanist objecting to the Protestants the opinion that
faith once had cannot be lost, Mountagu affirms that it can,
and that this is the doctrine of the Church of England, that
Judas was as much given to Christ as Peter or John, and that
Simon Magus was a sincere Christian, but afterward apos
tatized. Bishop Carleton has copiously answered and refuted
him on this point, and vindicated St. Augustine from the
tenet here imputed to him, that to some men God gave faith
and justification, and afterward left them to perish in apostacy.
It is but an adventurous assertion, that as God gave Peter and
John, so he gave Judas to Christ. If all were alike given to
him as apostles, they were not all alike given to him as heirs
of his kingdom. There was a sense in which they were not
all his. So St. John saith at the beginning of the 13th
chapter, Having loved his own which were in the world, he
loved them to the end. Again he said, / know whom I have
chosen.1 Judas was one of the world for which he did not
pray. The Apostles were both his own and his Father's in a
sense in which Judas was not. I pray for them ; I pray not
for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they
are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine ; and
I am glorified in them?
In the topic of predestination Mountagu proceeded with
some wariness, yet not able to act an entirely neutral part.
He attacked the supralapsarian doctrine, and laboured to
make it appear odious. But it may not be denied that all
things are resolvable into the divine decrees • yet let us not
hold this so as to deny that which we feel, our natural
liberty, neither let us deny that to God we owe the renewal
of the will, and that in an inscrutable manner he worketh
in them that love him to will and to do of his good pleasure.
The invocation of saints Mountagu calls 'grand foolery,'
but touches upon the impiety of offering false worship with
a gentle peradventure, ' Perhaps there is no such great impiety
in saying — St. Laurence, pray for me.'3
For lay-baptism in cases of emergency he pleads, as did
Whitgift before him in his Answer to Cartwright, ' the use
and warrant of antiquity.' He does not imagine any true
baptism independent of faith. i As in little infants the faith
of the Church, and those that present them to be baptized, is
by God reputed their own ; so the willingness and desire of
the same Church, of their godfathers and parents, is reputed
theirs.'
Upon the real presence he uses the same language with
others of his own and the preceding century, who gave "but
a handle to the Romanists to charge them with unmeaning
distinctions, whilst they professed to take literally (which
Tertullian and Augustine did not) the words of Christ, This
is my body. Allow this, and we partake of Christ's natural
body in the Eucharist, for he gave no other if he gave it at
all. Allow this, and Tertullian, Theodoret, and Augustine must
be condemned for heterodox, and with them all the believers
of their times; for they do not appear to have condemned
them for agreeing in this, that This is my body is the same
with This is the figure of my body.
We find in him the doctrine of quasi-sacramentals though
not the word. Nor is there any valid reason to the contrary.
This distinction forces itself upon us in the case of marriage,
confirmation, and ordination, which all border upon the nature
of a sacrament, being consecrated to holy ends. Yates and
Ward here shewed their Puritanism when they objected to
the form of the ordination of priests, Receive ye the Holy
Ghost; not that we are to look for that divine gift ex opere
operato. There must be fit dispositions to receive it. Simon
Magus had it not, neither do those amongst us who seek
ordination not for the work of the ministry but for its
emoluments.
Mountagu supposes, on the ground of the antiquity of the
opinion, that Christ took the saints up with him to heaven at
his ascension. He also asserted the literal descent of Christ
into the place of the damned. But our Lord went into
Paradise. And so the more antient opinion, that of Irenasus
and Tertullian, was that the only hell into which our Lord
went was Hades, the state of departed spirits, where they
lived in Abraham's bosom in the comfort of the hope of a
joyful resurrection.
He also follows some of the antients in their veneration
of the sign of the cross, pleading for its use as a token of
Anti-Puritanism. So zealous was he against ' the brethren,'
as he calls the Puritans in the very title of his appeal, Appello
Ccesaremj An Appeal from the Brethren.
Such are the Gag and the Appeal, a mass of learning and
of satire, coarse in style and full of invective; erroneous
enough, but by no means so erroneous as some of his oppo
nents represented.
Upon Bishop Andre wes' acquittal of Mountagu, given in
the above letter to the Duke of Buckingham, he has himself
been claimed as a convert to the opinions upon predestination
maintained in Mountagu' s Appeal. Yet it may admit of
doubt whether he did not act in this instance upon the grounds
of general policy, considering the attack made by the Puritans
and by the Commons on Mountagu as intended to wound the
Church of England and to elevate the Puritans. Their charges
against him were partly groundless, partly false, partly exag
gerated. It was not possible for him to have effected a
reconciliation of England and Rome on the basis maintained
in his New Gag. At the same time he was evidently desirous
of giving the Romanists every possible advantage, every
concession that seemed to him not to compromise essential
truths. His spirit was not that of a Christian, but his learning
was so great and so undoubted that it seems to have covered
all his defects. He had promised too, at the end of his last
performance, to return the royal protection with the service
of his polemical sword. And therefore, in perfect accordance
with the then principles of government, which singled out for
promotion those who were most obnoxious to unpopularity
(a rule savouring of petulance rather than of discretion, and of
weakness rather than true dignity), the King speedily raised
Mountagu to a bishopric, to the very see of his late opponent
Carleton. On August 24th, 1628, he was consecrated to the
see of Chichester by Archbishop Abbot, assisted by Laud,
now Bishop of London, by Neile, Bishop of Winchester,
Buckeridge, now Bishop of Ely, and Dr. Francis Whiter
Bishop of Carlisle. On the translation of Wren from Norwich
to Ely, Mountagu was in 1638 appointed his successor, and
Dr. Brian Duppa consecrated to Chichester. Mountagu was
elected to Norwich May 4th, 1638, and died in April 1641,
when, to make episcopacy more popular, Bishop Hall was
translated thither from Exeter.
Besides Bishop Carleton, Anthony Wotton, Yeates, and
Ward, Mountagu was animadverted upon by Dr. Matthew
Sutcliffe, Dean of Exeter, Dr. Daniel Featley, Francis Rouse,
and Henry Burton of Friday Street, London. Dr. Featley,
Abbot's Chaplain, put forth his animadversions in 1626,
entitling them, Pelagius Redivivus, or Pelagius Ratid out of
the Ashes by Arminius and his Scholars. This book consists
of two parallels, one between the Pelagians and Arminians,
the other between the Church of Eome, the Appealer, and
the Church of England, in three columns. Francis Rouse
(made by the Parliamentarians Provost of Eton) did not
direct his work by name against Mountagu, but published in
the same year his Testis Veritatis ; The Doctrine of King
James and of the Church of England plainly shewn to be one
in the points of Predestination , Free- Will, and Certainty of
Salvation. 1626. He was a member of the House of
Commons, and thus sustained a mixed character. He was
especially busy in the ecclesiastical innovations of his party,
and in opposing episcopacy. He died in January 1659.
The recommendation in the letter of the Bishops was
enforced, and the works that were written against Mountagu
were sought after and suppressed. But whether or not this
prohibition put a stop to the publication of works directly
treating of these controversies, certain it is that it was not until
a later period that the Universities declared in favour of the
Court divinity. Dr. Prideaux, afterward Bishop of Worcester,
Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, and Dr. Ward, Master
of Sidney Sussex College, and Lady Margaret's Professor of
Divinity at Cambridge, continued the Predestinarian doctrine
in their respective Universities.
On January 18th, 1626, the before-mentioned prelates met
together to prepare a form of thanksgiving for the staying
of the plague, to be used on Sundays, Wednesdays, and
Fridays.
On the 2nd of February Bishop Andrewes was present at
the coronation, and carried the golden plate for the Com
munion.
On April 12th, Wednesday, at nine A.M., Archbishop
Abbot, Andrewes, Neile, and Laud met together by the
King's command to consult concerning a sermon preached
before the King on the Fifth Sunday in Lent last past
by Dr. Goodman, Bishop of Gloucester. He had spoken
ambiguously upon the real presence in the Sacrament, and
was already suspected of Komanism. They advised together,
and gave answer to the King that some things were therein
spoken less cautiously, but nothing falsely ; that nothing was
innovated by him in the doctrine of the Church of England ;
that the best way would be that the Bishop should preach the
sermon again at some time to be chosen by himself, and should
then shew how and wherein he was misunderstood by his
auditors.1
On May 1st, Monday, Andrewes was on a commission
upon an Act concerning the issuing of citations out of the
Ecclesiastical Courts.
This is the last transaction with which we find the name
of Bishop Andrewes connected. And now let his grateful
secretary Isaacson conclude this imperfect narrative of his
life. " He was not often sick, and but once (till his last
illness) in thirty years, before the time he died, which was at
Downham in the Isle of Ely, the air of that place not agreeing
with the constitution of his body. But there he seemed to be
prepared for his dissolution, saying oftentimes in that sickness,
* It must come once, and why not here ? ' And at other times
before and since he would say, ' The days must come, when,
whether we will or nill, we shall say with the Preacher,
/ have no pleasure in them' Of his death lie seemed to
presage himself a year before he died, and therefore prepared
his oil that he might be admitted in due time into the bride-
chamber. That of qualis vita finis ita, &c. was truly verified
in him, for as he lived so died he. As his fidelity in his
health was great, so increased the strength of his faith in his
sickness. His gratitude to men was now changed into thank-
fulness to God; his affability to incessant and devout
prayers and speech with his Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier;
his laborious studies to restless groans, sighs, cries, and
tears, his hands labouring, his eyes lifted up, and his heart
beating and panting to see the living God, even to the last of
his breath."
He died on September 25th, 1626, about four of the clock
in the morning.
Thus eloquently also Bishop Buckeridge in his funeral
sermon for him : i God's house is truly called, and is indeed
the house of prayer; it accompanies all acts done in God's
house. Of this reverend prelate I may say his life was a life
of prayer. A great part of five hours every day did he spend
in prayer and devotion to God. After the death of his brother
Mr. Thomas Andrewes in the sickness time, whom he loved
dearly, he began to foretel his own death before the end of
summer, or before the beginning of the winter. And when
his brother Mr. Nicholas Andrewes died, he took that as
a certain sign and prognostic and warning of his own death,
and from that time till the hour of his dissolution he spent
all his time in prayer, and his prayerbook, when he was
private, was seldom seen out of his hands. And in the time
of his fever and last sickness, besides the often prayers which
were read to him, in which he repeated all the parts of the
confession and other petitions with an audible voice, as long
as his strength endured, he did, as was well observed by
certain tokens in him, continually pray to himself, though he
seemed otherwise to rest or slumber. And when he could
pray no longer with his voice, yet by lifting up his eyes and
hands he prayed still ; and when both voice and eyes and
hands failed in their office, then with his heart he still prayed,
until it pleased God to receive his blessed soul to himself."1
Bishop Andrewes was buried on Saturday, November llth.
The funeral procession went from Winchester House, South-
wark, where he had died 26th September. It was ordered
and directed by Sir William Segar, Garter Principal King-
of-Arms,1 Henry St. George, Bichmond Herald,2 and George
Owen, Eouge Cross.3 Neile, Bishop of Durham, chief mourner,
assisted by Dr. Boger Andrewes, the Bishop's brother, Mr.
Burrell, the husband of his sister Mary, Mr. Salmon, the
husband of his sister Martha, Mr. Boger Andrewes, the son
of his brother Thomas, and Mr. Booke, the husband of his
niece Mary, daughter of Mary Burrell. The great banner was
borne by Mr. William Andrewes, the son of his brother
Nicholas ; the four bannerolls by Mr. Prinseps, the son of his
sister Martha Salmon by her first husband; Mr. Samuel
Burrell, third son of his sister Mary Burrell ; Mr. Peter Salmon,
eldest son of Martha by her second husband ; and Mr. Thomas
Andrewes, the eldest son of his brother Thomas. The corps
assisted by Drs. Collins, Beale, Wren, and Green of Corpus
Christi College, Oxford, Bector of Stockton, Wilts. The
inhabitants of St. Saviour's parish honoured his funeral by
hanging the church with 165 yards of black baise. The
house mourners made an offering, and Mr. Archer, one of the
chaplains, received £11 17s. 7d., which he paid to the wardens
as their due, but they handsomely returned it to him and Mr.
Micklethwaite the other chaplain.4
The sermon was preached by Dr. Buckeridge, at that time
Bishop of Bochester. His text was Hebrews xiii. 16 : To do
good and to distribute forget not: for with such sacrifices God
is well pleased. He at once enters into the subject of sacrifices.
"Our head, Christ," he observes, "offered his sacrifice of
himself upon the cross; Crux altare Christi ; and the cross
of Christ was the altar of our Head, where he offered the
unicum, verumj et proprium sacrificium, the only, true, proper
sacrifice, propitiatory for the sins of mankind ; in which all
other sacrifices are accepted, and applicatory of this pro
pitiation.
" 1. The only sacrifice, one in itself, and once only offered,
that purchased eternal redemption ; and if the redemption be
eternal, what need is there that it should be offered more than
once, when once is all-sufficient ?
"2. And the true sacrifice. All others are but types and
representations of this sacrifice; this only hath power to
appease God's wrath, and make all other sacrificers and
sacrifices acceptable.
" 3. And the proper sacrifice : as the psalm saith, Corpus
aptasti mihi (Psa. xl. 6, Ixx.), * Thou hast fitted me with a
body' ; the deity assumed the humanity that it might accipere
h nobis quod offerret pro nobis (c receive of us what it might
offer for us'); being the deity could not offer, nor be offered to
itself, he took flesh of ours that he might offer for us.
u Now as Christ's cross was his altar where he offered
himself for us, so the Church hath an altar also, where it
offereth itself, not Christum in capite but Christum in membris,
not Christ the head properly, but Christ the members. For
Christ cannot be offered again and properly, no more but once
upon the cross ; for he cannot be offered again, no more than
he can be dead again ; and dying and shedding blood as he
did upon the cross, and not dying and not shedding blood,
as in the Eucharist, cannot be one action of Christ offered on
the cross, and of Christ offered in the Church at the altar by
the priest by representation only, no more than Christ and
the priest are one person : and therefore though in the cross
and the Eucharist there be idem sacrificatum, the same sacri
ficed thing, that is, the body and llood of Christ offered by
Christ to his Father on the cross, and received and partici-
pated by the communicants in the sacrifice of the altar;
yet idem sacrificium quoad actionem sacrificii or sacrificandi,
it is impossible there should be the same sacrifice, under
standing- by sacrifice the action of sacrifice; for then the
action of Christ's sacrifice, which is long since past, should
continue as long as the Eucharist shall endure, even to the
world's end ; and his consummatum est is not yet finished :
and dying and not dying, shedding of blood and not shedding
of blood, and suffering and not suffering, cannot possibly be
one action, and the representation of an action cannot be the
action itself."
He gives the true design of the term the Real Presence as
used by the Church of England, when deriving Eucharistia
from good grace, he says the Lord's Supper is so called
because "it really contains Christ, who is full of grace."
It is true he quotes this from Aquinas, but Aquinas here
conveyed a truth, if the words are taken in a spiritual sense,
expressive of the faith of both catholic antiquity and of the
Keformers of our Church. He proceeds to shew clearly out
of Aquinas himself, as Dr. Field had also done in the 19th
chapter of his Appendix to his third book Of the Church?
li Here is a representative or commemorative and partici
pated sacrifice of the passion of Christ the true sacrifice, that
is past ; and here is an eucharistical sacrifice : but for any
external proper sacrifice, especially as sacrifice doth signify
the action of sacrificing, here is not one word. And therefore
this is a new conceipt of latter men, since Thomas his time
unknown to him, and a mere novelism. And the cure is as
bad as the disease. Though Thomas gives no other reasons
why it is called a sacrifice, yet (say they) Thomas denieth it
not: for that is plainly to confess that this is but a patch
added to antiquity. And yet when he saith it is a repre
sentative or commemorative sacrifice, respectu prceteriti, in
respect of that which is past, that is, the passion of Christ,
which was the true sacrifice, he doth deny by consequent that
it is the true sacrifice itself, which is past. And if Christ be
sacrificed daily in the Eucharist according to the action of
sacrifice, and it be one and the same sacrifice offered by
Christ on the cross, and the priest at the altar, then can it not
be a representation of that sacrifice which is pasty because it is
one and the same sacrifice and action present."1
He proceeds thus : " Therefore St. Paul proceeds in the
15th verse, By Mm therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise
to God continually, that isj the fruit of our lips, giving thanks
to his name. Let us offer up to God; Christians then have
an offering : and let us offer up to God continually ; this is the
ground of the daily sacrifice of Christians that answereth to
the daily sacrifice of the Jews. And this sacrifice of praise
and thanks may well be understood the Eucharist, in which
we chiefly thank and praise God for this his chief and great
blessing of our redemption. And this and all other sacrifices
of the Church external or spiritual must be offered up and
accepted per ipsum, in, by, and through Christ. St. Paul
saith not, Ipsum offeramus. Let us offer him (that is) Christ ;
but let us offer and sacrifice per ipsum, by him, in whom only
we and our sacrifices are accepted." He afterwards affirms
that " all the offerings of the Church are the Church itself."
And then, after having again spoken of Christ having once
offered himself for us, he adds, a Neither doth Christ there
(that is) in heaven, where he now appears in the presence of
God, offer often or any more for us, but this once ; there is
appearing but no offering. And the Apostle gives the reason
of it : For then he must have often suffered since the foundation
of the world, (Heb. ix. 24, 25, 26). He appears in heaven
as our high priest, and makes intercession for us ; but he offers
his natural body no more but once, because he suffers but
once. No offering of Christ (by St. Paul's rule) without the
suffering of Christ. The priest cannot offer Christ's natural
body without the suffering of Christ's natural body."
We have lived to see St. Augustine deserted in the doc
trine both of our Lord's sacrifice and sacrament, but not so
Buckeridge. He fully shews out of St. Augustine that the
Church herself is the only sacrifice which in the Church is
offered up to God.2 He next proceeds to treat of alms, and
to shew that nothing that we can offer to God can merit
anything. We can only be justified by the imputed righteous
ness of Christ.
" What is the reason the prophet saith (Psa. Ixxi. 16),
O Lord, memorabor justitice tuce solius, I will remember thy
righteousness only, but because there is no other righteousness
worth^the remembering but only thy righteousness only? That
righteousness that is a Domino'1'' [from the Lord], " inherent
in us by sanctification of the gifts and graces of the Lord, is
not worth the remembrance, for it is a defiled cloth and dung
in itself; and were it never so good, God hath no need of it;
nay, being offered to God, he is nothing increased by it. If
thou do all good works, Deus meus es, et bonorum meorum non
indiges: Thou art my God, saith David (Psa. xvii. 2), my
goods, and therein are his good worJcs also, are nothing to
thee : God is not increased or enriched by them. If thou do
commit all manner of sins with all manner of greediness, thou
canst not defile God, nor take any thing from him ; thy evil
cannot decrease or diminish him. But it is Justitia in Domino,
Righteousness in the Lord, (that is) Christ's righteousness
communicated or imputed to us ; for Christ is made to us
wisdom from God, and justice or righteousness and sancti
fication, and redemption. And he doth not say fecit nos, he
made us righteous in the concrete, but factus est nobis, he was
made righteousness to us in the abstract, because he commu
nicates his righteousness to us, and thereby covers our naked
ness, as Jacob clothed in his elder brother's garments received
the blessing.1 And therefore the name of the Son of God is
Jehovah, Justitia nostra, the Lord our Righteousness". After
descanting farther upon this most essential topic, and exposing
the false pleas of the Church of Rome for her doctrine of
merit, Buckeridge gives a very valuable account of Bishop
Andrewes, which has already been quoted in various places,
according as the chronological order of these memorials gave
occasion. I will here add the following extracts :
" His admirable knowledge in the learned tongues, Latin,
Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, besides other modern
tongues, to the number of fifteen (as I am informed), was
such and so rare that he may well be ranked in the first
place, to be one of the rarest linguists in Christendom; in
which he was so perfect and absolute, both for grammar and
profound knowledge therein, that he was so perfect in the
grammar and criticism of them, as if he had utterly neglected
the matter itself; and yet he was so exquisite and sound in
the matter and learning of these tongues, as if he had never
regarded the grammar."
He mentions his love and encouragement of learning and
of learned men, " which appeared in his liberality and bounty
to Master Casaubon, Master Cluverius, Master Vossius, Master
Grotius, Master Erpenius, whom he attempted, with the offer
of a very large stipend out of his own purse, to draw into
England, to have read and taught the Oriental tongues
here." To these his secretary Isaacson adds Moulin, Barclay,
and Bedwell.
"He meddled little with them" (the goods of the world),
" but left the taking of his accounts from his officers to his
brothers; and when he began his will at Waltham a year
before his death, he understood not his own estate; nay,
till about six weeks before his death, when his accounts
were delivered up and perfected, he did not fully know his
own estate: and therefore in his first draught of his will
he gave but little to his kindred, doubting he might give
away more than he had ; and therefore in a codicil annexed
to his will he doubled all his legacies to them, and made
every hundred to be two hundred, and every two hundred to
be four hundred : and yet, notwithstanding this increase, he
gave more to the maintenance of learning and the poor than
to his kindred. His charity and love of God and the poor
was greater in him than natural affection, and yet he forgot
not his natural affection to them."
For many years since he left St. Giles's, Cripplegate,
Buckeridge records that he sent £5 about Christmas, besides
the number of pounds given to the poor of that parish when
he was almoner. " And," he adds, " I have reason to
presume the like of those other parishes mentioned in his
will, to which he also gave legacies : to St. Giles an hundred
pounds, where he had been Vicar ; to All-Hallows, Barking,
where he was born, twenty pounds ; to St. Martin's, Ludgate,
where he dwelt, five pounds ; to St. Andrew's in Holborn,
where Ely House stands, ten pounds ; and to this parish
of St. Saviour's in Southwark, where he died, twenty pounds :
which parishes he hath remembered for his alms to the poor,
when the land shall be purchased for the relief and use of
the poor."
u The total of his pious and charitable works mentioned in
his will amounts to the sum of six thousand three hundred
twenty-six pounds. Of which to Pembroke Hall for the
creation of two fellowships and other uses mentioned in the
codicil, a thousand pound, to buy fifty pound land per annum
to that purpose, besides a bason and ewer like that of their
foundress, and some books."
"To buy two hundred pound per annum, four thousand
pound : viz. for aged poor men, fifty pound per annum ; for
poor widows the wives of one husband, fifty pound ; for the
putting of poor orphans to prentice, fifty pound ; to prisoners,
fifty pound."
" After he came to have an episcopal house with a chapel,1
he kept monthly communions inviolably ; yea, though himself
had received at the Court the same month, in which his
carriage was not only decent and religious but also exem
plary : he ever offered twice at the altar, and so did every one
of his servants, to which purpose he gave them money, lest it
should be burthensome to them." " A great part of five
hours every day did he spend in prayer and devotion to
God."
tl He instructed his chaplains and friends to inform him of
such young men at the University as stood in need of
assistance. He of his own accord preferred men of learning,
as Boys and Nicholas Fuller the Orientalist. If any deserving
youths missed their election to the University from the great
schools of London and Westminster, he sent them to the
University at his own charge.
11 He always observed a most noble hospitality, and at the
same time paid regard to all the appointments of the Church
in regard of fasts, at Lent, Embers, and other times. He dined
at noon, giving his mornings to prayer and study. He was
averse to be interrupted by calls before that time. t( He
doubted," says Isaacson, " they were no true scholars that
came to speak with him before noon. After dinner, for two
or three hours' space, he would willingly pass the time either
in discourse with his guests or other friends, or in despatch of
his own temporal affairs, or of those who (by reason of his
episcopal jurisdiction) attended him. And being quit of these
and the like occasions, he would return to his study, where he
spent the rest of the afternoon even till bedtime, except some
friend took him off to supper, and then did he eat but
sparingly."
He suffered much by suits at law sooner than willingly
institute persons whom he suspected of simoniacal engage
ments. When Bishop of Winchester he would not renew
some leases that would have been most lucrative to himself,
when he foresaw that such renewals would tend to the injury
of his successor.
His secretary Henry Isaacson was born in St. Catharine
Coleman's parish September 1581. He was the son of
Kichard Isaacson, Sheriff of London, who died January 19th,
1620, son of William Isaacson of Sheffield, by Isabel his first
wife. Henry Isaacson died about the 7th December, 1654,
and was buried in St. Catharine's, Coleman Street, London
(since rebuilt), on December 14th.1 Isaacson is reckoned
amongst the writers of Pembroke Hall. Antony Wood
appears to have been unable to have discovered more respect
ing him than that which is here presented to the reader.
Bishop Andrewes' Devotions in Greek and Latin, Preces Privatce, fyc.,
were published at Oxford 1675, pp. 359, with a portrait (probably by no
means a good one) by Loggan, the admirable engraver of those most
beautiful folios the ' Oxonia and Cantabrigia Illustrata.' There is the
usual old view of the Sheldonian Theatre in the title-page. Upon Log-
gan's successor as University engraver, Burghers, see the second volume
of ' Hearne's Diary,' recently edited by Dr. Bliss, p. 630. This edition of
Bishop Andrewes' Devotions was put forth by Dr. John Lamphire, of New
College, Oxford, from the MSS. of Samuel Wright, the Bishop's own
amanuensis, communicated by Dr. Richard Drake, Chancellor of Sarum,
and with other fragments from the then recently edited collection of Dr.
David Stokes.
John Lamphire was the son of George an apothecary of Winchester,
and was born in St. Lawrence's parish in that city. He was educated first
at Winchester School, and then at New College, Oxford, of which he was
Fellow in 1636. He was ejected thence by the Parliamentary authorities,
practised medicine at Oxford, and lived to be restored in 1660. Being
again Fellow of New College, he was elected Camden Professor of Ancient
History August 16th, 1660, and appointed Principal of New Inn Hall
September 8th, 1662, on the ejection of Dr. Christopher Rogers of Lincoln
College. Thence he was removed to Hart Hall, of which he was made
Principal May 30th, 1663. After he had published this very neat edition
of Bishop Andrewes' Devotions in 1675 in 12mo., he obtained a more
perfect copy, which other avocations hindered him from giving to the
world. He died at Hart Hall March 30th, 1688, aged 73 years, and was
buried in the ante-chapel near the west door of New College. He was
succeeded in his professorship by that learned but somewhat eccentric
genius Henry Dodwell, for an account of whom the reader may refer to
' Hearne's Diary.' Hearne does his memory ample justice.
Dr. David Stokes was educated at Westminster School, was first
a scholar of Trinity College,1 then a Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge,
D.D. 1630, also a Fellow of Eton College, Rector of Binfield near Windsor ,
and Canon of Windsor, to which he was appointed llth July, and installed
12th July, 1628, on the promotion of Richard Montagu to the see of
Chichester. He was also preferred by Sir Henry Wotton to the Eectory of
Everdon near Daventry (in the gift of Eton College) September 19th,
1638. He assisted Walton in the Polyglott, wrote on the Twelve minor
Prophets, 1659, 8vo.
Verus Christianus, or Directions for Private Devotions and Retire
ments, with an Appendix containing some private devotions of Bishop
Andrewes.
Truth's Champion.
Some Sermons.
He was also M.A. of Peterhouse in 1618. He was elected to his
Fellowship in the place of the Rev. John Blithe, who was instituted to the
College living of Statherne in Leicestershire. Blithe founded some scholar
ships at Peterhouse. His portrait is in the hall of the College (Johannes
Blithe, Bac. Theol. Socius Collegii anno 1617), on the south side of the
hall. Dr. Stokes resigned his Fellowship in 1625. He was made D.D.
1630. The College chapel at Peterhouse was built in 1632. He con
tributed £10. He was deprived of all his preferments, and took refuge at
Oxford. He was reinstated in them in 1660, and spent the remainder of
his days in peaceful enjoyment to his death, May 10th, 1669. To his stall
at Windsor succeeded Henry Wotton, M.A., May 28th, 1669. He resigned
on May 1st, 1671. He was M.A. of Merton College, Oxford, 1660.
In Lamphire's edition of Andrewes' Prayers in Greek and Latin, Dr.
David is by a mistake called William Stokes. The beautiful copy by
Samuel Wright is a small 12mo., still in the Library of Pembroke College,
Cambridge. The portions alluded to by Lamphire as taken from Stokes,
are taken from the Appendix to his Verus Christianus, published at
Oxford.
Wright's copy, consisting of 168 pages, contains the Devotions in
Greek without any Latin translation, down to the Meditation on the Day
of Judgment at p. 252 of the Oxford edition recently set forth in the
* Anglo -Catholic Library.' The two meditations on the Last Judgment
and on Human Frailty, are from Dr. Stokes, and also many passages in
the Latin Devotions. The prayers as thus edited have been reprinted in
1828 and 1848.
The recent Oxford edition in 8vo. has a third part from the Harleian
MSS. No. 6614. That manuscript indeed is not in the handwriting of
Andrewes, as a MS. note by J. Cole asserts.
Andrewes' Manual of the Sick, first put forth with some spurious
additions in 1647 by Humphrey Moseley, a bookseller at the Prince's
Arms in St. Paul's Churchyard, was edited with fidelity in 1648, by
Richard Drake, with the other Devotions translated from Wright's MS.,
with a dedication to the Prince of Wales. The Preface to the Christian
Reader is dated on the Nativity of St. John Baptist, 1646.
Dr. Richard Drake was a scholar of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, on Dr.
Watts's foundation, March 15th, 1626, B.A. 1628, M.A. 1631, Rector of
Radwinter, between Thaxted and Walden in Essex, D.D. by royal mandate
August 2nd, 1660, Prebendary of North Alton in the Cathedral of Salis
bury September 9th, 1660. He resigned this stall on March 23rd, 1663,
having been appointed to the Chancellorship of that church on the 12th
of March. He was installed Prebendary of Bricklesworth in the church of
Sarum, February 24th, 1665. He was, as was also Dr. Stokes, one of
Walton's assistants in the Polyglott. He died in 1681.
In 1655 a volume appeared entitled Holy Devotions, with Directions
to Pray, fyc,, by the Rt. Rev. Father in God L. Andrewes, late Bishop of
Winchester. The 4th edition, printed for Henry Seile, &c. 1655.' The first
edition had appeared in 1660, with another title, Institutiones Pice, or
Directions to Pray. The initials of the Compiler are given as H. I. This
was retained in the second and third editions. The initials are those of
Henry Isaacson. He died in 1654. The date of his death (1654) accords
with H. Seile's statement in the preface to the fourth edition, that the
three previous editions had been dressed up by a kind foster-father who
now sleeps in the Lord. It is most likely, says Mr. Bliss, that the volume
was compiled By Isaacson from some of the Bishop's papers. The earlier
portion appears to be notes of sermons either made by Andrewes himself
to assist in composition, or else taken down by some of his hearers. Other
passages agree exactly with portions of his Latin Devotions, especially with
some recently published in the Oxford 8vo. edition. The volume can in
no other and stricter sense be regarded as Andrewes'. The first editor
(Isaacson) states that he had originally compiled the Devotions for his
own use.
This volume has been re-edited by a recent successor of our prelate in
the Vicarage of St. Giles', Cripplegate, Archdeacon Hale.
Milton had been sent from St. Paul's School to Cambridge, and
admitted of Christ's College there February 12th, 1625, under the tuition
of Mr. William Chappel.1 He probably wrote his Elegy on the death
of Andrewes whilst an undergraduate at Christ College. Here he took his
degree of B.A. in 1629, and of M.A. in 1632, after which he left the Uni
versity, and went to live five years with his parents at Horton in Bucking
hamshire. There he lived until the death of his mother. Her remains are
buried beneath a dark slab in the centre of the chancel, on which is this
inscription :
Heare lyeth the body of Sara Milton, the wife of
John Milton, who died
The Zrd of April, 1637.2
Milton's elegy is evidently a youthful exercise. After a poetical com
plaint that death exercises his dominion over not only the material
creation but over man himself, he presents to the reader a vision of Para
dise, and the joyful reception of Andrewes by its celestial inhabitants to his
new abode.
" A List
" of persons to whom I intend rings, as in my will mentioned," probably
six weeks before his death : Abbot ; Neile, Bishop of Durham ; Bucke-
ridge ; Laud, Bishop of Bath and Wells ; Sir Thomas Edmondes, Comp
troller of the Household ; Sir Julius Caesar, Master of the Eolls ; Sir
Thomas Lake, Secretary of State in the reign of James ; his Lady Mary ;
Sir Henry Martin, Judge of the Prerogative Court ; Dr. John Young,
Dean of Winchester ; Dr. Steward, a civilian ; Dr. Collins, Provost of
King's College, Cambridge ; Dr. Ward of Waltham, Herts ; Dr. Beale of
Pembroke Hall ; Dr. Wren of Peterhouse ; Mr. Man of Westminster,
probably a bookseller ; Mr. Eoger, late Proctor in the Court of Arches ;
Mr. Greene, Prebendary of Bristol ; Mr. William Johnson ; and Mr. Joseph
Fenton.
Prynne, whose Canterbury's Doom and Necessary Intro
duction to Laud's Trial contain a vast store of most valuable
information, doubtless frequently betrays the most exaggerated
feelings and unhappy prejudices. Nowhere is this more
apparent than in his unhandsome charges against Bishop An
drewes. He takes up with Father Giles' or Davenport's
misrepresentations of our prelate, who would persuade his
readers that Andrewes held not the doctrine of the Keformation
but of the Church of Rome respecting justification by faith.
The reader will, if he refer to the Bishop's sermon on
Jer. xxiii. 6, perceive at once the untruthfulness of such a
statement. Laud was indeed most blameable in procuring
sanctuary for so perfidious a writer in the University of
Oxford. Prynne was not less blameable in giving currency
to his falsities. See p. 424, and sequel of his Compleat History
of Laud.
Prynne speaks in one place of the Popish furniture, &c.
of Bishop Andrewes' private chapel ; in another he professes
to doubt whether Laud did not make an unwarrantable use of
Bishop Andrewes' name. Speaking of his form of conse-
cration he says, that he took his form from Bishop Andrewes
is only avowed by himself, not proved by any witnesses,
(p. 503.)
It is certainly most remarkable that if Andrewes did
observe the ceremonies comprised in the notes to the Liturgy
ascribed to him, and involved in the account of his private
chapel to be found in Prynne, pp. 121 — 124, there is evidence
that at Winchester there were in the time of Andrewes neither
rails to the Communion-table, which probably stood then in
the middle of the choir, nor bowing to it. tf From Canter
bury," says Prynne, "we shall next hunt this Romish Fox
to the cathedral of Winchester, where, keeping a visitation in
the year 1635 by Sir Nathanael Brent, his Vicar-General, he
did by his injunctions under seal enjoin them to provide four
copes, to rail in the Communion-table, and place it altarwise,
to bow unto it, and daily to read the epistles and gospels
at it. This was attested by Sir Nathanael Brent himself,
manifested by his own injunctions to that Church, and by his
articles proposed to the College of Winchester, produced and
read in the Lord's house.'7 (p. 79.) Then follow the in
junctions themselves, (p. 80.) This verifies the assertion of
Dr. Fuller that it " was the constant practice of Dr. Andrewes,
successively Bishop of Chichester, Ely, and Winchester,
never to urge any other ceremonies than those which he found
there." This remark of Fuller's drew down upon him the
indignation of Heylyn, in whose eyes Laud's greatest indis
cretions were his highest excellencies. He accordingly takes
care that they shall not be hid.
Andrewes was the most imaginative of all our older divines,
and would therefore have a natural bias toward a ceremonial
piety. He was as remarkable for pathos and simplicity as for
wit and fancy. He was an intense student of both the
Fathers and the divines of succeeding ages. As a critic he
was often led away by his excessive love of illustration. He
was perfectly free from covetousness and pride, a lover of
learning and of learned men. His infirmities were a want of
firmness in opposing the unwise and unhallowed counsels of
his sovereign ; and an undue partiality toward his kindred and
friends, whom he loaded with preferments in an age in which
pluralities were found to be a grievance — a grievance to the
cause of piety, however they might operate in favour of
learning. His own brother was unworthy of his name. He
was the object of general aversion in the College over which
Andrewes placed him. He was not however what he has
been represented even in our own time, an ambitious courtier.
He never intermeddled with state affairs. He did indeed
sometimes his sovereign's bidding where others, more faithful
in some remarkable instances, declined. But he never forced
himself into observation. His rise was due to his great
learning, piety, and munificence. His patrons were men
whose names will be had in honour so long as piety and
patriotism shall perpetuate the names of Henry, third Earl
of Huntingdon, and Secretary Walsingham. He was by his
sermons a truly pastoral prelate, and his Prayers will probably
continue to the end of time to cherish the devotion of an
innumerable company who shall follow him to his heavenly
rest.
APPENDIX.
THE FAMILY OF ANDREWES.
The name of our prelate was variously spelt, — Andrew, Andrews,
Andrewes, and Andros. The e in Andrewes was sometimes omitted
in the early part of the seventeenth century. Sir Robert Andrewes
of Normandy, knt., came over with William I., and married the
daughter and heiress of Sir Robert Winwick of "Winwick, Nor
thamptonshire, and afterward of Denton in the same county.1
In 1303 occurs John Andrew, Alderman of Redingate, Canter
bury.2 A Sir William Andrewes of Northamptonshire and Carlisle
occurs in 1234.3
Thomas Andrews of Beggar's Weston, or Weston Bigard, (or
Begard,) a few miles east of Hereford, was born in 1501, and died
in 1615. See the genealogy of this branch in Nichol's Leicestershire,
parish of System* From him was descended the late highly re
spected Gerard Andrewes, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,
Rector of St. James', Westminster, and 8th November, 1809, Dean
of Canterbury. He died, aged 75, on June 2nd, 1825.
In a window in St. Bartholomew the Less, London, over the
door in the passage into the church, are the arms and crest (painted
in glass) of Henry Andrewes, Alderman of London, 1636 : argent,
a saltire azure on a chief gules ; 3 mullets or : crest, a Moor's head
in profile.
In 1649 and 1651 Thomas, a leatherseller, son of Robert An
drewes of Feltham near Hounslow, Middlesex, and of the Fish
mongers' Company, was Lord-Mayor of London.
Jonathan Andrewes was a member of the court of Merchant
Taylors 1665, and Richard Andrewes, M.D., 1627—1634.
Sir Matthew Andrewes, knt., was one of the Elder Brethren of
Trinity House, 1625.5
Our prelate in his will makes mention of William the son of his
deceased brother Nicholas; Thomas, Nicholas, and Roger the sons
of his deceased brother Thomas, and their eldest sister Ann, married
to Arthur "Woollaston ; also her younger sister Mary. His brother
Nicholas was born in 1567, and died in 1626. His brother Thomas
was named after his father, who appears as a benefactor to All
Hallows', Barking, " 1593, towards repairs of the church, £2; to
the poor £5;" probably bequeathed. Our prelate's mother, Mrs.
Joan Andre wes, left in 1524 a bequest of £10. He also makes
mention of his sister Mary Burrell. One Alexander Burrell, B.A.,
Trinity College, Cambridge, 1706, M.A. 1710, was Yicar of Buck-
den, July 5, 1717, which he resigned in 1721, being made in 1720
Rector of Adstock near Winslow, Bucks., by Dr. Gibson, then Bishop
of Lincoln, and also Rector of Puttenham, Herts, by the same patron.
His father was also of Trinity College, B.A. 1666, M.A. 1670.
There have been about twenty members of the University of Cam
bridge of that name. The name is also spelt Burwell; Mr. Samuel
Bur well was at our prelate's funeral. Of this name was Thomas,
LL.D. of the University of Cambridge, 1661 ; Thomas, M.B. of the
same University per Literas Regias, 1662 ; Francis, A.M. of the same
University per Literas Regias, 1675 ; Thomas, M.B., King's College,
1677; and Charles, M.B., Pembroke College, 1717. The name
Burwell appears to have merged into Burrell. The children of the
Bishop's sister, Mary Burrel, were Andrew, John, Samuel, Joseph,
James, Lancelot, Mary Rooke, and her daughter Martha. His
sister Martha, born in 1577, married first to Robert Princep, by
whom she had a son Thomas. Charles Robert Princep (probably
a descendant) was B.A. St. John's College, Cambridge, 1811, M.A.
1813. At Oxford was John Princep, B.A., BaUiol College, Oct. 12,
1738. Martha was married secondly to Mr., probably Peter,
Salmon, by whom she had two sons, Peter and Thomas. The Rev.
Thomas Peter Dod Salmon was B.A. St. John's College, Cambridge,
1782, M.A. 1786, Fellow of that College, B.D. 1793, and was
living in 1811. Mr. Salmon had a sister Martha and a daughter
Anne Best. The Bishop also makes mention of his cousin Anne
Hockett. John Hockett was B.A. of Trinity CoUege, Cambridge,
1662, M.A. 1666, and a Fellow of that society. Another of the
same name was B.A. of that College 1696. He names another
cousin, Sandbrooke; also his cousin Robert and his two children;
his cousin Rebecca; his father's half-sister Joan; her first hus
band's name was Bousie. Also his godson Lancelot Lake, son of
Sir Thomas Lake. There was a Lancelot Lake, B.A. Catharine
Hall, Cambridge, 1666, M.A. 1670. Also his two godsons Robert
and Charles Barker, son of Mr. Robert Barker, " latelie the King's
printer." His principal executor was Mr. John Parker, citizen and
Merchant Taylor, of London, to be assisted by Sir Thomas Lake,
Sir Henry Martin, and Dr. Nicholas Styward or Steward. His
will was_ witnessed by Robert Bostock, Prebendary of Norton
Episcopi in the church of Lincoln, and afterward Archdeacon of
Suffolk, and (if not in 1626) Prebendary of Chichester; Joseph
Fenton, probably our prelate's physician; John Browning, Rector
of Buttermere near Hungerford, whom he had preferred to that
living in 1624, author of Six Sermons concerning Public Prayer
and the Fasts of the Church (Lond. 1636); Thomas Eddie and
"William Green, two of the Bishop's servants. Archdeacon Wig-
more also signed the three several codicils to the will.
The family of Andrew or Andrewes has seated itself in Gloucester
shire ; Plymouth, Devon ; Bisbrook, Rutlandshire ; Norfolk, Suffolk,
Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, Lancashire, "Wilts, Bucks, Hert
fordshire, Cambridgeshire, Surrey, and Hants. In Cambridgeshire
it is still represented by the Rev. Thomas Andrew of Pembroke
College, Cambridge, Yicar of Triplow ; and by another descendant,
a respectable yeoman at Litlington in the same county. In Hert
fordshire, by the father of this latter, a yeoman in the parish of
Buckland near Barkway. In Suffolk, by George W. Andrewes,
Esq., Sudbury, Suffolk. In Surrey, by the Rev. William Gerard
Andrewes, M.A., Magdalen Hall, Oxford, curate of Morden near
Mitcham, and grandson of the late Dean of Canterbury. The Rev.
Thomas Andrew of Triplow is descended of a Northamptonshire
branch of this family. Erom Northamptonshire a branch of this
family migrated about the beginning of the seventeenth century to
the neighbourhood of Canterbury. Thence Henry Andrews re
moved to London, and was cut off with his whole household, except
one infant, in the Great Plague in 1665. This infant lived to a
considerable age, and having acquired some fortune by merchandise,
thought it right to take out arms afresh in 1729. He died in 1730.
His grandson Joseph was at a very early age appointed Paymaster to
the Eorces serving in Scotland 1715. His son Joseph was created
a Baronet in 1766. His brother, James Pettit Andrews, born at
Shaw House near Newbury, 1737, was the author of a miscellaneous
collection entitled Anecdotes, Ancient and Modern, fyc. Lond. 8vo.
1789. A supplement to this volume in 1790; History of Great
Britain, 1794, vol. I., from CaBsar's invasion to the death of Richard I.
4to. Lond. In 1795 appeared a second part, to the accession of
Edward YI. The plan of this work was founded on that of Dr.
Henry. He appears to have discontinued it for the purpose of com
pleting Dr. Henry's history, which, in 1796, he brought down to
the accession of James I. He translated The Savages of Europe ;
a popular Erench novel now forgotten. In 1798 he published The
Inquisitor, a Tragedy in five Acts altered from the German, in
conjunction with his friend H. J. Pye, the Poet Laureate. He was
a contributor to the Archceologia and the Gentleman's Magazine. On
the establishment of the London Police Magistracy in 1792, he was
appointed Magistrate for Queen's Square and St. Margaret's "West
minster. He died in London August 6th, 1797. He had married
Anne daughter of the Rev. Rumney Penrose, Rector of Newbury.
He survived her twenty years. The present excellent Master of the
Grammar School, Stamford, the Rev. Erederic E. Gretton, B.D.,
late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, and author of some
valuable Parochial Sermons,1 is descended from Bishop Andrewes
both on the mother's and father's side. His father married a Clay,
and his grandfather a Pigott, the granddaughter and daughter re
spectively of Catharine and Ellen Andrewes, whose father died and
was buried at Southwell in or about 1717. Mr. G. "W. Andrews of
Sudbuiy is a younger brother of the Rev. Robert Andrews, B.D.,
who was ninth Senior Optime, Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and
B.A. 1821, of Middleton near Sudbury. The eldest brother is Lieut. -
Colonel Andrews, residing at 57, Ecclestone Square, London; and
the youngest, the Rev. "William Nesfield Andrews, of Jesus College,
Cambridge, M.A. 1832, Rector of Chilton near Sudbury 1853.
A.D. 1600.
Five days after the death of Hooker, Andrewes wrote to Dr.
Parry, afterward Bishop of Worcester :
" SALTJTEM IN CHRISTO.
" I cannot choose but write though you do not ; I never failed
since I last saw you, but daily prayed for him till the very instant
you sent me this heavy news. I have hitherto prayed Serva nobis
hunc ; now must I Da nobis alium. Alas, for our great loss ! and
when I say ours, though I mean yours and mine, yet much more
the common : with [which ?] the less sense they have of so great
a damage, the more sad we need to bewail them ourselves, who
knew his works and his worth to be such as behind him he hath
not, that I know, left any near him. And whether I shall live
to know any near him, I am in great doubt that I care not how
many and myself had redeemed his longer life, to have done good
in a better subject than he had in hand, though that were very
good. Good brother, have a care to deal with his executrix or
executor, or (him that is like to have a great stake in it) his father-
in-law, that there be special care and regard for preserving such
papers as he left, besides the three last books excepted. By pre
serving, I mean, that not only they be not embezzled and come to
nothing, but that they come not into great hands who will only
have use of them quatenus et quousque, and suppress the rest, or
unhappily all; but rather into the hands of some of them that
unfeignedly wished him well, though of the meaner sort, who may
upon good assurance (very good assurance) be trusted with them ;
for it is pity they should admit any limitation. Do this and do it
mature ; it had been more than time long since to have been about
it, if I had sooner known it. If any word or letter would do any
good to Mr. Churchman, it should not want. But what cannot
yourself or Mr. Sandys do therein? For Mr. Cranmer is away;
happy in that he shall gain a week or two before he know of it.
Almighty God comfort us over him, whose taking away, I trust
I shall no longer live than with grief remember; therefore with
grief because with inward and most just honour I ever honoured
him since I knew him.
" Your assured poor loving friend,
" L. ANDREWES.
"At the Court, Nov. 7, 1600."
About a month after this letter was written the Archbishop sent
Andrewes to Mrs. Hooker to enquire after the MSS. He did not
however succeed in obtaining any information. Upon this the
Archbishop sent for her to London, when she confessed that Mr.
Chart, a Puritan, and another minister of the same bias, had de
stroyed some of his papers as being in their opinion not such as
should see the light. However the rough drafts of the three last
books of the Eccl. Polity were discovered and delivered by Whitgift
to Dr. Spenser, who drew up as perfect a copy as he could, a tran
script of which was given to Andrewes amongst others. — Strype's
Whitgift, ii. 441.
FROM DEAD ANGLICAN THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY -September 20, 2012:
Lancelot may have acquired his flair for languages from his father, Thomas Andrewes, who was a merchant seaman and master of Trinity House. He undertook to master a new language every year, and it is said he was fluent in 15 or 16 languages, ancient and modern, as an adult, and could read 21 languages.... Lancelot officiated at the funeral of Queen Elizabeth and was was closely involved in making arrangements for the coronation of James VI of Scotland as James I of England.
Eugene Chrisman, 830 N. 10E. Mountain Home, has Thomas' burial as June 25, 1593, Al Hallow Barking, London, Middlesex, England and has him married to the following:
1. Agnes Newport
Marriage abt. 1516, Sandon, Hertfordshire, England
2. Joan Andrews
Marriage abt. 1554, Towerhill, London, Middlesex, England
_________________
Son Lancelot Andrews' will:
to my father's half sister Johan (her first husband's name was Bousie) and each of her two children, and more kindred I know not.
__________________
Bishop Buckeridge in his funeral sermon for Lancelot Andrews said that Andrewes's parents "left him a sufficient patrimony, which has descended to his heir", and Isaacson described the parents as "honest and religious". Andrewes himself, in his private prayers, records his thanks that he was "not the sad egg of sorry crows".
Lancelot's brother Thomas was named after his father, who appears as a benefactor to All Hallows', Barking, " 1593, towards repairs of the church, £2; to the poor £5;" probably bequeathed.
_______
Thomas Andrewes, of Tower Hill, London, mariner; son of his father's first marriage.
Thomas Andrewes the younger; unclear by which marriage, though apparently not the first; named in the will of his sister Agnes, 1563, then under age; named in his father's will, 1568.
His father's Will - To Thomas my son, the younger, a feather-bed.
Thomas Andrewes, son of Thomas Andrewes and his first wife, nee Goodwin; born at Hordon-on-the-Hill, Essex; of Thames Street, Tower Ward, London; mariner; of age, 23 March 5 Mary I/4 Philip [1558], when he entered in a bond; legatee of his uncle William Goodwin, 1561, then of London; bought a messuage, a toft, a garden, 60 acres of arable, 20 acres of meadow, 40 acres of pasture and 3 acres of wood at Horndon for £160, 1587 [Essex Feet of Fine]; named in the Assessment of 1589 for Tower Ward; "having most part of his life used the seas, in his latter time became one of the Society, and Master of the Holy Trinity, commonly called the Trinity House" (Isaacson); will dated 23 June 1593, proved PCC 4 July 1593:
"I, Thomas Andrewes of the parish of All Saints Barking on Tower Hill, London, mariner; to my well-beloved wife Joan the moiety of my manor or farm in Raweth, Essex, called Borrells, and of all the lands except the advowson of the church of Raweth, which I will shall remain to my eldest son Lancelot Andrewes, clerk; also the moiety of that farm and those lands in Hordon on the Hill, and lands called Gore Oke and Clayes, and of houses in Redriffe, Surrey; to my son Nicholas the other moiety of Borrells and lands in Rawerth; the other moiety of those houses and lands in Horndon shall remain to my son Thomas; the premises in Rederiffe shall remain to my son Roger; to Martha Andrewes my daughter, L200 at 21, with remainder if she die unmarried to my daughter Mary; to the poor of Horndon where I was born, L5; to my brother William Andrewes one quarter of my ship called the White Hart; to every of my brothers and sisters by my father's side dwelling in Essex, 40s apiece; to Thomas Andrewes, son of my brother Robert Andrewes, and to Anne, sister to the said Thomas, to each a dozen of silver spoons; residue to wife Joan".
Thomas' son Lancelot Andrews' Will:
...to my father's half sister Johan (her first husband's name was Bousie) and each of her two children...
Then follows the last will and testament of John Parker, of London merchant taylor, as executor of the last will &c. of the Right Revd Father in God Lancelot Andrewes late Lord Bishop of Winchester deceased. Reference to his kinsmen ...his father's half sister Jone (her first husband's name was Bousie) and her two children.
Bishop Buckeridge in his funeral sermon said that Andrewes's parents "left him a sufficient patrimony, which has descended to his heir", and Isaacson described the parents as "honest and religious".
Andrewes himself, in his private prayers, records his thanks that he was "not the sad egg of sorry crows".
________
Memoir of the Ancestry of Dr. Lancelot Andrews
In the second volume of the Rev. William Palin's History of "Stifford and its neighbourhood," I had the honour of contributing a brief memoir of the ancestry of that eminent and learned Prelate Dr. Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester, in which I claimed for the Bishop an Essex ancestry, proving that his father and grandfather were of Horndon-on-the-Hill (where the former says he was born), in direct contradiction to the statement of the Bishop's amanuensis and biographer, Henry Isaacson, who states that he was descended from an ancient Suffolk family.
He was buried (as "Mr Thomas Andrewes") at All Hallows', Barking, in the choir, 23 June 1593 during a period shown by the registers to have been one of very high local mortality.
Married Joan, named in the will of her step-mother in law, 1592;
Executrix to her husband, 1593; will dated 1594 proved PCC 10 January
1597/8:
"I Joan Andrewes, widow, of Tower Hill in London; body to be buried with due and decent funerals and laid in the Quier of the church of All Saints, Barking, hard by the body of my late husband Thomas Andrewes, as near as conveniently it may; to son Lancelot my best salt with cover, being silver and gilt; to son Nicholas, L100; to son Thomas, servant [ie apprentice] to Mr William Cotton, draper, L130; to son Roger, L100; to daughter Mary, wife of William Burrell of Ratcliffe, shipwright, L50; to Andrewe Burrell her son, L100; to daughter Martha Andrewes L100 over and above the L200 she is to receive of me as executrix of Thomas Andrewes her father; to Alice Andrewes, the wife of William Andrewes my brother-in-law, L5; to Thomas Andrewes, second son of Matthew Andrewes my brother-in-law by his first wife, L5; to my brother-in-law William Andrewes and Richard Ireland, my third part of the ship called the Mayflower, the said Richard Ireland to be master of the same as heretofore; to son Roger a gilt tankard and a goblet (of) parcel gilt; to daughter Martha Andrewes my second salt with the cover of silver and gilt; to Joan Butler, late wife of Robert Andrewes my brother-in-law, my hooped ring of gold; to Agnes Butler her daughter, a ring of gold; to my cousin germane, Emma Fowle, L5; to my cosen William Biam, my ring of gold with death's head in it; to my sister Alice Andrewes, wife of William Andrewes, one cloth gown, a kirtle, the residue of my wearing linen, now in a little black chest; son Lancelot executor"
She was buried (as "Mistress Andrewes") at All Hallows, Barking, 7 January 1597/8.
Joane Andrewes (spelt Andrewes), widow of Thomas, who made her will in 1595, mentions therein her brothers-in-law, Matthew, William, and Robert Andrewes. We have therefore clear evidence of the existence of the father and two uncles of Bishop Andrewes whose names accord with those mentioned in the will of Thomas Andrew, the carpenter. John may have died prior to 1593, and Robert who is not named in the carpenter's will might have been a posthumous son. The orthography of the name is variable and in the wills of the Bishop and two of his brothers it is spelt Andrews.
If not proved to demonstration or with the same absolute certainty with which the Pedigree printed in Mr. Palin's work has been established, the evidence, I think, is such as to leave no reasonable doubt that Thomas Andrew the Horndon carpenter, was the grandfather of one of the greatest and most learned Prelates of the Church in England, Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester and Prelate of the Order of the Garter.
H. W. K.
* There was a good family of gentry and yeomanry of this name in that part of Essex. They had a grant of arms and occur in the Heraldic Visitations.
_________
All Hallows by the Tower:
All Hallows by the Tower is an ancient Anglican church located in the City of London, just uphill from the famous Tower of London.
History
All Hallows was first established in 675 by the now-defunct Saxon Barking Abbey and was for many years named after the abbey, as "All Hallows Barking." The church was built on the site of a former Roman building, traces of which have been discovered in the crypt.
The church was expanded and rebuilt several times between the 11th century and 15th century. All Hallows' proximity to the Tower meant that it acquired royal connections, with Edward IV making it a royal chantry and the beheaded victims of Tower executions being sent for temporary burial at All Hallows.
The church was badly damaged by a nearby explosion in 1649, which demolished its west tower, and only narrowly survived the Great Fire of London in 1666. It owed its survival to Admiral William Penn, father of William Penn of Pennsylvania fame, who saved it by having the surrounding buildings demolished to create firebreaks.
In 1926 a Roman pavement and many artifacts were discovered many feet below the church. Restored in the late 19th century, All Hallows was gutted by the Blitz in World War II and required extensive reconstruction, only being rededicated in 1957.
All Hallows by the Tower has connections with several famous persons, including:
• John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States - married here in 1797
• Judge Jeffreys, notorious "hanging judge" - married here in 1667
• William Laud, archbishop beheaded at the Tower - buried here 1645
• Thomas More, Catholic humanist, author and Lord Chancellor, refused to acknowledge Henry VIII as head of the Church - beheaded at Tower of London and buried here in 1535
• John Fisher, beheaded at the Tower - buried here in 1535
• Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Chichester, oversaw King James Bible - baptized here in 1555
• William Penn, founder of the U.S. state of Pennsylvania - baptized here in 1644
__________
Andrews Genealogy and Alliances
BY CLARA BERRY WYKER
DECATUR, ALA.
MRS. JOHN D. WYKER
1917
Methodist Book Concern Press,
Cincinnati, Ohio
From Boston Library, copied and sent me by librarian.
Genealogical Gleanings in England, p. 333:
Johan Andrewes, widow, of the Tower hill. All Saints Barking, 19 February 1594, proved 14 January 1597. My body to be buried in the choir of All Saints Barking hard by the body of my late husband Thomas Andrewes.
To my son Launcelot Andrewes my best salt with the cover, being silver and gilt. To my son Nicholas one hundred pounds. To my son Thomas Andrewes, . . . one hundred and thirty pounds (and other bequests). To my son Roger one hundred pounds. To my daughter Marie Burrell, wife of William Burrell of Ratclif, shipwright, fifty pounds. To Andrewe Burrell their son, one hundred pounds. To my daughter Martha Andrewes one hundred pounds over and above the two hundred pounds she is to receive of me as executrix of the last will &c of my husband, Thomas Andrewes, her father. To Alice Andrewes, wife of William Andrewes, my brother in law, five pounds. To Thomas Andrewes, second son of Matthew Andrewes, my brother in law, by his first wife, five pounds. To my brother in law William Andrewes and Richard Ireland, sometime my servant, my one third part of the ship called the Mayflower of the burden of four score tons or thereabouts, equally between them, upon condition that they shall aliene or sell the same and that the said Richard Ireland shall follow, attend and be master of the same ship as he hath followed, attended and been master of it heretofore. To Joane Butler, late wife of Robert Andrewes, my brother in law, my hooped ring of gold and to Agnes Butler, her daughter by my brother Robert Andrews my "gimous" rings. To Emma Fowle, my cousin germain five pounds. Lewyn, 5.
(The Launcelot Androwes or Andrewes mentioned in this will was the learned Bishop of Winchester, about whose ancestry a short paper will be found in the Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society, New Series, Vol. i, p. ^^. — Henry F. Walters.)
Above is followed by will of John Andrewes, 1649.
Page 418 :
Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester 22 September 1626, with codicils dated 1 May 1626, proved 26 September 1626.
Bequests to the poor of All hallows Barking where I was born, St. Giles without Cripplegate where I was Vicar, St. Martin's within Ludgate, St. Andrew's in Holborne and St. Saviour's in Southwalk where I have been an inhabitant; to the Master, Fellows and Scholars of the College or Hall of Mary Valence, commonly called Pembroke Hall, in Cambridge (a thousand pounds to found two fellowships and also the perpetual advowson of the Rectory of Rawreth in Essex);
to brothers' and sisters' children, viz*. William, son of brother Nicholas, deceased, the children of brother Thomas deceased (his eldest son Thomas, his second son Nicholas, his youngest son Roger, his eldest daughter Ann, married to Arthur Willaston and youngest daughter Mary), the children of sister Mary Burrell (her eldest son Andrew, her sons John, Samuel, Joseph, James and Lancelot, her daughters Mary Rooke and Martha), the children of sister Martha Salmon (her son Thomas Princep by her former husband Robert Princep, her sons Peter and Thomas Salmon, her daughter Ann Best);
to kindred removed, as cousin Ann Hockett and her two sons and three daughters, cousin Sandbrooke, cousin Robert Andrewes and his two children, cousin Rebecca, to my father's half sister Johan (her first husband's name was Bousie) and each of her two children, and more kindred I know not. To Peter Muncaster son of Mr. Richard Muncaster my schoolmaster. To Mr. Robert Barker lately the King's Printer (whom I freely forgive those sums wherein he stands bound to my brother Thomas deceased) and his two sons Robert and Charles, my godsons. To my godson Lancelot Lake. To the poor of All Saints Barking by the Tower, Horndon on the Hill, Rawreth (and other parishes) &c. &c.
My executor to be Mr. John Parker, citizen and merchant taylor of London, and overseers to be Sir Thomas Lake, Sir Henry Martin and Dr. Nicholas Styward. Hele, 109.
(See will of Johane Andrewes, the testator's
mother, and notes, ante, page 333. — Editor.)
___________
The Bishop also makes mention of his cousin Anne Hockett. John Hockett was BA. of Trinity College, Cambridge, 1662, M.A. 1666, and a Fellow of that society. Another of the same name was B.A. of that College 1696. He names another cousin, Sandbrooke; also his cousin Robert and his two children; his cousin Bebecca; his father's half-sister Joan; her first husband's name was Bousie. Also his godson Lancelot Lake, son of Sir Thomas Lake. There was a Lancelot Lake, BA. Catharine Hall, Cambridge, 1666, M.A. 1670. Also his two godsons Bobert and Charles Barker, son of Mr. Bobert Barker, "latelie the King's printer." His principal executor was Mr. John Parker, citizen and Merchant Taylor, of London, to be assisted by Sir Thomas Lake, Sir Henry Martin, and Dr. Nicholas Styward or Steward. His will was witnessed by Robert Bostock, Prebendary of Norton Episcopil in the church of Lincoln, and afterward Archdeacon of Suffolk, and (if not in 1626) Prebendary of Chichester; Joseph Fenton, probably our prelate's physician; John Browning, Bector of Buttermere near Hungerford, whom he had preferred to that living in 1624, author of Six Sermons concerning Public Prayer and the Fasts of the Church (Lond. 1636); Thomas Eddie and William Green, two of the Bishop's servants. Archdeacon Wigmore also signed the three several codicils to the will.
_________________
Ancestry of Lancelot Andrewes (b 1555), Bishop of Winchester
PART ONE
Relatively little seems to be available on the ancestry of Lancelot Andrewes, Elizabethan scholar and Bishop successively of Chichester, Ely and Winchester until his death in 1626. Similarly, various claims may be found in print and online about other Andrews families who claim descent from the Bishop's family - many of these turn out to be spurious (in particular, much of the IGI material is erroneous) but there are some notable descendants living today, including the Parker Bowles children of HRH the Duchess of Cornwall.
John Aubrey ("Brief Lives") tells us that Lancelot Andrewes was born in London and was educated at Merchant Taylors School there, before going up to Pembroke College, Cambridge. Otley in his biography "Lancelot Andrewes" (1894) states that "he was born in Thames Street in the Parish of All Hallows Barking in 1555", noting that the exact date of his birth is unknown; he records that "the family was connected with Suffolk, but very little seems known of its history" - based on statements by the Bishop's earliest biographer, Henry Isaacson, in his "Exact Narration of the Life and Death of the late... Lancelot Andrewes" (1650) ("his father was... descended from the ancient family of the Andrewes in Suffolk".)
Bishop Buckeridge in his funeral sermon said that Andrewes's parents "left him a sufficient patrimony, which has descended to his heir", and Isaacson described the parents as "honest and religious". Andrewes himself, in his private prayers, records his thanks that he was "not the sad egg of sorry crows".
The best two articles dealing with the history of the family may be found in "More About Stifford & Its Neighbourhood", by W. Palin(1872), at pp 8-13 and 70-71, summarising the research of H.W. King, and in Suffolk Manorial Families, which re-examines the former material and provides the texts of some probate records to augment it. These articles are largely correct, but include some incorrect statements, as well as omitting some important facts.
There are also a couple of unreliable references in three Harleian Society Manuscripts in the British Library (Harl MSS 1094 and 1184, and 4031), nominally papers connected with the Vistation of Northamptonshire in 1618-19 by Augustine Vincent, and an undated roll pedigree in the Society of Genealogists' Library. These provide the following originating stemma:
1. Thomas Andrewes of Carlisle, ff 1286, married Magdalen Tokett
2. Ralph Andrewes, ff 1334, married Mary Thompson
3. Ralph Andrewes, of Cockold, married Jane Witney
4. Richard Andrewes of Husdon, married Elizabeth Marcant
5. John Andrewes, married Emma Vaughan
6. Henry Andrewes, married Blanche Smythe
7. Thomas Andrewes 'of St Edes' [i.e. St Neots, Cambs], married Mary Brough
8. Richard Andrewes, of Horndon-on-the -Hill, Essex, married Joyce Bresom
9. John Andrewes, of Horndon, married Joan Cotton
10. Thomas Andrewes of Horndon, "had three wives"
11. Thomas Andrewes of London, father of L Andrewes, Doctor in Divinity, Bishop of Chichester".
It is curious that the latest (ie contemporary) generation in this pedigree should be the only one missing a Christian name! These documents have normally been treated as an ambitious, but essentially fanciful, attempt to connect various disparate Andrews families, and hence it testimony rejected in terms of accuracy.
Nevertheless, we find that it is correct in relation to what it tells us about the Bishop's father and paternal grandfather, including (as we shall see) the statement that the latter had three wives.
I have been unsuccessful in ascertaining whether there is any historical evidence for the earlier generations, and accordingly suspect they should be treated as myth.
In this course of this thread, I shall aim to examine the background of the Bishop and his siblings, and intend to use the Harleian MSS's end generations as my peg.
MA-R
PART TWO: PATERNAL ANCESTRY
Thomas Andrewes of Horndon-on-the-Hill, Essex, was the paternal grandfather of Bishop Lancelot Andrewes. According to the Vincent pedigrees he married three times. Evidence from the Essex wills (published by Fitch in his series of that county's probate records) allows us to confirm this statement, and most of what King's reconstructs of the family:
1. Thomas Andrewes, witnessed the will of Thomas Armerar of Horndon, 21 February 1558/9 (pr Archdeaconry of Essex, 3 April 1559); named in the will of William Goodwyn, his brother-in-law [see will of his daughter Agnes, infra], waxchandler of Horndon, dated 30 May 1561 (pr. Archd. Essex, 3 December 1561):
"L30 to the children of Thomas Andrewes of Horndon, i.e. to Robert
L10, to John and Matthew L5 apiece, and to Agnes L10, all at 23; to John and Matthew in addition L5 each at 23; to Lancelot Andrewes and Agnes Andrewes the son and daughter of Thomas Andrewes of London, mariner, my part of and in the ship called the Trinity of Caryte, and of and in the crayer called the Hearne of London" as "Thomas Andrewe, carpenter of Horndon-on-the-Hill", made a will:
"to the poor men's box of Horndon, 12d; to John my son a bullock and my best coat; to Thomas my son the younger a featherbed; to William my son a gold ring; to Matthew my son a bolster, pair of sheets, two platters and my best jerkin; residue to Margaret my wife whom I ordain my executrix; Robert Drywood and my son Matthew to be overseers;
witnessed by Robert Drywood, maker of this will, Matthew and John Andrewes his sons", dated 29 December [presumably 1568], proved Archd.
Essex 25 January 1568/9.
married firstly ( ) the sister of William Goodwin of Horndon; had by her Thomas, Robert, John, Matthew and Agnes.
married secondly ( ), by whom he had William, not named in any of the Goodwin wills but still living in 1597, and possibly Thomas the younger
married thirdly Margaret, his widow. She seems to have married firstly a Mr Lowe, by whom she had a daughter Agnes [see will of Agnes Andrewes, infra]; then Thomas Andrewes, and thirdly John Goodwin of Horndon, her second husband's nephew by his first marriage. Her will, dated 19 November 1592, proved Archd. Essex 17 February 1592/3, names her son Robert Goodwin, her daughter Sarah Almon; her daughter Agnes Gyles; her daughter Elizabeth Hawkins; her daughter Joan Bowsy, and "Mistress Andrewes of Tower Hill", to whom she left her "bay nag with saddle and bridle". The will of her third husband John Goodwin (dated 26 May, proved 18 June 1588 Archd. Essex) names Margaret his wife, his son Robert and his daughter Sarah. We may thus conclude that by Margaret's marriage to Thomas Andrewes, she bore Elizabeth, afterwards Hawkins, and Joan, afterwards Bowsy.
Issue:
2a. Thomas Andrewes, of Tower Hill, London, mariner; son of his father's first marriage - see part three
2b. Agnes Andrewes, daughter of her father's first marriage; mentioned in her uncle's will, 1561; unmarried; left a will dated 2 February 1562/3, proved Archd. Essex, 7 September 1563:
"Agnes Andrewe of Horndon, maiden; from the money that my brother Thomas Andrewes hath in his hands which was given me by the will of my uncle William Goodwin: to my father, my two brothers William and Robert, each 10s; to my brother Matthew 20s, and my brother Thomas the younger, 40s each at 21; to my sister Elizabeth and my sister-in-law [i.e. step-sister] Agnes Lowe, each 20s at 18; residue to my father; witness: Robert Drywood"
2c. Robert Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; mentioned in the will of his uncle, 1561, and that of his sister Agnes, 1563, then of age; mentioned in his father's will, 1568; dead by 1594, when his widow is mentioned in the will of his sister-in-law Joan Andrews;
married Joan (called "Joan Butler" in the 1594 will, so probably she remarried); had issue:
3a. Thomas Andrewes, named in the will of his uncle Thomas Andrewes, 1593
2d. John Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; mentioned in the wills of 1561 and 1568
2e. Matthew Andrewes, named in the wills of 1561, 1563 and 1568; aged under 21 in 1563; witnessed the will of James Roger of East Tilbury, 18 February 1572/3 (pr. Archd. Essex 13 June 1573); executor to his mother-in-law Alice Thomson, 1579 (Archd, Essex); married firstly ( ) the daughter of Alice Thomson of East Tilbury, by whom he had three children; married secondly ( ); engaged to marry Judith Turner at the time of making his will, proved Archd. Essex, 16 October 1599:
"Matthew Andrewes of Horndon; to my son Robert L20 at 21; to daughter Rebecca, L20 at 20 or marriage; to son William, L5; to Judith Turner, whom, had God permitted, should have been my wife, L10; residue to Nicholas Andrewes my cousin, whom I make executor"
Had issue by both marriages:
3a. William Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; named in his maternal grandmother's will, 1578; named in his father's will, 1599
3b. Thomas Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; named in his maternal grandmother's will, 1578; named in the will of his aunt Joan Andrewes, 1594 as "second son of the first marriage"
3c. John Andrewes, son of his father's first marriage; named in his maternal grandmother's will, 1578
3d. Robert Andrewes, son of his father's second marriage; mentioned in his father's will, 1599, and the wills of his cousins Lancelot Andrewes, 1626, and Martha Salmon, 1650; had two children, according to the 1626 will
3e. Rebecca Andrewes, daughter by her father's second marriage; mentioned in the wills of Thomas Almon, her godfather, 1594 (Archd. Essex, 112 ER 17), her father, 1599, and her cousins Lancelot Andrewes, 1626, and Martha Salmon, 1650
2d. William Andrewes, apparently son of his father's second marriage, as not named in the wills of William Goodwin or Margaret Goodwin; named in his sister's will, 1563, then of age; named in his father's will; bequeathed an interest in a ship by his brother Thomas, 1593, and again by his sister-in-law Joan Andrewes, 1594; married Alice, named in the 1594 will
2e. Thomas Andrewes the younger; unclear by which marriage, though apparently not the first; named in the will of his sister Agnes, 1563, then under age; named in his father's will, 1568
2f. Elizabeth Andrewes, daughter of her father's third marriage; named in her sister's will, 1563, then under 18; mentioned in her mother's will, 1592, having married a Mr Hawkins; she had a daughter Susanna
2g. Joan Andrewes, daughter of her father's third marriage; not named in the will of her sister Agnes, 1563, so possibly not then born; named as "Joan Bowsy" in her mother's will, 1592; referred to as "my father's half-sister Joan - her first husband's name was Bousie" in the will of Lancelot Andrewes, 1626; married firstly Mr Bowsy/Bousie, and secondly ( ). Had two children, according to the 1626 will.
MA-R
PART TWO: PATERNAL ANCESTRY
1. Thomas Andrewes, of Horndon-on-the-Hill, carpenter; had issue, incl:
2d. William Andrewes, apparently son of his father's second marriage, as not named in the wills of William Goodwin or Margaret Goodwin; named in his sister's will, 1563, then of age; named in his father's will; bequeathed an interest in a ship by his brother Thomas, 1593, and again by his sister-in-law Joan Andrewes, 1594; married Alice, named in the 1594 will
This William was a party to a property transaction in Brentwood, Essex, 1594:
"William Greatham and Joan his wife v. William Andrewes and Alice his wife, re two messuages, a garden and an orchard in Brentwood parish of Weald; £40" (Essex Feet of Fines 1581-1603, p 120 #60)
PART THREE: PARENTS AND SIBLINGS
Perhaps the greatest level of confusion about the family of Lancelot Andrewes concerns his siblings. A quick glance at the IGI, for instance, will reveal no fewer than 15 brothers and sisters variously assigned to him. I have been able to confirm 12 only, including an unnamed sibling who died young. The spurious children credited to his parents appear to be:
(a) Ann, said per IGI to have been born in 1568, but of whom there is no trace
(b) Agnes, said per IGI to have been born in 1582, but of whom there is no trace
(c) George, of whom King states "baptised at All Hallows 1563 (and) buried there in 1571", quoting the parish registers (this is presumably the source of the identical details appearing in Boyd's Inhabitants of London). No George Andrewes is named in the parish register for the period in question, either in respect of a baptism or a burial.
(d) William, referred to in the 'Suffolk Manorial Families' pedigree, but of whom there is no other evidence.
In fact, details of Lancelot's parents and siblings are as follows:
Thomas Andrewes, son of Thomas Andrewes and his first wife, nee Goodwin; born at Hordon-on-the-Hill, Essex; of Thames Street, Tower Ward, London; mariner; of age, 23 March 5 Mary I/4 Philip [1558], when he entered in a bond; legatee of his uncle William Goodwin, 1561, then of London; bought a messuage, a toft, a garden, 60 acres of arable, 20 acres of meadow, 40 acres of pasture and 3 acres of wood at Horndon for £160, 1587 [Essex Feet of Fine]; named in the Assessment of 1589 for Tower Ward; "having most part of his life used the seas, in his latter time became one of the Society, and Master of the Holy Trinity, commonly called the Trinity House" (Isaacson); will dated 23 June 1593, proved PCC 4 July 1593:
"I, Thomas Andrewes of the parish of All Saints Barking on Tower Hill, London, mariner; to my well-beloved wife Joan the moiety of my manor or farm in Raweth, Essex, called Borrells, and of all the lands except the advowson of the church of Raweth, which I will shall remain to my eldest son Lancelot Andrewes, clerk; also the moiety of that farm and those lands in Hordon on the Hill, and lands called Gore Oke and Clayes, and of houses in Redriffe, Surrey; to my son Nicholas the other moiety of Borrells and lands in Rawerth; the other moiety of those houses and lands in Horndon shall remain to my son Thomas; the premises in Rederiffe shall remain to my son Roger; to Martha Andrewes my daughter, L200 at 21, with remainder if she die unmarried to my daughter Mary; to the poor of Horndon where I was born, L5; to my brother William Andrewes one quarter of my ship called the White Hart; to every of my brothers and sisters by my father's side dwelling in Essex, 40s apiece; to Thomas Andrewes, son of my brother Robert Andrewes, and to Anne, sister to the said Thomas, to each a dozen of silver spoons; residue to wife Joan".
He was buried (as "Mr Thomas Andrewes") at All Hallows', Barking, in the choir, 23 June 1593 during a period shown by the registers to have been one of very high local mortality.
marred Joan, named in the will of her step-mother in law, 1592; executrix to her husband, 1593; will dated 1594 proved PCC 10 January 1597/8:
"I Joan Andrewes, widow, of Tower Hill in London; body to be buried with due and decent funerals and laid in the Quier of the church of All Saints, Barking, hard by the body of my late husband Thomas Andrewes, as near as conveniently it may; to son Lancelot my best salt with cover, being silver and gilt; to son Nicholas, L100; to son Thomas, servant [ie apprentice] to Mr William Cotton, draper, L130; to son Roger, L100; to daughter Mary, wife of William Burrell of Ratcliffe, shipwright, L50; to Andrewe Burrell her son, L100; to daughter Martha Andrewes L100 over and above the L200 she is to receive of me as executrix of Thomas Andrewes her father; to Alice Andrewes, the wife of William Andrewes my brother-in-law, L5; to Thomas Andrewes, second son of Matthew Andrewes my brother-in-law by his first wife, L5; to my brother-in-law William Andrewes and Richard Ireland, my third part of the ship called the Mayflower, the said Richard Ireland to be master of the same as heretofore; to son Roger a gilt tankard and a goblet (of) parcel gilt; to daughter Martha Andrewes my second salt with the cover of silver and gilt; to Joan Butler, late wife of Robert Andrewes my brother-in-law, my hooped ring of gold; to Agnes Butler her daughter, a ring of gold; to my cousin germane, Emma Fowle, L5; to my cosen William Biam, my ring of gold with death's head in it; to my sister Alice Andrewes, wife of William Andrewes, one cloth gown, a kirtle, the residue of my wearing linen, now in a little black chest; son Lancelot executor"
She was buried (as "Mistress Andrewes") at All Hallows, Barking, 7 January 1597/8.
Issue:
(1) Lancelot Andrewes, born circa 1555; educated at Merchant Taylors school and Pembroke College, Cambridge; successively Dean of Westminster, Bishop of Chichester, Ely and Winchester; Dean of the Chapel Royal; died 25 September 1626; buried at St Saviour's, Southwark [tomb extant] (Alum. Cantab.); aged 71 and some months at his death (Funeral Certificate, College of Arms, I.8/31 and I.23/30); unmarried; will proved PCC, 109 Hele and 23-24 Skynner: inter alia named "cousin Sandbrooke; cousin Ann Hockett, her two sons and three daughters; my father's half-sister Johan (her first husband's name was Bousie) and each of her two children; my brother Thomas, deceased; my cousin Robert Andrewes and his two children; my cousin Rebecca"
(2) Judith Andrewes, buried at All Hallows, Barking, April 1559 (PR)
(3) Agnes Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 30 September 1561 (PR); named in the will of her great-uncle, William Goodwin, 1561; buried at All Hallows, Barking, 19 June 1571 (PR)
(4) (child), buried at All Hallows, Barking, 6 December 1563, during a period of severe local mortality (PR)
(5) Sarah Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 30 May 1564 (PR); presumably died young
(6) John Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 30 January 1565/6; buried there 3 February 1575/6 (PR)
(7) Nicholas Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 23 February 1566/7 (PR); bequeathed property in Essex by his father, 1593; named in his mother's will, 1594; grocer, of the parish of St Brides, Fleet Street, October 1598 (London Subsidy Rolls); residual beneficiary of his uncle Matthew Andrewes, 1599; appointed to the Registrarship of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster Abbey for life, 3 December 1602 ("Lancelot Andrewes", P. Welsby, London 1958); received assignation of a lease of tithes at Erbury and Chilton from Henry Isaacson, 1620 (Norfolk RO, GIL/1/333/717 x 4); late of St Saviour, Southwark, administration PCC 25 September 1626; married and left issue (NB his son and heir, William Andrewes (1602-1640), was Rector of Nuthurst, Sussex, and did not emigrate to America.
(8) Mary Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 23 October 1570 (PR); named in her father's will, 1593, and her mother's will, 1594; died at Lambeth Marsh, her will dated 28 February 1655 with codicil of 20 February 1656/7 proved PCC 15 October 1657; married by 1594 William Burrell, of Ratcliffe, shipwright; armiger; "one of the Commissioners for the Royal Navy for 15 years" (Vis. London, 1633-4, Vol I, p 125); died 1630; will proved PCC 1631 (87 St John); had issue, from whom descended Admiral Rooke, and Andrew Parker-Bowles
(9) Sarah Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 30 December 1571 (PR); presumably died young
(10) Thomas Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 13 March 1572/3 (PR); apprenticed to William Cotton, citizen and draper of London; inherited property at Horndon from his father, 1593; named in his mother's will, 1594; admitted Freeman of the Drapers' Company, 1597 (Roll of the Drapers' Company of London); will proved PCC 1625 123 Clarke; married by licence dated 19 September 1598 Alice Clay, and left issue.
(11) Roger Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, Barking, 12 December 1574 (PR; not 1575, as usually stated, or 1576, as alleged by King); educated at Pembroke College, Cambridge; Rector of Nuthurst, Chancellor and Archdeacon of Chichester; Master of Jesus College, Cambridge (Alum. Cantab.); "overbearing and quarrelsome, (he) treated his college with contemptuous disregard and seems to have resided very little; he neglected the financial the financial affairs of the college, which were his responsibility, and finally embezzled certain sums of money; it was only due to the royal favour in memory of (his) late brother that in 1632 he was permitted to resign instead of being dismissed" ("Jesus College Cambridge, A. Gray, 1902, pp 84-90); died 10 September 1635 (Le Neve's Fasti); buried at Cheriton, Hants, 11 September 1635 (Alum. Cantab.); will proved PCC, 1635 (Prob 11/169); married Philippa Blaxton, but had no issue.
(12) Martha Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, 24 March 1576/7 (PR); named in her father's will, 1593, and her mother's will, 1594; called "now wife of Robert Salmon and late wife of Robert Princippe lately deceased, 12 July 1597 (Huntingdon RO, Con 3/5/9/13); will dated 27 May 1650, proved PCC 7 July 1653:
"Martha Salmon of London, widow, late wife of Robert Salmon, deceased; 20s to the preacher at her interment at All Hallows, Barking; to loving friend and cosen Captain John Stevens, L200 on trust for her daughter, and L5 and 40s for a ring in remembrance; to sister Mary Burrell, L20; to cosen Mr Sambrooke, 40s to buy him a ring; cozens Mrs Cator and Mrs Ireland, L3 each; to Robert Andrewes and Rebecca Andrewes, L3 each; late deceased brother's trustees, L50 for setting up young beginners in trades or handicrafts as per his will"
married firstly Robert Princep, and had a son, Thomas, baptised at St Bride's Fleet Street, 23 November 1595 (IGI); married secondly, 26 January 1597 at St Olave Hart Street (PR) Robert Salmon, Master of Trinity House, 1617; of Leigh-on-sea, Essex (East Anglian & Essex Countryside Annual, 1964, p 65). Left issue.
(13) Sarah Andrewes, baptised at All Hallows, 24 March 1576/7 (PR); presumably died young.
MA-R
PART THREE: PARENTS AND SIBLINGS
Thomas Andrewes, of Thames Street, Tower Ward, London; mariner; will dated 23 June 1593; buried at All Hallows', Barking, 23 June 1593
Given the dates of his will and his burial, we may conclude that the Bishop's father died 23 June 1593. There was a virulent outbreak of bubonic plague in London during 1593; Stowe reports nearly 11,000 deaths in twelve months.
PART FOUR: GOODWIN ANCESTRY
I visited Horndon-on-the-Hill this morning; it is a very pleasant village, with various mediaeval buildings remaining in good condition. The church is open for visitors on a Tuesday and Saturday mornings, and the Bell still functions as an inn. A plaque outside commemorates Thomas Higbed, of Horndon House, who on 26 March 1555 was burnt at the stake in the courtyard for adhering to the Protestant cause.
1. ( ) Goodwin; had issue:
2a. (daughter), married as his first wife Thomas Andrewes of Horndon-on-the-Hill (died 1568), and left issue
2b. William Goodwin, of Horndon-on-the-Hill, waxchandler; left a will dated 30 May 1561, proved Archd. Essex 3 December 1561:
"to my eldest son Robert, my messuage called the Bell in Horndon; to my sons Thomas and John each L10 at 23; to Joan Goodwin my maidservant, 40s at marriage; to Lancelot Andrewes and Agnes Andrewes the son and daughter of Thomas Andrewes of London, mariner, my part of and in the ship called the Trinity of Caryte, and of and in the crayer called the Hearne of London; whereas the said Thomas by his obligation dated 23 March in the fourth and fifth years of the late King and Queen Philip and Mary [i.e. 1557/8, not 1556/7 as printed by Fitch in his edition of Essex Wills] standeth bound to me in L40 for payment of L30, i.e. L5 yearly at Michaelmas until L30 be paid, which obligation I will shall be cancelled, and that he shall stand bound to Robert my son for payment of L30 to the children of Thomas Andrewes of Horndon, i.e. to Robert L10, to John and Matthew L5 apiece, and to Agnes L10, all at 23; to John and Matthew in addition L5 each at 23; residue to Robert, whom I make my executor"
left issue:
3a. Robert Goodwin, eldest son; executor and residual benefiary of his father, 1561, from whom he inherited the Bell at Horndon; named in the will of his brother John, 1588 [infra]; dead by 1590; married Elizabeth Bretton, daughter of Robert Bretton; died a widow; her will proved Archd. Essex 4 June 1590:
"Elizabeth Goodwin of Horndon, widow: to John and Robert Goodwin, my sons, such right as I now have in three tenements, a barn, an orchard and a croft which my father Robert Bretton did give between me and my sister Hearde in Horndon; if they both die without heirs, to my daughter Susan Carter; to John and Robert, four kine and ten sheep which are let to farm to one Williams of East Tilbury; to Repent Savage, 10 shillings; to Susan my mourning gown, my best hat, 11 pieces of pewter in a spruce chest, the said chest, my best salt, two latten candlesticks, my best ***, best petticoat etc etc; to Joan Savage my daughter, my two bedsteads in the bed loft, a great chest etc etc; to my sister Heard, my warming pan and a pair of great cob- irons; residue to Robert Heard and Robert Bretton my brother, whom I ordain executors, desiring them to see my two sons brought up; my brother Heard shall have Robert, and my brother Robert shall have John".
Issue:
4a. John Goodwin, named in his uncle's will of 1588, and his mother's will proved 1590
4b. Robert Goodwin, named in his uncle's will of 1588, and his mother's will proved 1590
4c. Susan Goodwin, named in her mother's will; married Mr Carter
4d. Joan Goodwin, named in her mother's will; married Repent Savage, named in his mother-in-law's will
3b. Thomas Goodwin, named in his father's will of 30 May 1561, then aged under 23
3c. (daughter), referred to in the will of her brother John, 1588 (infra); married Mr Norden
3d. John Goodwin, named in his father's will of 30 May 1561, then aged under 23; bequeathed 4s by Robert Bretton of Langdon Hills, 1566; beer-brewer of Horndon; administration of his nuncupative will dated 26 May 1588 granted Archd. Essex, 18 June 1588:
"to brother Robert Goodwin's two sons, John and Robert, 40 shillings a piece at 21; to Susanna Hawkins, a cow at 18 or marriage; to sister Norden, a winter gown; residue to wife Margaret, son Robert and daughter Sarah, to be equally divided"
married Margaret, third wife and widow of Thomas Andrewes of Horndon, his uncle by marriage; she died his widow, 1592; will dated 19 November 1592, proved Archd. Essex, 17 February 1592/3:
"to Robert Goodwin my son, the bedstead that I lie on, with the featherbed, half dozen of my best flaxen napkins, etc etc, the Book of Acts and Monuments [Foxe], the New Testament, and the book of Latymer's Sermons; to Sarah Almon my daughter, the next bedsteadle with the new feather bed, a flaxen tablecloth, etc etc; to Agnes Gyles my daughter, a featherbed, the great kettle, etc etc; to Elizabeth Hawkins my daughter, my spice mortar, a chafer with feet, a kettle, etc etc; to Joan Bowsy my daughter, a featherbed, a dozen of pewter and a good tablecloth; to Susan Hawkins, a brass pot and a kettle; to Mistress Andrewes of Tower Hill, my bay nag with the saddle andbridle; residue to Robert, whom I make executor; witnesses: Thomas Taylor, Robert Drywood, Robert Taylor".
Issue:
4a. Robert Goodwin, named in his parents' wills, 1588 and 1592
4b. Sarah Goodwin, named in her parents' wills, 1588 and 1592; married Mr Almon [probably Thomas Almon of Horndon-on-the-Hill, will pr. Archd. Essex, 1594 112ER17].
There are a number of other Goodwin wills at Chelmsford, including some earlier (eg Thomas of Horndon, 1543; Joan of Horndon, widow, 1552) which I have not yet seen; these likely shed further light on the Goodwin family of Horndon-on-the-Hill.
MA-R
From: Brad Verity
Date: 21 Apr 2007
______________
Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626), born in the parish of All Hallows, Barking, he was a scholar at the Coopers' Free School in Ratcliff. Whilst at Coopers he came under the influence of school master Thomas Ward who played a pivotal role in young Lancelot's life. He went on to study at Pembroke College, Cambridge, and in 1580 was ordained, quickly progressing to higher offices within the church. He shone as a scholar and was said to be fluent in fifteen ancient and modern languages; Andrewes was soon noticed in royal circles by Queen Elizabeth's Chief Minister and spymaster Francis Walsingham leading to him becoming her Chaplain in Ordinary. Upon her death in 1603 Lancelot Andrewes preached the sermon at her funeral, and then went on to participate in the coronation of King James I. Under the new King his rise in the church was rapid: in 1605 he was made Bishop of Chichester and Lord High Almoner. In 1609 he became Bishop of Ely and in 1619 Bishop of Winchester and Dean of the Royal Chapel. He narrowly missed becoming Archbishop of Canterbury. Upon his death seven years later he was buried in what is now Southwark Cathedral. Amongst his many ecclesiastical achievements Bishop Andrewes oversaw the translation of the King James version of the Bible and, following the unsuccessful attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament in 1605, Lancelot was asked to prepare a sermon to be presented to the King. In his sermon he justified the need to commemorate the deliverance of The King and Country: to 'always remember the fifth of November!' He defined the celebrations which became the foundations of events that continue some 400 years later. Lancelot Andrewes remained a close confidant of the King and accompanied him on his Scottish mission to persuade the Scots that it was preferable to pay more attention to rituals like the Holy Communion through an Episcopalian approach and move away from the heavy sermons of Presbyterianism. Liverymen might be interested to know that on Saturday 14 January 1933 during the building of the Bishop Andrewes' Church in St Helier, Morden, the foundation stone was laid by the then Master of the Company, Harold Griffin JP, Great Grandfather of Liveryman and Society President Celia Campbell and Liveryman and Past President of the Society, Sharon Ashby. The above trowel was presented to him as a commemoration of the event. In June of that year the church was consecrated by the Bishop of Southwark with the company and school playing their part in the service.
____________
Lancelot Andrews' Catholicity:
On September 25th most of the Anglican Communion commemorates the day on which Lancelot Andrewes died. Monday, about 4 O'clock in the morning, died Lancelot Andrews, the most worthy bishop of Winchester, the great light of the Christian world." (Laud 3:126)
And what a light he was in his time and still is. Those who value the catholicity of the Church and the beauty of holiness in worship, also offer a big thank you on this day as he safeguarded the Catholic heritage in the English Church in its formative years of the Reformation period under Elizabeth I. One cannot read Andrewes' sermons or use his prayers without being aware of the centrality of the Eucharist in his life and teaching, as well as teaching the Catholic faith according to the Fathers in his sermons.
So it is not surprising that for many in the seventeenth century Andrewes was considered the authority on worship, and so what he practised in his beautiful chapel, designed for Catholic worship, became their standard for the celebration of the Liturgy. The 1662 Prayer Book, following Andrewes' practice, restored the rubrics for the manual acts at the offertory and consecration. In modern times Eliot referred to Andrewes as "the first great preacher of the English Catholic Church".
There is no doubt therefore that Andrewes saw himself as standing in that long line of Christian tradition embedded in antiquity, and a part of the wonder and loveliness of creation. Indeed Andrewes was a man of prayer and learning whose preaching and piety was noted as far away as Venice. Each day of his life, from 4.am to noon was spent in prayer and study.
During those fifty years Andrewes ministry touched all walks of life. He was chaplain to reigning monarchs for forty years; constant preacher at Court especially for James I.
Andrewes' began his ministry (a ministry that was to last fifty years) c.1578, a time when the Puritans were trying their hardest, especially through pamphlets and parliaments to model the English Church on the Genevan. This would have meant discarding the episcopal and apostolic ministry, the Prayer Book, downplaying the sacraments and dismantling the structure of cathedrals. However their demands were always thwarted by Queen Elizabeth. She and the Archbishop of Canterbury (Whitgift) both appointed Andrewes as one of their chaplains, and prevailed on his skills as a preacher and theologian to address many of the issues raised by Puritans in the late 16thC. So his preaching and lecturing and later on when a bishop his Visitation Articles always stressed amongst other things the observance of Prayer Book services to be taken by a properly ordained minister, the Eucharist to be celebrated reverently, infants to be baptised, the Daily Offices to be said, and spiritual counselling to be given where needed.
One cannot read Andrewes' sermons or use his prayers without being aware of the centrality of the Eucharist in his life and teaching. It had been the heart of worship in the early Church when the local bishop and people came together constantly to celebrate Christ's glorious death, and partake of His most blessed Body and Blood. That partaking fell into disuse in the mediæval church and was replaced instead by adoration of the Host at the elevation during the Canon. For Andrewes the Eucharist was the meeting place for the infinite and finite, the divine and human, heaven and earth. "The blessed mysteries ... are from above; the 'Bread that came down from Heaven,' the Blood that hath been carried 'into the holy place.' And I add, ubi Corpus, ubi sanguis Christi, ibi Christus". We here "on earth ... are never so near Him, nor He us, as then and there." Thus it is to the altar we must come for "that blessed union [which] is the highest perfection we can in this life aspire unto." Unlike his contemporary Puritans it was not the pulpit but the altar, glittering with its candles and plate, with incense wafting to God, that was the focal point for worship in Andrewes' chapel.
The reason that Andrewes placed so much importance on reverence in worship came from his conviction that when we worship God it is with our entire being, that is, both bodily and spiritually. At a time when little emphasis was placed on the old outward forms of piety Andrewes maintained, "if He hath framed that body of yours and every member of it, let Him have the honour both of head and knee, and every member else."
During those fifty years Andrewes ministry touched all walks of life. He was chaplain to reigning monarchs for forty years; constant preacher at Court especially for James I; vicar of an important London parish, St. Giles, Cripplegate; and a prebendary of St. Paul's Cathedral for fifteen years. He was also Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge for a similar period; a prebendary and then Dean of Westminster Abbey for a total of eight years; Almoner and Dean of the Royal Chapel and finally a bishop for twenty-two years. He therefore not only held influential positions but also ministered to many who held important positions of State. Yet his congregations came from all walks of life, apart from royalty, politicians and gentry, there were actors, artisans, musicians, students, common folk and clerics. Contemporaries admired his preaching and piety, and eagerly awaited the publication of his sermons. Whilst he was a prebendary of St. Pancras stall at St. Paul's he restored the ancient office of confessor. Accordingly, "especially in Lent time" he would "walk duly at certain hours, in one of the Iles of the Church, that if any came to him for spirituall advice and comfort, as some did, though not many, he might impart it to them."
So it is not surprising that for many in the seventeenth century Andrewes was considered the authority on worship, and so what he practised in his beautiful chapel, designed for Catholic worship, became their standard for the celebration of the Liturgy. As Andrewes was steeped in the teachings of the Fathers and the liturgies of both Eastern and Western churches it meant that in intention and form he followed the 1549 Prayer Book more than the 1559. His practice shaped the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637 (adopted by the American Episcopal Church in the 1789), and the reshaping of the Liturgy in the English Church in 1662. The 1662 Prayer Book, following Andrewes' practice, restored the rubrics for the manual acts at the offertory and consecration. Since then all Prayer Books compiled in various parts of the Anglican Communion are closer to the 1549 Prayer Book - a liturgy in Cranmer's eyes to be only a stop-gap, but for Andrewes it reflected the practices and beliefs of the Church for over a thousand years.
As a preacher Andrewes was highly esteemed by contemporaries and later generations. In modern times Eliot referred to Andrewes as "the first great preacher of the English Catholic Church" who always spoke as "a man who had a formed visible Church behind him, who speaks with the old authority and the new culture, whilst his sermons "rank with the finest English prose of their time, of any time." As well as teaching the Catholic faith according to the Fathers his sermons also reflected an appreciation of beauty as well as knowledge of commerce, trade, art, theatre, navigation, husbandry, science, astronomy, cosmography, fishing, nature, shipping, and even the new discoveries of the world.
But Andrewes himself would have said, as indeed he did to Sir Francis Walisingham, that his whole life and teaching were indebted to the Fathers, especially the Eastern. One has only to be reasonably familiar with the Fathers, to see how much of their teachings were preached by him. For example the Cappadocian Fathers on the Eucharist, the Trinity and Christology, Cyprian on prayer, Anselm on sin and Bernard on atonement.
There is no doubt therefore that Andrewes saw himself as standing in that long line of Christian tradition embedded in antiquity, and a part of the wonder and loveliness of creation. As Dean Church said of him: "He ... felt himself, even in private prayer, one of the great body of God's creation and God's Church. He reminded himself of it, as he did of the Object of his worship, in the profession of his faith. He acted on it in his detailed and minute intercessions." Indeed Andrewes was a man of prayer and learning whose preaching and piety was noted as far away as Venice. Each day of his life, from 4.am to noon was spent in prayer and study. It is a shame that very few Anglicans know anything about this most important divine during the Reformation period in England, or of their heritage. The period in which Andrewes lived was perhaps "the golden years" of what became known as Anglicanism.
____________
The darker side of the chief King James Bible translator, Lancelot Andrewes
One of the most amazing feats of history was the creation of the King James Version of the Bible in the years leading up to 1611. A committee of bickering scholars pulled together one of the two greatest works of English literature–great, at least, in their formative influence on the language and culture of English-speaking nations–with the other being the plays of Shakespeare.
The "lead mule" on this herculean project was perhaps the most brilliant man of his age, and one of the most pious, Lancelot Andrewes. A fascinating figure in his own right, Andrewes was not only a scholar and a spiritual man, but also a master of ecclesiastical politics. Like all people, he was not without flaws, and Adam Nicolson, author of God's Secretaries, looked unstintingly into those flaws as well as the greatness of the man. Here is some of what Nicolson discovered:
[You should know that a prebendary is a post connected to an Anglican or Catholic cathedral or collegiate church and is a type of canon. Prebendaries have a role in the administration of the cathedral. A prebend is a type of benefice, which was usually drawn from specific sources in the income from the cathedral estates.]
26 "By midsummer [1603], London under plague now looked, sounded, and smelled like a city at war. It was by far the worst outbreak England had known. Here now, grippingly, and shockingly, the first and greatest of the Bible Translators appears on the scene. It is not a dignified sight. Lancelot Andrewes was a man deeply embedded in the Jacobean establishment. [Jacobitism was a political movement in Great Britain and Ireland that aimed to restore the Roman Catholic Stuart King James II of England and his heirs to the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland.] He was forty-nine or fifty, Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge. He was also Dean of Westminster Abbey, a prebendary of St. Paul's Cathedral, drawing the income from one of the cathedral's manors, and of Southwell Minster, one of the chaplains at the Chapel Royal in Whitehall, who under Elizabeth had twice turned down a bishopric not because he felt unworthy of the honour but because he did not consider the income of the sees he was offered satisfactory. Elizabeth had done much to diminish the standing of bishops; she had banished them from court and had effectively suspended Edmund Grindal, the Archbishop of Canterbury whose severe and Calvinist views were not to her liking. Andrewes, one of the most astute and brilliant men of his age, an ecclesiastical politician who in the Roman Church would have become a cardinal, perhaps even pope, was not going to diminish his prospects simply to carry an elevated title."
26-7 "Andrewes plays a central role in the story of the King James Bible, and the complexities of his character will emerge as it unfolds—he is in many ways its hero; as broad as the great Bible itself, scholarly, political, passionate, agonized, in love with the English language, endlessly investigating its possibilities, worldly, saintly, serene, sensuous, courageous, craven, if not corrupt then at least compromised, deeply engaged in pastoral [27] care, generous, loving, in public bewitched by ceremony, in private troubled by persistent guilt and self-abasement—but in the grim realities of plague-stricken London in the summer of 1603, he appears in the worst possible light. Among his many positions in the church, he was the vicar of St Giles Cripplegate, just outside the old walls to the north of the city."
27 "The church was magnificent, beautifully repaired after a fire in 1545, full of the tombs of knights and aldermen, goldsmiths, physicians, rich men and their wives. The church was surrounded by elegant houses and the Jews' Garden, where Jews had been buried before the medieval pogroms, was now filled with 'fair garden plots and summer-houses for pleasure . . . some of them like Midsummer pageants, with towers, turrets and chimney-tops.'"
28 "Andrewes wasn't there. He had previously attended to the business of the parish, insisting that the altar rails should be retained in the church (which a strict Puritan would have removed), doubling the amount of communion wine that was consumed (for him, Christianity was more than a religion of the word) and composing a Manual for the Sick, a set of religious reassurances, beginning with a quotation from Kings: 'Set thy house in order, for thou shalt die.' And he certainly preached at St. Giles's from time to time. But throughout the long months of the plague in 1603, he never once visited his parish."
For the king to absent himself [to the country to avoid the plague] was only politic. But for the vicar of a parish to do so was another question."
28 "The mortality had spread to Westminster. In the parish of St Margaret, in which the Abbey and Westminster School both lie, dogs were killed in the street and their bodies burnt, month after month, a total of 502 for the summer. The outbreak was nothing like as bad as in Cripplegate, but Andrewes, who as dean was responsible for both Abbey and school, with its 160 pupils, was not to be found there either. He had ordered the college closed for the duration and had gone down himself to its 'pleasant [29] retreat at Chiswick, where the elms afforded grateful shade in summer and a 'retiring place' from infection'. He might well have walked down there, as he often did, along the breezy Thameside path through Chelsea and Fulham 'with a brace of young fry, and in that wayfaring leisure had a singular dexterity to fill those narrow vessels with a funnel'. He was lovely to the boys. 'I never heard him utter so much as a word of austerity among us,' one of his ex-pupils remembered. The Abbey papers still record the dean's request in July 1603 for 'a butler, a cooke, a carrier, a skull and royer' – these last two oarsmen for the Abbey boat – to be sent down to Chiswick with the boys. Richard Hakluyt, historian of the great Elizabethan mariners, and Hadrian à Saravia, another of the Translators, signed these orders as prebendaries of the Abbey. Here, the smallness of the Jacobean establishment comes suddenly into focus. Among the Westminster boys this summer, just eleven years old, was the future poet and divine George Herbert, the brilliant son of a great aristocratic family, his mother an intimate of John Donne's. From these first meetings in a brutal year, Herbert would revere and love Andrewes for the rest of his life. Meanwhile, in Cripplegate, the slum houses were boarded up, the poor died and in the streets the fires burned. Every new case of the disease was to be marked by the ringing of a passing bell down the street. Each death and burial was rung out too so that 'the doleful and almost universal and continual ringing and tolling of bells' marked the infected parishes. From far out in the fields, you could hear London mourning its dead. In the week of 16 September, the outbreak would peak at 3,037 dead. Proportionately, it was a scale of destruction far worse than anything during the Blitz."
29-30 "Was Andrewe's departure for Chiswick acceptable behavior? Not entirely. There was the example of the near-saintly Thomas Morton, one of John Donne's friends and the rector of Long Marston outside York, later a distinguished bishop, who, in the first flush of this plague epidemic as it attacked York in [30] the summer of 1602, had sent all his servants away, to save their lives, and attended himself to the sick and dying in the city pesthouse. Morton slept on a straw bed with the victims, rose at four every morning, was never in bed before ten at night, and travelled to and from the countryside, bringing in the food for the dying on the crupper of his saddle."
30 "Alongside this, Andrewes's elm-shaded neglect of the Cripplegate disaster looks shameful. While he was at Chiswick, he preached a sermon on 21 August that compounded the crime. 'The Rasor is hired for us,' he told his congregation, Hakluyt and Herbert perhaps among them, 'that sweeps away a great number of haires at once.' Plague was a sign of God's wrath provoked by men's 'own inventions', the taste for novelty, for specious newness, which was so widespread in the world. The very word 'plague' – and there is something unsettling about this pedantic scholarship in the face of catastrophe – came from the Latin plaga meaning 'a stroke'. It was 'the very handy-worke of God'. He admitted that there was a natural cause involved in the disease but it was also the work of a destroying angel. 'There is no evill but it is a sparke of God.' Religion, he said, was filled by Puritan preachers with 'new tricks, opinions and fashions, fresh and newly taken up, which their fathers never knew of'. The people of England now 'think it a goodly matter to be wittie, and to find out things our selves to make to our selves, to be Authors, and inventors of somewhat, that so we may seem to be as wise as God, if not wiser'. What could be more wicked than the idea of being an Author? Let alone wittie? Newness was the sin and novelty was damnable. 'That Sinn may cease, we must be out of love with our own inventions and not goe awhoring after them . . . otherwise, his anger will not be turned away, but his hand stretched out still.'"
30-1 "The educated, privileged and powerful churchman preaches his own virtue and ignores his pastoral duties, congratulating himself on his own salvation. The self-serving crudity of this [31] did not escape the attentions of the Puritans. If Andrewes sincerely believed that the plague was a punishment of sin and 'novelty', and if he was guiltless on that score, then why had he run away to Chiswick? Surely someone of his purity would have been immune in the city/ And if his pastoral duties led him to the stinking death pits of Cripplegate, as they surely did, why was he not there? Did Andrewes, in other words, really believe what he was saying about the omnipotent wrath of the Almighty?"
31 "In a way he didn't; and his hovering between a vision of overwhelming divine authority and a more practical understanding of worldly realities, in some ways fudging the boundaries between these two attitudes, reveals the man. Henoch Clapham, the angry pamphleteer, lambasted Andrewes in his Epistle Discoursing upon the Present Pestilence. All Londoners, Andrewes included, should behave as though plague was not contagious. Everybody should attend all the funerals. There was no need to run away. It was a moral disease. If you were innocent you were safe. And not to believe that was itself a sin. How innocent was Andrewes in running to save his own skin? Did the innocent require an elm-tree shade? Clapham was slapped into prison for asking these questions. To suggest that the Dean of Westminster was a self-serving cheat was insubordinate and unacceptable. Andrewes interrogated him there in a tirade of anger and attempted to impose on him a retraction. Clapham had to agree (in the words written by Andrewes):"
31 " 'That howsoever there is no mortality, but by and from a supernatural cause, so yet it is not without concurrence of natural causes also . . . That a faithful Christian man, whether magistrate or minister, may in such times hide or withdraw himself, as well corporeally as spiritually, and use local flight to a more healthful place (taking sufficient order for the discharge of his function).'"
31-2 "Clapham refused to sign this and stayed in prison for eighteen months until he finally came up with a compromise he could [32] accept: there were two sorts of plague running alongside each other. One, infectious, was a worldly contagion, against which you could take precautions. The other, not infectious, was the stroke of the Angel's hand. A pre-modern understanding of a world in which God and his angels interfered daily, in chaotic and unpredictable ways, was made to sit alongside something else: the modern, scientific idea of an intelligible nature. The boundary between the two, and all the questions of authority, understanding and belief which hang around it, is precisely the line which Andrewes had wanted to fudge."
32 "If this looks like the casuistry of a trimming and worldly churchman, there were of course other sides to him. Down at Chiswick, as throughout his life, the time he spent in private, about five hours every morning, was devoted almost entirely to prayer. He once said that anyone who visited him before noon clearly did not believe in God. The prayers he wrote for himself, first published after his death in 1648 as Preces Privatae, have for High Church Anglicans long been a classic of devotional literature. Andrewes gave the original manuscript to his friend Archbishop Laud. It was 'slubbered with his pious hands and watered with his penitential tears'. This was no rhetorical exaggeration: those who knew him often witnessed his 'abundant tears' as he prayed for himself and others. In his portraits he holds, gripped in one hand, a large and absorbent handkerchief. It was a daily habit of self-mortification and ritualized unworthiness in front of an all-powerful God, a frame of mind which nowadays might be thought almost mad, or certainly in need of counseling or therapy. But that was indeed the habit of the chief and guiding Translator of the King James Bible: 'For me, O Lord, sinning and not repenting, and so utterly unworthy, it were more becoming to lie prostrate before Thee and with weeping and groaning to ask pardon for my sins, than with polluted mouth to praise Thee.'"
32-3 "This was the man who was acknowledged as the greatest preacher of the age, who tended in great detail to the school children in his care, who, endlessly busy as he was, would nevertheless wait in the transepts of Old St Paul's for any Londoner in need of solace or advice, who was the most brilliant man in the English Church, destined for all but the highest office. There were few Englishmen more powerful. Everybody reported on his serenity, the sense of grace that hovered around him. But alone every day he acknowledged little but his wickedness and his weakness. The man was a library, the repository of sixteen centuries of Christian culture, he could speak fifteen modern languages and six ancient, but the heart and bulk of his existence was his sense of himself as a worm. Against an all-knowing, all-powerful and irresistible God, all he saw was an ignorant, weak and irresolute self:
33 " 'A Deprecation
33 " 'O Lord, Thou knowest, and canst, and willest
the good of my soul.
Miserable man am I;
I neither know, nor can, nor, as I ought
will it.'"
33 "How does such humility sit alongside such grandeur? It is a yoking together of opposites which seems nearly impossible to the modern mind. People like Lancelot Andrewes no longer exist. But the presence in one man of what seem to be such divergent qualities is precisely the key to the age. It is because people like Lancelot Andrewes flourished in the first decades of the seventeenth century – and do not now – that the greatest translation of the Bible could be made then, and cannot now. The age's lifeblood was the bridging of contradictory qualities. Andrewes embodies it and so does the King James Bible."
86 "At the same time, Bancroft began to hire the men for the great translation and here it was breadth and inclusiveness which dictated the choice. The first Westminster company, charged with translating the first books of the Bible, had Lancelot Andrewes, Dean of Westminster Abbey, as its director. He was known as 'the Angell in the pulpit', the man more versed in modern and ancient tongues than any other in England, who could serve, it was thought, as 'Interpreter-General' at the Day of Judgement, but he had other skills, and another track record, which confirmed him as a member of the core establishment and recommended him to Bancroft and the king."
86 "He had been used before in important political work, some fifteen years earlier when Bancroft was working for Whitgift rooting out the Separatist congregations in London. Andrewes, then in his mid-thirties and already recognized as the coming man, and as the cleverest preacher in England, could be relied on to do Bancroft's work for him. Highly detailed accounts survive of what Andrewes did for the ecclesiastical establishment: a representation, in other words, of what Bancroft would have known of him, the grounds on which he chose him as one of the principal Translators. Once again, it is not a dignified picture: his governing qualities are those of a man who knows how to exercise power."
86-7 "Through the second half of the 1580s, the more extreme Separatist puritans, who considered each congregation a self-sufficient church of Christ, became the target of a campaign led by Richard Bancroft. They were to be found in private houses all around London, holding private conventicles in which their [87] inspirational preachers were, it was reported to Bancroft, 'esteemed as godds'. Bancroft, who in another life would clearly have been an excellent detective, had his spies in place. As a central player in the Crown establishment, he would have had an array of inducements to hand: money, prospects, threats, the persuasive words of a man with access to power. Those tools gave him access to all kinds of secret meetings. 'After the Minister hath saluted everie one, both man and woman, at theire comynge into the Chamber with a kysse', one report of such a Separatist meeting described, shocked at its impropriety,"
87 " 'a large Table beinge prepared for the purpose (which holdeth fortie or fiftie persons) he taking the chayre at the end thereof, the rest sitt down everie one in order: . . . the Minister himself having received [communion] in both kyndes: the breade and the wyne which is left, passeth downe, and everye man without more a doe is his owne Carver.'"
87 "The state church could not tolerate the freedom or the priestlessness of such behavior. Many Separatists – and they were overwhelmingly young, idealistic people, a tiny minority, perhaps no more than a couple of hundred in England as a whole – fled to the Netherlands but others were arrested and, eventually, some fifty-two were held for long periods in the string of hideous London gaols [jails]: the Clink, the Gatehouse, the Fleet, Newgate, the Counter Woodstreet, the Counter Poultry, Bridewell and the White Lion, some of the prisoners shut in the 'most noisome and vile dungeons', without 'bedds, or so much as strawe to lye upon . . . and all this, without once producing them, to anie Christian trial where they might have place given them, to defend themselves'. One of them, the eighteen-year-old Roger Waters, was kept in irons for more than a year."
87-8 "Their leaders, honest, fierce men, the spiritual forebears of the future Massachusetts colonists, were to be interrogated (or 'conversed with' as Bancroft described it; the meetings were known among the Separatists themselves as 'Spanish conferences') [88] by the more brilliant and trustworthy members of the Church of England. Andrewes was at their head. Bancroft instructed him to interrogate Henry Barrow, the leading Separatist who had been arrested in 1587 and kept in the Fleet."
88 "Andrewes visited the gaol accompanied by another divine, William Hutchinson. Their descent into the Separatists' hell is a moment of sudden, film-like intensity, when the passionate realities of early modern England come starkly to life. The entire context of the King James Bible is dramatized in these prison meetings: holiness meets power, or at least one version of holiness meets another; the relative claims of society and the individual, and the legitimacy of those claims, clash; the individual conscience grates against the authority structures of an age which senses incipient anarchy at every turn and so is obsessed with order; the candid plays against the cynical, worldliness against a kind of stripped Puritan idealism; and the godly comes face to face with the political."
88-9 "With Barrow, in March 1590, Hutchinson and Andrewes began kindly. They were sitting in the parlour of the Fleet prison [89] (one of the better of the London prisons, 'fit for gentlemen')." Barrows expressed his desire " 'to obtain such conference where the Book of God might peaceably decide all our controversy'. That phrase, innocuous as it might sound, was salt in the eyes for Andrewes. It released a flood of hostile questions. All the issues of order and authority, the great political questions of the day, streamed out over his prisoner-conversant. 'Whie,' Andrewes said, 'the booke of God cannot speake, which way should that decide owr controversies?" That was the central question of the Reformation: did Christians not need a church to interpret God for them? Or could they have access to the godhead without help, with all the immediacy of the inspired? Barrow replied in the spirit of Luther: each soul could converse with God direct, unmediated by any worldly church, his thoughts and actions to be interpreted by the words of scripture itself."
89 " 'Dr Andrewes: But the spirits of men must be subject unto men, will you not subject your spirit to the judgment of men?
" 'Barrow: The spirit of the prophets must be subject to the prophets, yet must the prophets judge by the word of God. As for me I willingly submit my whole faith to be tried and judged by the word of God, of all men.
" 'Dr Andrewes: All men cannot judge, who then shal judge the Word?
" 'Barrow: The word, and let every one that judgeth take hede that he judge aright htereby; 'Wisdom is justified of her children.' (Matthew 11:19)"
89-90 "Andrewes thought he spotted error. 'This savorth of a pryvat spyrit,' he said. Nothing was more damning in his lexicon than that phrase. The privateness of the Puritan spirit was its defining sin, its arrogance and withdrawal in the face of communal and [90] inherited wisdom, treating the word of God, the scriptures, not as a common inheritance, whose significance could be understood only within the tradition that had grown and flowered around it, but as a private guidebook to a personal and selfish salvation. The heart of the Puritan error was that social divisiveness, that failure to join in, its stepping outside the necessity of order, its assumption that the Puritan himself was a member of God's elect, and the rest could look to the hindmost [look out for themselves]. How could a society be based on that predestinarian arrogance?Increasingly, for churchmen such as Andrewes [and here is the Establishment position], it seemed that the true church could only be inclusive, one in which God's grace would descend on believers not through some brutal predestinarian edict but through the sacraments, through the ceremony of the church."
[a paragraph cut out here]
90 "Barrow responded sharply. It was not a private spirit but 'the spirit of Christ and his Apostles'. They had been happy to be judged by the word of God and so was Barrow. This, for Andrewes, so crushingly aware of his own sin, was too much.
" 'Dr Andrewes: What, are you an apostle?
" 'Barrow: No, but I have the spirit of the apostles.
" 'Dr Andrewes: What, the spirit of the apostles?
91 " 'Barrow: Yea, the spirit of the apostles.
" 'Dr Andrewes: What, in that measure?
" 'Barrow: In that measure that God hath imparted unto me, though not in that measure that the apostles had, by anie comparison, yet the same spirit. There is but one spirit."
91 "That was not an unreasonable answer: God had blown his spirit into Adam, and it was acceptable to think that the life of men was a divine gift. But Andrewes, revealing himself here in a way he would rarely do later in life, curiously narrowed and harsh . . . clung to his hostility. They argued over the difference between a schism and a sect. Then, in an emblematic moment of the English Reformation, angry, impassioned, pedantic, scholarly, they called for a dictionary. The heretic and his interrogator pored together over the Greek-Latin Lexicon of Joannes Scapula (Basel, 1580) to try and sort out the etymologies of the two words, but they could come to no shared conclusion."
91-2 "Andrewes then uttered one of the most despicable remarks he ever made. Barrow said his imprisonment had been horrible. He had been there for three years and the loneliness of it, the sheer sensory deprivation, the nastiness of the conditions, had sunk him deep into depression. Andrewes's reply, witty, supercilious, a pastiche of the sympathetic confessor, is still shocking 400 years later: 'For close imprisonment', he told Barrow, 'you are most happie. The solitarie and contemplative life I hold the most blessed life. It is the life I would chuse.' It is Henry barrow, martyr to his beliefs, who emerges from this confrontation as the holy man. 'You speak philosophically,' he told Andrewes with some self-control, 'but not Christianly. So sweete is the harmonie of God's grace unto me in the congregation, and the conversation of the saints at all times, as I think my self as a sparrow on the house toppe when I am exiled thereby. But could you be content also, [92] Mr. Androes, to be kept from exercise and ayre so long together? These are also necessarie to a natural body.'"
92 "The poor man was lonely, longing for his friends and for a sight of the sky, from which the intolerance of the state had excluded him. Andrewes's breathtaking insouciance continued until the last. In conversation, he had used the word 'luck.' For fundamentalists [sic] such as Barrow, there was no such thing: all was ordained, everything from the death of a sparrow to the execution of a heretic was the working out of God's providence. Calvin had written, in a famous passage, that to believe in luck was a 'carnal' way to look at the world. Barrow told the departing Andrewes 'there was no fortune orluck. To prove luck [Andrewes] torned in my Testament to the 10 of Luke, verse 31, 'By chance there went down a certain priest that way.' And torned in a leafe upon the place, and as he was going out willed me to consider of it.'"
92 "That folded-down page of the Puritan's Bible, Andrewes's all-too-complacent knowledge of the scriptural text, 'the poor worne bodie' of the prematurely aged Barrow (he was about thirty-seven, a couple of years older than Andrewes) standing in the room, silenced by the rising self-congratulatory confidence of the young Master of Pembroke College, prebendary of St Paul's, vicar of St Giles Cripplegate, a candidate for the bishopric of Salisbury, sweeping out of the prison parlour door, with his departing quip, his patronizing flourish: could you ask for a more chilling indictment of established religion than that?"
92-3 "Three years later Barrow's life ended in execution, for denying the authority of bishops, for denying the holiness of the English Church and its liturgy and denying the authority over it of the queen. Andrewes saw him again on the eve of his death. The prisoner had been transferred to Newgate . . . and he was high on his impending martyrdom. He was reminded by one of those present of the Englishmen who had been martyred by the Roman Catholics in the reign of Queen [93 Mary for their defence of the very church which Barrow now denied. ' "These holy bonds of mine" he replied, (and therewith he shooke the fetters which he did wear) "are much more glorious than any of theirs."' Andrewes argued with him again over points in the Geneva Bible. Barrow would have none of it and he told his adversary that his 'time now was short unto this world, neyther were we to bestow it unto controversies'. He was finally executed early in the morning on 6 April at Tyburn, where the mallows and bulrushes were just sprouting in the ditches."
93-4 "Andrewes could put the knife in. What little one can judge from contemporary portraits – the Jacobean image is so much less revealing than the Jacobean word – shows a narrow and shrewd face, a certain distance in the eyes, as if the person had withdrawn an inch or two below the surface of the skin, but that surface was bien soigné [well washed, cleaned], a well-trimmed beard, a well-brushed moustache. He could look the church's adversaries in the eye, and he was clever enough to slalom around the complexities of theological dispute: not only a great scholar but a government man, aware of political realities, able to articulate the correct version of the truth. He was . . . useful for his extensive network of connections. It is clear that in 1604 he played a large part in selecting the men for his, and perhaps also for Barlow's, company. Several themes emerge: there is a strong Cambridge connection(Andrewes had been an undergraduate and fellow there and was still Master of Pembroke College); an emphasis on scholarly brilliance – more so than in the other companies; a clear ideological bent in choosing none who could be accused of Puritanism, however mild, and several who would later emerge as leading anti-Calvinists in the struggles of the 1620s; there was also a connection with Westminster Abbey, where ANdrewes had been appointed dean. . . . [94] In this marrying of leverage and discrimination, it is a microcosm of the workings of Jacobean England: the right men were chosen and part of their qualifications for being chosen was their ability to work the systems of deference and power on which the society relied."
94 "They met in the famous Jerusalem Chamber, the fourteenth-century room in what had been the abbot's lodgings at Westminster, where Henry IV had died; now it was part of Andrewes's deanery. It was where the chapter usually met, on which Andrewes had secured for his brother Nicholas the valuable post of registrar for life. Such nepotism was habitual and habitually condemned. Ten years before, Andrewes had preached at St Paul's (in Latin), lashing the indigent clergy for their corruption: 'You are extremely careful to enrich your own sons and daughters,' he had told them. 'You are so careful of the heirs of your flesh that you forget your successors.' One of the Translators, in the Cambridge company dealing with the central section of the Old Testament, was Andrewes's brother Roger. Judging by every other aspect of Roger's life we know of, he was almost certainly there on Lancelot's recommendation: when Lancelot had become Master of Pembroke, he made Roger a fellow; when he became Bishop of Chichester, he made Roger a prebendary, archdeacon and chancellor of the cathedral. When Lancelot moved on to Ely in 1609, Roger became a prebendary there and also Master of Jesus College, Cambridge, which was in the gift of the Bishop of Ely. At Jesus, Roger was not a success. He argued with the fellows, neglected the financial affairs of the college and was finally sacked in 1632 for stealing college funds. Meanwhile, when in 1616 his saintly brother was translated to Winchester, the richest see in England, Roger received another prebend there."
Works by Lancelot Andrewes
Devotions of Bishop Andrewes. Vol. I
Bishop Andrewes was one of the foremost Biblical scholars of his time. He also was one of the translators of the King James Version of the Bible and was King James' favorite preacher. The Devotions of Bishop Andrewes was originally entitled, Preces Privatae, which translates to "Private Devotions." They are the private, intimate prayers of a very public and pious man. Andrewes was not motivated to write these devotions out of a desire to publish them. These devotions were written from Andrewes' heart out of love and devotion for our Lord. Andrewes is said to have spent five hours in prayer every day. Included in the collection are devotions for the morning and evening that he employed during his time alone with God.
_________
HISTORY OF THE ANDREWS FAMILY, a Genealogy of Robert Andrews and his derscendants 1635 to 1890 by H. Franklin Andrews, Attorney at Law
Audubon, Iowa
William E. Brinkerhoff 1890
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1890. by
H. FRANKLIN ANDREWS, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
RECEIVED
JAN 17 1893
WIS. HISTORICAL SOC;
We should hardly do justice to the family history, if we omitted to refer to Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, D. D. and will quote from his biography:
Lancelot Andrews, D. D., Bishop of Winchester, one of the most illustrious of the prelates of England, was born in 1555 in Thames street, Allhallows, Barking, London. His father Thomas, was of the ancient family of the Suffolk Andrewes; in his later years he became master of Trinity House.
Lancelot was sent while a mere child to the Cooper's Free School, Ratcliff, in the parish of Stepney. From this the youth passed to Merchant Taylor's School, then under the celebrated Richard Mulcaster. In 1571 he was entered at Pembroke College, Cambridge. He was here one of the first four scholars upon the foundation of Dr. Thomas Watts, successor of the venerable* Nowell. Contemporaneously he was appointed to a scholarship in Jesus College, Oxford, at the request of the founder (Dr. Price), by Queen Elizabeth. In 1574-5, he took his degree of B. A. ; in 1576 he was chosen to a fellowship at his college; in 1578 he proceeded M. A. ; in 1580 he was ordained, and in the same year his name appears as junior treasurer; in 1581 he was senior treasurer, and on July 11 was incorporated M. A. at Oxford.
On passing M. A. he was appointed catechist in his college and read letters upon the Decalogue, afterward published causing a furor of interest far and near, as his first quaint biographer Isaacson tells. The notes of these lectures printed in 1642, authenticate themselves; later editions have been suspiciously enlarged, and otherwise altered for the worse.
The notes are historically valuable and inportant, inasmuch as with Bishops Jewell and Bilson, he teaches in them, that Christ is offered in a sacrament, that is, his offering represented and a memory of his passion celebrated.
Nothing can be more definite or emphatic than Andrewes' repudiation of a real external sacrifice in the bread and wine.
From the university Andrewes went into the North by invitation of Henry Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon, lord president of the North. In 1585 he is again found at Cambridge taking his degree of B. D. In 1588 he succeeded Crowley in the vicarage of St. Giles, Cripplegate. Here he delivered his most penetrative and striking sermons on the Temptation in the wilderness, and the Lord's Prayer—the former published in 1592, the latter in 1611. In a great sermon on April 10, Easter week, 1588, he most effectively, and with burning eloquence, vindicated the Protestantism of the Church of England against the Eomanists. It sounds oddly to have "Mr. Calvin" adduced herein and elsewhere as a new writer, with lavish praise and affection. Passing other ecclesiastical advancements, Andrewes was preferred by Grindal, at the suit of Walsingham, lo the prebendary stall of St. Pancras in St. Paul1s, London, in 1589. The prebendary had "the courage of his opinions," for Sir John Harington records that Sir Francis Walsingham his patron, having laboured to get him to maintain certain points of ultra- Puritanism, he refused, having, as the garalous knight, in his State of the Church of England, cunningly remarks, "too much of the AvSpoS. in him to be scared with a councillor1s frown or blown aside with his breath," and accordingly answered him plainly, that "they were not only against his learning, but his conscience." On September 6, 1589, he succeeded Fulke as master of his own college of Pembroke, being at the time, one of the chaplains of Archbishop Whitgift. His mastership of Pembroke was a success in every way. In 1589-90, as one of the twelve chaplains of the queen, he preached before her, a singularly outspoken sermon (March 4, 1590). In this year, on October 13, he preached his introductory lecture at St. Paul's upon undertaking to comment upon the first four chapters of Genesis. These form part of the Orphan Lectures, of the folio of 1657, than which there is no richer contribution to the theological literature of England, notwithstanding the imperfection of the notes in some cases. He was an incessant worker as well as preacher. He delighted to move among the people, and yet found time to meet with a society of antiquaries, whereof Raleigh, Sidney, Burleigh, Arundel, the Herberts, Saville, Stow, and Camden, were members. What by his often preaching testifies Isaacson, at St Gile's, and his no less often reading in St Paul's, he became so infirm that his friends despaired of his life. His charities were lavish, and yet discriminative.
The dearth of 1594 exhibits him as another Joseph in his care for the afflicted and poor of "the Israel of God." In 1595 appeared The Lambeth Articles, a landmark in our national church history. Andrewes adopted the doctrine of St Augustine as modified by Aquinas. Philosophically, as well as theologically, his interpretations of these deep things remain a permanent advance in theological-metaphysical thought. In 1598 he declined offers of the two bishoprics of Ely and Salisbury, his "noloepiscopari" resting on an intended alienation of the lands attached to these sees. On Nov. 23, 1600, was preached at Whitehall his memorable sermon on Justification, around which surged a controversy that is even now unspent. The preacher maintained the evangelical view as opposed to the sacerdotal.
On July 4, 1691, he was appointed Dean of Westminster,and his sedulousness over the renowned school is magnified by Bishop Hacket in his Life of Archibishop Williams. On July 25, 1603, Andrewes assisted at the coronation of James I. In 1604 he took part in the Hampton Court Conference, and better service, was one of the committee to whom we owe our authorised version of Holy Scripture. The Dean frequently preached before the king, and his majesty's own learning, given him by George Buchanan, made him a sympathetic hearer.
Many of these sermons are memorable from their results and place in our eclesiastical history. In 1605 he was appointed, after a third declinature, bishop of Chichester. In 1609 he published his Tortura Torti, in answer to Bellarmine's Matthceus Tortus. This work is one of many born of the gunpowder plot and related controversies. It is packed full of learning, and yet the argument moves freely. Nowhere does Audrewes' scholarship cumber him. It is as a coat of mail, strong but mobile. In this same year he was transferred from Chichester to Ely. His studiousness here was as intent as before. He again assailed Bellarmine in his Responsio ad Apol- ogiam, a treatise never answered. From 1611 to 1618 Andrewes is to be traced as a preacher and controversialist in season and out of season. In 1617 he attended the king to Scotland. In 1618 he was translated to the see of Winchester. In this year he proceeded to the Synod of Dort. Upon his return he became in word and deed a model bishop, while in every prominent ecclesiastical event of the period he is seen in the front, but ever walking in all beauty of modesty and benignity. His benefactions were unprecedented. His learning made him the equal friend of Grotious, and of the foremost contemporary scholars.
His preaching was unique for its combined rhetorical splendor and scholarly richness, and yet we feel that the printed page poorly represents the preaching. His piety was that of an ancient saint, semi-ascetic and unearthly in its self-denial, but rooted in a deep and glowing love for his Lord. No shadow rests on his beautiful and holy life. He died Sept. 25, 162(5, and the leaders in church and state mourned for him as for a father. Brittanica. ]
Walter records this of him; Neal, bishop of Durham, and bishop Andrewes were standing together behind the king's chair at dinner, when king James turned to them and said "My lords, can not I take my subjects' money when I want it without all this formality in parliament?" bishop Neal readily answered, "God forbid, sire, but you should, you are the breath of our nostrils." The king then turned to bishop Andrewes; "Well, my lord, and what say you?" "Sir," said Andrewes, "Ihave no skill to judge of parliamentary cases." The king answered, *'No put offs, my lord, answer me immediately." "Then sir," said he, "I think it lawful for you to take my brother Neal's money, for he offers it."
King James had such a veneration for this excellent prelate that he refrained from all levity in his presence. He was made a privy councilor by king James I, and was in no less esteem with king Charles I. His was a life of prayer, a great portion of five hours every day was spent in the exercise of devotion.
his last sickness he continued, while awake, to pray audibly, till his strength failed; and then by lifting his eyes, he showed that he still prayed. He was a patron of learning, being master of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, beside fifteen modern languages. He had brothers, Thomas, and Nicholas. — [Andrews Memorial. ]
This great man lived in the reigns of three sovereigns of England; queen Elizabeth, and kings James I, and Charles I, with whom he was personally acquainted. He died only two years before the organization of the Mass. Bay Company. The subject of colonization had been agitated for years prior to that time. It is very probable that one of his charitable nature would have been actively interested in the subject, which may have influenced his kindred to emigrate to America.
__________
Annals of St. Mary Overy; an historical & descriptive account of St. Saviour's church & parish William Taylor 1/1833
Lora Tatum: "According to the "Annals of Saint Mary Overy" written by William Taylor in 1833, book two of the parochial registries states that Mr. Nicholas Andrewes, "the Bishops Brother", was buried at what is now the Southwark Cathedral on August 12, 1626. In the same book is the burial record for Lancelott Andrewes, "Lord Bishop of Winton" on November 11, 1626, also at the Southwark Cathedral."
Before transcribing portions of the book, the following history of the Cathedral is helpful:
Southwark Cathedral
The Cathedral and Collegiate Church of Saint Saviour and Saint Mary Overy, Southwark
A church has stood on the site of Southwark Cathedral for over 1,000 years. In 606 a convent was established on the south bank of the River Thames at the place from which the ferry used to cross over to the City of London. In 1106 an Augustinian Priory was established under the Normans and some Norman stonework can still be seen at the west end and north side. It has the distinction of being the first 'gothic' church to be built in London and much of that early work can still be seen in the choir and retro-choir of the present church (1212). The Augustinian canons ministered to pilgrims and travellers, to the sick and the needy of the area and the Word of God was faithfully preached and the sacraments celebrated. As part of their ministry, the Hospital of St Thomas was established (now located opposite the Houses of Parliament). In 2006 the Cathedral celebrated 1400 years of Christian witness and service.
Following the Reformation, the church was sadly neglected but the gospel continued to be faithfully preached and the people of the parish cared for and taught. A parish school - now the Cathedral School - was opened in 1704 following in the work already established in schools founded from the parish under a charter from Queen Elizabeth I. A new nave was built in 1890. By the end of the 19th century, a new Diocese was needed to cater for the growing population of south London and Surrey. In 1905 the church became Southwark Cathedral, the mother church of the new Diocese of Southwark. ...
A new nave was built in 1890. By the end of the 19th century, a new Diocese was needed to cater for the growing population of south London and Surrey. In 1905 the church became Southwark Cathedral, the mother church of the new Diocese of Southwark.
The life, diversity and character of the area are revealed in the tombs and monuments within the church. Among them is that of John Gower (c. 1330-1408), poet and friend of Chaucer, whose Canterbury Tales begin in Southwark. Across the nave is a memorial to William Shakespeare, who spent much of his life in Southwark, and above it, a stained glass window depicting scenes from his plays. Edmund Shakespeare, John Fletcher and Philip Massinger are all buried in the Cathedral. Lancelot Andrewes, who translated the first five books of the Bible into English, is buried by the High Altar. He is a founding father of the Church of England. In the grounds is buried Mahomet, Chief of the Mohegan Tribe from New England and a memorial to him can be found in the churchyard. In 1607 John Harvard was born in the parish of St Saviour and on 29th November of that year was baptised in the church. These events and Harvard's subsequent emigration to the new colonies in America and the founding of what we now know as Harvard University, began a strong link between the Cathedral and the people of the United States of America that continues to develop and which was celebrated in 2007, the 400th anniversary year of John Harvard's birth. In the grounds is buried Mahomet, Chief of the Mohegan Tribe of New England, USA and in November 2006, Her Majesty The Queen unveiled a lasting memorial to him in the presence of the present day members of the Tribe.
The Cathedral today Situated on the south bank of the River Thames adjacent to London Bridge in the heart of a burgeoning business community.
THE BOOK
Annals of St. Mary Overy; an historical and descriptive account of St. Saviour's church and parish William Taylor January 1, 1833
Page 100
In this aisle are also Monuments to the memory of— "
PAGE 101
We next entered the "Ladye Chapel" where we found several persons assembled, who were examining with considerable interest the recently discovered coffin of Bishop Andrewes.
"How fortunate," said my companion, "that our visit should have been paid at so interesting a moment; admiring, as I do, the character and writings of this excellent prelate, I would not on any account have missed the opportunity of seeing this last home of his mortality. A rude casket this to contain so bright a gem! But, I have seen the velvet coffin with its glittering studs, surrounded by the costly trappings of funereal splendour, the sable plumes, and blazoned heraldry, with less emotion far, than that which now I feel."
The accompanying sketch was made at the time, together with the following memoranda:
The removal of the little chapel which stood eastward of the Lady Chapel, having been determined on, the workmen commenced their labour by taking down the monument of Bishop Andrews; entombed in which they found the prelate's coffin, in an excellent state of preservation, it having been closely bricked up in an arch, as shewn on the plate. It is formed of lead, and bears the initials " L A" on the lid ; attached to it is a massive iron frame work with large rings at the head and foot. It rested on a cross of brick-work, the foot of the coffin, on the upper part of the cross, which was placed eastward. The whole has been carefully removed and re-erected in the Lady Chapel, at the back of the altar screen.
I endeavoured to draw the attention of the Antiquary to the architectural beauty of the place, but he was too much engaged in the contemplation of the interesting object before him; let us enter into his feelings, and briefly view the illustrious character of the pious prelate.
He was born in London, A. D. 1555, in the parish of Allhallows Barking, of religious parents; his father during a large portion of his life was a mariner, but was afterwards a member and master of Trinity House. He was descended from an ancient family in Suffolk of the same name.
So great an aptitude did he evince, even in childhood, for learning, that his two first school masters, " Master Ward " and "Master Mulcaster," foreseeing the result, are said to have contended for the honour of his breeding. From Master Ward, master of the Coopers' Free School in RadclifFe, he was sent to Master Mulcaster, master of the Merchant Tailors' Free School, where he soon took the lead of all the other scholars, making such progress in the Greek and Hebrew languages, as recommended him to the notice of Thomas Wattes, D. D. prebend and residentiary of St. Pauls and arch deacon of Middlesex, who, having founded some scholarships at Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, bestowed the first upon him.
Here we soon find him contending with Thomas Dove (afterwards Lord Bishop of Peterborough), who was also eminent for his talent, for a fellowship which he gained. In the mean while, Hugh Price having built Jesus College, in Oxford, hearing of his fame, named him in his foundation as one of its first fellows. It was his custom to spend one month annually, with his parents, but even this was devoted also to the attainment of the knowledge of some language or art which he had not yet learned. He preferred, as a recreation, studying alone (or with some selected companion), the sublime beauties of creation, to participating in the ordinary amusement of his day.
PAGE 103
After he had been some time Master of Arts, he applied himself to the study of Divinity with such effect, that being chosen Catechist in the College, and purposing to read the ten commandments every Saturday and Sunday, at 3 o'Clock afternoon, that being the hour of catechising, divers persons, not only out of the other colleges, but from the country also, re sorted thither as to a Public Divinity Lecture.
Henry, Earl of Huntingdon, hearing of his fame, sent for him, and thought himself much honoured by his accompanying him into the north, whereof he was president, and where his preaching converted many, recusants, priests, and others, to the protestant religion.
Sir Francis Walsingham, Secretary of State to Queen Elizabeth, also took especial notice of his abilities, and was the means of preferring him to the Vicarage of St. Giles' Without Cripplegate, London; he was afterwards (through the interest of Sir Francis) Prebendary and Residentiary of St. Pauls, and Prebend of the Collegiate Church of Southwell. His labours at this time were incessant, preaching at St. Giles', and reading at St. Pauls, he became so infirm that his friends despaired of his life.
He was afterwards elected master of Pembroke Hall, a place of much credit but little benefit, on which he spent more than he received by it.
He was Chaplain to Queen Elizabeth, who was so much delighted with his piety and zeal, that she first made him Prebend and afterwards Dean of Westminster. Her successor, King James, selected him as his choicest advocate to vindicate his regality against his adversaries, and be stowed upon him the Bishopric of Chichester, which he held about four years, he also made him Lord Almoner, and soon after added the Parsonage of Cheam, in Surrey, to his commendam.
He was afterwards Bishop of Ely during nine years, in which time he was made Privy Counsellor, first of England, then of Scotland in his
PAGE 104
attendance upon the King thither. He was afterwards preferred to the Bishopric of Winchester and the Deanery of the King's Chapel, which pre ferments he held to his death, which happened about eight years after, in the reign of King Charles, with whom he was as great a favourite as with his father before him : all these honours having been conferred on him without any effort on his part for their attainment.
He was singularly pious and devout both in his private prayers and public services : so reverend and holy was his deportment, and that of his family, at the monthly communions held in his chapel, that those who were accidentally present at the service, often expressed a desire to end their days in the Bishop of Ely's Chapel.
He was eminently charitable during his life, clothing the poor, relieving the sick, and administering to the various wants of suffering humanity; and at his death, leaving by his will various sums for similar purposes. He left Four thousand pounds to purchase Two hundred pounds land per Ann., for ever, to be distributed by fifty pounds quarterly, as follows : — To aged poor men and decayed, especially sea-faring men, fifty pounds ; to poor widows, the wives of one husband, fifty pounds ; to the binding of poor orphans apprentices, fifty pounds ; and to the relief of poor prisoners, fifty pounds.
He also left Two hundred pounds to be distributed immediately after his decease, among maid-servants of honest report who had served one master or mistress seven years.
In all the offices which he filled, he evidently conducted himself as the steward of God, and as one who was to give an account of the important trust committed to him.
He was careful to keep in good repair the houses of all his spiritual preferments, and spent much money in that way.
PAGE 105
He was exceedingly anxious that the ministerial offices should be filled by men eminent for piety and learning, and to effect this, sought for and patronized humble merit : such persons he would send for without their knowing why, entertain them at his house and confer the preferment upon them, defraying all the incidental charges for a dispensation, or a faculty, and even of their very journey: the same principle was also observed in the election of scholars who were to be sent from the Free Schools to the University, here disregarding all letters from great personages in favour of insufficient scholars, he was careful to select the possessors of merit.
As Almoner he was remarkable for his fidelity, keeping more exact account of this trust than of his own affairs.
He was grateful to all from whom he had received benefits, particularly to those who had the care of his early education.
That he was liberal is evident from the magnificent reception and entertainment which he gave to King James, when that Prince visited him at Farnham Castle, on which occasion he spent three thousand pounds in three days. He was also eminent for his hospitality to scholars and strangers, committing to his attendants the care of making liberal provision for such, and joining them at dinner with such amiable deportment, that his guests would often profess that they never came to any man's table where they received better satisfaction in all points, and that his Lordship kept Christmas all the year round.
He was through the various periods from childhood to old age, indefatigable in study, to which with the exception of two or three hours which he cheerfully spent with his guests after dinner, he devoted his time. By his industry he had attained to the knowledge of fifteen tongues if not more; it has been jocosely said in reference to his knowledge of languages, that had he lived at the time, he might almost have served as interpreter
PAGE 106
general at the confusion of tongues. Yet he was modest withal ; let one instance of this suffice, when preferred by King James to the Bishopric of Chichester he pleaded his imperfections and insufficiency to undertake such a charge, and caused to be engraven about the seal of his Bishopric, those words of St. Paul, " et ad hcec quis idoneus ? " (and who is sufficient for these things ?)
He generally hated all vices, but three more especially, Usury, Simony, and Sacrilege. The Sanctity of his manners is said to have awed the mirth and levity of King James while in his presence.
Such was the character of this amiable prelate, that biographers appear to have exhausted the vocabulary for words to express his many virtues. As his life was exemplary so was his death ; twelve months before that event he seemed conscious of its approach, and applied himself incess antly to prayer and humiliation before God whom he earnestly longed to see. Towards the close of his life the manuscript of his " Private Devotions " was scarcely ever out of his hands ; it was found worn in pieces by his fingers and wet with his tears. He closed his useful life at Winchester House, on the 25th day of September, 1626, in the 71st year of his age.
His remains were entombed in a splendid monument which stood in a little chapel eastward of the Lady Chapel, the entrance to which is shown in the interior view of the Lady Chapel ; at his funeral, he having been a great benefactor to the Parish, the inhabitants honoured the solemnity by hanging the Church and Chancel with 165 yards of baize. The house mourners made an offering, and Mr. Archer one of the chaplains re ceived £11. 17s. 7d., which he paid to the wardens as their due, but they handsomely returned it to him and Mr. Micklethwaite (the other chaplain). It is worthy of passing remark that his lordship's steward was also buried here on the same day, as appears by an entry in the parish registry.
PAGE 107
His Funeral Sermon was preached in St. Saviour's Church, by the Right Rev. John, Lord Bishop of Ely, on Saturday the 11th of November, 1626, from Hebrews, 13th chapter and 16th verse: "To do good, and to distribute forget not : for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." This was six weeks after his death, and from an expression in the sermon we may collect that it was preached over the remains of the Bishop : it has already been stated that the coffin was found entombed in the monument, not buried ; the time necessary for preparing the monument for the reception of the remains, may probably account for the unusual length of the intervening space between the time of his death, and the preaching of his funeral sermon*
The monument of the Bishop as it now appears is in fact but a part of the original erection; there was then a fair canopy supported by black marble pillars, and an elegant epitaph written by his lordship's domestic chaplain, these were destroyed by the falling in of the roof in 1676, when the chapel received considerable injury by a fire. The restoration of the canopy and original epitaph, whether we view it as a matter of taste, or as a mark of respect for the memory of this virtuous prelate, would be highly creditable to the parish. The epitaph was as follows:
"LECTOR. SI CHRISTIANUS ES, SISTE: MORJE PRETIUM KBIT, RON NESCIBB TE, QUI VIR HIC SITUS SIT. EJUSDEM TECUM CATHOLICS ECCLESI* MEMBRUM, SUB EADEM FELICIS RESURRECTIONIS SPE, EANDEM D. JESU PR^ESTOLAXS EPIPHANIAM, SACBATISSIMUS ANTISTES, LANCELOTUS ANDREWES, LONDINI ORIUN- DUS, EDUCATUS CANTABRIGI* AVLM PEMBROCH : ALUMNORUM, SOCIORUM, PRiEFECTORUM UNUS, ET NEMIM SECUNDUS . LINGUARUM, ARTIUM, SCIENTIARUM, HUMANORUM, DIVINORUM OMNIUM INFINITUS THESAURUS, STUPENDUM ORACULUM; ORTHODOX* CHRISTI ECCLESI* DICTIS, SCRIPTIS, PRECIBUS, EXEMPLO . INCOM PARABLE PROPAGNACULUM : REGIN* ELIZABETH* A SACRIS, D. PAULI LONDINI RESIDENTIARIUS, D. PETRI WESTMONAST. DECANUS, EPISCOPUS CICESTRENSIS, ELIENSIS, WINTONIENSIS, REGIQUE JACOBO TUM AB ELEEMOSYNIS, TUM AB UTR1USQUE REGNI CONSILIIS, DECANUS DENIQUE SACELLI REGII . IDEM
______
* In Moss' History of St. Saviour's Church, it is stated that " he was buried the 27ih of Sep tember, six days after his decease," this is certainly an error; Henry Isaacson, his friend and amanuensis, who wrote his life, says he died the 25th of September, and his funeral sermon it appears was preached the 11th of November, as above stated, which agrees with the entry in the parish registry, which states that he was buried the 11th of November, 1G26.
PAGE 108
EX INDEFESSA OPERA IN STUDIIS, SUMMA SAPIENTIA IN REBUS, ASSIDUA PIETATE IN DEUM, PROFUSA LARGITATE IN EGENOS, RARA AM.SNITATE IN SUOS, SPECTATA PROBITATE IN OMNES, iETERKUM ADMI- RANDUS : ANNORUM PARITER, ET PUBLICS FAMfi SATUR, SED HONORUM PASSIM OMNIUM CUM LUCTU DE- NATUS, CC3LEBS HINC MIGRAVIT AD AUREOLAM CC2LESTEM, ANNO REGIS CAROLI II0. JETATIS SU.fi LXXI°. CHRI6TI MDCXXVI0. TANTUM EST, LECTOR, QUOD TE M(ERENTES POSTERI NUNC VOLEBANT, ATQUE UT EX VOTO TUO VALEAS DICTO SIT DEO GLORIA."
TRANSLATION
" Reader, if thou art a Christian, stay; it will be worth thy tarrying, to know how great a man lies here. A member of the same Catholic Church with thyself, under the same hope of a happy resur rection, and in expectation of the same appearance of our Lord Jesus, the most holy Bishop Lancelot Andrewes ; bom at London, educated at Cambridge, at Pembroke Hall, one of the Scholars, Fellows, and Masters of that Society, and inferior to none : an infinite treasure, an amazing oracle of languages, arts and sciences, and every branch of human and divine learning : an incomparable bulwark of the Orthodox Church of Christ, by his conversation, writings, prayers and example.
"He was Chaplain in ordinary to Queen Elizabeth; Residentiary of St. Paul's, in London; Dean of St. Peter's, Westminster ; Bishop, first of Chichester, then of Ely, and lastly of Winchester ; Almoner to King James, Privy Counsellor of both kingdoms, and Dean of the Royal Chapel. He merits eternal admiration, for his indefatigable application to his studies, his consummate experience and skill in business, his constant piety towards God, his liberality and charity to the poor, his uncommon affability and humanity to those about him, and his unshaken integrity towards all. Full of years and reputation, to the regret of all good men, he died a bachelor, and exchanged this life for a crown of glory, in the second year of King Charles^ the seventy-first of his age, and that of Christ, 1626. Reader^ farewell, and give glory to God."
He has left abundant evidence of his industrious application and study in his numerous works, among which are the following:
He has left abundant evidence of his industrious application and study in his numerous works, among which are the following:
"Ninety-six Sermons on various occasions, chiefly suited to the festivals and fasts of the Church of England.
"A Manual of Private Devotions, and Meditations for every day in the Week.
"A Manual of directions for the Visitation of the Sick. — An Exposition of the Ten Commandments. — Posthumous and Orphan Lectures preached in St. Giles* and St. Paul's Church. — Holy Devotions, with direc tions to pray. — His Opera Posthuma. Concioad Clerum pro gradu Doctoris. Ad Clerum in Synodo Provinciali coram Rege habita V° August, 1606. In discessu Palatini XIII0 April, 1613. Theologica determinatio de Jurejurando. De Usuris. De Decimis. — Responsiones ad 3 Epistolas Petri Molieni. — An
PAGE 109
Answer to the 18 and 20cc. of Cardinal Perous' reply. — A Speech in the Star Chamber against Master Thaske. — Another there concerning Vows, in the Countess of Shrewsbury's Case. — Responsio ad Forti librum, ad Apologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini.
"There are also several controversial tracts of this learned Prelate's extant. He had also a part in the translation of the Bible, from Genesis to the second book of Kings.
In the introduction to the Archaeologia is the name of Lancelot Andrews, as one of the earliest members of the Antiquarian Society, he was elected a member in 1604.
In the hall of Pembroke College, Cambridge, there is a painting of Bishop Andrewes, with his armorial bearings: date 1618, and several portraits of him have been engraved; but by far the best is that which appeared as a frontispiece to his sermons, J. Payne Fecit, 1635, the others appear to be copies of this.
Before quitting this subject, I feel it a duty to contradict a statement which appears in " Cassan's Lives of the Bishops of Winchester," and also in a modern edition of " Bishop Andrewes' Meditations, &c." it is as follows, " Not many years ago, his (the Bishop's) bones were dispersed to make room for some corpse : and the hair of his beard and a silken cap were found, undecayed, in the remains of the coffin." That remains were discovered as above described, is very probable, but certainly they were not the remains of Bishop Andrewes, whose eoffin was found undisturbed when the tomb was removed, and has been very properly replaced without mo lestation, in its little cell as before. In this Chapel stand the two Stone Coffins* engraved on the plate of " Priory Remains, SfC." figures 9 and 10. They appear to be of considerable antiquity, but as the lids are wanting, it is
PAGE 110
difficult to form an opinion as to their age, the shallowness of them would suggest the idea that the lids were hollow, so that they were probably of the prismatic form, which would carry them back to a very early period. We have no account of the discovery of them, but they were probably found when the church was paved, as they were seldom placed at any great depth. Stone coffins occur as early as the year 695, and were not quite obsolete before the reign of Henry VIII.
"Memento mori," said Antiquarius, (whose attention was arrested by the cadaverous figure represented on the plate of Sepulchral Remains, fig. 2,) " now were we not in the church, I would venture a wager that you have some marvellous legend concerning this grim personage." -
"You are right," quoth I, " for tradition says this is the veritable effigy of 0X0 3J0f)tt ©ilftg, the father of the foundress of the Church ; though unfortunately for the story, such monuments were not in fashion till some centuries after the time that gentleman lived, if such a being ever existed. There is a curious tract in the British Museum entitled ' The true History of the Life and sudden Death of Old John Overs, the rich Ferry sudden Death of Old John Overs, the rich Ferryman of London, shewing how he lost his Life by his own Covetousness. And of his Daughter Mary, who caused the Church of St. Mary Overs in Southwark to be built; and of the Building of London Bridge.' and a rare story it is, believe me." "I see" said the old gentleman "you long to tell it, so let's have it ?" and he seated himself with all the composure of a genuine antiquary, to hear it patiently. "The tract opens at considerable length with a statement of the nature of the sin of covetousness, and an exhortation to the reader to avoid that error. It then proceeds to illustrate the subject by the case of John Obers a ferry-man, who, before there was any bridge, ferryed the good folks of old 'betwixt Southwark and Church-yard alley, that being the high road way betwixt Middlesex and Sussex, and London: 'it then goes on to state how he gat marvellous riches thereby; that he kept many servants, ' yet was of so covetous a mind, that he would not even in his old age, spare his own weak body, nor abate anything of his unnecessary labour, only to save the charges.' Having described his character, it proceeds to relate that he had an only Daughter, 'of a beautiful aspect, and pious disposition, that he had care to see her well and liberally educated, though at the cheapest rate, that he would not allow any man, of what condition or quality soever, (by his good will) to have a sight of her, much less the least access to her ; that a young gallant took the advantage of the opportunity when he was picking up his penny fares, to be admitted into her company ; that the first interview pleased well, the second better, and the third concluded the match ; and how in all this interim, the poor silly old ferry-man, not dreaming of any such passages as are before spoken of but thinking all things as secure by land as he knew tliey were by water, continued in his former course, (which was as near as lean relate to you J in this manner following.' It then goes on to state a variety of his penu rious habits, such as feeding his servants on black puddings, when that commodity was sold at a penny a yard London measure, yet even begrudging that, saying when he gave them their allowance, ' Jiere you hungry rogues, you will undo me with eating,' — That he kept no cats, as the rats and mice voluntarily left the house, for there were no fragments or crumbs left by the servants to feed them, &c. — But now comes the tragedy: it occurred to him, (careful soul) that if he could for one day counterfeit himself to be sick, and the next day to die, his loving family would not, of course, be so unman nerly or unnatural as to taste any food 'till they had consigned him to his parent earth, purposing however to revive, and recover the next morning;
PAGE 112
his amiable daughter like a good child, consented to her father's scheme, and so he was laid out for dead : but alas ! how are our best plans often frustrated ; no sooner had the old gentleman screwed his countenance into a decent sort of a sepulchral aspect, and a light been placed at his head and another at his feet, as was the custom of those days, than his 'prentices and servants rejoiced at the event, began to caper and dance about the corpse ; and worse than all, that one ran into the kitchen and brought the brown loaf, a second brought the 1 Essex Cheese,' a third drew a ' Black Jack of the Four Shilling Beer,' &c— but flesh and blood could not endure all this, he rose up in his sheet with a candle in each hand, and would have rated them for their boldness, when one of them supposing it to be his ghost, or some other supernatural visitant, seized a broken oar and sent him who had so often ferryed others, himself a fate for old Charon.
" His daughter's lover who was in the country, hearing the news hastened, to come to London, but alas ! with more haste than good speed, for riding post, in his hurry he brake his neck : poor Mary, overpowered with the accumulation of ills, would fain have gone mad, but altering her plans, all the good folks being comfortably buried, (though by the way, her father was taken up again and dropt into an unconsecrated hole beneath the gallows at St. Thomas-a- Watering,) she betook herself to a religious life, and founded the famous church in which we now stand dedicating it to the honor of the blessed Virgin Mary." " Marvellous ! " said Antiquarius, " I have heard many traditions but this indeed out-herod's Herod." I begged the antiquary's pardon, as I now do that of my reader, for the intrusion of so light a subject, but really the tradition and the figure, and the church, have now become so united, that they appear to claim a passing notice even from the most rigid historian.
Page 113
This figure is probably only a part of a monument, there is a similar one in Clerkenwell Church. Mr. Lethieullier, who is quoted by Gough in his Sepulchral Monuments, says he has observed a figure of this make in almost all the cathedral and conventual churches in England, and scarcely ever more than one. There were several other monuments in this chapel, which will be described in the respective places to which they have been removed. Since the period of our visit, this beautiful portion of the church has undergone a most careful restoration, at a cost of £2,500. raised by a public subscription; the work has been conducted under the superintendence of G. Gwilt, Esq. F.S. A. whose valuable services it is but justice to record, were given gratuitously to this laudable undertaking: nothing can exceed the care bestowed on the work by that gentleman, the traces of whose mas terly hand are visible, not only in the general design, but also in the finishterly hand are visible, not only in the general design, but also in the finish of the most minute details, the whole having been conducted with that spirit which should ever characterize such undertakings, a feeling of veneration for the talent of the original designers. During the progress of this work the Piscina engraved on the plate of Architectural Fragments, fig. 8, was discovered at the N. E. corner of the chapel, where it has been before conjectured the altar for the service of " Our Ladye" probably stood, which opinion this discovery has a tendency to confirm. Under the floor of the wooden enclosure at this corner of the chapel, where the sittings of the Consistorial Court were formerly held, a slab was found on which is the following inscription rudely engraved : — " Nicholas Norman, Waterman, late Servante to the King's Maiestie, and Elizabeth his Wife, were here bvryed, hee the 25 of May, 1629, and shee the 15 of Janvarie followeinge, who lived 16 yeares together in the holie state of matrimonie, and do here rest in hope of a ioyfvll resvrrection."
PAGE 114
Near this stone, at a short distance from the surface, was discovered at the same time, a little coffin rudely formed in chalk, in which were remains of "Some happy babe, who privileg'd by fate To shorter labour, and a lighter weight, Received but yesterday the gift of breath, Ordered to-morrow to return to death." On the same spot was found the leaden seal of a Papal Bull, exhibiting (as was usual with those of latter times) the heads of St. Paul and St. Peter on one side, with the inscription " spaspe," and on the other side, which is much obliterated, appears to have been the following " innocetivs pp VI." Against one of the pillars of the chapel there is a small tablet with the following inscription, — " The Gift of Robert Buckland, Glover," it seems probable, as he was a donor to the parish, that this was placed over a tablet on which the nature of his bequests were inscribed. " In 1628, by deed, he gave to eight pensioners 9£d. per week each, payable out of Harden Farm, at Harcsfield, Kent. " In 1639, by deed, he gave to ten poor men 10s. each, on Christmas day, £100. for an annuity. " In 1647, by deed, he gave to the poor in general, a messuage or tenement at Dartford in Kent, £20. yearly, two pounds of which are payable to the Wardens for their trouble." Leaving the Chapel of " Our Ladye " we next entered the south aisle of the choir, where are monuments inscribed with the following names :* — On a very small black tablet with a gilt border, near the altar screen, " William Mayhew, who deceased the 16th of April, 1609." A plain white marble monument by Soane, with the following inscription, —
______
* To have printed the inscriptions at length would have occupied too much space, but as church histories have sometimes been produced as evidence iu courts of law, when time had obliterated the monu mental record, 1 have deemed it a duty to print names and dates.
______
PAGE 115
" In the Bishop's Vault are deposited the remains of Abraham Newland, late Chief Cashier to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, whom he served with fidelity from the year 1747, to the 17th of September, 1807, when, under the pressure of age and infirmity, he availed himself of an honourable retirement, having for thirty years sedulously employed the powers of an unusually energetic mind to the various and important duties of the office of Chief Cashier. He was born in this parish, on the 4th of May, 1730, and he died at Highbury, on the 21st of November, 1807." " John Paine, died 5th March, 1820, aged 13 months." " Richard Holditch and Ann his wife. Also, Anna Howell, daughter of the above Richard Holditch, died January 22nd, 1789, aged 42. Anna Howell died May 11th, 1799, aged 32 years. Ann Holditch died May 10th, 1817, aged 71." A very neat mural monument of marble — " To the Memory of Mrs. Betty Farmbr, died 12th May, 1808, aged 49. Mr. Richard Farmer died 9th May, 1819, aged 79. Richard Farmer their son, died 16th April, 1825, aged 38. John Farmer their eldest son, died 28th December, 1826, aged 47 years." " Mrs. Mary Richards, wife of Richard Richards, died May 11th, 1821, aged 49. Also their children : John died in infancy ; Thomas died September 22nd 1810, aged 2 years; Phoebe died August 1st, 1814, aged 21 years ; Anna Maria died December 2nd, 1814, aged 3 years ; Joseph died February llth, 1819, aged 24. Also Sarah, his second wife, died May 12th, 1830, aged 61." Painted on a framed panel, is the following inscription, — " Here lyeth buried the body of Mr. John Gawen, Citizen and Clothworker of London, who died the 4th of March, 1647, aged 71." Arms : Ermine, on a saltiere engrailed, five fleur-de-lis, Or. " Mrs. Jane Bradford, died 17th January, 1825, aged 54 years. Mr. James Bradford died 7th February, 1829, aged 45 years." On a plain white marble tablet is the following inscription, — " Sacred to the memory of William Winkworth, late Chaplain of this Parish. Pious without ostentation ; zealous with discretion ; active in the cause of distress ; humble and laborious in the ministry of the word ; he fell asleep in Jesus, a debtor to grace, August 22nd, 1804, in his 54th year." Mr. Winkworth was born at Blewberry, near Wallingford, August 22ud, 1750. O. S. He was ordained Deacon at Oxford, June 10, 1781: and Priest at Winchester House, Chelsea, the 14th of July, 1782, to the parish of Morden, in this County, the Rev. J. W. Peers, D.D. being then Rector. He was elected Chaplain to the County Gaol of Surry, in December, 1778; and to this Church, 30th of April, 1794. These appointments, together with the Lectureship of St. Paul's, Shadwell, in Middlesex, he held at the time of his death.* * Moss's History of St. Saviour's Church.
PAGE 116
A plain white marble slab — " Sacred to the Memory of Mr. Wiluam Butler; died October 17th, 1815, aged 77." Buried in the Bishop's Vault. " Joseph Devey, Esq. died March 1st, 1816, aged 64 years. Mrs. Martha Devey, died March 12th, 1827, aged 68 years." In this aisle is the entrance to the Great Vault, a murky cave, where death seems to hold his court amid solemn heaps of mouldering remains that speak volumes on mortality. A few years since two bodies were found here in a wonderful state of preservation, apparently without any attempt having been made by art to keep them from that decay which is the common lot of humankind.f It is supposed that they had lain for upwards of seventy years, but tho' time had so long spared them, he has since seized his victims, the bodies being now in a rapid state of decomposition. Attached to one of the great pillars which support the tower, is the brass plate engraven on the plate of Monumental Remains; it was formerly on the floor of the Lady Chapel, but, being the last of these interesting records, it has been placed here with a view to its preservation.^ The monuments in the South Transept next engaged our attention ; this portion of the church is rich in sculptured tributes to the memory of the dead, many of the monuments having been removed to this spot from other parts of the building in consequence of necessary alterations and repairs : f Such instances are by no means uncommon, but have occurred in several other Churches of the Metropolis; the probable cause may be some property in the wood of the coffins in which they were deposited, of rapidly imbibing the moisture of the bodies. There have been found in Poland a kind of natural mummy, or human bodies preserved without the assistance of art: these lie in considerable numbers in some of the vast caverns in that country. Mr. Hardy in his notices of Bourdeaux, says, that in the vault under the Tower of St. Michael, are nearly sixty bodies placed standing or sitting against the wall, some near three hundred years old, the skin having the appearance of leather. J The conduct of those Collectors, whose sacrilegious pilferings have removed so many of these useful links from the chain of history, cannot be too severely censured : I say collectors, for the Antiquary who studies with a view to illustrate history, knows too well the value of an arms or monumental legend to wish it anywhere bat on the tomb to which it belongs.
PAGE 117
every man of taste must feel indebted to the present Warden of the Great Account, Edward Sells, Esq. for his care in preserving them from destruction, and rendering them by the most economical expenditure highly ornamental to the fabric. In the first recess on the east side of the south transept is a most beautifully executed marble monument, removed from the Magdalen Chapel, " Sacred to the Memory of the Rev. T. Jones, A.M. late of Queen's College, Cam bridge, and Chaplain of this Parish, who died June 6th, 1762, aged 33. This monument is erected by John and Joseph Street, Gent., as a memorial of the edification they received from his faithful labours in the ministry, A. D. 1770. — Also Mrs. Jane Jones, relict of the above Mr. Thomas Jones, died, April 30th, 1782, in the 54th year of her age." The above inscription is on the front of the tomb encircled by a wreath; on the tomb is a bust of the deceased between two cherubs, one having in his left hand a book, entitled Articles of Religion, the other hand pointing to the bust ; the other holding a torch reversed : under the bust are two books, one the Holy Bible, in the other which is opened, is written "John V. 39, Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me." At the back of the monument are the arms of the family, — Gules on a fess Or, three mascles sable, between three cinquefoils argent. The Rev. T. Jones was one of the Chaplains of St. Saviour's Church, and admired for the zeal with which he enforced the gospel truths ; prefixed to a volume of his works published a year after his decease, is a brief memoir of him by his friend the Rev. W. Romaine, who says, speaking of hiin in connection with this parish, — " There is an alms-house in the parish, called the college, and some small stipend for doing duty in it. Mr. Jones thought it was not right to take the money unless he did the duty, accordingly he began to read prayers, and to expound the scripture in the college chapel, and went on for some time. The congregation used to be very large, and the success was very great. Many souls were in this place first awakened, who are now walking in the faith and fear of God, adorning the gospel of our Saviour. Bui here he was stopped and
PAGE 118
refused the use of the chapel. After this he set up a weekly lecture in his church, but he had not preached it long, before he was denied the use of the pulpit. However he was not discouraged, he went on giving away good books, some of which he carried in person to every house in the parish ; catechising the children, who came weekly to his house for that pur pose ; and paying religious visits among his parishioners, when they used to talk freely of the state of their souls. By these methods he tried to win his people to Christ, besides the stated duties of his office; in performing of which he seemed to set God always before him, and to be greatly drawn out in love to his hearers, of whom a very great number I trust did frequent his ministry, not led thither by the ease of his delivery, the sweetness of his voice, or the smoothness of his periods, but because they felt the weight and importance of the doctrines preached. Several I am myself acquainted with, who will I hope be his joy and crown of rejoicing in the day of the Lord Jesus." He was for some years afflicted with a disorder, which his bio grapher states " kept him low, and often brought him near death's door:" he died young, and to the last was anxious for the spiritual welfare of his flock, during a long illness borne with patience, he was always studying and contriving something for their welfare, and his frequent ejaculatory prayer Svas " Lord feed thy sheep, Lord feed thy sheep." His sermons were not written, as he himself states, with studied elegance of style, being frequently begun on the Saturday in the afternoon and preached on the following day, so numerous were his avocations that he had not time to embellish them with pretty conceits; in his preface to his sermons he says, " I do not desire to please the fancies, but to affect the hearts of all my readers." Over Jones' monument is placed a neat monumental tablet with the following inscription, — " Within the rails, by the communion table, lyeth interred the body of Mr. James Shaw, and his wife Mrs. Alice Shaw, who departed this life the 13th day of November, 1693, aged 84 years. Also the body of her nephew, Captain Joseph Williams, and his daughter Alice Shaw Overman, wife of William Overman, Gent., who departed this life the 28th day of December, 1697, aged 26 years and 10 days." On the frieze of the monument is the following: "Mr. James Shaw, departed this life the 18th day of February, 1670." On the base " Memento Mori."
The monument is surmounted by the family arms : (viz.) Or, a
PAGE 119
cheveron between three lozenges ermines. Crest, on a helmet and wreath of his colours, six arrows in saltiere gules, feathered and headed, or, tied of the first. The whole formerly rested on a death's head. On the left of Jones's monument is a black marble tablet with this inscription, — " Neare vnto this place lyeth the body of Mistris Margrit Maynard, the daughter of Master John Maynard, Minister of Mayfered in Svssex, who departed this life March the 14th, 1653, being aged 13 years, 10 monthes, and 14 dayes." On the right of Jones's is the curious little monument engraved on the plate of Monumental Remains, it consists of a diminutive effigy of a man in a winding sheet, an emaciated figure, lying on a marble sarcophagus, at the back is a black tablet, on which is the following inscription, in letters of gold, —
PAGE 129
The Parochial Records will next occupy our attention; among the Baptisms are the names of several children of players, a circumstance easily accounted for by the vicinity of the Globe Theatre, &c. at Bankside.
PAGE 130
Among the Burial Registries are the following, —
1572, August 17. — Mr. Randal Oge, Sergeant at Arms to the Earl of Desmond.
1579, Julye 26. — And the same daye for the buryinge of the bowells of Robt. Home, Byshoppe of Winchester, in the quire. ...... 26s. 8d. 1595,
June 13.— William Wickham, B. of Winchest.
1597, Dec. 10. — Mr. Graye, a Priest, from the olde Ladye Montacute's house.
1603, Dec— Alice Pinke buried, aged 112.
1605, October 31. — Mr. Francis Dacres, son to my Lord D acres, in the church.
1607. — Edmond Shakespear, player, in ye church. 1609,
November 16. — Richard Johnson, Gent. Coroner of his Majesty's Household and of the Verge.
1614, January 3. — Sir George Brown, Knt. 1625,
Auguste, 29. — Mr. John ffletcher a man in the church.
The above named John Fletcher, the dramatic poet, died of the Plague in 1625, his name is distinguished from the hundreds by which it is surrounded by the addition of Mr. Of his death we have the following memorandum from the Aubrey MSS. " In the great plague, 1625, a knight of Norfolk or Suffolk, invited him into the country, he staid but to make himself a suit of cloaths, and while it was making fell sick of the plague and died ; this I had/rom his Tailor, who is now a very old man and Clerk of St. Mary Overy's." Edward Philips, speaking of this author, says " he was one of the happy triumvi rate of the chief dramatic poets of our nation in the last foregoing age, among whom there might be said to be a symmetry of perfection, each excelling in his peculiar way ; Shakes- pear in wit ; Fletcher in courtly elegance, wit, and invention, qualities which he possessed
PAGE 131
in so great a degree that it is said to have been part of the business of his contemporary Beaumont, to lop the luxuriance of the branches thereof; and Ben Jonson in his elaborate pains and knowledge of authors."
1626, August 12.— Mr. Nicholas Andrewes, the Bp9 Brother.
1626, Nov. 11.— Lancelott Andrewes, Ld BisP of Winton.
Raphe Henrie, the Bisp. Stuarde.
1639, March 18. — Philip Massenger, Stranger.
This great dramatic poet, who in the opinion of several able criticks, ranks immediately under Shakespeare, died in his own house on the Bankside, he went to bed in good health (says Langbaine), and was found dead in the morning : thus as he had passed through life with but few friends to endear it, in death he had none to administer consolation or even close his eyes: he was followed to the grave by a few comedians, and the event is simply registered in the parish annals as above. His writings were perfectly free from the licentiousness and impiety of the age in which he wrote, and which were so great at that period that new regulations were constantly necessary for the restraining of them.
The registries bear awful testimony of the dire ravages of disease in this parish, during the Plagues of 1625 and 1665 : and it is a remarkable fact, that at that period (when he that wrote must have felt that in a few hours his own name might be added to the dismal list) the registries are kept with the greatest care, and the entries appear minutely accurate. In the month of August, 1625, the number buried was 764, the number in the corresponding period of the preceding years averaging about 40 ; but in the great Plague of 1665, the number of burials was 1124 in the month of September, that of the corresponding month of 1664 being but 54. " From plague pestilence and famine, good Lord deliver us."
There are a few facts yet remaining to be noticed in connection with the Church.
At page 27 mention has been made of the marriage of the Princess of Milan to Edmund Holland, Earl of Kent; from another account we add that the King himself gave away this lady at the church door,* and afterwards conducted her to the banquet at Win chester Hall. The Princess remembered the scene of her espousals in her will which was dated 2 Henry VI. bequeathing to this convent, with others, 6000 crowns for masses after her death, to be said for the souls of her husband and herself. Like most of our great churches this appears not to have been wanting in relioks; during the recent repairs a stone corbel was found with remains of a Latin inscription which has been trahslated " Relics of St. Thomas." * Formerly part of the marriage ceremony was performed at the church door, the parties did not enter the church till that part of the office where the Minister now goes up to the altar and repeats the psalm. Chancer in his prologue to the Canterbury Tales, describing the Wife of Bath, says — " Houibondei at the chucks dors had (he had five.)"
________
MEMORIES OF THE LIFE AND WORKS OF THE RIGHT HONORABLE AND RIGHT REV. FATHER IN GOD LANCELOT ANDREWES, D.D.
THE LIFE OF BISHOP ANDREWES.
MEMORIES OF THE LIFE AND WOKKS
OF
THE RIGHT HONORABLE AND RIGHT REV. FATHER IN GOD
LANCELOT ANDREWES, D.D. LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER.
BY THE KEY ARTHUR T. RUSSELL, B.C.L.
OF ST. JOHN S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
VICAR OF WHADDON, CAMBRIDGESHIRE.
CAMBRIDGE:
FOR THE AUTHOR BY J. PALMER, SIDNEY STREET.
1860.
J. PALMER, PRINTER, SIDNEY STREET.
TO THE HONOURABLE AND REVEREND
HENRY COCKAYNE GUST, M.A.,
CANON OF WINDSOR, AND RECTOR OF COCKAYNE HATLEY
IN THE COUNTY OF BEDFORD, &c.
APPENDIX.
THE FAMILY OF ANDREWES.
The name of our prelate was variously spelt, — Andrew, Andrews,
Andrewes, and Andros. The "e" in Andrewes was sometimes omitted
in the early part of the seventeenth century. Sir Robert Andrewes
of Normandy, knt., came over with William I., and married the
daughter and heiress of Sir Robert Winwick of "Winwick, Northamptonshire, and afterward of Denton in the same county.
In 1303 occurs John Andrew, Alderman of Redingate, Canter
bury. A Sir William Andrewes of Northamptonshire and Carlisle
occurs in 1234.
Thomas Andrews of Beggar's Weston, or Weston Bigard, (or
Begard) a few miles east of Hereford, was born in 1501, and died
in 1615. See the genealogy of this branch in Nichol's Leicestershire,
parish of System* From him was descended the late highly respected Gerard Andrewes, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, Rector of St. James', Westminster, and 8th November, 1809, Dean of Canterbury. He died, aged 75, on June 2nd, 1825.
In a window in St. Bartholomew the Less, London, over the
door in the passage into the church, are the arms and crest (painted
in glass) of Henry Andrewes, Alderman of London, 1636: argent,
a saltire azure on a chief gules; 3 mullets or: crest, a Moor's head
in profile.
In 1649 and 1651 Thomas, a leatherseller, son of Robert Andrewes of Feltham near Hounslow, Middlesex, and of the Fishmongers' Company, was Lord-Mayor of London.
Jonathan Andrewes was a member of the court of Merchant Taylors 1665, and Richard Andrewes, M.D., 1627—1634.
Sir Matthew Andrewes, knt., was one of the Elder Brethren of Trinity House, 1625.
Our prelate in his will makes mention of William the son of his deceased brother Nicholas; Thomas, Nicholas, and Roger the sons of his deceased brother Thomas, and their eldest sister Ann, married to Arthur "Woollaston ; also her younger sister Mary. His brother Nicholas was born in 1567, and died in 1626. His brother Thomas was named after his father, who appears as a benefactor to All
Hallows', Barking, " 1593, towards repairs of the church, £2; to the poor £5;" probably bequeathed. Our prelate's mother, Mrs. Joan Andrewes, left in 1524 a bequest of £10. He also makes mention of his sister Mary Burrell. One Alexander Burrell, B.A., Trinity College, Cambridge, 1706, M.A. 1710, was Yicar of Buckden, July 5, 1717, which he resigned in 1721, being made in 1720 Rector of Adstock near Winslow, Bucks., by Dr. Gibson, then Bishop of Lincoln, and also Rector of Puttenham, Herts, by the same patron.
His father was also of Trinity College, B.A. 1666, M.A. 1670. There have been about twenty members of the University of Cambridge of that name. The name is also spelt Burwell; Mr. Samuel Burwell was at our prelate's funeral. Of this name was Thomas, LL.D. of the University of Cambridge, 1661; Thomas, M.B. of the same University per Literas Regias, 1662 ; Francis, A.M. of the same University per Literas Regias, 1675 ; Thomas, M.B., King's College, 1677; and Charles, M.B., Pembroke College, 1717. The name Burwell appears to have merged into Burrell. The children of the Bishop's sister, Mary Burrel, were Andrew, John, Samuel, Joseph,
James, Lancelot, Mary Rooke, and her daughter Martha. His sister Martha, born in 1577, married first to Robert Princep, by whom she had a son Thomas. Charles Robert Princep (probably a descendant) was B.A. St. John's College, Cambridge, 1811, M.A. 1813. At Oxford was John Princep, B.A., BaUiol College, Oct. 12,
1738. Martha was married secondly to Mr., probably Peter, Salmon, by whom she had two sons, Peter and Thomas. The Rev. Thomas Peter Dod Salmon was B.A. St. John's College, Cambridge, 1782, M.A. 1786, Fellow of that College, B.D. 1793, and was living in 1811. Mr. Salmon had a sister Martha and a daughter Anne Best. The Bishop also makes mention of his cousin Anne Hockett. John Hockett was B.A. of Trinity College, Cambridge, 1662, M.A. 1666, and a Fellow of that society. Another of the same name was B.A. of that College 1696. He names another cousin, Sandbrooke; also his cousin Robert and his two children; his cousin Rebecca; his father's half-sister Joan; her first husband's name was Bousie. Also his godson Lancelot Lake, son of Sir Thomas Lake. There was a Lancelot Lake, B.A. Catharine
Hall, Cambridge, 1666, M.A. 1670. Also his two godsons Robert and Charles Barker, son of Mr. Robert Barker, " latelie the King's printer." His principal executor was Mr. John Parker, citizen and Merchant Taylor, of London, to be assisted by Sir Thomas Lake, Sir Henry Martin, and Dr. Nicholas Styward or Steward. His will was witnessed by Robert Bostock, Prebendary of Norton Episcopi in the church of Lincoln, and afterward Archdeacon of Suffolk, and (if not in 1626) Prebendary of Chichester; Joseph Fenton, probably our prelate's physician; John Browning, Rector of Buttermere near Hungerford, whom he had preferred to that living in 1624, author of Six Sermons concerning Public Prayer and the Fasts of the Church (Lond. 1636); Thomas Eddie and "William Green, two of the Bishop's servants. Archdeacon Wig-
more also signed the three several codicils to the will.
The family of Andrew or Andrewes has seated itself in Gloucestershire; Plymouth, Devon ; Bisbrook, Rutlandshire ; Norfolk, Suffolk, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, Lancashire, "Wilts, Bucks, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Surrey, and Hants. In Cambridgeshire it is still represented by the Rev. Thomas Andrew of Pembroke
College, Cambridge, Yicar of Triplow ; and by another descendant, a respectable yeoman at Litlington in the same county. In Hertfordshire, by the father of this latter, a yeoman in the parish of Buckland near Barkway. In Suffolk, by George W. Andrewes, Esq., Sudbury, Suffolk. In Surrey, by the Rev. William Gerard Andrewes, M.A., Magdalen Hall, Oxford, curate of Morden near Mitcham, and grandson of the late Dean of Canterbury. The Rev. Thomas Andrew of Triplow is descended of a Northamptonshire branch of this family. Erom Northamptonshire a branch of this
family migrated about the beginning of the seventeenth century to the neighbourhood of Canterbury. Thence Henry Andrews removed to London, and was cut off with his whole household, except one infant, in the Great Plague in 1665. This infant lived to a considerable age, and having acquired some fortune by merchandise, thought it right to take out arms afresh in 1729. He died in 1730.
His grandson Joseph was at a very early age appointed Paymaster to the Forces serving in Scotland 1715. His son Joseph was created a Baronet in 1766. His brother, James Pettit Andrews, born at Shaw House near Newbury, 1737, was the author of a miscellaneous collection entitled Anecdotes, Ancient and Modern, fyc. Lond. 8vo. 1789. A supplement to this volume in 1790; History of Great Britain, 1794, vol. I., from CaBsar's invasion to the death of Richard I. 4to. Lond. In 1795 appeared a second part, to the accession of Edward VI. The plan of this work was founded on that of Dr. Henry. He appears to have discontinued it for the purpose of completing Dr. Henry's history, which, in 1796, he brought down to the accession of James I. He translated The Savages of Europe; a popular French novel now forgotten. In 1798 he published The Inquisitor, a Tragedy in five Acts altered from the German, in conjunction with his friend H. J. Pye, the Poet Laureate. He was a contributor to the Archceologia and the Gentleman's Magazine. On the establishment of the London Police Magistracy in 1792, he was appointed Magistrate for Queen's Square and St. Margaret's "West minster. He died in London August 6th, 1797. He had married Anne daughter of the Rev. Rumney Penrose, Rector of Newbury. He survived her twenty years. The present excellent Master of the Grammar School, Stamford, the Rev. Erederic E. Gretton, B.D., late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, and author of some valuable Parochial Sermons, is descended from Bishop Andrewes both on the mother's and father's side. His father married a Clay, and his grandfather a Pigott, the granddaughter and daughter respectively of Catharine and Ellen Andrewes, whose father died and
was buried at Southwell in or about 1717. Mr. G. "W. Andrews of Sudbuiy is a younger brother of the Rev. Robert Andrews, B.D., who was ninth Senior Optime, Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and B.A. 1821, of Middleton near Sudbury. The eldest brother is Lieut. Colonel Andrews, residing at 57, Ecclestone Square, London; and the youngest, the Rev. "William Nesfield Andrews, of Jesus College, Cambridge, M.A. 1832, Rector of Chilton near Sudbury 1853.
A.D. 1600.
Five days after the death of Hooker, Andrewes wrote to Dr. Parry, afterward Bishop of Worcester:
" SALTJTEM IN CHRISTO.
"I cannot choose but write though you do not; I never failed since I last saw you, but daily prayed for him till the very instant you sent me this heavy news. I have hitherto prayed Serva nobis hunc; now must I Da nobis alium. Alas, for our great loss! and when I say ours, though I mean yours and mine, yet much more the common: with [which?] the less sense they have of so great a damage, the more sad we need to bewail them ourselves, who knew his works and his worth to be such as behind him he hath not, that I know, left any near him. And whether I shall live to know any near him, I am in great doubt that I care not how many and myself had redeemed his longer life, to have done good in a better subject than he had in hand, though that were very good. Good brother, have a care to deal with his executrix or executor, or (him that is like to have a great stake in it) his father-in-law, that there be special care and regard for preserving such papers as he left, besides the three last books excepted. By preserving, I mean, that not only they be not embezzled and come to nothing, but that they come not into great hands who will only have use of them quatenus et quousque, and suppress the rest, or unhappily all; but rather into the hands of some of them that
unfeignedly wished him well, though of the meaner sort, who may upon good assurance (very good assurance) be trusted with them; for it is pity they should admit any limitation. Do this and do it mature ; it had been more than time long since to have been about it, if I had sooner known it. If any word or letter would do any good to Mr. Churchman, it should not want. But what cannot yourself or Mr. Sandys do therein? For Mr. Cranmer is away; happy in that he shall gain a week or two before he know of it.
Almighty God comfort us over him, whose taking away, I trust
I shall no longer live than with grief remember; therefore with
grief because with inward and most just honour I ever honoured
him since I knew him.
"Your assured poor loving friend,
" L. ANDREWES.
"At the Court, Nov. 7, 1600."
About a month after this letter was written the Archbishop sent Andrewes to Mrs. Hooker to enquire after the MSS. He did not however succeed in obtaining any information. Upon this the Archbishop sent for her to London, when she confessed that Mr. Chart, a Puritan, and another minister of the same bias, had destroyed some of his papers as being in their opinion not such as should see the light. However the rough drafts of the three last books of the Eccl. Polity were discovered and delivered by Whitgift to Dr. Spenser, who drew up as perfect a copy as he could, a transcript of which was given to Andrewes amongst others. — Strype's Whitgift, ii. 441.
THE BOOK
MY DEAR SIR, The following pages, designed as a tribute to the memory of one of the most eloquent and munificent Prelates that ever adorned the Church of England, will, I trust, form also no unfitting memorial of my grateful regard for yourself, to whose kindness I was indebted for the second Vicarage which I have held under Her Majesty's Free Chapel of St. George, Windsor. I trust it will be seen by every candid reader that my aim has been to represent the subject of this volume as he was, neither exaggerating nor depreciating his...
CHAPTER I.
LANCELOT ANDREWES was born A.D. 1555, in Thames street, in the parish of Allhallows, Barking, London, of religious parents, who, besides his education, left him a fair estate which descended to his heir at Eawreth, a little village between Chelmsford and Rayleigh. (Morant professes that lie was unable to discover what this property was. ) His father Thomas in his latter time became one of the Society and master of Trinity House, and was descended of the ancient family of the Andrewes in Suffolk. Lancelot was early sent to the Coopers' Free School, KatclifF, in the parish of Stepney. This school was founded in the reign of Henry the Eighth by Nicholas Gibson, grocer, who in 1538 served the office of Sheriff. It was intended for the education of sixty children of poor parents, under a master and usher, and to it were attached an almshouse and chapel. Here Andrewes was
placed under Mr. Ward, who, discovering his abilities, persuaded his parents to continue him at his studies and to destine him to a learned profession. His young scholar did not prove unmindful of his kindness, but when raised to the see of Winchester, promoted his son Dr. Ward to the living of Bishop's Waltham. At this place, which is a small market-town ten miles north-east of Southampton, the Bishops of Winchester had a residence from the time of Bishop Henry de Blois, brother of king Stephen. This place was the favorite resort of the famous Wykeham. The palace was destroyed in the civil wars. From Mr. Ward Andrewes
was sent to the celebrated Richard Mulcaster, then master of Merchant Taylors' School. Mulcaster was a strict disciplinarian, having been trained under the stern Udal at Eton. Thence he went to King's College, Cambridge, in 1548, but removed to Oxford, where his learning was so highly esteemed that in 1561 he was appointed the first master of Merchant Taylors' School, which was founded in that same year by the munificent Sir Thomas White. Here Mulcaster continued until 1596, and was appointed master of St. Paul's School, from which he was preferred by the Queen to the rich rectory of Stanford Kivers, near Ongar, 1598. In 1609 he was deprived by death of a beloved wife, with whom he had lived happily fifty-six years. He did not long survive, but died April 15, 1611. Amongst Andrewes contemporaries at Merchant Taylors' were Giles Thompson, afterwards Bishop of Gloucester, Thomas Dove, afterwards Bishop of Peterborough, and Ralph Hutchenson, who was president of St. John's College, Oxford, from 1590 to his
death, January 17, 1605. On his leaving Merchant Taylors' School in 1571, Andrewes was entered at Pembroke College, Cambridge. On 9th September in this same year Dr. Thomas Watts, of Christ's College, Cambridge, (who in 1560 was
appointed archdeacon of Middlesex, in the place of the venerable Alexander Nowell,) being then prebendary of Totenhale in St. Paul's, and in 1571 also dean of Bocking, founded seven scholarships at Pembroke College, called Greek scholarships. The four first scholars upon this foundation were Andrewes and Dove, Gregory Downhall, and John Wilford. About the same time Andrewes was, with Dove, Wilford, and William Plat, appointed to a scholarship in Jesus College, Oxford, at the request of the founder, by Queen Elizabeth. It would appear that he was nominated to a scholarship at Oxford previously to his admission, or at least residence, at Cambridge. He left Merchant Taylors' School on St. Barnabas Day, June 11, 1571, and the royal charter of foundation whence Jesus College dates its institution, is dated 27 June, 13 Eliz. 1571. By this charter Dr. Hugh Price, or Ap Rice, (LL.D., of Oxford, 1525, and supposed to have been educated at Oseney Abbey), Treasurer of St. David's, was permitted to settle estates on the said college to the yearly value of £160., for the sustentation of eight fellows and eight scholars, all appointed in the first instance, according to Dr. Price's mind, by Queen Elizabeth.
" What he did when he was a child and a schoolboy, it is not now known," says his grateful biographer Isaacson, "but he hath been sometimes heard to say, that when he was a young scholar in the University, and so all his time onward, he never loved or used any games or ordinary recreations, either within doors, as cards, dice, tables, chess, or the like ; or abroad, as bats, quoits, bowls, or any such; but his ordinary exercise and recreation was walking either alone or with some companion with whom he might confer and recount his studies." To the last he took great delight in those meditations that are, as it were, inspired by the
beholding of the works of God.
His custom was, after he had been three years at the University, (when he took his degree of B.A. in 1574-5,) to come up to London once a year to visit his parents, always about a fortnight before Easter, and to stay with them about a month, never intermitting his studies. And, until he was a bachelor of divinity, he even used to perform these journies on foot.
In October 1576 he was chosen to a fellowship at his college, and Dove, the unsuccessful candidate, was continued as a tanquam-socius by a liberality not unusual in those times. In 1578 he took the degree of M.A.1 In 1580 he was ordained, and the same year his name appears in the College books as Junior Treasurer. In 1581 he was Senior Treasurer, and on July 11 was incorporated M.A. of the University of Oxford, on the same day with William Pemberton of Christ College, afterwards the incumbent of High Ongar.
After he had been some time Master of Arts he was appointed catechist in his college, and read his lectures upon the decalogue at the hour of catechising (three in the after noon) every Saturday and Sunday; and such was his reputation as a student and a divine, that many came to the chapel, now (since the chapel founded by Bishop Wren) the College library*; and these not only from other colleges, but even from the country. So report both his biographer Isaacson and Jackson the editor of these very lectures. They were put forth from notes in 1642, and entitled, The Moral Law expounded; and in the same volume were reprinted his Sermons on the Temptation in the Wilderness, and on Prayer. The lectures were a second time edited in 1650, and again in 1675, in a comparatively modern style, and with many enlargements and additions. The edition of 1675 is by no
means so accurately printed as that of 1642. Of the substance of the work there can be no doubt that it is the production of our prelate. John Jackson the first editor was probably one of the Assembly of Divines, Preacher of Gray's Inn and of the University of Cambridge. Sparke was a Puritan, and has introduced his own likeness in an engraving of Laud's Trial.
We have witnessed in our own times an extreme jealousy of all summaries of the Gospel. Not so Bishop Andrewes, who, in his introduction to these lectures, observes, in defence of catechising by the help of summaries, that "our Saviour
catechising Nicodemus made an epitome or abridgement of the Gospel under one head: So God loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him might not perish, but have everlasting life."
After an introduction vindicating the practice of cate
chising, Andrewes proceeded to speak of the spirit in which
the catechized should come to this exercise; and in this,
which forms the second chapter, the later is more copious
than the earlier edition. But both appear to be taken
from notes, and neither can claim to be the original, for
each edition possesses its peculiar marks of the style and
learning of our author. In the third chapter the catechist
proves with great variety of classical and patristical illus
tration, that true happiness is to be found only in God.
Then he proceeds to shew that the surest way to come
unto God is by faith. Nor is there fear of credulity when
we believe God, who neither can deceive nor be deceived.
Now faith is grounded, says Andrewes, upon the word of
God, though published and set forth by man.1 We cannot
come to God by reason, for God transcends reason, nor
can we know anything of the essences of things. And as
to credulity, the endless differences of philosophers upon
the nature of the chief good shew that the uncertainty of
the way of reason is most favorable to credulity. And so
in the things of common life there is likewise frequent and
inevitable necessity for faith.2
But faith doth not exclude reason as corroborative of
revelation. So St. Paul appeals to natural reason in the
first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. And, adds our
catechist, " having thus submitted ourselves to belief, and
strengthened it with reason, we must look for an higher
teacher. For though faith be a perfect way, yet we being
imperfect walk imperfectly in it ; and therefore in those
things which transcend nature and reason, we must believe
God only, and pray to Him, that by the inspiration of His
Holy Spirit, we may be directed and kept in this way."
And " because this inspiration cometh not all at once at
the first, we must grow to perfection by little and little,
and come up by degrees till it please Him to send it in
full measure to us. He that believeth shall not make haste."
Excellently then does he treat of the proofs of the being
of a God, especially from the existence of moral sentiments
and of a conscience in man.1 Next are summed up the proofs
of a particular providence, in which chapter he affirms the
principle, that God is his own end, and that he wills all
things for his own honour.2 Then follow very elaborate
discourses upon Heathenism, Judaism, Mahometanism, and
the evidences of Christianity. He then proceeds to treat
of the rule of interpretation, and does not, as do some
who make use of his name, treat the Scriptures as practically
useless until a meaning is assigned to them out of the Fathers
or by the Church. He does not refer us either to the one
or to the other as the rule of interpretation, but will have
us seek the literal meaning of each passage, consult the text
in the original tongues, compare Scripture with Scripture,
learn the intent of those expressions or idioms that are peculiar
to Scripture, as the crucifying of the flesh, the mortifying
of concupiscence, &c. ; consider the scope of the passage,
as, what was God's intent in setting down the law, in
giving a prophecy, in working a miracle, &c., as St. Paul to
Timothy reasoneth from the end of the law, against those
that made evil use of the law; and lastly, have regard to
the context. These rules he prefaces with a quotation from
St. Augustine, " Let us ask by prayer, seek by reading,
find out by meditation, taste and digest by contemplation."
It may be observed that in this part of the lectures we
meet with a very plain proof that the latter edition was not
taken from the bishop's own manuscript, and that it does not
deserve the high commendation it gives itself in the titlepage.
Thus in p. 54 we read (Rule) 4. " To be acquainted with the
phrase of the Holy Ghost, and this is to be gotten by the
knowledge of the dialect, idiom, or style of the Holy Spirit,
as the apostle speaks, by use to discern it, 'as the crucifying of
the flesh, mortifying the concupiscence, &c., for sometimes the
Holy Ghost in Greek sends us to the Holy Ghost in Hebrew.
Holy Ghost useth divers idioms that are not to be found in
other writers ; as, the crucifying of a man's flesh, the mortify
ing of his concupiscence, &c. Therefore we must be perfect in
these ; and as Heb. 5, ver. last, have our senses exercised, that
we may know the Holy Ghost when he speaketh. Often we
shall meet with TOVT earl ^eOep^vevofjievoVj this is being
interpreted; the Holy Ghost in Greek referreth us to the
Holy Ghost in Hebrew."
The second editor has endeavoured to incorporate his own
with Bishop Andrewes' doctrine. It is to be observed more
over, that whereas the larger additions to the author are dis
tinguished as such by the editor, he has also inserted glosses
and limitations which are indeed put in italics; but neither are
these the only additions, for it is owned in the preface that
there are some additions left by mistake in the same character
with the rest. Very remarkable is our author's reason for
the introduction of the new covenant ; it is in perfect harmony
with the great principle of his theology, that God is all in all :
"The reason of this second covenant was, that now Adam
having lost his own strength by breach of the first, all power
and strength should be new from God in Christ, and all the
glory be given to him. For if Adam had stood by his own
strength in the first, howsoever God should have had most
glory, yet Adam should have had some part thereof for using
his strength well and not abusing it when he might, but kept
his standing. But that God might have all the glory, he
suffered the first covenant to be broken, and permitted man to
fall, for which fall he was to make satisfaction, which he could
not do but by Christ, nor perform new obedience but by the
grace of God preventing us, and making us of unwilling
willing, and of unable able to do things in that measure that
God will require at our hands." He discourses of the order
that should be observed in preaching. He will have the law
preached first because by it alone men are humbled ; then he
will have them brought to that covenant by which they can
be saved. ..
In his traces of the moral law amongst the heathen' he
notices their observance of the number seven as the number
of rest, and the number most pleasing to the gods, and their
practice of mourning seven days, of naming their children on
the seventh day, &C.
Under the exposition of the first commandment are most
learnedly and piously treated all the religious affections, faith,
hope, love, humility, patience, reverence also prayer, thanks
giving, obedience, integrity, and perseverance; and their contraries, unbelief, despair, pride, love of the world, self-love, &c.
Under the second commandment he derives the use of
pictures in churches from the Gnostics in Irenasus, and gives
the four causes of the introduction of images, condemning it
at the same time as the beginning of great abuses. These
causes are the policy of heretics aiming by their imitation of
the heathen to conciliate them ; secondly, desire to preserve
the memory of the dead ; so the people had the likeness of
Malesius, Bishop of Constantinople, in their rings, and in
their houses. Thirdly, wealth, by reason of which they desired to please their eyes and to have their churches as rich as themselves. Lastly, the idleness, absence or ignorance of their pastors. Paulinus, Bishop of Nola in Campania,
having occasion to travel into Syria and Egypt, and having
none to preach to his people till his return, thought good
(because he would have something to teach them in his
absence) to paint the whole history of the Bible on the walls
of his church, so that their preachers were none other but
painted walls. But this is no way to be commended in him,
and the effect proved accordingly. For it fell out that for
want of better teachers the people became ignorant, and be
cause their pastors became but dumb images, therefore dumb
images became their pastors."
Our author charges upon the second council of Nice the
paying supreme worship to images themselves. The later editor of his lectures inserts a correction, affirming that
the council was misrepresented to the councils of Frankfort
and Paris. But the reader will find this point fully treated
of in Bishop Stillingfleet upon the Idolatrous Practices of the
Romish Church* and Andrewes fully justified.
Under this commandment Andrewes discourses of all
the parts of divine worship, preaching, prayer, thanksgiving,
sacraments, and discipline. " St. Paul," he tells us, " not only
preached, but made it an ordinance of God, to save them that
believe."2 Upon the sacraments and discipline the later is far
more copious than the earlier edition, which, from its extreme
brevity, was probably taken from notes very defective them
selves upon these particulars. If this part of the work be
our author's, he decides that children are believers " by their
godfathers and godmothers and parents who present them
and desire to have them baptized in the faith of Christ."
The sacrifice of the Eucharist he does not make a repetition of
Christ's sacrifice, but an oblation of ourselves to God and
a sacrifice of thanksgiving. The only other sense in which
our author ever calls the Lord's Supper a sacrifice is as
a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice. He disclaims in
his Easter-day Sermon for A.D. 1612, the application of
the term sacrifice in the strict and literal sense. He saith,
" by the same rule that theirs [the passover] was, by the
same may ours be termed a sacrifice. In rigour of speech
neither of them : for (to speak after the exact manner of
divinity) there is but one only sacrifice veri nominis properly
so called ; that is Christ's death, and that sacrifice but once
actually performed at his death, but ever before represented
in figure, from the beginning; and ever since repeated, in
memory, to the world's end." And a little after, in the same
sermon : lt So it was the will of God, that so there might
be with them a continual foreshewing, and with us a con
tinual shewing forth the Lord's death till He come again.
Hence it is, that what names theirs carried, ours do the like, and the Fathers make no scruple at it ; no more need we." We
do not find here that theological confusion of language which
would lead us to suppose that the Eucharistic elements them
selves were a sacrifice available to the forgiveness of sins;
a confusion into which those have fallen perhaps unwittingly,
yet really, who have sought to make of the Eucharist a real
sacrifice and not a commemoration of a sacrifice. These
contend for a real; Bishop Andrewes, Bishop Jewel, Bishop
Bilson for a figurative sacrifice, a memorial of Christ's death,
in which the offerers were as much the people as the priests ;
so Bishop Bilson : " Christ is offered daily but mystically,
not covered with * qualities and quantities of bread and wine,
for those be neither mysteries nor resemblances to the death
of Christ: but by the bread which is broken, by the wine
which is drunk, in substance creatures, in signification sacra
ments, the Lord's death is figured and proposed to the
communicants, and they for their parts, no less people than
priests, do present Christ hanging on the Cross to God the
Father, with a lively faith, inward devotion, and humble
prayer, as a most sufficient and everlasting sacrifice for the
full remission of their sins and assured fruition of His
mercies." And again, he explains Peter Lombard in his
fourth book and twelfth distinction, saying, " Christ is offered
in a sacrament," by these words, u that is, his offering is
represented, and a memory of his passion celebrated." And
so Dr. Field (who has nevertheless been alleged to prove
the doctrine of Johnson, Hickes, and their followers) sums
up all in this, " The sacrifice of the altar is only the sacrifice
of praise and thanksgiving, and a mere representation and
commemoration of the sacrifice once offered on the Cross."
Equally careful is Buckeridge, Bishop of Ely, to guard
against all idea of a real external sacrifice, denying in plain
terms that the Eucharist is an external proper sacrifice.
CHAPTER II.
Andrewes on the Fourth Commandment — Of holy places — Of the
Church's deposit — Of Circumcision — Of the fear of God — Of grace.
— Andrewes goes into the north with the Earl of Huntingdon —
Sir Francis JValsingham becomes his patron — He is made Vicar
of St. Giles', Cripplegate — Preaches at the Spital in 1588 — His
censure of highmindedness — His honourable notice of Augustine
and Calvin — Vindication of Protestant munificence — Censure of
simony and sacrilege — Of Justification — He preaches before the
Queen in 1589 — Is made Prebendary of Southwell and of St.
Paul's, and Master of Pembroke College — His Clerum.
IN the sixth chapter our author exposes the excuses of the
Romanists in regard of image-worship, and herein follows the
very same course that is taken in the Homily upon Peril of
Idolatry. In his exposition of the fourth commandment he
observes that men would probably have neglected worship
altogether, "if God had not provided a particular day for
himself and settled it by a special commandment ; as we see
in those that talk of a perpetual Sabbath, who come at length
to keep no day at all." His judgment did not suffer him to
be led away with the presumptuous folly of those who dis
covered that, Adam had no need of a Sabbath. He regarded
the fourth commandment as partly moral and partly cere
monial, which appears to be virtually admitted by Bishop
White himself, who says that "the common and natural
equity of the commandment is moral."1 Andrewes derives
the Lord's Day, with St. Augustine, from Holy Scripture; this is the day that the Lord hath made. And so St. Athana-
sius affirms that u the Lord changed the Sabbath to the Lord's
Day."1 " So," observes our author, "though the Sabbath or
seventh day from the creation be ceased, yet there is another
day still remaining, because the end of keeping a day is
immutable from the beginning, to wit, that God might be
honoured by a solemn and public worship." But the whole
of this subject is more fully considered and more accurately
recorded in his Lectures preached in St. Paul's: "Of all the
days in the week we shall see the seventh day to be the fittest
to retain and keep in memory the commendation of this
benefit and work of creation. When God had performed this
great work of creation, he took order also, because it was the
greatest benefit which as yet the world had or knew of, that
the seventh day should be always had in remembrance, be
cause he had fully perfected all the work in it ; and the very
same reason which made the Jews' Sabbath on the seventh
day, doth now also move Christians to keep it on the first day
in the week ; for it is God's will that the lesser benefit should
surcease and give place to the greater, Jer. xxiii. 7, and that
the benefit of creation as the lesser, should yield and give
place to the work of redemption, which is the greater benefit."
But the Sabbath of Sinai, adds our author, had three other
accessory ends : first, political, which was bodily rest, Exod.
xxiii. 12; secondly, ceremonial, that is commemorative of the
creation, and typical of Christ's rest in the grave, of our rest
from sin, and of eternal rest in heaven: thirdly, an end
peculiar to the Jews, the commemorating of their deliverance
out of Egypt, Deut. v. 15 ; wherefore the Jews say that they
have a double right and interest in the Sabbath.
In regard of the sanctification of the day, he condemns all
labor, pastimes, journeyings, and such agricultural works as
are forbidden in Exodus xxxiv., bounding these rules by
that of our Saviour, God will have mercy and not sacrifice.
The eighth chapter treats of the duty of fasting, a duty unhappily for the most part altogether neglected, or magnified
as an end instead of a way to an end.
Again, if the love of ease will condemn fasting, so the
love of money will as easily condemn all care of the house
of God as superstitious. But justly does our author satirize
this desecrating sort of religion. " The Sabbath is the day
of rest, and when we hallow it, we call it the Lord's rest.
So Psalm cxxxii. 14, we see the Lord will give the same
name to the place, This is my rest ; concerning which, as
the Apostles took order, as that the exterior part of God's
worship might be performed decently and in order ; so on
the other side, that the place of God's worship should be
so homely and so ordered, that the table of the Lord's Supper
where, one saith well, the dreadful mysteries of God are
celebrated, were fitter to eat oysters at, than to stand in the
sanctuary of the Lord ; this is so far from pomp that it is
far from decency. And it is a thing that would be thought
of: it is not the weightier matter of the law, yet not to be
neglected. As our working, travelling, &c. shew that we
esteem not that day, so the walls and windows shew that we
are not esteemers of his sanctuary."
From holy things he proceeds to treat of 'holy persons,
and of that power which is in the law of God alone to hold
communities together by checking those sins that cannot,
from their very nature, be restrained by human enactments ;
sins which nevertheless have been the destruction of empires.
Here he speaks of the great mischief which the corruption
of law and oppressive delays, &c. had brought upon our
own country.
In the later edition, which is much more ample upon
the subject of ceremonies than the earlier, having a whole
page by way of introduction which that has not, Andrewes
calls the Scriptures, the volume of both covenants, the
depositum committed to the Church.
Circumcision he calls here and elsewhere a sacrament
affirming that to the sacraments of circumcision and of the
passover succeeded baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Of the fear of God lie saith, tl The reason why though
we may and ought to obey God out of love, yet it hath
pleased him to command fear, is threefold: 1. to overthrow
the vain speculation of some erroneous people, that dream
of an absolute perfection in this life. The wise man saith,
Blessed is the man that feareth alway. And either there
is no perfection in this life, or fear is superfluous; he that
cannot fall need not fear. 2. Inasmuch as the children of God
often feel in themselves a feebleness in faith, a doubt in hope,
coldness in prayers, slowness in repentance, and weakness
in all the other duties, in some more, in others less, according
to the measure of the Spirit communicated to them, as it was
in king David ; therefore fear is necessary to recover them
selves, and he that loseth it not, his heart shall never be
hardened, nor fall into mischief. Though all other duties
fail, yet if fear continues, we shall never need to despair.
3. Because the excellent duty of love, the effect of fear, might
not fail and grow careless. In the Canticles the spouse
fell asleep with her beloved in her arms, and when she awoke
her beloved was gone : in her bed she sought him but found
him not. So that if there be not a mixture of fear with love,
it will grow secure and fall asleep and lose her beloved.
Therefore that we may be sure to keep our love awake, when
we think we have Christ in our arms, there must be a mixture
of fear with it. So for these three reasons fear is necessary,
even for them that think themselves in a perfect state. And
withal Solomon tells us, the fear of the Lord is the beginning
of wisdom : so did his father before him. And the same
Solomon concludes his book of the Preacher with, Fear God
and keep his commandments, for this is the end of all and
the whole duty of man. And in another place he saith, The
fear of the Lord is the fountain of life to avoid the snares
of death. As faith is the beginning of Christian religion,
as the first principles in every science are of things to be
believed, so is fear the first work or beginning of things
to be done : and as servile fear is the first work, so a reverend
and filial fear is the last work and conclusion of all things."
He thus speaks of the grace of God. tl As Nebuchad
nezzar ascribed the building of great Babel to his own power,
and made his own glory the end of it ; so, on the contrary,
we also say of hope, it makes God the author of all the
good it looks for, and makes His glory the end of all. For
first, it makes us go out of ourselves and trust only in God,
and wholly rely upon Him as the sole efficient cause of
good to us. We must wholly depart out of ourselves • we
must not conceive that there is any sufficiency in ourselves,
but that all our sufficiency is of God, not so much as to
think a good thought, therefore much less to have a will
to do it; but that it is God that works the velle [willing]
and consequently the perficere [perfecting] both the will and
the deed in us. We must not ascribe any part or help
to ourselves : for our Saviour saith, Without Me ye can do
nothing. Upon which place St. Augustine noteth, it is " not
any great thing, but nothing at allj and not that we can
perfect nothing, but do nothing at all. And as it makes
God the cause and first beginning, so the last end too, by
giving the glory of his graces in us to him : and the reason
is plain in the Apostle, That no flesh should glory in his
presence, but as it followeth, that he that glorieth should glory
in Him. (\ Cor. i.)"1
The same pious doctrine is contained and vindicated very
fully in his sermon upon 2 Cor. iii. 5, Not that we are sufficient
of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency
is of God? There he saith, " If we begin to do any good
thing, it is God who began a good work in us. Phil. i. 6.
In consideration of which place Augustine saith of the Pela
gians, Audiant qui dicunt, i a nobis esse cceptum, a Deo esse
eventum] the beginning is from us, the completion is from
God. Here let them learn of the Apostle, that it is the
Lord that doth begin and. perform the good work."
And thus much of his catechetical lectures, the value
of which is by no means exaggerated in Jackson's Dedication
to Parliament, where they are called and said to have been
reputed "a very library to young divines, and an oracle
to consult at, to laureate and grave divines."
From the University Andrewes went into the north on the
invitation of Henry Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon and Lord
President of the North. Whilst with him he is said "both by
Isaacson and Bishop Buckeridge to have had great success in
converting several both priests and laymen to the Protestant
religion.
"After this," adds Buckeridge in his funeral sermon for
our prelate, "Mr. Secretary Walsinghame took notice of him,
and obtained him of the Earl, intending his preferment, in
which he would never permit him to take any country
benefice, lest he and his great learning should be buried in
a country church. His intent was to make him Reader of
Controversies in Cambridge, and for his maintenance he as
signed to him (as I am informed) the lease of the parsonage of
Alton in Hampshire, which after his death (in 1590) he returned to his lady, which she never knew nor thought of.
In 1583, November 27, Nicholas Felton, afterward Bishop
of Ely, and, like Andrewes, one of the most upright and
popular prelates of his time, was elected to a fellowship
at Pembroke College. In 1585 Andrewes took his degree
of B.D., and in 1588 appears to have succeeded Robert
Crowley (Veron's successor in 1563) in the vicarage of
St. Giles', Cripplegate. Crowley died on June 18, and was
buried in the chancel.
Andre wes, on April 22, 1585, read his Thesis de Usuris1
as his exercise for the degree of B.D. His Sermons on
the Temptation in the Wilderness, first published in 1592,
and those on the Lord's Prayer, first published in 1611, were
probably delivered, not at Cambridge as a recent editor of
Isaacson's Life of Andrewes conjectures, but at St. Giles',
Cripplegate. Dr. Hopkins, Bishop of Deny, also published
a very valuable series of Sermons on the Lord's Prayer
towards the latter end of this century. Amongst other
eminent divines who have written upon it, are John Smith,
1609, Dr. John Boys, 1622, Perkins of Cambridge, Dr.
Henry King, 1638, Joseph Mede, 1658, and William Gouge.
In 1586 appeared A Choice of Emblems and other Devises
for the most part gathered out of sundry writers, Englished
and Moralized, and divers newly devised by Geoffrey Witney,
&c. Imprinted at Leyden in the house of Christopher Plantyn,
by Francis Baphelengius, 1586. Dedicated to Robert Earl
of Leicester, with his arms opposite the dedication. In the
second part, p. 224, Matth. xxiv. To M. Andrewes, Preacher.
The Martyrs. " Sic probantur." And under it the Pharisee
giving alms and blowing his trumpet at the same time.
Others are:
p. 217, to Mr. Elcocke, preacher.
to Mr. Rawlins, preacher.
to Mr. Knewstubs, preacher.
to Mr. James Jonson.
to Mr. Howlte, preacher.
Andrewes, whilst at Cambridge, united, it is said, with
the Rev. John Knewstubs, B.D., a native of Westmoreland
and fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, Dr. Chaderton,
afterwards first master of Emmanuel College, Mr. Culverwell,
(Ezekiel Culverwell) of Emmanuel College, vicar of Felstead
in Essex, author of a Treatise of Faith, 1633, also A ready
Way to remember the Scriptures, 1637 ; also John Carter,
A.M. of Clare Hall, and some others, in weekly meetings
for prayer and expounding the Scriptures. Mr. Carter,
afterwards rector of Belstead in Suffolk, wrote A Commentary
of Christ's Sermon upon the Mount. He died, aged 80 years,
February 22, 1634. " At their meetings," says Samuel
Clarke in his Lives of Thirty-two English Divines, p. 133,
"they had constant exercises : first they began with prayer,
and then applied themselves to the study of the Scriptures.
One was for the original languages ; another's task was
for the grammatical interpretation ; another's for the logical
analysis; another's for the true sense and meaning of the
text ; another gathered the doctrines ; and thus they carried
on their several employments, till at last they went out, like
Apollos, eloquent men and mighty in the Scriptures : and
the Lord was with them, so that they brought in a very
great harvest unto God's barn."
On Wednesday, April 10, in Easter-week 1588, Andrewes
preached from 1 Tim. c. vi. 17—19, at the Spital. This discourse is in many respects inferior to none of the ninety-six
sermons with which it is embodied. In all the great and
essential features of a Christian sermon it is perfect, and abounds
with that fertility of illustration, and that witty and at times
satirical wisdom which marked its author. But indeed truth
is a continual satire upon the world; and he who would
faithfully portray men's passions and set them before their
own eyes must pass for a satirist. But all is here delivered
with an affection not less evident than that fearlessness which
shines so nobly in this most faithful of preachers. How
does he hold up to view all the meanness of pride, all the
folly of covetousness, all the cruelty and oppression of the
proud rich man! How does he urge his authority as a
messenger from God, upon the rich and the great !
He delivered not an essay but a discourse, written not
with a view to reading but to delivery. He therefore raises
up and meets the objections of his hearers, and answers to
the supposed charge of personality in a manner that those
indeed do not need who are always careful to destroy the
force of particular precepts by unmeaning generalities. And
at least he reminds his congregation that they must one
day give an account of the use to which they shall turn that
which they have heard at his mouth.1 He calls God to
witness that he has delivered his own soul/ and with all
this holy earnestness is nothing but truth in all sobriety and
gravity, as it is drawn from the all-searching and all-powerful
word of God.
After instancing the highmindedness of Nabal, Abner,
and Mieaiah, he adds, " These were, I dare boldly affirm,
highminded men in their generations. If any be like these
they know what they are. If then there be any that refuse
to be pruned and trimmed by the word of God ; who either,
when he heareth the words of the charge, Uesseth himself
in his heart and saith, Tush, he doth but prate; these things
shall not come upon me, though I walk still according to
the stubbornness of mine oivn heart;3 either in hearing the
word of God, takes upon him (his flesh and blood and he)
to sit on it and censure it; and say to himself one while,
'This is well spoken,' when his humour is served; another
while, 'This is foolishly spoken, now he babbleth,' because
the charge sits somewhat near him; either is in the Pharisee's
case, which, after they have heard the charge, do (as they
did at Christ) eK/jbVKrrjpl^eLVj jest and scoff, and make them
selves merry with it, and wash it down with a cup of sack,
and that because they were covetous; if in very deed the
word of God be to them a reproach,5 and they take like
delight in both, and well were they if they might never
hear it ; and, to testify their good conceit of the word, shew
it in the account of the ephod, which is a base and con
temptible garment in their eyes, and the word in it and ,
with it, (this is Michal's case) : whosoever is in any of these
men's cases, is in the case of a highminded man, and that
of the highest degree, for they lift themselves up, not against
earth and man, but against heaven and God himself. 0 be
loved, you that be in wealth and authority, love and reve
rence the word of God. It is the root that doth bear you;
it is the majesty thereof that keepeth you in your thrones,
and maketh you be that you are : but for Ego dixi Dii estis
(a parcel-commission out of this commission of ours) the mad
ness of the people would bear no government, but run head
long, and overthrow all chairs of estate, and break in
pieces all the swords and sceptres in the world ; which you of
this city had a strange experience of in Jack Straw and his
meiny,1 and keep a memorial of it in your city-scutcheon, how
all had gone down, if this word had not held all up. And
therefore honour it, I beseech you; I say, honour it. For
when the highest of you yourselves which are but grass, and
your lordship's glory and worship which is the flower of this
grass, shall perish and pass away, this word shall continue
for ever. And if you receive it now with due regard and
reverence, it will make you also to continue for ever."2
Touching upon the words, the rich in this worldy he re
marks, " Sure it is thought of divers of the best writers both
old and new (I name of the new Mr. Calvin, and of the old
St. Augustine^} that this addition is a diminution &c. — for
being of this world, they must needs savour of the soil ; be as
this world is, (that is) transitory, fickle, and deceitful."3
In this sermon he most amply vindicates the Protestantism
of the Elizabethan age from the false accusations of the
Romanists, who gave out that it was a faith without good
works. After commending the liberality of the city of London,
he proceeds, " I will be able to prove, that learning, in the
foundation of schools and increase of revenues within col
leges ; and the poor, in foundation of alms-houses and increase
of perpetuities to them, have received greater help within this
realm in these forty years last past, since (not the starting up
of our Church, as they fondly used to speak, but since) the
reforming of ours from the errors of theirs, than it hath, I say,
in any realm Christian not only within the selfsame forty
years (which were enough to stop their mouths), but also
than it hath in any forty years upward, during all the time of
Popery: which I speak partly of mine own knowledge, and
partly by sufficient grave information to this behalf. This
may be said and said truly."1
To simony and sacrilege he thus alludes. Treating of the
good that might be done to the Church by the rich men of the
city whom he likens to Tyre, called a cherub stretching its
wings over the ark to signify what protection it should yield
to the Church, he says : " And much good might be done, and
is not, in this behalf, and that many ways. I will name but
one, that is, that with their wings stretched out, they would
keep the filth and pollution of the sin of sins (whereof you
heard so bitter complaint both these days) of simony and
sacrilege, from falling on the ark, and corrupting and putrify-
ing it, which it hath almost already done : that seeing the
Pope do that he doth (howsoever some have alleged the
Papists' great detestation of this sin and of us for this sin, for
a motive ; it is all but dissembling ; their hand is as deep in
this sin as any man's) ; I say, seeing the Pope doth as he doth,
that is, as he hath dispensed with the oath and duty of subjects
to their prince, against the fifth commandment: with the
murder, both violent with daggers and secret with poison, of
the sacred persons of princes, against the sixth ; with the un-
cleanness of the stews and with incestuous marriages, against
the seventh ; so now, of late, with the abomination of simony,
against the eighth; having lately (as it is known by the
voluntary confession of their own priests), by special and ex
press warrant of the see apostolic, sent hither into this land
his license dispensative to all patrons of his mark to set up
simony, and to mart and make sale of all spiritual livings
which they have or can get to the uttermost penny, even (if
it were possible) by the sound of the drum ; and that with
a very clear conscience (so that some portion thereof be sent
over to the relief of his seminaries, which by such honest
means as this come to be now maintained). Seeing thus do
the Papists, and we (loth to be behind them in this gain of
blood) make such merchandize with this sin, of the poor
Church and her patrimony, as all the world crieth shame of
it : to redeem the orderly disposing them to the Church's
good, were a special way for you rich men to do good in these
days. Neither as these times are do I know a better service,
nor which (I am persuaded) will please God better than this,
or be better accepted at his hands."
Towards the end he answers the sophism of the Ehemist
translators, who from the text would deduce that good works
are a foundation. This they insert in a note, without any
reason, and to insinuate an untruth, namely, that they are the
foundation of justification. tl The ground whereon every
building is raised, is termed fundamentum. The lowest part
of the building immediately lying on it is so termed too. In
the first sense, Christ is said to be the only foundation : yet
the apostles, because they are the lowest row of stones, are
said to be foundations in the second. So, among the graces
within us, faith is properly in the first sense said to be the
foundation; yet in the second do we not deny, but as the
apostle calleth them, as the lowest row next to faith, charity
and the works of charity may be called foundations too.
Albeit the margin might well have been spared at this place ;
for the note is here all out of place. For, being so great
schoolmen as they would seem, they must needs know it is
not the drift of the apostle here in calling them a foundation,
to carry our considerations into the matter of justifying, but
only to press his former reason of uncertainty there, by a con
trary weight of certain stability here : and so their note comes
in like Magnificat at matins." Afterwards he thus dis
tinguishes : " But if you shall have grace to make choice of
God's plot which he hath here levelled for you to raise upon,
0 quantum dignum pretiof that will be worth all the world
in that day: the perfect certainty, sound knowledge, and
precious assurance you shall then have, whereby you shall be
assured to be received, because you are sure you are Christ's,
because you are sure you have true faith, because you are sure
you have framed it up into good works. And so shall they
be a foundation to you-ward, by making evident the as
surance of salvation : not naturd to God-ward, in bringing
forth the essence of your salvation."1
On the 19th May, 1589, Lancelot Andrewes was admitted
to the prebendal stall of North Muskham, in the church of
Southwell, in the place of John Yonge, D.D., at this time
Bishop of Eochester. Yonge was B.A. of Pembroke Hall,
Cambridge, 1551, M.A. 1555, B.D. 1563, and D.D. 1569.
On May 3rd, 1564, he was made Prebendary of Cadington
Major, in St. Paul's, London, which stall he held until 1579.
From a fellowship he was chosen to be Master of his college
in the place of Whitgift, that year preferred to the mastership
of Trinity College, where he had been educated. On the
26th April, 1572, Yonge was promoted to the 10th stall in
Westminster Abbey, in the place of Edmund Freke, Bishop
of Kochester. This stall he was permitted to keep in com-
mendam with his bishopric of Eochester, to which he was
consecrated March 16th, 1578, on the translation of Dr. John
Pierse to Salisbury. He died at Bromley in Kent, the
ancient seat of the Bishops of Eochester, in his 72nd year,
on the 10th April, 1605, and was buried at Bromley. Dr.
Christopher Sutton, the pious author of Disce vivere^ &c.,
succeeded to his stall at Westminster.
North Muskham is about three miles north of Newark.
This stall was founded probably by Thomas II. Archbishop
of York from 1109 to 1114, and endowed with a part of the
great tithes of North Muskham, with the great tithes of
Caunton (between Newark and Worksop), and with certain
temporals in North Muskham and Caunton.2 Andrewes re
tained this stall until he was raised to the see of Ely, when it
was conferred upon his brother Dr. Eoger Andrewes, after
wards Master of Jesus College, Cambridge.
On the 29th May Andrewes was, on the death of Dr.
Thomas Sampson, the Puritan Dean of Christ Church (where
he was succeeded in 1565 by Thomas Godwyn), preferred by
Grindal, Bishop of London, at the suit of the same patron
who had obtained for him his stall at Southwell, Sir Francis
Walsinghame, to the prebendal stall of St. Pancras, in St.
Paul's, London, which he also held until his translation from
Chichester to Ely in 1609, when he was succeeded by his
friend and fellow-collegian the very pious and learned Dr.
Eoger Fenton, also one of the translators of the Bible with
himself and his brother, and afterwards preferred by himself
to the parsonage of Chigwell, in Essex. Fenton was regarded
in his college as only inferior to Andrewes himself.1
Andrewes acknowledged these favours in a letter to Sir
Francis Walsinghame, as follows :
"I do in humble manner crave pardon of your Honour, in that
I have not myself attended in the re-delivery of the enclosed, to
render to your Honour my bounden duty of thanks for the contents
thereof. Being, besides mine exercise tomorrow, on Monday morn
ing, at the feast of my father's company, to preach at Deptford,2
I promised myself from your Honour a favourable dispensation for
the forbearing of my presence till then, what time I shall wait on
your Honour, as well in regard of your Honour's great bounty to
me these years past, which, while I live, I am bound to acknow
ledge, as now for the instant procurement of these two prebends,
the one of them no sooner ended, than the other of them straight
begun. They are to me both sufficient witnesses of your Honour's
care for my well-doing, and mindfulness of me upon any occasion.
My prayer to God is, that I may not live unworthy of these so
honourable dealings, but that in some sort I may prove serviceable
to your Honour, and to your Honour's chief care, this Church of
ours. What your Honour hath, and farther shall vouchsafe to
promise in my name, in this or aught else, shall be, I trust, so satis
fied, as shall stand with your Honour's liking every way. So
recommending to your Honour the perfecting of your Honour's own
benefit, with my very humble duty I end.
"The Lord Jesus, of his great goodness, grant unto this realm
long to enjoy your Honour. Amen. May 24 [1589]. Your
Honour's in all humble duty and service, so most bound, "L. ANDREWES."
Sir John Harrington relates that Sir Francis Walsinghame
had previously laboured to bring Andrewes to maintain some
state points of Puritanism. "But," he adds, "he had too
much of the av&pos in him to be scared with a councillor's
frown, or blown aside with his breath, and answered him
plainly that they were not only against his learning but his
conscience."
He further mentions that Andrewes' stall at St. Paul's
was that of the Confessioner or Penitentiary ; and that while
Andrewes held this place, his manner was especially in Lent
to walk at stated times in one of the aisles of the cathedral,
that if any came to him for spiritual advice and comfort, as
some did, though not many, he might impart it to them.
On the 28th August died Dr. William Fulke, Master of
Pembroke Hall, and previously fellow of St. John's College,
Cambridge. His refutation of the notes appended to the
Rhemish Translation of the New Testament forms a storehouse
of patristic learning and of sound theology. He was buried
at Depden, near Bury, in Suffolk. Andrewes, who was about
this time chaplain to Archbishop Whitgift, was chosen to the
vacant headship. Strype, in his Life of Whitgift, relates that
Andrewes was, for his well-known adherence to ecclesiastical
conformity, denied his grace of D.D. in the first congregation
of Dr. Preston's admission of him. This Dr. Preston, then
Vicechancellor, was not the celebrated Puritan, but Thomas
Preston, LL.D., Master of Trinity Hall.2 On this occasion
he delivered the thesis 'Decimae non sunt abrogandse,' pub
lished in the collection of his posthumous works. On Sep
tember 6th he was admitted Master of Pembroke College, and
on taking his degree preached ad Clerum from Prov. xx. 25,
It is a snare to the man who devour eth that which is holy ; a
passage of holy scripture which is altogether disallowed by
multitudes as utterly inapplicable under the Christian dis
pensation. It was indeed in the time of Charles the First,
when almost the whole nation was given to extremes both in
religion and politics, a fashionable doctrine with all pseudo-
patriots that either sacrilege had ceased to be a sin, or that
there was nothing holy, no kind of property of which it could
be said that it belonged to God, and was inalienable.
The bidding prayer was doubtless Andrewes' own compo
sition, full of antithesis. tl May God," he prays, il preserve
to it [the Church militant] his truth so lately recovered from
the thickest clouds of error : may he restore it when it shall
seem good to him, its unity now well-nigh lost through the
dissensions of the Christian world."
He begins his sermon with observing that whereas the nine
first chapters are evidently connected, the remainder appear to
be a collection taken down from Solomon's mouth by others
without regard to the order of subject. He touches upon the
free-will offerings of the people in the days of David and Saul,
1 Chron. xxvi. 27, 28. This proverb, he notes, might have
been the reply of Solomon to some of his courtiers, who like
those in Haggai might think that the house of God needed
not a roof (i. 4), or who might ask with Judas, l to what is all
this waste f He remarks, as he might have justly done in
our times, " We daily enlist soldiers many, brave and good,
but provision for them we find not. We are ever saying
much of the diffusion of light, nothing of the supplying of the
oil." He then treats — 1. of sacred things, 2. of those who
devour them, 3. of their guilt and punishment. Under the
first he shews that sacred revenues both by way of oblation
and tax are included. The Church both under the old and
new covenant had the same liberty granted it of accepting
property. This is clear from the last chapter of Leviticus, and
from the liberty which the apostles recognized, of the first
Christians laying at their feet whatsoever offerings they
thought fit. Acts iv. 35. Then as to revenues by way of
impost, there is a sacred portion in every man's property. So
Abraham the father of the faithful, guided in this (we may
not doubt) by the Holy Ghost, and an example wheresoever
justly imitable, bound himself to the giving of tithe. The
Old Testament Church had a power of taxing itself, (see
Nehem. x. 32), and, by parity of reasoning, the Christian.
Thus in Acts xxiv. 17, we read not only of alms but of
offerings, the offerings being things devoted to religious not
to eleemosynary uses. He quotes St. Augustine : u God may
thus speak, Thou, 0 man, art thyself mine ; mine is the earth
thou tillest; mine the seeds thou sowest; mine the beasts
thou makest to labour ; mine the showers 5 mine this heat of
the sun ; all are mine ; thou who only puttest to thine hand,
deservedst only the tenth, but to thee my servant I give thee
nine parts ; give to me the tenth." He notices the unwilling
ness of the people to give as proceeding in no small degree
from the springing up of the abuse of impropriations. He
refers to the complaints of the Scotch Church preferred to
the Parliament in 1565.
In speaking of persons he blames the clergy themselves as
guilty, through their own negligence and sloth, of being ac
cessory to such sacrilegious alienations. The punishment of
sacrilege he instances in both profane and sacred history ; in
the former, from Cambyses, Brennus, and Crassus • in sacred
history, from the fate of Dathan, Achan, Belshazzar, Athaliah,
and Judas. He enlarges upon the sure destruction which
sacrilege entails upon the state, and upon its injurious conse
quences as discouraging learning in the Church.
His biographer Isaacson relates that when he became
master of his college, a he found it in debt, being of a very
small endowment, then especially, but by his faithful provi
dence he left above eleven hundred pounds in the treasury of
that college, towards the bettering of the estate thereof."
CHAPTER III.
Dr. Andrewes preaches before the Queen in Lent 1589-90 — His
Lectures on the Creation and Fall — Udal, the Puritan, 1591 —
Thesis on the Oath ex officio — Of the worshipping of imaginations,
1592 — Convocation Sermon, 1593 — Greenwood and Barrow — The
Dearth of 1594.
ON March 4, 1590, Ash- Wednesday, we find Andrewes,
being now one of the Queen's twelve chaplains, preaching
before the Queen at Whitehall, from Psalm Ixxviii. ver. 34,
When Tie slew them they sought him, and they returned, and
enquired early after God.
This sermon contains many striking illustrations of the
sin and folly of delay in the things of God, and of the
power of religion as it is seen in the fears of such as have
yet all their life boasted themselves in a fancied independence
of God. u They^ that a little before, grievously provoked the
most high Gody with speeches little better than blasphemy :
Can God do this ? Is there a God amongst us ? or is there
none? And so, instead of qucerebant Deum, qucerebant an
Deusj made a question whether there were any to seek:
that is, even the very wicked, and (of all wicked the worst)
the profane atheists, they sought even at last, they sought.
This is the triumph of religion: the riotous person, the
hypocrite, the atheist, all shall seek."
Andrewes again preached before the Queen at Greenwich
on the following Wednesday, March 11, from Psalm Ixxv.
ver. 3, The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved:
I bear up the pillars thereof; discoursing upon the two pillars
of a state, religion and justice, and illustrating his subject
from the history of Saul and David. He did not with some,
who yet feign reverence of his memory, set up prayer against
preaching, which he included in the sublime duty of praise,
as the proclaiming of God to his creatures; but with the
devout George Herbert would have prayer and preaching
go hand in hand. ft So that not only Moses and Paul by
calling on the name of God, but Elias and Jeremie by
teaching the will of God (not by prayer only, but by
preaching) are, the one an iron pillar, the other the chariot
and horsemen of Israel in his time."
He reads 2 Kings xi. ver. 12, with the Vulgate, making
the ceremony of the coronation there spoken of to be the II putting not only the diadem imperial, but the book of
the law also, upon the King's head," to remind them that
"that book should be as dear to them as their crown, and
they equally study to advance it."
Andrewes, on the 6th of April, lost his faithful friend
and patron, Sir Francis Walsinghame, who died at his house
in Seething-lane, Great Tower-street, about midnight and
was buried at St. Paul's the next evening, about ten, without
pomp or publicity.
On October 13, he preached his introductory lecture at
St. Paul's, upon undertaking to comment upon the four first
chapters of Genesis. These he continued to the 12th February, 1592, upon which day he delivered that upon Gen. iii. 13,
And the Lord God said unto the woman, What hast thou
done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and
did eat. The remaining lectures1 to the end of the fourth
chapter were preached in his parish church at St. Giles',
Cripplegate, where he resumed them on the 18th June, 1598,
and completed them on February 17, 1600. These were
published in 1657 with the following title, " Apospasmatia
sacra: or, a Collection of posthumous and orphan Lectures :
delivered at St. Paul's and St. Giles' his Church, by the Eight
Honourable and Reverend Father in God Lancelot Andrews,
Lord Bishop of Winchester. Never before extant." It may
be observed that our prelate himself did not write his name
Andrews as in this title page, but Andrewes. Some of these
lectures are from very sparing, others from very copious notes.
They abound in learning and in pious applications of the
history of which he treats. Here we have the same zeal
against sacrilege, the same honest denunciation of faction
and schism which we find in his convocation sermon, the
same delight in the works of God which made his solitary
walks his most pleasant recreation when a youth, the same
familiar knowledge of the Fathers, the same doctrine of the
grace of God, sanctifying all that came from his lips.
Treating of the divine rest spoken of in Genesis ii. 2, he
saith, We say then, that he rested not from preserving and
governing, though he did rest from making.
" Hermes, by the light of reason, could say that it were
very absurd to think that God should leave and neglect the
things he had made; and God imputeth it as a fault to
the ostrich, Job xxxix. ver. 18, 19, to leave her eggs without
care and regard in the sands; therefore God himself will
be free from that blame and blemish which he condemneth
in others. As we say of the Father, so we say of the Son,
which is the Word of God, Psalm xxxiii. ver. 9, He commanded
and they were made; there is creation : He said the word and
stood fast; which is the second work of preservation
and guiding. Also Psalm cxlviii. ver. 5, 6, He first made them
with his word, which is the first work of creation long since
ended, and he gave them a law which they should not break,
which is the other work of establishing and governing things
made. So Col. i. ver. 17, Paul speaking of Christ, saith,
By Him all things have their being, or existence ; and Heb.
i. ver. 3j By Him all things have their supportance, and are
held up.
"If God had his work six days before he rested in
creation, and if Adam had his work in the state of innocency,
then it is much more meet now, that man should go forth
to his labour until the evening, Psalm civ. ver. 23. They
which are not in the works of men. Psalm Ixxiii., but lie on
their beds imagining mischief, they shall not rest in the
Lord, because God made them for good works to walk in
them, Ephes ii. ver. 10.
"There are a number of superfluous creatures, as one
calleth the idle ones, of whom if we should demand, what
is thy calling or work? they cannot say, we are exercised
in the works of men; neither do they work in the will
of God. Therefore if they do anything, they busy themselves
in meddling about other men's matters.
"It is strange to see how busy we are in taking in hand
evil things, and how earnest we are in doing them, and how
constant in not giving them over, or ceasing from such
works. Judas can watch all night to work his treason; but
Peter and the rest could not watch one hour to pray with
Christ.
"Husbandmen in their works for earthly things are
earnest; they follow his counsel (Eccles. xi. 6) not to cease
sowing from the morning until the evening, but will make
an end. But in the works of God we cannot follow his
counsel, to do all that thou takest in hand with all thy power
and strength.
"The last use which we are to make of this is, that which
the Apostle gathereth out of the Hebrews (iv. 10). As
God did rest from his works, so let us from ours. We must
esteem our righteousness and best works as filthy rags,
yea as very dung, Phil. iii. 8, and say as Job did, 1 feared
my own works. Job ix. 28, Vulgate. Thus we must rest
from our own works because there is no safety or quietness
in them, but leave our own righteousness, that we may rest
in Christ and in the works he hath wrought for us."
These lectures Dr. Andrewes continued at St. Paul's
through the months of January, February, April, May, June,
July, August, October, and November, 1591.
On January the 8th in that year we find him not only
one of the witnesses, but appointed one of the executors
of Dean Nowell's will (most providently made by that
venerable man now ten years before his decease). As guard
ian of John Dean, in whose education No well had been at
great expense, Nowell was in the receipt of the interest
of £2,600, lent upon bonds to different companies of merchants in London, of which income, amounting to £135 per annum, it was Nowell's desire that no part should be applied to the emolument of his widow, but the whole laid out in
deeds of charity. Of £100, half to be sent to Oxford, half
to Cambridge. Of that sent to Cambridge, Dr. Andrewes,
master of Pembroke Hall, Dr. Neville, master of Trinity
College (tutor to George Herbert, and in 1597 dean of
Canterbury), Dr. Tyndale, president of Queens' College, and
this same year dean of Ely, and Dr. Chaderton, master
of Emmanuel College, were to dispose ; £4. being annually
reserved to Alexander Whitaker, scholar of Trinity College,
and £4. to his brother Samuel of Eton College, sons of Dr.
Whitaker, master of St. John's College, deceased.
Alexander Nowell was admitted scholar of Trinity College,
Cambridge, April 16, 16023 : he was admitted to the degree
of B.A. in 1604, and of M.A. in 1608. He was not elected
to a fellowship. The registers make no mention of his
brother Samuel.
Under January 21, 1591, the following register is entered
in the registry of St. Olave's, Hart-street : "Master Walter
Devereux, second son to the Earl of Essex, in my lady
Walsinghame's house; Sir Thomas Parrot [Perrot] and Sir
William Knollys, Knts., and my lady, the mother, were wit
nesses. Mr. Doctor [Andrewes] preached and baptized the
child."
Sir William Knoilys, or Knowles, was afterwards treasurer
of the household to King James, by whom he was created
Baron Knowles, May 3, 1603, Viscount Wallingford 1616,
and by Charles I., in the first year of his reign, Earl of
Banbury. His mansion was Greys Kotherfield, (whence
the name of his barony EotJierfield) to the west of Henley-
on-Thames; a house which in times past Walter Grey
the archbishop of York [1216—1256] gave freely unto
William Grey his nephew, the inheritance whereof by the
Baron of D'Eincourt was devolved upon the Lovels.
In the baptismal register of St. Olave's, Hart-street, is
the following, dated January 22, 1591 : " Kobert Devereux
Viscount Hereford," (afterward General of the Parliament)
"son and heir of Robert Earl of Essex, in my Lady Walsing
hame's house" (in Seething-lane4) mother to the countess;
Sir Francis Knollys and the Lord Rich, with the Countess
of Leicester," (daughter of Sir Francis Knollys, and widow
of Walter Earl of Essex as well as of Robert Earl of
Leicester, and grandmother to the infant,) witnesses. Dr.
Andrewes preached and baptized the child.
Sir Francis Knollys was a Knight of the Garter and
treasurer to the Queen's household. He had been an exile
in Germany in the reign of Queen Mary. He was descended
from Sir Robert Knollys who greatly signalized himself in
the wars with France under Edward III. Sir Robert also
assisted in the suppression of Wat Tyler's rebellion, and
was of a spirit as munificent as heroic. He contributed
to the building of Bochester-bridge, founded a college at
Pontefract, where Constance his lady was born, and was
a great benefactor to the White Friars in London, in whose
church he was buried in August 1407, being then at least
ninety years old.
The first lord Kich was Lord-Chancellor for five years in
the reign of Edward VI. He was well descended and allied
in Hampshire, and was much employed under Cromwell in
the suppression of abbies; umost of the grants of which
lands," says Fuller, "going through his hands, no wonder if
some stuck upon his fingers."
On St. Matthias-Day, February 24th, Andrewes preached
at Greenwich before the queen, from Psalm Ixxvii. 20, setting
before her the pattern of the divine government, the gentle
ness with which the great Shepherd of Israel led his flock.
He treated very tenderly, and in the true pastoral spirit, of the
value of the flock committed to her royal charge, all alike by
nature given to disobedience, but God's flock and people, and
the lowest and meanest of them dear to Christ. He quoted
those impressive words of St. Augustine upon Inasmuch as
ye did it to the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me;
u Thou nearest the least, and thou despisest them ; hear also
these words, my brethren, and, believe me, the saving of the
least of these is no small glory." He reminded the queen
that the office of princes is to lead their people to God, and
urged the necessity of a public ministry as well of religion as
of civil justice ; the hand as well of Aaron as of Moses.
In May Dr. Andrewes was, together with Nowell, appointed by archbishop Whitgift to confer with Udal, then in prison.
Udal had been convicted under a very large interpretation
of the 23 Eliz. cap. 2, which was enacted for the punishment
of seditious words against the queen. His offence was a passionate invective against the bishops in a work entitled The
Demonstration of Discipline which Christ hath prescribed in
his Word, for the government of his Church in all times and
places until the world's end. The preface gave especial
provocation, and a virulent specimen of it was inserted in the
indictment. " Who can deny you without blushing (he
writes to the bishops) to be the cause of all ungodliness,
seeing your government is that which giveth leave to a man
to be anything saving a sound Christian?" and more in a still
severer strain. Udal was treated with much injustice, and
after a somewhat turbulent trial and much overbearing, was
convicted on July 23, 1590; but his learning and reputation
were such that Whitgift is said to have interceded for him
and to have delayed judgment. He was however, in March
1591, brought to the bar at South wark and condemned to die
as a felon. Whitgift is said to have procured his reprieve.
In prison he wrote a Hebrew grammar, and was visited by
several of his friends. Andrewes conferred with him upon all
the points then in controversy between the Church of England and the maintainers of the new discipline, but without
success. He appears however to have respected both An
drewes and Nowell, and to have been regarded by them with
unfeigned sympathy if not esteem. Great efforts were made
in his behalf, and his friendly visitants themselves promised
him their kind offices, but he was disappointed of all his
hopes, and at last died broken-hearted in prison. Great
numbers attended his funeral at St. George's, Southwark.
Andrewes is said to have been a member of a Society
of Antiquaries, to which belonged Sir Walter Kaleigh, Sir
Philip Sidney, Lord Burleigh, Henry Earl of Arundel, the
two Herberts, Earls of Pembroke, Sir Henry Saville, John
Stowe, and William Camden. It began in the earlier
part of the reign of queen Elizabeth, and its great object
was the preservation of MSS. dispersed by the suppression
and dissolution of monasteries. They met first at the house
of Sir Robert Cotton, under the patronage of archbishop
Parker. So Dr. Moore, p. 2, The Gentlemans Society at
Spalding. (Pickering, 1851.)
In July 1591, Dr. Andrewes read in the Divinity School
at Cambridge his Theological Determination upon the law
fulness of the oath ex officio on the ground of Scripture.
He maintained the affirmative as implied in the very authority
of the magistrate, which was over the soul as well as the
body, Rom. xiii. 1. If it was lawful in Abraham to make
his servant take an oath, in the case of Jacob and Joseph,
and of Jacob and Esau; much more in causes of a weightier
kind, and by the authority of greater persons. This power
he urged was involved in Exodus xxii. 8, If the thief be
not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto
the judges to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. He alleged also Numbers v. 19, Levit. vi. 3,
and 1 Kings viii. 31. In cases involving the life or death
of the party he makes an exception, instancing the case
of Jeremiah (xxxviii. 14). But where the public weal is
concerned, whether in church or state, recourse may be had
to extraordinary modes of discovering guilt. Thus Joshua
proceeded by lot, and so Achan was taken and punished.
(Josh. vii. 16.) Amongst other reasons and illustrations
he adduced Levit. v. 1, and Ezra x. 11. Micaiah answered
when thus put upon his oath (1 Kings xxii.), and our Lord
himself (Matth. xxvi. 63).
Of the limits of an oath or of that which determines its
equity, he remarks, that Scripture lays down a threefold rule,
(1) " in truth, in righteousness, in judgment" (Jer. iv. 2), that
is, "I will speak nothing but the truth in the name of
the Lord; (2) concerning those things which fall within my
knowledge (things possible) and according to the requirements of the law itself; (3) not hastily, but with deliberation.
In January and February 1592, Dr. Andrewes proceeded
with his lectures on the third chapter of Genesis at St. Paul's,
but does not appear to have resumed them until June 18, 1598,
and then at his church of St. Giles', Cripplegate. On
January 9, 1592, he preached there his sermon entitled
Of the worshipping of imaginations, from Acts ii. 42, as
one of a series upon the Commandments. Here he refutes
the pleas of the Puritans pretending in everything to follow
the Apostolic model, and yet no man thinks himself bound
(says Andrewes) to abstain from eating things strangled and
blood. And so of their love-feasts and their celebrating
their sacrament after supper. He here defends the reading
of the Apocrypha from St. Jude's quoting the apocryphal
book of Enoch. He declares for the Apostolic origin of
episcopacy, and disputes against that of lay-elders, citing
St. Chrysostom, that in his time only the wiser of the
presbyters were suffered to preach, the simpler sort to baptize. The distinction between elders and doctors he shews
to have had no existence at least in the minds of the antient
commentators Chrysostom, Jerome and Augustine. He
shews how the Popish mass is an imagination, since, contrary
to the text (as the Syriac translates it), in their sacrament
there is no breaking of bread, inasmuch as after consecration
there is, according to them, no bread to break, and the body
of Christ is now impassible. He calls the Eucharist a sacrifice,
as it is the renewing of covenant with God in virtue of Christ's
sacrifice. The partaking of the bread he calls the partaking
of Christ's true body. Lastly he animadverts upon the
long and extemporaneous prayers of the Puritans, with their
tautology and incoherence. This and another are the only
two of his many parochial sermons which Laud and Buckeridge seem to have thought worthy of preservation.
In the course of this year, 1592, Andrewes' Seven Sermons
on the Temptation were first printed, with the following
title: tl The Wonderful Combat (for God's glory and man's
salvation) between Christ and Satan opened, in seven most
excellent, learned, and zealous Sermons upon the Temptations
of Christ in the Wilderness. Seen and allowed. London:
printed by John Charlwood for Richard Smith: and are
to be sold at his shop at the west door of St. Paul's, 1592.
This edition was called in as soon as printed, as appears
from a notice of it in p. 1324 in Herbert's Ames. They were
reprinted in 4to. in 1627 for J. Jaggard and Michael Sparke;
the latter reprinted them, with Robert Milbourne, Richard
Cotes and Andrew Crooke, in his edition of Andrewes' Lectures
on the Decalogue.
The other parochial discourse is from Jer. iv, 2, on the
third commandment, and was preached at St. Giles', Cripple-
gate, on June llth. He interprets our Lord as designing
to free the divine law in his Sermon on the Mount from
the false glosses of the Pharisees, not as giving a new law.
He observes that an oath may be lawfully made without
including an express mention of the name of God. "Howbeit
yet the Fathers (well weighing that speech of St. Paul's,
1 Cor. xv. 31, where he speaketh on this wise, By our rejoicing
which we have in Christ Jesus our Lord, &c., wherein his
oath is not immediately by the Name of God, but by a
secondary thing issuing from it,) have thought it not abso
lutely necessary that in every oath the Name of God should
be mentioned, but sufficient if reductive. It is ruled in
divinity, that such things as presently are reduced to God,
will bear an oath." This he instances in swearing by the
Holy Gospel
The first edition of Andrewes' Sermons on the Temptation -
has an epistle dedicatory to Sir John Puckering, Knt, Lord-
Keeper of the Great Seal of England.
This volume contains the bidding prayers used by Andrewes before his parochial sermons.
"Two most excellent Prayers which the preacher commonly
used before his exercises.
"That the name of God may be glorified by this our
assembly, and his holy Word blessed to the end he hath
ordained it: let us in all humbleness present ourselves before
the mercy-seat of God the Father, in the name and mediation
of Christ Jesus his dear Son, through the sanctifying of
his Holy Spirit, with our unfeigned humble acknowledgment both of our own unworthiness to receive any of his
graces, and unableness when we have received them to make
right use of them. And both these by reason of our manifold
sundry sins and offences, amongst the rest, of this one (as
a chief one) that we divers times have been hearers of his
divine and precious Word, without care or conscience to
become the better thereby: let us beseech him, in the
obedience of the life and sacrifice of the death of Christ Jesus
his dear Son, to receive both us and this our humble confession; to pardon both this and the rest of our sins, and
to turn from us the punishments deservedly due unto them
all; especially that punishment which most usually he doth
exercise at such meetings as this, which is, the receiving
of his Word into a dead and dull heart, and so departing
with no more delight to hear nor desire to practise than
we came with; that so, through the gracious assistance of
his good Spirit, inward, adjoined to the outward ministry
of his Word at this present, the things which shall be spoken
and heard may redound to some glory of his everlasting-
blessed name, and to some Christian instruction and comfort
of our own souls, through Jesus Christ our only Lord and
Saviour."
This prayer ended he proceedeth again in this manner:
a And as the Church of Christ, wheresoever it is at this
present assembled and met together, is mindful of us that
be here, so it is our parts and duties in our prayers to
remember it, recommending unto the majesty of Almighty
God the prosperous and flourishing estate thereof: beseeching
God the Father, for Christ Jesus his Son's sake, to be merciful
to all his servants, even his whole militant church, scattered
far and wide over the face of the whole earth : both preserving
it in those truths that it hath recovered from the sundry gross
and superstitious errors of the form erage, and restoring it
also unto that unity (in his good time) which it hath almost
lost and daily loseth through the unchristian and unhappy
contentions of these days of ours.
11 And in this Church let us be mindful of that part thereof
which most especially needeth our remembrance, that is,
the poor afflicted members of Christ Jesus, in what place,
for what cause, or with what cross soever: that it would
please God to minister into our hearts the same spirit of
compassion and fervency, now in the time of their need,
that we would wish should be ministered into theirs in
the time of our need, for them to become suitors for us.
And let us wish them all from the Lord (in his good time)
the same joyful deliverance, and till his good time be, the
same measure of patience that we would wish unto our own
souls, or would have them entreat and pray for at his hands
for us, if ever our case shall be as theirs is at this present.
" And forasmuch as those churches or members of churches
which enjoy the outward benefits of the Lord, as of health,
plenty, peace and quietness, do many times as much and (for
the most part) much more need the prayers of Christ his
faithful congregation, than those that are under his hand in
the house of affliction, let us beseech him for them also, that
he will give unto each and every of them a thankful receiving
of those his benefits, a sober using of them, and a Christian
employing of them, to his glory that hath sent them.
u And in these our prayers let us be mindful also of the
Church and country wherein we live, yielding first and fore
most evermore, our unfeigned and hearty thanksgivings for
all his mercies and gracious favours vouchsafed this land of
ours : and namely, for our last no less gracious than marvellous
deliverance from our enemies, and for all those good signs and
tokens of his loving favor which ever since and daily he
sheweth towards us.
tl And together withal let us beseech him, that whilst these
days of our peace do last, he will open our eyes to see and in
cline our hearts to seek after those things which may make
for the continuance and establishing of this peace long
amongst us.
"And (as by especial duty we all stand bound) let us
commend unto his Majesty his chosen servant Elizabeth our
Sovereign by his grace, of England, France, and Ireland
Queen, Defendress of the Faith, and over all estates and per
sons within these her dominions (next and immediately under
God) supreme Governess : let us beseech God (daily more and
more) to persuade her Highness' heart that the advancement
and flourishing of this kingdom of hers consisteth in the ad
vancement and flourishing of the kingdom of his Son Christ
within it; that it may be therefore her Majesty's special care and
study, that both her Highness in that great place wherein God
hath set her, and every one of us in the several degrees wherein
we stand, may be as careful to testify unto the whole world
a special care and endeavour that we have for the propaga
tion of the gospel of his Son, as Christ Jesus hath shewn
himself by many arguments both of old and of late (and
that of weight) that he hath carried and still carrieth a special
care of the preservation and welfare of us all.
" Let us commend also unto God the several estates of
the land, for the right honourable of the Nobility and of
her Highness' Privy Council, that they may be careful (from
the Spirit of the Lord) to derive all their counsels ; that
so God which sendeth the counsel may send it good and
happy success also, and may confound and cast out the
counsels of the enemy.
lt For the estate of the clergy, the right reverend Fathers
in God, in whose hand the government of the Church is,
and all other inferior ministers, that he will give unto
each and every of them sufficient graces for the discharge
of their functions, and together (with the graces) both a faith
ful and a fruitful employing of them.
" For the estate of magistracy, and namely for the gover
nors of this honourable city, that they together with the
rest, according to the trust that is reposed in them, may
be no less careful speedily without delay, than incorruptly
without partiality, to administer justice to the people of God.
u For the estate of the commons, that they all, in a Christian
obedience towards each and every of their superiors, and in
a godly love, with the fruits and duties thereof one towards
another, may walk worthy of that glorious calling whereunto
they are called: and that the blessings of the Lord may
not only be with us for our times, but successively also
be delivered to our posterity, let us beseech God that he
will visit with the Spirit of his grace the two Universities,
Cambridge and Oxford, all schools of learning and places
of education of youth; that they being watered with the
dew of his blessing, may yield forth such plants as may
both serve for a present supply of the Church's need, and
also in such sort furnish the generations that are to come
that our posterity also may be counted unto the Lord for
a holy seed and a Christian generation as we ourselves are.
li And thus recommending ourselves unto the prayers of
Christ his Church, as we have commended Christ his whole
Church by our prayers unto the majesty of Almighty God,
reposing our trust and confidence neither in our own prayers
nor in the Church's prayers, but in the alone mediation of
Christ Jesus our advocate, let us unto him as unto our
sole intercessor offer up these our supplications, that he
may present them to God his Father for the effectual obtaining of these and whatsoever graces else he knoweth needful for his whole Church and for us, calling upon him as himself in his Gospel hath taught us, Our Father, &c."
Isaacson informs us that Andrewes read the lecture at
St. Paul's three times a- week in term time. " And indeed,"
he adds, " what by his often preaching at St. Giles', and
his no less often reading in St. Paul's, he became so infirm
that his friends despaired of his life."
Of his charities in his parish of S. Giles', Cripplegate,
Buckeridge says, in his funeral sermon, "The first place he
lived on was S. Giles', there I speak my knowledge; I do not
say he began — sure I am he continued his charity: his
certain alms there was ten pound per annum, which was
paid quarterly by equal portions, and twelve pence every
Sunday he came to church, and Jive shillings at every
Communion.'' As prebendary of St. Pancras he built the
prebendal house in Creed-lane, and recovered it to the
church.
On February 20, 1593, Dr. Andrewes preached the Convocation sermon at St. Paul's, from Acts xx. 28. He refers to the notice of this passage in the 14th chapter of the 3rd book of Irenseus against Heresies, as shewing that he
held the distinction of the episcopate and of the presbytery.
Towards the beginning of his discourse he reprobates the
great abuse of preaching by the idle and unlearned in those
times ; he also admonishes his audience of the need they
have to look well to their flocks, and remarks that the narrow
scrutiny of their lives and manners so common amongst
the laity is the effect of their remissness in their pastoral
charge. Nobly does he urge the consideration that (l this
congregation which we call the Church and which so many
amongst us so lukewarmly and slothfully tend, are, if we
believe Peter, partakers of the divine nature, (2 Pet. i. 4);
if John, citizens of heaven ; if Paul, the future judges of
the angels," 1 Cor. vi. 3. Towards the end of this discourse
he animadverts upon the boldness of some who at that time
ventured to impugn the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Next
he speaks, and that in the very strongest terms, of the Romish
emissaries, and of the unaltered spirit of Rome still thirsting
for blood. After this he notices the factious spirit of the
Puritans, more ready to give laws to the Church than to
receive them. He speaks of some who made light of the
Sacraments and treated them as superfluous, proscribed the
Apostles' Creed, would not use the Lord's prayer, and sought
to introduce a state little better than anarchy itself. He
predicts that if these evils are not restrained our Sion will
soon be turned into Babel.
He next faithfully reproves the evil custom of admitting
unfit persons to the ministry, men whose lives are a scandal
to the Church, and the cause, as he admits, of loud complaint,
and that not without foundation. Nor does he spare the
bishops themselves, but alludes very openly to the iniquitous
and impious practice of that age, of bishops, on their advancement to their sees, impoverishing their bishoprics by in equitable exchanges of estates for great tithes,1 &c. Indeed, queen Elizabeth first strove to deteriorate by this kind of
temptation the whole prelacy, and then punished the natural
effect of her own misconduct, the popular contempt that was
cast upon her prelates, and that tended more perhaps than
any other cause to strengthen the Puritans. This very year
Dr. Marmaduke Middleton, Bishop of St. David's, was suspended by the High Commission Court.
Of the Convocation, Collier relates that, "excepting the
grant of two subsidies little or nothing was done. On the
11th of April, the day after the dissolution of Parliament, the
Convocation was dissolved by the queen's writ."
On March 21, Dr. Andrewes, with Dr. Parry, afterwards
Bishop of Worcester, Dr. Philip Bisse, Archdeacon of Taunton, and Dr. Thomas White, Prebendary of Mora and Canon
Kesidentiary of St. Paul's, was sent to Mr. Henry Barrow
to exhort him to recant his errors. This conference took no
effect, and so on April 6th, Barrow and John Greenwood, the
one a layman the other in holy orders, were executed at
Tyburn. These men, from the enumeration of their delinquencies as recorded by their judges, deserved rather to be sent to Bedlam than to Tyburn. They held that "the Church of England was no true church, and that the worship in this
communion was downright idolatry; that praying by a form
was blasphemous, and that all those who make or expound
any printed or written catechisms, are idle shepherds." Their
more venial offences were the maintaining that every parish
should choose its own pastor, that every lay elder is a bishop,
with other points of 'schismatical and seditious doctrine,' as
their indictment ran.
On Friday,5 March 30th, Dr. Andrewes preached before the queen at St. James's, from St. Mark xiv. 4, 6. Andrewes
here uncritically follows the conjecture of St. Augustine that
this Mary was Mary Magdalene, and the penitent woman
mentioned in the 7th chapter of St. Luke's Gospel. He re
flects in this sermon upon the prodigality of that age in
sumptuous feasting, in princely apparel, in burdensome reti
nues, in magnificent houses. Alluding to the complaint of
Judas, To what end is this waste? he says, "The case is
like, when they that have wasted many pounds, complain of
that penny waste which is done on Christ's body the Church.
Or when they that in their whole dealings (all the world sees)
are unreformed, seriously consult how to reform the Church."
Again he observes, "The kindliest way to have Judas' complaint redressed, is to speak and labour that Mary Magdalene's example may be followed."
The following year was a time of dearth, as we find from
li The renewing of certain Orders devised by the, special commandments of the Queers Majestic for the relief and stay of the present dearth of grain within the Realm in the year of our Lord 1586, now to be again executed this year 1594, dfcc., published by Christopher Barker. It was probably for a collection on account of this dearth that Andrewes preached in the Court at Richmond, from the parable of Dives and Lazarus, on Tuesday, March 5, 1594.2 This is indeed one
of the most profitable of his discourses, and contains many
topics and illustrations worthy of special observation.
On the following day he preached before the queen at
Hampton Court on Remember Lot's wife. He spoke much
of the frequency of such relapses, and very ably treated of
the peculiar nature and heinousness of her sin and greatness
of her punishment. He concluded with a high commendation
of the perseverance of the queen as one who had from the
beginning of her reign to this time been faithful to the true
religion; one who (like Zorobabel) first by princely magnanimity laid the corner-stone in a troublesome time; and since, by heroical constancy, through many both alluring proffers and threatening dangers, hath brought forth the
headstone also, with the prophet's acclamation 'Grace, grace
unto it.' "
In November the queen, to satisfy the complaints of her
parliament, issued a commission to examine into the state
of the ecclesiastical courts. For the diocese of London, Dr.
Richard Fletcher, bishop of Worcester, Dr. Andrewes, and
Dr. Stanhope, a civilian, were appointed commissioners.
CHAPTER IV.
The Lambeth Articles, 1595.— Dr Andrews' Review of them.— He
adopts the Augustinian doctrine as modified by Aquinas.
THE late eminently learned and candid bishop of Lincoln,
Dr. Kaye, has observed of St. Augustine, that the high
estimation in which his authority was held may be traced
equally in the writings of the Reformers and in the discussions
of the theologians at the Council of Trent. Of the state
of our nature after the fall, he observes, that the framers
of our Articles not only adopted the opinions, but in the
concluding paragraph (of the 10th Article) have used the
very language of Augustine.
Neither is there any adequate proof that any of the Reformers departed from the doctrine of St. Augustine, or differed from one another upon the peculiar and essential tenets of that father, whose theology entered even into all the forms
of devotion that had been used in our own country and over Western Christendom from the fifth century. It may be seen from the Formula Concordise itself, which was promulgated and subscribed in 1579, that the original doctrines
of Luther were at that time recognized as the unaltered faith
of the Lutheran Communion. Melancthon himself in 1551
subscribed to the doctrine of St. Augustine on Original Sin,
which doctrine was affirmed in the Saxon Confession, a Confession drawn up by Melancthon himself. He had previously maintained the same in his Apology of the Confession of Augsburg. Yet Weismann and others have claimed Me-
lancthon as a dissentient from St. Augustine even in the lifetime of Luther.
The opinions of Cranmer as early as 1537 are easily
discernible in the Institution of a Christian Man, and in
his annotations upon the king's proposed corrections of that
book, in which it is obvious that the king with Gardiner
dissented from St. Augustine. Indications are not wanting
in the history of the English Reformation that the same
diversity of bias marked the two great parties of that age,
the friends of the Reformation herein adhering to the antient,
of the Papacy to the modern church of Rome, even when
abroad this mark of severance was not so observable.
The year before Cranmer with Ridley drew up the forty-
two Articles, since reduced to thirty-nine, and which were
placed in the hands of Knox, Grind al, and others previously
to publication, he thus expressed himself in his Answer
to Dr. Smith:
"And yet I know this to be true, that Christ is present
with his holy church, which is his holy elected people , and
shall be with them to the world's end, leading and governing
them with his Holy Spirit, and teaching them all truth
necessary for their salvation. And whensoever any such be
gathered together in his name, there is he among them,
and he shall not suffer the gates of hell to prevail against
them. Nor although he may suffer them by their own
frailty for a time to err, fall, and to die ; yet finally, neither
Satan, hell, sin, nor eternal death shall prevail against them.
But this holy church is so unknown to the world, that no
man can discern it but God alone, who only searcheth
the hearts of all men, and knoweth his true children from
other that be bastards. This church is the pillar of truth
because it resteth upon God's Word."
In the following year appeared the Articles. There can
be no doubt respecting the mind of their framers as regards
their interpretation of them. Enough has been adduced to
justify the assertion of the late Bishop of Lincoln, that a if
they can be said to have followed the guidance of any uninspired teacher, that teacher was Augustine, who for more than ten centuries had exercised through his writings an unbounded influence over the Western Church." That influence continued to prevail in both our universities to the time of Andrewes, and after his decease. It is alike visible in the works of Whitaker, and in Andrewes' Judgment of the Lambeth Articles. But Andrewes pleaded for the modification of the Augustinian doctrine which had been introduced by Aquinas, maintaining at the same time that it introduced no essential variation, and did not affect the cause but the order which the Almighty observes in the act of predestining.
The first indication of a departure from the received doctrine
was on the part of Dr. Baro, the Lady Margaret's Divinity
professor at Cambridge. He was a learned Frenchman,
Peter Baro Stempanus, a licentiate of Civil Law in the
university of Bourges, admitted to his professorship in 1575,
having the great lord Burleigh for his patron; D.D. of
the university of Cambridge 1576. He gave offence to
the university by some antipredestinarian opinions delivered
in his lectures upon Jonah. And upon this occasion Dr.
Whitaker drew up the Lambeth Articles in November 1595.
That same year, on the 5th May, William Barrett, a fellow
of Caius College, was cited to appear before the Heads of
Houses for an Act sermon for his degree of B.D. preached
on the 29th April. He had maintained that no man could
be assured in this life of his own salvation but by revelation,
that the faith of all men could fail, that therefore the assurance
of final perseverance was both proud and wicked; that there
was no distinction in faith (such as between a true and living
and a dead faith), but in the persons believing ; that no man
could or ought to believe that his sins were forgiven; that
sin is the first cause of reprobation; that Calvin lifted up
himself above Grod; adding contumelious language against
Peter Martyr, Beza, Zanchius, Junius and others, and calling
them Calvinists. He was compelled to read a retractation,
but evinced symptoms of unwillingness immediately after so
doing departed the university, joined the Church of Rome,
and returned to England, where, adds Fuller, in his History
of the University of Cambridge, he led a layman's life until
the day of his death.
To settle these contentions Dr. Whitaker drew up nine
Articles, and these were laid before Whitgift the primate,
to whom the university deputed Whitaker and Dr. Humphrey
Tyndall, president of Queens' College and dean of Ely, to
represent the state of the controversy. Whitaker was admitted in his own age to be inferior in learning and acumen to none of his contemporaries. Bellarmine himself so respected his learning that he placed his portrait in his study.
He was born in 1547, the first year of Edward VI., at
the manor of Holme in the parish of Burnley. Holme is
situated between Burnley and Todmorden, and to the east
of Blackburn. Having been first educated probably at
Burnley, he was sent for to London by his maternal uncle,
that accomplished scholar and theologian, Alexander Nowell,
the composer of the smaller and also of the greater Catechism
of the Church of England, recently edited both by the present
able Regius Divinity professor at Oxford, Dr. Jacobson,
and by the Parker Society. Dean Nowell placed his nephew
at St. Paul's School. Thence he was sent to Trinity College,
Cambridge, and was elected to a fellowship in that noble
foundation. He translated his uncle's larger catechism into
Greek. He now applied himself to the study of theology,
and his voluminous works bear ample testimony to the depth
of his patristic and general erudition. He was accordingly
appointed at the early age of thirty-three to succeed Dr.
William Chaderton, bishop of Chester and afterwards of
Lincoln, as Regius professor of Divinity in his university.
When the mastership of St. John's College, Cambridge,
became vacant by the promotion of Dr. John Howland to
the see of Peterborough, who was consecrated at Lambeth
February 7th, 1585, Whitaker was, by special mandate from
the queen, admitted to the mastership on the 25th February,
1586, Rowland being permitted to retain the mastership
a year after his consecration.
Whitgift wrote to Dr. Matthew Hutton, Archbishop of
York, and formerly a fellow of Trinity (Whitgift's) College.
Hutton hereupon drew up a Latin summary of Predestination,
taken especially from St. Augustine. On November 10th,
Dr. Fletcher, Bishop of Worcester, and now Bishop elect of
London, Dr. Eichard Vaughan, Bishop elect of Bangor, trans
lated two years after to Chester, and thence, on Bancroft's
promotion to the primacy, to London, and some other divines
met Whitaker, Tyndall, and Whitgift at Lambeth, and the
bishops agreed upon the Articles after some few alterations.
It was designed to enforce subscription to them, but the queen
resented it as a violation of her prerogative.
In 1651 a brief history of these Articles was published,
and annexed to them two minor treatises purporting to be the
judgment of Andrewes upon them and his censure of the
censure of Barrett. Dr. Andrewes had been for some years
chaplain to Whitgift, and was doubtless already known as
one of the most learned theologians of the age.
In his review of the nine articles he first remarks, "The
four first articles are concerning predestination and reprobation,
of which it is said by the Apostle, 0 the depth, and by the
Prophet, a great deep. (Rom. xi. 33, Psalm xxxvi. 6.)" Here
we may observe that Andrewes follows St. Augustine, who
in like manner refers that wonderful conclusion of the 11th
chapter of the epistle to the Romans to these mysteries.
Then Dr. Andrewes acknowledges that he has followed
the counsel of St. Augustine, and abstained from the time
of his ordination (sixteen years) from disputing and from
preaching upon these points. And considering the great
danger of abuse, and that but few of the clergy can skillfully
handle these subjects, and that very few are competent to
hear of them with profit, he would advise that silence should
be enjoined on both sides.
The first article affirmed that God from all eternity had
predestinated some to life, and had reprobated others. Upon
this he notes : "That there are in the mind of God, in that
his eternal (whether one may call it foreknowledge or) know
ledge by which he sees those things which are not as though
they were, some who are predestinate, others who are reprobate, I think is beyond all doubt. They are the words of Scripture, before the foundation of the world, that is, that God chose us from eternity, and, when he had chosen, predestinated us, Ephes. i. 4, 5 ; and that he chose us out of the
world, John xv. 19; wherefore, he chose not all that are
in the world, but some. Otherwise there would be no election."
Here we may observe that whereas in the antipredestinarian sense all are predestinate alike, though to different ends, Andrewes uses the term of the elect alone. Secondly, in John xv. 9, he supposes that Judas was excluded, which
is certain indeed, for the words were not spoken until after
he had left the Apostles. Thirdly, he applies this place
to predestination unto life, in which again he follows St.
Augustine, but not so those who here leave that father and
accuse him of being tainted with Manichasism.
Then Andrewes proceeds to justify from Scripture the
use of the term reprobate, but advises that it should be
expressed that these are predestinated through Christ, those
reprobate on account of sin. And here there has arisen
a strife of words, it having been sometimes objected to
Calvin and to Augustine that they deny that sin is the
cause of reprobation, and resolve all into the mere pleasure
or decree of God. The truth is that if there were no sin
there could be no rejection; and again it is equally true
that if God had determined to include all in the number of the elect, there had been no rejection. Both Calvin and Augustine therefore teach that men are reprobated as sinners, and that reprobation follows naturally upon a decree of election. And so Dr. Andrewes adds, "But those whom he chose not and by choosing approved (as the nature of election carries with it) he reprobated. And scripture uses the words rejecting (Rom. xi. 2), reprobating (Heb. xii. 15)."
The second article is: "The moving or efficient cause
of predestination unto life, is not foresight of faith, or of
perseverance, or of good works, or of anything that is in
the person predestinated, but only the good-will and pleasure
of God."
Dr. Andrewes advised the addition "of God in Christ";
for that first God had respect to his beloved Son, "but
not to us first (as some think) and to him last, and that
for our sakes. For we could not be predestinated to the
adoption of sons but in his natural son, nor could we be
predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, unless
first the Son be ordained to whose image we are to be conformed. Wherefore I would also add to this article l the good- will of God in Christ.' ''
Next he expresses his disapproval of the separation of
the divine prescience from the divine predestination. This
indeed sounds to modern ears antipredestinarian; but let
the explanation be received, and the proposition that the
will of God includes bold foreknowledge and fore-ordination
will be seen to be at once perfectly compatible with the
belief of predestination.
"Next it may be enquired in the second place, whether
this sole will of God's good pleasure includes or excludes
his foreknowledge. I at least think that these two, namely
foreknowledge and fore-ordination, are by no means to be
severed, but to be joined (as do the Apostles). Neither do
I here dare presumptuously to advance my own opinion,
or to condemn the Fathers, who for the most part affirm
that we are elected and predestinated according to foreknowledge of faith, as Beza himself confesses on 11 Horn. 2 ed., f Here the Fathers are by no means to be heard who refer this to foresight.'' But in this (as it always appeared to me) they speak rather of the series and order which God observes
in the act of predestinating, than of the cause of predestination. But the chain some are wont to form in this way, others in that, as seems best to them. The Fathers seem to me to have been of this opinion, that there could be no
election if it were not thus connected : first that God loves
Christ, then us in Christ which the Apostle saith, that
he accepts us in the beloved (Ephes. i. 6); secondly, that
he confers on us so accepted grace and faith thirdly, that he
elects us thus endowed and thus differenced (discretes) from
the rest* fourthly, that he predestinates us who are elect."
Certainly the nature of election requires this, as it
cannot be nor can be conceived, where there is no difference
whatsoever between him who is chosen and him who is rejected. So Gecumenius, after the opinion of the Greeks, p. 323: When he saith) according to election, he shews that he distinguished between them, for no person chooses one from
another unless there is some difference in him. So Augustine
to Simplician, 1, 2: But election does not precede justification
(foreseen) but justification election. For no one is chosen
unless already differing from him who is rejected whence
I cannot see how God can be said to have chosen us before
the foundation of the world but by foreknowledge.
"Nor otherwise the schoolmen: Thorn. 1st, Q. 23, Act 4.
'Predestination presupposes election, and election love? That
is, first he made them to be chosen, then he chose them;
he loved them that he might endow them; he chose the gifts
that he conferred. And this seems to me to be the opinion
of the most reverend archbishop of York [Mr. Button], For
thus he: * What did God love from eternity in Jacob when
as yet he had done no good thing? certainly that which
was his own, that which he purposed to give him.
Certainly the Apostle himself does not doubt to join
in this article the purpose and the grace given, and that
from all eternity, since the grace given could only exist
in the divine foreknowledge: that is together with the eternal
purpose of God, he foresaw before all time the grace itself
also which he would give.
Nor does any inconvenience result hence (as I can see)
if God, that he may crown his own gifts in us, thus chooses
his own gifts in us, to wit the things which he gave first
by loving us, that afterward he might choose them thus
given. And so both love, which is the act of grace by which
God makes a difference, and election, which is the act of
judgment by which he chooses those who are thus distinguished, are preserved. And thus election will remain.
"For the chain of the moderns plainly takes away all
election, by which chain God is made to appoint these
to salvation and those to eternal perdition by the first act
and that absolute, together and at once, neither considered
as existing together in any similar condition [nee in ulla
massa] nor in any way distinguished one from another by
his own gifts: after which destination, what place there
is for election I cannot understand, or how this destination
itself can be called election.
"But this whole question, as I said, is rather of the
order in which God proceeds, in our conception of things
who know but in part, than of the cause as respects the
act itself, which is in God one and that perfectly simple;
or if of the cause, it ought not to be understood of the cause
of the first act, but of the cause as respects the integral effect
in predestinating (as it is called).
It is enquired also whether the integral act (in our
conception) is made up of several acts, or whether the first
is the sole act? and if they are many and diverse, what
is the order, what the chain of acts?
"Predestination, which cannot be without foreknowledge,
is not but of good works. (Aug. de Proudest. Sanctorum, c. 10.)
They are elect before the foundation of the world by that
predestination in which God foresaw his own future acts.
(c. 17, § 34.)"
Here we must remark that the first quotation is equivalent
to what goes a little before in the chapter from which it
is quoted: 'Predestination is the preparation of grace,' i.e. the
providing for its being given, 'but grace is the giving itself.'
"Will any one, dare to say that God did not foreknow
to whom he would grant that they should believe?" — De Dono
Perseverantise, 14, § 35, and c. 17 passim.
The third article is, that the number of the predestinate
is certain, and can neither be increased nor diminished. Dr.
Andrewes here only notes that they are the very words
of St. Augustine at the beginning of the third chapter of
his Book De Correptione et Gratia, and adds to these
a passage from Prosper de Vocatione Gentium, but citing it
under the name of St. Ambrose, to whom it was sometimes
but erroneously attributed.
The fourth article is: "Those who are not predestinated
to salvation shall be necessarily condemned for their sins."
He would have the word necessarily as being a new mode
of expression changed to without doubt.
The fifth article is: "A true, living, and justifying faith
and the Spirit of God sanctifying is not extinguished, does
not fail and come to naught in the elect either totally or
finally."
Andrewes remarks upon this: " No one ever said (I believe) that faith fails finally in the elect. It does not then fail. But that it does not fail, arises, I think, from the nature of its subject, not from its own ; from the privilege of the person, not of the thing. And this on account of apostates, who ought not to be condemned on the ground of their falling away from a faith which was never a true and living faith.
"But whether the Holy Spirit can be taken away or extinguished for a time, I think may yet be enquired into. I confess that I am in doubt.
"Or FAITH.
Thou standestly faith: Be not highminded, but fear;
otherwise thou also shalt be cut off, Rom. xi. 20, 22. Is not
this an unmeaning precept, if faith cannot fail?
"1. Beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the
wicked, fall from your own steadfastness, 2 Pet. iii. 17.
"2. Look that no man fail of the grace of God, Heb. xii. 15.
Ye are fallen from grace who are in the law, Gal. v. 4. (Some of these passages are not quoted accurately.)
"3. Take not thy Holy Spirit from me. Psalm li. 13.
"4. Quench not the Spirit, 1 Thess. v. 19.
"On what ground can it be shewn that these prayers and
precepts are not a mere mockery, if we can in no way fall
from the firmness of our faith, or fail of grace, if the Spirit
could in no way be taken away or extinguished?
Although I am not ignorant that this [cannot be lost
totally] can be so interpreted, as that it cannot be utterly
altogether or entirely, although it may be lost as a whole, that
is, so lost as that no room shall be left of returning thither
whence they have fallen."
Bivetus, who was contemporaneous with the Synod of
Dort, thus expressed himself in his thesis on Final Perse
verance — that those who once had true faith could not become
enemies to God, or utter infidels.1 The same is the explica
tion which Hooker gives of the indefectibility of faith, in his
second sermon, in which he observes: "Directly to deny the
foundation of faith is plain infidelity; where faith is entered,
there infidelity is for ever excluded : therefore by him which
hath once sincerely believed in Christ, the foundation of
Christian faith can never be directly denied." The Synod
of Dort, if candidly judged by its own admissions, will be
admitted to intend no more than that which was affirmed by
Hooker, however it may use greater ambiguity of expression
when it speaks of the predestinate not falling from the grace
of adoption, the condition of justification."3 Its meaning is
that God still deals with them as his children he does not
utterly take his lovingkindness from them, but as he did not
leave Peter to himself after he had denied him, so neither does
he leave them. To say that he sees no sin in them in their
departures from him, is not less contrary to the Synod of Dort
itself than it is to both reason and religion.
And thus understood we see that Andrewes himself allowed
the Lambeth article maintaining that the elect never totally
fall from grace. And this is clearly consistent with both
those exhortations and prayers which are adapted in Holy
Scripture to the weakness of our mortal nature, by reason of
which we cannot always stand upright, as we confess in the
Collect for the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany a collect derived
from Gregory the Great, himself a follower of St. Augustine.
If indeed it is but just to admit an opponent to explain his
own terms, we may see from Bishop Morton's reply to Dean
White in the Conferences concerning Montague's works, that
the falling from the grace of justification (itself a sufficiently
ambiguous term) was intended to denote, the total and irreversible loss of the divine favour.
The sixth article was, Of the assurance of salvation:
"A truly faithful man, that is, one who is endowed with
justifying faith, is certain, with the conviction [plerophoria] of
faith, of the remission of his sins, and of his eternal salvation
through Christ." Andrewes would have substituted for the
assurance of faith the assurance of hope, on the ground that
we had not the same certainty of a conditionate as of a purely
categorical proposition. To this however may be opposed
St. Paul's conviction of security in the approach of death, in
the fourth chapter of his Second Epistle to Timothy, Hence
forth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness. Neither
is less certainty implied in his Epistle to the Philippians,
when he writes, I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire
to depart and to be with Christ which is far better, (i. 23.)
The seventh article, On the conferring of grace, is as
follows:
"Saving grace (gratia salutaris) is not given, communicated, and granted to all men by which, if they will, they can be saved."
The observations attributed to Andrewes oppose to this
that some previous dispositions are not only offered but conferred upon all men, and that saving grace would be conferred upon all, were they not wanting to it. And to this effect is cited an earlier work of Augustine upon the Creation against
the Manichgeans, written in A.D. 390, the year before he was
ordained priest. These remarks are in harmony with the
known opinions of Andrewes' learned contemporary Bishop
Overall.
Bishop Andrewes, in his Whit-Sunday Sermon 1612, thus
speaks of the operation of the Holy Spirit : "And this (of
blowing upon one certain place) is a property very well fitting
the Spirit. Ubi vult spirat. To blow in certain places, where
itself will; and upon certain persons, and they shall plainly
feel it, and others about them not a whit. There shall be an
hundred or more in an auditory; one sound is heard, one
breath doth blow : at that instant, one or two and no more;
one here, another there; they shall feel the Spirit, shall be
affected and touched with it sensibly: twenty on this side
them and forty on that shall not feel it, but sit all becalmed,
and go their way no more moved than they came. Ubi vult
t) is most true."
This certainly is not consistent with these anonymous
remarks which long after the death of Andrewes were put
forth in his name. The Remonstrants indeed were desirous
of his patronage, and said that they had letters of his which
he challenged them to produce. He is supposed to have
alluded to these strictures on the Lambeth articles in a conversation in 1617, but we know nothing of their history, only that they were published by some person or persons who retained neither the doctrine of Andrewes nor of Overall, but wholly favoured that of the Remonstrants.
The eighth article is : "No man can come unto Christ
unless it shall have been given him, and unless the Father
shall have drawn him. And all men are not drawn by
the Father to come to the Son."
Andrewes, or whosoever the author of these strictures is,
adds, "not drawn so as that they come"; and would have
it added, "that the cause of their not being drawn or so
drawn is the depraved will of man, not the absolute will
of God." This indeed is in harmony with the remarks upon
the seventh article.
The ninth article is: It is not placed in the will or power
of every man to be saved."
The suggested form is, lt It is not placed in the free will of
any man, saving when made free by the Son, to be saved,
or in the power of any, unless it be given him from above."
Then, after observing that every one will explain the words
in his own sense either by addition or subtraction, the writer
recommends silence on both sides, and ends by submitting
both himself and his opinions to the judgment of the queen.
Having now given a full view of the scope of the Judgment
of the Bishop of Winchester on the Lambeth Articles^ I leave
it to the reader to decide upon the authenticity of the Judgment. It is singular that in the preface to these minor treatises of Andrewes and Overall (if indeed they are theirs), no allusion is made to them, no account is given of the
manner in which they were transferred to the hands of the editor; only they are annexed to Ellis's Defence of the Thirty-nine Articles ; the theology of which is not even that of Overall, as it observes, and truly according to the doctrine of St. Augustine, that men are said to cooperate in respect of subsequent, not of preventing grace.
The Judgment upon the Lambeth Articles is followed by
the Censure of the Censure of Barrett. It relates simply
to one point, the question whether the justified ought to
feel certain of their salvation, or in other words, that they
shall persevere to the end. Andrewes probably was not
the author of this censure. It is written with a degree of
warmth in favour of Barrett which Andrewes was not likely
to have evinced. Neither does it embrace more than one
of many points for which Barrett was censured. It is questionable whether Andrewes would have denied that to some at least the Spirit gave an assurance that he would abide with them for ever. Of his so abiding and working in
the soul to the end, he thus speaks in his Whit- Sunday Sermon 1620, above twenty years after the date of these pieces published iu 1600. "How take we notice of the Spirit? How knew they the angel was come down into
the pool of Bethesda, but by the stirring aud moving of
the water? So by stirring up in us spiritual motions, holy
purposes and desires, is the Spirit's coming known. Specially
if they do not vanish again. For if they do, then was it
some other flatuous matter which will quiver in the veins,
(and unskilful people call it the life-blood), but the Spirit
it was not. The Spirit's motion, the pulse, is not for a while
and then ceaseth, but it is perpetual, holds as long as life
holds, though intermittent some time for some little space."1
That the Holy Spirit never utterly forsakes the elect,
but that they "have that grace which excludeth sin from
reigning, and that this grace once had by them is never
totally nor finally lost," is affirmed by Field in his Book
of the Church, and, after his manner, explained with a clear
ness and minuteness that will enable the reader to judge
fully of the grounds of his opinion, and to see the working
of the more scholastic minds in that age of intense theological
investigation.' Field moreover shews that these are at least
no new opinions, but to be found in the works of the celebrated Hugo de Sancto Victore in the twelfth century, and in those of John Duns Scotus in the fourteenth. Even some amongst the members of the Romish communion have confessed that Calvin and Augustine were substantially agreed, as may be seen in the 399th chapter of the fourth book of John James Hottinger's Fata Doctrine de Prcedestinatione et Gratia Dei salutari?
Dr. Andrewes Sermon on the Love of Souls, Good Friday 1597. —
Andrewes refuses two Bishoprics, 1598 — Preaches before the Queen
on Ash- Wednesday. — Sermon on the Eucharist — On Justification —
St. Paul and St. James — On the power of Absolution — Ontance.
THE learned Whitaker on his return from Lambeth took cold
which turned to fever and brought him speedily to his happy
and peaceful but early end, on the 4th of December 1595,
in his forty-seventh year. He was buried on the 10th, Dr.
Goad the Vice-chancellor, provost of King's College, preaching
the funeral sermon at the university church, and Eobert,
afterwards Sir Eobert, Naunton, the Public Orator, delivering
a funeral oration in Latin. Dr. John Overall, fellow of
Trinity College, was elected to his professorship.
Overall had maintained a middle way between the theology
of his times and that of the Antipredestinarians. He taught
that God vouchsafed a certain measure of grace to all men,
but secured salvation to the elect by a still more abundant
measure. He taught that some had true faith and grace for
a time and then fell away, but that those who are believers,
who are included in the divine decree of election, cannot
either totally or finally fall or perish, but by a special and
efficacious grace so persevere in a true and lively faith, that
at length they are brought to eternal life. This he maintained
at the Hampton Court Conference.1 He complained that some
had exaggerated the doctrine of the indefectibility of faith,
and had denied that the elect upon the commission of the
greatest sins were ipso facto subject to the divine wrath and
in a state of damnation until they repented. Overall was
neither altogether a follower of Augustine nor of Calvin, but
partly borrowed from Ambrose Catharinus, who taught that
some were saved by special, others by their right use of
common grace. Catharine of Sienna, archbishop of Conza,
maintained at the same time in the Council of Trent, and
afterwards in his writings, that the righteous might be certain
of their justification. He also maintained that the inward
intention of the minister was not requisite to the validity of
the Sacraments. Overall's system has been given from two
of the Harleian MSS. in the British Museum, by the Rev.
Wm. Goode, in his Effects of Infant Baptism? Overall and
others after him have adduced St. Augustine as teaching that
some have true faith and grace for a while, and yet fall away,
whilst to the elect salvation is secured by the gift of final
perseverance. There are a few passages in his works which
favour this opinion, but of the principal of these the authen
ticity is not universally admitted, and it is certain that in his
Tractatus in Joannem and some other of his Treatises he
maintains the contrary. The reader may see these passages
fully given by Dr. John Forbes, in the 20th chapter of the
eighth Book of his Instruction's Historico-TJieologicce?
On Sunday April 4, 1596, Andrewes preached before
the court at Greenwich. This sermon, from 2 Cor. xii. 15,
is upon the love of souls, ( soul-love,' and upon the love
of Christ to us. Nothing can excel the fervour, the tenderness, and the truly Christian charity that distinguish this truly apostolical discourse. O that all who profess to admire this venerable father and prelate of our Church would read,
and that not once but often, the divine instruction, the paternal
charge which he here has left to posterity, a savour of holy
love never to fail. He shews how it was the love of Christ
that kindled in St. Paul such a love of souls, a love indeed
copied from his. This love, a love not to be overcome by
unkindness, this he reminds us is the only true Christian
love; and what is all to that love of Christ which loved
us not as but more than his own life? He hath changed
the rule of the law ; no longer is it, Thou shalt love thy neighlour as thyself, but, as I have loved you. " And if St. Paul
were loved when he raged and breathed blasphemy against
Christ and his name, is it much if, for Christ's sake, he
swallow some unkindness at the Corinthians' hands? Is
it much, if we let fall a duty upon them, upon whom God
the Father droppeth his rain, and God the Son drops, yea
sheds his blood,— upon evil and unthankful men?"
On the 14th October died the bishop of Salisbury, Dr.
John Coldwell. He was the first married bishop of Salisbury
after the Reformation. His name was also spelt Gold well.
He was B. A. of St. John's College, Cambridge, 1554 ; M.A.
1558, and M.D. 1564. He was in 1571 made archdeacon
of Chichester whilst Curteis the late dean was bishop of
that see. He resigned this dignity in 1575. On the death
of Dr. Thomas Willoughby^ean of Rochester and prebendary of Canterbury, he was preferred to the deanery, and installed 26th September, 1582.
After the see of Salisbury had been kept vacant three
years, on the translation of Dr. John Piers to York, Coldwell
was consecrated to Sarum, December 26th, 1591, at Lambeth
by Whitgift, assisted by Aylmer bishop of London, Cowper
bishop of Winchester, Fletcher bishop of Bristol, and Under
bill bishop of Oxford. Dying October 14, 1596, he was
buried in Salisbury Cathedral, in the same grave where
bishop Wyville had been buried in 1484. Andrewes declined the vacant see, as he would not impoverish it.
On Good-Friday, March 25th, 1597, Dr. Andrewes
preached before the court, from Zech. xii. 10, And they shall
look upon me whom they have pierced; and set forth our
Saviour's sufferings in a discourse never perhaps surpassed
but by himself.
There have not been wanting some who have ventured
to affirm that our Lord endured suffering equal to what the
redeemed would otherwise have endured; that in short he
suffered the pains of hell itself. Others again have gone
into" a contrary extreme, and have explained away our Lord's
words on the cross, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken
me? More piously and cautiously our learned and devout
preacher: "It is the soul's complaint ; and therefore, without
all doubt, his soul within him was pierced and suffered,
though not that which (except charity be allowed to ex
pound it) cannot be spoken without blasphemy; not so much,
(God forbid!) yet much, and very much; and much more
than others seem to allow, or how much, it is dangerous
to define."
He was invited to attend the annual election and examination at Merchant Taylors' School, but did not go. There was present its venerable patron, Dr. Gabriel Goodman, dean of Westminster. Mr. William Juxon, afterward archbishop Juxon, made a Latin oration.
Juxon was born at Chichester of a good family. He was
the son of Richard Juxon of^hat city. From Merchant
Taylors' School he succeeded to a fellowship at St. John's
College, Oxford. He applied himself to the law, and was
a student of Gray's Inn about 1603 ; but afterwards, taking
orders, was in 1609 instituted to the vicarage of St. Giles'
Oxford, in the gift of his College. Buckeridge was at that
time president of St. John's College, and Laud was electee
to succeed Buckeridge in that office 10th May, 1611, Bucke
ridge being then bishop elect of Rochester. With Lauc
Juxon contracted an intimate friendship. He was also
sometime rector of Somerton to the south-east of Deddington
in Oxfordshire, where his coat-of-arms was, if it is not still
in the east window of the chancel. When Laud was made
bishop of St. David's in 1621, Juxon was elected president o
St. John's on the 29th December, appointed to the deanery
of Worcester in 1628, when Dr. Joseph Hall was made bishop
of Exeter, and in 1633 was bishop elect of Hereford, but
consecrated to the see of London. Laud was his friend with
the king, who made him in 1632 Clerk of the closet. In
1635 he was constituted Lord High Treasurer. This pro
duced great envy amongst the courtiers, as no ecclesiastic
had held that office since the reign of Henry VII. He resigned it in 1641. He attended his sovereign on the scaffold, and afterward retired to his manor of Little Compton in Gloucestershire, but close upon Oxford and Worcestershires.
He was raised to the see of Canterbury in 1660, and died
at Lambeth June 20th, 1663, aged 81. He was a most
munificent prelate, of great patience and moderation.
Bishop Buckeridge relates in his funeral sermon for
Andrewes, that "when the bishoprics of Ely and Salisbury
were void, and some things were to be pared from them, some
overture being made to him to take them, he refused them
utterly. If it please you," adds Buckeridge, "I will make
his answer for him, Nolo episcopari, and I will not be made
a bishop, because I will not alienate bishops' lands." This
was probably in A.D. 1598, when Dr. Henry Cotton was pro
moted to the see of Sarum, .and not long after Dr. Heton to
that of Ely, who in 1609 was succeeded by Andrewes at that
time bishop of Chichester. On June 16th Andrewes, as
prebendary of St. Pancras, presented Harsnet, also of Pem
broke Hall, to the vicarage of Chigwell in Essex.
In June he resumed his lectures on the third chapter of
Genesis at St. Giles', Cripplegate, after an interval of about
seven years.
On Sunday, October 1, before the administration of the
Holy Communion, he preached at St. Giles', from Isaiah vi. 6,
applying the passage as typical of Christ by whom alone our
iniquities are taken away, and especially to the Holy Eucharist
in which the remission of sins is dispensed; wherefore, as he
observes, in the ancient church at the celebration of the Communion, the priest stood up and said as the seraph doth here, 'Behold this hath touched your lips ; your iniquity shall be taken away, and your sin purged.'1 And here he does not deny, as do some who speak much of him, the assurance of
forgiveness of past sins to those who come with true faith to
this holy sacrament. It was his custom to speak most
patristically of the Eucharist, but he calls the participation
a spiritual feeding.
On October 15th he preached from Matthew vi. 1, against
desire of vainglory. He said excellently, " God hath given
us the joys and use of all his creatures, but reserveth the
glory of them to himself. Therefore the apostle saith, Do all
to the glory of God; for though he giveth us the use of all
things, yet, My glory will I not give to another".
On Sunday, December 3rd, he preached from 2 Peter i. 9.
In this sermon he thus treats of justification. "At the first
the doctrine of faith in Christ was hardly received; for men
thought to be saved only by works: and when they had once
received it, they excluded the doctrine of good works. All
the difficulty that St. Paul found in the work of his ministry
was to plant faith, and to persuade men that we are justified
before God by faith in Christ without the works of the law.
But St. Peter and St. James met with them that received the
doctrine of faith fast enough, but altogether neglected good
works. But because both are necessary, therefore St. Paul in
all his Epistles joins the doctrine of faith with the doctrine of
works. This is a faithful saying, and to be avouched that
they which believe in God, be careful to shew forth good works?
Therefore with the doctrine of the grace of God, he joins the
doctrine of the careful bringing forth of good works. The
saving grace of God hath appeared, and teacheth us to deny
ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly and right
eously and godly in this world. The doctrine of grace is not
rightly apprehended, until we admit of the doctrine of good
works. Wilt thou know, O man, that faith is dead without
works? Was not Abraham our father justified by works,
when he offered his son Isaac? Therefore St. Peter saith,
that is no true faith which is not accompanied with virtue and
godliness of life. It is true that good works have no power
to work justification, because they do not contain a perfect
righteousness. And inasmuch as they are imperfect, there
belongs the curse of God unto them: Cursed is he that con-
tinueth not in all things, &c. (Gal. iii.) So far are they from
justifying, but yet they are tokens of justification. God had
respect unto Abel and to his sacrifice. (Gen. iv.) God first
looked upon his person, and then upon his sacrifice. For
before the person be justified, his works are not accepted in
God's sight. The best works if they proceed not of faith are
sin. Our Saviour saith, No branch can bring forth fruit of
itself, except it abide in the vine. Therefore if we do any
good works, they proceed from our incision and engrafting
into Christ, by whom they are made acceptable unto God.
"Paul saith, Abraham was justified by faith before works,
not when he was circumcised, but when he was uncircumcised.
But James saith, Abraham our father was justified by works.
To reconcile the apostles we must know, that the power of
justification which is spoken of in Paul is effective, but that
which James speaketh of is declarative. It -was Abraham's
faith that made him righteous, and his works did only declare
him to be justified. Therefore Paul saith, that albeit good
works have no power to justify, yet they are good and profit
able for men. For they declare our justification which is by
faith ; and by them we make ourselves sure of our calling and
election."
On the Sunday after Christmas-day, December 31, he
preached from John viii. 56, Your father Abraham rejoiced to
see my day, and he saw it, and was glad. From the same
words he preached before king James on Christmas-day 1613.
Whosoever will carefully compare the two discourses will find
that although the earlier is divided similarly with the latter,
and some passages are common to both, yet they are far from
being the same, and the parochial is by no means inferior to
the court sermon, nay has some advantage over it ; although of
it we have but notes, those notes however very copious.
On the Sunday after Epiphany, January 7, 1598, he discoursed learnedly and with a fertility of illustration peculiarly his own, upon Psalm xlvii. 10, The princes of the people are gathered together, even the people of the God of Abraham: for
the shields of the earth belong unto God: he is greatly exalted.
The Epiphany he calls Christ's second nativity ; "for as he
was born at Bethlehem of his mother the Virgin, so hath
he another birth foretold by the prophet, I will think of
Eahab and Babylon; behold Palestina, Tyrus, and Ethiopia,
lo! there is he born, Psalm Ixxxvii. 4.
"This," he saith, " God hath from all times revealed, that
the gate of faith should be opened to the Gentiles to enter
into the flock of Christ. This was shewed by Abraham's
matching with Keturah a Gentile ; by Moses matching him
self with Zipporah a Midianite and a Gentile; by Solomon
matching with Pharaoh's daughter; as in the genealogy of
Christ's birth Solomon is matched with Eahab, Boaz with
Kuth, to signify that Christ should save both Jews and
Gentiles. The same was shewed by the stuff whereof the
tabernacle was made; by the first temple which was built
upon the ground of Araunah a Gentile, with timber sent by
Hiram a Gentile; and by the second temple which was
founded by Cyrus and Artaxerxes, heathen princes."
On March 23, 1598, Andrewes succeeded Bishop Bancroft
in the eleventh stall at Westminster.
On Friday, February 2, 1599, being the festival of the
Purification of the Blessed Virgin, he preached at his parish-
church of St. Giles', from the history of Hannah, 1 Sam.
xxvii. 28. The presentation of Samuel, and Samuel himself,
he regards as typical of our Lord; and indeed the great
similarity of the song of Hannah and of that of the Virgin,
the miraculous birth as of Christ, so in a manner of Samuel,
and the meeting of the triple office of prophet, priest, and king
in Samuel, together with the singular inoffensiveness and
purity of his character, and his love to the unthankful, all
most amply vindicate the typical application of this history to
our Lord as the fulfilment, the true Samuel of the Israel of
God.
On the following Sunday, being the administration of the Holy Communion, he preached excellently upon our conflict with the old serpent, from Rev. ii. 7, To Mm that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the
Paradise of God.
On the 21st of the same month, being Ash- Wednesday,
and the time that the earl of Essex was setting out on the
Irish expedition, Dr. Andrewes, being one of the Queen's
chaplains, preached before her at Richmond from those most
seasonable words, When thou goest out with the host against
thine enemies , keep theefrom all wickedness? Having treated
of the justifiableness of war both offensive and defensive,
quoting to this purpose the Septuagint version of the text,
and alleging Jacob's war to win from the Amorite with
his sword and bow,3 he shewed the folly of trusting in
human power, from the defeat in the valley of Achor; he
urged the need of the prayer of the prophet and of the priest,
from the intercession of Moses whereby Israel prevailed over
Amalek; and the utter inconsistency of those who were
themselves in rebellion against God going forth to punish
rebels. Nor did he fail to point out most plainly how peace
was the blessing, war the scourge of God. Towards the
end he adduced the exemplary fidelity of Uriah as an ex
ample to all in like manner to forbear, now of all times
especially, from sin.
On Friday, August 24, St. Bartholomew's day, he preached
at his own church, Cripplegate, on the assurance of hope;
nor can any one who is familiar with his writings fail to
recognize him throughout.
We find him, according to his custom on all holy days,
preaching at his parish-church on St. Michael's day, Saturday,
September 29, from Eev. xii. 7, 8; a sermon displaying,
as we have seen in some former instances, his eminent
patristic learning. He shews that Christ cannot be the
Michael of the heavenly host, for that he is called 'one
of the first princes,' but Christ is the King of Kings.
He notices, and very largely, the conjecture of the Fathers,
that the fallen angels would not submit to adore Christ
in our nature, and to see our nature exalted above their
own. He forgets not to remind his congregation of the
war in which they themselves ought to be engaged, assured
that the enemy shall not prevail over those who faithfully
resist him. He touches also upon that reverence we ought
to have of the presence of the angels as well in the house
of God as at other times.
On Sunday, October 7, being the celebration of the holy
Eucharist, he preached from those most gracious and divine
words of our Lord, All that the Father giveth me shall come
to me and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
"Howsoever," he saith, "a man may know himself to be
a sinner, that is, to have an unclean soul, yet he is not
to despair, because Christ, by the confession of his enemies,
is such an one as doth not only receive sinners, but eats
with them; yea, he not only receiveth them that deserve
to be cast out as unworthy to inherit the kingdom, but
doth also wash, sanctify, and justify them in his own name
and by the Spirit of God."
Such was the diligence of Dr. Andrewes, that besides
preaching on the Festivals and Sundays, he also delivered
many of his lectures this year upon Genesis on other
week-days.
In A. D. 1600, on March 30, Low-Sunday, he preached
at Whitehall his well-known discourse upon the power of
absolution, from John xx. 23. He maintained from these words
a ministerial power of absolution granted to the Apostles, not as
apostles but as ministers of Christ, and from them derived to all
others; "yet not so that absolutely without them God cannot
bestow it on whom or when he pleaseth; or that he is bound
to this means only and cannot work without it. For gratia,
Dei non alligatur mediis [i. e. the grace of God is not tied
to means], the grace of God is not bound but free, and can
work without means either of word or sacrament; and as
without means so without ministers, how and when to him
seemeth good. But speaking of that which is proper and
ordinary, in the course by him established, this is an ecclesi
astical act committed as the residue of the ministry of re
conciliation to ecclesiastical persons. And if at any time
he vouchsafe it by others that are not such, they be in that
case ministri necessitatis non officit, in case of necessity
ministers, but by office not so." To shew the previous
existence of a like power he refers to Job xxxiii. 23, to the
priest's being ever a party in sacrifices, and to the prophet
Nathan's being commissioned to declare to David the remission
of his sin in God's name. He observes that besides this
there are divers acts instituted by God and executed by us,
which all tend to the remission of sins, namely, the two
sacraments, the Word of God itself, and prayer. The word
he interprets of the word preached.
He also treats of the need of the key of knowledge to
open to men the true nature of repentance and the works
of repentance, which is not only sorrow for sin, but a holy
revenge upon ourselves for it, with works of restitution, &c.
His doctrine of repentance may indeed be most fully and
practically learnt from that little volume which alone might
have obtained for his name the veneration of all ages of
the Church, his Manual for the Sick.
He is said to have been called upon to explain himself
to the Secretary of state in regard of this sermon, his doctrine
being unusual for that time and strange in the ears of his
audience. It is observable that it is confessedly imperfect,
and deals very much in generalities. His quotation from
St. Augustine belongs not to private but to public confession,
as both Fulke remarks in his Confutation of the Notes
in the Rhemish New Testament, and also Dr. John Gerhard
in his Confessio Catholica. Fulke farther refers his readers
to his Confutation of Dr. Aliens Books, Pt. I., from c. 10 to
the end.
Some would explain the words, Whosesoever sins ye remit
they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain
they are retained, as though they had been, whosesoever sins
ye declare forgiven, when ye preach pardon to the penitent,
they shall be forgiven; and whosesoever sins ye declare
still unforgiven, because of their unbelief, heaven shall con
firm your words. Thus, indeed, Jeremiah and the prophets
are said to do what they declare shall be done, (Jer. i. 10),
See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the
kingdoms to root out and to pull down, and to destroy and
to throw down, to build and to plant, compared with c. xviii.
ver. 7.
Andre wes was present on St. Barnabas' Day, June llth,
at the annual election and examination at Merchant Taylors'
School, and with three other (London?) clergymen, Dr. Grant
of the university of Cambridge, master of Westminster
School, and Drs. Montford and Hutchinson of the university
of Oxford, was appointed to nominate four persons to the
Merchant Taylors' Company for the living of St. Martin's,
Outwich. A minute account of the proceedings may be found
in Dr. Wilson's History of Merchant Taylors' School, in
which he has done ample justice to the memory of Andre wes,
and that with no small industry and ability.
Dr. Thomas Montford, or Mountfort, was the son of John
Mountfort of Norwich. He was of the university of Oxford,
was admitted to the rectory of Anstey near Barkway, Jan. 25,
1584. On May 26, 1585, he was made prebendary of the first
stall, Westminster, took the degree of D.D. at Oxford July 4,
1588, and on March 24, 1596, was admitted to the stall
of Harleston in St. Paul's, and became a canon residentiary
on the presentation of the queen. On May 7, 1602, he was
collated to the vicarage of St. Martin-in-the-fields by bishop
Bancroft, and in 1612 appears to have been also rector of
St. Mary-at-hill near St. Dunstan's in the East. He died
Feb. 27, 1631, and was buried in the chancel of Tewing near
Welwyn, of which also he had (according to Newcourt) been
rector. His son John succeeded to the rectory of Anstey on
the presentation of Charles I., having before been made prebendary of Sneating in the church of St. Paul by bishop
King, 14 Nov. 1618. He was presented by Trinity College
to the vicarage of Ware, Herts. 1633, but held it only for
about a year. He was ejected from Anstey in 1643.
Dr. Edward Grant was master of Westminster School,
prebendary of the sixth stall at Ely 1589, rector of Barnet
in Middlesex and Tatsfield near Godstone in Surrey, vicar
of Benfleet in Essex and Foulsham in Norfolk, prebendary
of the twelfth stall at Westminster, 27 May, 1577. He
died in October 1601, and was buried in the abbey, but
no memorial was erected for him there.
Dr. Kalph Hutchinson was archdeacon of St. Alban's.
CHAPTER VI.
Andrewes Sermon on Justification, 1600.
ON November 23rd Dr. Andrewes preached at Whitehall
his celebrated sermon on Justification, for a more copious
notice of which no apology will be required.
This sermon is a very ample dissertation upon Jer. xxiii. 6.
This is the name whereby they shall call him, the Lord our
Righteousness. First he shews how this is the chief of names
in the account of God himself. God is salvation and peace,
but both these are branches of this name and effects of it.
He then remarks that this name is peculiar to our Lord.
Others are said to do, he alone to be righteousness. "Nor is
this (he adds) a question of names merely. The name of God
has virtue in it. By the name of Christ we are justified, so
St. Paul (1 Cor. vi. 11); forgiven, so St. John (I Joh. ii. 12);
saved, so St. Peter (Acts iv. 12). Now this name is compounded of three words, Jehova, Justitia, Nostra.
Because his righteousness and only his righteousness is worth
the remembering; and any other's besides his is not ment
to be mentioned. For, as for our own righteousness which
we have without him, Esay telleth us, it is but a defiled
cloth, and St. Paul that it is but dung; two very homely
comparisons, but they be the Holy Ghost's own, yet nothing
so homely as in the original, &e.
"Our own then being no better, we are driven to seek
for it elsewhere. He shall receive his righteousness, saith
the prophet (Psalm xxiv. 5), and the gift of righteousness,
saith the apostle (Eom. v. 17). It is then another, to be
given us and to be received by us, which we must seek
for. And whither shall we go for it ? Job alone despatcheth
this point. Not to the heavens or stars; for they are unclean
in his sight. Not to the saints; for in them he found folly;
nor to the angels, for neither in them found he any steadfast
ness. Now if none of these will serve, we see a necessary
reason why Jehova must be a part of this name. And this
is the reason why Jeremie, here expressing more fully the
name given him before in Esay, Immanuel, God with us,
instead of the name of God in that name (which is M),
setteth down by way of explanation this name here of
Jehova. Because that El and the other names of God are
communicated to creatures; as the name of El to angels,
for their names end in it ; Michael, Gabriel, &c. And the
name of Jah to saints, and their names end in it; Esaiah,
Jeremiah, Zechariah. To certify us therefore that it is
neither the righteousness of saints nor angels that will serve
the turn, but the righteousness of God and very God, he
usetli that name which is proper to God alone ; ever reserved
to him only, and never imparted by any occasion to angel
or saint, or any creature in heaven or earth.
"Righteousness. Why that? If we ask, in regard of
the other benefits which are before remembered, salvation
and peace, why 'righteousness' and not salvation nor peace?
it is evident. Because (as in the verse next before the
prophet termeth it) righteousness' is the branch; and these
two, salvation and peace, are the fruits growing on it. So
that, if this be had, the other are had with it."
"Jehovah, Righteousness. For except justice be satisfied,
and do join in it also [the counsel of salvation], in vain
we promise ourselves that mercy of itself shall work our
salvation: which may serve for the reason why neither
Jehova potentia or Jehova misericordia are enough, but it
must be Jehova justitta, and. justitia a part of the name."
But if he be righteousness, and not only righteousness, but ours too, all is at an end; we have our desires. . . . For if he be, as the Apostle saith, factus nobis,
made unto us righteousness, and that so as he becometh ours, what can we have more? What can hinder us, saith St. Bernard, but that we should ' use him and his righteousness; use that which is ours to our best behoof, and work our salvation out of this our Saviour.'
And more significant it is by far to say Jehovah our
justice, than Jehovah our Justifier. I know St. Paul saith
much; that our Saviour Christ shed his blood to shew his
righteousness, that he might not only be just, but a justifier
of those which are of his faith, Rom. iii. 26. And much
more again in that when he should have so said, To him
that believeth in God, he chooseth thus to set it down, To him
that believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly ; making
these two to be all one, God, and the justifier of sinners.
Though this be very much, yet certainly this is most forcible,
that he is made unto us by God very righteousness itself.
(1 Cor. i. 30.) And that yet more, that he is made righteousness to us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. v. 21. Which place St. Chrysostom well weighing, this very word righteousness, saith he, the Apostle
useth to express the unspeakable bounty of that gift, that he hath not given us the operation or effect of his righteousness, but his very righteousness, yea his very self unto us. Mark, saith he, how everything is lively and as full as
can be imagined. Christ, one not only that had done no sin, but that had not so much as known any sin, hath God made (not a sinner, but) sin itself; as in another place (not accursed, but) a curse itself; sin in respect of the guilt, a curse in respect of the punishment. And why this? To the end that we might be made (not righteous persons; that was not full enough, but) righteousness itself; and there
he stays not yet — and not every righteousness, but the very righteousness of God himself. What can be further said? What can be conceived more comfortable? To have him ours, not to make us righteous but to make us righteousness,
and that not any other but the righteousness of God ; the
wit of man can devise no more. And all to this end, that
we might see there belongeth a special Ecce to this name,
that there is more than ordinary comfort in it ; that therefore
we should be careful to honour him with it, and so call
him by it, Jehovah our righteousness.
There is no Christian man that will deny this name, but
will call Christ by it, and say of him that he is Jehova justitia
nostra, without taking a syllable or letter from it. But it is
not the syllables, but the sense that maketh the name. And
the sense is it we are to look unto; that we keep it entire in
sense as well as in sound, if we mean to preserve this name of
justitia nostra full and whole unto him. And as this is true,
so is it true likewise that even among Christians all take it
not in one sense ; but some, of a greater latitude than other.
There are that take it in that sense which the prophet Esay
hath set down: In Jehova justitia mea, that all our righteous
ness is in him, (Isaiah xlv. 24) ; and we to be found in him,
not having our own righteousness, but being made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor. v. 21.) There are some other, that though in one part of our righteousness thay take it in that sense, yet in another part they shrink it up, and in that make it but a proposition causal, and the interpretation thereof
to be, l from Jehova is my righteousness.' Which is true too,
whether we respect him as the cause exemplary, or pattern,
(for we are to be made conformable to the image of Christ); or whether we respect him as the cause efficient. This meaning then is true and good, but not full enough ; for either it taketh the name in sunder, and giveth him not all, but
a part of it alone, or else it maketh two senses, which may
not be allowed in one name.
"For the more plain conceiving of which point, we are to be put in mind that the true righteousness (as saith St. Paul) is not of man's device, but hath his witness from the law and the prophets ; which he there proceedeth to shew out of the
example first of Abraham and after of David. In the Scrip ture then there is a double righteousness set down; both in the Old and New Testament.
"In the Old, and in the very first place that righteousness is named in the Bible, Abraham believed, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness: a righteousness accounted. And again (in the very next line) it is mentioned, Abraham will teach his house to do righteousness: a righteousness done. In the New likewise. The former, in one chapter (even the fourth to the Eomans), no fewer than eleven times, Eeputatum est illi adjustitiam: a reputed righteousness. The latter in St. John: My beloved, let no man deceive you; he that doeth
righteousness is righteous: a righteousness done, which is nothing else but our own just dealing, upright carriage, honest conversation. Of these, the latter the philosophers themselves conceived and acknowledged; the other is proper
to Christians only, and altogether unknown in philosophy.
The one is a quality of the party; the other an act of the
judge declaring or pronouncing righteous : the one ours by
influence or infusion ; the other by account or imputation."
Then he proceeds from the context to fix upon the term
the forensic and imputative sense, and observes that the
tenor of the Scripture touching our justification all along
runneth in judicial terms to admonish us still what to set
before us. The usual joining of justice and judgment continually all along the Scriptures shew it is a judicial justice we are to set before us. The terms of a judge, It is the Lord that judgeth me, 1 Cor. iv. 4. A prison: kept and shut up
under Moses, Gal. iii. 23. A bar : We must all appear before the bar, 2 Cor. v. 10. A proclamation : Who will lay any thing to the prisoner's charge? Rom. viii. 33. An accuser: The accuser of our brethren, Eev. xii. 10. A witness : Our
conscience bearing witness, Horn. ii. 15. An indictment upon
these : Cursed is he that continueth not in all the words
of the law to do them, Deut. xxvii. 26. And again, He that
breaketh one is guilty of all, James ii. 10. A conviction:
That all may be guilty, or culpable, before God. Yea, the
very delivering of our sins under the name of debts; of the
law under the name of a handwriting; the very terms of an
advocate, 1 John ii. 2; of a surety made under the law;
of a pardon, or, being justified from those things which by
the law we could not; all these wherein for the most part
this is still expressed, what speak they but that the sense of
this name cannot rightly be understood, nor what manner
of righteousness is in question, except we still have before our
eyes this same cor am regejustojudiciumfaciente?
"For it is not in question, whether we have our inherent
righteousness or no, or whether God will accept it or reward
it, but whether that must be our righteousness coram rege
justo judicium faciente ; which is a point very material and in
nowise to be forgotten. For without this, if we compare our
selves with ourselves, what heretofore we have been, or, if we
compare ourselves with others, as did the Pharisee, we may
take a fancy perhaps, and have some good conceit of our
inherent righteousness. Yea, if we be to deal in schools by
argument or disputation, we may peradventure argue for it
and make some shew in the matter. But let us once be
wrought and arraigned coram rege justo sedente in solio, let us
set ourselves there, we shall then see that all our former con
ceit will vanish straight, and righteousness (in that sense) will
not abide the trial.
"Bring them hither then, and ask them here of this name,
and never a saint nor father, no, nor the schoolmen them
selves, none of them but will shew you how to understand it
aright. In their commentaries, it may be, in their questions
and debates they will hold hard for the other ; but remove it
lither, they forsake it presently, and take the name in the
right sense."
Then he adduces the examples of Job, David, Daniel,
[saiah, Paul, and amongst the fathers, of Ambrose, Augus
tine, and Bernard.
He then touches upon the devotional writings of the school
men, and the half admissions of Bellarmine and Stapleton,
conceding an imputation of the sufferings, but excluding the
imputation of the obedience, or as it is sometimes called, the
active righteousness of Christ.
Next he proceeds upon abstract grounds, the finite nature
of our righteousness, its disproportion to our infinite reward,
" especially if we add hereunto that as it cannot be denied but
to be finite, so withal, that the antient fathers seem further
to be but meanly conceited of it ; reckoning it notv to be full
but defective, not pure but defiled ; and if to be judged by
the just judge, districts, or cum districtione examinis (they be
St. Gregorie's and St. Bernard's words), indeed no righteous
ness at all." Here Bishop Andrewes adduces that remarkable
passage from St. Chrysostom, which Mr. Faber has also given
at full length in his work upon Justification, from his eleventh
homily on the second Epistle to the Corinthians, where that
father declares that a justifying righteousness must needs be
without spot, and that therefore the righteousness of God by
which we are justified is not of works but of grace.
Adducing an admission of Stapleton's, that our righteous
ness needs indulgence, he observes, ll Now indulgence (we
know) belongeth unto sin, and righteousness, if it be true,
needeth none."
Bellarmine is then shewn to destroy his own doctrine by
qualifying it first, and next by entirely setting it aside, which,
remarks our reverend preacher, "is enough to shew, when
they have forgot themselves a little out of the fervor of their
oppositions, how light and small account they make of it
themselves, for which they spoil Christ of one half of his
name."
Then he insists upon the jealousy of God in regard of this
name, that He will not give his glory to another. " As we are
justified in this name, so we are to glory in it, according to
the prophet. For this very purpose the apostle asks, where is
boasting then f as if he should admonish us, that this name
is given with express intent to exclude it from us and us
from it. And therefore in that very place where he saith, ' He
is made unto us from God righteousness,' to this end (saith
he) he is so made, ut qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur [that
he who glorieth might glory in the Lord]. All which I put
you in mind of to this end, that you may mark that this
nipping at this name of Christ is for no other reason but that
we may have some honour ourselves out of our righteousness."
Then he gives an instance of this in the confession of
Bellarmine, who makes justification to be on the title of merit,
because it is more honorable so to receive it than simply on
the title 6f inheritance ; " So that it seemeth he is resolved,
that rather than they will lose their honour, Christ must part
with a piece of his name, and be named Justitia nostra only
in the latter sense: which is it, the prophet after (in the
twenty-seventh verse of this chapter) setteth down as a mark
of false prophets; that by having a pleasant dream of their
own righteousness, they make God's people to forget his name ;
as indeed by this means this part of Christ's- name hath been
forgotten."
Such is the doctrine of good and learned Bishop Andrewes :
they must be blind indeed who see not at once how unlike
and opposed to the teaching of Mr. Newman and his ad
vocates, as also of Jeremy Taylor, Archbishop Sharpe, Bishop
Bull, Bishop Tomline, and others who have stumbled at this
stone, and have, with all their talents, only laboured to ob
scure that great and most essential article of Christian faith,
which our prelate, believing with his heart, knew so well
how to defend.
CHAPTER VII.
The election at Merchant Taylors' School, WQl—Andrewes is made
Dean of Westminster — His Sermon on giving to C(esar his due —
Oversees Westminster School — Preaches before the Queen for the last
time in 1602 — Coronation of King James — Sermon on the Plague,
1603 — He is at the Hampton-court Conference — Is appointed a
translator — His famous Good-Friday Sermon, 1604, and 1605 —
He is made Bishop of Chichester.
ON St. Barnabas-day, June 11, 1601, we find Dr. Andrewes,
with his old schoolmaster Mulcaster, and Dr. Goodman, dean
of Westminster, Dr. Hutchinson, president of St. John's
College, Oxford, Dr. Eoger Marbeck, and Sir Eobert Wroth,
knt., attending at the election and dinner at Merchant
Taylors' School. It was at this time that Dr. Andrewes
first patronised Matthew Wren, afterwards bishop of Norwich
and Ely. Wren was born in St. Peter's Eastcheap, 1585.
His father Francis was a citizen and mercer of London.
Wren lost his election to St. John's College, Oxford, upon
which Dr. Andrewes procured his admission at Pembroke
College, Cambridge, on the 23rd of the same month.
This election was the last public occasion at which Dr.
Goodman appeared. He died on June 17, and Andrewes
was appointed to succeed him as dean of Westminster July 4,
and Dr. Adrian Saravia was presented to the stall which
Andrewes vacated, and installed on July 5.
In this year the learned Andrew Willet, prebendary of
the fourth stall at Ely (July 22, 1584), in which he succeeded
his father, Thomas Willet, M.A., as he did also in the
rectory of Barley, Herts., was, amongst many excellent col
leagues (ten in number), of whom were Dr. Downame, bishop
of Derry (who wrote the most complete work that has ever
appeared upon Justification, and also a very learned and
elaborate work upon Antichrist), Dr. George Meriton (dean
of York in 1617) that famous preacher, and others of no
mean note, chosen to answer the Divinity Act in the Com
mencement House, Cambridge : ll An. 1601, Publicis Comitiis,
Eespondente Dre. Willet, Quasst.
" Peccatum sola causa damnationis.
" Decimse jure divino debentur."
Meriton, Downame, Milburne, &c., S.T.P., eodem anno."
Milburne was B.A. of Queens' College, Cambridge, 1581,
elected fellow July 7, 1582, before he had completed twelve
terms, and perhaps migrated from Trinity College. He was
made M.A. 1585, treasurer of the College, 1589. He was of
a Pembrokeshire family, but born in London and educated
at Westminster School. He was rector of Cheam in Surrey,
and of Sevenoaks in Kent in 1611, chaplain to prince Henry,
precentor of St. David's according to Anthony Wood, but
his name does not occur in Hardy's Le Neve's Fasti. On
the death of Dr. Thomas Blague (by a mistake in Hasted's
Kent said to have been master of Clare Hall) he was made
dean of Rochester 4th December 1611, and consecrated to the
see of St. David's by Abbot, assisted by Andrewes, King,
bishop of London, Buckeridge, bishop of Rochester, and
Overall, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, July 9th, 1615.
Thence he was translated to Carlisle on the death of Dr.
Robert Snowden, llth September, 1621. He died in 1624,
and was buried in the churchyard of Carlisle cathedral.
Richard Senhouse, dean of Gloucester, was his successor at
Carlisle, as Laud, a previous dean of Gloucester, had succeeded
him at St. David's.
In the llth volume of Bishop Andrewes' works, printed
at Oxford in 1854, is given for the first time, A Discourse
written by Doctor Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, against second
Marriage, after Sentence of Divorce with a former Match, the
party then living. In Anno 1601. Besides the two copies
in the British Museum (Birch MSS. 4149, art. 38, p. 320,
and Lansdowne MSS. 958) there is a third in the University
Library at Cambridge. This last has been marked probably
by its original owner as unworthy of Bishop Andrewes.
However, in the Articles of Visitation for the years 1619 and
1625, immediately following the Discourse, the question is
asked, "Do any being divorced or separated, marry again,
the former wife or husband yet living?" (p. 120.)
The author of the Discourse, after giving that interpretation
which is usually pleaded in behalf of this view to Matth. xix. 9,
Rom. vii. 2, and 1 Cor. vii. 11, alleges the 9th Canon of the
Council of Eliberis, the 17th Canon of the Council of Milevum,
Origen's 7th Homily upon St. Matthew, St. Jerome's Epistle
to Amandus (torn i. col. 296 A.), St. Ambrose on 1 Cor. vii.
(or rather Hilary the Deacon), Op. torn. ii. Append, col. 133,
the Epistle of Innocent I. to Exuperius (§ 6. Cone. torn. ii.
col. 1256 C.), and to St. Augustine de Adulterinis Conjugiis,
1. 2, c. 4.
The author, towards the conclusion, alleges that otherwise
an encouragement is held out to the adulterer, if he is at
liberty, having broken his vows, to marry again. He refers
to St. Jerome on Matth. xix. 9, and to St. Ambrose on
Luke xvi. 1, 8, § 4, though, observes the editor, the meaning
appears to be mistaken. The decision of the Reformers,
both English and Continental, was in favour of the validity
of the second marriage of the innocent and injured party after
divorce on the ground of adultery. The Eeformatio Legum,
a noble monument of the high spiritual aims and apostolic
simplicity of Cranmer and his associates in that great work,
permitted such marriages. That they but walked in the steps
of primitive antiquity is avouched by the authority of the
most learned and impartial student of the fathers whom the
present century has seen, the late bishop of Lincoln. In his very
valuable work upon Tertullian he observes, " that the Roman
Catholic notion of the indissolubility of marriage was then
unknown. Tertullian on all occasions affirms that it may be
dissolved on account of adultery: and though his peculiar
tenets would naturally lead him to deny to either party the
liberty of marrying again, yet he admits that such marriages
actually took place in the church."1
In 1821 was republished by the late munificent dean of
Westminster, Dr. Ireland, Nuptice Sacrce, or, an Enquiry into
the Scripture Doctrine of Marriage and Divorce, addressed to
the Two Houses of Parliament. First published in 1801, and
now reprinted by desire. In this very able and elaborate
treatise, its learned author traces this notion of the indis
solubility of marriage to the Shepherd of Hermas. For
the history of this apocryphal writing the reader may consult
the Dissertation of Ittigius de Patribus Apostolicis, § 55 — 65.
Ittigius is opposed to the opinion advocated in Dr. Burton's
Lectures,2 that the works bearing the name of Hermas were
written by a brother of Pius, bishop of Rome, in A.D. 141
or 142. The late venerable Dr. Routh observes its con
demnation by all the Councils of the Catholic Church, as
affirmed by Tertullian de Pudicitid, c. 16. See Routh's
Scriptorum Eccles. Opusc. torn. i. p. 176, Oxon. 1832, and
'Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, 3rd ed. p. 242.
A second marriage, upon divorce on account of adultery,
was allowed the innocent party to the time of archbishop
Bancroft, who was swayed by some divines in the opposite
direction. Amongst these perhaps was Edmund Bunney,
who wrote very zealously against such marriages, but did
not make good his claim to the general authority of the
fathers on his side. This Edmund Bunney added the
arguments of the books and chapters to the London edition
of Calvin's Institutes in 1576. He was, like Bernard Gilpin
the apostle of the north, an indefatigable preacher, travelling
about the north of England to supply as far as possible
the then great lack of preachers. He was B.D. and fellow of
Merton College, Oxford, rector of Bolton Percy, prebendary
of Oxgate in St. Paul's, March 20, 1564, subdean of York
1570 ; he resigned the subdeanery in 1575, and was made
prebendary of Wistow in St. Peter's, York, October 21, 1575.
On July 2, 1585, he was admitted to the first stall in Carlisle,
which he resigned in 1603. The village of Bunney, seven
miles south-east of Nottingham, took its name from his
family. He sometime before his death, which occurred
Feb. 6, 1612, gave up his paternal inheritance to his brother
Richard. His effigy and monument are against the wall of
the south aisle of the choir in York-minster, near the monu
ment of archbishop Lamplugh.
But by far the most learned treatise that has appeared
upon this subject, is the posthumous work of that prodigy
of learning, Dr. John Rainolds, sometime dean of Lincoln
and afterward president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford,
in the reign of James the First. There antiquity is clearly
shewn to be far more in favour of the permission of a second
marriage after divorce on the ground of adultery than against it.
Heylyn, in his Life of Laud, calls the prohibiting of such
marriages the Romish doctrine. The Greek Church has
on the other hand always allowed them.
Of the authorities cited in the Discourse ascribed to An-
drewes, the Council of Eliberis forbids the remarriage of the wo
man, but makes no mention of the man. Origen, in Tract. 7 in
c. 19 MattL, spoke of divorces not granted for adultery, but for
lighter reasons after the custom of the Jews : St. Jerome, with
Athenagoras and the so-called Apostolical Constitutions, con
demned all second marriages : St. Ambrose, on Luke xvi., did
not refer to these marriages, but reproved men for marrying
after they had put away their chaste wives : St. Augustine
himself, in his Retractations, acknowledged his partial dis
satisfaction with what he had previously advanced upon this
subject : ' Scripsi duos libros de conjugiis adulterinis, quan
tum potui secundum scripturas, cupiens solvere difficillimam
qusestionem. Quod utrum enodatissime fecerim nescio, imb
verb non me pervenisse ad hujus rei perfectionem sentio,
quamvis multos sinus ejus aperuerim, quod judicare poterit
quisquis intelligenter legit.' (1. 2, p. 83. Lugd. 1563.)
To this should be added his concession in his book De Fide
et Operibus, c. 19, p. 98, torn. iv. Et in ipsis divinis sententiis
ita obscurum esty utrum et iste cui quidem sine dubio adulterant,
licet dimittere, adulter tamen habeatur si alteram duxeritj ut
quantum existimo, venialiter ibi quisque fallatur '.
It should be borne in mind that for a long time in the
Western church, where Scripture was regarded as leaving
every liberty of opinion, there St. Augustine's opinion was
received as the rule.
St. Chrysostom is plain for the dissolubility of marriage,
Horn. 19, in 1 Cor. 7 : tl The marriage is dissolved by fornica
tion, neither is the husband a husband any longer." This
testimony is allowed by Covarruvias in 4 1. Decretal, Part 2,
c. 7, D 6.
Theophylact, on St. Luke c. xvi., says expressly that our
Lord's words here must be supplied from St. Matthew.
Bellarmine has recourse to a chapter fathered on the
Council of Basle by Pope Eugenius IY. St. Basil's Canons
9 and 21, approved by General Councils (Cone, in Trullo,
Canon 2), authorize the man to marry again after divorce
from an adulterous wife, and check the custom that would
forbid the same liberty to a woman divorced from an adult
erous husband.
The reader may find many other authorities in Dr. Kai-
nolds ; he may also consult the 14th chapter of the seventh
book of the Theologia Moralis of Dr. John Forbes, and the
2nd chapter of the third part of the second book of Dr.
John Gerhard's Confessio Catholica.
On November 15th the Dean of Westminster preached at
Whitehall, upon giving to Caesar his due, instancing out of
both the Old and New Testament the duty of obedience to
princes be they good or bad ; for it is not to Tiberius but to
Cassar that the tribute is due, (not to the person but to the
office). The gospel recognizes the doctrine that every man
must regard his property as belonging of right to God and to
Csesar, himself being interested in it but as a third person •
a doctrine consonant enough to reason and revelation, but
not very acceptable to the philosophy of covetousness, which
would misrepresent it as subversive of the laws of property,
whereas it is the only true foundation of them. Certain
it is that in proportion to the prevalence of more selfish
principles, property has been rendered insecure by the natural
revulsion that always follows the oppression of covetousness.
Whilst dean of Westminster, Dr. Andrewes frequently
superintended the school in person ; but bishop Hacket shall
relate in his own words the sedulousness with which he
fostered that school, and the delight which he took in en
couraging the studious. In his Life of Archbishop Williams
Hacket says : " He had heard much what pains Dr. Andrewes
did take both day and night to train up the youth bred
in the public school, chiefly the alumni of the college so
called. For more certain information he (Williams) called
me from Cambridge, in the May before he was installed,
to the house of his dear cousin Mr. Elwes Winn in Chancery-
lane, a clerk of the Petty Bag, a man of the most general
and gracious acquaintance with all the great ones of the land
that ever I knew. There he moved his questions to me
about the discipline of Dr. Andrewes. I told him how strict
that excellent man was to charge our masters that they
should give us lessons out of none but the most classical
authors ; that he did often supply the place both of the head-
schoolmaster and usher for the space of an whole week
together, and gave us not an hour of loitering time from
morning to night : how he caused our exercises in prose and
verse to be brought to him, to examine our style and pro
ficiency ; that he never walked to Chiswick for his recreation
without a brace of this young fry; and in that wayfaring
leisure had a singular dexterity to fill those narrow vessels
with a funnel. And, which was the greatest burden of
his toil, sometimes thrice in a week, sometimes oftener,
he sent for the uppermost scholars to his lodgings at night,
and kept them with him from eight till eleven, unfolding
to them the best rudiments of the Greek tongue and the
elements of the Hebrew grammar; and all this he did to boys
without any compulsion of correction, nay, I never heard
him utter so much as a word of austerity among us."
Hacket adds, after a rapturous eulogy, that this good
and great prelate was the first that planted him in his tender
studies, and watered them continually with his bounty. It
is recorded of Duppa, bishop of Winchester, on his monument
in Westminster Abbey, that he learnt Hebrew of Lancelot
Andrewes, at that time dean. Dr. David Stokes was also
at Westminster School at this time.
On Ash- Wednesday, 1602, dean Andrewes preached be
fore the queen at Whitehall, February 17, from Jer. viii. 4 — 7,
a very ingenious and forcible sermon against neglecting and
delaying of repentance. Towards the conclusion he notes
how the very season of Lent, coming earlier in the year,
is an intimation of the duty of an early return to God.
On St. Barnabas' Day, June 11, we find him, with his
old schoolmaster Mulcaster and Dr. Friar, as an examiner
at Merchant Taylors' School.
On Thursday, March 24, 1603, died queen Elizabeth,
the prosperity of whose reign, the wisdom of whose councillors,
the security of whose subjects raised her memory upon an
imperishable basis, and deeply rooted her name in the affections of all ranks. Her remains were followed to the tomb
by fifteen hundred persons in deep mourning, and this a
voluntary attendance. Fuller observes, that most of the
London and many of the country churches had pictures or
models of her tomb. Under these were inscriptions which
may be seen in Stow's Survey of London.
On St. James's Day, July 25, Dr. Andrewes, as dean,
assisted at the coronation of king James. The plague was
meanwhile raging in London, and carried away thirty thou
sand inhabitants. Andrewes probably retired to Chiswick
to the prebendal house, and preached in the church there on
August 24, from Psalm cvi. 29, 30. Very excellently does
he urge that if not a sparrow falleth to the ground without
our heavenly Father, much less can such a visitation as
the plague be attributed to chance. He inveighs against
inventions in religion, and new modes of luxury in common
life. He enumerates the causes of plagues (or sicknesses)
mentioned in Holy Writ, namely, fornication, the sin of Peor;
pride, the sin of David;1 blasphemy, the sin of Balshakeh ;
and neglect and profanation of the Sacrament, the sin of the
Corinthians. Some in our day have, amidst their other
superstitious scruples (unscrupulous enough in points of
greater moment) been forward to censure the common appli
cation of this term 'the Sacrament' to the holy Eucharist.
Nevertheless we here find one, who is a giant in comparison
of them all, using the term without hesitation, as being
in truth not likely to lead men into error, nor inappropriate
to that sacrament which is confessedly the highest part of
Christian worship.
On the 26th of August he was put in a commission with Dr.
Eichard Field, archbishop Whitgift, the earl of Nottingham,
many of her ministers were eminently distinguished. In every season of alarm
and danger, the greatness of her mind and the dignity of her character were
strikingly displayed ; and although she ruled with absolute sway, — although she
pressed severely upon some of her conscientious subjects, who could not conform
to the ceremonies which she introduced, or which she retained in the services of
the Church, she was beheld with veneration by her people, and regarded
throughout Europe as the strenuous defender of the Protestant faith." — Dr.
Cooke's Hist, of the Church of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 128. Edinb. 1815.
1 2 Sam. c. xxiv.
Lord Admiral, the bishop of Winchester, Sir John Herbert,
Knt, Second Secretary, Sir Thomas West, Knt, Sir Julius
Caesar, Knt., a master of Requests, Sir David Dunn, Knt.,
also a master of Requests, Sir Thomas Fleming, Knt., solicitor,
Sir Edward and Sir George Moore, Sir Richard Mill, Sir
Richard Norton, Sir William Uvedale, Sir Benjamin Tytch-
borne, Knts., the Chancellor of the bishop of Winchester,
the Dean and Archdeacon, and others, for visiting the diocese
of Winchester for the punishment of recusancy, nonconformity,
fornication, adultery, misbehaviour in the church or church
yards, &c., &c.
On Saturday, January 14, 1604, he was appointed to be
present at the Hampton-court Conference, held between the
Conformists and the Puritans. The dean of the chapel, Dr.
Montague, also dean of Worcester (afterwards bishop of Bath
and Wells and then of Winchester), Dr. Thomas Ravis, dean
of Christchurch (afterwards bishop of London), Dr. Overall,
dean of St. Paul's (afterwards bishop of Norwich), Dr. Barlow,
Dr. Bridges, dean of Sarum, and Dr. Giles Thompson, dean
of Windsor (afterwards bishop of Gloucester), were summoned
with Andrewes, and were in the presence-chamber ; but only
Montague, dean of the chapel, Andrewes, Overall, Barlow and
Bridges were called in on the first day. Andrewes does not
appear to have taken any part, except that on the second day,
Monday the 16th, upon the king's making inquiry into the
antiquity of the use of the cross in baptism, Andrewes made
answer, " It appears out of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen,
that it was used in immortali lavacro".
This conference was followed by the appointment of a Com
mittee who were entrusted with the preparing the present
version of the Scriptures. Both Dr. Andrewes and his brother
Roger, a fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge, were ap
pointed translators, and besides Andrewes, four other Merchant
Taylors, Tomson, dean of Gloucester, Perin, who on November 24th was made a canon of Christchurch, Dr. Ravens, vicar of Dunmow, Essex, and Spenser, chaplain to the king,
and (on the death of the very learned Dr. Kainolds) president
of Corpus Christ! College, Oxford, and also a fellow of the
Koyal Controversial College of Chelsea. Andrewes was in that
division to which was allotted the Old Testament from Genesis
to the end of the books of Kings. Previously to the appoint
ment of the Committee of Translators, Dr. Andrewes discovered
his wonderful eloquence to the king by a sermon such as hath
never been equalled in an age of greater fastidiousness but
not of greater strength.
On Good Friday, April 6th, he preached before him at
Whitehall, from Lam. i. 12, Have ye no regard, 0 all ye that
pass ~by the way ? . Consider and behold, if ever there were
sorrow Wee my sorrow, which was done unto me, wherewith the
Lord did afflict me in the day of the fierceness of his wrath f
If any discourse could ever be said to be at all worthy of the
subject, the unspeakable mystery of the love of Christ in our
redemption, this is it. Bishop Home, a great admirer of our
prelate, but not for a moment to be put in comparison with
him, is said to have delighted in using the substance of, or
preaching this sermon in a more modern style ; but indeed the
great simplicity of Bishop Andrewes is amongst his greatest
perfections. Bishop Home was too ornate and polished to be
powerful, but to Andrewes both the king and the peasant
might have listened with unequal, but both with great profit.
This passage in Lamentations, and that of Hosea, Out of
Egypt have I called my Son, with many more of the like kind,
he regarded as typical, and most perfectly applicable to our
Saviour ; a rule in accordance with the spirit of scripture and
Christian antiquity, and that tends to the more complete
understanding of the scripture testimony to Christ— an inter
nal evidence of its correctness.
In regard of the sermon itself, it is a very full and glowing
declaration of the great doctrine of our redemption accom
plished in that day of the wrath of God when the innocent
suffered for the guilty, the lamb as a sacrifice, who could not
justly suffer merely as a lamb.
"The cause then in God was wrath. What caused this
wroth? God is not wroth but with sin ; nor grievously wroth
but with grievous sin. And in Christ there was no grievous
sin, nay, no sin at all. God did it (the text is plain), and in
his fierce wrath he did it. For what cause ? For God forbid
God should do as did Annas the high-priest, cause him to be
smitten without cause. God forbid (saith Abraham) the Judge
of the world should do wrong to any ; to any, but specially to
his own Son, that his Son of whom, with thundering voice
from heaven, he testifieth all his joy and delight were in him,
in him only he was well pleased. And how then could his
wrath wax hot, to do all this unto him?
" There is no way to preserve God's justice and Christ's
innocency both, but to say as the angel said of him to the
prophet Daniel, The Messiah shall be slain, Vb^NI ve-en-lo ;
shall be slain, but not for himself. Not for himself? for
whom then? For some others. He took upon him the
person of others ; and so doing, justice may have her course
and proceed.
" Pity it is, to see a man pay that he never took : but
if he will become a surety, if he will take on him the person
of the debtor, so he must. Pity to see a silly poor lamb
be bleeding to death, but if it must be a sacrifice (such
is the nature of a sacrifice) so it must. And so Christ,
though without sin in himself, yet, as a surety, as a sacrifice,
may justly suffer for others, if he will take upon him their
persons; and so God may justly give way to his wrath
against him.
"And who be those others? The prophet Esay telleth
us, and telleth us seven times over for failing : He took upon
him our infirmities, and bare our maladies : He was wounded
for our iniquities, and broken for our transgressions. The
chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes
were we healed. All ive as sheep were gone astray, and turned
every man to his own way : and the Lord hath laid upon him
the iniquity of us all. All, all ; even those that pass to and
fro, and for all this, regard neither him nor his passion."*
The king was from the very first anxious to effect a legis
lative union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and England.
But the jealousy that arose in consequence of the king's
partiality for his Scottish courtiers defeated his intentions,
intentions that were commended to the consideration of
Parliament as early as May 19, 1603, soon after his accession.
We find his very learned and excellent kinsman John
Gordon, of the noble house of Huntley, and whom he had
made dean of Sarum in the preceding February, preaching
before him at Whitehall on the 28th of October, the 21st
Sunday after Trinity (the 7th Nov. N. s.) in favour of the
Union of Great Britain. This sermon is entitled, Henoticon,
or, A Sermon of the Union of Great Brittannie, in antiquitie
of language, name, religion, and kingdom. It was printed
by Geo. Bishop, London, 1604. This sermon, consisting
of above fifty pages, is written in an excellent style, simple,
clear, and vigorous, full of sound maxims and sound theology,
and abundantly illustrated by examples from history, both
civil and ecclesiastical. We are not to look indeed for
critical acumen. The legendary account of Joseph of Ari-
mathea, and the sway of Lucius over the whole of Britain,
are introduced into his account of our early Christianity.
For his notices of the dispersion of mankind after the flood
he refers to the Anchoratus of Epiphanius* a work the
principal object of which was indeed to set forth the doctrine
of our Lord's divinity against the Arians, and of the Holy
Ghost against the Macedonians. Gordon shewed how Divine
Providence ever favoured those kingdoms that discountenanced
idolatry and maintained the true worship of God. He
unreservedly condemned the Romish worship of the host
and of images as Gentilism under the profession of Christi
anity. He had in the preceding year, 1603, written : Asser-
tiones theological pro verd verce ecclesice nota, quce est solius
Dei adoratio, contra falsce ecclesice Creaturarum Adorationem.
Theological Theses in maintenance of a true mark of a true
Church, namely, the worship of God alone, against the false
Churctis adoration of the Creatures. Rupell, 1603, 8vo.
Gordon was of Balliol College, Oxford, but had first received
a very extensive education both in Scotland and France,
and especially in the Eastern languages. He derived the
names of Britain, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland from the
Hebrew, and commented upon them accordingly in his sermon
upon Union. He had been gentleman of three Kings' cham
bers in France, namely, Charles IX., Henry III. and IV. ;
and, adds Anthony Wood, " whilst he was in the flower
of his age he was there assailed with many corruptions as
well spiritual as temporal, and in many dangers of his life,
which God did miraculously deliver him from. At length
K. James the first of England did call him into England,
and to the holy ministry, he being then 58 years of age,
and upon the promotion of Dr. John Bridges to the see
of Oxon in the latter end of 1603, he made him Dean of
Salisbury in February 1604."1 Lord-Chancellor Egerton
gave him, in June 1608, the rectory of Upton Lovel near
Heytesbury, close by the road to Salisbury.
On the following Good-Friday, March 29, 1605, Dean
Andrewes preached before the King at Greenwich, from
Heb. xii. 2. It is difficult to say which is the more in
comparable of his three Good-Friday sermons. In this there
is not a sentence that could be spared, there is not a passage
but deserves to be studied. Truly did he live in the con
templation of his heavenly Master's love and in the view
of his cross; of looking to which he saith here, "blessed are
the hours that are so spent." The reading of these pages
makes us regret the loss of those discourses which he most
probably delivered either in his college chapel or his abbey
church at Westminster upon Christmas and Easter Day.
For truly St. Chrysostom himself was, in naturalness and
in setting forth the love of Christ, nay altogether as a divine,
far his inferior. Here we have not the undue austerity of
that age, not the unmeaning pomp of words, not the occasional
bursting forth of Christian light ; but the heart speaks from its
fulness, of that love which passeth knowledge, which despised
both pain and shame, which bowed itself to the death of
a slave, a malefactor, a derided person. Here both our love
and hope are fed; as he himself saith, "if either of these
will serve us, will prevail to move us, here it is. Here is
love, love in the cross ; who loved us and gave himself for us
a sacrifice on the cross. Here is hope, hope in the throne :
To him that overcometh will I give to sit with me in my throne.
If our eye be a mother s eye, here is love worth the looking
on. If our eye be a merchant's eye, here is hope worth
the looking after. I know it is true, that verus amor vires
non sumit de spe. (It is Bernard.) Love, if it be true indeed,
as in the mother, receiveth no manner of strength from hope.
Ours is not such, but faint and feeble and full of imperfection :
here is hope therefore to strengthen our weak knees, that
we may run the more readily to the high prize of our calling.
Early in the reign of James the plague broke out in
Oxford, so that although he received Dr. Abbot, Master of
University College and Dean of Winchester, Vicechancellor
of the university, with the proctors (of whom Laud was one)
and several doctors and other members of the university
at Woodstock, in September, he did not then venture to visit
Oxford. He was presented with the Holy Scriptures in the
name of the university, and then promised that when the
plague had abated he would visit the university.
The King however resolved on visiting the university
in August 1606, taking in his way Havering-atte-bower to
the north of Eomford, where he remained two nights, July,
Tuesday 16th and Wednesday the 17th. This Havering
had been a royal seat from the reign of Edward the Confessor,
and was frequently visited by his illustrious predecessor
Elizabeth. Thence he proceeded to Loughton Hall, westward
below the east side of Epping Forest, another resort of the
late Queen. On Saturday the 20th, the King came to the
Earl of Salisbury at Theobald's, a little to the west of Wal-
tham Abbey. Here he and the Queen remained three days.
Theobald's had been the seat of the great Lord Burleigh, where
he was often visited by Queen Elizabeth. James received it of
the Earl of Salisbury in exchange for Hatfield, frequently re
tired hither, and in 1625 here breathed his last. Charles I.
sometimes came to this place, and in 1642 the petition of both
houses of parliament was presented to him here ; and hence
he withdrew to put himself at the head of his army. During
the commonwealth the greater part was taken down, and sold
to pay the troops. James II. greatly enlarged the park.
In 1689 it was given by William III. to the Earl of Portland,
whose descendants sold it in 1702 to Mr. Prescot. Every
vestige of the ancient palace was removed in 1765, and
a new house erected about a mile from the site.
On Tuesday the 23rd, the King and Queen went to
Hatfield palace, where they stayed three days. Here the
Bishops of Ely had formerly a palace, which was conveyed
to Queen Elizabeth by Bishop Cox. James, in the fourth
year of his reign, exchanged it for Theobald's with Sir Eobert
Cecil, whom he had in 1603 made Baron of Essendine in
Rutlandshire, and in 1604 Viscount Cranborne in Dorsetshire,
and whom, on May 4, 1605, he raised to be Earl of Salisbury.
He erected the present noble mansion. Hence he went one
day to visit Sir Goddard Pemberton at Hertford Bury, of
an ancient family in Lancashire, and, some years after, sheriff
for Hertfordshire.
On Friday the 26th, the king visited Mr. Sandy, afterward
Napier, whom in 1612 he made a baronet. He had purchased
about this time the capital manor of Luton, with the fine
seat and park there called Luton Hoo, from the ancient
family of Hoo, and which since came into the hands of the
Marquis of Bute. The Queen went to Sir John Kotheram's,
a mansion on Farley Green in the parish of Luton. At Mr.
Sandy's Sir George Peryam, of Oxfordshire, received the
honour of knighthood. On the same day, Thursday the
27th, the King proceeded to Houghton Bury in the parish
of Houghton Conquest, the seat of Sir Edward Conquest,
by whom he was entertained five days. The little that now
remains of the mansion is a farm-house of brick and timber.
The male line of this family became extinct in Benedict
Conquest, esq., father of Lady Arundel (1828). The manor
was purchased by the Earl of Upper Ossory in 1741.
The Queen was entertained by Sir Robert Newdigate at
Hawnes. The house has been modernised and mostly rebuilt
by Lord Carteret, whose family has possessed the manor from
1667. Sir Roger Newdigate, the last who bore the title,
died in 1806, leaving by his will the annual prize at Oxford
for the best English verses on ancient sculpture, or painting,
or architecture.
On the 28th, it being the feast day at Houghton, the King
with his court, consisting of the Duke of Lenox, the Earls
of Northampton, Suffolk, Salisbury, Devonshire, and Pem
broke, the Lords Knowles, Wotton, and Stanhope, and Dr.
Watson Bishop of Chichester, his almoner, attended divine
service at the parish church.
On the 30th the King visited the Queen at Hawnes, and
there attended divine service. The rector of Houghton
Conquest, the Rev. Thomas Archer, preached from the Song
of Solomon, ii. 15, Take us the foxes, the little foxes which
destroy the grapes, for our vines have small grapes. Some
of his MSS. (and amongst them this sermon) were in the
possession of a late rector, Dr. Pearce, Dean of Ely and
Master of Jesus College, Cambridge. Archer was immediately
sworn one of the King's chaplains in ordinary.
During this visit the King devoted himself to his favourite
field sports in the parks of Houghton and Ampthill.
On Thursday, August 1st, the King went from Houghton
to Thurleigh, the seat of Sir Wm. Hervey, between Bletsoe
to the west and Bolnhurst to the east, above Bedford. He
had amply deserved the honours to which he afterwards rose,
by numerous acts of unparalleled valour in the memorable
1588, and on many subsequent occasions. He had been
knighted by Queen Elizabeth, and was made a baronet by
James, May 13, 1619, and in 1620 Lord Eoss in the county
of Wexford, and finally by Charles I. a baron of this realm
by the title of Lord Hervey of Kidbrook in Kent, February 7,
1628. His title became extinct on his death in 1642. He
was buried, July 8th, in Westminster Abbey with great
solemnity.
On the same Thursday, August 1st, the Queen went
from Hawnes to the seat of Oliver third Lord St. John at
Bletsoe, "the residence in times past of the Pateshulls,
after of the Beauchamps, and now of the honourable family
of St. John (1610), which long since by their valour attained
unto very large and goodly possessions in Glamorganshire,
and in our days," says the more ancient editor of Camden,
" through the favour of Q. Elizabeth of happy memory, unto
the dignity of barons, when she created Sir Oliver, the second
baron of her creation, Lord St. John of Bletnesho, unto
whom it came by Margaret Beauchamp on inheritance, wedded
first to Sir Oliver St. John, from whom these barons derive
their pedigree, and secondly to John duke of Somerset, unto
whom she bare the Lady Margaret Countess of Kichmond,
a lady most virtuous and always to be remembered with
praises; from whose loins the late Kings and Queens of
England are descended." At Bletsoe, overlooking a country
of considerable extent to the south around and beyond
Bedford, was Lady Margaret the mother of Henry VII. born.
Vestiges of the old castellated mansion were discernible some
years ago near a farm-house, the remains of the more modern
quadrangular mansion of the St. John's. This family held
lands in Oxfordshire in the reign of Henry I.
Oliver the third Lord, who had the honour of entertaining
the king, succeeded to the title in 1596, and died in 1613.
His son Oliver, the fourth baron, was in 1624 advanced
to the title of Earl of Bolingbroke. The earldom became
extinct in 1711. The barony devolved to the posterity of
Sir Kowland St. John, a younger son of Oliver the third
baron. But the family residence is a few miles northward near
Eisely at Melchbourn. In the north aisle of the venerable
and cruciform church of Bletsoe, which is the burial-place
of the noble family of St. John, is a monument with the
effigies of a knight in armour, with his lady, intended for
Sir John St. John, father of Oliver the first Lord. This son
was created Lord St. John Jan. 13, 1559. His father married
Margaret daughter of Sir William Waldegrave, of a noble
Saxon family, and by her had two daughters, Margaret who
was married to Francis second Earl of Bedford, one of the
greatest ornaments of his house.
On Saturday the 3rd of August, the King and Queen
were received for three days, at the noble mansion of Drayton
to the west of Daventry on the borders of Northamptonshire,
by Henry Lord Mordaunt. His son was created Earl of
Peterborough in 1628. On the following Tuesday the 6th,
the King, accompanied by the Queen, renewed the pleasure
he had received on his former visit to Sir Anthony (son to
Sir Walter Mildmay the founder of Emmanuel College, Cam
bridge,) at Apthorp, where he had dined in April 1603,
on his way from Scotland to London.
Apthorp is in the neighbourhood of Kingscliffe, the resi
dence for some months of the truly venerable Archdeacon
of Lincoln, the early friend of the late ever to be revered
Bishop of that see, Dr. Kaye.
Sir Walter Mildmay has been very gratefully memorialized
by the eccentric but kind-hearted George Dyer, himself
of Emmanuel College, in his interesting History of the
University of Cambridge.
Sir Walter, fifth son of Thomas Mildmay of Little Baddow
below Chelmsford, was a student of Christ's College. Fuller
observes of him, tl Sir Robert Naunton, in his Fragmenta
Regalia, did leave as well as take, omitting some statesmen
of the first magnitude, no less valued by than useful to Queen
Elizabeth, as appears by his not mentioning of this worthy
knight. True it is, toward the end of his days he fell into
the Queen's disfavour, not by his own demerit, but the envy
of his adversaries. For he being employed by virtue of his
place to advance the Queen's treasure, did it industriously,
faithfully, and conscionably, without wronging the subject,
being very tender of their privileges, insomuch that he once
complained in Parliament that many subsidies were granted,
and no grievances redressed. Which words being represented
with his disadvantage to the Queen, made her to disafFect
him, setting in a court cloud, but in the sunshine of his
countiy and a clear conscience."
" Coming to court after he had founded his college,"
(1584) the Queen told him, tf Sir Walter, I hear that you
have erected a Puritan foundation." " No, Madam," saith he,
" far be it from me to countenance anything contrary to your
established laws; but I have set an acorn, which when it
becomes an oak, God alone knows what will be the fruit
thereof." « Sure I am at this day," adds Fuller (1634), " it
hath overshadowed all the University, more than a moiety
of the present Masters of Colleges being bred therein."
Sir Anthony was son to Sir Walter. He was knighted
by Queen Elizabeth and sent over to France on an embassy
to Henry IV. in 1596. " He was at Geneva," says Fuller,
" when Theodore Beza their minister was convened before
their consistory and publicly checked for preaching too elo
quently : he pleaded that what they called eloquence in him
was not affected but natural, and promised to endeavour more
plainness for the future. Sir Anthony, by Grace coheir to Sir
Henry Sherington, had one daughter Mary, married to Sir
Francis Fane, afterwards earl of Westmoreland."
In Apthorp chapel, within Nassington park, both Sir
Anthony and his lady Grace, " one of the coheirs of Sir Henry
Sherington, knt., of Lacock in the county of Wilts, who
lived fifty years married to him, and three years a widow
after him," lie buried. He died September llth, 1617, and
his lady Grace July 27th, 1620.
The present mansion, the seat of the Earl of Westmoreland,
is neatly built of freestone, and consists of a quadrangle with
open cloisters. On the south side is a stone statue of James L,
who gave the timber for building the east and south sides.
There are chambers still called the King's and the Duke's
chamber. Among several good portraits are a quarter piece
by Vandyke, in the king's chamber, of the first Earl of West
moreland, and a full-length portrait of Frances Howard,
Duchess of Richmond and Lenox, daughter to Thomas Lord
Howard of Bindon. In the ceiling are the arms, crest, and
supporters of England in fretwork. On the staircase is a full-
length portrait of James, created Duke of Richmond in 1641,
May 8th, the faithful friend of Dr. Thomas Fuller, and a
faithful servant of Charles I., at whose interment at Windsor
he was present. Here are also portraits of the Mildmay
family here mentioned, and of Philip and Mary, supposed
to have been painted by Holbein.
The King, after enjoying his favourite sport around Ap-
thorp, went on Friday the 9th to Rockingham Castle, the
mansion of Sir Edward Watson, and the Queen to Kirby,
the seat of Sir Christopher Hatton, in the parishes of Gretton
and Bulwick, thus going southward on their way to Oxford.
Sir Edward Watson had been high-sheriff of Northampton
shire in 1591, and was knighted by the King at the Charter
house May 12, 1603. He died in 1617. The mansion and
castle are now the property of Lord Sondes, descended of Lady
Margaret, youngest daughter of Sir Edward's son, Sir Lewis
the first Earl Rockingham.
Kirby, the seat of Sir Christopher, a godson of the Lord-
chancellor Hatton, was celebrated for its gardens. Sir Chris
topher sold Holdenby to the King in 1608, resided at Kirby,
and died in 1619.
On Monday the 12th August, the King and Queen visited
Mr. Edward, brother of Sir Thomas Griffin, at Braybrooke
Castle. Scarcely any remains of the castle now exist. On
the death of Sir Thomas in 1615, he succeeded to the family
estates at Braybrooke and Dingley. His son Edward was
created Lord Griffin of Braybrooke by James II. in 1688.
The title became extinct in 1742, but revived August 3rd,
1784, in favour of John, son of Anne, sister of the last Lord.
He took the title of Lord Howard of Walden. The title
of Baron of Braybrooke was revived September 5th, 1788,
in the person of Richard Neville Aid worth, esq., on the death
of John Lord Howard of Walden. He was descended from
the ancient family of Aldworth1 of Stanlakes in Berkshire,
and in the female line from the Nevilles of Billingbear near
B infield in Berkshire, contiguous to which is the park with
the old mansion of the Lords Braybrooke.
In the afternoon their Majesties left Braybrooke Castle for
Harrowden, the seat of Lord Vaux, some miles to the south
west of Braybrooke Castle, and about two miles above Well-
ingborough. The ancient manor-house has long been de
molished. Edward the fourth Lord Vaux succeeded his
grandfather William in 1595. The first Lord was Sir Nicholas
Vaux, captain of Guisnes in Picardy, created by Henry VIII.
Lord Vaulx of Harrowden.
On Tuesday the 13th, the king and queen visited Castle
Ashby, the princely seat of Lord Compton,4 a little to the north
of the road from Northampton to Bedford. The old mansion
was enlarged in the seventeenth century under the direction
of the famous Inigo Jones. Within the stone balustrade is
wrought in open-work in Latin, Except the Lord build the
housej they labour in vain that build it.
Here they remained until Friday the 16th, when the King
proceeded to Grafton Lodge, then an honour of the King's,
but in the fifteenth century the mansion of the Widvilles or
Woodvilles. It was once the residence of the renowned
George Clifford, Earl of Cumberland. This heroic and dis
interested nobleman died October 30 this same year. But
little remains of this venerable mansion.
The Queen on the same day went to Alderton, which was
annexed to the manor of Grafton. In the reign of Queen
Elizabeth it was in the hands of William Gorges, esq., who,
dying without issue in 1589, left it to Frances, his only
daughter and heir, the wife of Thomas Heselrige, esq.
William, the Queen's host, was the son of Sir Thomas, who
had been knighted by Queen Elizabeth in 1577, and died in
1600. The son entertained the King at Alderton in August
1608, when he was knighted. He was sheriff for Leicester
shire in 1613, knight of the shire in 1614 and 1623, and was
created a baronet July 21, 1622. He died January 11, 1629,
aged 66.
On Tuesday the 20th, the King and Queen passing west
ward into Oxfordshire came to Hanwell, within four miles of
Banbury, the seat of Sir Anthony Cope, now, like so many
more of the mansions they visited, reduced to a shadow of its
former greatness. Sir Anthony, who had been knighted by
Elizabeth, is said to have been a mirror of integrity and
hospitality. His first wife was Frances, daughter of Sir
Kowland Litton of Herts. This family, becoming connected
with Hampshire in the last century, was seated at Bramshill
Park in that county, where the upright Primate Abbot met
with that unhappy casualty, July 24, 1621, whilst on a visit
there to Lord Zouch.
On the same day the King visited Sir William Pope of
Wilcote, at Wroxton Park, about a mile nearer Banbury,
"probably," says Warton, "in the old abbey house, where
he entertained the King with the fashionable and courtly
diversions of hawking and bearbating. As the King was on
a visit to Sir Thomas Watton at Halsted in Kent, near
Sevenoaks, his granddaughter Anne1 was presented to the
King, holding the following humorous epigram in her hand,
with which his Majesty was highly pleased.
See this little mistress here
Did never sit in Peter's chair,
Or a triple crown did wear,
And yet she is a POPE.
No benefice she ever sold,
Nor did dispense with sins for gold;
She hardly is a sevennight old,
And yet she is a POPE.
No King her feet did ever kiss,
Or had from her worse look than this ;
Nor did she ever hope
To saint one with a rope,2
And yet she is a POPE.
A female Pope you'll say; a second Joan.
No, sure; she is Pope Innocent, or none.
It is supposed, says Warton in his Life of Pope, to have
been written by Kichard Corbet, then a student at Christ-
church, afterwards Bishop of Norwich. His poems, with a life
of him prefixed, were edited with many additions by Octavius
Gilclirist in 1807.
Wroxton Abbey stood in the garden on the east side of the
present house. It was a priory of Augustine Canons, founded
early in the reign of Henry III. It was granted by Henry
VIII. to Sir Thomas Pope, who bestowed the site and lands,
or great part of them, on his new foundation of Trinity, which
he grafted on to Durham College, a great part of which still
remains under the appellation of Trinity College, Oxford. Sir
William, the King's host, built from the ground the present
mansion. The chapel he caused to be decorated with painted
glass by Van Ling in 1623. Wroxton Abbey is engraved
in Skelton's Antiquities of Oxfordshire.
Sir William's lady was Anne, daughter of Sir Owen Hop-
ton, lieutenant of the Tower, and relict of Henry Lord Went-
worth, Baron of Nettlestead. She died at Wroxton 1625.
On Wednesday the 21st, the King and Queen left Wroxton
for their ancient palace of Woodstock, where they remained
three nights. Woodstock was a royal residence from the reign
of Henry I.
The Earl of Dorset, the Chancellor of the University of
Oxford, had sent his instructions to the Heads of houses as
early as the month of June.
On Thursday the 22nd, on which day Philip Stringer,
Fellow of St. John's college and Solicitor to the University of
Cambridge, M.A. 1571, and some years esquire bedell, pro
bably from 1568 to 1591, came to Oxford in the afternoon,
bringing with him from the King's Attorney-general a book
ready for his Majesty's signature, for the endowing of the
regius divinity professorship of Cambridge with the livings of
Somersham and Colne in Huntingdonshire ; the Earls of Wor
cester, Suffolk, and Northampton, with Lord Carey, were in
Oxford surveying the preparations making at Christchurch
and elsewhere for the royal visit.
Edward Earl of Worcester, descended of Sir Charles
Somerset, natural son to Henry Duke of Somerset, was Master
of the Horse, and, " amongst other laudable parts of virtue
and nobility," is said to have highly favoured " the studies of
good literature."1 He was a knight of the garter, and ancestor
to his grace the Duke of Beaufort. He was one of the most
complete gentlemen of his time, and excelled in those manly
exercises, a proficiency in which then constituted so material
a part of the character of an accomplished courtier, particularly
tilting and horsemanship. He possessed abilities which quali-
fied him for the highest public offices, but avoided politics,
and chose to shine at the court and in his own house. He
died March 3rd, 1627, aged 84.1
The Earl of Suffolk, on the death of Henry Howard Earl
of Northampton in 1614, was elected Chancellor of the Uni
versity of Cambridge. He was ever in high favour with
the King, who, on his entry into England, made him his
Lord-chamberlain and afterwards Lord-treasurer. He erected
the once more than royal mansion at Audley End.
The Earl of Northampton was a scholar and a man of the
world, versed in the art of dissimulation, without honour
and principle, an accomplished and successful criminal, im
plicated in the darkest tragedy of this period, the death
of Sir Thomas Overbury ; but a contemporary speaks of him
thus : u Lord Henry Howard, brother to the last Duke of
Norfolk, a man of rare and excellent wit, and sweet, fluent
eloquence, singularly adorned also with the best sciences,
prudent in council, and provident withal."2 Thus wrote
Camden of this talented but worthless person. He was
born at Shottesham, about eight miles south of Norwich.
He was first of King's College, Cambridge, and afterwards
of Trinity Hall, where he took the degree of M.A. He was
incorporated M.A. of Oxford, April 19, 1568. His learning has
procured him a place in Lord Orford's Royal and noble Authors?
He was unable to obtain the countenance of Queen Elizabeth,
but sought to rise through the Earl of Essex, paying court at
the same time to his inveterate enemy, secretary Cecil, whose
correspondence with James passed through his hands, which
paved the way for his promotion by that monarch. Though,
as Anthony Wood says, a papist,4 he was chosen on Cecil's
death to the Chancellorship of the university of Cambridge,
in 1612. He died in 1614, June 15th, not long before
the full discovery of the crimes that succeeded upon the divorce
of his great niece the Countess of Essex with Carr, Earl
of Somerset. On his death the king conferred the earldom
of Northampton on the Lord Compton.
Lord Carey, also called Carew, was called Baron Carew
of Clopton, close upon Stratford-upon-Avon, having married
into the family that owned the manor of Clopton. He had
distinguished himself in 1595 at the siege of Cadiz, was
a favourite of Queen Elizabeth, who appointed him president
of Munster and master of the Ordnance in Ireland. In 1603
he was made governor of Guernsey, and being now vice-
chamberlain to the Queen, was created Baron Carew of Clopton
in the county of Warwick, and in 1625 Earl of Totness. He
died without issue March 27, 1629, aged 73.1 " He was,"
says Camden, " a most affectionate lover of venerable an
tiquity." Thus a similar taste united these noblemen, the
earls of Worcester, Suffolk, and Northampton, and Lord
Carey.
On Saturday the 23rd, very late in the evening, the
Chancellor of the university and Lord-Treasurer of England,
the Earl of Dorset, came to Oxford. He was welcomed at
Christchurch with an oration, and took up his lodgings at
New College. Never was Oxford graced with a more ac
complished and unsullied Chancellor. It has enjoyed indeed
one unrivalled in the field, but in the arts of peace none
ever shone with a serener brightness than this star of the
Elizabethan era. Thomas Sackville, Earl of Dorset, was
born at Buckhurst in the parish of Withiam in Sussex,
1536. He was admitted of Hart Hall, Oxford, but removed
thence, before he had taken a degree, to St. John's College,
Cambridge. As a poet he is regarded as the model of Spenser.
His life was one of vicissitude although of honour. He was
a diligent and eminent student of the law, served in parlia
ment for the county of Westmoreland in the reign of Queen
Mary, and for that of Sussex in the first parliament of
Elizabeth. He suffered a short imprisonment at Kome. On
his return he found himself in possession of a most ample
fortune by the death of his father, but his magnificence of
living brought him into difficulties, from which however
he recovered himself, having been wounded by the incivility
of an alderman who had greatly enriched himself by his
purchases of him, and who kept him sometime waiting, when
he was once obliged to apply to him. His father died in
1566. He was in the following year created Lord Buckhurst,
and in 1571 sent ambassador to France. In 1572 he was
one of the peers who sat in judgment on the Duke of Norfolk.
He was in 1586 one of the commissioners for the trial of
Mary Queen of Scots. In 1587 he was sent to the states
of Holland upon their complaints of the Earl of Leicester's
proceedings, in order to examine that affair and to compose
the differences that had arisen out of it. Although he per
formed his office faithfully, Leicester's interest with the Queen
prevailed so far as that he was confined to his house above
nine months. Upon the death of the Earl he was restored
to the favour of his sovereign, and soon after made a knight
of the garter. Sir Christopher Hatton dying on the 20th
November, 1591, Lord Buckhurst was chosen Chancellor of
the University of Oxford in preference to the Earl of Essex,
who was supported by the favourers of Puritanism. In 1598
he was appointed Lord High-Treasurer of England, and in
1601 Lord High-Steward for the trial of the Earl of Essex,
and conducted himself with remarkable candour and humanity
towards that nobleman, whose sentence of death he was
compelled by his office to pronounce. He married Cecily
daughter of Sir John Baker. His son Kobert succeeded to
his honours. His daughter Jane married Anthony Viscount
Montagu, grandson of Antony Browne who was created first
Viscount in the reign of Queen Mary, whose grandmother
was a daughter of John Neville Marquess Montacute, from
Montacute in Somersetshire, who was slain at Barnet in
1472. His daughter Mary married Henry Neville, seventh
Lord Abergavenny. King James advanced Lord Buckhurst
to the dignity of Earl of Dorset on March 13, 1604. He
died suddenly at the council-table April 19th, 1608, and
was buried with great solemnity in Westminster Abbey.
He was kind and hospitable, and generous to his tenants.
His household consisted of one hundred and twenty persons.
He was zealously pious, and an unbending upholder of the
Protestant religion.
On Saturday the 24th, the King removed to Langley,
some miles to the west of Woodstock. Some remains of the
palace were visible here in the last century. It stood near
the village of Shipton-under-Whichwood. Here the royal
party continued until their coming to Oxford on the 27th.
The Chancellor, Vicechancellor, Dr. Abbot, and the doctors
following two by two, attended at St. Mary's, it being St.
Bartholomew's Day. The preacher is said to have been
a Mr. Gryme or Graham. The church was already prepared
for the acts and sermons of the ensuing week with a raised
throne to the back of the chancel, double galleries on the
north and south sides, seats rising one above another at
the west end, and forms in the mid-space of the nave for
bachelors in divinity, &c., and masters of arts.
Doctor Gordon, who had been recently created doctor
in divinity, preached before the court on the following day,
being Sunday, and thither went the Chancellor of the uni
versity, not to Langley, but to Woodstock.
On Monday, at seven in the morning, there was an English
sermon at All Saints, and so every morning at the same hour
to Friday inclusive. This church, in the twelfth century, was
given or confirmed to the Canons of St. Frideswide. Thence
it came into the hands of the Bishops of Lincoln, in the 20th
year of Edward II., until Richard Fleming Bishop of Lincoln,
early in the fifteenth century, appropriated it to Lincoln Col
lege, of which he was the founder in 1427. The old church
was so much injured by the fall of the spire in 1699 as to
render the rebuilding of the whole indispensable, which was
accordingly done after a design from Dean Aldrich. At eight
all public lectures were read in their several schools, and from
nine till eleven they continued their disputations on Quod-
libets in the schools of arts. These disputations were between
masters and bachelors. And in the same schools from one to
three disputations were continued by bachelors and sophisters.
This day the Earl of Suffolk, Lord Chamberlain and several
other Earls and Lords came to Oxford, and reviewed the King's
and Queen's lodging in Christchurch, and the Prince Henry's
lodging in Magdalene College, and dined with the Chancellor
in the Warden's lodge at New College, with whom dined also
Dr. Abbot the Vice-Chancellor, with some other Doctors and
the Bedells.
On Tuesday the 27th of August, in the forenoon, all things
were performed as on the day before. At one in the afternoon
the Vice-Chan cellor and Doctors went to the Chancellor at
New College, and thence presently to meet the King in the
following order. First three esquire Bedells rode on footcloths,
in fair gowns, with gold chains, in velvet caps, carrying their
staves as at other times, but bare-headed, as did the Serjeant
of the Mace, who rode next behind them. Immediately after
them rode the Chancellor talking with the Vice-Chancellor,
the Vice-Chancellor bearing back about half the length of his
horse. After them six or eight Doctors also in scarlet, two by
two upon the footcloths. Then the two Proctors in their
civil hoods, upon the footcloths, riding two by two. These
were some of them heads of halls, and some of them ancient
bachelors in divinity. All these university men did wear
square caps. They stayed first at a place called Aristotle s
Wel^ being about a mile from the city. "Aristotle's Well,"
says Hearne in his Diary, " is in the midway between Oxford
and Wolvercote. Before we come to it, is another way called
Walton Well, from the old village of Walton now destroyed.
I have mentioned both these wells in my preface to John
Eowse. Aristotle's well was so called from the scholars,
especially such as studied his philosophy, going to it, and re
freshing themselves at it, there being an house for these
occasions just by it."1 But as it was a narrow place much
annoyed with dust, the Lord-Chamberlain sent word to them
to come a little forward into a fair meadow, where they all,
saving the Serjeant of the Mace, alighted from their horses,
and stayed a little while beside the highway expecting the
King. In the meantime the Mayor of the city, twelve alder
men in scarlet, and some six score commoners in black coats
guarded with velvet and laid on with Bellament lace, passed
forward by them some forty score. The Vice-Chancellor and
Doctors acquainted the Chancellor with this circumstance, who
sent his Serjeant-at-Arms to them, upon which they turned
back behind the Chancellor some twenty score.
And now the King came up on horseback, with the Queen
on his left-hand, and the Prince before them, the Duke of
Lenox carrying the sword. Esme Stuart, or (as formerly
spelt) Steward, Duke of Lenox, was son to John Lord
D'Aubigny younger brother to Matthew Earl of Lenox
upon whom Henry VIII. bestowed his niece. From this
marriage with Margaret daughter of King Henry's sister,
Margaret Queen-dowager of Scotland by her second husband
the Earl of Angus, sprang Henry Stuart Lord Darnley, father
of James I. The Chancellor first accosted the King, and
kneeled down at his feet with the rest, and kissed the
sole of his stirrup. The Vice-Chancellor accosted him with
a speech in honour of both the University and the King. As
was the custom of that age, it was mixed up with mythological
allusions. The speech is given by Sir Isaac Worke, from
which it would appear that Stringer has not recorded the
substance of it with exactness. Probably any other uni
versity would have rivalled Abbot in his praises of his Alma
Mater. Oxford had, some centuries previously, been reckoned
inferior only to Paris. But Abbot did not claim absolute
precedency for Oxford above every other university. The
Vice-Chancellor then presented the King with a splendid and
splendidly bound copy of Stephens' New Testament, which
the King looked into again and again with evident admira
tion, observing that it was a present worthy of the University
to give, and of a Prince to receive. Oxford was then famous
for its gloves : so the Vice-Chancellor also presented to the
King two pairs of Oxford gloves with a deep fringe of gold,
the turnovers being wrought with pearl. There were also
presented two pairs to the Queen, and one to the Prince. So
they went on a little forward, the Bedells preceding the King,
as also after them three Serjeants-at-Arms, and the Duke of
Lenox, sword-bearer. So they came next to the Mayor and
his brethren in office. The Town-Clerk, in the absence of
the Recorder, made a long speech in English, highly extolling
the late Queen and her government, not without dutiful al
lusions to the hopes entertained of happiness under her suc
cessor. The Mayor meanwhile laid his gold mace at the
King's feet, and afterwards presented him, in the name of the
city of Oxford, with a gold cup, having £50 of gold in it,
another to the Queen, gilt and covered, worth £40, and to
the Prince another worth £30 ; so Stringer ; but Wake, who
is rather to be followed, speaks only of a richly embossed cup
given to the King, a purse adorned with Indian pearls pre
sented to the Queen, and a smaller cup with gold coin in it
(as was also in the others) presented to the Prince.1
The procession to Oxford was headed by the Lieutenant
for the County. After the company that attended him, the
royal guard in their glittering habiliments ; then the trumpet
ers ; after them the royal herald, called after the most noble
order of the Garter ; at his right the Vice-Chancellor, at his
left the Mayor of Oxford, then the Vice-Chamberlains of
the King and Queen, Lord Stanhope of Harrington, Vice-
Chamberlain to the King, and Lord Carey of Clopton, to the
Queen : then the most noble the Earl of Dorset, High-
Treasurer of England and Chancellor of the University. On
his left Thomas, Earl of Suffolk, Lord-Chamberlain to the
King: next came the Duke of Lenox bearing the sword; then
the King, Queen, and Prince Henry on horseback. Around
them the Earls of Arundel, Oxford, Northumberland, Wor
cester, Rutland, Cumberland, Southampton, Pembroke, Essex,
Nottingham Lord High Admiral, Devon Lord-Lieutenant of
Ireland, Northampton, Salisbury Secretary of State, Mont
gomery, and Perth.
Most of these have been already noticed. Thomas, Earl
of Arundel, conformed to the Protestant religion in this reign.
He was one of the greatest patrons of the fine arts of this
period. A part of his collection is still at Oxford. Charles
created him Earl of Norfolk.
Henry Vere, Earl of Oxford, whose family was originally
from Zeeland in the Netherlands, was the eighteenth of his
race in lineal descent. He died at the siege of Breda, 1625.
Roger Manners, fifth Earl of Rutland, succeeded his father
February 24th, 1588. He was early sent to the university of
Cambridge, where he took the degree of M.A. He was an
eminent traveller and good soldier. In 1595 he visited
France, Switzerland, and Italy; was Colonel of foot in the
Irish wars in 1598. In that year, July 10th, he was incor
porated M.A. of Oxford. He was appointed Constable of
Nottingham Castle, and Chief-Justice in Eyre of Sherwood
Forest in 1600, and in 1603 was honoured with a visit from the
King. He was in that same year made Lord-Lieutenant of
Lincolnshire, and was sent ambassador into Denmark to the
christening of the King's eldest son, and to invest the King
of Denmark with the order of the Garter. He was made
Knight of the Bath at the coronation of James in 1603, and
that same year Steward .of the manor and soke of Grantham.
He married Elizabeth only daughter and heir of the famous
Sir Philip Sidney. He died without issue June 26, 1612,
and was buried at Bottesford. His Countess survived him
little more than two months. He was succeeded in his titles
and estates by his brother Francis.
Henry Percy, the most generous Earl of Northumberland,
a great friend to learning and learned men, especially of
mathematicians. He died 5th November 1632, and was
buried at Petworth in Sussex.1
The famous Bevis, whence Bevis Mount near South
ampton, is said to have been the first Earl of Southampton,
and the only one until Henry VIII. created William Fitz-
william, descended from the daughter of Marquess Montacute,
both Earl of Southampton and Admiral of England in his
old age. He married Mabel daughter of Henry Lord Clifford,
but left none to inherit his honours. He was the son of Sir
Thomas Fitz-Williams, of Aldwarke near Easingwold in
Yorkshire. He was in 1512 made one of the esquires of the
body to Henry VIII., and in 1513 had the command of
the fleet which fought the French off Brest ; and though
very severely wounded, distinguished himself in 1514 at
the siege of Tournay. After having fulfilled the office of
Vice- Admiral in the absence of the Earl of Surrey, and
that of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in 1520, he was in 1537
appointed Lord High-Admiral and Earl of Northampton, and
soon after Lord Privy-Seal, being succeeded in the Admiral-
ship by John Lord Russell. He died at Newcastle as he was
on his way to Scotland to assist in the expedition sent
against that country under the command of his friend the
Duke of Norfolk.
Next, Edward VI., in the first year of his reign, conferred
the Earldom of Southampton upon Thomas Wriothesley,
Lord Chancellor. This the King did not of his own will, but
as a minor, Wriothesley being left one of his father's executors ;
but he was very early compelled to resign the Chancellorship.
He had rendered himself execrable by taking part himself
in applying the rack to Anne Askew previously to her
martyrdom.
His grandson Henry was now Earl of Southampton. He
having taken part with the Earl of Essex in 1599, was
brought to trial and found guilty. His life was spared, but
he remained in the Tower until his release by King James,
April 10th, 1603. On the 21st of July following he was
restored to his title by a new patent. He was a nobleman
of great courage, and henceforth high in favour with his
sovereign and his court. He was a patron of learning. In
1614 Richard Brathwayt dedicated to him The Scholar s
Medley. In 1617 he, with other munificent patrons of learning,
contributed to relieve the distress of Minsheu, the laborious
author of the Guide to Tongues. He was a great promoter
of the first Virginia Company. He was sworn a Privy-
Councillor on the 19th August 1619. He made a successful
motion against illegal patents in Parliament 162 1.1 At the
sitting on the 14th March he had a dispute with the Marquess
of Buckingham which was moderated by the Prince of Wales,
but was put under restraint for some time after the adjourn
ment of Parliament. He did not however desist from serving
his country in the Parliament of 1624, but lost his life at
Bergen-op-zoom on the 10th November that year, together
with his eldest son. His son Thomas was the last Earl
of Southampton, the Lord High-Treasurer, whose name has
been commended to posterity by the pen of Clarendon.
William Herbert, third Earl of Pembroke, was son of
Henry Earl of Pembroke and of Mary the famous sister
of Sir Philip Sidney. He was bom at Wilton April 8, 1580,
and was educated at New College, Oxford. He succeeded
to his father's title January 19th, 1601, and was made E.G.
by James in 1603. In 1604 he married Lady Mary one
of the three daughters and coheirs of Gilbert Talbot, Earl
of Shrewsbury. He was in 1610 appointed Governor of
Portsmouth, and in 1616 Lord-Chamberlain of the King's
household, and that same year Chancellor of the University
of Oxford, on the death of Egerton Lord-Chancellor Ellesmere.
He was opposed to the Spanish interest. He died April 10th,
1630, at his house, Baynard's Castle, on the banks of the
Thames.
The Earl of Essex was the restored son of the late Earl
who was beheaded in 1601. He was of Merton College,
Oxford. He, after having been appointed Lord-Chamberlain
to Charles I., went over to the Parliament. He was sworn
of the King's Privy Council in 1641, when indeed the King
was endeavouring to make himself popular. The King
however took all by demanding the six members of the House
of Commons to be delivered up to him on a charge of treason,
the Lord Kimbolton, Denzil Hollis, Sir Arthur Heselrige,
Pym, Hampden, and Strode, on January 3, 1642. These
were followed by as unconstitutional acts on the part of the
Commons.1 The King now tempted Essex to disloyalty, by
requiring of him and the Earl of Holland to resign the staff
and key of their offices. So he accepted in the course of
this year the command of the Parliamentarian army. The
Earl laid down his command on the 2nd April 1644, which
was taken up by Sir Thomas Fairfax. He was unwelcome
to Cromwell and all the more violent of the popular party;
the more moderate lost a firm friend by his death, September
14, 1647.
Charles Howard, son of Lord William Howard Baron of
Effingham, was bora in 1536, and early served at sea under
his father. He was highly serviceable in putting down the
insurrection in the north under the Earl of Warwick, against
the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland. He suc
ceeded to his father's title on his death in 1572, having been
elected to represent Surrey in Parliament in the preceding
year. He was made Chamberlain of the Household in
1573, and K.G., and in 1585 Lord High-Admiral. He
signalized himself and did immortal service to his country
in the memorable year of the Armada, 1588, and again
chastising the Spanish in 1596, he was in 1598 created Earl
of Nottingham. He was as humane as he was valorous.
In 1590, a time of renewed apprehension from the Spaniards,
he was made Lord-Lieutenant of all England. In 1600 he
quelled the insurrection of the Earl of Essex, but shewed
his magnanimity by treating the Earl with the greatest
kindness possible. He was employed at the Spanish court
by James, and received with the greatest respect. He was one
of the greatest of that age of great men, and lived to enjoy
his honours and the veneration of his country for an unusual
period. He died December 14th, 1624, aged 88.
Charles Blount the eighth Lord Mount] oy, created after
wards Earl of Devonshire, was born in 1563, being the second
son of James Lord Mount] oy. He was of the University
of Oxford, M.A. June 16th, 1589.1 He studied also at
the Inner Temple. He was early a favourite at court, and
was one of the volunteers who engaged in pursuit of the
Armada with ships at their own charge. He served in the
House of Commons until 1594, when he succeeded to his
brother's title of Lord Mountjoy, and was made Governor of
Portsmouth. In 1597 he was made K.G., and was employed
in the expedition to the Azores. In 1599 he was made
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, which was subdued to order
under his government. He was continued in this office by
James I., appointed one of his Privy Councillors, and on
July 21, 1603, created Earl of Devonshire. He died in the
prime of life at the Savoy, April 3, 1606, and was buried
with great pomp in St. Paul's chapel in the Abbey.
Philip Herbert Earl of Montgomery was younger brother
of William Earl of Pembroke. Antony Wood is unsparing
in his attacks upon his memory, as one so intolerably choleric,
quarrelsome and offensive while he was Lord-Chamberlain to
Charles I., ll that he did not refrain to break many wiser
heads than his own."
The Earl of Perth was James Baron Drummond, whom
the King had advanced to that Earldom. Drimein Castle,
on the banks of the Earn in the old district of Strathern, was
the ancient seat of this family, tc advanced to highest honours
ever since that King Robert Steward the third took to him
a wife out of that lineage."
With these noblemen were Lord Knowles Treasurer of
his Majesty's household; Lord Wotton Comptroller of his
Majesty's household; Lord Erskine Captain of the yeomen
of the guard; the learned Lord Buckhurst son of the Earl
of Dorset ; and Lords Monteagle and Haddington.
Sir William Knowles (formerly Knolles) resided at Greys
Rotherfield, near Henley-on-Thames. He was created Baron
Knowles May 3, 1603, Viscount Wallingford 1616, and Earl
of Banbury by Charles I. in 1626. He had been of Magda
lene College, Oxford.
Sir Edward Wotton had been Comptroller of the household
to Queen Elizabeth, was of the Wotton family of Boughton
Malherb near Lenham in Kent, and had been created by
James Baron Wotton of Merlay, or Marley. His son and
heir Thomas Lord Wotton died in the sixth year of Charles I.,
leaving four daughters his coheirs, of whom Catherine the
eldest married Henry Lord Stanhope. So the title became
extinct.
Lord Erskine, originally Sir Thomas Erskine, was second
son of Sir Alexander Erskine of Gogar or Gogyr in Edin-
burgshire, an ancient parish now included in that of Costor-
phine. He was born in 1566, the same year with the King,
and was brought up with him from his childhood. The
King, who was not insensible to kindly affections, appointed
him one of the gentlemen of his bed-chamber 1585. He had
charters of Mitchellis, Eastertown and Westertown in the
county of Kincardine, 17th October 1594, of Windingtown
and Windingtown Hall, June 1st, 1598, and of Easterrow in
Perthshire, 15 January, 1599. He was one of the happy
instruments in the rescue of the King from the treasonable
attempt of the Earl of Gowrie and his brother Alexander
Ruthven of Perth, August 5th, 1600, and killed Euthven
with his own hand. For this signal service he had the third
part of the Lordship of Dirleton, belonging to Gowrie, conferred
on him by charter dated 15th November 1600, and in warran-
dice thereof the King's barony of Corritown in Stirlingshire.
In that charter he is designated eldest lawful son of the
deceased Alexander Erskine, Master of Marr. He accom-
panied the Duke of Lenox in his embassy to France in
July 1601. Attending James into England, he was in 1603
constituted Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard in the room
of Sir Walter Raleigh, and held that command until 1632.
He was created a Knight of the Bath at the King's coronation,
raised to the peerage with the title of Lord Dirleton, and
admitted a Privy Councillor. In 1606 he was appointed
Groom of the Stole, and created Viscount Fentown or Fenton,
18th May, being the first who was raised to that order of
nobility in Scotland. In 1615 he was made K.G., and
on March 12, 1619, Earl of Killie, a district of Fifeshire,
and formerly called Kellieshire. He had charters of Ey croft
16th July 1622, and of the barony of Restersrioth May 13th,
1624. He married Anne daughter of Gilbert Ogilvie, of
Powrie, esq., by whom he had one son and one daughter.
He died in London, June 12th, 1639, in his 73rd year, and
was buried at Pittenweem in Fifeshire. His descendants
suffered greatly for their loyalty to both Charles I. and II.
William Parker Lord Monteagle was eldest son of Edmund
Parker Lord Morley, who married the sole daughter and
heir of William Stanley Lord Monteagle, fifth son of Thomas
Earl of Derby. Lord Morley lived at a house at Mile End
Green, died at Stepney April 1, 1628, and was buried in
Stepney church. He had a grant of £200. a-year in land,
and a pension of £500. per annum for life, as a reward for
discovering the letter that led to the detection of the Gun
powder Plot in 1605. On his father's death in 1618 he
succeeded to the barony of Morley. He married Elizabeth
daughter of Sir Thomas Tresham, by whom he had three
sons and two daughters. Catherine married John Savage
Earl Rivers, from whom descended George Pitt, created
Baron Rivers 1776, who was coheir to the baronies of Morley
and Monteagle. However they were not revived in him,
but the title of Monteagle was conferred upon the Rt. Hon.
T. S. Rice in 1839, as a descendant of Sir Stephen Rice,
Chief Baron of the Irish Exchequer, created Lord Monteagle
by James II.
Lord Monteagle died at Haslingbury Morley in Essex,
the residence of the Barons Morley, now called Hallingbury
near Hatfield Broad Oak.
Viscount Haddington had as Sir John Ramsey defended
the King in the Gowrie conspiracy.
Of the ladies who graced the procession, Sir Isaac Wake
is most lavish in his praises of the beautiful and accomplished
Arabella Stuart, who afterward, as being descended from
Henry VII. , suffered so severely from the jealousy of King
James. Next are recounted Lucy Countess of Bedford, " dear
to the Muses." As servants of the Muses both Donne and
Daniel have transmitted her name to posterity. She was
daughter of John Lord Harrington of Exton in Rutlandshire,
to whom and to her mother, brother, and sister she erected
a costly tomb at Exton, sculptured by Nicholas Stone,
statuary to the King, at the cost of £1020.
With her are mentioned the Countesses of Suffolk, Not
tingham, and Montgomery. The Countess of Suffolk was
celebrated for her beauty and also for her rapacity. Pennant,
in his Journey from Chester to London,lidiS given an engraved
portrait of her from a painting at Gorhambury.
The Countess of Nottingham was the Earl's second wife,
a young Scotch lady, Margaret daughter of James Stuart
Earl of Murray, by Elizabeth daughter and coheir of James
Earl of Murray natural son to James V. of Scotland.
The Countess of Montgomery was the Lady Susan Vere,
daughter of Edward Earl of Oxford, the poet, by his first
wife Anne the daughter of Lord Burleigh. She was born
26 May 1587, and married to Philip Herbert Earl of Mont
gomery on St. John the Evangelist's Day, December 27th,
1604.
And now they approach the suburb of St. Giles, and see,
says Sir Isaac Wake, how fitly this ancient city was termed
Bellositum, a name however of comparatively modern date,
perhaps suggested by the name of the palace of Henry I.,
Beaumont, the birthplace of the valorous Richard Cceur de
Lion. Camden delights to record the beauty and salubrity
of the situation of this venerable and interesting city: a fair
and goodly city, whether a man respect the seemly beauty
of private houses, or the stately magnificence of public
buildings, together with the wholesome site or pleasant
prospect thereof. For the hills beset with woods do so
environ the plain, that as on the one side they exclude the
pestilent south wind, and the tempestuous west wind on the
other, so they let in the clearing east wind only, and the
north-east wind withal, which is free from all corruption."
It was an important city in the times of the Saxons, in
fact, one of the chief cities of England. Of fourteen of the
present churches, the majority was represented by eight
churches before the Conquest, namely, St. Peter' s-in-the-East,
St. Mary's, Carfax, St. Aldate's, St. Ebb's, St. Peter's-le-
Bailey, St. Mary Magdalene, and St. Michael. There were
also formerly several other churches, as another St. Michael,
near the South-gate, St. George since represented by the recent
church of St. George, an excellent specimen of the decorated
or curvilinear style as revived in the nineteenth century, a
monument of the good taste of the architect, and of the
munificence of the Kev. Jacob Ley, the present incumbent
of St. Mary Magdalene's. Add to these St. Budoc's, St.
Edward, St. Mildred,1 and St. Frideswide, now the Cathedral.
Down to 1771 the North and East gates were still standing,
the north joining the old church of St. Michael with its
Saxon tower, the east a little to the east of Coach-and-Horses-
lane leading to King-street, in which stand St. Alban Hall,
Merton, Corpus Christi, and Oriel Colleges. The South and
West gates, as also Little-gate, had been removed by the
middle of the last century. The West gate stood at the junc
tion of St. Ebbe's and Castle-street, in the neighbourhood of
the Franciscan Monastery or Grey Friars. In their church
was buried the celebrated Roger Bacon in 1292. Paradise
Garden, once the garden of the monks, still remains to the
south of the Castle. The site of Little-gate below St.
Ebbe's still retains its name. And just below Christ Church
Almshouses formerly stood the South-gate, and near it another
church dedicated to St. Michael.2
When the royal party entered Oxford by the road to the
west of which stand the Observatory and Infirmary, they
found the way lined on each side with the students in their
several university habits. Now might St. Giles, says Sir
Isaac Wake, have looked for the restitution of its ancient
honours. For there was a tradition that there was once
another church, of which this took the place although nearer
or within the city, which had the honour of being the Uni
versity Church before that privilege was divided between
St. Mary's and St. Peter's-in-the-East.3 The whole line of
street from St. Giles' to the Bocardo, even to the South-gate,
hard by which the King was to enter Christ Church, was
graced with members of the University, Doctors, Bachelors of
Divinity, Law, &c., all in their proper habits, all exulting at
the presence of their royal patrons. At St. John's College
fifty of the members, with the President, Ralph Hutchinson,1
came forth to congratulate their sovereign. Three youths
apparelled as three sybils came forth out of the quadrangle,
and recited, each having his several part, some Latin verses
annexed by their author Dr. Gwynne to his Vertumnus,
printed in 4to. 1607.2 These are founded upon the legend
of Macbeth and Bancho, who are said to have been met by
three sybils, who foretold that Macbeth should be a king, but
without any to succeed him, and that from Bancho, who
should not be a king himself, should descend a race of Princes.
When the King had passed through North-gate and had
come to Carfax (Quatre Vois), so called from the four prin
cipal streets meeting at that point, where on the east side of
St. Martin's stood Pennyless Beach, chiefly known to modern
readers by T. Warton's humorous description of it in his
Companion to the Guide, and Guide to the Companion. At
this point Dr. John Perin of St. John's College, who had the
year previously resigned the College living of Wartling in
Sussex (not Watling, as in Wood's Fasti, vol. i. p. 273), but
now no longer in the hands of that Society, and who was now
Greek Professor and Canon of Christ Church, addressed the King
in Greek in a brief and apposite oration. And now the King
entered the great gateway of Christ Church, not as yet adorned
with that light and lofty tower which now evinces the origi
nality of the great classical architect Sir Christopher Wren.
Sir Christopher was B.A. of Wadham College March 18,
1650, and afterwards Fellow of All Souls. He erected the
tower, with the upper parts of the two turrets which flank the
entrance, in 1682. The father of the celebrated Dr. Henry
Hammond was present on this occasion. He was Dr. John
Hammond, M.D. of the University of Cambridge, and Phy
sician to the King and to Prince Henry. He commended
Perin's oration as being in good familiar Greek. The King
heard him willingly, and the Queen still more so, as she said
that she had never heard that language before. At the foot
of the hall stairs thrones were erected for the King, Queen,
and Prince, and Mr., afterwards Sir, Isaac Wake made a Latin
oration. He was of Merton College, and had been elected
Orator in the preceding year. In 1609 he travelled in France
and Italy, and on his return became secretary to Sir Dudley
Carleton, at that time Secretary of State. He was after
wards ambassador to Venice, Savoy, and elsewhere. He was
knighted April 19, 1619, before proceeding to Savoy. In
1623 he was elected M.P. for the University of Oxford.
Some few years after this Anthony Sleep, M.A., of Trinity
College, Cambridge, was Deputy Orator in that University.
The King is said to have often remarked upon the two Orators
Wake and. Sleep; that Wake had a good Ciceronian style, but
his utterance and matter were so grave, that when he spake
before him he was apt to sleep; but Sleep the Deputy Orator
of Cambridge was quite contrary, for he never spake but he
kept him awoke, and made him apt to laugh.1 In his
oration Wake commended the King as being after Plato's
mind, a lover of wisdom,2 whence the title of his very amusing
and learned narration of this royal progress, Rex Platonicus.
He also took this opportunity of returning thanks as Public
Orator for the favour which the King had shewn the Univer
sity by conferring upon it the right of sending two repre
sentatives to Parliament.3
The King with a benignant smile evinced his readiness
to encourage the genial eloquence of the Public Orator, which
was followed up by loud and universal acclamations, im
ploring long life, glory, and eternal happiness for the King,
the Queen and Prince. The King was then conducted to
the venerable Cathedral. Before the doors splendid cushions
were placed, upon which the King offered his devotions
previously to entering in. The royal party proceeded up
the nave toward the choir under a rich canopy of crimson
taffety, carried on six staves gilt with silver, surmounted
with great silver knobs and pikes, borne by six Doctors of
Divinity in their scarlet costume. Stringer says that they
were six out of the eight canons of the Cathedral.
On each side of the nave stood the members of the College
in surplices and hoods, and the younger nobility, members
of the University, Thomas Lord Wentworth, of Nettlestead
to the north-west of Ipswich, O'Bryen Lord Thomond, de
scended of the ancient kings of Ireland, the two brothers
Somerset, and the two Stewarts, the Seymours and Sack-
villes, and the Lords Dudley and Grey.1
Just as the King was about to enter the choir Dr. King
the Dean, who was six years after raised to the see of
London, presented the King on his knees with a little book
of congratulatory verses ; the Latin verses to the King are
given by Sir Isaac Wake in his Rex Platonicus? The two
other addresses in English he presented to the Queen and
Prince. Dr. John Bridges, formerly a Fellow of Pembroke
Hall, Cambridge, afterward Dean of Salisbury, and with
Cooper Bishop of Lincoln a defender of the Church against
Martin Mar-Prelate, and now Bishop of Oxford, with the
Dean and Canons, assembled with the rest of the procession
in the choir, where the King heard divers anthems, probably
far superior to the popular adaptations of Mozart, Beethoven
and Mendelssohn now in use in our Universities. It was
the age of true Church musicians, when the marvellous Dr.
Bull3 was the King's chief Organist, and Morley, Dowland,
and the gifted family of the Tomkyns, and the brothers
Weelkes, and the other madrigalists who celebrated the
Triumph of Oriana, were rivalling the continental composers.
At this time William Stonard was organist of the Cathedral,
some of whose works remain in the Music School at Oxford,
sent by Walter Porter" (son of Henry Porter of Christ
Church, and gentleman of the Royal Chapel to Charles I.,
and Master of the Choristers, Westminster Abbey) lt to his
kinsman John Wilson, Doctor of Music and the public
Professor of the praxis of that faculty in Oxon, to be reposed
and kept for ever in the archives of the said school." Stonard
composed certain divine services and anthems, the words of
some of which are in Clifford's Collection of Divine Services and
Anthems, 1663. Of Dr. John Wilson, u now," says Anthony
Wood, of 1644, t( the most noted musician of England,"
Wood gives an account in his Fasti under that year, from
which we learn that by the mediation of Mr. Thomas Barlow,
then Lecturer of Churchill, Oxfordshire, afterward Provost
of Queens' (his) College at Oxford and Bishop of Lincoln,
with Dr. John Owen then Dean of Christ Church, he was
made Professor of Music in 1656. He had rooms allowed
him in Balliol College, was an industrious composer of music
both sacred and secular, and died, aged 78 years, Feb. 22nd,
1674, at his house at the Horse Ferry within the liberty
of Westminster. He was buried in the Little Cloisters of
the Abbey.
At Magdalene College, Richard Nicholson, B. Mus. and
Professor of 'Music, was organist. He was a madrigalist
and a contributor to the Triumphs of Oriana.
And now, after the Dean had officiated in the liturgy,
in the course of which other instruments were used in addition
to the organ, the King and Queen retired to their lodgings
at the Deanery. The Prince was accompanied through the
High-street and the Eastgate to Magdalene College. Thither
he was attended by the Earl of Worcester and Lord Knowles,
the Earls of Oxford and Essex, William Viscount Cranborne,
son and heir to Cecil Earl of Salisbury, Sheffield, Har
rington, Howard and Bruce, with the other flower of the
nobility, and with his honorary guardian Sir Thomas Cha-
loner,1 who had himself been educated at Magdalene College.
At the College gate the Prince was received by Dr. Nicholas
Bond, the President, who was Kector of Brightwell, Berks,
May 3, 1586, Chaplain to the Queen, and Prebendary of the
fifth stall at Westminster, 1582. He was constituted Presi
dent of Magdalene College by the Queen, by lapse, against
the will of the College.1 He died February 8, 1608, and
was buried in the College chapel.
The Rev. James Mable, a noted wit and orator, who was
afterwards made Prebendary of Wells, accosted the Prince
with an elegant oration. Verses were affixed to the
walls in honour of his arrival. Thence he was conducted
to the cloistered quadrangle, the most beautiful and truly
collegiate court of any university. Having surveyed these
incomparable structures and the hieroglyphical figures, the
statue of Moses whereby is represented Theology, with those
of the lawyer, the physician, the schoolmaster, the fool
making a mock of learning, the lion, the pelican, indicating
the duty of masters and teachers sternly to set themselves
against the evil-disposed youth, and to nourish the good
as parents, the Prince is conducted to his apartments in
the President's lodge. No sooner does the lodge receive
him than the College entertains him with the academic fare
of scholastic disputations. William Seymou*, second son
of Edward Lord Beauchamp and grandson of Edward Earl
of Hertford, performed the part of respondent. The opponents
were Charles Somerset sixth son of the Earl of Worcester,
Edward Seymour eldest son of the Lord Beauchamp, Mr.
Robert Gorge son of sir Thomas Gorge by the Marchioness
of Northampton, two sons of Sir Thomas Chaloner, and
Mr. William Borlace son of a Knight; to all of whom, in
testimony of his approbation, the Prince gave his hand to
kiss. The Prince then returned to the King at Christ Church,
in the hall of which a Latin Comedy, entitled Vertumnus,
was acted by the students of that College. It began between
nine and ten, and ended at one. Its tediousness and other
uninviting features are said to have wearied the royal party.
But this is on the authority of the Cambridge critic given
in NicholFs Progresses. A more favourable account is given
by Sir Isaac Wake, to whom we remit the reader.
On Wednesday, the 28th of August, the bell rang at
seven to an English sermon at All Saints. About nine
the King came in great state to St. Mary's ; the Earl of
Southampton was sword-bearer for this day. In St. Mary's
the Prince sat on the King's right hand, and on his left
Christopher de Harlay Count de Beaumont, ambassador
from the court of France, and Nicolo Malino, ambassador
from that of Venice.
The two theses for the disputants were, Saints and Angels
have no knowledge of the thoughts of men's hearts, and,
The Pastors of the Church are not bound to visit the sick
whilst a pestilence is raging. The respondent was Dr. John
Aglionby, Principal of St. Edmund Hall. Dr. Aglionby
was of Cumberland, had taken his degrees as a member and
Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford, and had been admitted
to the Principalship of St. Edmund Hall, April 4, 1601,
being at that time chaplain to the Queen. James continued
him as one of his chaplains, and appointed him one of the
translators of the Bible, for he bore a high character for
the vastness of his theological learning. He died Feb. 6,
1610, and was buried in the chancel of Islip church near
Oxford, of which church he had been Kector. His son
I George was educated at Westminster School and at Christ-
| church, where he was entered in 1619. Lord Falkland,
(when he visited Oxford, especially sought the company of
(George Aglionby. He was appointed tutor to George the
Duke of Buckingham, after he had taken his B.A.
at Christclmrch in 1623. In 1638 he was made a Preben
dary of Westminster, and in 1642, whilst attending the court
at Oxford, was nominated Dean of Canterbury, but never
installed. He died not long after, in November 1643, in his
40th year, and was buried in Christclmrch Cathedral, near
Bishop King's monument in the south aisle, but without
any memorial.
The opponents were :
1. Dr. Thomas Holland, who, when Fellow of Balliol Col
lege, had been appointed Eegius Professor of Divinity in 1589,
on the death of the celebrated Lawrence Humphrey of Magda
lene College. He took all his degrees at Balliol College, and
was elected Rector of Exeter College on the death of Thomas
Glasier, LL.D., late of Christchurch, by virtue of the Queen's
letters written in his behalf April 24, 1592. He died
March 17, 1612, and was buried in the chancel of St. Mary's,
Oxford. Wood says of him, " He was esteemed by the
precise men of his time, and after, another Apollos mighty
in Scriptures, and so familiar with the Fathers, as if he
himself was a Father ; and in the schoolmen, as if he had
been the Seraphical Doctor"1 He is said by Wood to have
been a predestinarian of the higher or supra-lapsarian kind,
as was his predecessor Humphrey. In this respect Wood2
distinguishes them from the pious and learned Abbot after
ward Bishop of Salisbury, and, like Holland, of Balliol
College. In Fuller's Abel Eedivivus he is by a mistake said
to have been educated at Exeter College. It is reported
of him that when he went any journey, he would call the
Fellows of his College together, and commend them to the
love of God, and to the hatred of Popery and superstition.
He spent all his time in his declining health in fervent prayers
and heavenly meditations, and when his end drew near, often
sighed out, Come, 0 come, Lord Jesus f I desire to be dissolved
and to be with thee. He died in his 74th year.3
2. Dr. Giles Thompson, Dean of Windsor, and in 1611
Bishop of Gloucester. He was B.A. of University College,
Oxford, July 5, 1575, and B.D. of All Souls' College, March 21,
1591 ; Bp. Andre wes assisted at his consecration to Gloucester
June 9, 1611. Andrewes, now Dean of Westminster, came
to Oxford, but probably on the Thursday, for Buckeridge
relates in his Funeral Sermon, that " when he came to Oxford
attending King James in the end of his progress, his custom
was to send fifty pound to be distributed among poor scholars."1
3. Dr. Field, Chaplain to the King. He was first entered
at Magdalene College, but was B.A. of Magdalene Hall,
November 8, 1581, M.A. June 2, 1584, B.D. January 14,
1593, D.D. of Queen's College, December 7, 1596. No
divine of his own or of any age rendered a greater theological
service to the Church than did Dr. Field, by his comprehensive
Treatise on the Church of Christ. It first appeared in 4to.
A copy of the volume in 4to. is to be seen in the library
of Magdalene Hall. The next was a much enlarged edition.
The third was published at Oxford in 1635. But as he took
a more hostile view of the Church of Kome, and one more
agreeable to the faith of his own Church than that of the
courtiers in the following reign, his work fell for a while into
unmerited neglect. It has been more than once reprinted
in the present century, and is a library of itself. James was
not insensible to his merits. He admired his preaching, and
appointed him Dean of Gloucester 1609, as he had also been
previously appointed Canon of Windsor 1603, having had
a grant from Elizabeth, 30th March 1602, of the next vacant
prebend. He was born at Hemel Hempstead, Herts. He
spent his time partly at Windsor, partly on his living in
Hampshire. He died November 20, 1626, and was buried
in St. George's, Windsor.
4. Dr. John Harding, Kegius Professor of Hebrew, to
which Professorship he was appointed whilst Fellow of Mag
dalene College, 21 September 1591. He resigned in 1598.
and was succeeded by William Thorne, A.M., Fellow of New
College, 27 July 1598.2 Thorne resigned in 1604, and
Harding had the Professorship conferred upon him a second
time.1 Harding was Proctor in 1589. He was a native
of Hampshire, and succeeded Dr. Bond in the Presidentship
of Magdalene College, February 22, 1608. He was one
of the translators of the Old Testament. He died in 1610.
5. Dr. George Byves, Warden of New College December
1599, on the resignation of Dr. Cole or Culpepper, Dean of
Chichester and Archdeacon of Berkshire. He held, as did his
two predecessors Whyte and Colepepper, the rectories of
Staunton St. John's Oxfordshire, and of Colerne (Wilts) near
Chippenham. He was preferred to the fourth stall at Win
chester, November 17, 1598, on the promotion of Dr. Cotton
to the see of Salisbury. He died May 31, 1613, and was
buried at Hornchurch, Essex, without any memorial.
6. Dr. Henry Airay, Provost of Queen's College, where
he had taken all his degrees. He was born in Westmoreland
1560, and educated under the apostolic Bernard Gilpin, by
whom he was sent at the age of nineteen to Oxford. He first
studied at St. Edmund Hall, but removed thence to Queen's
College before he took his B.A. which was on June 19,
1583. He succeeded Dr. Henry Kobinson, Bishop of Carlisle,
as Provost of his College, March 9, 1599. Laud was con
vened before him for his sermon in 1606, in which year
he was Yice-Chancellor.
He was himself of Puritan tendencies, and wrote against
bowing at the name of Jesus. His name still survives as
a commentator upon the Epistle to the Philippians.2 He
died October 10, 1616, aged 57, and was buried in his college
chapel. Christopher Potter, a Fellow of his college, erected
a monument to his memory in the old chapel. The old
chapel was begun before 1355; the new chapel on February 6,
1714, the anniversary of Queen Anne's birthday. Dr. Airay
bequeathed lands in the parish of Garsington, Oxfordshire,
to his college. Christopher Potter was much his junior,
being B.A. of Queen's College August 30, 1610. He suc
ceeded Barnabas Potter (Array's successor), Bishop of Carlisle,
as Provost of his college, June 17, 1626. He was appointed
Dean of Worcester 1635, and of Durham 1645, but died the
3rd of March following, before his installation. He was
Kector of Blechingdon, Oxfordshire, which belongs to Queen's
College.
7. Dr. Gordon Huntley, Dean of Sarum, who has been
previously noticed. He was now actually created a Doctor
of Divinity, with the ancient ceremonies of putting on the
hood, the square cap, the gold ring,1 the boots,2 the delivering
the Holy Scriptures into the Doctor's hands ; then the Yice-
Chancellor kisses his son, as the newly created Doctor is
styled, and concludes with giving him his solemn benediction.
A trumpet is now sounded, and Dr. Holland calls forth the
disputants. The respondent proclaims the theses aloud in
Latin verse. He then proceeds to maintain the first thesis,
quoting 1 Kings viii. 39, Whose heart thou Jcnowest; 1 Cor.
ii. 11, For what man Jcnoweth the things of a man, save the
spirit of man tvhich is in him? and Jer. xvii. 9, 10, The
heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked : who
can know it ? I the LORD search the heart; I try the reins.
That the dead (the saints) have no knowledge of men's
hearts, Dr. Field confirms out of St. Augustine, in the 22nd
chapter of the Appendix to his third Book. Bellarmine
indeed, after the manner of Komish controversialists, charged
Melancthon with falsehood for having asserted in his Loci
Theologicij that the papists attributed to the saints the power
of knowing the thoughts of men's minds ; yet in his answer
to the third argument, in the 20th chapter of his first Book
on the Blessedness of the Saints, he himself expressly affirmed
such a power, as Dr. John Gerhard shews in his Confessio
Catholica.3
Holland, Gordon, Field, and Ryves were the opponents
in the first; Thompson, Harding, and Airay in the second
thesis. The King himself, with the Scriptures in his hand,
took part in these exercises, examining the quotations and com
menting upon the arguments. Wake has given his obser-
vations upon the second thesis, which was maintained in the
negative. Bishop Andrewes, in his Parochial Circulars,
expressly exempted his clergy from visiting in a time of
pestilence. The King answered the passage in St. James,
Ts any among you sick, let him call for the elders of the
churchj &c.j that those who were called in that age were
called not only to pray, but also to heal. Finally, Dr. Abbot
the Vice-Chancellor gave his own learned determination upon
the two questions.
After the King had dined he came again about two, with
the Queen and Prince, to hear two disputations in the Civil
Law. The questions were, first, Whether in giving judgment
a judge is invariably bound by the legal proofs in opposition
to the truth, of which he is privately assured ? And secondly,
Whether covenants are of the nature of good faith or strict
law ? The first was affirmed ; the second was decided in
favour of sincere intention and candid, in contradistinction
to legal, interpretation. The moderator was Dr. Alberic
Gentilis,1 who, after he had been created D.C.L. at Perugia
in 1572, came over to England on account of his religion,
and obtained permission in 1580 to reside at Oxford. Queen
Elizabeth appointed him Eegius Professor of Civil Law
8th June 1587. His learned writings were all the fruit of
his tranquil studies at Oxford. He died in the beginning
of 1611, and was buried in the Cathedral.
The respondent was Dr. Anthony Blencoe, Provost of
King's or Oriel College or Hall Royal, for all these names
have been applied to Oriel. He had held the Provostship
from February 4, 1573, having previously served the office
of Proctor in 1571 and 1572. He died January 25, 1618, and
was buried in St. Mary's church, which belongs to his
college.
The opponents were :
1. William Bird, D.C.L., of All Souls1 College, son
of William Bird of Walden in Essex. He was D.C.L.
February 13, 1588, and afterwards principal Official and Dean
of the Arches, a Knight, and Judge of the Prerogative Court
of Canterbury. He died without issue, and was buried
in Christ Church, Newgate Street, London, 5 Sept. 1624.
His nephew, William Bird, D.C.L. of All Souls' College
July 4, 1622, was son of Thomas Bird of Littlebury near
Saffron Walden, was Master of the Prerogative Court of
Canterbury, and died on the 28th November 1639, aged 51,
and was buried in Littlebury church.
2. John Weston, of Christ Church, the only son of Robert,
who was Chancellor of Ireland, D.C.L. 1590. His father
Robert was D.C.L. of All Souls' July 8, 1556. He con
formed to the Protestant religion, and was made Dean of
Wells 1570. He was for six years Chancellor of Ireland,
died there 20 May 1573, and was buried in St. Patrick's
Dublin.1 John Weston was first M.A., and on July 14,
1590, D.C.L. of Christ Church, Oxford. He was installed
Canon of the sixth stall of Christ Church September 3, 1591,
and was eighteen years Treasurer of that church. He died
July 20, 1632, being about eighty years old. His epitaph
records his virtues worthy of his descent, his Ciceronian
eloquence, his aptness in casuistry, his truly Christian life,
and the painful disease that carried him to his grave.2
3. Henry Martin, of New College, D.C.L. 1592, being
at that time an eminent advocate at Doctors' Commons, as
afterwards in the High Commission Court. He became
successively Official of the Archdeacon of Berkshire, King's
Advocate, Chancellor of London, Judge of the Admiralty
Court, twice Dean of the Arches, a Knight Dec. 21, 1616,
and in 1624 Judge of the Prerogative Courts. Bishop An-
drewes left him a mourning ring. He died in 1641, aged 81. 3
4. James Hussey of New College, D.C.L. 1600, Principal
of Magdalene Hall 1602, having been previously a Fellow
of New College and Registrary of the University. He after
wards became Chancellor of Salisbury, was knighted Nov. 9,
1619, and made a Master in Chancery. He died of the
plague at Oxford the day after his arrival, July 11, 1625,
and was buried late at night in St. Mary's Church without
any funeral rites. He died in New College, and shortly after
Dr. Chaloner, Principal of St. Alban Hall, who had supped
that night with him, died also.
5. John Budden, D.C.L., B.A. of Trinity College, Oxford,
Oct. 19, 1586, but M.A. of Gloucester Hall (now Worcester
College) June 27, 1589. He was B.C.L. of Magdalene
College July 8, 1602. He became Philosophy Reader at
Magdalene College, was made Principal of New Inn Hall
June 28, 1609, there being then neither gentleman-commoner
nor commoner at New Inn Hall. He was son of John
Budden of Canford in Dorsetshire. He was admitted at
Merton College at the Michaelmas Term 1582, and thence
to a scholarship at Trinity College May 30, 1583. He was
D.C.L. 1602 5 in 1611 was appointed Regius Professor of
Civil Law, then Principal of Broadgate's Hall, to which
Pembroke College has succeeded. He died there June 11,
1620, and was buried in the chancel of St. Aldate's Church.
6. Oliver Lloyd, D.C.L. 1602, of All Souls. He was
afterwards Chancellor of Hereford, Canon of Windsor 1615,
May, 20, Dean of Hereford 1617, in which city he died
in 1625.
The second question is thus put in Wake : lt Whether
a stranger and an enemy detained by contrary winds in an
enemy's port beyond the time of an armistice, may be lawfully
killed by the inhabitants of that port ? The respondent held
the negative. The King interposed in this dispute, alleging
the saying of one, that he who judges against his conscience
builds for hell. He instanced in the unjust judgment passed
upon our Lord himself, and thus, as Wake remarks, con
firmed the words of another, who asked, What shall become
of the good citizen when the evil spirits shall have carried
away the bad man to hell f
In regard of the second question the King said, that
a prisoner detained unawares should be remitted by the
judge to the King, who can and ought to save his life. Alas
that the King did not always exemplify his own wise dicta,
but forgot both law and equity when he was tempted to
forfeit the life of a subject, as in the case of Sir Walter
Raleigh.
The evening drew on as Gentilis concluded the Act. In
the course of the Act the scholars gave & plaudits; the graver
men cried out Vivat Rex, and on the King speaking a third
time there was a general acclamation. After supper the
Ajax flagellifer was acted in the Hall of Christ Church. The
stage was varied thrice, and the actors were all clad in
suitably antique apparel. The name alone was borrowed
from Sophocles.
On Thursday the 29th, the Physic Act commenced at
nine at St. Mary's, and lasted until noon. The two questions
were: 1. Whether the dispositions of nurses were imbibed
with their milk? 2. Whether the frequent use of tobacco
was good for persons in health? The moderator was Dr.
Bartholomew Warner of St. John's College, Regius Professor
of Medicine 1597, and in 1617 superior Reader of Linacre's
Lecture. He died January 26, 1619, and was buried in
St. Mary Magdalene's Church, Oxford.
The respondent was the munificent Sir William Paddy,
M.D. of Oxford and Leyden, President of the College of
Physicians, of St. John's College, Oxford, and Physician
to the King, whom he attended on his death-bed. He was
of the county of Oxford. He was a great, and one of the
first benefactors to the Bodleian Library, although by an
oversight not mentioned as such in Dr. Ingram's very valuable
Memorials of Oxford. He has, however, not omitted to
commemorate his bounty to his college, where on the south
wall of the chapel is his monument, with an epitaph recording
his legacy of £2800. (a great sum in those days) for the
endowing of the choir, after having provided the college with
an organ. He left also £150. for the encouragement of
learning. His will, says Dr. Ingram, is dated Dec. 10, 1634,
in his 81st year, in which year he died.
The opponents were:
1. Dr. Matthew Gwinne, B.A. of St. John's College
May 14, 1578, M.A. May 4, 1582, Proctor April 17, 1588,
B.M. July 17, 1593, and M.D. on the same day. He was
the author of Vertumnus. He was Physician to the Tower
of London, the first Professor of Medicine at Gresham Col
lege, and a member of the College of Physicians. He died
in 1627.
2. Anthony Aylworth, M.D. 1582, of New College, Phy
sician to Queen Elizabeth, and Regius Professor of Medicine
in the University of Oxford, 29th June, 1582. He resigned
his Professorship to Dr. Warner of St. John's College 1597.
He was of an ancient family in Gloucestershire, born in London,
educated at Winchester School and New College. He " died
happily in the Lord" April 18, 1619. He had disputed
before Elizabeth in 1592. His two sons, Martin the elder
and Antony the younger, survived him. Martin erected
a memorial to him in New College Chapel, and was D.C.L.
of All Souls' College, Nov. 27, 1621.
3. John Gifford, also M.D. of New College, December 7,
1598, a member of the College of Physicians. li He died in
a good old age in 1647, and was buried in the parish Church
of Hornchurch in Essex, near to the body of his wife."1
4. Henry Ash worth, M.D. of Oriel College August 13,
1605. He rose to eminent practice in Cat-street, (to the
east of the present Eadcliff Library) where his son Francis
was born.2
5. John Cheynell, M.D. of Corpus Christi College
August 13, 1605. Cheynell extolled the virtues of the ob
noxious weed above all others, and with his pipe in his hand
suited the action to the word, not however omitting to vindi
cate in the sequel the royal aversion to tobacco. Wake, who
was one of those serious men who could enjoy if he could
not make a joke, has not lost this opportunity of enlivening
his narration by ample notes of the King's facetiousness
as well as the Professor's. Warner, in his peroration, ex
horted both sexes to wreak their vengeance on their pipes
by every term of reprobation which he could bring together.3
The Act concluded, the King went to New College, then
more faithfully displaying the consummate skill of its munifi-
cent architect and founder than now, when it has lost so
many of its ancient features, and has been enlarged in a more
modern style, yet venerable and majestic, and adorned as
much by nature as by art, owing more than can be expressed
to its beautiful gardens, the most impressive, although not
the most extensive in the University. At New College the
noble Chancellor kept open house daily during the King's
visit. Verses were attached to 'the walls of the college. Dr.
Kyves, the Warden, congratulated his Majesty in a Latin
speech, in the name of the Chancellor and of the members
of New College, and was on the following day added to the
number of the royal chaplains. The King sat in the hall
beneath a canopy ; Prince Henry at some distance on his right
hand ; the Queen on his left, and at the other end of the table,
opposite to the Prince, the two ambassadors. There was a
magnificent show of plate, and the Chancellor's private musi
cians played during the banquet. But the whole university
contributed to this hospitality. The King, before he rose from
the table, called the Chancellor to him, returned him his
thanks, and bade him drink out of the royal goblet.
From the banquet the King returned to St. Mary's to
hear the following disputations : the first, Whether gold can
be produced by artificial means ? Secondly, Whether imagina
tion can produce real effects ?
The moderator was Roger Porter, of Brasennose College.
The respondent was Richard Andrewes, of St. John's College,
M.B. June 1, 1607, M.D. June 1, 1608. He improved
himself by foreign travel, and was esteemed amongst the
literati of that age.
The opponents were :
1. Simon Baskerville, B.A. of Exeter College July 8,
1596, Proctor in the year following the royal visit, M.D.
1611, knighted by King Charles. He was of an ancient
Herefordshire family. He was eminent in his profession.
He died July 5, 1641, aged 68 years, and was buried* in
the north aisle of old St. Paul's.
On the same day with him was the celebrated Robert
Vilvaine, of Exeter College, also created M.D. in 1611. He
was B.A. of Exeter College May 9, 1597, M.A. July 11,
1600. Vilvain was also a theological author and student.
He, with Mr. Richard Sandy, alias Napier, Mr. William
Orphord, and Mr. William Helme, fellow-students, was
a benefactor to Exeter College, all assisting in rebuilding the
kitchen. At their expense also was the old chapel (superseded
by Dr. Hakewill's, the late chapel) turned into a library
in 1624.1 He was son of Peter Vilvain, steward of the city
of Exeter, was born in All Saints' parish, Exeter, in Gold
smith Street, and was a Fellow of Exeter College in 1599.
He resigned his fellowship in 1611, and returned to Exeter.
About 1644 Fuller's acquaintance with Dr. Vilvain com
menced. They spent much of their time together so long
as Fuller remained at Exeter. Dr. Vilvain gave a library
to the Cathedral there, and endowments, in the way of ex
hibitions, to the Grammar School. He wrote Theoremata
Theologica,) 1654, 4to., a Compendium of Clironography , 1654,
4to., and some other pieces. He died in his 87th year, Feb.
21, 1663, and was buried in the Cathedral of Exeter.
Baskerville attracted the especial notice of the King.
After he had disputed, the King, who had himself prolonged
the time of his disputation beyond what the Proctor would
have granted, said to the nobles about him, " God keep this
fellow in a right course ; he would prove a dangerous heretic ;
he is the best disputer that ever I heard."
2. Edward Lapworth, M.D., of Magdalene College (where
he had been educated) 1611, on the same day with Basker
ville and Vilvaine and Clayton of Balliol College, but pre
viously of Gloucester Hall. Lapworth was in 1618 appointed
the first Professor of Natural Philosophy at Oxford, by the
will of the founder, Sir William Sedley, Knt. and Bart. He
usually practised in the summer at Bath, where he died
May 23, 1636, and was buried in the Abbey church.
3. Thomas Clayton, of Gloucester Hall. He removed
to JBalliol College, and succeeded Dr. Warner as Regius
Professor of Medicine March 9, 1611. He was the last
Principal of Broadgates Hall 1620, and the first Master
of Pembroke College 1624. In 1607 he had been chosen
Professor of Music in Gresliam College, which place he re
signed November 17, 1610. He died in 1647, and was
buried in St. Aldate's church July 13. His son, Sir Thomas,
was also Eegius Professor of Medicine, and in 1661 Provost
of Mcrton College. He died October 4, 1693.
4. Eichard Mocket, B.A., of Brasennose College Feb. 16,
1596, M.A. of All Souls' College 1600, B.D. 1607, D.D. 1609,
Warden of All Souls' April 12, 1614, domestic Chaplain to
Archbishop Abbot, Eector of St. Clement's, East Cheap,
London, Dec. 29, 1610, which he resigned in December 1611,
when he was Eector of St. Michael's, Crooked-lane. He was
Eector of Monks Eisborough, Bucks, and of Newington,
Oxfordshire. He died July 5, 1618, aged 40, and was buried
in the college chapel, where his relation, Sir Thomas Freke,
erected a monument to his memory. His monument was
removed into the ante-chapel in 1664.
5. Eobert Pinke, born at Wenslade, Hants, 1572, Proctor
1610, M.B. 1612, B.D. 1619, D.D. 1620, Warden of New
College July 17, 1617. James, who gave himself a Latin
determination on the first question, admired his disputing.
He was seized at Aylesbury for his loyalty in raising the
University militia, and was for a time imprisoned in the
Gate-house, Westminster. He died November 2, 1647.
Dr. Brideoak, Bishop of Chichester, erected a monument
to him in his college chapel.1
6. Eobert Bolton, B.A., of Brasennose College Dec. 2,
1596, M.A. July 1602, B.D. 1609. Bolton was born at
Blackburn in Lancashire 1572. He removed from Lincoln
College to Brasennose College, of which he was made Fellow.
He was brought to true repentance and seriousness of mind
by his college tutor, Thomas Peacock, who was B.D. 1608,
a native of Cheshire. Peacock died in 1611, and was buried
in December in St. Mary's Church. He was incumbent
of Broughton in Northamptonshire, and there devoted himself
most exemplarily to his duties. He had a fluency and elo
quence truly Chrysostomian, with as great energy, so that
his sermons are to this day far from antiquated or unworthy
of perusal. He died aged 60 years in 1631. There is an
account of him in Fuller's Abel Eedivivus.
The King resolved upon hearing a second Act after but
a short interval, upon two questions appointed by himself:
Whether it be a greater object to preserve than to extend
the bounds of a kingdom ? and, Whether the origin of right
and wrong is to be sought in law or in nature ?
The moderator was Kichard Fitzherbert, of New College,
Senior Proctor. He was installed Archdeacon of Dorset
August 27, 1620, and died probably some time after 1640.
The respondent was William Ballow, of Christ Church.
He had been Senior Proctor in 1604. He was created D.D.
November 29, 1613, and died in December 1618. He was
Rector of Milton Bryant, near Woburn, Bedfordshire, Canon
of the first stall at Christ Church January 3, 1615, and dying
in 1618 was buried in the Cathedral without any memorial.
He is highly commended by Wake as a most polished scholar
and of a most courteous disposition.
The opponents were :
1. Thomas Winniff, B.A. of Exeter College July 12, 1592,
M.A. May 17, 1601, B.D. March 27, 1610, D.D. July 5, 1619.
He was born at Sherborne in Dorsetshire, was Rector of
Lamborne and Willingate Doe near Chipping Ongar, Essex,
Dean of Gloucester November 20, 1624, of St. Paul's April 18,
1631, consecrated Bishop of Lincoln February 6, 1642, but
he had no enjoyment of that dignity, but retired to Lamborne
where he had purchased both the advowson and an estate,
and there died September 19, 1654, in his 78th year. He
was raised to the see of Lincoln on account of the blameless-
ness and popularity of his character, when Charles sought
but too late to conciliate the nation by this and similarly good
appointments.
2. Simon Jux, (or perhaps Jukes) D.D. of Christ Church
1618. One probably of the same family was a benefactor
to the present chapel at Brasennose College, Rowland Jucks,
Esq.
3. Richard Thornton, Vicar of Cassington and Rector of
Westwell near Burford, Canon of the first stall of Christ-
church, July 13, 1596, Prebendary of the ninth stall at
Worcester, March 20, 1612. He died January 2, 1615, and
was buried on the 6th in the Cathedral at Oxford without
any memorial.
4. John King, D.D. of Merton College, July 6, 1615,
Canon of the twelfth stall, Westminster, on the death of
Dr. Barlow, Bishop of Lincoln 1613, and Canon of Windsor
November 23, 1616, on the decease of Murdoch Aldem. He
died August 7, 1638, and was buried in St. George's,
Windsor. Murdoch (in Wood Mardochay) Aldem succeeded
another John King, Fellow both of Peter House and of
Exeter College. Dr. King of Merton College was nephew
to King of Peter House.1 Dr. King was some time Fellow
of Merton College. He was uncle to Dr. George Aglionby,
already mentioned as the friend of Falkland, and as designated
in 1643 for the Deanery of Canterbury.2 He succeeded Dr.
King in his stall at Westminster 1638.
5. William Langton, President of Magdalene College
November 19, 1610, on the death of Dr. Harding, already
mentioned amongst those who disputed in the Divinity Act.
He was born at Langton in Lincolnshire near Wragby, of
an ancient and celebrated family. He was as conspicuous for
his modesty as for his learning. He died Oct. 10, 1626,
aged 54 years. His monument with his effigy, after the
manner of that age, is in his college chapel, with an inscrip
tion of no common character for its reality and force of
expression.3
6. John Barkham, of Corpus Christi College, is said to
have applied himself in his earlier years to heraldry, and to
have suffered his collections to be published with Gwillim's
name as the author. He was born in the parish of St. Mary
the Greater, Exeter, in 1572, entered at Exeter College,
Oxford, 1587, and removed thence to Corpus Christi College
in 1588. He wrote the life of King John published in
Speed's History, and wholly or chiefly that of Henry II.
His account of Becket is supposed to have been designed
as an answer to one written by Bolton, a Papist. Gwillim's
Heraldry was printed in folio, London, 1610. Barkham was
successively Chaplain to Bancroft and Abbot. He was
Rector and Dean of Bocking 1615, the other Dean being
Dr. Thomas Goad, Precentor of St. Paul's. Of Goad,
elsewhere mentioned, a posthumous work appeared, entitled,
Stimulus Orthodoxus, sive Goadus Redivivus. A disputation,
partly theological, partly metaphysical, concerning the necessity
and contingency of events in the world, in respect of God's
eternal Decree, written above twenty years since ~by that reverend
and learned Divine Thomas Goad, Doctor of Divinity, and
ftector of Hadleigh in Suffolk. London, for Will. LeaJce,
1669, 4&, with a Preface ~by J. G. He wrote also, Eclogce
et Musce virgiferce acjuridicce. Dr. Barkham was Prebendary
of Brownswood in St. Paul's, London, and died at Bocking
on March 25, 1643. At the conclusion of the Act the King,
in a brief speech, engaged to continue, as he had ever been,
a patron of learning and of learned men. He promised in
particular his patronage and encouragement to the University
of Oxford. He bade them continue to maintain the setting
forth of the pure Word of God, to fly from and to put to flight
all Romish superstitions, and to avoid and reject all schisms
and innovations in religion; to advance in their peculiar
studies both in theory and practice, that so their lives might
agree with their profession, God's glory, and his own
expectation be fulfilled, himself augmented in honour, and
abundant fruit meanwhile redound to themselves.1
The King and nobility were attended with acclamations
and by torchlight (for the evening had closed upon them)
to Christchurch. Others of the nobility attended Prince
Henry to Magdalene College. He occupied the middle seat
at the high table. Down the middle of the hall the noblemen
were seated, and along the sides the Fellows and other
members of the foundation. The Prince graciously bade
them keep their square caps on their heads. He drank their
healths, to which they responded, all standing. He more
than once called Magdalene his college, and himself of
Magdalene. William Grey, the younger son of Arthur
Lord Wilton, at the command of Dr. Bond the worthy
President, presented the Prince with a richly-bound MS.,
the Apologues of Pandulf Colinucius, the binding set with
pearls and enriched with ornaments of gold. Arthur Lord
Grey de Wilton was son of William Lord Grey de Wilton,
a brave soldier, who being Captain of the Castle of Guisnes
after the surrender of Calais 1558, was at length obliged to
deliver it up and yield himself a prisoner, and afterwards
to pay a ransom of 24,000 crowns, which much weakened
his estate.1 In 1560 he was made a Knight of the Garter,
and died 1562, leaving issue by Mary, daughter of Charles
Somerset, Earl of Worcester, a daughter Honora, married to
Henry Denny (who had issue by her Edward, created by
James L Earl of Norwich), and two sons, Arthur Lord Grey
de Wilton and William Arthur, the father of William at
Magdalene College in 1605, died in 1593. Edward, the son
of Sir Thomas Chaloner, presented the Prince with a pair of
splendid gloves in the name of the whole College, and an
illustrious youth, Kichard Worsley, presented him with a
volume of verses in various foreign languages. Edward
Chaloner was B.A. of Magdalene College July 8, 1607;
May 15, 1610, M.A. He removed to All Souls' College,
where he was B.D. May 30, 1617, and D.D. November
6, 1619. From his fellowship at All Souls' College he was
raised to be Principal of St. Alban's Hall December 29, 1624,
and died of the plague July 25, 1625. He had on the
evening of 10th July supped with his friend Dr. Hussey of
New College, who is supposed to have brought the plague
with him from London. He was buried in St. Mary's
churchyard.
Richard was second son of Sir Richard Worsley, the first
Baronet of that name, and Frances, daughter of Sir Henry
Neville. The family took their name from their lordship in
Lancashire, Workeseley or Workedeley.
After supper the King and Prince met again at St. John's
College, where a comedy, but in tragic measure, says Sir
Isaac Wake, representing the revolving year, was acted by the
members of that College. The scene was made in the form
of the zodiac, with the sun passing through all the twelve
signs. All kinds of allegories were introduced into this piece.
It began with the sun entering the ram, it ended with the
fishes broiled by the heat of the sun.
On Friday morning, the day of the King's departure, a
pastoral by Samuel Daniel was acted at Christ Church, and
was highly applauded. It was published shortly after with
the following title, " The Queen's Arcadia, a Pastoral Trago-
Comedie, presented to Her Majestie and her Ladies by the
University of Oxford in Christ's Church in August last
1605. At London : printed by G. Eld, for Simon Waterson.
1606." A copy of this edition is among Garrick's Plays in
the British Museum. It was reprinted in 1611, in 12mo. It
is also to be found in the edition of Daniel's Poems in 1620.1
At the same time a Convocation was held at St. Mary's.
The Bedell appears at this time to have fulfilled his office in
the old fashion to the letter, making oral proclamation of the
Convocation. The nobles began to assemble at eight. The
Earl of Northampton was the first that went in with Abbot,
Master of University College and Yice-Chancellor, and sat
on his right hand upon a form, for there was but one chair,
on which the Vice-Chancellor sat. He went in a black gown
and a regent's hood, having been before incorporated there.
And first there passed a grace for the Earls of Northum
berland, Oxford, Essex, and others, to which consent was
asked of the Doctors by the Proctors, and then the Proctors
turning to the House gave their consent by general acclama
tion, saying Placet ; so the Earl was presented, as were most
of the nobility, by Sir William Paddie. Then the Earl was
sworn to observe the privileges and statutes of the University.
The Vice-Chancellor admitted the noblemen to their degrees
standing, but remained seated whilst he admitted the knights
and others. Sir John Davies2 presented the knights and
courtiers, the Prince's servants, and others. Doctors presented
the Doctors and Bachelors of Divinity from Cambridge, and
Masters of Arts the Masters of Arts. Of Cambridge were
incorporated Dr. John Hammond, one of the King's Phy
sicians, father of the learned Henry Hammond ; George
Kuggle, first of Trinity College, then Fellow of Clare Hall,
and author of the celebrated comedy Ignoramus ; the Bishop
of Oxford, Dr. Bridges, who was of Pembroke Hall, Cam
bridge; Alexander Serle, LL.B., Thomas Howard, Earl of
Suffolk; Kobert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury; and Dr. Bar
nabas Gooch, Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge, and
highly regarded by Williams when Lord Keeper. Amongst
those who were honoured with degrees were, Esme Stuart,
Duke of Lenox, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke ; his
younger brother Philip, Earl of Montgomery ; William
Cecil, Viscount Cranbourne, who succeeded his father Robert
Cecil as Earl of Salisbury ; Theophilus Howard, Lord
Walden, Earl of Suffolk on the death of his father, the
wealthy builder of Audley House; Charles, son of the
famous Lord High Admiral ; Thomas West, Lord de la
Warr ; Grey Bridges, Lord Chandos, commonly called King
of Cotswold from the great number of his attendants when
he went to court ; William Compton, afterwards Earl of
Northampton ; Edward Bruce, Master of the Rolls and
Baron of ^Kinloss in Scotland,1 father of Thomas, Earl of
Elgin and Baron of Whorlton in Yorkshire ; Lord Erskine,
Sir Henry Neville, Sir Thomas Chaloner, John Egerton,
Knight, afterwards Earl of Bridgewater ; Sir Thomas Monson,
of Magdalene College, of Burton Hall, near Lincoln ; David
Foulis, Knight ; George More, Knight ; 2 John Digby, Esq.,
of Magdalene College, afterwards Earl of Bristol.
About nine the King went to the Bodleian Library, the
noble foundation of Sir Thomas Bodley, of the ancient family
of the Bodleighs of Dunscombe near Crediton. He was born
at Exeter March 2, 1545. His father removed with his
family to Geneva to avoid the Marian persecution, but
returned in 1558 and settled in London. In 1559 or 1560
Bodley was admitted at Magdalene College, whence he
removed to Merton College, where he took his B.A. July 26,
1563, and M.A. July 5, 1566. He was chosen to a fellowship,
and having studied under the most learned professors at
Geneva, he was appointed to read a public lecture on the
study of Greek literature in the hall of his College. In 1569
he was Junior Proctor. From 1576 to 1580 he travelled on
the Continent, then returned to Merton College, but was
afterwards employed by Elizabeth both at home and abroad
till 1597. He afterwards lived in London or at Parson's
Green, Fulham. From 1597 he employed himself in re
storing and supplying the University Library. On the 8th
of November, 1602, there was a solemn procession from St.
Mary's to the Library, for the purpose of opening it and
devoting it to the use of the University. More than two
thousand choice volumes had been deposited in it by that
time. Sir Thomas Bodley was assisted in his noble under
taking by Sir Henry Saville and Sir John Bennet. Sir
Henry was also B.A. of Merton College, Sir John Bennet of
Christ Church. The latter fell under the displeasure of the
House of Commons in 1621, was imprisoned for a short time,
fined £20,000, and deprived of his office of Judge of the
Prerogative Court. He died in the parish of Christ Church,
Newgate Street, in the beginning of 1628. The original
founder of the Library was indeed Humphrey, the good Duke
of Gloucester, son of Henry IV. about 1445. * Sir Thomas
Bodley 's work is the eastern wing of the present Library.
This was finished in 1613, the year after his death. The
western was added between 1630 and 1640. The Divinity
School, over which the original Library was built, was
founded about 1427, but not completed until 1480. The
Proscholium was a part of the work of Sir Thomas Bodley.
The remainder of the square rose from 1613 to 1619. The
effect was doubtless far superior before the removal of the
transoms from the windows of this venerable quadrangle.
The architect was Thomas Holt of York, who died Sept. 9,
1624, and was buried in Holy well churchyard.1 The King,
upon casting his eyes round the Library, expressed his
satisfaction upon seeing whence these stores of learning had
been drawn which had recently yielded him so much
satisfaction, and looking upon Bodley's effigies said, he
should rather be called Godly. Amongst other MSS. of
that kind he was shewn the Ethiopic version of the Scrip
tures, and that monument of impurity under the garb of piety,
Gaguinus de Puritate Conception** B. M. V. Paris, 1497.2
The King promised himself to become a benefactor to [the
Library. The Earl of Salisbury and Charles Lord Effingham,
son of the Lord High Admiral, seconded the King's expres
sions of good will. The King further said, that were he not
king he could have lived as an academician ; and, alluding to
the chains with which the books were then fastened to their
shelves, added that should it ever be his fate to be led
captive in chains, if his choice were given him, he would be
shut up in this prison, bound with these chains, and pass his
time with these captives for his companions. From the
Library the King went into the Divinity School, and visited
all the other schools in the quadrangle.
Next the King visited Brasenose College, of whose huge
brazen nose on the great gate Sir Isaac Wake does not fail to
remind his reader. Dr. Thomas Singleton, the Principal, at
the head of all the members of his house, accosted the King.
Dr. Singleton had been presented by Lord Keeper Egerton
to the Rectory of Whitchurch, Oxfordshire, in 1596 ; he
was made Prebendary of Bromesbury in St. Paul's, London,
10th May, 1597. Thomas Powell, B.D. of his College,
dedicated to him a sermon upon Exod. xxviii. 34, preached
at St. Mary's in 1613. He died November 29, 1614, and
was buried in the chancel of St. Mary's ; for, until the
consecration of their present chapel, which was founded
June 26, 1656, and consecrated November 17, 1686, by the
Bishop of Oxford, the Society had only a small oratory over
the buttery on the south side of the quadrangle. The King
entered into discourse with the Principal respecting Friar
Bacon, of whose brazen head a tradition went that the
prodigious nose aforesaid was a part. Koger Bacon is said
to have lectured in Little University Hall, one of the
Halls since swallowed up in Brasenose College, and once
occupying the north-east angle near the lane. Adjoining to
this was the ancient hostel called Brasenose Hall as early
as 1278, whence the College, founded in 15091 by William
Smyth, Bishop of Lincoln, took its name. The brazen head
of Koger Bacon, with its portentous nose, brings to Sir
Isaac Wake's mind a pleasant story of Thomas Aquinas
and his master Albertus Magnus. Albertus had made an
image which, by the help of machinery, could articulate a
few sounds, nay words — so the story ; and Aquinas was sent
into the room utterly unprepared for his strange companion,
whom, when he began to speak, he in his terror broke to
pieces with a staff; whereupon Albertus said, Pol, triginta
annorum opus uno momenta contrivisti; In one moment you
have dashed to pieces the work of thirty years.2 The quad
rangle of Brasenose was then beautified with flowers and
shrubs, (probably in the antique style, as once was that of
Peterhouse at Cambridge,) which the King failed not to
observe with approbation. His Majesty next visited All
Souls' College. There he was accosted by Dr. Kobert
Hoveden the Warden, who had been elected to the warden-
ship in his 28th year, 12 Nov. 1571. He was Eector of
Newington near Oxford, and had been Chaplain to Arch
bishop Parker, of whose diocese he was a native. Under
Grindal he was made Prebendary of the fourth stall at
Canterbury in 1580. The next year he was also Prebendary
of Wells, and in 1570 or 1571 of Clifton, in the Cathedral of
Lincoln. He wrote the life of Chichely, the founder of All
Souls' College.3 He died in his 69th year, March 25, 1615,
and was buried in his college chapel.
Thence passing down the High Street by the ancient
Colleges of University and Queen's, both now replaced by
more modern edifices, the King enters his son's adopted
College of St. Mary Magdalene. There Douglas Castilion
made him an oration, probably of the same family with John
Castilion, Dean of Eochester in the reign of Charles II.
and of Francis Castilion, Knight, who had been created M.A.
this same morning. The King thence returned to dinner at
Christ Church, where Dr. Edmund Lilly, who had been of Mag
dalene College and was at this time Master of Balliol College
and Archdeacon of Wiltshire, made another and valedictory
oration. His wonderful patristic knowledge made him the
admiration of his age. At the stairs' foot, where the King
entered into the Court, John Hanmer, of All Souls' College,
the Junior Proctor, made a short oration. He rose to be
Bishop of St. Asaph 1624. Upon this the Chancellor
delivered to the King his Majesty's grant of the Eectory of
Ewelme to the Regius Professor of Divinity, which the King
took and returned to the Vice-Chancellor. Then both the
King and Queen presented their hands to the Vice-Chancellor
and the Doctors to kiss, and bade them farewell, and to leave
him to take his departure without farther state. Then the
King, Queen, and Prince went all into one coach, and passed
through the town, the Mayor and other civic officers of the
city in scarlet preceding the King through the town to the
farther end of Magdalene Bridge. The Lord Treasurer
stayed till Monday next after the King's departure. He
sent to the disputers and actors £20 in money, and five
brace of bucks ; so he sent to every College and Hall venison
and money after this proportion ; to Brasenose College five
bucks and ten angels; to St. Edmund's Hall four red deer
pies and four angels. The King slept the evening of his
departure at Rotherfield Grey's near Henley, the mansion of
Lord Knowles, and on Saturday, proceeding by Bisham
Abbey, the seat of the Hobies, returned to Windsor.
On Nov. 3rd Andrewes, who had thrice nobly refused
a mitre, was consecrated to the see of Chichester1 on the
decease of Dr. Anthony Watson. He was consecrated by
Archbishop Bancroft, assisted by Dr. Eichard Vaughan,
Bishop of London, Jegon, Bishop of Norwich, Dr. Thomas
Kavis, Bishop of Gloucester, and Dr. William Barlow, Bishop
of Rochester, afterwards of Lincoln. His elevation was owing
to the King's especial regard for him.2 The King also
appointed him his Almoner, and at the same time granted, in
augmentation of the King's alms, all the goods, &c. of all
who were felones de se, as well as all deodands in England
and Wales, exempting Andrewes also from rendering an
account of his receipts from these sources.3 Andrewes re
signed the mastership of Pembroke Hall on the 5th, on which
day Wren was elected a Fellow of that Society, Andrewes
voting for him by his deputy, the President. In his
mastership Andrewes was succeeded by a far inferior person,
Dr. Samuel Harsnett, who was afterwards compelled to resign
in consequence of the complaints of the Fellows, headed by
Wren, who was himself a devoted friend of both Peter House
and Pembroke Hall.
1575; and B.D. 1582. He was made Dean of Bristol 16th April, 1590, and
installed 21st July. He was (in the place of Thomas Manton, M.A., who
succeeded Dr. Roger Goad in that preferment,) made Chancellor of Wells, and
installed 15th July, 1592, and at the same time made also (in the place of
Manton) Prebendary of Wedmore Secunda, in that Church. He was nomi
nated to the see of Chichester 1st June, 1596, elected by the Chapter on the
14th, confirmed August 14th, and the temporalities were restored to him 13th
September. He had been previously consecrated August 15th by Whitgift,
assisted by Dr. John Young, Bishop of Rochester; Richard Vaughan, Bishop
of Bangor (afterwards translated successively to Chester and London) ; and
Bilson, who on June 13th this same year was consecrated to the see of Worcester,
having been previously Fellow of New College, Oxford, and Warden of Win
chester College. Bishop Watson lived in celibacy, was Almoner to King James,
and died at his house at Cheam 10th September, 1605. He was buried in his
church there on the 19th. His will is in the Prerogative Office, London. He
left £100 to Christ's College, Cambridge, where he had been educated, and whence
he was chosen to a fellowship at Corpus Christi College. Bishop Hacket was
afterwards Rector of Cheam. On March 14th, 1606, Abbot granted a license to
Andrewes, now Bishop of Chichester, to demolish sundry ruinated and super
fluous buildings attached to the episcopal houses at Chichester and Aldingbourne
near Chichester. " Upon the house belonging to the bishopric of Chichester he
expended above £420." So his biographer Isaacson.
CHAPTER VIII.
Bishop Andrewes* Sermon on Christmas Day, 1605 — King James's
policy in regard to the Scotch Church — Bishop Andrewes' Sermon
on the anniversary of the King' s Accession, 1606 — His commenda
tions of the King — Sermon on Easter- Day — On Whit- Sunday —
Of the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit's operations — Sermon at
Greenwich before King James and the King of Denmark — His
notice of the Jesuits — The Scotch Conference and Sermons at
Hampton Court — Bishop Andrewes* Sermons on the right of
Kings to call Councils — On 5th November — On Christmas Day
— Of the merits of Christ — Sermon on Easter Day, 1607 —
On leing doers of the Word — Sermon at Romsey on 5th August
— On 5th November at Whitehall — On Christmas Day on the
mystery of Godliness — On Easter Day, 1608 — On Whit- Sunday
— At Holdenby on August 5 — Consecration of Bishop Neile —
Dr. John King, Bishop of London.
ON Christmas Day 1605, Tuesday, our prelate preached
before the King at Whitehall from Heb. ii. 16, in the then
version : For he in nowise took the angels / but the seed of
Abraham he took. In page 5 he observes, " And emergent or
issuing from this are all those other apprehendings or seisures
of the persons of men (by which God layeth hold on them,
and bringeth them back from error to truth, and from sin to
grace,) that have been from the beginning, or shall be to the
end of the world. That, of Abraham himself, whom God
laid hold of and brought from out of Ur of the Chaldeans,
and the idols he there worshipped. That, of our Apostle St.
Paul, that was apprehended in the way to Damascus. That
of St. Peter, that in the very act of sin was seized on with
bitter remorse for it. All those, and all these, whereby men
daily are laid hold of in spirit, and taken from the bye-paths
of sin and error, and reduced into the right way, and so their
persons recovered to God and seised to his use j — all these
apprehensions (of these branches) came from this apprehension
(of the seed) : they all have their beginning and their being
from this day's taking, even semen apprehendit" [he took the
seed]. " Our receiving His spirit for His taking our flesh.
This seed, wherewith Abraham is made the son of God, from
the seed wherewith Christ is made the son of Abraham."
Of the word used in the original he notes that it is the
same word that was used of St. Peter, when, being ready to
sink, Christ caught him hy the hand and saved him, and of
Lot and his daughters1 in the like danger.
lt And," he proceeds, " it may truly be said — (inasmuch as
all God's promises, as well touching temporal as eternal
deliverances, and as well corporal as spiritual, be in Christ
Yea and Amen ; Yea in the giving forth, Amen in the
performing) — that even our temporal delivery from the dangers
that daily compass us about, even from this last [the 5th of
November], so great and so fearful as the like was never
imagined before, all have their ground from this great appre
hension, are fruits of this seed here, this blessed seed, for
whose sake, and for whose truths sake, that we (though
unworthily) profess, are by him caught hold of, and so
plucked out of it."
Having set down St. Augustine's reason why more mercy
might have been shewn to us than to the angels, that they
had no tempter ; and Leo's, that not all the angels fell, but
that all fell in Adam, he adds : "And thus have they travailed,
and these have they found why he did apprehend us rather
than them. It may be not amiss; but we will content
ourselves for our inde nobis hoc — whence cometh this to us ?
with the answer of the Scriptures, whence, but from the tender
mercies of our God, whereby this day hath visited us?
Zelus Domini (saith Esay), The zeal of the Lord of hosts
shall bring it to pass. Propter magnam charitatem [for his
great love wherewith he loved us], saith the apostle. Sic
Deus dilexit [God so loved the world], saith he, he himself.
And we are taught by him to say, Even so} Lord, for so it
was thy good pleasure thus to do."
King James set the example to his son Charles of
endeavouring to effect a conformity in Scotland to the
established discipline and ritual of the Church of England ;
nor was the indiscretion of the royal father less than that
of the misguided son. In England James was as fulsomely
flattered as in Scotland he had been undutifully browbeaten.
The boldness of the Scottish clergy was at times rash and
intemperate, and could not but have been most offensive to
him ; yet to that body did Scotland owe much of its security
from the plottings of Komanism on the one hand, and of civil
despotism on the other. Those who can see nothing in the
kirk of those days to admire, are as intolerantly blind as
those who would condemn them in nothing. But the
impolicy and insincerity of James frustrated his own designs,
and laid the foundation for those troubles which afterwards
fell upon King Charles. It was insincere in him, who had
not privately alone, but publicly declared for the discipline
of the Kirk, to force upon it episcopacy. His impolicy is
repeatedly admitted by one who has spared no pains for the
most part to exculpate him.
In 1606 James early in the year proceeded to an act of the
most consummate injustice in procuring the condemnation of
six of the Presbyterian clergy upon a false charge of treason.
This took place on the 10th of January. Others were some
time hence commanded to London, apparently to hold con
ferences, really to be inquisitor! ally examined and for a while
detained, and some of them to be banished from their native
land. But we shall find them in London in the month of
August ; so we return to our prelate, whom we find, from the
31st March to the 22nd June inclusive, engaged in his par
liamentary duties in various committees ; first, on a committee
for the repeal of an Act of the 14th Eliz. concerning the length
of kersies, which forbade their being made above the length of
eighteen yards ; the committee to meet on Thursday, April
3, by eight A.M. in the Little Chamber near the Parliament
presence ; and also for the relief of John Eoger, gent, against
Kobert, Paul, and William Taylor. The House of Commons
desired a conference on the 5th of April on the silencing of
ministers, the multiplicity of ecclesiastical commissions, the
manner of citations, and on excommunication. The Bishop
was one of the Lords appointed to confer with them. The
conference was appointed to be on Monday the 14th April, at
two in the afternoon. The day was changed to the 17th. The
prelates were Abbot, Andrewes, Bilson, still Bishop of Bath
and Wells, and Rudd, Bishop of St. David's. Eeport was
made on the 28th of April.
On Easter Day April 6, he again preached before the
King at Whitehall, on Rom. vi. 9 — 11, in a manner worthy
of himself. This sermon, indeed, abounds with most pious
and profitable passages. In it he cites that saying of Bernard,
" Christ, although he rose alone, yet did not all rise ; that is,
we were a part of him. He is but risen in part, and that he
may rise all, we must rise from death also." Again, he sets
forth the true doctrine of the Church, that Christ's death was
an exhibition of Divine justice, and that his person was that
which gave virtue to his sacrifice. Of living according to
God he saith, "Then live we according to him, when his
will is our law, his Word our rule, his Son's life our example, his Spirit rather than our own souls the guide of our actions."
On the 28th of April he was appointed to meet on a com
mittee on the annexation of certain honours, castles, forests,
manors, &c. &c., and of certain diadems, jewels, crowns, &c.,
to the throne of England for ever.
On the 5th of May he made report touching the oath
ex officio which was appointed to be handled by him in
respect of the sickness of Dr. Still, Bishop of Bath and Wells.1
On the 12th May our prelate was appointed to meet on
a Bill read a second time on the 10th of that month, for the
more sure establishing and continuance of true religion.
On Whitsunday, June 8, he preached before the King at
Greenwich from Acts ii. 1 — 4. " It pleased Christ," he
saith, u to vouchsafe to grace the Church, his queen, with
like solemn inauguration to that of his own, when the Holy
Ghost descended on him in the likeness of a dove, that she
might, no less than he himself, receive from heaven like
solemn attestation."
Of the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit's operations he saith :
" And this (of blowing upon one certain place) is a property
very well fitting the Holy Spirit, He bloweth where Tie listeth.
To blow in certain places where itself will, and upon certain
persons, and they shall plainly feel it, and others about them
not a whit There shall be an hundred or more in an auditory ;
one sound is heard, one breath doth blow. At that instant
one or two and no more, one here, another there, they shall
feel the Spirit, shall be affected and touched with it sensibly ;
twenty on this side them and forty on that side shall not feel
it, but sit all becalmed, and go their way no more moved
than they came. Ubi vult spirat [He bloweth where he
listeth] is most true."2
When Christern IV. King of Denmark came on a visit to
the Queen his sister, Bishop Andrewes preached in Latin
before the two Sovereigns at Greenwich on August 5th, the
anniversary of the Gowrie conspiracy. His text was the 10th
verse of the 144th Psalm. He spoke of the Jesuits as amongst
the strange children in v. 11, Their mouth speaketh a lie, their
right hand is a right hand of iniquity. " And are not these
of ours just like them ? Only except what David calls lying
they call equivocation.'" Andrewes alludes in this sermon to
their various plots in which, by the use of poisons and powders
(not omitting the gunpowder), and of the sword, they had
plotted against our own and other Princes. In the latter
part he gives a detailed account of the Gowrie conspiracy.
This sermon was printed with his posthumous works, and in
English in the folio edition of his Sermons in 1661.
On September 7th he assisted, with Toby Matthews, the
pious and witty Archbishop of York, Dr. Thomas Eavis, the
deservedly popular Bishop first of Gloucester then of London,
and one of the translators of the Bible, and Dr. William
Barlow, Bishop of Rochester and afterwards of Lincoln, at
the consecration of Dr. William James, Dean of Durham and
President of University College, Oxford, to the see of Durham.
He thus succeeded Dr. Toby Matthew both in the deanery
and bishopric. He obtained permission to be consecrated
within the province of Canterbury.1
William James was a native of Sandbach in Cheshire. In
1559 he was admitted student of Christ Church, and took the
degrees in arts. He afterwards entered into holy orders, and
became Divinity Eeader of Magdalene College. Thence,
being at that time B.D., he was elected to the mastership of
University College, Oxford, June 12, 1572. On August 27,
1577, he was admitted Archdeacon of Coventry by Bishop
Bentham. Being appointed Dean of Christ Church he, on
September 14, 1584, resigned the mastership of University
College, On June 5, 1596, he was installed Dean of Durham,
whence he was promoted to the bishopric. He died on the
12th May, 1617, and was buried in his Cathedral. The
reader will find more in Wood's Athence Oxonienses and
Surtees' invaluable History of Durham.
li The commotions," says the late Bishop of Glasgow (Dr.
Eussell), a which continued to disturb the Scottish Church,
suggested to the King the propriety of holding a conference
with the leading members of the two parties. For this
purpose he summoned to London the Archbishops of Glasgow
and St. Andrew's, and the Bishops of Orkney, Galloway,
and Dunkeld, to represent the episcopal interest ; while, as
advocates for the Presbyterian cause, he named the two
Melvilles and five others, than whom there were none better
qualified both by talent and courage to support the tenets
of the Genevan school, whether in doctrine or discipline."
To these seven, namely, Andrew and James Melville, James
Balfour, William Watson, William Scott, John Carmichael,
and Adam Cole, the King addressed a circular letter, ex
pressing therein his anxiety to preserve that peace in the
Church which had been established when he left Scotland.
He further enumerated the measures which he had taken for
that purpose, dwelt upon the opposition which he had en
countered from the clergy, opposition which had been such
as to compel him to a severity contrary to his inclination,
and concluded by telling them that, being influenced by
this and various other weighty reasons, he saw good to
command them without fail to come to London before the
15th of September, that on that day he might begin with
them, and such others of their brethren as he knew to be learned
and experienced, and whom he had also ordered to attend,
to treat concerning the peace of the Church of Scotland, and
to make his constant and unchangeable favour to the members
of that Church so manifest, that they might be bound in duty
and conscience to conform to his godly meaning. In his usual
style he took great praise to himself for his condescension,
and plainlv intimated what consequences would follow, if the
conference did not terminate agreeably to his royal pleasure.
The learned and experienced brethren whom they w%ere to
meet were the aforesaid Bishops, not that they had been
otherwise ordained than themselves. They had the title
of Bishops, but they were not as yet canonically consecrated
as a separate order. The canonical consecration of the
Scottish Prelates did not take place until A.D. 1610. The
King had been known, notwithstanding his many public
professions of fidelity to the Kirk, to be favourable to
episcopacy. In June, 1606, he settled upon his titular
Bishops so much of the episcopal estates as had been hitherto
annexed to the crown, legalizing at the same time the
immense plunder of church property which the nobility had
secured to themselves by way of rewarding their godly zeal
for reformation. Very many of the ministers who were
favourable to the Presbyterian discipline protested, but in
vain, against this attempt to pave the way for another form
of church government.
The seven whom the King had summoned arrived in
London before the end of August.1 " To clear the ground,"
says Dr. Russell, "for the amicable contest in which the
Scottish champions were about to engage, James had pro
vided that they should all go to church and listen to a series
of discourses on the several points at issue." They had warn
ing given them to attend at Hampton Court on the 20th.
Barlow, now Bishop of Rochester, preached on the superiority
of Bishops to presbyters; then followed Dr. Buckeridge,
President of St. John's College, Oxford, and afterwards
successively Bishop of Rochester and Ely, who handled the
King's supremacy in causes ecclesiastical, often ranking the
Romanists and Presbyterians together in the matter of
rebellion. On Sunday, September 28, Bishop Andrewes
preached from Numbers x. 1, 2, upon the King's right to
call assemblies, both civil and ecclesiastical, instancing in
both the Old Testament and Apocryphal histories, and
copiously also from the ecclesiastical history for the first
eight centuries from the Christian era. He noticed the
inconsistency of those who disputed this power only upon
despairing of its being exerted on their side. After him
Dr. King, Dean of Christ Church and Abbot's successor
in the see of London, preached from the Canticles (chap. viii.
verse 11), against the Presbyterian institution of lay-elders.
Neither the sermons nor the conference produced the desired
effect. So the ministers were now examined relating to pro
ceedings which had not been specified in the letter. James
Melville had rendered himself especially obnoxious to the
King by his opposition to his policy on various occasions.
He was now, after an exhibition of intemperate zeal, committed
first to the care of the learned Dr. Overall, Dean of St. Paul's,
and then to the Tower. After about four years he was
restored to his liberty, but not to his country ; that he never
revisited, but was permitted in 1611 to accept the Divinity
Professorship at Sedan, whither he was invited by the Duke
of Boulogne. He died in 1621. His nephew James
Melville was ordered to reside in Newcastle, but was after
wards removed to Berwick, where he died. The rest were
detained awhile, but at last suffered to return to such places
in Scotland as were specified by the King.1
On 5th November Andrewes preached before the King
at Whitehall, from Psalm cxviii. 23, 24 : This is the Lord's
doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. This is the day which
the Lord hath made^ let us rejoice and be glad in it. On this
the first anniversary of that horrible and all but incredible plot,
which the Jesuits of our own day would have the world, if
possible, discredit,2 he set forth the plot and the deliverance in
language that must have thrilled the hearts of his auditors.
The court of Kome had openly rejoiced at the success of the
sanguinary plot of Charles IX. against his Protestant subjects
in 1572. He did not on this occasion spare either the Church
of Rome, which, had this plot succeeded, would, as he observed,
have canonized it, nor the Jesuits. Taking up our Saviour's
words, he spoke of it as an abomination that was to have
brought desolation. Every abomination doth not forthwith
make desolate. This had. If ever a desolate kingdom upon
earth, such had this been after that terrible blow. Neither
root nor branch left, all swept away. Strangers called in;
murtherers exalted; the very dissolution and desolation of
all ensued.
"But this, that this so abominable and desolate a plot
stood in the holy place, this is the pitch of all. For there it
stood, and thence it came abroad. Undertaken with an
holy oath; bound with the holy sacrament (this must needs be
in a holy place) ; warranted for a holy act, tending to the
advancement of a holy religion, and by holy persons called
by a most holy name, the name of Jesus. That these holy
religious persons, even the chief of all religious persons (the
Jesuits] , gave not only absolution but resolution , that all this
was well done ; that it was by them justified as lawful,
sanctified as meritorious, and should have been glorified (but
it wants glorifying, because the event failed, that is the grief;
if it had not, glorified) long ere this, and canonized as a very
good and holy act, and we had had orations out of the Conclave
in commendation of it."1 Let the reader but peruse this
discourse and carry himself back to the day when it was
delivered, the audience assembled to hear it. the presence of
the King who was to have been, with all the flower of his
own house and of his kingdom, so ruthlessly destroyed, and
he will receive an impression, it may be hoped, indelible, of
that truly marvellous interposition of the Almighty in behalf
of our religion and nation. He will, too, feel that so memo
rable an occasion could not have been left in the hands of a
more eloquent divine than our prelate. Ungrateful indeed
and insensible must have been the heart of James, who, in
spite of even that deliverance, could not rest until he had
endangered the stability of his throne and unsettled the
affections of his subjects, by seeking to unite his son, his
ill-fated son, to a Komish family.
On the 14th November Andrewes preferred to the vicarage
of Chigwell one of the greatest ornaments of his own college,
Koger Fenton, B.D., Hector of St. Stephen's, Walbrook, and
Prebendary of St. Paul's, and one of the translators of the
Bible. He was the friend of Thomas Fuller, Eector of
St. Peter's, Aldwinckle, and father of the famous Thomas
Fuller, and of the excellent Dr. Felton, Andre wes's successor
in the see of Ely. He died January 16, 1616, and was
buried in St. Stephen's, Walbrook.2
On 24th November Andrewes was on a committee upon
the Union, and again on 8th December, to restrain the multi
tude of inconvenient buildings in and about the metropolis.
On Christmas-day, Wednesday, our prelate preached
before the King at Whitehall, from Isaiah ix. 6, vindicating
this illustrious prophecy from the forced interpretation of the
Jews who apply it to Hezekiah, the vain subterfuge also of
modern Unitarianism. But, as Bishop Andrewes remarks,
u how senseless is it to apply to Hezekias that in the next
verse, Of his government and peace there should be none end •
that his throne should be established from thenceforth for ever ;
whereas his peace and government both had an end within
few years."
Here, as elsewhere, he does not confine the mediatorial
character and saving merits of our Lord to the time and
works of his public ministry, but includes therein all that
he did and all that he suffered. " If the tree be ours, the
fruit is ; if he be ours, his birth is ours ; his life is ours ; his
death is ours ; his satisfaction, his merits, all he did, all he
suffered is ours."
Bishop Andrewes served on various committees of the
Lords in February and March, 1587.
On Tuesday, March 24, being the anniversary of the
King's accession, Andrewes preached before him at Whitehall,
from Judges xvii. 6 : In those days there was no Jcing in
Israel, but every man did that which was good in his own eyes.
He spoke of the excellence of an hereditary monarchy, as
leaving no interregna, no seasons of confusion. He urged
the duty of kings, to whom God gives commission (I said ye
are gods] to take under their charge the things of God, to put
down idolatry, and to provide right instruction for their
subjects. He animadverts upon the disposition of many
of the laity in his time to intermeddle with ecclesiastical
things and persons, the people that strive with the priest.
Hos. iv. 4. Andrewes appears too courtly in this discourse.
Was it altogether true of James that he was the opposite to
Andrewes's picture of Eehoboam, one that was full of great
words, but so faint-hearted as not able to resist ought?
On April 5, Easter-day, he preached before the King at
Whitehall, from 1 Cor. xv. 20, observing how our Lord's
resurrection was the day of the feast of first-fruits.1 Very
felicitious is his observation in p. 400 : " There was a statute
concerning God's commandments, Qui fecerit ea, vivet in eis,
He that observed the commandments should live by that his
obedience. Death should not seize on him. Christ did
observe them exactly, therefore should not have been seized
by death ; should not, but was ; and that seizure of his was
death's forfeiture."
Towards the end of this sermon, as elsewhere, he speaks
in general terms of baptism as our regeneration in which we
receive the first-fruits of the Spirit, and of the constant
renovation of grace and of pardon in the Lord's Supper ;
and here he does not introduce the quasi- Romanism of some
who (like the Pharisees in regard of the prophets) speak much
of him, but do not teach the same doctrine. He does not
tell his hearers that there are but two times of absolute
cleansing, baptism and the day of judgment.2
It was in this year, and probably on May 10th, the fifth
Sunday after Easter-day, when the text occurs in the epistle
for the day, that our prelate preached before the King at
Greenwich one of his best and most ingenious discourses upon
the " doing of the Word," from St. James i. 22 ; noting one
of the great diseases of his day, the placing of all religion
in the going to hear sermons, and at the same time neglecting
to be so much as present at the prayers. And in exposing
this absurd kind of religion (so to call it), he does not with
some vilify preaching, nor teach with these that the hearers
should equally follow whatsoever they are taught from the
pulpit. He would have all that is heard to rest on the
authority and to be tried by the rule of holy Scripture. He
notes that " not so few as twenty times in the Gospel is the
preaching of the word called the Kingdom of Heaven, as a
special means to bring us thither. It is that of which St.
James in the verse before saith, It is able to save our souls;
the very words which the angel used to Cornelius, that, when
St. Peter came, he should speak words by which he and his
household should be saved."1
On Whit-Sunday, May 24th, Andrewes preached before
the King at Greenwich a sermon erroneously assigned to the
year following in the folio edition. This, which is the second
of the Whit-Sunday series, abounds more in the faults of
his style than most of his discourses. He does not proceed
far before he pours out his wit upon the Puritans. " I wish
it were not true this, that humours were not sometimes mis
taken, and mistermed the Spirit. A hot humour flowing from
the gall, taken from this fire here, and termed, though untruly,
the Spirit of zeal. Another windy humour proceeding from
the spleen, supposed to be this toind here, and they that [are]
filled with it (if nobody will give it them) taking to them
selves the style of the godly brethren. I wish it were not
needful to make this observation, but you shall easily know
it for an humour : non continetur termino suo, its own limits
will not hold it. They are ever mending churches, states,
superiors ; mending all save themselves j alieno non suo is the
note to distinguish an humour."1
Observing that the gifts for which we are to thank God on
our celebration of this day are the pastors of his church, he
says, u Must we keep our Pentecost in thanksgiving for these ?
are they worth so much, I trow ? We would be loth to have
the prophet's way taken with us (Zach. xi. 12) that it should
be said to us, as there it is, If you so reckon of them indeed,
let us see the wages you value them at; and when we shall see,
it is but eight pound a year^ and having once so much, never
to be capable of more. May not then the prophet's speech
there well be taken up ? A goodly price these high gifts are
valued at by you. And may not he justly (instead of Zachary
and such as he is) send us a sort of foolish shepherds; and send
us this senselessness withal, that, speak they never so fondly,
so they speaJc, all is well ; it shall serve our turn as well as the
best of them all ? Sure, if this be a part of our duty this day
to praise God for them, it is to be a part of our care, too,
they may be such as we may justly praise God for. Which
whether we shall be likely to effect by some courses as have
of late been offered, that leave I to the weighing of your wise
considerations."1
On 12th July he, with Dr. Eavis, Bishop of London, and
Dr. Barlow, Bishop of Eochester, assisted Archbishop Ban
croft at the consecration of Dr. Henry Parry, Dean of Chester,
to the see of Gloucester, then vacant by the translation of Dr.
Eavis to London.
Dr. Parry was the son of Henry, son of William Parry,
gentleman, of Wormbridge, about ten miles south-west of Here
ford, but was himself a native of Wiltshire, 1561. He was a
scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 13th Nov. 1576,
and Fellow and Greek Reader in that college. He was Eector
of Bredon in Worcestershire, Chaplain to Queen Elizabeth,
installed Dean of Chester 1st August, 1605, which he resigned
on his consecration at Croydon to the see of Gloucester. He
was translated to Worcester 13 July, 1610, died 12 December,
1616, and was buried in the Cathedral there. He was as
a preacher an especial favourite with King James. The
King of Denmark gave him a very rich ring for a sermon
preached before him and James the First at Eochester in
1606. He was very charitable to the poor. He built the
pulpit that was standing in the nave of Gloucester Cathedral
in the last century, but has since been removed. He pub
lished two Latin discourses, translated into English ; The Sum
of a Conference between Jolin Eainolds and John Hart touching
the head and faith of the Church, Oxford, 1619, folio; and
translated from Latin into English a Catechism of contro
verted questions in Divinity, Oxford, 1591, 8vo., which was
written by Zachary Ursinus, a Silesian, and Caspar Olevian,
commonly called The Heidelberg Catechism.1
In August Bishop Andrewes was with the King at Eomsey
in Hampshire, probably at Broadlands near Eomsey. His
Majesty's host there appears to have been Edward St. Barbe,
Esq., who, being previously of Ashington near Ilchester,
Somersetshire, married Frances, daughter and heiress of
William Fleming, Esq., of Broadlands, who died in 1606.
Edward was grandfather of the first baronet of his name.
Here Bishop Andrewes preached before the King on the
5th of August, the anniversary of the Gowry conspiracy, from
2 Sam. xviii. 32 ; shewing that it was not for Jews only,
but for Christians also, to denounce and curse the enemies
of God, of mankind, and of the church. In this sermon he
noticed the rise of the Independents, and the levelling prin
ciples of the Anabaptists of those times.
" Of the first sort of these risers (against kingly powder) are
the Anabaptists of our age, by whom all secular jurisdiction
is denied. No lawmakers they but the evangelists : no courts
but presbyteries : no punishments but church-censures. They
rise against the very state of kings : and that should they find
and feel, if they were once grown enough to make a party.
"A second sort there be (the Independents) that are but
bustling to rise ; not yet risen, at least not to this step ; but
in a forwardness they be ; proffer at it, that they do. They
that seek to bring parity not into the commonwealth by no
means, but only into the church. All parishes alike, every
one absolute, entire of itself. No dependency, or superiority,
or subordination. But, this once being had, do we not know
their second position ? — have they not broached it long since ?
The church is the house} the commonwealth but the hangings.
The hangings must be made fit for the house, that is, the
commonwealth fashioned to the church, not the house to the
hangings. No, take heed of that. And when they were
taken with it and charged with it, how sleightly in their
answer do they slip it over ! These, when they are thus got
far may rise one step higher ; and as Aaron now must not, so
perhaps neither must Moses then exalt himself above the con
gregation, seeing that all Gods people are holy no less than he"
On the 8th October Andrewes, as one of the residentiaries
of St. Paul's, presented the erudite Arabic scholar, William
Bedwell, to the Kectory of Tottenham, Middlesex. He was
one of the translators of the Bible, and had been educated
at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was B.A. in
1585, and M.A. in 1588. In 1601 he was made Kector of
St. Ethelburga, London. He was Chaplain to Sir Henry
Wotton in his embassy to Venice, where he is said to have
assisted Father Paul in his history of the Council of Trent.
He published Kalendarium Viatorium Generate, The Traveller's
Kalendar, serving generally for all parts of the world, 8vo.
1614. Also Mohamedis Imposturce: that is, a Discovery of
the manifold Forgeries, Falsehoods, and horrible Impieties of
the blasphemous seducer Mohammed / with a demonstration of
the Insufficiency of his Law, contained in the cursed Alkoran.
Delivered in a Conference had between Two Mohametans on
their Return from Mecha. Written long since in Arabick, and
now done into English by William Bedwell. Whereunto is
annexed the Arabian Trudgman, interpreting certain Arabic
Terms used by Historians : together with an Index of the
Chapters of the Alkoran , for the understanding of the con
futations of that Book. London. Imprinted by Richard Field,
dwelling in Great Wood-street, 1615. It purports to be a
translation of a work at that time 600 years old. Mr. Gough
says that Bedwell translated the Koran into English. He
was an early friend and patron of Henry Jacob, son of Henry
Jacob, one of the earliest Independents. He recommended
the younger Jacob to the notice of William Earl of Pembroke,
at whose recommendation he was admitted B.A. of Oxford,
1629. He found a patron in Laud, and adhered to him in
his troubles. He was intimate with Selden, who befriended
him in his own troubles. He died 1652. Bedwell also
published^! Brief Description of the Town of Tottenham High
Cross, 4to. 1631. In this he gave a copy of a very ancient
ballad, The Tournament of Tottenham; or, the Wooing,
Winning, and Wedding of Tibbe the Reves Daughter. This
poem, says Warton, in his History of English Poetry, is a
burlesque on the parade and fopperies of chivalry. It was
reprinted in Percy's Reliques of Antient Poetry, in Kobinson's
History, (fee., of Tottenham, 1828. He died May 5, 1632,
aged 78, and is buried in Tottenham Church.
On 5th November he preached before the King at White
hall, from the first four verses of Psalm cxxvi., enlarging upon
the greatness of that wonderful deliverance which is com
memorated on that day.
On Friday, Christmas-day, he again preached before the
King at the same place, upon the mystery of godliness , and its
manifestation in our Lord's incarnation, discoursing excel
lently upon the great humiliation and love by which this
manifestation of God was distinguished.
On Easter-day, March 27, 1608, Bishop Andrewes preached
most eloquently upon the history of our Lord's resurrection,
from St. Mark xvi. 1—7, at Whitehall.
On April 17 he assisted at the consecration of the truly
noble Dr. James Montague to the see of Bath and Wells.
On August 5, the anniversary of the Growry conspiracy, we
find Bishop Andrewes preaching before the King at Holdenby,
the once magnificent but now ruined mansion first of Sir
Christopher Hatton. His sermon, full of his usual ingenuity,
was upon David's most noble and pious answer to Abishai
when Abishai counselled him to put Saul to death. The King
on the same day rode to Bletsoe, the seat of Oliver Lord St.
John, whose third and fourth sons, Antony and Alexander,
he there knighted, as also Sir Thomas Tresham, of Newton
in Northamptonshire. On August 6 he knighted Sir Eichard
Harpur of Derbyshire, of a family now represented by Lord
Crewe.
On October 9 Bishop Andrewes with Dr. Thomas Ravis,
now Bishop of London, and Dr. James Montague, the truly
munificent Bishop of Bath and Wells, assisted Archbishop
Bancroft at Lambeth Chapel on the consecration of Dr.
Richard Neile, Dean of Westminster, to the bishopric of
Rochester. Dr. Neile owed his rise to the great Lord Bur-
leigh and to his son Robert Earl of Salisbury, to both of
whom he was successively Chaplain. He was himself the
great patron of Archbishop Laud, whom this year he made
his Chaplain, and in 1609 introduced him to the notice of the
King, before whom he preached at Theobalds.
On November 5, Dr. John King, Dean of Christ Church,
who appears as a preacher to have been esteemed next to
Andrewes, preached before the King at Whitehall.1 His
text was Psalm xi. 2 — 4. u Cruelty," he truly said, " is the
ensign and badge of that Church" [the Church of Rome].
u The habit of the harlot is according to her heart, scarlet and
purple ; her diet the diet of cannibals. * / saw her drunken,
saith the Apostle, ' with the blood of saints.' I wondered to
see her so wonderfully drunk \davp,a fjieya. Rev. xvii. 6].
The city was first founded in blood, the blood of a natural
german brother ; and the Papacy also founded in blood, the
blood of a natural liege lord and emperor."2
And again : u But from the 5th of November was three
years ; henceforth, till time shall be no more, let the name of
Nero, with the rest, rest in peace, and be buried in silence,
and instead of Syllan, Marian, Scythian, Tartarian, Barbarian,
Turkish, Spanish, let Romish, Popish, Antichristian, Catholic,
Catacatholic cruelty be a proverb, astonishment, hissing, for
all nations and ages to come."3 Towards the conclusion he
urges the King to put in execution the laws against Ro
manists.4 This sermon was published by the King's com
mand, and Dr. King was in three years advanced to the
see of London.
This very eloquent preacher and resolute and upright
prelate was born about 1559, at Wormenhall, a small village
in Buckinghamshire near Thame, being the son of Philip
King (who was nephew to the first Bishop of Oxford), and
of his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Edmund Conquest, of
Houghton Conquest, Bedfordshire. He was educated at
Westminster School and at Christ Church, Oxford. He was
elected a student of Christ Church in 1576, and in 1580 was
preferred to the Church of St. Anne's and St. Agnes, Alders-
gate. Dr. John Piers, who from 1570 to 1576 was Dean of
Christ Church, and in 1588, after having been successively
Bishop of Rochester and Salisbury, was raised to the Arch
bishopric of York, made him his private Chaplain. This most
pious and truly Christian Archbishop made him in 1590
Archdeacon of Nottingham, and probably procured his being
added to the Queen's Chaplains. Archbishop Piers died in
November, 1594, and the Queen in 1597 presented King to
the Church of St. Andrew's, Holborn, on the promotion of
Bancroft to the see of London. He had already, by his
sermons upon Jonah preached at York, proved himself the
Chrysostom of his times, but with more depth of piety and
with a more accurate theology than is to be found in the
homilies of that most earnest and ingenious father. He is
in some respects indeed far superior to Bishop Andrewes,
although in his court sermons he displays similar faults, and
spoils his own more natural method. In 1599 he was collated
to the prebendal stall of Sneating, in the place of Dr. William
Cotton, the Queen's godson, now raised to the see of Exeter.
That truly noble-minded and uncorrupt favourite of the Queen
and of his country, Egerton, the Lord Keeper, made him his
Chaplain, and in 1605 he succeeded Dr. Ravis as Dean of
Christ Church, and was for some years Vice-Chancellor of
the University. When Dr. Ravis was to be promoted to the
see of Gloucester, several of the students of Christ Church
petitioned of the King that he might succeed in the Deanry,
which request the King, a great admirer of his preaching,
graciously granted. His oratorical talent was such that Sir
Edward Coke was wont to call him the best speaker in the
Star Chamber. On September 8, 1611, he was consecrated
to the bishopric of London. But delighting in his office, and
esteeming the preaching of God's word the highest dignity,
he preached constantly in one and another church in his
diocese every Lord's Day. He died on the 29th or 30th
of March, 1621.
On November 11 we meet with the following notice of
Bishop Andrewes in a letter from John Chamberlain to
Dudley Carleton :
" I thank you for your remonstrance of the French clergy,
which will give me occasion perhaps to visit the good Bishop
of Chichester, though I doubt he be not at leisure for any
bye-matters, the King doth so hasten and spur him on in this
business of Bellarmin's, which he were likely to perform very
well (as I hear by them that can judge) if he might take his
own time, and not be troubled nor entangled with arguments
obtruded to him continually by the King, who is somewhat
pleased with a late accident fallen into Scotland, where one
Sprott, being to be executed for some other matter, confessed
somewhat touching Gowry's conspiracy that makes it hang
more handsomely together." Of Sprott and his confessions,
and of the Gowrie conspiracy, the reader may obtain sufficient
information and impartially conveyed in the 40th chapter of
Sir Walter Scott's History of Scotland, vol.. ii., 1830.1
Of our prelate's Tortura Torti mention is also made in a
letter from Dudley Carleton, Esq., to Sir Thomas Edmunds,
London, June 8th, 1609 : " The Bishop of Chichester's book is
now in the press, whereof I have seen part, and it is a worthy
work ; only the brevity breeds obscurity, and puts the reader
to some of that pains which was taken by the writer. Dr.
Morton comes after with a large volume; and Sir Edward
Hoby (who by the way is a sad mourner for his mother)
comes in like an entremets with a work of his dedicated to
the relapsed ladies ; so as Paul's churchyard is like to be well
furnished."
CHAPTER IX.
Plots of the Papists against King James — The King treats them
favourably — Duplicity of Pope Clement Till. — Watson's con
spiracy — The Gunpoivder Plot — Grounded on the Pope's Breves —
The plot referred to the Pope for his opinion — Garnet fearful lest
he should encourage recourse to arms — Greenwell and Hall —
Garnet — Lingard's plea for Garnet — Concealment of sins not yet
perpetrated formerly not allowed under the plea of confession —
Martin del Rio — Abstraction of documents from the State Paper
Office — -Abbot's Antilogia — N~ot the Jesuits alone to be blamed —
Oath of allegiance — The King's Premonition to Christian Princes
and States — His Confession of Faith — His dissertation on Anti
christ.
BEFORE the accession of King James in 1603, Pope Clement
VIII. had put Garnet, the superior or head of the English
Jesuits, in possession of epistles or breves directing the
Roman Catholics to prevent the accession of James, or of
any but a Roman Catholic, whenever the demise of Queen
Elizabeth should occur. The Romish historian, Dr. Lingard,
himself acknowledges that Garnet had these breves ; that
in 1602 Thomas Winter, afterwards one of the Gunpowder
conspirators, had arranged with the ministers of Philip III.,
King of Spain, a plan for the invasion of England,1 that the
death of Elizabeth disconcerted the project, and that " Garnet
had thought it prudent to burn the breves in favour of a
Catholic successor."2 Thus did the court of Rome and the
Jesuits plot against James even previously to his accession,
but opportunities did not favour their schemes, and so they
did what they could to conceal them. Dr. Lingard says that
the Catholics (or, as they are more appropriately designated,
Romanists) almost unanimously supported the right of James ;
and, but for their religion, their loyalty probably would have
been unanimous ; and Dr. Lingard admits that the King felt
inclined to grant them some partial indulgence. The open
toleration of their religion the country would not have en
dured. Thousands were still alive who remembered that
reign of horror which some of their degenerate posterity have
taken such pains to bury in oblivion. The nation was
imbued with too deep a spirit of unfeigned attachment to the
great truths of Christianity itself, to look upon Romanism
with the lukewarmness of the present age. It was therefore
boldly impolitic in the King to shew them so much regard
as he is acknowledged to have done. He invited them to
frequent his court ; he conferred on several the honour of
knighthood ; and he promised to shield them from the penal
ties of recusancy, so long as by their loyal and peaceable
demeanour they should deserve the royal favour. This
benefit, though it fell short of their expectations, they ac-
cepted with gratitude.1 By most it was cherished as a pledge
of subsequent and more valuable concessions ; and the Pontiff
Clement VIII., now that Elizabeth was no more, determined
to cultivate the friendship of the new King. Thus Dr.
Lingard would, as it were, introduce his reader to Pope
Clement VIII. ; but it is well inserted, a now that Elizabeth
was no more," for had her life been spared, the Pope's breves
in the hands of Garnet were to have operated to the depriva
tion of King James of his right. Dr. Lingard gravely informs
his reader that the Pope also sent strict commands in two
breves directed to the arch-priest and the provincial of the
Jesuits, to the intent that the missionaries (for this is the
name given by the Romish Church to her clergy in this most
benighted kingdom) should confine themselves to their spiri
tual duties, and discourage every attempt to disturb the public
tranquillity. These breves he should have sent earlier, for
he knew full well that his missionaries were used to such
plots and conspiracies as those which had so often endangered
the life of Elizabeth. These breves too were sent to Garnet,
the same to whom had been entrusted those treasonable breves
to keep James out of the throne of this kingdom.
Already one plot had been discovered in which two priests
were engaged, one of whom confessed that the Jesuits who
betrayed him, and that when he and they were in a state
of mutual hostility, had first led him into the crime. The
priest Watson, at the gallows, alluding to the former disputes
between himself and the Jesuits, said, " he forgave and desired
to be forgiven of all, namely, that the Jesuits would forgive
him if he had written over-eagerly against them ; saying also
that it was occasioned by them, whom he forgave, if they had
cunningly and covertly drawn him into the action for which
he suffered.1 Watson himself had his accomplices, of whom
it is not clear that all were brought to justice. So did
Romanism attempt to overturn the government when the
King had been scarcely three months upon his throne.
Thus rendered insecure by those who turned religion into
rebellion, and faith into faction, his person and kingdom were
guarded in his first Parliament by additional fences to protect
our country against the insidious policy of Rome. Fresh
cautions were framed against the missionary-priests, and
legal disabilities were attached to those who studied in the
foreign universities.2
The second plot was that of 1605, which the reader may
find palliated in Dr. Lingard's History, who is followed to
some extent by the anonymous continuator of Sir James
Mackintosh's History of England?
On May 1, 1604, the five Gunpowder conspirators, Robert
Catesby, Thomas Winter, Thomas Percy, a distant relation
and steward to the Duke of Northumberland, John Wright,
and Guido Fawkes, after having sworn each other to secresy,
received the host at the hands of John Gerard a Jesuit. The
only two who survived (for Catesby, Percy, and Wright were
slain resisting their pursuers) declared that Gerard had no
knowledge of the conspiracy. This was but a pretext. Their
assembling was itself an extraordinary proceeding. Catesby
and Winter were well-known agitators. After Catesby had
once escaped the block, he attached himself, says Dr. Lingard,
to the Spanish party amongst the Bomanists, and bore a
considerable share in their intrigues to prevent the succession
of the Scottish monarch.1 Such were the communicants • no
wonder that they made choice of a Jesuit for their celebration
of these mysteries.
We have heard Dr. Lingard in one place speaking of the
pacific disposition of Pope Clement VIII.;2 in another, he
owns that Catesby, the originator of the plot, defended it to
Garnet on the ground of the two breves of Clement VIII.
for the exclusion of the Scottish King from the succession.
"If," he argued, "it were lawful to prevent James from
coming in after his promise of toleration, it could not be
wrong to drive him out after his breach of that promise."
Thus does Dr. Lingard himself bear witness to the Pope's
duplicity. It is observable, too, that Garnet, instead of
condemning the conspirator on the simple ground of the
atrocity of his design, opposes to his plans two letters of the
Pope advising him (Garnet) to discourage all attempts against
the state ;3 letters, the sincerity of which Catesby, no inex
perienced politician, could appreciate at their real value.
But the guilt of both parties is sufficiently clear from the
result of their most conscientious conference. In conclusion,
a sort of compromise was accepted, that a special messenger
should be despatched to Borne with a correct account of the
state of the English Catholics, and that nothing should be
done on the part of the conspirators till an answer had been
received from the Pontiff."4 Thus the Jesuit and the con
spirator were both agreed that the plot might proceed with
the Pope's permission. Nay, Garnet himself, who had just
pleaded the Pope's pacific letters, was (according to Dr.
I Lingard) fearful that his Holiness would countenance the plot.
If he had not such apprehensions, why should he secretly add
a request that the Holy Father would prohibit under censure
a recourse to arms? Such was the casuistry of the Pope
and of Garnet. Garnet was but an ill teacher of loyalty
who had been judged by such a Pope traitor enough to be
the keeper of breves denying the right of James to his crown.
Dr. Lingard concedes that his martyr Garnet, who he says
was only guilty of misprision of treason, constantly practised
equivocation and falsehood when examined touching the
conspiracy, nay, even justified the confirmation of equivo
cation by the taking of oaths, or by the receiving of the
sacrament.
Bates, Catesby's man, was sent to a Jesuit by name
Tesmond, and revealed to him the whole plot in confession.
Tesmond highly applauded the design, and gave him the
host to confirm him in his purpose. So Bates confessed, as
Bishop Andrewes has recorded in his Tortura Torti* Our
prelate appears to affirm that Gerard himself administered
to the five conspirators the oath of secresy.
A third Jesuit, Oldcorn (alias Hall), after the detection of
the conspiracy, justified it.
Twice was Garnet consulted with respect to the guilt
of involving the innocent in any fatal calamity in a case of
necessity when some great end called for it. Dr. Lingard
notices but one such occasion. On the first occasion Green-
well (Dr. Lingard' s Greenway} was present with Catesby.
The second time the same question was put on Moorfields,
and a more direct answer returned, lt that] the innocent might
lawfully be blown up with the guilty, and that it would be
highly meritorious if it should bring any great advantage
to the Catholics."1
Garnet confessed that from Catesby he knew that a plot
was in agitation before he knew it in detail, and that he was
guilty both for concealing it and not preventing it.2 Nay,
Garnet said prayers and offered up masses for the success
of the plot,3 and an order was issued to all the Jesuits to use
certain special prayers for the furtherance of an object that
was in the mind of their superior (Garnet), and which was
to be a great benefit to the Catholic cause. Scarcely four
days before that memorable one in which the plot was to
have been executed, Garnet was at Coughton in Warwick
shire (the very place whither the other conspirators were to
have gathered to him, if the plot had not failed), and there
enjoined his auditors to pray for the success of the act which
was then about to take place.4
So much for the innocence of Dr. Lingard's and his
Church's martyr, Garnet.
The excuse that Dr. Lingard urges and that Bellarmine
urged in his behalf was, that he had only kept that secret
which had been delivered under the seal of confession ; but
the Komish historian admits that Garnet was brought to
some concessions even on this point, only after his trial.1 Dr.
Lingard does not enlighten his readers by telling them that
the excuse of the seal of confession was one that would not
have been allowed in France, and one on which there existed
a diversity of opinion at least at that time in his own com
munion. It is true indeed that in Ireland, if not in England,
this profane doctrine of the inviolability of treason when
communicated in confession is maintained by the Eomish
priesthood, a proof that Eomanism is as little to be trusted
now as in the darkest ages of its supremacy.
Cardinal Bellarmine, whose pen was equally ready to
write books of devotion and treatises of rebellion, affirmed
that his Church did not permit any other conduct than that
of the holy and incomparable martyr Garnet, for so this
traitor was esteemed at Kome. Bishop Andrewes adduces
various examples of the revealing of treason communicated in
confession by priests in France.2 He remarks that Bellarmine
says truly, ( permits not] for that it is certain that formerly it
did permit such disclosures. uWho," asks Bishop Andrewes,
lt is ignorant of that verse, Hceresis est crimen, quod nee confessio
ccelat?" Heresy is a crime which not even confession conceals.
The secresy for which Bellarmine pleads, and which Dr.
Lingard does not condemn, is disapproved by Alexander de
Hales, the master of whom both Bonaventura and Aquinas
learnt. It is also disclaimed utterly by Angelus & Clavasio,
an Italian who lived about A.D. 1480. He affirms that the
priest is bound to reveal any evil that is in meditation against
the state and that he shall have heard in confession. The
same is the equally decided opinion of Sylvester Prierias,
master of the Pope's Palace, who wrote against Luther.
Nicholas of Palermo, one of the greatest canonists of the
15th century, reports also that the same was the opinion of
Pope Innocent the Fourth, who died in 1254. And so Domi-
nicus a Soto, confessor to the Emperor Charles V., and present
at the Council of Trent in 1545. * But a new doctrine arose
after the time of the Reformation, and probably only with
a view to its extinction and to the concealment of the multi
plied conspiracies by which Protestant princes were assailed,
at the instigation more especially of the still tolerated and
flourishing order of Jesuits.
Garnet equivocated not only in regard of facts but of
doctrine. Upon his trial, defending himself upon the ques
tion of the Pope's deposing power, he who had been the
keeper of breves to prevent the accession of King James,
pretended that although the Pope had power to depose
Catholic princes, he made a difference in the matter of
excommunicating and deposing of princes, betwixt the con
dition and state of our king and of others, who having
sometimes been Catholics, did or shall afterwards fall back.2
Afterwards the Earl of Salisbury put the question to him,
Whether in case the Pope, per sententiam orthodoxam, should
excommunicate the King's Majesty of Great Britain, his
subjects were bound to continue their obedience? To this
Garnet denied to answer.3
The Attorney-General observed that Garnet might and
ought to have discovered the mischief for preservation of the
State, though he had concealed their persons.4 It may be
added that he might have both done this and secured the
lives of the conspirators, who, upon timely warning, might
all have fled, and would certainly have been protected by
the King of Spain in his dominions, the fomenter himself
of rebellion and treason. Dr. Lingard must have been aware
of this, who yet evidently sympathizes with these incen
diaries.
Garnet died a true Romanist, imploring the Virgin Mary
to receive him at the hour of his death, using these words
of their idolatrous hymn —
"Maria mater gratise,
Mater misericordiae,
Tu me a malo protege,
Et hora mortis suscipe." x
The atrocity and almost incredible viciousness of Garnet's
private life is set forth by Dr. Abbot (afterwards Bishop of
Salisbury) in the preface2 to his Antilogia. Bishop Andrewes
alludes in plain terms to his unlawful attachment to the female
who was permitted to converse with him when in the Tower.
Such was the man whose piety is commended by Bellarmine,
and who was regarded by some of his own communion as a
martyr, and one whose innocence was attested by a miracle.
In 1674 appeared A Discourse concerning the Original of
the Powder Plot, together with a Relation of the Conspiracies
against Queen Elizabeth^ and the Persecutions of the Protestants
in France to the Death of Henry the Fourth, &c. This work
consists of two parts, the first by the editor, the second a
translation from De Thou of his account of the Parisian
massacre in 1572, and of the Gunpowder Plot.
The author observes that " this was not the first time that
this means hath been proposed by confederates of that party,
for the destruction and murder of our princes, for it had been
long before proposed by one Moody to be laid under Queen
Elizabeth's bed and secretly fired."
But there is a passage of the Jesuit Martin Del Rio
(otherwise Delrius} in his Disquisitiones Magicce^ printed
about five years before the conspiracy, in which it is actually
anticipated and resolved that, being revealed in confession
as a thing not yet executed but resolved upon, it is most
agreeable to the sanctity of confession that it should not be
revealed. And for this resolution of this case of conscience
the Jesuit refers to the opinion of the then Pope, Clement VIII. ,
the same who conspired against the accession of King James
by sending breves to England with a view to raise to the
throne Arabella Stuart. This book of the Jesuit Del Rio,
printed about five years before the plot was discovered, may
be seen in the Bodleian Library, and after the discovery
of the plot the book was reprinted in 1617 with the same
passages retained.2 The opinion that sins deliberately intended to be committed should be revealed by the priest Del Rio condemns as dangerous and tending to withdraw men from confession ; and therefore he concludes that the
contrary opinion is altogether to be followed, that it is not
lawful to detect even treason against the State. He puts
the case, " A malefactor confesses that himself or some
other hath put powder or something else under such an
entry (or groundsel), and except it be taken away the house
will be burnt, the Prince destroyed, and as many as go into
or out of the city will come to great mischief or hazard ;" and
then resolves for the negative, that the priest ought not to
reveal this confession, owning that herein he differed from
others of his communion, but alleging that this seems to
be the mind of Pope Clement VIII. himself. Then he
proceeds to justify the concealing of such crimes by equivocation and falsehood ; nay, he must not reveal such even to the Pope. This carries with it a great air of consistency.
And here it may be observed that the Romish religion
itself is a religion of subtleties, equivocations, and evasions.
Thus both Bishop Andrewes, and after him Bishop Abbot,
in his Antilogia, expose the shuffling of Bellarmine with
respect to the Pope's deposing power over princes. Thus
the Romish distinctions respecting image- worship, and the
mediation of Christ and of the saints, and the higher and
inferior worship, the one due to him, the other to them.
Garnet was not the first equivocator ; it had grown into
a system and had been frequently practised by others before
him. And not only the Jesuit Garnet, but Black well, the
head or arch-priest of the secular or parochial clergy of that
communion in England, sanctioned a book recommending
equivocation.
The second volume of Criminal Trials, published in 1835
in the Library of Entertaining Knowledge, and printed by
Charles Knight, Ludgate Street, is entirely occupied with
the Gunpowder Plot, and is the fullest account of it that
has hitherto appeared. It professes to be for the most part
taken from the collection of original documents respecting
the plot, preserved in the State Paper Office, and arranged
and indexed some years ago by Mr. Lemon. The writer
of the preface observes that, " although it was not thought
expedient by the Privy Council of James I. to publish to
the world much information respecting the plot, it is clear
from the existence of this mass of evidence, that they were
in possession of full knowledge of its minutest details.
Perhaps no conspiracy in English history was ever more
industriously inquired into. For nearly six months the
inquiry almost daily occupied the earnest attention of the
commissioners appointed by the King to examine the
witnesses and prisoners, during the whole of which time
their labours were zealously aided by Chief Justice Popham,
Sir Edward Coke, Sir Francis Bacon, and several others of
the most acute and experienced lawyers of the day. More
than five hundred depositions of witnesses and real or sup
posed confederates were taken, a large proportion of which,
together with numerous contemporary letters and papers
relating to the transaction, are still in existence at the State
Paper office."
This writer informs us, in the next page that, " for many
years previously to the passing of the Catholic Belief Bill,
whilst the propriety of that measure was the subject of
animated discussion in every session of Parliament, proposals
for the publication of these papers were discouraged from just
and laudable motives, under a reasonable apprehension that
such a publication, sanctioned as it must have been in some
measure by the Government would have tended to prejudice
that great question" The writer who can justify such conduct
may at least be trusted in the witness which he unwillingly
bears to the reasonableness of the remaining prejudices of his
Protestant fellow-countrymen, and such witness this publi
cation does bear.
But a little after this he adds that the papers of this
collection most materially concerning Garnet and the Jesuits
are now missing. " Although the documents upon the subject
of the Gunpowder Plot preserved at the State Paper Office are
very numerous, and constitute a body of evidence of incalculable
value to the historical inquirer, the collection is not by any
means complete. Many important papers, which were par
ticularly mentioned and abstracted1 by Bishop Andrewes, Dr.
[afterwards Bishop] Abbot, Casaubon, and other contemporary
writers, and some of which were copied by Archbishop Bancroft
from the originals so lately as the close of the 17th century,
are not now to be found. It is remarkable that precisely those
papers which constitute the most important evidence against
Garnet and the other Jesuits are missing ; so that if the merits
of the controversy respecting their criminal implication in the
plot depended upon the fair effect of the original documents
now to be found in the State Paper Office, impartial readers
might probably hesitate to form a decided opinion against
them." The advocate of the Jesuits, Dr. Lingard, is silent
upon this most remarkable incident. Our author proceeds :
" The papers of particular importance upon this part of the
subject are the minutes of an overheard conversation between
Garnet and Oldcorne in the Tower, dated the 25th February,
1605-6 ; an intercepted letter from Garnet addressed to " the
Fathers and Brethren of the Society of Jesus," dated on
Palm Sunday, a few days after his trial ; and an intercepted
letter to Greenway [Green well], dated April 4, 1605-6. That
all of these papers were in the State Paper Office in 1613,
when Dr. Abbot wrote his Antilogia, is evident from the
copious extracts from them published in that work; and a
literal copy of the first of them, made by Archbishop Bancroft
many years afterwards from the state papers, is still in existence.
The originals of these documents, and many others mentioned
by Dr. Abbot and Bancroft, are, however, not to be found in
the proper depository for them; and it is undoubtedly a
singular accident that, amongst so large a mass of documents,
precisely those should be abstracted upon whose authenticity
the question so hotly disputed between the Catholics and
Protestants mainly depended."1
Dr. Lingard builds considerably upon three Jesuits, two of
them, if not all three, friends o/"as well as to the conspirators,
Gerard, Greenwell,2 and a third who wrote under the name
of Eudsemon.3 The author of the account in Knight's
Criminal Trials (Mr. Jardine) notices that his real name
was L'Heureux, that he was a native of Candia, and a very
learned Jesuit who taught theology at Padua, and was
appointed by Pope Urban VIII. Eector of the Greek College
at Koine.* And the controversy to which this Eudsemon
gave occasion, affords us an incidental proof of the authen
ticity of the papers now missing. For, says our author of
Abbot — who undertook his Antilogia in 1613, in answer to
Eudsemon-Joannes (who, having first been answered ably
and candidly by Isaac Casaubon in his Epistle to Fronto
Duceeus in 1611), rejoined in 1612 that " it is manifest from
the contents of this work (the Antilogia) that during its
composition Dr. Abbot had free access to all the docu
mentary evidence against Garnet which was in the pos
session of the government. This he would readily obtain
through his brother the Archbishop of Canterbury ; and
indeed there is a memorandum still existing in the State
Paper Office, which records that on the 9th of October, 1612,
a great number of the documents relating to the plot, together
with the Treatise of Equivocation found in Tresham's desk,
were delivered to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that on
the 1st of July, 1614, they were again returned by him to
their proper depository."1
On the night of the 5th of November there was to be a general
meeting of the friends of the conspirators at Dunchurch in War
wickshire, under the pretence of hunting on Dunsmoor Heath,
from which place, as soon as they received notice that the
blow was struck, a party was to be despatched to seize the
Princess Elizabeth at the house of Lord Harrington, near
Coventry.2 With a view to this arrangement Sir Everard
Digby (one of the conspirators) removed Lady Digby and
his family, and with them Father Garnet, to Coughton Hall,
near Alcester, in the same county, which then belonged to
Mr. Thomas Throckmorton.3 On Saturday the 26th of
October the plot was discovered by the letter to Lord
Monteagle. On Sunday the 3rd of November Sir Everard
Digby rode from Coughton to Dunchurch. Some of the
conspirators were at Ashby St. Legers, the residence of
Lady Catesby, mother of Catesby the conspirator.4 About
six o'clock in the evening, just as the conspirators Robert
Winter and his companions were about to sit down to supper
with the lady of the mansion, Catesby, Percy, the two
Wrights, and Eookwood, fatigued and covered with dirt,
arrived with the news of the apprehension of Fawkes and the
total overthrow of the main design of the plot. After a
short conference, the whole party taking with them all the
arms they could find, rode off to Dunchurch. There they
found the house (Coughton Hall) filled with a large party of
anxious and excited guests ; for, though only a few were
informed of the specific nature of the intended atrocity, all
were aware that some great and decisive blow was about to be
struck in London for the Romish cause, the intelligence of
which they were that night to receive.1
Thus, besides the conspirators, many there were that
consented ; and what were the consciences of this large
party of anxious and excited guests ? and in what rank and
condition of life were they? Gentlemen, as was the boast
of Fawkes and Greenway.2 And there is little doubt but
that the conspirators would have been joined by many, if
the plot had not so suddenly and providentially failed. But
where they expected to be received they were, after the
detection of their schemes, repulsed for having brought ruin
on the cause they had purposed to restore.3
We are told that the Romanists as a body abhorred the
plot ; yet we find one conspirator, Greenway or Greenwell,
in favour with the Pope, and others safe under the protection
of Komish Sovereigns. " Baldwin, a Jesuit in Flanders, and
Hugh Owen had been implicated in various previous plots
against the English government, and the suspicions of their
acquaintance with the Powder Plot were confirmed by the
statements of Fawkes and Winter. A requisition was
therefore made to the Archduke in Flanders to deliver up
these individuals to the English government, and also to
secure the person of Sir William Stanley, upon which much
negotiation and correspondence passed through Sir Thomas
Edmondes the English ambassador at Brussels ; and Lord
Salisbury states to Sir T. Edmondes that the object was to
confront them with the other conspirators, whose trials were
delayed for that purpose. Eventually the Archduke, after
referring to the King of Spain, refused to comply with the
requisition.
Such was the spirit of Komanism that it led foreign princes
to shelter this conspiracy and to open their arms to these
men of blood, to become partakers of their guilt, and, by
withholding from James the means of detecting the con
spirators, proving to the world that their religion sanctioned
every kind of injustice towards those who did not embrace it.
In like manner one and another of the English Romanists
secreted the Jesuit Greenway, and thus gave him oppor
tunities of escape from justice.1 There was abundant testi
mony that both Greenway and Garnet, with full knowledge
of what had happened in London, joined the conspirators at
Haddington while they were in arms against the government.2
The author of the second volume of Criminal Trials
regards the plot as a purely Jesuit plot. He writes, " It
ought to be remembered that all the avowed conspirators
belonged to the Jesuit faction."3 But this little avails to
clear the character of the Romish laity. The Treshams, the
Winters, William Lord Vaux of Harrowden, the Abingdons,
and others, are incontestable indications of the facility with
which the Romish religion enables her priesthood to corrupt
the loyalty of her laity. The Romish faith was in truth
practically indebted to the Jesuits, and hence, as it owned
them, it unavoidably partook, and ever will partake, of their
disgrace.
The very fact of the recognition of a body who justified
doing evil that good might come, who taught a system of
equivocation and perjury, and solemnly maintained the piety
of such practices, has branded the Komish Church with a
stigma that can never be erased. This was the true cause
of the severe enactments touching recusancy, resorting to
Popish worship, harbouring seminary priests, &c. The state
was never safe whilst there were Jesuits in the country. And
as every kind of disguise was resorted to by them, it only
remained for the state to treat with suspicion every individual
who taught, and to watch narrowly every individual who
professed, the Romish religion.
But, on the other hand, the whole blame of treason and
disloyalty must not be laid upon the Jesuits. They have
truly said in their own behalf, that the doctrine of the Pope's
power of deposing princes, and if so, by consequence, the
papist's duty to rebel against the deposed, was not peculiar
to them. They were the deepest politicians, the most
unscrupulous, the most conscientiously unconscientious ; but
the religion itself, which, in not disavowing the Popes who
were the authors of these treasonable doctrines, gave them
advantages in promulgating it, the religion itself is to blame.
Since the publication of the second volume of Criminal
Trials another edition of Dr. Lingard' s History has appeared,1
in which he admits the genuineness of the letter of Garnet
1 to his beloved fathers and brethren.' This letter Dr.
Lingard had previously declared a forgery, but fresh light
has broken in upon him. In this letter he confessed to his
beloved fraternity that he had implicated Greenwell or
Greenway, which he should not have done, but that he
understood that he was safe upon the continent. It was well
for Dr. Lingard to withdraw his attack upon this letter, for he
had given to his readers a misrepresentation of the contents of
the letter itself, which was detected by the author of this
second volume. " Garnet is made to say," says Dr. Lingard
'that had he not known that Greenway was in the tower,
he would have invented some other fiction.' What Garnet
is really represented to have said is the reverse of this."1
Other misconceptions (to call them by no severer a name)
Dr. Lingard has continued to indulge, misconceptions most
ably removed by the author just cited in the concluding
pages of his most interesting volume.
This author bears impartial testimony to the fidelity and
ability both of Bishop Abbot's Antilogia and of Bishop
Andrewes' Tortura Torti? A most remarkable circumstance
it is that two men could have been found zealous to palliate
a traitor such as Garnet, one a layman, the other a clergyman
of the Church of Rome, Mr. Butler and Dr. Lingard. Both
of these could not but be aware that if Garnet had but for
one week instead of for five months a previous knowledge
of the plot, he might have given notice of it, and by so doing
have gained as great a reputation for that most plotting of
all societies, as now he has obtained for them an infamy
which they will never survive.
How little sympathy with true patriotism can be tolerated
by the Eomish communion, or can consist with a zealous
adherence to that system, may be seen from the fact that in
the Circle of the Seasons — a work full of interest in a variety
of points, and recommended to the general reader by the
most plentiful interspersion of poems and quotations — it is
more than insinuated that there was no such plot as that
of 1605.
King James, notwithstanding this fresh proof of the
insecurity to which he and his kingdom stood exposed, was
inclined to lenient measures. Doubtless the firm adherence of
his royal mother to the Church of Home was the ground of
that undue regard for the Romanists which he evinced to the
very last, to the loss of his popularity, and to the ruin of his
posterity. But the kingdom, more than ever awake to the
true character of the Church of Rome, which now looked upon
Garnet as a martyr whose innocence was attested by miracles,
demanded that the public security should be protected by
greater restraints tupon the Romish party, and amongst these
restraints was the new oath of allegiance.
"That James," writes Dr. Lingard, "in the proposal
of the last measure, had the intention of gradually relieving
one portion of his Catholic subjects from the burden of the
penal laws, is highly probable ; but whether those to whom
he committed the task of framing the oath, Archbishop Abbot
and Sir Christopher Perkins, a conforming Jesuit, were ani
mated with similar sentiments, has been frequently disputed.
They were not content with the disclaimer of the deposing
power ; they added a declaration that to maintain it was
impious, heretical, and damnable." And why, it may be
asked, should Dr. Lingard object to this? What should
hinder the Pope's making use of the deposing power, if that
power was lawful and admitted to be so on religious grounds ?
But if every soul is to be obedient to the higher powers (the
civil magistrate), and that by the Word of God, why should
a Christian believe other of the Pope's assumed deposing
power, than that it is damnable in him to exercise it, or in
others to give heed to it? What worse heresy than that
which merges all power in the ecclesiastical; a heresy that
would represent the religion of nature and of revelation as
diametrically opposed? What more impious than thus to
set the ministers of the Church above the Word of God ?
There was moreover an especial reason for framing the
oath in such decided terms. The Romanists were taught
that although equivocation was a duty when priests were
to be screened and other good ends maintained, it was not
lawful to deny the faith. Thus Satan, even as a teacher
of falsehood, was careful to appear as an angel of light. But
it would have been a denial of their faith for the Jesuits
and those of the Romanists who thought as highly as they
did of the Pope's authority, to have declared that the exercise
of that power or the admission of it to the deposing of princes
was impious, heretical, and damnable.
Of these fresh restraints and of this oath King James
himself thus speaks in his Premonition to all Christian
Monarchs, Free Princes, and States: "The never enough
wondered at and abhorred Powder Treason (though the
repetition thereof grieveth, I know, the gentle-hearted Jesuit
Parsons), this treason, I say, being not only intended against
me and my posterity, but even against the whole House of
Parliament, plotted only by Papists, and they only led
thereto by a preposterous zeal for the advancement of their
religion, some of them continuing so obstinate that even at
their death they would not acknowledge their fault, but in
their last words, immediately before the expiring of their
breath, refused to condemn themselves and crave pardon
for their deed, except the Romish Church should first
condemn it : and soon after, it being discovered that a great
number of my Popish subjects of all ranks and sexes, loth
men and women, as well within as without the country, had
a confused notion and an obscure knowledge that some great
thing was to be done in that Parliament for the weal of
the Church, although, for secresy's cause, they were not
acquainted with the particulars ; certain forms of prayer
having likewise been set down and used for the good success
of that great errand ; adding hereunto, that divers times, and
from divers priests, the archtraitors themselves received the
sacrament for confirmation of their heart and observation of
secrecy ; some of the principal Jesuits likewise being found
guilty of the foreknowledge of the treason itself, of which
number some fled from their trial, others were apprehended
(as holy Garnet himself and Oldcorne were) and justly
executed upon their own plain confession of guilt ; if this
treason now, clad with the'se circumstances, did not minister
a just occasion to that Parliament House, whom they thought
to have destroyed, courageously and zealously at their next
sitting down, to use all means of trial, whether any more
of that mind were yet left in the country ; I leave it to you to
judge whom God hath appointed his highest depute judges
upon earth : and amongst other things for this purpose, this
oath of allegiance, so unjustly impugned, was then devised and
enacted. And in case any sharper laws were then made
against the Papists, that were not obedient to the former
laws of the country, if ye will consider the time, place, and
persons, it will be thought no wonder, seeing that occasion
did so justly exasperate them to make severer laws than
otherwise they would have done. The time, I say, being the
very next sitting down of the Parliament after the discovery
of that abominable treason : the place being the same where
they should all have been blown up, and so bringing it
freshly to their memory again : the persons being the
very Parliament-men whom they thought to have destroyed.
And yet so far hath both my heart and government been
from any bitterness, as almost never one of those sharp
additions to the former laws have ever yet been put in
execution.
"And that ye may yet know further, for the more con
vincing of these libellers of wilful malice, who impudently
affirm that this oath of allegiance was devised for deceiving
and entrapping of Papists in points of conscience j the truth
is, that the lower house of Parliament, at the first framing of
this oath, made it to contain that the Pope had no power to
excommunicate me, which I caused them to reform, only
making it to conclude that no excommunication of the Pope
can warrant my subjects to practise against my person or
state, denying the deposition of kings to be in the Pope's
lawful power, as indeed I take any such temporal violence
to be far without the limits of such a spiritual censure as
excommunication is. So careful was I that nothing should
be contained in this oath, except the profession of natural
allegiance and civil and temporal obedience, with a promise
to resist all contrary uncivil violence."1
The oath was as follows : tl I A. B. do truly and sincerely
acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare in my conscience
before God and the world, that our Sovereign Lord King
James is lawful king of this realm, and of all other his
Majesty's dominions and countries : and that the Pope
neither of himself nor by any authority of the Church or
see of Rome, or by any other means with any other, hath any
power or authority to depose the King, or to dispose of any of
his Majesty's kingdoms or dominions, or to authorize any
foreign prince to invade or annoy him or his countries, or to
discharge any of his subjects of their allegiance and obedience
to his Majesty, or to give license or leave to any of them to
bear arms, raise tumults, or to offer any violence or hurt to
his Majesty's royal person, state, or government, or to any of
his Majesty's subjects within his Majesty's dominions. Also
I do swear from my heart that, notwithstanding any declara
tion or sentence of excommunication, or deprivation made
or granted, or to be made or granted, by the Pope or his suc
cessors, or by any authority derived or pretended to be derived
from him or his see, against the said King, his heirs or suc
cessors, or any absolution of the said subjects from their
obedience ; I will bear faith and true allegiance to his Majesty,
his heirs and successors, and him and them will defend to the
uttermost of my power, against all conspiracies and attempts
whatsoever which shall be made against his or their persons,
their crown and dignity, by reason or colour of any such
sentence or declaration, or otherwise, and will do my best
endeavour to disclose and make known unto his Majesty,
his heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous con
spiracies which I shall know or hear of to be against him
or any of them. And I do further swear that I do from my
heart abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical, this
damnable doctrine and position, that princes which be ex-
communicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or
murthered by their subjects or any other person whatsoever.
And I do believe, and in conscience am resolved, that neither
the Pope nor any other person whatsoever, hath power to
^absolve me of this oath, or any part thereof, which I acknow
ledge by good and full authority to be lawfully ministered
unto me, and do renounce all pardons and dispensations to the
contrary. And all these things I do plainly and sincerely
acknowledge and swear, according to these express words
by me spoken, and according to the plain and common sense
and understanding of the same words, without any equivo
cation, or mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever.
And I do make this recognition and acknowledgment
heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a
Christian. So help me God."1
This oath was condemned by the Pope (Paul the Fifth)*
who in his bull dated at Rome ' at S. Mark, under the sign
of the fisherman, the 10th of the calends of October,2 1606,
the second year of our Popedom,' 3 decided that such an oath
could not be taken without hurting of the Catholic faith
and the salvation of souls, tl seeing it contains many things
which are flat contrary to faith and salvation. Wherefore we
do admonish you that you do utterly abstain from taking this
and the like oaths," &c.
The English Eomanists not being all of the mind of the
Jesuits, were divided respecting this bull. Many of them
treated it as a forgery, and amongst them Blackwell, the
head or arch-priest of the seculars.4 Upon this the Pope
drew up a second brief or bull, dated the 10th of the calends
of September,5 1607. This disobedient spirit the Pope in
this brief attributed to the suggestions of the Devil, to the
"subtlety and craft of the enemy of man's salvation;" and
he assured them that it was not without mature deliberation
that he wrote to them his first letter.6
And now the disloyalty of the English Eomanists being
thus tested, many of them bade adieu to their native country
sooner than deny this article of their faith, that the Pope is
supreme over kings and princes, to set up and to pull down
at his pleasure. Some indeed would rather dare the Papal
fulminations than commit themselves to his treasons. The'
missionaries (so Dr. Lingard calls the Romish priesthood in this
country1) were divided in opinion. Some followed Blackwell,
some the Pope. The Jesuits in general condemned the oath.2
And now observe the effect of that servile submission of
the understanding which is the very foundation of the Eomish
faith: a priest, by name Drury, thought the oath admis
sible, but " dared not prefer his private sentiments before
those of the Pope," and would rather be executed than
take the oath. If such was the effect of this Papal impiety
upon a priest, what probably would be its effect upon the
laity? Dr. Lingard all but canonizes Drury, and would
seem to intimate that the disloyalty of the priesthood was
very general. Drury tl dared not prefer his private sentiments
before those of the Pope, and of many among his brethren,
and chose to shed his blood rather than pollute his conscience
by swearing to the truth of assertions which he feared might
possibly be false."3 Thus jesuitically does this acute his
torian write about conscience. One can plainly perceive
that Romanism is not yet purified from the subtlety of
Garnet and his brethren. To Blackwell Cardinal Bellarmine
addressed a long and laboured epistle, expostulating with
him for his loyalty in regard of the oath, and pretending
that the oath struck at the Pope's spiritual supremacy.4
In 1608 the King published his Apology for the Oath of
Allegiance, against the two Breves of Pope Paulus Quintus,
and the late Letter of Cardinal Bellarmine to G. Blackwell
the Arch-priest. To this was afterwards prefixed A Premonition
to all most mighty Monarchs} Kings, Free Princes, and States
of Christendom.
Bellarmine had in his letter affirmed, with the usual
effrontery of Jesuit controversialists, that " from the beginning
of the Church's infancy even to this day it was never heard
that ever a Pope either commanded to be killed, or allowed
the slaughter of, any prince whatsoever, whether he were an
heretic, an heathen, or persecutor." The King reminds
Bellarmine of the panegyrical oration made by Pope Sixtus
the Fifth in praise and approbation of the friar that murdered
King Henry the Third of France ; and " besides that vehement
oration and congratulation for that fact, how near it scaped
that the said friar was not canonized for that glorious act,
is better known to Bellarmine and his followers than to us
here."1 " But sure I am," adds the King, " if some Cardinals
had not been more wise and circumspect in that errand than
the Pope himself was, the Pope's own calendar of his saints
would have sufficiently proved Bellarmine a liar in this case.
And to draw yet nearer unto ourselves, how many practices
and attempts were made against the late Queen's life, which
were directly enjoined to those traitors by their confessors,
and plainly authorized by the Pope's allowance. For
verification whereof there needs no more proof than that
never Pope either then or since called any churchman in
question for meddling in any of these treasonable con
spiracies; nay, the Cardinal's own S. Sanderus, mentioned
in his letter, could well verify this truth if he were alive ;
and who will look (into) his books2 will find them filled with
no other doctrine than this. And what difference there is
between the killing or allowing the slaughter of kings, and
the stirring up and approbation of practices to kill them, I
remit to Bellarmine's own judgment."
Then follows a curious list of Bellarmine's theological
contradictions, the King observing that it is the less surprising
that he should contradict himself in matters of fact, who
contradicts himself so frequently in matters of doctrine. In
the latter part of his Apology the King exposes Bellarmine's
anarchical positions respecting the regal authority, as that
obedience due to the Pope is for conscience' sake, but the
obedience due to kings is only for certain respects of order
and policy; people may for many causes depose kings, but
no flesh hath power to judge the Pope ; and that the obe
dience - of ecclesiastics to princes is not by way of any
necessary subjection, but only out of discretion and for
observation of good order and custom.1
In the Premonition the King notices the answers of the
Jesuit Parsons and of Bellarmine (under the name of Mat-
thceus Tortus) to his Apology, and having animadverted upon
Parsons in a style sententiously suited to his deserts,2 returns
to Bellarmine, and lays before his readers the insolence and
scurrility of that unprincipled advocate of the Papal su
premacy.3 He then shews the authority which the earlier
Christian kings and emperors exercised over the Popes.
The Popes depended upon the emperors for their confirm
ation, and were in a manner tributary to them to about
the end of the seventh century.4 The Emperor Otho
deposed Pope John XII. for divers crimes, and especially
for impurity.5 The Emperor Henry the Third in a short
time deposed three Popes, Benedict the Ninth, Sylvester
the Third, and Gregory the Sixth, as well for the sin of
avarice as for abusing their extraordinary authority against
kings and princes.6
The King proceeds with the history of the right of
investiture : " As Walthram testifieth that the Bishops
of Spain, Scotland, England, Hungary, from ancient insti
tution till this modern novelty, had their investiture by
kings, with peaceable enjoying of their temporalities wholly
and entirely."
He mentions how the Queen his mother would not have
the ceremony of spittle used at his baptism, and the last
message she sent to him, that although she was of another
religion than that wherein he was brought up, yet she would
not press him to change except his own conscience forced
him to it.1
The King next clears himself of the charge of heresy. " I
am such a Catholic Christian as believeth the three Creeds,
that of the Apostles, that of the Council of Nice, and that
of Athanasius, the two latter being paraphrases to the former.
And I believe them in that sense as the antient Fathers and
Councils that made them did understand them, to which three
Creeds all the ministers of England do subscribe at their
ordination. And I also acknowledge for orthodox all those
other forms of Creeds that either were devised by Councils
or particular Fathers against such particular heresies as most
reigned in their times.
el I reverence and admit the first four general Councils as
catholic and orthodox. And the said four general Councils
are acknowledged by our Acts of Parliament, and received for
orthodox by our Church.
11 As for the Fathers, I reverence them as much and more
than the Jesuits do, and as much as themselves ever craved.
For whatever the Fathers for the first five hundred years did
with an unanime consent agree upon to be believed as a
necessary point of salvation, I either will believe it also, or at
least will be humbly silent, not taking upon me to condemn the
same. But for every private Father's opinion, it binds not my
conscience more than Bellarmine's, every one of the Fathers
usually contradicting others. I will therefore in that case
follow St. Augustine's rule in judging of their opinions, as
I find them agree with the Scriptures. What I find agree
able thereunto I will gladly embrace, what is otherwise I will
(with their reverence) reject."
To the Virgin Mary the King yields the title of Mother
of God, ll since the divinity and humanity of Christ are
inseparable." "And," he adds, " I freely confess that she is
in glory both above angels and men, her own Son (that is
both God and man) only excepted."1
The worship of reliques and images the King calls without
reserve " damnable idolatry."
The Jesuits he calls Puritan-Papists, and declares that
for himself he was always inclined to episcopacy. And
whatsoever protestations of fidelity to the discipline of the
Kirk the King ever made, he probably spoke the truth when
he affirmed that his heart was at least Episcopalian ; and he
appealed to his erecting of bishoprics, in 1584, and to his
Basilicon Doron, especially to the preface to the second
edition of that work.
The remainder of the Premonition is for the most part
taken up with a dissertation proving that Rome is the Babylon
and the Pope the Antichrist of the Book of Revelation ; thus
also applying St. Paul's prophecy in the second chapter of
his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. The Church of
Rome he describes as " full of idolatries," and " so bloody
in the persecution of the saints, as (that) our Lord shall be
crucified again in his members."2
The two witnesses clad in sackcloth the King inclines to
interpret of the Old and New Testament. " And now whether
this book of the two testaments or two witnesses of Christ
have suffered any violence by the Babylonian monarchy
or not, I need say nothing. The thing speaks for itself.
I will not weary you with recounting those commonplaces
used for disgracing it, as calling it a nose of wax, a dead
letter, a leaden rule, a hundred such-like phrases of reproach.
But how far the traditions of men and authority of the Church
are preferred to these witnesses doth sufficiently appear in the
Babylonian doctrine. And if there were no more but that
little book [by Cardinal Perron] with that pretty inscription,
Of the Insufficiency of Holy Scripture, it is enough to
prove it."
CHAPTER X.
Bishop Andr ewes' " Tortura Torti" — Of the Pope's deposing power
— Of excommunication — Of binding and loosing — The Bulls against
Queen Elizabeth — The words of commission — The Gunpowder Plot
undertaken only from blind zeal — Origin of recusancy — Sacri
legious nature of Romish worship — Rome Babylon — Lord Eal-
merino — The First General Lateran no Council — Pope Innocent
III. — Uncertainty of the doctrine of the Papal supremacy —
Historical accusations against the Church of Rome — Assassination
of Henry IIL — Bellarmine's contradictions — Image worship —
Fisher and More.
IN 1609 Bishop Andrewes followed the King in his con
troversy, and replied to Bellarmine's Matthceus Tortus in
his Tortura Torti. Our author adduces a multitude of
Romanists who denied the Pope's deposing power; John
of Paris, James Almain, Johannes Major, Cardinal Zabarella,
Alberic de Rosate, Antony de Rosellis,1 the Doctors of the
Sorbonne in 1561 and 1591, the Jesuit James Bosgrave,
Blackwell the arch-priest, and others. He follows Bellar-
mine through all his evasions, as that the Pope cannot as
Pope by his ordinary jurisdiction depose princes, but as a
spiritual prince. He refutes Bellarmine's pretence that to
deny the Pope's deposing power is to deny his power to
excommunicate. The former is not included in the latter,
and so not one with it. Theodosius was under the censure
of Ambrose eight months, but none of his subjects withheld
their allegiance to him on that account. Henry the Fourth
of France had been lately crowned, and the oath of allegiance
taken fry his subjects, whilst he was under the Pope's excom
munication.1 By the greater excommunication instituted by
Christ in those words, "If he hear not the Church, let him be
to thee as a heathen man" (Matt, xviii.) that power is en
trusted to the Church, not to St. Peter only. "As an
heathen man" has its limits. It is not lawful to despoil an
heathen of his goods, or to disinherit him, much less to take
from his crown. Heathen kings are certainly exempt from
this power of deposition, but it is absurd that Christian
princes should be in a worse condition. Church censures are
founded on the law of charity, and must not be destructive
of it. Many, too, are the exceptions allowed amongst
Komanists by which the Papal excommunication itself is
nullified. So the Venetians took no notice of the Pope's
censures, and the Council of Tours in 1510 cleared King
Louis the Twelfth of them.
As to the threefold command to Peter, "Feed my sheep"
both Cyril and Augustine teach that the intent of our Lord
appears to have been, by Peter's threefold confession, to wipe
off as it were the stain of his threefold denial. Nor is it safe
to insist upon the Pope's succession from St. Peter ; neither
was the office of feeding Christ's sheep committed to him
alone. The form of election, too, has been repeatedly varied,
and is not sanctioned by Christ himself.6 And certainly
" Feed my sheep" is not the same as uslay the leaders of
my sheep, drive my sheep out of the fold, scatter my sheep,
let their pastures be trodden down and their waters troubled."
1 Keceive the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' and with them
shut out from the kingdoms of the earth ' whatsoever thou shalt
bind,' that is, whatsoever part of guilt or of treason thou shalt
bind the more closely ; 'whatsoever thou shalt loose] that is,
whatsoever bond of law, duty, faith, and oath thou shalt
loosen. There is a great gulph betwixt these.
Our prelate then shews the inconsistency of the Cardinal,
who in one place denies that King James is a Christian, and
in another affirms that he belongs to the Pope's fold, for
neither is he a judge of kings, says Bellarmine, but as they
are Christians.
From the Pope's binding he proceeds to the Pope's loosing
power, that is, as the Cardinal himself has it, his power of
dispensing with censures, laws and oaths, vows, sins, and
punishments. And here again he wittily exposes his con
fusion of words and things. " For sin, censures, and penalties
are wont to be loosed, but laws, oaths, and vows to be bound,
and to be more closely bound ; and if the Pope looseth these
also, what is it that remains for him to bind? Men have
no need to be loosed from their duty, nor from the bond of
their duty; but they are loosed from their duty when they
are loosed from law, and from the bond of their duty when
they are loosed from their oath. Nay, what is more wonderful,
he looses in the same way the law itself and offences against
the law, and both with the like facility. Be it law or be it
an offence against the law, it is all one with him. It is as
easy a thing with the Pope to loose laws as sins. But it
can scarcely be that with one key both these doors, the door
of the commandment and the door of sin, can be opened.
Perchance then there are two keys ; one for opening sins, penal
ties, censures; the other for opening laws, vows, oaths. But
certainly both these cannot be the keys of the kingdom of
heaven. But if the keys for the loosing .of sins are the keys
of the kingdom of heaven, it behoved that the keys of hell
were given for the loosing of laws and the commandments of
laws."3 So no man can be under any obligation either to
God or man, but the Pope may forthwith loose him from it !
"On this ground what shall be sure upon earth? what shall
become of all compacts, treaties, bonds of society whatsoever?
how shall we ever be hereafter sure of any man's faith or
promise?"4 Then with a pun does Bishop Andre wes loosen
the whole fabric of Jesuitical casuistry, saying, ft Potestas
haec quidem solvendi dicenda non erat, sed dissolvendi
omnia." "But surely Bellarmine," says Bishop Andrewes,
"intended to limit the Pope's power of loosing laws. He did
not intend a power to loose the laws of nature upon which
yet the duty of civil obedience is founded ; nor the laws of
the ten commandments, which are, according to Aquinas,
indispensable ; nor yet the evangelical laws, of which that
of St. Peter is one, Be ye subject to the King as supreme:
for this is the will of God. What does your Pope in this
case? Does he loose this law of Peter, and say, 'Be not
subject to the King, although he is supreme ; for this is the
will of the Pope'? I conceive not. He will not put Paul
the Fifth on a par with Peter"*
"But as to oaths David said, / am sworn and am steadfastly
purposed to keep Thy righteous judgments. Peter, if he had
lived at that time, could he have absolved David of this
oath ? Suppose any one binds himself by oath to keep the
seventh commandment, not to commit adultery, can any Pope
absolve him of this oath ? But if a man in like manner bind
himself under the fifth commandment to civil subjection,
what power has the Pope to absolve him in the one case
more than in the other? The Popes dissolve obligations to
fealty, but not to treason ; they loose what ought to be bound,
they bind what ought to be loosed. They acted the part
of jugglers in Queen Elizabeth's reign, playing fast and
loose with their own bulls. In the eleventh year of the
Queen's reign Pope Pius the Fifth published a bull excom
municating and deposing the Queen, and cursing all those
who should yield any obedience to her. Before that time the
Komanists had attended the Protestant service, but now they
absented themselves, and open rebellion broke out in the
northern counties. 'Now truly,' said Sir Edward Coke at
the trial of the traitor Garnet, ' most miserable and dangerous
was the state of Komish recusants in respect of this bull ; for
either they must be hanged for treason in resisting their
lawful sovereign, or cursed by the Pope for yielding due
obedience to her Majesty. But of this Pope it was said
by some of his own favourites, that he was a holy and
learned man, but over-credulous, for that he was informed
and believed that the strength of the Catholics in England
was such as was able to have resisted the Queen. But when
the bull was found to take such an effect, then there was a
dispensation given, both by Pius Quintus himself and Gregory
the Thirteenth, that all Catholics here might procure quiet
and peace by shewing outward obedience to the Queen, but
with these cautions and limitations ; firstly, l Rebus sic stan-
tibusj things so standing as they did; and secondly, c Donee,
publica lullce executio fieri posset, that is, until they should
grow into strength and become able to resist and overcome."1
aA wonderful workman" (says Bishop Andrewes of
Pope Gregory the Thirteenth), "with one and the same
bull he binds and he does not bind. He binds heretics, he
binds not the Catholics ; and the Catholics he binds not, and
yet he does bind. Of a truth the Pope did not redeem the
souls of men, who by perjury makes such a sport of them."2
But Bellarmine fences round this power with " when it is
expedient for the glory of God, or for the salvation of souls."
Then consult history and see whether the theory and the
practice agree. tl This power is exercised not when souls are
hazarded, but when tenths are refused, provision made against
' provisions ,' and sales of indulgences forbidden. This power
is exercised when the Pope's revenue is to be increased,
whilst so many grosses are paid for such a vow solved, so
many florins for such an oath broken, so many gold pieces for
such a law transgressed ; in all which not the glory of God,
but the dishonour of princes ; not the salvation of souls, but
the wasting of their substance is the aim. So long as his
interest is consulted, the glory of God, the salvation of souls
may go where they please."3
Our prelate then returning to the words of commission,
interprets Matt. xvi. by John xx., Whosesoever sins ye remit,
&c.4 This interpretation he supports by Augustine, Theophy-
lact, Pope Adrian the Sixth, Cardinal Hugo, Anselm, Drith-
mar, and Duns Scotus. The promise in Matt. xvi. was
fulfilled in the grant in John xx. Secondly, the promise
was to Peter, not for himself but as representing the Church.
So Origen on Matt, xvi., Jerome in his first book against
Jovinian, Augustine on the 12th chapter of St. John, as also
in other parts of his works, Ambrose on the Dignity of the
Priesthood, Leo the Great in his third sermon on the assump
tion of the Blessed Virgin, Euthymius Zigabenus1 on St.
Matthew, Rabanus Maurus in the Catena of Aquinas on
Matthew, and Hugo a Sto Victore on the Sacraments, with
others of more recent date.2 But as to the oath of allegiance
it did not enter upon the general question of the Pope's
power to dispense with oaths ; it confined itself to his power
of dispensing with this particular oath.3 From the nature
of the oath, which is not for the most part promissory but
assertory, it is plain that he has no power over it. Add to
this the inherent voidness of absolution from civil obedience,
as had been before made manifest.4 He then exposes the
sophistry of Bellarmine in his attempt to shew that the
taking of the oath involves the denial of the Pope's spiritual
supremacy,5 and animadverts upon the assertion in the
Pope's first bull, l that the oath contained many things
plainly contrary to faith and salvation.'6 He then shews
the dishonesty of Bellarmine in mixing up the oath of
supremacy imposed by Henry VIII. with this oath of
King James.7
Bellarmine professed l not to excuse' the conspiracy : ' to
accuse' Bishop Andrewes observes would have been too severe
a word for the Cardinal to use. But how does execration of
the conspiracy consist with sheltering of the conspirators G.
and G.?8 (Greenway and Gerard). This question neither Bel
larmine could then, nor can Dr. Lingard answer now, and yet
the palliator of the Jesuits and of the plot need not be believed
to execrate it more than Bellarmine. Both Lingard and Bel
larmine in some measure justify the exasperated feelings which
they say led to the plot, by representing the Eomanists as
disappointed by the King and as enduring heavy persecution.
''But the King would be safe if he only tolerated the
Komanists." That was by no means certain. Henry the Third
suffered all his subjects to enjoy the free exercise of the Romish
religion, and yet he was assassinated.1 ' No one can deny/ said
Bellarmine, ' that occasion of desperation was given.' c With
what intent,' replies Bishop Andrewes, ' was this said by you,
but to excuse it ? But what though occasion had been given ?
You know what your master saith, l( Occasion doth neither
physically nor morally work anything."2 With him, God
ministers occasion of sinning, but not thereby of excusing
sinners. He exposes the hypocrisy of Clement VIII.,3 which
has before been pointed out. As to the occasion of desperation
he proves that there was none. The plot was contrived in the
very first year of King James's reign.4 No fines were levied
for recusancy until the fifth month of the second year. No
man suffered death, or the loss of all his goods. Yet before the
King was crowned, the priests Clarke and Watson conspired
against him, and the latter on his execution affirmed that the
Jesuits had then acknowledged that they had a great design of
their own on foot, no other than that famous plot of 1605.5 The
fines for recusancy began to be gathered in July, 1604. But in
the following November, when some of the Eomanists presented
a complaint to the King, that at the beginning of his reign,
before his royal intention of not demanding the fines due in
Elizabeth's reign was known, heavy contributions had been
levied upon them, the King ordered that those sums should be
returned to them by the same persons who had collected them,
and so they recovered to the amount of 52,000 florins; and yet
in the very next month were the conspirators engaged in digging
under the walls of the parliament-house.
The reader must not expect to find suck facts recorded by
the veritable historian who has in our day so elaborately
pleaded for the pseudo-martyr Garnet. Again, the confessions
of the conspirators had attested that in some it was zeal, in
others private friendship ^ that induced them to act their detest
able part.1 Some learned men beyond sea had filled them
with the idea that their design was " not only pious, but (as
you are wont to call it) meritorious" As for the oath of al
legiance, it was expressed in the very preamble that it was
for the detecting of those who were in heart disloyal and ready
to join in such plots and conspiracies!2
The bull was false in charging persecution upon the King
and representing the Komanists as martyrs.3 It was a mis
nomer to speak of Apostolical Briefs. He might as well
have called the ink with which they were written, apostolical
ink-, or the lead with which they were sealed, apostolical lead*
Bishop Andrewes returns to speak of the insincerity of the
Popes. They do not desire to cause disobedience to princes,
but they will not suffer men to be bound to obedience. But
Paul the Fifth is willing that obedience should be rendered
to princes according to the Holy Scriptures :5 " where, if
Matthew [Tortus] speak truth, there is good hope. For this
is a new thing in the Pope, that he should define the Holy
Scriptures to be the rule of obedience." Our wish it is that
all these questions should be referred to this rule, the questions
of the Pope's deposing power, &c.6 With great force does he
afterwards observe that this power leaves all princes in pos
session of subjects who are only ' hypothetically faithful.'7
He shortly after lays before the reader the penal laws enacted
in the parliament immediately after the Gunpowder plot.8 He
then relates that in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign
there were not many besides gfcme of the Romish clergy who
absented themselves from our worship and sacraments. They
were so few that the term recusant was not then known, nor
did the law recognize it for ten years. Hence it was plain
that the bull of Pope Pius the Fifth was the cause of recusancy.
Hitherto they had been of the same religion as now, when of
a sudden they became recusants, or refused to attend the
established worship. It was not then a matter of religion, or
why did they not absent themselves from the very first ?
Why then did they cease in the eleventh year of the Queen
from attending our worship ? But what was the effect of the
bull? It introduced at once and in one mass, treason and
recusancy, and gave occasion to the state to regard them as
identical. And the effect of the bull was manifestly both.
For now came both recusancy and the northern insurrection.
Not before faith was discovered to be mixed up with perfidy,
were any penal laws devised ; laws rather fines than punish
ments.1 It is plain then that the laws and fines appointed for
recusancy are not purely laws touching religion, but of a
mixed nature; touching religion mixed up with disloyalty
towards the prince^ touching persons whose civil obedience is
determined ly the Pope's lulls. Such recusants were in the
eye of the laws, and surely without any injustice such might
be punished.2 The Romanists complained of these laws, but
Bellarmine might soothe himself, and answer his own enquiry,
' what greater punishment can be conceived ? ' if he would call
to mind the variety of deaths, even burning to death by slow
fires, which were inflicted in the reign of Queen Mary.3
" But with what colour of truth could you call our sacred
rites sacrilegious? In them is nothing sacred taken away.
Look to it, that that term suit not yours rather, in which the
letter part of the sacred prayers, namely, the mind and under
standing of the person pray ing , and the sacred cup, to wit, the
half of the Eucharist, is by a sacrilegious daring taken away ;
in which a part of divine honor and that which is sacred to
God is given to a wooden image, and stamped bread is? not
without the height of sacrilege, adored for Gfod"1
How must Tortus have writhed beneath this ecclesiastical
scourge! "And equally absurd it is in you to call it an
oath of perfidy, which was made as well for the branding of
past as for the providing against future perfidy ; which is at
this time administered against perfidy, and which will be both
in books and in our laws an eternal memorial to perfidy, and
to the perfidy of your men who bound themselves by a double
obligation to perfidy against their country itself, and against
the father of their country. But ye who dissolve faith, and
oaths the bonds of faith, to the end that men may be per
fidious ; ye who say that faith is not to be kept, that is, that
perfidy is lawful and right, do ye dare mutter anything about
perfidy, or even to name the word to your own disgrace?"2
To the objection of Queen Elizabeth's supremacy he re
turns the spiritual jurisdiction of the abbess, which is more
strictly ecclesiastical. Nay, Aquinas did not confine the
exercise of the power of excommunication to the priesthood.3
The mendacious Sanders, whom Bellarmine had highly lauded,
had the shamelessness to publish to the world that Queen
Elizabeth exercised the ministerial calling.4 But nothing
was too mendacious for the Church of Rome. There was
published an account of the (fabled) persecution in England,
in which it was affirmed that the Catholics were sown up in
the skins of beasts and given to be devoured by dogs j others
were represented as bound to mangers and left to feed upon
hay, others as having their entrails eaten out by dormice.5
It was fit that a doctrine of devils should be maintained by
such devilish means, and that false miracles should be ac-
companied with false legends. Bishop Andrewes cites in
allusion to them the second chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to
the Thessalonians, that God had sent upon them strong de
lusion that they should believe lies.1
In order to vindicate the turbulence and anarchy which
must needs follow the Pope's deposing power, Bellarmine
had ventured to represent Gregory the Great as yielding but
a forced submission to the Emperor Maurice. Our prelate
shews that Gregory taught another and a better doctrine,2 and
severely animadverts upon the opposition of these Papal prin
ciples to those which ennobled the sufferings of the Primitive
Church.3
Cardinal Bellarmine wTas possessed of the same measure of
controversial integrity with Dr. Wiseman and the Jesuit
Harding. This the reader may gather as from his larger
works, so abundantly from his Matthew Tortus*
Our prelate quotes at full length from the acts of the
various Councils5 convened by Charlemagne, and appealed to
by King James in his ' Apology,' and adduces the submission
of Pope Leo the Great (in the point of convening Councils) to
the Emperors Theodosius, Yalentinian, and Martian.6 He
refutes Bellarmine by himself, convicting him of alleging an
epistle to Damasus from the Second General Council, which
epistle Bellarmine had, in his Eecognitio or Censure of Ms own
looks, admitted to be spurious.7 When the Pope's power
waxed great, then were General Councils held in Italy, but
no General Council until nearly the completion of eleven cen
turies. Bellarmine thought no authority too great for the
Pope. He openly avowed that he could make articles to be
received "with Catholic faith."8
Bellarmine would have Rome Babylon sooner than not
have a scripture-proof that St. Peter had been there. Bishop
Andrewes retorted that he might as well have made Mark an
allegorical person as Babylon an allegorical place.1 He then
proceeds at some length to shew that Rome is the Babylon
of the Apocalypse.2 This and the whole question of Anti
christ he discusses at large in his Answer to Bellarminds
Apology.
Cardinal Bellarmine was not afraid to affirm that the
breves entrusted to that very innocent and holy martyr
Garnet, were rather favourable than unfavourable to King
James.3 Bishop Andrewes remarked that Garnet knew other
wise.4 Indeed, had they been for the King, they would have
been boasted of by him and his fraternity. But, said Bel
larmine, the Romanists had hope of King James. This was
not enough for the Pope, who in his breves forbad the
Eomanists to advance the cause of any but of such as would
not only tolerate but promote with all possible earnestness
the cause of their religion.5 Bellarmine appealed to the
King's correspondence with the Pope. This was answered
by the tl Declaration and Confession of the Lord Balmerino,
one of his Majesty's Privy Councillors, concerning some letters
which he caused to be sent without the King's knowledge
and as in his name, to Rome, to Pope Clement the Eighth,
1598.6 A question has been raised whether the King was
not insincere in this business, sacrificing his secretary to screen
himself.7
Our author gives his reason for suspecting the Council
called the first General Lateran Council, A.D. 1215, to be
a forgery. Cochlseus was the first who published it, and that
not before 1538, £ from an old manuscript,' but without adding
a word touching the way in which it came into his hands, or
anything to establish its authority. In 1535 James Merlin
published the Councils, but not a word of this. A Council
was indeed called; nothing was decreed at it. Pope Inno-
cent himself condemned the book of Abbot Joachim; he
himself condemned Almeric, and so Matthew Paris.1
Bishop Andrewes writes satirically of Pope Innocent ex
communicating King John and robbing him of his kingdom,
" 0 virum sanctum ! 0 speculum innocentise !"2 Mr. F. W.
Faber has appeared too late in the world to chastise the good
bishop's irreverent treatment of the holy Father. " We read
the history," says this writer, in a spirit worthy of Bellarmine,
" we read the history of John and his Barons j and, while we
think we are carrying away a clear view of the bigoted,
haughty, secular prelate, how unlike the original is the rude
image we have hewn from the coarse materials of Protestant
history."3 Holy man, he is cursing and anathematizing,
and tumbling the world upside down ; but, good reader, look
into his soul ; it is as clear as the azure vault of heaven.
Only a cloud of penitential sorrow is seen to pass across the
surface of that heavenly breast. He is taking away that
which is another's, and stirring up bloodshed and confusion,
but at the same time (it is Mr. Faber who writes it) he is
" full of godly fear lest his height should make him proud ;
and so, as a penitential safeguard, composing a book on the
seven penitential psalms"! How admirable a piety ! behold
him breathing out his threats against the King, and with
the same breath uttering holy meditations ; spoiling a
monarch of his crown, and glorifying the heavenly grace!
This encomium of Pope Innocent (with whom Laud is
deemed worthy to be placed) was written by one who has,
since he penned the praises of Innocent, gone over wholly
to Rome. Let him erase with his tears, if he can, the 219th
and 220th pages of the Tortura Torti. There he may read
of the Papissa,) John the Eighth, a history, be it remembered,
not of Protestant but of Romish origin, and attested by
monuments, memorials, and traditions still extant.
Bishop Andrewes shews, and principally from Bellarmine's
own writings, the uncertainty of the doctrine of the Papal
supremacy, and that it is hypothesis upon hypothesis.1 He
observes of the very first link in the succession, " As though
God would not have us to depend upon your succession, he
determined that the subject should be uncertain concerning
the first succession of all, concerning the very first successor
of Peter. You yourself know that was made twelve hundred
years and more upon Clement,
Nutat adhuc mundus, sit quartuSj sit ne secundus?
Consider the schisms and heresies of the Popes (as honest
Fuller says, three sitting down at once, Peter's chair was like
to have been broken). Alphonsus a Castro saith, Although
we are bound to believe of faith that Peter's true successor
is the supreme pastor of the whole Church, yet we are not
bound to believe with the same faith that Leo or Clement
is the true successor of Peter, since we are not bound to
believe with Catholic faith that any one of them was rightly
and canonically elected."3 One Pope, John Picus Mirandula
tells us, doubted the immortality of the soul.4
It was weakness in Bellarmine to provoke a contest which
should call forth the testimony of history. Protestant con
troversialists had only to renew the attacks of Jewel in his
Apology and Defence of his Apology, and Eome at once stood
unmasked as the universal traitor, the conspirator as well
against the thrones of the kingdoms of this world as against
truth, the throne of the eternal kingdom of God. He that
will now speak with contempt of Jewel (much more easy it is
to revile him than to refute him) must also enter the lists
with Bishop Andrewes, who follows in his track, and verifies
his historical accusations of the Church of Rome.5
Most admirable is our prelate's exposure of Bellarmine's
sophistry, by which he would even commend the oration
(panegyrical) of the assassination of Henry the Third of
France. This controversial king-killer asks, " And what
will you find in it (the Pope's speech) but praises and
admiration of the wisdom and providence of God?"1 " And
what," retorts Bishop Andrewes, tl is that work of wisdom
which he so singularly admires? That a simple monk in
his usual habit, armed with neither sword nor shield, should
have found free access to the King. But this surely is not so
very marvellous. It would have been more so if the monk,
being armed with sword and shield, had found his way to the
King. For in that he was unarmed he excited no suspicion ;
had he been armed I do not believe that he would have found
his way so readily through the midst of the King's attendants.
There was nothing in this wondering of Sixtus worthy of
admiration."2
Bishop Andrewes asks, "If it was admiration of the
divine retaliation upon the King, why, if God so avenges
the death of Cardinals, was no assassinator raised up against
Pius the Fourth, who ordered Cardinal Caraffa, and him
a most near relation to Paul the Fourth, to be strangled in
prison? or against Urban the Sixth, who had five cardinals
put into a sack and drowned in the sea, and the bodies of
two more whom he had ordered to be slain, dried in a furnace
and placed upon mules, and so borne in procession on his
journies, with the paraphernalia of their dignities?"3
Several pages are ably expended on an exposure of
Bellarmine's theological contradictions, which were but
pointed out in the King's Apology.
1. Of justification, where our author justly complains of
his 'wretched wavering.'4 Bishop Andrewes contends that
Bellarmine's doctrine of justification by an inherent, will
not stand with justification by an imputed righteousness.
Herein he is opposed by the pseudo-patristic divines of our
own age, but with as little discretion as consistency. He
calls the Eomish teachers of justification by Christ's presence
manifested in us, and of the identity of justification and
sanctification, false prophets. They tell us, tacitly charging
falsehood upon our prelate, " Truth as well as charity require
us to be very careful how we cast suspicion on others [pious
Romanists, such as the most pious and veracious Bellarmine]
in this point, in which the Church Catholic has not authori
tatively pronounced, lest we be found false witnesses against
our brethren."1 It is nothing to writers of this kind that
the Church of England has authoritatively pronounced upon
this point. What the Scriptures have been made in the
Church of Rome, the Thirty-nine Articles are made in our
own, a nose of wax. Hence u justification by faith" is made
to stand for justification by obedience, and justification by
Christ's merits for justification by Christ dwelling in us, and
justification by Christ's name for justification by the Holy
Ghost, and justification for double justification. Such are
the lucid explanations, or rather casuistical wrestings, of Mr.
Newman in his Lectures on Justification.
Bellarmine, in his book upon the Loss of Grace and State
of Sin, had fallen into a flat contradiction, affirming first,
" God does not move or incline to evil morally;" then, aGod
does move or incline to sin morally." This could only be
reconciled by being explained away, as indeed Bellarmine
found, for so he explains himself: li God does not move
to evil morally, that is, by commanding; he moves to evil
morally, that is, by ministering the occasion to it." He
should have said, as Bishop Andrewes remarks, u God does
not move by commanding." As it is, he in the first place
applies that to the genus "to move," which is true only
of the species " by commanding."
His third contradiction was doubtless to secure the Papal
primacy. First, in his book De Clericis he admitted " that
bishops succeed the apostles, and priests the seventy disciples;"
but when he comes to treat of the supreme ecclesiastial power
in his church, then " bishops do not properly succeed the
apostles." But if it were so, it would not make the more for
the Pope, for neither does he succeed the apostles as an
apostle, going throughout the world to preach the Gospel,
writing canonical books, working miracles, more than other
bishops.1
The fourth contradiction is, u Judas did not believe;"2
but in the 14th chapter of his third book on Justification,
"Judas was just and certainly good." To this Bellarmine
replied, " Make a distinction of the times." Bishop Andrewes
retorted that there was no need to do this if Judas never
believed. But so affirmed St. Chrysostom on those words of
St. Peter, " For we have believed and have known that thou
art the Christ, the Son of the living God. When Peter had
said, And we have believed, Christ excepts Judas from that
number." And so verse 64 of the 6th chapter of St. John,
For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that
believed not, and who should betray him. " Our Alcuin,"
saith Bishop Andrewes, tl clearly expresses it in these his
words upon this place, " Judas was one of the twelve not in
faith but in number, not in truth but in hypocrisy."3
The fifth contradiction was a similar absurdity with the
second. The substance of a work is its moral quality, as in
alms, that we should give our own, that we should give
to him that needeth, that we should give from the motive
of compassion. Yet Bellarmine had improperly said that
a man might perform the substance of a commandment, and
yet with sin ; a manifest contradiction.4
The sixth is that Peter never lost a saving faith, and yet
fell into deadly sin.
The seventh is, Antichrist shall be a magician and shall
secretly worship the devil, and yet he shall hate all idolatry
and rebuild the Temple. This, as he observes, can only
be reconciled by equivocation. " Perchance the Fathers of
the Society [the Jesuits] thus say, Odi diabolum, that is,
I feign that I hate him."
The eighth is, " The oblation is made by the words of
consecration," yet not by them but by the oblation of the
thing itself. The oblation is to be understood here of the act
of oblation, not of the thing offered ; of the act of sacrificing,
not of the thing sacrificed. The true action of offering is in
the words of consecration ; that is the first proposition. The
placing upon the altar ; that is the second. But the second
is not done until after the completion of the first.
The ninth is, that the end of the world cannot be known,
but that after the death of Antichrist there shall be but
five-and-forty days to the end of the world. Here Bellar-
mine was so bold as to reply, "If this be a contradiction, it is
in Holy Scripture itself, for both are found there." "The
words," said Bishop Andrewes, " are perhaps in the Apocalypse,
the meaning is in the Apocrypse of your brain. For he
revealed not that to the servant which he revealed not to the
Son; nor doth John contradict Christ."4 He proceeds to
quote against him the Jesuit Blaise de Yiegas on the 13th
chapter of the Book of Kevelation.
The tenth is, that the ten kings shall burn Rome, the
mystic Babylon ; but that Antichrist shall hate Rome, and
fight against, and burn it. But it is not so, not Antichrist,
but God shall put it into their hearts?
The eleventh is a denial that all bishops are only the
Pope's vicars, followed by the affirmative, that all their
ordinary jurisdiction is from him immediately, and in him,
and so derived to them.
In a later stage of the work our prelate very ably discusses
the guilt of Garnet and of the other Jesuits as respects the
Gunpowder Plot, beginning with the arch-incendiary, the
Pope himself, who, he observes, cannot but be suspected,
together with Claud Acqua Viva, of being long privy to the
plot.
There are some who tell us that the abuses of image-
worship have lessened in the Romish Church. In this
instance as in others false liberality is but the charity of
ignorance. So long as the Roman breviary remains, so long
will the worship of images be countenanced by the Church
of Rome. Then we have speaking and wonder-working
images recorded, and doubtless for no other end than to
uphold a superstitious and idolatrous veneration of them.
The Church of Rome professes to be unchangeable. Hear,
then, how by the mouth of her greatest oracles she vindicates
and covers the guilt of idolatry, and unblushingly makes God
a liar. "They are not idolaters," said Bellarmine, "they
do not worship idols, because they worship images of things
that exist ; but those images are not idols, for an idol is only
the image of a thing nowhere existing." Bishop Andrewes
does not omit to point out to him how plainly he contradicts
God, and commands that to be done which God threatens to
punish. u According to the novel theology of TortuSj pro
vided only a thing has existence in heaven, in earth, in the
waters, or under the earth, though it be an evil demon, a man
can bow himself before it and worship God in it."1 Thus
Bellarmine went about to prove King James nearer to Julian2
the apostate than was his own communion, a communion
which, had it not been content to patronise blasphemy, would
never have tolerated such a patron of idolatry.
Alluding to the excuse that their missionaries indeed came
over into this country, though forbidden by law, to preach
the Gospel, Bishop Andrewes reminds them that they came
not to preach Christ, but to set up as the chief article of the
faith the power of the Pope; hence their need of going in
disguise that in their doctrine they might mix up sedition,
and in religion find a hiding-place for treason. te Your gospel
is not the gospel of peace ; yours is not the conversion but the
perversion of the Gentiles ; nor is it so much the edification
of the Church as the laying of the State in ruins."1
In this work, a very storehouse upon the subject of the
Pope's supremacy, our prelate argues at considerable length
from the Epistles of Gregory the Great, removing all the
cavils of the Jesuitical Leviathan.2 He afterwards proceeds
to shew that the four later as well as the four former General
Councils were convened by Emperors independently of the
Pope.3
The King in his Apology had singled out for reprobation
the mutilation of the eucharist, private masses, and the imper
fection of the words of consecration, which are not in the
canon of the mass taken from St. Luke and St. Paul, where
alone they appear in a complete form, but from the other
Evangelists, thus neglecting altogether our Lord's words,
"given for you"* The King animadverted upon three
points. Bellarmine, by a summary method of proof, would
conclude the King to be in error in all three points by proving
him so only in one ! 5
Bellarmine had in his letter to Blackwell reminded him
that Fisher and More died martyrs for this one head of
doctrine, the Pope's headship. Bishop Andrewes draws a
comparison between John Fisher and John the Baptist.
The one said to Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have her
(his brother's wife) ; but Bishop Fisher said the reverse, i It
is lawful for thee to have her.'6 In the course of treating upon
the cause of the deaths of Fisher and More, he discovers the
number of the beast out of PaVLo Y. VICe Deo.1
In the remainder of this very able volume, and one that
so truly answers to its title. Bishop Andrewes accurately
states the doctrine of the ecclesiastical prerogatives of
Christian princes, and replies to the objections of the Bo-
manists. Nowhere can the reader find this topic more clearly
illustrated.
Our prelate concedes to the sovereign whatsoever power
was exercised by the Jewish Kings in the Old Testament,
agreeably to the Divine will, for the reformation and mainte
nance of true religion. tl Quodcunque in rebus religionis Eeges
Israel fecerunt, nee sine laude fecerunt, id ut ei faciendi jus
sit ac potestas. Leges auctoritate Regia ferendi, ne blasphe-
metur Deus, non negabitis, fecit Rex Babel (Dan. iii. 29) : ut
jejunio placetur Deus, fecit Eex Ninive (Jon. iii. 7) : ut festo
honoretur, fecit Ester, cum Purim, Machabseus cum Encaenia
promulgaret (Est. ix. 26 ; 1 Mace. iv. 56, 59). Denique iis
omnibus rebus de quibus in Codice, in Authenticis, in Capitu-
laribus a Constantino, Theodosio, Justiniano, Carolo magno,
leges latse leguntur.
..." Whatever the Kings of Israel did in the department of
religion, and did not without commendation, that to "be his
right and privilege. The power of making laws by royal
authority, that God be not blasphemed ; such, ye will not deny,
the King of Babylon made (Dan. iii. 29) ; that God might be
propitiated by a fast, the King of Mneve made (Jon. iii. 7) ;
that he should be honoured by a festival, Queen Esther
made, when she proclaimed the Feast of Purim ; Judas
Maccabeus, when he proclaimed the Feast of Dedication
(Est. ix. 28 ; 1 Mace. iv. 56, 59) ; lastly, in regard of all
those things concerning which laws were enacted by Con-
stantine, Theodosius, Justinian, Charlemagne, in the Code,
the Authenticse, and the Chapters.
" Also the power of delegating such as should pronounce
judgment concerning the law so given, which power Jeho-
shaphat exercised (2 Chron. xix. 8) ; also of binding subjects
by an oath not to violate the law so made, which power both
Asa (2 Chron. xv. 14) and Josiah (ibid, xxxiv. 32) exercised.
" But if any do anything against laws so made, though it
be for the sake of religion, as the false prophets, it is a
criminal action (Deut. xiii. 10) ; or as idolaters (ibid. 15),
or as blasphemers (Levit. xxiv. 23), or as a sacrilegious
person (Num. xv. 35), he shall have the power of punishing
such by his royal authority.
" Also the power of calling Councils by his own authority ;
even upon bringing back the ark and putting it in its own
place, which David did (1 Chron. xiii. 3) ; also concerning
the recalling the people to the worship of God, which Jeho-
shaphat did (2 Chron. xix. 4) ; also concerning dedicating
the Temple, which Solomon did (1 Kings viii. 64) ; also
i concerning its restoration when it had fallen into ruin, which
iJoash did (2 Chron. xxiv. 4) • also concerning its purifi-
Ication after it had been profaned, which Hezekiah did
\(ibid. xxix. 5).
But although he may not think that he is in vain com-
manded by God to write out for himself a copy of the law,
to have it always by him, to read it diligently, to meditate
upon it day and night, to learn out of that the worship
of God, to ceremonies themselves ; nor that this is enjoined
him, yet so that he should altogether hang upon the lips of
another, and himself in fact decide nothing as of himself, yet
nevertheless he should in these things not unwillingly consult
the mouth of Eleazar (Num. xxvii. 21), and require the law
of those whose lips keep knowledge (Mai. ii. 7) ; he should,
in making laws regarding religion, apply to those to whom
it is but just that he should apply, and whom reason points
out as the best advised in such things, and as capable of
giving the best answer concerning them. And in those
things that pertain to God, he will command Amariah the
priest, not Zebadiah the commander, to preside (2 Chron.
xix. 11).
lt As regards persons, the right of giving laws to all orders
of persons, who is (to speak in the style of Scripture) the
head, of the tribe of Levi (1 Sam. 15, 17) not less than of
the other tribes, nor less the king of the clergy than of the
laity. On the other hand, if any Abiathar carry himself
proudly, he has the right to restrain him by his edict
(Deut. xvii. 12), and even to depose Abiathar himself from
the priesthood if he deserve it.
"As regards things, he has the power to pull down the
high places, that is, of abolishing foreign worship, not only
of breaking the golden calf cast by Aaron, as did Moses,
but also the brazen serpent erected by Moses, as Hezekiah
did, and of grinding both to powder, whether it be the golden
calf leading to idolatry, or the brazen serpent leading to
superstition.
"For as relates to the regulation of those things which
respect the beauty of the house of God, which are wont to
be called things indifferent, which Joash did (2 Chron.
xxiv. 12), and which are usually those points on which
schism is grounded; as also the right of setting at rest
needless and unprofitable questions by his authority, as
Constantine did (see his Epistle to Alexander and Arms;
Socrates' Eccl Hist. 1. i. c. 7, pp. 16—18, Cantab. 1720), you
yourselves will not deny his authority.
u Lastly, if you would rather an instance from Christians,
such precedent requires that he be the overseer of them that
are without, as was Constantine (Eusebius in his Life of
Constantinejl. iv. c. 24, p. 638, Camb. 1720), and the director
of religion, which not only Charlemagne was, but also Louis
the Pious.
tl These are with us the rights of the royal supremacy,
jure divino"
CHAPTER XI
Andrewes translated to Ely, 1609 — Bishop Heton — Bishop Harsnet
— Christmas — Easter, 1610 — Andrewes at Holdenby in August —
Consecration of the Scottish Bishops — J. Casaubon — Andrewes1
ON Easter-day, 16th April, 1609, Bishop Andrewes
preached before the King at Whitehall from John xx. 19.
Very simple and ingenious to edification, very touching by
the extreme naturalness of its pathos, is this most pastoral
discourse on Christ's salutation and benediction, Peace be
unto you.
"When you hear men talk of peace," saith our most
fatherly bishop, "mark whether they stand where they
should. If with the Pharisee, to the corners, either by
partiality one way or prejudice another, no good will be
done. When God will have it brought to pass, such minds
he will give unto men, and make them meet to wish it,
seek it, and find it."
In the course of this year he published his famous answer
to Bellarmine, entitled Tortura Torti; and on September 22
was, on the death of Dr. Martin Heton, elected to the see
of Ely. There were present at the election Dr. Humphrey
Tyndall, Dean of Ely and President of Queens' College, Cambridge, and Dr. Thomas Nuce, Dr. Andrew Willet, that most laborious commentator ; John Hills, Edmund Barwell, and James Taylor, Prebendaries. Dr. Martin Heton was son of
George Heton, Esq., and Joan, daughter of Sir William
Bowes, Knight. His father was of a Lancashire family, but
himself was born in London in 1553. His father was Master
of the Merchants' House at Antwerp, and caused it to be
free for the refugees in the reign of Queen Mary. Martin
Heton was educated at Christ Church, Oxford, and in 1582
was made a Canon of the Cathedral there. In 1588 he
served the Vice-Chancellorship, and in 1589 succeeded Dr.
Laurence Humphrey as Dean of Winchester. He was consecrated on February 3, 1599, to the see of Ely at Lambeth.
Dr. Andrewes declined the bishopric, not willing to be a
gainer himself to the loss of his see, and so he made way for
Dr. Heton, and now Dr. Heton by death for him.
On November 5 the Bishop of Ely preached before the
King at Whitehall from the Gospel for the day ; a topic that
came too near to that of this day's commemoration not to
minister to our prelate abundant opportunity of comparison
and contrast, of which he availed himself with great felicity.
On the day following he was confirmed in the temporalities
of the see of Ely ; and on the 13th he, with Buckeridge, Bishop
of Rochester, assisted Archbishop Bancroft at the consecration
of Dr. George Abbot to the see of Lichfield (afterward Arch-
Willis also gives his epitaph. It relates that his wife is buried near him, and
that they had five sons and seven daughters, and thus concludes,
"To the world they living died, So dying living they abide."
Page 232
... On Christmas-day Bishop Andrewes preached a sermon
before the King at Whitehall, that is reported to have given
him especial satisfaction. Mr. Chamberlain wrote to Sir
Kalph Winwood, "The King with much importunity had
the copy delivered to him on Tuesday last, before his going
towards Eoyston, and says he will lay it still under his
pillow." This sermon is from Gal. iii. 4, 5: "When the
fulness of time was come, God sent his Son} made of a
woman, made under the law, that he might redeem them
that were under the law that we might receive the adoption of sons. Here he saith that Christ was made under the law to become our surety, made under the law when he was circumcised. Then, as St. Paul saith, he became a
debtor to the whole law; then was his name of Jesus given him, St. Luke ii. 21. To get us from under the law it was not a matter of intercession but of redemption. So were verified as in a double sense his words at his passion, If you
lay hold on me if I must discharge all, let these go their way, let the price I pay be their redemption, and so it was."
So let us rejoice with fulness of joy, " with the joy of men
that have come out of prison, have 'scaped the law, with the
joy of men that have got the reversion of a goodly heritage."1
Well worthy indeed is this joyous discourse of that most
joyful occasion which it celebrated out of so cheerful a heart.
But what an Easter2 followed, when our good prelate
descanted so fervidly upon Job's gospel, upon his triumphal
monument, and on death's epitaph : tc I am sure that my
Redeemer livethj and he shall stand the last on the earth , (or,
and I shall rise again in the last day from the earth). And
though after my skin worms destroy this body, (or, as in the
Liturgy of King James, and shall be covered again with my
skin,) I shall see God in my flesh, whom I myself (or for
myself] shall see, and mine eyes shall behold, and none other
for me, though my reins are consumed loithin me (or, and this
hope is laid up in my bosom)."3
So, he observes, St. Jerome himself applies this place
as a plain prophecy both of Christ's and of our resurrection.
Do we ask how Job came by this knowledge ? "We shall
not need to trouble ourselves to know how he knew it; not
by any Scripture. He had it not from Moses, but the same
way that Moses had it; he looked in the same mirror Abraham
did, when he saw the same person and the same day, and
rejoiced to see it." 'Shall stand? He notes, "It is well
known it is the proper word for rising and not standing.
The LXX. so turn it ; the Fathers so read it. Nee dum
natus erat Dominus (saith St. Jerome) et athleta ecclesice
redemptorem suum videt a mortuis resurgentem. He was not
yet born, and the Church's champion Job saw his Redeemer
rising from the dead."5 Whoso will meditate upon mortality
and immortality, and seek to rekindle his faith and his hope,
let him come hither for comfort, and keep this Easter with
Bishop Andrewes.
On June 4th he was commissioned to be present at the
creation of Henry Prince of Wales, which took place in the
House of Parliament on that day. On the preceding Sunday
there was a creation of Knights of the Bath, and that was
preceded on the Saturday by an aquatic spectacle, all which
the curious reader will find amply detailed in the second
volume of Nichols's Royal Progresses of James I. Within
little more than two years was this noble Prince taken away.
He died in December 1612, our prelate being present at his
funeral on the 7th of December. Thus was our country to
learn wisdom through the severe struggles of the next half
century, in which the principles of arbitrary misrule on the
one hand, and the dangers of a military despotism on the
other, were to pave the way for the more constitutional
government and the more stable and decided Protestantism
which succeeded.
In singular harmony with his Easter was his Whitsuntide,
full of ' holy comfort.' Then at Whitehall, on May 27, he
preached upon our Saviour's promise, his covenant, and con
dition : If ye love me^ keep my commandments , and I will
pray the Father , and he shall give you another Comforter , that
he may abide with you for ever.1 He who could lay open
their graves to the rich, and compel them to look down and
learn from Dives on his bed of fire to avoid that place of
torment, could as tenderly revive the disconsolate, and as
affectionately animate men to the love of Christ. But at
all times a spirit of holiness shewed in his discourses, as the
good George Herbert directs in his Priest for the Temple.
Thus Bishop Andrewes : " As Christ is our witness in heaven,
so is the Spirit here on earth, witnessing with our spirits that
we pertain to the adoption, and are the children of God;
evermore, in the midst of the sorrows that are in our hearts,
with his comforts refreshing our souls ; yet not filling them
with false comforts, but, as Christ's advocate here on earth,
soliciting us daily, and calling upon us to look to his com
mandments and keep them, wherein standeth much of our
comfort, even in the testimony of a good conscience."2
On August 5th Bishop Andrewes preached at Holdenby
in Northamptonshire, upon the divine right of kings, from
Touch not mine anointedj animadverting upon Bellarmine
and Mariana, and noticing the late assassination of Henry IV.
of France.1 He observes that u the Pope saith he can make
the Christ the Lord himself: if he could do so indeed, it
were not altogether unlike he might make the Lord's
Christ," — set up kings who can make the King of kings.2
Hitherto episcopacy had in Scotland been upon a parity
with the presbyterate in regard of ordination. The King
had already restored to the Bishops their civil jurisdiction,
which after the Reformation had been transferred to the
supreme court of justice. He now determined to bring them
nearer to the model of the English Church, and on the 15th of
October summoned Spottiswoode, Archbishop of Glasgow,
Lamb, Bishop of Brechin, and Hamilton, Bishop of Galloway,
to London, and appointed Dr. Abbot, Bishop of London,
Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, Dr. Henry Parry, Bishop of
Worcester, and Montagu, Bishop of Bath and Wells, to
give them episcopal consecration. The consecration took
place in the chapel of London House on the 21st of the
same month. Andrewes stated the necessity of ordaining
them deacons and priests before they should be elevated to
the episcopate, on the ground that they had not been canoni-
cally admitted to holy orders in Scotland. Spottiswoode
relates that Archbishop Bancroft, who was present, main
tained that this was not requisite, because where there were
no bishops, ordination by presbyters must be esteemed valid ;
and that otherwise it might be doubted whether there was
any lawful vocation in most of the reformed churches. Our
prelate acquiesced in this answer, and so the consecration
proceeded. Isaac Casaubon had arrived in this country not
long before, and was present at this ceremony.3
Heylyn asserts that Bancroft overruled the objection of
Bishop Andrewes by reminding him that the higher order
included the lower, and that there were instances of bishops
being made by one single ordination ; and herein he is
followed by Bishop Skinner, and Collier inclines to him.
But Bishop Hussell, in his History of the Church in Scotland,
very impartially remarks that the authority of Spottiswoode
on this occasion cannot be set aside, as he was not only
present, but deeply interested in the discussion.1
In the course of this year appeared our prelate's Responsio
adApologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini quam nuper edidit contra
Prcefationem Monitoriam Jacobi Dei gratia M. Britannice etc.
Regis. He observes that Bellarmine's zeal for the Pope's
deposing power had only made the foreign princes jealous
of his principles and of his works/ and that he had now found
it convenient to come down from this high ground, and to
fill his book with patches of his commonplaces, already before
the world in a controversial and theological form ; and
accordingly we find the Bishop's Answer assuming through
several chapters the character of theological theses.
In the first chapter he shews with various illustrations the
uncertainty of the worshipping of the host, and refutes the
answers of Eomanists who defend, as he says, a hypothetical
worship. Formerly it was always provided that the condition
was understood, i If thou art Christ I adore thee / but faith is
not an hypothesis but an hypostasis, not a supposition but
a substance. He shews that there was a time when con-
substantiation was allowed in the Church of Rome. Thus
he quotes with approbation the words of Biel on the Canon
of the MasSj who says that the canon of Scripture does not
define whether the body of Christ is in the Eucharist by
transubstantiation or by consubstantiation. To the same effect
he. brings in Durandus, Peter de Alliaco, Cardinal of Cam-
bray, and John Picus Mirandula, who was nevertheless
cleared from all imputation of heresy by Pope Alexander
the Sixth himself. The mode of the mystery we do not,
says Bishop Andrewes, presumptuously define. We leave it
with the mystery of the Incarnation. We shall hear him
again speak more explicitly on this topic.
Bellarmine had alleged the mendacious authority of
Maurice Cheneys, who wrote of The Life and Martyrdom of
the Carthusians, and had aspersed the Lord Protector Crom
well. Bishop Andrewes vindicates his memory, and eulogizes
his great judgment and abilities.1 He proceeds to give a
sample of the lying legends of the Carthusian. He checks
and overthrows the Cardinal's boast of the universality of
his Church, and of the multitudes of converts made especially
in America, referring him to Acosta. Of the converts of the
Jesuits in Japan, he says that they are only made hypocrites
twofold more the children of hell than themselves.2 Touching
upon the Scotch reformation, he highly lauds the memory of
the martyrs Hamilton and Wishart, but with King James
withholds all commendation from John Knox and those who
acted with the same uncourtly spirit.3
As to the intercession of saints, he quotes Origen who
places it amongst the hidden things of God, a thing probable
but uncertain.4 Thence to nearly the end of the chapter our
prelate discusses the arguments and authorities adduced by
Bellarmine for the invocation of saints.
The second chapter proves that the cause of the King
contending against the Pope in regard of the duty of his
subjects to swear to him civil allegiance, is not one peculiar
to him but equally affecting the interests of all Catholic and
orthodox princes.
In the third he returns to treat of Papal power, opposing
St. Paul's What have we to do to judge them that are without?
to Thomas Aquinas, who attributes to the Church a power of
deposing infidel sovereigns.5
In the fourth chapter he overthrows Bellarmine's com
parison of kings and cardinals. The priest blesses the king,
the king benefits the priest. Which is greater, a good word
or a good deed ? David and Solomon blessed the whole Church,
in which the priesthood himself was included, whom Hezekiah
called his sons. The King in holy writ deposed the high-
priest, not the high-priest the king. He gives the history of
the rise of the Cardinals, and everywhere lays open the
unfaithful manner of Bellarmine in ecclesiastical history.
In the fifth chapter he vindicates his Sovereign from the
various charges of Bellarmine. Bellarmine had not been
altogether misinformed respecting the partiality of King
James for his E-omish subjects in Scotland. It is true indeed
the insurgent lords were in 1594 banished the kingdom and
their houses destroyed, but they would not have had oppor
tunity to rise in arms and to renew their treasons had not the
King shielded them in the preceding year from their just
deserts.1
Bishop Andrewes speaks with the utmost candour of the
Puritans, and in a language and spirit wholly unknown to
Wren, Laud, Montagu, and Heylyn. With him they are
not men more in error than the Komanists, as a living divine
writes of those whom he calls Zuinglians, that they are in
greater error concerning the Eucharist than those who believe
transubstantiation.
" Puritanorum ea religio non est, quorum nulla est religio
sua atque propria: disciplina est. Quod ipsum tamen de
Puritanis generatim dictum volo, deque iis inter eos, qui
prseterquam quod discipline suse paulb magis addicti sunt,
ccetera sobrie magis sapiunt ; qui, quantum vis formam illam
perdite depereant, in reliqud tamen doctrind satis orthodoxi
sunt. Nee enim nescius sum, censeri, adeoque esse, eo in
numero (non minus quam in societate vestra) cerebrosos
quosdam, pronos in schisma nimis. Etiam non deesse, qui
quoad religionis capita qusedam, vix per omnia sani sunt.
Quos ego hie, quos ubique exclusos volo. Mihi ab exteriori
regiminis format Puritani sunt, non autem a religions, quce
eadem et est et esse potest, ubi facies externa non eadem."
"The King (in his Basilicon Doron) does not mean there
the religion of the Puritans, for they have no distinct and
peculiar religion, but discipline. And this I would have
applied (not to the Scotch only but) to the Puritans generally,
and to those among them who, except that they are too
violently addicted to their order of church government, are
in other things sufficiently sober-minded ; and these, however
infatuated in their devotedness to their * platform? are yet
sufficiently orthodox in the rest of their doctrine. For I am
not ignorant that there are numbered, and indeed are amongst
them, some unreasonable men (as in your society) over-
inclined to schism ; nay, that there are not wanting some who
are scarcely sound in all things as regards some points of
religion. And these I would exclude in this my mention
of them here and in every other place. But with me they
are Puritans from their exterior form of discipline, but not
from their religion, which both is the same and can be, where
the external face of discipline is not the same."1
In the sixth chapter he vindicates the historical passages
of his Tortura Torti, and defends Rufus in the case of Anselm,
and Henry the Second in the case of Thomas a Becket? He
denies the saintship of St. Hugh of Lincoln, who opposed
the raising of money to aid Richard the First.
St. Augustine's De Mirabilibus Sacrce Scriptures is by
Bellarmine, in his book of ecclesiastical writers, on the
authority of Aquinas, denied to be his. Bishop Andrewes
referred to it to prove out of Augustine that that Father
placed the Maccabees amongst the Apocryphal books...
Erasmus indeed early ranked this work with those that had been erroneously ascribed to St. Augustine, and it has accordingly been placed amongst
the spurious works that go by his name in the Benedictine edition, and in the 47th section of the 4th chapter of Walchii Bibliotheca Patristica, p. 275.
Bishop Cosin has, in his Scholastical History of the Canon
of Scripture, reprinted at the Clarendon Press, fully met all
the pleas, deduced by the Romanists from the writings of
St. Augustine in favour of the First and Second Book of
the Maccabees and the other Apocryphal books retained by
their Church.
Certain passages of St. Augustine appear at first sight to
favour their cause, and are always alleged by them for the
sake of proving the equal authority of the Apocryphal
with those books to which modern usage restricts the term
canonical, a term formerly applied more indefinitely than
at present, and so applied, it is admitted, by St. Argustine
himself, in these passages, namely, in the 8th chapter of his
second book De Doctrind Christiana, and in the 36th chapter
of his 18th book De Civitate Dei.
But it is evident from other passages in his works that as
the Canon Fidei, the Eule of Faith , St. Augustine allowed
only the Jewish canon. Thus, in one of his treatises
against the Donatists, his second book against the Epistle
of Gaudentius (c. xxiii), he says : " Et hanc quidem Scrip-
turam quse appellatur Maccabseorum, non habent Judsei
sicut legem et Prophetas et Psalmos quibus Dominus
testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus, suis dicens, Oportebat
impleri omnia quce scripta sunt in lege et PropJietis et Psalmis
de me : sed recepta est ab ecclesia non inutiliter, si sobrie
legatur vel audiatur, maxime propter illos Maccabseos qui pro
Dei lege, sicut veri martyres a persecutoribus tarn indigna
atque horrenda perpessi sunt," &c. — Op. torn. vii. Pars Prior,
p. 436, Lugduni, 1562. " And this Scripture which is called
(the book of) Maccabees, the Jews regard not as the law, the
Prophets, and the Psalms, to which the Lord bears testimony
as to his witnesses, saying, All things must le fulfilled which
were written in the law and in the Prophets and in the Psalms
concerning me (Luke xxiv. 44) ; but it is received by the
Church not unprofitably if it be read or heard with caution,
especially on account of those Maccabees who endured such
undeserved and dreadful sufferings at the hands of their
persecutors, as true martyrs for the law of God." So in
citing Ecclesiasticus he says, " Quse non tanta firmitate
proferuntur quse scripta non sunt in canone Judseorum." —
De Civ. Deij 1. xvii. c. 20. " Which passages are not brought
forward with such a weight of authority, not being in the
Jewish canon."
Besides Bishop Cosin's Scholastical History of the Canon
of Scripture, the reader may refer to the first chapter of the
second book of Dr. John Gerhard's Confessio Catholica, Dr.
John Eainold's Censura Apocryphorum Vet. Test. 1611,2 vols.
4to., Dr. Field's Boole of the Church, book iv. c. 22, 23, 24,
and the Preface to the third part of L. Joh. Gottleb Carpzov's
Introductio ad Libros Canon. Vet. Test. Lips. 1721.
That laborious collator of manuscripts, but most dogmatical
judge of them, Dr. Tregelles, in his Account of the Printed
Text of the Greek Testament^ a work extremely superficial
in its notice of the history of the textus receptus, affirms
amongst other paradoxes that " we reject the Apocrypha in
spite of tradition." There is no one article forced upon the
Church of Rome more clearly in opposition even to her own
tradition, than the reception of the Apocryphal Books into
the Old Testament canon. Upon this ground we stand.
In consequence of the tradition of the Jewish Church, con
firmed by our Lord himself ; in consequence of the tradition of
the Primitive Church ; in consequence of the tradition of the
whole Church to the Council of Trent, we reject the Apocrypha.
But of all such evidence as must needs enter into such questions,
Dr. Tregelles has proved himself a most incompetent judge from
the uncritical and inconsistent decisions he has in so many
instances affirmed in his critical works. In these he con
stantly selects his evidence, passes over numerous and weighty
allegations of his predecessors in the field of sacred criticism,
and commends the most improbable, and those not always the
most ancient, readings, by way of illustrating Bengel's rule,
which is accordingly given in the larger and more inelegant
type of the most modern printers, " proclivi scriptioni prcestat
arduum."z Griesbach, however, more fearlessly followed out
his own rule than Dr. Tregelles has had the boldness to do.
Our prelate defends the Protestant interpretation of the
words of institution in the Eucharist. Bellarmine had said
that they (the Protestants) involved the words This is my
body in a thousand figures. He retorts after the usual, and
indeed unanswerable manner, that neither can the Romanists
without a figure reconcile to their interpretation the words,
This is the cup which is poured out.
In the eighth chapter he unfolds the legendary impiety of
Rome respecting the mother of our Lord. He urges against
the Jesuitical Bellarmine the hymns that are sung to her;
he returns to the topic of the invocation of saints ; he treats
of the innovation of private masses and of the mutilation
of the Eucharist; he exposes the folly of the Cardinal's
evasions, one of which is, that St. Luke in the Acts only
speaks of breaking of bread, therefore they took (he
argues) the Lord's Supper only in one kind. So then,
when in the 14th chapter of his Gospel he relates that our
Lord went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees
(according to the Hebrew idiom) to eat bread, we must
suppose that they drank nothing.1 But subterfuge and dis
honesty of every kind are allowed to Romish controversialists,
who are always understood to wage war upon the human
understanding. Hence Bishop Andrewes proceeds again to
transubstantiation2 and its concomitants, adoration and pro
cession. He points out the absurdity of the very term works
of supererogation, when applied to those who have not paid
to God that entire and unsinning obedience which they owe
to Him.3 He suffers not Bellarmine to escape touching the
baptism of bells. Nay, they are blessed, not baptized, says
Bellarmine. Not so Stephen Durantus in his book of the Rites
of the Church then lately published at Rome ; there we read
they are u baptized but not for the remission of sins." It is a
holy dedication, which, as Bishop Andrewes observes, is also
the end of baptism. But in the Pontifical the bell is exorcised.
No, he was too great for Bellarmine the pious Cardinal, the
admiration of the more moderate and enlightened children
of the Church in England. " But if in any places," writes
Bellarmine, " it is called baptism, it is from this that names
are given to the bells." More than this, we have in the
Pontifical, tinctum in aqua — washed in water. The water
is hallowed. It is said, ll this commixture of salt and water
is made a salutary sacrament in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But in the new Pon
tifical of Clement VIII. the words " efficiatur salutare sacra-
mentum" are omitted, and in their stead is read, u pariter
fiat /" " quid autem fiat" continues Bishop Andrewes, " cogi-
tandem relinquitur."1 Nay, there are even sponsors on this
solemn occasion ; and as a child, so is the bell clad in robes
of white : " nugse quidem sed preciosae sunt has : calumnies
non sunt. Neque nugse tamen ; vera enim gravamina Ponti-
ficis legato in Comitiis Norimbergse, 1522, exhibita : Pontifici
quoque ipsi transmissa, Germanise totius nomine."
From the baptism of bells we return to the worship of
images. Bishop Andrewes reminds Bellarmine that Hezekiah
himself was an iconoclast. Hence we pass on to Purgatory,
which Bellarmine finds at least implicitly contained in Genesis,
where it is written, " surrexit Abraham a facie mortui" (in
the Vulgate u ab officiofuneris"2), from the Burial office, that is,
from prayers for the good of her soul now in Purgatory.3
Thus was Scripture not only called, but treated as a nose of
wax. Bellarmine waxed warm upon Purgatory, and roundly
affirmed that hell awaited those who believed not purgatory.
" This," replies our prelate, a savours more of Tortus, and is
a more fit speech for some evil Tortus than for a holy cardinal,
and one in which is much less of charity than of faith."
" There is juster reason that no purgatory should remain for
them that believe it not ; but that as they believe in heaven,
so they should prepare for that place ; as they believe a hell,
so they should seek by all means to avoid it. But they that
believe a purgatory, let them very carefully take heed lest,
being deceived by the position of the ways, they should go to
hell instead of purgatory ; for they are places very near each
other, if we believe the Cardinal. The Pope, whilst he
deludes many of your religion with his indulgences, with the
hope of going only to purgatory, hath brought them to hell,
who, perchance, if they had feared only hell (and they would
have feared if that expectation had not utterly blinded them),
might have avoided it."1
The remainder of this chapter consists of a most able
refutation of the Pope's supremacy — the pride, as purgatory
embodies — the avarice of Eome.
From the ninth to the end of the twelfth chapter our
prelate treats of the prophecies in the New Testament relating
to Antichrist; first, in the second chapter of St. Paul's
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, then in the Book of
Revelation. Bishop Andrewes all along regards the Pope
as Antichrist, Eome as Babylon ; the name of Antichrist he,
following Irenseus, conceives to be Latinus. How pitifully
did Mr. Newman deal with the memory of Bishop Newton,
because, with Bishop Andrewes, he maintained a view of
Antichrist so little in accordance with the system he then
favoured.2
Bishop Andrewes vindicates Wicliff and his followers
from the charge of sedition, and imputes to the calumnious
spirit of his opponents the anarchical doctrines ascribed to
him.3 Thus did he differ in spirit from that zealous reformed
Catholic De Heylyn, who all but anathematizes Wicliff as
an uucatholic heresiarch. Our prelate proceeds to vindicate
Luther from similar charges.
I know not what to say to our prelate's words, " But no
man sought the life of the King in Scotland." Certainly his
own words at another time appear the contrary to these. In
his first sermon on the Gowrie Conspiracy he describes the
actors as bloody-minded, and as no better than assassins.
" Said not Absalom to his assassins, When I give you a sign,
see you smite , kill him, fear not, have not I commanded you ?
Said not they the same to him whom to that end they had
armed and placed to do that wicked act?"4 Here then he
must needs acquit that conspiracy of the intent of assassina
tion. Yet in his sermon four years after the publication of
this work, when in 1614 he preached the anniversary of the
Gowrie Conspiracy again, after an interval of four years, he
attributed to the conspirators the design of no less a hurt than
the loss of his Majesty's life.1 I fear there was in the mind of
our prelate, whilst at this point of his controversy, some subtle
distinction that would have fitted rather Bellarmine than his
own candour and simplicity.
Most worthy of him indeed are these golden words : tl Thus
is the Church the pillar of truth, not as that on which the truth
rests, but which herself rests upon the truth. But this pillar
does not hang in the air; it has a base and a foundation, and
where but in the Word of God? When it sets forth that
(Word) unto us, we know that it hath a good foundation, and
rest upon it fearlessly and with a willing mind."2
The remainder of the Eesponsio is a confirmation of the
charges which the King had brought against Bellarmine, of
falsifications of history, &c., a minute and detailed account
of which would of itself form a volume.
In October Isaac Casaubon came to England. He was
born at Geneva February 18th, 1559, where he was made
Professor of Greek, and married Florence, daughter of Henry
Stephens, the celebrated printer. He removed to Moritpelier
as the Greek Professor there, and in 1603 was made Librarian
to Henry IV. After the assassination of his Prince, he on
the 16th October this year arrived here with Sir Henry Wotton.
James had previously invited him to England, and became
his cordial patron. On October 26th he spent some hours,
to his great delight, with Bishop Andrewes.
CHAPTER XII.
Archbishop Allot — Bishops Buckeridge and Thompson — Isaac Casaubon, Cardinal Perron, and King James — Christmas 1611.
ON the death of Archbishop Bancroft, November 2, 1610,
Dr. George Abbot, who had sufficiently proved his learning
by his works and by his sermons at Oxford, where he was
elected Master of University College in September 1597, and
had been made Dean of Winchester in 1599, Bishop of Lich-
field and Coventry 1609, and of London January 20th this
same year, was raised to the see of Canterbury in consequence
of the King's promise to his late able and energetic minister
and favourite, the Earl of Dunbar. This motive is assigned
as the ground of Abbot's promotion in a letter from George
Calvert (afterwards Lord Baltimore) to Sir Thomas Edmunds,
March 10th, 1611. The King at the same time bore testi
mony to Abbot's learning, wisdom, and sincerity. It has
been surmised that had Andrewes succeeded Bancroft, the
Church of England would have been saved the storms that
followed. But both Abbot and Andrewes lived to be super
seded by Laud, whose ambition was as unrivalled as his
impetuosity, and whose secularity predominated above that
of all his contemporaries. Andrewes had not the firmness of
Abbot, whose integrity appeared in repeated instances, to the
honour of the age in which he lived and of the Church over
which he presided. He nobly stood forth on the side of
justice against the suit instituted by the Lady Frances
Howard for a divorce from her husband the Earl of Essex.
This first brought upon him the King's displeasure. His
influence declined as that of Villiers and Laud increased. In
1618 he would not suffer the Boole of Sports to be read in
his parish-church of Croydon. To the last he promoted the
Protestant interest. In the summer of 1627 he again nobly
withstood the unconstitutional course of his sovereign, by
refusing to license Dr. Sibthorpe's sermon, preached at North
ampton, in vindication of the compulsory loan. This led to
his being most illegally deprived of his power, which was
handed over by a commission to Laud and four other prelates.
While living in forced seclusion in his house at Ford, which,
with Lambeth, Croydon, Bekesbourne, and Canterbury, alone
at this time remained to his see, (the other twelve had been
taken from it since the Reformation,1) about Christmas he
was released from restraint and invited to court, but only to
suffer hereafter further indignities, Laud still reigning supreme,
and being selected in his stead to baptize the infant Prince,
Charles II., in May 1630. He died in his seventy-first year,
at Croydon Palace, August 4th, 1633. Dr. Hook has taken
from Fuller whatsoever makes against Abbot as to the charge
of undue severity toward the clergy, and omitted all thai;
Fuller added in his commendation. He has however survived
the censures of Clarendon himself; neither will his memory
suffer from the more recent attack of that abortive undertaking,
the Biographical Dictionary of the Society for the Diffusion
of Useful Knowledge, in which he is described as " a zealous
Calvinist and a furious Protestant." Of the intemperance of
his zeal, or of any indication of his furiousness, history is silent.
Antony Wood himself, the historian of his University, is
more just to his character.
In answer to the charges of remissness brought against
Abbot, the testimony of Racket, in his Life of Williams, may
suffice. He says that with regard to the High Commission
Court the Lord Keeper was not satisfied in two respects ; first
in the multiplicity of causes brought into it, secondly in the
severity of its censures. Archbishop Abbot was rigorously
just, which made him shew less pity to delinquents. Sentences
of great correction, or rather of destruction, have their epochs
from his predominancy in that court. And after him it
mended, says Hacket, like sour ale in summer. It was not
so in his predecessor Bancroft's days, who would chide stoutly,
but censure mildly. He considered that he sat there rather
as a father than as a judge.
On November 13 Andrewes was, for the first time since
his translation to Ely, included in a committee, with all their
lordships then present, for a conference with the Commons on
the following day at 3 p.m. in the Painted Chamber.
We return to Casaubon. On Wednesday the 14th No
vember Casaubon, with Overall, Dean of St. Paul's, with
whom he was taking up his abode at this time, dined with
our prelate, probably at Ely Palace in Holborn. The Bishop
had not yet published his answer to Bellarmine. Andrewes
read his work to his guests, and had Casaubon with him
again on the 15th and 17th, and on the Monday and Tuesday
following. On the Monday he again consulted with Casau
bon on his forthcoming treatise. Andrewes entrusted him
with the manuscript to peruse at his leisure. He commends
the Bishop's learning and his agreement with Christian
antiquity, and expresses his wish that his method and spirit
were followed by the divines of his own native land, in a
letter to Mountague, Bishop of Bath and Wells.1
On Tuesday, December 25th, Christmas-day, Andrewes
preached before the King at Whitehall from the gospel for the
day, Luke ii. 10, 11. He speaks of the angels' sermon, and
after that the hymn Glory le to God on high. It was the custom
after the Restoration, if not before it, to have a second anthem
after the sermon. It might be that this might suggest to
Andrewes his remark, uthe whole service of this day, the
sermon, the anthem, by angels all." The anthem thus
concluded both the morning and evening service at St. Paul's,
according to the Eev. James Clifford's Divine Services and
Anthems. This little manual was published in 1660, the
second edition in 1663, another in 1664, being compiled by
the Kev. James Clifford, a Minor Canon of St. Paul's, who
died in 1700. The order of the Cathedral service as there
observed is extracted from this rare and interesting little
volume in the Preface to the Kev. John JebVs second volume
of Choral Responses and Litanies of the United Church of
England and Ireland. This very valuable collection contains
two sets of Preces by Amner of Ely, whom Andrewes ordained
deacon, with a large body of Cathedral music composed by
Henry Molle, Robert Ramsay, and Loosemoore, the incom
parable organists of Peterhouse, Trinity, and King's Colleges
about 1630. The common Cathedral chants in use in Clif
ford's time are given in the Appendix,1 and in the earlier
and more ancient part of the volume are several elaborate
chants, the memorials of a more noble, enriched, and varie
gated kind of chant in use before the Restoration, far worthier
of the divine compositions to which they were so carefully
and appropriately adapted.
To return to our prelate. His genuine piety shines forth
conspicuously in this sermon upon the need and nature of
salvation, and the universal neglect of it. There is indeed
in his sermons very generally, although there are occasional
exceptions, the same glow of devotion which has made his
Prayers so valuable, prayers which have, after the Liturgy,
perhaps met with more general acceptance than any others.
That his sermons should be in some measure open to the
exceptions of such critics as the late Archdeacon Hare, is only
what might be expected from a mind so fancifully exuberant
as that of Andrewes.
We may, however, be justly thankful for the late Arch
deacon Hare's vigilance in regard of the recent edition of our
prelate's Sermons. But in his remark in p. 499 of the Notes to
his Mission of the Comforter he was not aware that in the
second edition we have the reading of which he doubted " in
the very next words." Archdeacon Hare indeed, as a theo
logian, was not the best qualified to sit in judgment on Bishop
Andrewes. Hare's note on Inspiration, written in a flippant
spirit and throwing no light upon the subject, but rather
heightening its inevitable mysteriousness, is but one of various
symptoms that Archdeacon Hare was at times led away with
a love of bewilderment, the not unnatural effect of his foreign
predilections.
On January 17th, 1611, Isaac Casaubon was, upon the
death of Dr. Nicholas Simpson, of Corpus Christi College,
Oxford, (whose son John was of the same College and Preben
dary of the seventh stall in 1614,) preferred to the eighth
stall in Canterbury Cathedral ; he was a layman at this time.
After this the King granted him, on the 19th, a pension of
£300 per annum during pleasure.1 His son Meric, who was
confirmed by Bishop Andrewes, was born at Geneva 1599.
He was educated at Christ Church, Oxford. Bishop An
drewes preferred him to Bledon in Somersetshire. He was
afterwards Vicar of Minster and Monkton in the Isle of
Thanet, the latter of which he resigned for the rectory of
Ickham, a few miles to the east of Canterbury. He was
made Prebendary of the ninth stall there June 19, 1628,
survived the Restoration, and died July, 1671, aged 75 years,
and was buried in the newer south transept.
On Easter-day, March 24, 1611, Bishop Andrewes
preached again before the King at Whitehall, from Psalm
cxviii., The stone which the builders re/used, the same
stone is become the head of the corner. The latter part of
this sermon has been largely quoted for its quaintness f the
former and more excellent has been suffered to rest in the
folio edition. It abounds indeed with beauties, but the pun
ning upon the text, and the making the King the head, not
of one angle but of three, England, Scotland, and Ireland, is
but little suited to that whereto it is annexed. Admirable,
however, as are very many passages in this discourse, it is
not as a whole comparable to that upon the same occasion
in the preceding year, nor is that in point of eloquence equal
to those that treat of the narrative of the resurrection.
And so his Whitsunday sermon for this year, had it been
less diffuse and less singular in its illustrations, which to our
ears at least sounds sometimes trivial, sometimes jocular, would
have deserved very considerable commendation. But there
are passages in it that should scarcely be quoted, and which
are only equalled for impropriety in his sermons upon the
Temptation in the wilderness, where presumption is likened
to gunpowder. This sermon, upon the Sending of the Holy
Ghost, was preached before the King at Windsor on Whit
sunday May 12.
On June 9th Bishop Andrewes assisted at Lambeth at the
consecration of Dr. Buckeridge to the see of Rochester, and of
Dr. Giles Thompson, his old schoolfellow at Merchant Taylor's,
to that of Gloucester. Dr. Buckeridge was born at Shinfield,
near Beading, was President of St. John's College, Oxford, 1606,
where he was succeeded by Laud in 1611, Rector of North
Fambridge near Maldon, and of North Kilworth, Leicester
shire (near Rugby), Vicar of St. Giles' Cripplegate, Preben
dary of Rochester 1587, of Hereford, and Archdeacon of
Northampton on the same day, March 23, 1604, Canon of
Windsor 1606. On the death of Bishop Felton he was
translated from Rochester to Ely, April 17, 1628, having
meanwhile preached Bishop Andrewes' funeral sermon in
1626. He died May 23, and was buried May 31 in Bromley
church, Kent, without any memorial.
Giles Thompson was born in London, educated at Merchant
Taylor's School, an exhibitioner of University College, Oxford,
1571, Fellow of All Souls' College 1580, Proctor 1586,
Divinity Reader at Magdalene College, Chaplain to Queen
Elizabeth, Canon Residentiary of Hereford May 23, 1594,
Rector of Pembridge, Herefordshire (near Leominster), Dean
of Windsor February 2, 1603. He died the year following
his consecration, without ever having visited his diocese, June
14, 1612. He was buried in St. George's Chapel, Windsor.
• He was one of the translators of the Bible.
On June 22 Andrewes was appointed one of the first
Governors of the Charterhouse.
Casaubon had very favourably represented to the King
the learning of Cardinal Perron, and had presented him with
some of the Cardinal's poems. This favour Perron acknow
ledged in a letter to Casaubon, in which he artfully laid the
ground of the controversy which now forms the second volume
of his works. He withheld from King James the name of
Catholic, upon which Casaubon replied in the King's name
that his Majesty was much surprised thereat, seeing that he
believed all that the ancients believed with unanimous consent
to be essential. To this Perron replied in a long and laboured
epistle dated Paris, July 15, 1611. This letter is prefixed to
his longer controversy, and is to be found in the translation of
the first four books of the Cardinal's Reply, printed at Douay
in folio, by Martin Bogart, 1630, and dedicated to ' Henrietta
Maria of Bourbon, Queen of Great Britain? Casaubon was
appointed by the King to answer Perron's letter of the 15th
of July, and to give in Latin the mind of the King himself
upon it. Casaubon' s Answer was put into the hands of
Andrewes and Overall, then Dean of St. Paul's, if not also
of Morton, then Dean of Winchester, and Montagu, Bishop of
that see. Isaacson, Bishop Andrewes' secretary, appears to
have acted as Casaubon' s amanuensis.1
Soon after Casaubon had completed his Epistle to. Fronto
Ducceusj he accompanied Andrewes out of town on the 20th
June. They returned together to town on the Saturday, and
on Sunday, June 30th, were honoured with an invitation to
the King.
On July 3rd Andrewes, Overall, Casaubon, and others
dined with the Lord Mayor.
On the 16th Andrewes set out for Cambridge with
Casaubon. After halting probably at Royston or at Ware
for that night, they arrived on Wednesday the 17th at Cam
bridge, and were lodged at Peterhouse by Dr. John Richard-
son the Master. The Master's lodge at that time consisted of
several apartments between the library built by Dr. Perne,
and the hall, which then retained a handsome oriel, with a
high-pitched roof and lantern. The present lodge on the
opposite side of Trumpington-street belonged to Dr. Charles
Beaumont, Fellow of Peterhouse, and son of Dr. Joseph
Beaumont, Eegius Professor of Divinity in the place of
Bishop Gunning, and Master of Peterhouse 1662, in the
room of the pious and munificent Bernard Hale, Archdeacon
of Ely. Dr. Charles Beaumont, his son, dying March 17,
1726, left this house to the Masters of the College for ever.
He left also a large sum for the purchase of advowsons, and
many valuable MSS. to the library.
Dr. John Bichardson was born at Linton on the south
confines of Cambridgeshire, bordering upon Essex. He was
brought up at Clare Hall,1 of which College he was B.A. in
158J, or, as we write, 1582. He was thence elected to a
fellowship at Emmanuel College, where he proceeded M.A.
in 1585, and D.D. 1597. He succeeded Dr. Overall as Kegius
Professor of Divinity at Cambridge in 1607. He was ap
pointed one of the translators of the Bible in the same class
with Lively, Chaderton, Dillingham, Andrewes, Spalding, and
Bynge. To these were deputed the historical books from
1 Chronicles inclusive, and the Hagiographa, namely, Job to
Ecclesiastes inclusive. In 1609 he was made Master of Peter-
house, having been previously made Fellow of Emmanuel
College by the founder himself, Sir Walter Mildmay. On
Saturday, May 27th, 1615, he was, between 3 and 5 P.M.,
admitted to the mastership of Trinity College, Cambridge.
He was also Bector of Upwell, a parish with the church
mostly in Norfolk, partly in Cambridgeshire. He resigned
his professorship in 1617, and was succeeded by Dr. Collins.
In the mastership of Peterhouse he was followed by Thomas
Turner, B.D.
Thomas Turner was born at Burnby in Yorkshire, three
miles south-east of Pocklington, between York and Beverley.
He was B.A. of Peterhouse 1596, chosen a Fellow there,
M.A. 1600, B.D. 1609, and D.D. 1616. He was also Hector
of Stokehammond in Buckinghamshire, three miles south of
Fenny Stratford, and was installed Prebendary of Leicester
St. Margaret's, August 23rd, 1612. He died in 1617.
Our prelate was lodged at Peterhouse, as being one of the
two Colleges in which the Bishops of Ely have a special
interest, as having been founded and endowed by various
occupants of that see. To this day the Master and Fellows
of Peterhouse, now called St. Peter's College, are admitted
to the mastership and fellowships, as the clergy of the diocese
are to their spiritual preferments, by the Bishops of Ely.
Peterhouse existed as a corporate society as early as 1274,
for in that year a charter recognises their existence as the
Warden and Scholars of Peterhouse.1 It has been objected
that Hugh de Balsham, Bishop of Ely, the founder, left at
his death 300 marks for new buildings. He however had
previously placed his scholars in two hostels in Trumpington-
street. He also assigned to it the advowson of Triplow,
which, although the presentation has been of late in the
hands of the Bishop of Ely, was in the last century appro
priated to Peterhouse. The College found benefactors in
Thomas de Insula, Bishop of Ely 1345, and his predecessors
Hotham and Montacute, or Montague, who gave the advowson
of Cherryhinton to Peterhouse in 1344. The rectory, to
which a manor was annexed, was appropriated to the College
in 1395 by Bishop Fordham. Dr. Richardson was doubtless
known to Andrewes, as being in the same company of trans
lators of our present incomparable version of the Scriptures.
He was also, like Andrewes, of a most munificent spirit:
he gave £100 u towards the building of a new court, front,
and gate towards the street, now finished," says Fuller, in his
History of the University of Cambridge. Probably Andrewes
would also find himself more at home at Peterhouse than at
his own College, where Harsnet was now Master, who was
compelled some years after to resign in consequence of an
opposition headed by Andrewes' own favourite Matthew
Wren, who was at this time a Fellow of Pembroke Hall.
Wren was an undoubted and invaluable benefactor to both
Pembroke Hall and to Peterhouse. He carefully catalogued
the muniments of the latter College, a benefit that has been
both felt and owned very recently by that venerable founda
tion.
On Thursday July 18 Casaubon dined with Dr. Kichardson,
and after that arrived at Ely with the Bishop, who forthwith
went to the Deanery to pay his respects to Dr. Tindall the
Dean, also President of Queens' College, Cambridge. He
was of a noble Norfolk family. He was son to Sir Thomas
Tindall, of Hockwold near Brandon in Norfolk. Sir William
was made Knight of the Bath by Henry VII. at the creation
of Arthur Prince of Wales, and was then declared heir to the
kingdom of Bohemia in right of Margaret his great grand
mother, niece of the King of Bohemia, and daughter to the
Duke of Theise. Dr. Humphrey Tindall, or Tyndale, was
great-grandson of this Sir William.1 He was at this time
very infirm, and died October 12th, 1614, and was buried in
the Cathedral. He had been made Chancellor of Lichfield
and Archdeacon of Stafford both on the same day, February
21, 1586, by Bishop Overton, and retained these preferments
to his death. He was also Vicar of Soham.
On Sunday July 21st Casaubon attended with Andrewes
at the Cathedral. He informs us that the Bishop daily
attended divine service there whilst he was in residence.
On the 24th July, Wednesday, Casaubon took a survey of
Ely itself and of the Cathedral, especially admiring the
octagon lantern.
On the following Wednesday, July 31 (our 9th August),
the Bishop accompanied him to the Cathedral very early
in the morning, and they together took especial notice of the
lantern tower. At that time the choir was immediately
under it.
On the 4th August, being the first Sunday in the month,
the holy Sacrament was administered, the Bishop and Casau
bon being present.
On Monday, 5th, the anniversary of the Gowrie Conspiracy
was observed at the Cathedral. The Dean and the other
clergy met the Bishop at the great west door, and psalms
were chanted as they proceeded up the nave. After morning
service the Bishop himself preached, and a few worshippers
remained to receive the holy Communion.
On Tuesday, August 6th, the Bishop took Casaubon with
him, on his way to Wisbeach, to his palace at Downham1
]fa]i.di, which was his favourite residence, and in the chapel
of which it was his frequent practice to hold his ordinations.
On Wednesday the Mayor and ten burgesses, with a
company of about one-hundred-and-fifty on horses, met the
Bishop at his entering into Wisbeach.
On Thursday a sermon was preached at the church, the
beauty of which Casaubon did not fail to observe. He went
afterwards to the Castle where some Jesuits and recusants
were confined.
On Friday the 9th the Bishop and Casaubon went on
horseback to inspect the dykes on the other side of Wisbeach
from that by which they entered. After going four or five
miles at a walking pace they lost their way. On their return
the Bishop's horse threw him, but the good providence of
God so ordered it that he received no hurt either from his fall
or whilst between the horse's feet.1
On Saturday the 10th, after having read some Psalms
together, as was the Bishop's custom, they went to the
Assizes, at which the Bishop presided. They then returned
to Downham Market.
On Wednesday the 14th Casaubon and his wife went to
the quarry near Ely.
On Monday the 19th the Bishop accompanied him on his
horse to see the country around and beyond Ely.
On Wednesday the 21st the Bishop gave a great dinner
to the nobility and gentry of the neighbourhood.
On Thursday the 29th Casaubon returned to London.
On the 22nd September Andrewes held an ordination in
the chapel of his palace at Downham Market. He ordained
Deacons Samuel Stubbin, B.A. of Emmanuel College 1609,
and M.A. 1612, and William Bawley, M.A., Fellow of
Corpus Christi College, chaplain to Lord Bacon, and Eector
of Landbeach near Cambridge, where he died, aged seventy-
nine years, June 18, 1667. Bacon valued our prelate's
learning, and sent to him the MS. of his Cogitata et Visa for
his remarks upon it, as he had done upon previous occasions.
In another letter, addressed to King James October 12,
1620,1 Bacon mentions that the Bishop was acquainted for
nearly thirty years with his intention of writing the Novum
Organon.
After his retirement he also dedicated to Bishop Andrewes
his Advertisement touching a Holy War, concluding in these
words: "This work I have dedicated to your lordship in
respect of our ancient and private acquaintance, and because
amongst the men of our times I hold you in special rever
ence."2 Andrewes usually spent July, August, and Sep
tember in his diocese, and so he, soon after this ordination,
returned to London.
On the 13th October, Saturday, he took Casaubon with
him from London to Ware, and on Saturday the 19th they
reached Koyston, and were the King's guests at his house
there in Armingford-street. It is still to be seen, with the
private garden, in which is a mulberry-tree from one which
the King himself is said to have planted, which fell down
about twelve years since. They remained two days with the
King.
On the 4th of November Casaubon was again with
Andrewes.
On the 14th they again set out together to Eoyston, spent
the greater part of Friday the 15th with the King, and
returned.
, Casaubon was with Andrewes again on the 25th.
On the next day he wrote to Daniel Heyne. He relates
that on October 22nd the King commanded him to attend
him to London. There were present Archbishop Abbot and
Bishop Andrewes. Andrewes begged of Heyne through
i Casaubon to make his house his home when he was not
: under Casaubon' s roof. Casaubon relates how he was con-
.stantly with Andrewes about this time, and that this great
I prelate supplied to him the place of De Thou, such was his
[profound learning, and so great his affability.3
On Monday, December 2nd, he again went to the King at
Royston with Andrewes, and remained with him there the
next day.
He was again in attendance upon Andrewes on the 7th
on account otf a letter from Mountagu, Bishop of Bath and
Wells, written for the King respecting the returning of the
papers with which he and Andrewes had been entrusted.
These related to the letter to Cardinal Perron, which Casau-
bon was than preparing under the King's direction.1
Toward the end of this year (1611) was printed at London
by Robert Barker the King's printer, Elenchus Eefutationis
Torturce Torti pro Reverendissimo in Christo Patre Domino
Episcopo Eliensi (Andrewes) adversus Martinum Becanum
Jesuitam. Author e Richardo Tlwmsonio Cantabrigiensi : A
Confutation of the Jesuit Martin Becaris Refutation of Bp.
Andrewes 's Tortura Torti. This little volume is a 12mo of
104 pages, dedicated to the author's friend, Sir Thomas
Jermyn. It is written with much point, spirit, and ability.
The author animadverts upon the misrepresentation of Becan,
who for the King's supremacy substitutes primacy?
Becan would have his readers imagine that Andrewes and
King James were at variance respecting the Pope's being
Antichrist. We have already seen the opinion of both upon
that topic. The King only conceded, that whilst he held
to his own opinion respecting Antichrist, he would not place
his opinion thereon amongst articles of faith.3 Thomson
alleges the remarkable coincidence with Rev. xvii. of the
name long engraven on the Papal tiara, mystery. This most
remarkable circumstance, admitted by Lessius, himself a
zealous partisan of the Romish see, was denied by Bossuet,
who was exposed by M. Christian Gotthilf Blumberg in his
Exercitium anti-Bossueticum^ 1695, and again farther esta
blished in his Mysterium Papali coronce adscriptum, 1702,
against Dr. John Louis Hanneman, Professor of Medicine
at Kiel.
Thomson objects to Bellarmine the fact that the King
of Spain was by hereditary right invested with the entire
authority of a legatus a later e in the kingdom of Sicily, having
power to absolve, excommunicate, forbid appeals to Rome,
&c. This he proves by the very words of Ascanius Colonna,
one of the College of Cardinals, in p. 161 of his work upon
the kingdom of Sicily against Baronius.1
The author, Richard Thomson, was Proctor in 1612 of
Clare Hall, in which year occur also as Proctors, Stephen
Haget of Queens' College, and Henry Bird of Trinity Hall.2
This Thomson or Thompson is said to have been the same
with the author of another Latin treatise (unless indeed that
was a posthumous treatise), which was published at Ley den
in 1618, Ricardi Thomsonis Angli Diatriba de Amissione et
Inter cisione Gratice et Justifications , 1618. The author who
wrote in defence of Andrewes was incorporated of the Uni
versity of Oxford July 1, 1596, according to Wood, who at
the same time concludes his account of him with this obser
vation : u One of both his names was as a M. of A. of Cambr.
incorporated in this University 1593, which I take to be
the same with this," namely, the author both of the Elenchus
and of the Diatriba. However, our author, the author of
the Elenchus, is doubtless truly described by Anthony Wood
as a u Dutchman born of English parents," for he was an
eminent tutor at Clare Hall in 1604, prior to which the pious
Nicholas Ferrar was entered at that College. In a life
abridged from one written by Dr. Turner, Bishop of Ely, and
published in the Christian Magazine for July 1761 (p. 356),
we have the following notice of him and of Clare Hall at that
time. " In his (Ferrar' s) thirteenth year Mr. Brooks himself
(who kept a school near Newbury, Berkshire,) would needs
carry his young scholar to settle him in the University,
declaring that he was more than ripe for it, and alleging his
i loss of time if he staid any longer at school. He placed him at
• Cambridge at Clare Hall, famous for a set of the most eminent
men of their times in their several faculties ; Dr. Butler for
i physic, Mr. Lake, who was after advanced to be Secretary of
State, Mr. Kuggle (the celebrated author of Ignoramus] for his
exquisite skill in all polite learning, Dutch Thomson, as we
quote him still at Cambridge, Mr. Parkinson, and Dr. Austin
Lindsell, afterwards Lord Bishop of Peterborough, and at
last of Hereford, for their profound knowledge in divinity.
The last of these, who was the general scholar, was pleased
to receive a youth of such great hopes into his own tuition."1
The other Thomson, incorporated M.A. at Oxford in
1593, was Eichard Thomson of Trinity College, Cambridge,
B.A. 1587-8, M.A. 1591.
The Jesuit Becan was this year answered also by the
Rev. Hobert Burhill, of Corpus Christi College, Oxford,
whom Bishop Andrewes afterwards rewarded with the rectory
of Snailwell, in the county of Cambridge, and about three
miles north of Newmarket. Burhill's vindication of the
Bishop is entitled, Pro Torturd Tortij contra Martinum
Becanum Jesuitam^ Responsio Roberti Burhilli Angli. Lon-
dini : Excudebat Eobertus Barkerus, serenissimce, Regice Ma-
jestatis Typographus. Anno Dom. 1611. It is dedicated to
Prince Henry. In his epistle to the reader he mentions that
his references are to the Cologne edition of Tortus, 1608, and
to the London edition of the Tortura, 1609.
Becan had displayed the usual arts of his fraternity, and
in so doing sometimes contradicted Bellarmine whom he
professed to defend, by assuming a liberality inconsistent
with the ultramontanism of the Cardinal. He also dealt in
Pembroke Hall 1563, and M.A. 1566. He was born at Ipswich, and was the
most eminent physician of his age. Dyer in his account of Clare Hall has made
him the same with another benefactor to that foundation, noticing him as " John
Freeman Butler, Esq."* He attended Prince Henry in his last illness November
1612. He gave a chalice of solid gold for the divine service, and a handsome
carpet to cover the Communion-table, and also left by his will two curious
flagons, the one of crystal, the other serpentine tipped with silver, and all his
books in folio. There is a mural monument to his memory, with his bust, on
the south side of the chancel of Great St. Mary's, Cambridge. He died January
9th, 1618, in his 83rd year.
the popular misrepresentations of the royal supremacy, and
continually laboured to pervert the meaning of his oppo
nents. Burhill reminded him that whilst he had boasted of
having refuted both the King and the Bishop in regard of the
oath of allegiance, he had passed over a third author, George
Blackwell; whom not very long before Clement VIII. had
appointed arch-presbyter of England. Blackwell had written
to demonstrate both the equity of the oath, and the falsity of
the Papal claim to depose princes.
Becan studied insolence and invective, treating both the
King and our prelate with disrespect, and professing to
depreciate the learning and talent of the latter in his very
title-page, which ran as follows, Refutatio Torture Torti, seu
contra Sacellanum Regis Anglice quod causam Regis sui negli-
genter egerit, ' A Refutation of the Tortura Torti, or against
the Chaplain of the King of England because he had slight
ingly handled the cause of his King.' Burhill objects to him
the inconsistency of this charge of negligence on the Bishop's
part with his own admission, Si verba spectem satis cultus et
elegans es / si laborem ac diligentiam, non culpo otium: at
multa alia sunt quce non ceque probem? 'If I look to the
style, you are sufficiently ornate and elegant; if to the pains
and diligence, I have not to blame want of care. But there
are many other things which I cannot equally approve.'
Burhill justly charges Becan with making common cause
with those traitors, Nicholas Sanders and the proto-pseudo
martyr of the Jesuits in England, Edmund Campian. He
proceeds to remind Becan that not only the Gallican and
Venetian divines, but amongst the Spanish, Francesco de
Victoria, Dominic Bannes, Medina, Ledesna, and Sotus
denied that the clergy were jure divino exempt from the
I civil power, (p. 62). He maintains the royal supremacy on
I the now, alas, deserted doctrine that the end of Christian
government is somewhat higher than the advancement of
mere secular prosperity. The Church of Kome he does not
hesitate to charge with spiritual adultery as the scarlet whore
of the Apocalypse (purpurata meretrix). (p. 85.) He takes
notice of the perversion of Scripture by Baronius, who, stirring
up Pope Paul V. against the Venetians, admonished him that
the Apostle Peter's was a twofold office, to feed and to slay,
because it was said to him, Rise Peter , kill and eat. Acts x. 13.
(p. 85.) He claims for the Sovereign the right as well of dis
solving as of calling together ecclesiastical assemblies, and of
interposing to set aside useless controversies, and for the sup
pression of religious factions, (p. 106.) Also the power
of annulling unjust censures, and of nominating in eccle
siastical elections, (pp. 106, 107.) He denies to the Sove
reign the right of imposing canons by his sole authority,
or of condemning as heretical that which has not hitherto
been pronounced heretical, (p. 108.) He notices the extra
vagant claims of the Pope in the 7th section (p. 85) of the
Book of Ceremonies, to " all power in heaven and in earth."
(p. 109.) He recognizes the Augustinian idea of the invisible
church, namely, those who through internal grace are members
of the body of Christ, (p. 134.) He objects to Becan that
there is no unity in his Church in regard of essentials if
Bellarmine is to be followed, who repeatedly affirms that the
Pope's power of deposing princes is an article, nay, one of the
chief articles of the Catholic faith, (p. 145.) He refers to
various Komish writers who had taught the contrary, and
here he makes use of that great storehouse of Protestant
evidence, Flacii Illyrici Catalogus Testium Veritatis. (p. 146.)
Becan, he says, must needs confess that there are three preva
lent opinions respecting the Pope's dominion over princes, that
of Baronius and the Canonists, that the Pope is directly lord
of the world and judge of kings ; that of Bellarmine and of
the Jesuits, that he is so not directly but indirectly ; and that
of the Ghibelines and those who hold with them, that he has
no such lordship and authority either directly or indirectly,
(p. 147.) He exposes the historical falsehoods of Bellarmine
in the 21st chapter of his book upon the Sacraments in his
polemical works, and of Binius, at p. 1494 of the third volume
of the Councils, respecting the pretended submission of the
Greeks to the Church of Rome in the Council of Lateran 1215,
(by a mistake printed 1195, p. 152), and at the Council of
Lyons 1274, and thirdly at that of Florence in 1439.
Toward the end of this the 15th chapter Burhill with his
Sovereign applies the Apocalypse to the Church of Kome,
and in the great diminution of the revenues of that church
which ensued upon the Reformation, sees the commencement
of the punishmet predicted against that apostate communion
in the 16th verse of the 17th chapter, (p. 161.) In the 12th
chapter Burhill exposes the sanction which both Popes and
Jesuits had given to the assassination of Henry III. of France,
and the democratic doctrine of Bellarmine that kings derived
their rights from the people, the Pope from God alone, and
further illustrates the tenet that no faith is to be kept with
heretics, (p. 204.) He here takes occasion to expose the in
consistency of Becan, who in one place had admitted that
the Council of Constance had granted John Huss a safe-
conduct, and in another had denied that the Council had
made any promise to him. Burhill unveils the fallacies
by which Becan would with others blind the public to the
reality of this obnoxious tenet, and cites numerous autho
rities of the Romish Church who had insisted upon it:
Simanca, Conrad Brunus (1. iii. De Hcereticis, c. 15, n. 6, et seq.
in Tractatibus illustrium Jureconsultorum de Judiciis crimi-
nalibus sanctce Inquisitionis] , Francis Burchardt (in Autonomid,
parte iii. c. 13), Joh. Paul Windeck (in Deliberatione deHcere-
sibus extirpandw) , Ayala (De Jure Belli, 1. i. c. 6, n. 8), Molanus
(De Fide Hcereticis Servandd, 1. iv. c. 7) ; and so Cardinal
Hosius, in his Epistles to Henry King of Poland, " Never suffer
yourself by any consideration to be bound to the fulfilment of
those things that you have promised, because an oath ought
not to be an obligation of iniquity."
In the 20th chapter Burhill lays open the impious secret of
the whole history of Jesuitism, the utter prostration of mind
and conscience to the will of the superior, which forms the basis
of the Jesuit's preparation for his career of perfidy and crime.
So the Jesuit of old went forth to subjugate the world to
the Pope, as in after times he has been seen endeavouring to
subjugate Popes themselves to the greatness of his own order.
Our author, in an earlier section of his work, refers with the
highest commendation to Dr. Thomas Morton's Catholic
Apology for Protestants, 1. i. c. 9. Morton was then Dean of
Winchester, and was in 1615 consecrated to the see of
Chester, translated to Lichfield and Coventry 1618, and thence
to Durham in 1632.
On Wednesday, Christmas-day, our prelate preached be
fore the King at Whitehall, from John i. 14. Excellently
does he instance the force of the term flesh, as implying our
nature. So St. Augustine of holy Scripture, in the 2nd
chapter of the 14th book On the City of God: Scepe etiam
ipsum hommenij id est naturam hominis carnem nuncupat,
modo locutionis a parte totum significans? Nothing can be
more perspicuous than the manner in which Andrewes here
makes use of his learning, applies the Nicene Creed, and sets
forth the doctrine of the Church on this great article, the
union of the two natures in one person intended by the ex
pression, ' the taking of the manhood into God?
Beyond all praise is the simple pathos of his transition
from the doctrine viewed in itself to the doctrine in its relation
to us and to our nature, the wonderful humiliation which it
manifested in Christ, all that in the mystery of the incarnation
which is not simply the object of our faith but of our love.
It is perhaps true that the very faultiness of the style, the
continual mixture of English and Latin, yet frequently, as
here, adds to the point of those antitheses which are so touch-
ingly brought into our prelate's discourses.
Certainly the rejection of that simplicity, which in Bishop
Andrewes is always eifective because it spurns all elaborate
ness of construction and expression, gives to the best of our
modern sermons a comparative coldness and ineffectiveness
that cannot be too deeply regretted. Men scorn as over-
prettinesses what is too simple to be natural to them or to
the vitiated taste which they profess to esteem it their duty
to pamper. Upon such, with whom a preaching next to
foolish has the greatest attractions, the works of Bishop
Andrewes would be thrown away; they could not appreciate
that fertility of the imagination, that combination of simple
imagery, which, like the parables of our Saviour, is of uni
versal adaptation. Let the reader study the point so promi
nent in almost every sentence of this discourse. We may
read and hear many long and overstrained compositions, out
of which none shall be able to carry away so complete and
so concise a lesson as this of the grace and truth of the Word:
il Grace is to adopt us, truth to beget us anew ; for, of his own
will he hath begotten us, by the word of truth."
What are many of our sermons to this one paragraph?
tl Good hope we now have, that he being now flesh, all flesh
may come to him, to present him with their requests. Time
was when they fled from him, but ad factum carnem jam
veniet omnis caro. For since he dwelt amongst us, all may
resort unto him, yea, even sinners ; and of them it is said,
Hie recipit peccatores et comedit cum eis, He receiveth them,
receiveth them even to his table."
And here we will conclude this chapter. It is brief, and
comprises but one year of the life of our prelate; but we
cannot better end than with the mention and memorial of His
incarnation, who, by taking our flesh, assured us of his love,
that love in which is bound up our true, our eternal good.
For now " He seeth us daily in himself; he cannot look upon
his flesh but he must think upon us. And God the Father
cannot now hate the flesh which the Word is made."
CHAPTER XIII.
The Version 0/1611— Dr. Gell— Bishop Marsh — Luther— Tyndale—
Coverdale — Cranmer's Bible — Geneva Bible — Dr. Whitaker on
the Old Testament — Tregelles — Matthcei — Valla's Collations —
Complutensian New Testament — Erasmus — Stephens — His MSS.
of the New Testament — Beza.
IT was in the course of this year, 1611, that the present
Version of the Holy Scriptures appeared. I cannot pass over
this opportunity of attempting, however briefly and inadequately, to pay my passing tribute to this noble work, a work destined to abide the shock of peradventure one and another coming attack; a work well able to abide every effort of the innovating spirit of our own or future generations that may
be directed against it. The Rev. Frederick Henry Scrivener, M.A., who has now established his reputation for accuracy and completeness as a collator of the Biblical MSS. preserved in our own country, in his Supplement to the Authorized English Version of the New Testament* remarks of King James's version of the Bible: "I hardly need observe that it has received the highest panegyrics from Biblical scholars of every shade of theological sentiment, from the date of its
publication to the present time. For more than a century after its completion almost the only person of respectable acquirements and station who wrote against it, was Dr. Robert Gell, whose twenty discourses or sermons on this subject
(London, 1659, folio) I have not been able to meet with.
They are not in the British Museum nor in Sion College
Library. Judging from Lewis's description of the book,
my loss has not been great. Gell had taken up a foolish
and very unfounded notion that the Calvinistic bias of some
of the translators had a prejudicial effect on the version: but
Gal. v. 6 is the only text I can discover to which he objects
on this ground.2 The New Testament he thought to be
worse rendered than the Old, and he complains that the
order of the words in the original is wholly neglected (Heb.
x. 34). Lewis also mentions Matt. xx. 23, 1 John iii. 20, as
passages which Dr. Gell thought capable of improvement;
but if he gives us any" thing " approaching to a fair analysis
of the contents of these sermons, they never could have endangered the reputation of the translation which they as sailed."
[PARAGRAPHS OMITTED]
Dr. Dobbin published in 1854 a collation of this MS.
throughout the Gospels and Acts with the Greek text of
Wetstein and with certain MSS. in the University of Oxford.
Mr. Scrivener, whose accuracy is now established beyond
question, observes, from a careful comparison of this and the
celebrated Leicester MS., that we can hardly resort to the
Codex Montfort, as Tregelles suggests (Home's Introduction
to the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 216), for the readings of the
Codex Leicestrensis in those parts of the Apocalypse which
are defective in the latter MS."3
CHAPTER XIV.
Easter 1612 — Andrewes a Governor of the Charterhouse — His speech
concerning Vows — His Whitsunday sermon — Ordination at Down-
ham — His 5th of November sermon — And on Christmas-day —
Casaulorfs Answer to Cardinal Perron — Dr. Collins.
WE find Casaubon again with Andrewes on the 3rd of
February, 1612, in company with Overall, the only two
Englishmen with whom he says in his diary he was on terms
of intimacy.
On Maundy Thursday, April 9th, he dined at Ely House,
Holborn, with our prelate. He after dinner was present with
his wife at the washing of the feet of some poor men, quce fit,
he says, in hdc ecclesid egregie. In 1639 Charles is said to
have kept this day at York, where Wren, Bishop of Ely,
washed the feet of thirty-nine poor old men in warm water,
and dried them with a linen cloth. Afterwards Curie, Bishop
of Winchester, washed them over again in white wine, wiped,
and kissed them.
Our prelate, on April 12, Easter-day, 161 2, preached before
King James at Whitehall Chapel, from 1 Cor. v. 7, 8, on the
Christian Passover, deriving from this place the Easter
festival. He cites 2 Sam. xii. 13, according to the Vulgate,
The Lord hath transferred, or passed over thy sins, that is, to
another : and so the Septuagint. The death of the firstborn
passed over to the Lamb. Our souls are dearer to us than
our firstborn, and both our sin and curse pass over from us to
Christ.
The Passover was both sacrificed and eaten. But in rigour
of speech neither the Passover nor the Eucharist is a sacrifice ;
there is in the latter no immolation.1
And here Bishop Andrewes speaks explicitly against the
real presence of the present Via Media. He denies all eating
of Christ's glorified body. Let us keep the feast he refers to
the participation of Christ, not as glorified but as suffering.
" He, as at the very act of his offering, is made present to us,
and we incorporate into his death, and invested in the benefit
of it. If an host could be turned into him now glorified as
he is, it would not serve. Christ offered is it. Thither we
must look. To the serpent lift up, thither we must repair, even
ad cadaver" [to the dead body]. Thus a spiritual, not a real
corporeal presence was the doctrine of Bishop Andrewes.
Nothing can be more severe than his allusion to the mass ; he
calls it Anti- Christ's goat? Nor can this surprise us when
we reflect that he regarded that service as idolatrous, and
therefore antichristian.
Our prelate was appointed one of the first governors of
the Charterhouse, and one of the overseers of the founder's
will, in which capacity he attended his funeral in the chapel
of the Charterhouse May 28th. He also addressed a letter to
Button's executors, directing them to pay the sum of £10,000
for the repair of Berwick-bridge, in fulfilment of the provisions
of his will, which directed a certain sum to be applied to
charitable uses.1 Thomas Button, Esq., the founder, was born
at Knaith, near Gainsborough in Lincolnshire. About seven
years before his death he purchased the manor of Castle
Camps in Cambridgeshire, and resided there, and left it with
the advowson of the living to the Charterhouse. Dr. Nicholas
Grey, the first Master of the Charterhouse, was appointed to
the rectory. It is at present held by the Kev. George
Pearson, B.D., who after having taken his degree at Em
manuel College was chosen to a fellowship at St. John's, and
was made Christian Advocate in 1834.
In the Trinity term 1612 he delivered his speech in the
Star Chamber concerning vows, in the Countess of Shrews
bury's case. Elizabeth Cavendish, Countess of Shrewsbury,
was sent to the town on a charge of having been adviser to
Arabella Stuart, to whom she was aunt. She answered every
question that related to .herself only, but begged to be excused
answering to anything that could implicate her unfortunate
relative. The King ordered her to appear before certain
commissioners, who fined her to the amount of £20,000, and
moreover condemned her to discretionary imprisonment. The
Countess pleaded that she had made a vow not to answer.
Our prelate maintained its unlawfulness. A lawful vow he
defined l a deliberate promise to God made of something ac
ceptable to him.' The Countess had vowed thus, said Bishop
Andrewes, l 0 Lord, I promise thee that being never so law
fully examined, I will not answer,' but l if all should make the
like, not to answer any, then were justice quite overthrown and
could not proceed. The overthrow of justice can be no matter
of vow.' Such examination as that in question was warranted
by the law of God in Dent. xiii. 14, and xvii. 4. Again, God's
own practice was designed as a pattern to judges. He asked
Adam of his sin in Paradise. Herod and Jephtha both vowed
unlawfully. A vow ought not to be indefinite. David vowed
the like, to be the death of Nabal ; but upon better advice
(being put in mind by Abigail, it would be no scruple nor
upbraiding to his conscience if he shed no blood, and so kept
not his heady vow) he did not keep it.
He concludes, in the quaint manner of the age, with an
assurance that the Countess may safely vow never to make
any such vow more.
Upon May 31 he took his turn at the chapel on Whit
sunday, and preached from Acts xix. 1 — 3, upon the divinity
of the Holy Ghost, against the Socinians who were about that
time agitating their controversies in this country. Excellent
are his remarks upon the true Christian motives in distinction
from the merely political, moral, and philosophical. Whatsoever
is done from a selfish end, and from no higher, is not reli
giously done, but only that of which God is the centre, which
is done to his glory, and not for our own but for his name.
He quotes Isa. xxvi. 18, according to the Septuagint, and
Psa. li. 10 as it stands, not in the text but in the margin of
our authorized version, ' constant? The great impediments
to the coming of the Holy Spirit to us he sums up thus —
pride, lust, and malice, that is, every form of uncharitableness.
To invite the Spirit to us, he exhorts to the frequenting of
the sanctuary, to prayer, to the preached word and meditation
upon it, and to the sacraments. Of the Word he saith, " The
Holy Ghost is Christ's Spirit, and Christ is the Word. And
of that Word, the Word that is preached to us is an abstract.
There must needs then be a nearness and alliance between
the one and the other. And indeed (but by our default) the
Word and the Spirit, saith Esay, shall never fail nor ever
part, but one be received when the other is."
We find our prelate, at his palace at Downham on the 27th
July, writing as follows to Sir Thomas Lake :
"SIR, — Since my coming hither to Downham I have
received information from Mr. D. Felton, that the Bishop of
Chichester, waxing weary of his mastership of Pembroke
Hall, intendeth very shortly to make it over to one who, save
that he hath for (e) bid his turn (a man may say it in charity),
that many years hath (and this year especially) shewed himself
unworthy of such a place ; one Muriell, concerning whom the
Sub- Almoner can very well inform you. I wish the House
well, as I am bound. I know that wish well to D. Felton.
And his Majesty hath freely been pleased to signify his good
liking of him, and to wish him some preferment, and even
this place itself (if it like you to remember so much), upon
some occasion heretofore in this kind. The better sort of
Fellows do wish for him, and, as now it standeth, I might
say, the greater. But it is certainly intended by the Bishop
to make an election of fellowships before he gives over, that
shall be brought in only on condition to give their voice after
ward as he shall appoint them. I write you for no end but
only to set you about good works. And a blessed deed would
you do if you shall help the College (hitherto of good report)
and a worthy Master, such as I hope D. Felton would be ;
which otherwise is like even to sink and come to nothing if it
light not in the better hands. Sir, I desire you for his sake,
for mine, but specially for the College's, to add this to the
number of the rest of your good deeds, and prevent this evil,
and be a means that a good House may have a good head,
which I much desire, because then I shall be in hope once
more to see that College, which otherwise I am not like.
I prescribe nothing, neither doth it become me : but if his
Majesty please to interpose his authority or commendation,
there is conceived good hope, which in what sort it may best
be, none can better devise than yourself, to whom therefore
I leave it ; this being my desire that it may appear I have
not been wanting to my motion for the good of that poor
College. You shall, as for many others, so for this, look for
your reward at the hand of God, to whose blessed keeping
now and ever I commend you. From Downham in the Isle
of Ely, the 27th July, 1612, where I yet am in expectation
that from Gaines. I shall see you and my Lady. Utinam.
tl Yours ever to my power,
Very assured,
"L. ELIENSIS."
In August Bishop Andrewes was attacked with an aguish
fever, from being in the open air too late in the evening. To
this illness Isaacson, his first biographer, alludes where he
says, "He was not often sick, and but once till his last sickness in thirty years before the time he died, which was at Downham in the Isle of Ely, the air of that place not agreeing with the constitution of his body. But there he seemed to
be prepared for his dissolution, saying oftentimes in that
sickness, It must come once, and why not here? And at other
times before and since he would say, The days must come
when, whether we will or nill, we shall say with the Preacher,
I have no pleasure in them." To this illness Andrewes him
self alludes in his Latin letters to Isaac Casaubon, dated the
Vigil of St. Bartholomew, i. e. August 23rd, and the Nativity
of the Virgin, September 8th.
In the first Andrewes invites Casaubori to come with his
wife and revive his spirits, and exchange the great heat of the
metropolis for the cooler air of Downham. He cannot forego
a pun, a semi-double pun upon this subject, Nam Dunamias
mira caloris dSwafjula, nee sestus, quod sciam, ullus restate hac
tot&. He then refers, for a proof of his comparison, to his
illness occasioned by too late exposure to the evening air.
He urges him to devote his principal attention to his Exerci-
tationes in Baronium, and to pass over the tribe of inferior
writers whom Home had, as the Bishop observes, jesuitically
set on him to draw him off from his great work against Baro-
nius. He alludes by name to Erycius Puteanus, who, as the
editor of the eleventh volume of our prelate's works observes
in a note, had just published his Strictures in Casaubonum.
He makes no very favourable mention of Peter de Moulin,
and speak of his sirenlike influence with the King. He condemns the controversy then in agitation, as likely to lead to nothing but the introduction of new distinctions in the language of theology. I would rather, he adds, two or three
lines from antiquity than as many books of these men, which
savour of nothing but the love of novelty. He then expresses
his hope that the King may not intermeddle with these disputes, which in his opinion threatened to break out into a disease. He concludes with a cordial invitation to Casaubon to come now and see on his way Stourbridge Fair, the most
celebrated in all England ; or, if that will not induce him, the Hebrew copy of St. Matthew in the library of Corpus Christi College. He holds out to him the enjoyments of the country, the trial of his skill in deer-shooting, and promises
to detain him but a few days.
In his second letter, also from Downham, he expresses his
regret that Casaubon could not accede to his request, and says,
"I shall owe to London what I cannot have at Downham."
He again urges him respecting his work against Baronius,
and again advises him not to lose too much time amidsl
chronological questions of only secondary importance. He
alludes to Eichard Thompson of Clare Hall, and to his being
proctor that year ; Thompsonus valet, et novum magistratum
meditatur, in eoque totus est. He was in the same company
with Andrewes as one of the translators of the Bible. He was
intimate with Casaubon. Peter du Moulin, a French refugee
on account of religion, was collated by Archbishop Abbot to
the fourth stall at Canterbury in 1615.
On September 20th Andrewes ordained the following
deacons in the chapel of the Palace at Downham:
Theodore Bathurst, M.A., Fellow of Pembroke Hall.
Alexander Bolde, M.A., Fellow of Pembroke Hall.
Walter Balcanqual, M.A., Fellow of Pembroke Hall,
Dean of Eochester 8th March, 1625, and of Durham May 13,
1639. He was sent by the King to the Synod of Dort, died
on Christmas-day 1645, and was buried at Chirk in Denbigh
shire.
Bathurst was B.A. 1606, M.A. 1608, B.D. 1615, D.D.
1620. Bolde was B.A. 1607, M.A. 1610, and B.D. 1618 ;
chosen Fellow of Pembroke Hall 1610. Balcanqual was B.D.
1616, D.D. 1620. His supplicat for B.D. says, " 7 years after
M.A.," but no record exists of his B.A. or M.A. degree.
John Martin, Queens' College, Cambridge, B.A. 1609,
M.A. 1612.
On November 5 the King and Queen were absent from
the chapel at Whitehall on account of the illness of Prince
Henry. Our prelate discoursed excellently, but not without
some quaintnesses, from Lam. iii. 22, It is the Lord's mercies
that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
With no small skill does he by comparison illustrate the
greatness of this our national deliverance. He makes nume
rous allusions to the history of the plot, allusions such as may
for ever set at rest the artful misrepresentations which the Jesuits
of former and of the present time have invented to palliate this
truly Eomish atrocity. Thus he reminds his audience that
the conspirators were " bound" by oath, bound secondly "by
their sacrament of penance. Thither they went in an error, as
if it had been some fault ; but they found more than they went
for : went/or absolution, received a flat resolution. It was not
only no sin, but would serve to expiate their other sins ; and
not only expiate their sins, but heap also upon them an
increase of merit. In effect, that our consumption would
become their consummation. Bound last with the sacrament
of the altar and so made as sure as their Maker could
make it."
Andrewes attributes the unriddling of the celebrated letter,
to the King under the special guidance of God.
On the following day, November the 6th, between seven
and eight in the evening, Prince Henry died of an epidemic
fever.
On December 7th Bishop Andrewes was present at the
funeral of the Prince at Westminster Abbey. Archbishop
Abbot preached the funeral sermon from Psa. Ixxxii. 6, 7 :
/ have said ye are gods ; and all of you are children of the
Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of
the princes.
We find Andrewes preaching again at Whitehall on
Christmas-day from the Epistle for the day, and most chris-
tianly setting forth the condescension of the Son of God in
visiting our world, "as if a great prince should go into an
hospital to visit and look on a foul diseased creature."
Towards the end of this year appeared Casaubon's Answer
to Cardinal Perron. It was published in Latin, in quarto, by
John Norton, 1612, either in November or December. This
was a further exposition of his Majesty's faith, in answer to
the Cardinal who had withheld from him the name of Catholic.
The King professes to believe one Catholic Church made up
of many communions. He maintains an unity of faith and
doctrine, of charity and hope; but if any depart from the
integrity of Christian doctrine, he leaves Christ. From such
the Scriptures bid us depart. Cardinal Perron had quoted
largely from St. Austin. The King replies that the Church is
much changed from what it was in St. Augustine's days. Then
there was an unity of faith by which error could be easily
detected. But after the division of the empire the Church itself
also was divided. The King affirms that to be doctrine
necessary to salvation which is drawn from the fountain of the
Scriptures through the channel of the consent of the ancient
Church. Our Church has succession both of persons and
doctrines. The Church of England would willingly prove
before any free Council that her intent in the Reformation
was to restore the primitive model. We have departed from
the innovations of Rome, but not from the old Catholic
Church. We had a long time borne an intolerable yoke of
exactions which alone would have justified separation ; and
the Church of Rome had used against us both secret and
open violence, and received in her bosom and still cherished
the most manifest traitors and called them martyrs, and con
tended for their innocence daily against all laws human and
divine. The King notices Bellarmine's personal favours to
the conspirators, as indeed has been already observed.
The King animadverts upon the addition of auricular con
fession to the essentials of religion, and upon the enforcement
of celibacy, and traces the self-flagellation of the more religious
members of the Church of Rome to the custom of the priests
of Baal. He maintains the distinction of essentials and non-
essentials, and points out agreement in the few points that are
truly essential as the only way to unity. Those, he says, are
simply necessary which the Word of God expressly commands
to be believed, or which the ancient Church has elicited by
necessary consequence from the Word of God.
The King highly commends unforced and voluntary
celibacy, and here fails not to express his detestation of the
doctrine advanced by some of the Romish jurists and theo
logians, that concubinage and fornication are more tolerable
in a priest than marriage. The King had often said that, for
his part, he would never have dissolved monasteries if he had
found them faithfully abiding by their proper regulations.
With respect to what should be considered primitive
antiquity, the King is willing to have the first five centuries
after the Christian era so regarded, and the rule of Vincent
of Lerins admitted. But with respect to all appeals to
antiquity, his Majesty will nevertheless have the Scriptures
to be the sole foundation of faith, and only source from which
things necessary to salvation are to be drawn. The Fathers
he admits in the next order as expositors of what is in the
Scriptures, not as propounders of independent articles of
belief.
Upon the Keal Presence the authority of Bishop Andrewes
(before alluded to) in his second work against Bellarmine is
adduced as declaration of his Majesty's faith. Concerning the
sacrifice of the mass there is no proper sacrifice ; the Eu
charist is, as St. Chrysostom explains in his Homilies on the
Epistle to the Hebrews, not a sacrifice, but a commemoration
of one.
Touching prayers for the dead, praying for the rest and
peace of the departed was an early practice. This the King
confesses. So the ancient Church signified its belief in the
resurrection. li But although the English Church," adds the
King, " does not condemn this observance in the former ages,
it does not conceive itself bound now to retain it, and that for
many and most special causes : first, because it is persuaded
that the custom began without any precept from Christ. Again,
it cannot le proved to have been as old as the Apostles. Neither
were they such prayers as are now offered for the dead.
Lastly, the custom soon introduced superstition."
Of invocation of saints the King observes, that men have
been brought to repose more on the saints than in Christ, and
to fear to comply with his call, but first they must go to his
holy mother. So, instead of the Psalms men used the Hours
of the Blessed Virgin Mary^ and the Legends. Here his
Majesty takes occasion to condemn the Psalter of the Virgin.
The King firmly believes that the saints pray for us, but that
the practice of the Church of Eome in the point of invocation
is the highest impiety. The worship of saints the King dates
from the fourth century. His Majesty then in conclusion,
having answered Perron, objects to him and his communion,
the saying the divine service in an unknown tongue, the half-
communion, solitary masses, and the worship of images.
Under the first head he notices the opposition of the Eomish
Church to the translation of the Scriptures, the trouble into
which Benedict Kenatus was brought by his labours in that
way, and the confession of the Douay translators that they
undertook their version, "being forced by the importunity of
heretics.
Such is the King's answer to Perron, prepared indeed
probably in the preceding year, but delayed until the latter
end of 1612. It does not profess to enter upon the whole or
even upon the greater part of the Komish controversy. It is
full of deference to Christian antiquity, but that deference
is bounded by the true Protestant principle, that the Holy
Scriptures are the sole foundation of faith, and it is broadly
admitted that corruption of doctrine justifies departure from
the communion to which we might have before belonged.
Towards the end of this year appeared Increpatio Andrece
Eudcemono-Johannis Jesmtce} de infami Parallelo^ et renovata
assertio Torturce Torti, pro clarissimo Domino atque antistite
Eliensi. Auctore Samuele Collino, Etonensi, S. Theol. Doctorej
Eeverendissimo Patri ac Domino Arcliiepiscopo Cantuariensi
a Sacris. Excudebat Cantrellus Legge, inclytce Academics
Cantabrigiensis Typographus. Anno Salutis 1612.
The Parallelus of Eudsemon Johannes (L'Heureux) has on
the title-page this motto :
Cypr. 1. ii. Epist. 6, ad Martyres.
Steterunt Torti Torquentibus fortiores.
It is written in a virulent and abusive spirit. Its allegations
from history are minutely examined and exposed with that
combination of vivacity and learning for which Dr. Collins
was distinguished.
Dr. Collins maintained indeed, as Jewel had done before,
that Augustine was himself implicated in the destruction of
the British monks, as having counselled the war against them.
He observes that if even this is disclaimed, it is admitted that
as a prophet he foretold their massacre with approbation.
This cannot be denied, unless we conjecture that the predic
tion was but one of the many legends which Venerable Bede
credulously inserted in his Church History. It appears that
the reading now followed had been altered in some MSS. to
soften down the bitterness of spirit implied in this account
of Augustine. Ab hostibus was read by some, by others
ab eisdem, which Dr. Collins gives as the reading of two
MSS. in the library of Balliol College. The recent editor of
Bede, the Rev. Joseph Stevenson, Vicar of Leighton Buzzard,
gives A.D. 613 as the year of the massacre of the monks, upon
the authority of the Annals of Munster, according to Ussher.
Collins in his preface expatiates on the excellencies of his
patron Archbishop Abbot, and bears testimony to his having
reconciled many of the opposite party to episcopacy. He
describes his course as one of fidelity and integrity in every
diocese to which he had been promoted, and speaks of his
popularity as having been earned without descending to any
base expedients. He justifies the commendation of his sove
reign, who said of Abbot that it had not repented him that he
had made that man. It would indeed have been better for
James had he always retained the same regard for the Arch
bishop, or rather had his regard been more consistent.
CHAPTER XV.
Page 364
Casaubon — Daniel Heyn — Andrewes's Comparison of the Churches of
England and Rome — Whitsunday Sermon 1613 — The two Sacra
ments — The Nullity — Divine Right of Kings — Easter-day Sermon,
1614 — Rev. Norwich Spaceman — The Earl of Northampton — Of
the Royal anointing — Of the Jesuits — Archdeacon Wigmore —
Andrewes's Sermon on the name Immanuel.
ON the first Sunday of the new year, 1613, we find
Casaubon amongst those who received new-year's gifts from
the King, with whom he was upon the following Tuesday the
5th January. He was also with the King upon the following
Sunday, the 10th. On Saturday the 16th he saw the book of
Andreas Eudaemon Johannes (L'Heureux) against him, "a
book," he notes, " sufficiently worthless." On Sunday the
last day of January he was again with the King. On Tuesday
he was in great trouble, being unable to obtain from a friend
his MS. upon Baronius. From this trouble he was freed the
next day, when his papers were returned to him. On that
Tuesday also he was with the King. On Sunday the 7th
February he received the Holy Communion at the French
Church with his wife and daughter Joanna. This day brought
him to the close of his 54th year. On the 13th he was present
at the naval spectacle exhibited in honour of the marriage
of the King's daughter Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia, of which
he was also a spectator on the following day, Sunday the 14th.
He was again with the King on Sunday the 21st.
About this time he was engaged in preparing a treatise
upon the holy Eucharist and on transubstantiation, which was
to have been inserted into his Exercitationes in Baronium?
Upon the various subjects connected with the doctrine of the
Eucharist his mind appears from his diary to have been still
in an unsettled state. He seems to have imagined that the
doctrine of the Fathers considerably differed both from the
transubstantiation of the Church of Kome and from the
several systems of the Eeformed Churches. The probability
is that he had never devoted his time so uninterruptedly to
the study of theology, as to have had the opportunity of tran
quilly considering the whole controversy in all its length and
breadth. Of the Fathers he seems never to have made
himself at home with St. Augustine. He was a more
constant student of St. Chrysostom, an admirer of St. Basil's
Epistles, and read in Theodoret. His diary2 contains remarks
upon St. Ambrose on certain of the Psalms. He commends
the treatise of Augustine, De utilitate credendi. Dr. Morton,
Dean of Winchester, afterwards raised to the see of Durham,
cautioned Casaubon on one occasion of the injury he might
bring upon himself by his freedom of speech respecting the
presence of Christ in the Eucharist.3 Some on this account
suspected that he held with Eome, others with Luther. Mon
tague, Bishop of Bath and Wells, had animadverted upon his
conversation. However, his mind does not appear to have
been thoroughly convinced at any time upon this subject.
Thus toward the end of 1613, within a year of his death, he
notes in his diary, " To-day I read the Dialogue of (Ecolam-
padius on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and admired his
learning and expertness in the Greek Fathers. I would by
no means have missed reading it. Thanks to the Lord Jesus.
Amen." He moreover was anxious that his son Meric should
not disown the Reformed French Church, but communicate as
well with that as with the Church of England.4 He was, not
withstanding some manifest waverings even after his coming
to England, attached to the cause of the Eeformation, and
especially to the Church of England. But his reverence for
patristic learning alienated him from Du Moulin and many of
the French Protestants. He was too ready to magnify the
obscurity of Scripture, and gathered rather too precipitately
from Cyprian and Tertullian, that which did not exist in their
days, auricular confession.1 In short, he addicted himself to
no system.
On the 24th February 1613 we find Bishop Andrewes
thus addressing the Right Hon. Sir Dudley Carleton, then
Ambassador at Venice.
" MY VERY GOOD LORD, — The speech which hath passed
between Mr. Chamberlain and me was but matter of ordinary
talk, such as might very well have received satisfaction on
my part without this trouble of your Lordship. But since it
hath liked your Lordship to vouchsafe it so much pains,
I cannot but be glad, for by this means I am honoured by
letter from you. As it falleth out when new things happen
(such as this was) enquiry is made into the occasions of them.
Howbeit, of this partie I think no man, surely myself never
made the reckoning, as I hold it, for any great matter, whether
it were won or lost. There be some other there where your
Lordship is, whom I hold for other manner" [of] "men, of
whom I would have been glad seriously to have understood
the course, if I had been so happy as to have had speech with
the gentleman your Lordship's Secretary more than once, or
yet with Mr. Chamberlain, whom I see nothing so often as
my desire is. And as for that he hath lately written, I think
it will not be thought much ever to see the light, unless upon
some matter (as they use to term it). The revising of the
Council of Trent were a matter of much better consequent,
being performed as it is hoped, there to be. God certainly,
and to man's reason under him, Princes must take up this
business, and by other means than by the pen. Whereunto
happy shall the Embassador be that shall be the minister and
otherwise co-operate to it. My Lord, the less hable I am,
and more am I bound to thank you for your honourable and
kind offers. I found great courtesy at your Secretary's hands
with all due respect. But the times will require much at
tendance, and he, I know, will be loth to omit any that may
the leastwise hinder the affairs in his trust. Were mine
ability higher ought,1 or of any moment, I would most
willingly offer it to be disposed by your Lordship ; and such
as it is, I do offer it, if it may be in any ways fit to be used
by you. Praying your Lordship to accept these poor lines in
pledge thereof, I so, with my very loving remembrance, com
mend you to the blessed keeping of God, who send you that
honor and reputation that is meet there, and that happie
return hither which you desire.
" At my house in London,
" 24 Feb. 16 jf styl. Anglic.
" Your Lordship's
" Ever very assured,
"L. ELIE."
On Thursday the 12th of March Casaubon called on the
French Ambassador, Bishop Andrewes, and others.
On the 20th he was agreeably occupied with the reading
of Pacian.2
On the 23rd March he was invited by the Prince, the son
of the Margrave of Baden, and was afterwards detained for
some time from his studies in most agreeable conversation
with Grotius.
The 1st of April Casaubon was in consultation with An
drewes.
On the 4th April, and not on the 8th (as it is by a mistake
in the folio edition), being Easter-day, Bishop Andrewes
preached excellently before the Court at Whitehall from the
Epistle for the day, Col. iii. 2, upon the spiritual resurrec
tion that must, in this life, precede the resurrection of the
body. We must cry to him who rose this day to draw us
after him, and not leave us still in our graves of sin. The
soul must first rise, and then draw the flesh upward with it.
" For, as well observeth Chrysostom, these two were not thus
joined (the spirit and the flesh I mean) that the flesh should
pull down the spirit to earth, but that the spirit should exalt
the flesh to heaven."1
He reminds his courtly audience how all are ready to seek
on earth the things above, as the sons of Zebedee sought a
place on earth at Christ's right hand, " not so much as good-
wife Zebedee' s two sons (that smelt of the fisher-boat), but
means was made for them to sit there."
In the following we meet with his own peculiar force and
ingenuity : " And if Nature would have us no moles , Grace
would have us eagles to mount where the body is. And the
Apostle goeth about to breed in us a holy ambition, telling us
we are ad altiora geniti, born for higher matters than any
here : therefore not to be so base-minded as to admire them,
but to seek after things above. For, contrary to the philo
sopher's sentence, Quce supra nos nihil ad nos. Things above
they concern us not ; he reverses that ; yes (and we so to
hold), Ea maxime ad nos, They chiefly concern us." The
things, he says, we chiefly seek, are with Christ above ; rest
and glory. Most felicitously does he observe that it is only
in heaven that these are found in union. Here rest is in
glorious, and glory is restless. There they dwell together,
and that for ever and ever.
The 5th and 6th April Casaubon was with the King. On
Wednesday the 7th he dined with Overall at the Deanery,
St. Paul's, with his wife and Grotius. Much conversation
passed between them. On Thursday the 8th Grotius called
upon Andrewes at Ely House. There were present Dr.
Steward, about this time Fellow of All Souls' College, having
been a Commoner of Magdalene Hall, Oxford, in 1608, Dr.
Kichardson, Master of Peterhouse, the Kegius Divinity Pro
fessor at Cambridge, and another divine. Archbishop Abbot,
who mentions this meeting in a letter to Sir Ealph Winwood,
adds that Grotius surprised them all by his freedom and
loquacity.2
On Friday the 9th Casaubon was at court, and complains
that he lost part part of the day. On Sunday the llth he
was at the Royal Palace at Greenwich with the King, to
gether with his wife and part of his family.
On the 12th we find Casaubon writing to Daniel Heyn,1
and making mention of the admiration in which both the
King and Bishop Andrewes held the learning of Grotius.
He entreats that Heyn will not be in London in the months
of July, August, and September, during which Andrewes
was from the metropolis. Our prelate had expressed his
earnest desire to see Heyn.
In Wolf's Casauboniana we have the following remi
niscence of his conversations with Andrewes and Overall.
The Bishop of Ely and Dean of St. Paul's often told me that
he (the learned Dr. Whitaker) at the beginning held the
Fathers and the ancient Church in great esteem, and approved
that doctrine which was based upon their unanimous agree
ment. But when upon his marriage into the leading family
of the Puritans he wholly cultivated their intimacy, he all of
a sudden began to confine his admiration to Calvin ; and I
have often heard the Dean of St. Paul's affirm, that when
serious disputes arose at Cambridge amongst the theologians,
some defending the new, others the old doctrine, he more than
once went to Whitaker and asked him the reason why he
preferred the opinions of Calvin alone to the consent of the
ancient Church, he at length had proceeded so far as to say
expressly that he was prepared to defend all the opinions of
Calvin, and that it was his purpose to take an opportunity of
so doing."2
Whitaker, according to Gataker in Fuller 'sAbelRedivivus,
was twice married. Both his wives were women "of good
birth and note." One was of the Thoresby family, descended
from an uncle of Ralph Thoresby, the antiquary of Leeds.3
We have seen that Overall took a middle course between the
teaching of Whitaker on the one hand and the Semi-Pelagians
on the other. The reader will find a reference to this topic in
the 5th chapter of this volume.
There have been those who looked upon Casaubon as but
comparatively ill employed upon theological controversies.
He could not, with his bias to classical learning and devoted-
ness to it, do equal justice to the vast fields of ecclesiastical
history and dogmatic theology. In his diary he frequently
complains of the difficulties in which he found himself involved.
A remarkable instance we have in p. 1018,1 " In Cypriani loco
una ecclesia, una Cathedra, haesi, et conatus sum lucem afferre,"
I was in difficulty respecting that place of Cyprian, 'one
church, one see,' and endeavoured to obtain that which would
throw light upon it.
This passage, taken from Cyprian's Epistles, was alleged by
Cardinal Bellarmine in the 16th chapter of his second book
of Controversies, and is fully treated of in the 36th chapter of
Field's Book of the Church.
" There is," saith he, tl one God, one Christ, one Church,
one chair founded upon Peter by the Lord's own voice. No
other altar may be raised, nor other new priesthood appointed,
besides that one altar and one priesthood already appointed.
Whosoever gathereth anywhere else scattereth. (Cyprian's
8th Ep. 1st book.) Surely it is not possible that the Cardinal
should think, as he pretendeth to do, that Cyprian speaketh of
one singular chair ordained by Christ for one Bishop to sit in,
appointed to teach all the world. For the question in this
place is not touching obedience to be yielded to the Bishop
of Kome, that Cyprian should need to urge that point, but
touching certain schismatics which opposed themselves against
him ; and therefore he urgeth the unity of the Church and of
the chair, to shew that against them that are lawfully placed,
with consenting allowance of the pastors at unity, others may
not be admitted ; and that they who by any other means get
into the places of ministry, than by the consenting allowance
of the pastors at unity amongst themselves, are in truth and
in deed no Bishops at all. So that Cyprian, by that one chair
he mentioneth, understandeth not one particular chair ap
pointed for a general teacher of all the world to sit in, but the
joint commission, unity and consent of all pastors, which is
and must be such as if they did all sit in one chair."1
On Tuesday, April 13, Bishop Andrewes preached at
Greenwich previously to the departure of Prince Frederic, the
Count Palatine, and his consort Elizabeth. His text was
Isaiah Ixii. 5. He contends against our present Version that
it should be thus read, And the bridegroom shall rejoice over
the bride, and thy God shall rejoice over thee. In the Bidding
prayer which follows the introductory portion of the sermon
he includes the Churches that are in Great Britain and
Ireland, and the two Palatinates. In the sermon itself he
deduces the worship of the Romish Church from Samaria*
Not so certain in our day who profess a most inconsistent
veneration for our prelate. In treating of the espousals with
Sion, he draws a brief sketch of the Church of England and
contrasts it with that of Rome, and in language at which those
who advocate the recently cast up Via Media would shudder.
Of Jewel's Apology he remarks, ' En ecclesiae nostrae Apolo-
giam vere gemmeam? He proceeds, u Go round about Sion
and survey her. One canon reduced to writing by God
himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils,
five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period, the
three centuries that is before Constantine and two after,
determine the boundary of our faith. Those whom the old
Catholic Church without the new patchwork of the Romish
does not suffice, those whom the aforesaid (bounds) do not
suffice, without drinking to the very dregs the abuses and
errors, to say nothing of fables and frauds which afterward
began to possess the Church, let them enjoy them."
Bishop Andrewes proceeds : " Let them espouse themselves
to God by a faith not written ; Sion (it is certain) was not so
espoused. Let them adore they know not what in their reliques,
and so in their hosts. This comes from the mount of Samaria,
not from Mount Sion. Let them pray, let them perform their
rites in a language they know not, without understanding,
without edification (if the Apostle had a right understanding
of the matter). Not thus did Sion pray ; these are not the
songs of Sion. Let them call upon him in whom they do
not believe ; let them resort more assiduously and frequently
to saints in whom they do not believe, than to Christ. It was
not thus in Sion. Let them prostrate themselves and bow
themselves before a painted or a graven likeness. Sion would
have rent her garments at this. Let them halve the Eucha
rist ; in the supper of Sion it was never thus taken, but only
whole. Let them there adore the divinity concealed under
the species and made from the bakehouse [de pistrino factum].
Sion would have without doubt shuddered and started back
from this."
" What when they adore their Pope placed and sitting
upon the altar ? when they set up a man (to use the mildest
terms) encompassed with infirmities, often illiterate, often
unclean, very often and at this time a mere canonist,1 when
they set up such an one for a pillar of faith and religion, as
one who is, to wit, infallible. Would Sion have endured
this?"
On Sunday the 18th Casaubon, after attending the Frencl
Church with his family, was first with the King and after
wards with his " most beloved Grotius." Casaubon appears
to have concealed from the King his partiality for Bertiu
and Arminius and their party ; a partiality perceptible in hi
diary, in which in 1611 2 we find, "To-day I was much en
gaged in reading the treatises of Arminius, a subtle theologian
and, as I have heard, an excellent man." And again at page
896, " I saw the epistle written by King James to the State
against Vorstius, Arminius, and Bertius, full of the stronges
invective. Arminius he calls the enemy of God, and him anc
Bertius lost heretics. I commend the zeal of the illustriou
Sovereign in the cause of religion, but we know that grav
and most learned men by no means think thus of Bertius anc
Arminius."
On Monday the 19th he spent some hours with Overal
and with Grotius. Grotius supped with him. On Tuesday
he was again with Grotius and the French and Dutch Am
bassadors.
On Monday the 26th April he dined with the genial and
kind-hearted Morton, who had been promoted from the
Deanery of Gloucester to that of Winchester in 1609, when
Abbot, afterwards Archbishop, was raised to the see of
Lichfield and Coventry. He notices in his diary the erudition
displayed in Morton's works against both the Puritans and
Papists. Morton shewed him the art of preparing potable
gold, a liquor distilled from beaten gold, or elixir. The
principal ingredients, says Casaubon, which they use are
white salt, the most pungent vinegar, and some third sub
stance. The elixir was drunk before dinner, diluted in wine.
Casaubon tasted it, and found it not ungrateful to the palate.
On Tuesday the 27th Casaubon was again with the King.
On the following Sunday he and his children with him were
with the King, after he had taken the holy Communion with
his family.
On Tuesday the 4th of May he went to the King and to
Archbishop Abbot and other friends to take his farewell
previously to leaving London for Oxford. On Thursday he
went to Eton to the learned Provost, Sir Henry Savile, who
on the Friday took him to Oxford in his carriage. On the
same day he went over most of the Colleges and Halls,
" admiring the piety and magnificence of our ancestors."
On Saturday he completed his survey of the Colleges, and
after dinner heard a disputation in the schools, at which Dr.
Abbot presided, whom he describes as a man of the most
eminent learning.
On Sunday the 9th he heard two learned discourses as
far as his imperfect knowledge of our language could gather.
He dined with Dr. William Goodwin, Dean of Christ Church.
Dr. Goodwin or Godwyn had been made Prebendary of Bole
in the church of York, by that excellent prelate Archbishop
Piers, September 7, 1590, which stall he resigned on being
promoted to the Chancellorship, October 25, 1605, by his
learned and pious successor, Archbishop Hutton. He was
installed Dean of Christ Church September 13, 1611, and
was by the eloquent Dr. King, Bishop of London, made
Archdeacon of Middlesex September 23, 1616. After serving
the office of Vice-Chancellor four times he died June 11, 1620,
in the 65th year of his age, and was buried in the chapel
immediately to the north of the choir of Christ Church. He
had succeeded Bishop King in the Deanery.
Casaubon was Sir Henry Savile's guest at Merton College
until Monday the 10th, when the Dean received him at the
deanery, Saville leaving Oxford the same day.
On Tuesday Casaubon visited the Bodleian Library, and
there perused and made some extracts from ChoniateV
Thesaurus Orthodoxies.
On Wednesday he resumed his perusal of Choniate in the
Bodleian, and was present at a Latin sermon and some dis
putations in the divinity school. He devoted some hours
also to Hebrew with a very learned Jew whom he found
there. "So," he writes, "I console myself for the absence
of my wife, of whom I have yet received no intelligence. But
do thou, 0 Lord, keep her and my whole house in the fear of
thy name." Casaubon was a man of the most affectionate
spirit. He had a most congenial partner in his wife, and his
life appears to have been bound up in hers.
On Thursday he heard the discourse of a very learned
man, but with regret that he could not perfectly understand
it. Afterward he dined with the Vice-Dean and several other
very eminent persons in the hall of Christ Church. This
forenoon he gave to the reading of the Talmud. After dinner
he completed his perusal of Choniate. He looked through Leo
& Castro on Isaiah. This author, who flourished in the 16tl
century, undertook to set up the text of the Septuagint above
the Hebrew. Casaubon also looked through the Comments
of St. Basil upon Isaiah, with which he was much pleased,
remarking that it extended only to the 16th chapter, and
observing that it was not however to be compared with that
by St. Chysostom, also imperfect. He had completed the
perusal of this latter in July 1611. In his diary he remarks
that in this work Chrysostom has surpassed himself. The
Friday was taken up with the study of Hebrew and with
Basil on Isaiah.
On Saturday he was again in the divinity school, and says
that nothing ever gave him such satisfaction upon the subject
of faith and works as did Abbot, afterwards Bishop of Salis
bury. In his Casauboniana we have the following, Thomse
distinctio vera \fides justificat causative, opera justificant osten-
sive, "Faith justifies as a cause, works as giving evidence."1
And as Cranmer defended the language of the Reformation
upon justification from the Fathers, whom he had carefully
and deeply studied, so does Casaubon derive from them the
tQim justification by faith only, which he observes rests upon
similar passages of the ancients, in Ambros. Rom. iii., Basil,
Sermon on Humility, Chrysost. on Rom. iii. 26, Hilary on
Matt. viii.
Sir Henry Savile's edition of Chrysostom in eight folios
appeared this year. Casaubon vindicates St. Chrysostom on
the doctrine of justification, and refers to his discourses on the
Epistles where he gives his interpretation of our Lord's giving
himself a ransom for us, 1 Tim. ii. 6. Estius refers to the
commentaries of Hesselius for the doctrine of Augustine, Leo,
Chrysostom, and other of the Fathers on the mediatorship of
Christ. Suiceri Thesaurus and Petavii Dogmata Ecclesiastica
will also assist the enquirer into this head of patristic theology.
Wolf, in his notes to his Casauboniana , also refers for the
doctrine of St. Chrysostom on justification, to Du Pin, and
to Dr. Mayer's Chrysostomus Luther anus 1680, which he
maintained in a second and apologetic treatise in 1686 against
John Francis Hack a Jesuit. For a general collection of
patristic testimonies, Wolf refers to Menzer's Exegesis Augus-
tance. ConfessioniSj art. 4; Dr. John Gerhard's Loci Communes
Tlieologici; and Helvicus in Vindicatione Locorum Vet. Testa-
mentij p. 181.
On Sunday the 16th Casaubon attended at the University
Church both morning and afternoon, and dined in the hall of
Magdalene College, where the day was observed with a
sumptuous entertainment. The President of that noble
College was Dr. "William Langton, who had succeeded Dr.
John Harding November 19th, 1610.1
On Monday the 17th Casaubon was engaged upon the
first volume of the Councils edited at Home, and dined with
Dr. Abbot at Balliol College, who gave a splendid banquet
to his guests. After dinner Casaubon devoted some hours to
the perusal of some of the works of Claude D'Espence. This
celebrated author, who died in the 60th year of his age in
1571, incurred censure by maintaining that the primitive
Church paid no worship to images. His commentaries on the
Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, and his writings
on the Eucharist, obtained for him no small celebrity in the
Romish communion.
On Tuesday the 18th Casaubon gave a part of his MS.
into Abbot's hands, and another portion to the Dean of
Christ Church, that he might have the benefit of their judg
ment and revision.
On Wednesday he was unwell, and was attacked with
dizziness in the morning on his way to the Bodleian Library.
He however heard a Latin sermon and an act in the divinity
school.
On Whitsunday the 23rd May he received the holy Com
munion at the Cathedral from the hands of the Dean, attended
the two sermons preached before the University, and bade
farewell to his friends.
Upon Whitsunday Bishop Andrewes, preaching at White
hall, discoursed upon Eph. iv. 30. He familiarly illustrates
the words from the six men in the 9th chapter of Ezekiel, sent
to set a mark upon the foreheads of those who sighed and cried
for all the abominations of Jerusalem, and from the angels in
the Apocalypse who were not to execute their awful commission
until the chosen number had been marked with the seal of the
living God. And so of the Passover he observes, u The
Lamb slain, there is redemption ; the posts stroken with
hyssop dipped in the blood, there is the signature.
Bishop Hall and the inimitable Dr. Richard Sibbes have
also written upon this memorable passage, Grieve not the
Spirit.
Andrewes quaintly speaks of some who are but label-
Christians, u content with a label without any seal to it all
their life long. And of those label-Christians we have meetly
good store. As the Spirit of God they like him well enough
to have their breath and life and moving from him, yea,
arts and tongues too if he will ; but as the Holy Spirit, not
once to be acquainted with him."
The seal of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper he declares
to be supplementary of the defect of the seal of Baptism, that
where that can be set to but once and never repeated more,
this other should supply the defect thereof, as whereby if we
have not preserved the former figure entire and whole, we
might be as it were new signed over again."
On Monday the 24th of May Casaubon left Oxford and
arrived at Sir Henry Savile's, Eton. Upon Tuesday he left
Eton for London. On Wednesday he dined with the French
Ambassador. On Trinity-Sunday, the 30th, after attending
service at 7 A.M., he waited on the King, who received
him, as was his wont, very graciously. In the evening he
supped with the Lady Killigrew and some other friends. On
Sunday the 6th of June he waited on the King again, as he
was accustomed on that day, and so on the 13th. On the
16th his Exercitationes against Baronius began to appear in
print. On the 19th and on Sunday the 20th he was again
with the King. On the 23rd the Jewish teacher left him
whom he had brought with him from Oxford. On July 6th
he was the whole day in the College, Westminster, with the
Dean of Christ Church. On July 9th he spent some hours
with two eminent persons from the Netherlands, Relbe and
Scholiers, who narrated the sufferings of their countrymen
from Jesuit tyranny. On July llth he was with the King at
Theobald's. July the 13th his little daughter Mary met with
a sad casualty. But amongst the many domestic cares that
weighed upon his mind in the absence of his beloved partner
at this time, he was refreshed with the sight of his infant son
James. The reader will bear with me for recording, though
occasionally, instances of Casaubon's domestic life and depth
of affection. Those are traitors to learning and science who
will not bend to the amenities of social life, and evince no
sympathy with that humanity, which is ever less ennobled by
knowledge than by love. On the 24th, by command of his
royal master, he made choice of some volumes from the library
of the late Prince Henry. On the 31st he paid his respects to
Prince Charles.
On the 1st of August he with his daughter received the
holy Communion. On the 2nd he resolved to return to his
treatise on the holy Eucharist (which he had laid by for some
time), with the hope of inserting it in this edition. On the
4th he laid aside again all thoughts of resuming that treatise
for the present.1
On the 1st of September he was cheered by the return of
his wife. On the 5th they happily received the holy Com
munion together with their daughter Gentilis. On the 7th
he was with Archbishop Abbot, and learnt from him the
apostacy of his friend Charrier to the Church of Kome. Dr.
Benjamin Charrier had been chaplain to Archbishop Whitgift,
and composed the epitaph on his monument in Croydon
church. When Dr. William Barlow was raised to the see
of Lincoln, Dr. Charrier or Carrier succeeded him in the
seventh stall of Canterbury. On the 19th he waited on the
King and had much and important conversation with him
upon various subjects.
On September 19 Andrewes ordained at Downham Edmund
Topcliffe, M.A., deacon, and John Martin, M.A., priest. Top-
cliff and Martin, both of Queens' College, Cambridge, were
both B.A. 1609, and M.A. 1612.
In the course of this year (1613) T. F., i. e. Thomas
Fitzherbert, a Jesuit, attacked our prelate's Answer to Bel-
larmine in a sophistical and scurrilous Adjoinder to the Sup
plement of Father Parsons Discussion, quarto, to which he
annexed his attack upon the Bishop, in which he refused him
his episcopal title, entitling it A Reply to Dr. Lancelot
Andrewes' Absurdities in his Answer, &c. This truly Jesu
itical writer was born at Swinnerton, between Stone and
Eccleshall in Staffordshire, and was son of William, fourth
son of Sir Anthony Fitzherbert, of Norbury near Ashbourn,
the celebrated lawyer. His parents were zealous Papists.
He was called home from Oxford when the Pope forbad those
of his communion to attend the established worship. In
1572 he was imprisoned for recusancy. After his release he
absconded, went to London, and there entertained Father
Parsons and Father Campian, whom he assisted with all
conveniences on their arrival in England 1580. He retired
with his lady into France in 1582, and there pleaded for
Mary Queen of Scots with the King of France. There his
wife died. He went into Spain to serve the interests of his
Eomish countrymen at the court. He attended the Duke of
Feria in his tours. At Rome he studied for the priesthood
at the English College, and being ordained priest, was made
agent for the English clergy, and so continued twelve years to
1609. He joined the Jesuits in 1614, the year after he had
written against Bishop Andrewes, and was answered in 1617
with great learning and ability by the deeply erudite Dr.
Collins, Provost of King's College, Cambridge, and Regius
Professor tof .Divinity. In 1621 Fitzherbert wrote his 01-
tumesce of T. F. to the Epphata of Dr. Collins, who also took
up his pen against Fitzherbert in his Pseudo-Martyr in defence
of the Oath of Allegiance. Lond. quarto, printed by John
Donne. He died in 1640,1 Master of the English College at
Rome.
On September 25 sentence of divorce was pronounced by
which a separation ensued between the Earl of Essex and the
Lady Francis Howard, daughter of the Earl of Suffolk. This
affair had occupied the commission about four months, the
King meanwhile repeatedly complaining of the delay, and
interesting himself in the progress of the investigation in a
manner that reflected little honour upon him. It was but
too evident that the whole was a device to indulge the lawless
passion of the royal favourite Kobert Carr. Much was
expected from Bishop Andrewes from his known learning
and skill in casuistry, but he was extremely reserved and
seldom appears to have given an opinion during the whole
period of the enquiry. But it was ever observed of him that
he was slow in answering and resolving questions, being wont
to defend himself with those words of St. James, Let every
man be slow to speak, slow to wrath.1 The pliant Neile was
constantly upon the watch for opportunities of recommending
himself to the favour of the King, and of injuring the primate
Abbot, whose integrity shone forth from first to last. The
part which both Neile and Buckeridge, Neile' s creature, took
in this most undignified and unpopular affair, doubtless tended
in no small degree to confirm in their disaffection to the Church
such of the laity as were inclined to the Puritans, and was a
great stumblingblock in the way of the more thoughtless and
irreligious of the courtiers. These especially made sport of
the subservient Neile, whose folly appears to have been as
highly estimated by the King as all the wisdom and learning
of Bishop Andrewes.2 Abbot relates how on one occasion the
latter would have absented himself, but the King commanded
his attendance.3 The primate still urged that a reconciliation
of the parties should be set on foot ; but Andrewes spoke
against it on the ground that it was now too late, and might
only give occasion to some deadly practices of the one against
the other. The Countess proved herself in the event equal to
any atrocity. Thus far our prelate was almost prophetic;
but the advice of Abbot, though perhaps less politic, was
more in accordance with his character as a Christian and his
office as a bishop.
Twofold evidence exists to shew that at the first Andrewes
was disinclined to the Nullity, and it was at the very time
attributed to the endeavours of his royal master that he
altered his judgment.1 Archbishop Abbot observes, "My
Lord of Ely for a great while was in dislike of the separation,
(as I have credibly heard he opened himself to Sir Henry
Savile) until such time as the King spake with him, and then
his judgment was reformed. But truth it is that amongst
us he said nothing."
At the last there were found for the divorce Andrewes,
Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, Neile, Bishop of Lichfield and
Coventry, Buckeridge, Bishop of Kochester, Sir Julius Cassar,
Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Parry, Attorney-General,
and Sir Daniel Donne, Master of the Requests. These met
and pronounced the sentence of Nullity September 25. The
remaining Commissioners not agreeing to the sentence ab^
sented themselves, namely, Archbishop Abbot, Dr. King,
Bishop of London, Sir John Bennet, Dr. Francis James, and
Dr. Thomas Edwards. Fuller in his Worthies notes that an
intimate friendship subsisted between his father (for some time
a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,) and Bishop Overall
(of the same College). Hence probably he learnt the anec
dote which he has inserted in the tenth book of his Church
History, and which is corroborated by Abbot's Narrative
touching the Divorce : lt Bishop Overall discoursing with
Bishop King about the divorce, the latter expressed himself
to this effect : ' I should never have been so earnest against
the divorce, save that because persuaded in my conscience of
falsehood in some of the depositions of the witnesses on the
lady's behalf.'"2
The divorce was effected : the guilty parties were united
in adulterous bonds with great solemnities. The murder of
Sir Thomas Overbury by poison soon discovered that profli
gacy was not their only guilt. They were spared the utmost
severity of the law, but lived in mutual hatred and disgust,
an exemplary punishment to each other. Thus ended the
career of Kobert Carr, Earl of Somerset. Pitiable it is to
find the name of Andrewes in any way connected with that
of individuals so unworthy of the ill-placed regard of his and
their royal master. But it is not my object to erect an idol.
It cannot be justified that so upright as Andrewes un
doubtedly was in many respects, he should have given his
sanction to the Nullity.
On October 16th Casaubon was again with Andrewes.
On November 5 he preached upon the divine right of
kings, from the words of Solomon, or rather of God by him,
By Me kings reign. Usurpers he excepts from the kings
here spoken of, adducing the 4th verse of the 8th chapter of
ffosea, They have set up kings, but not by Me : they have made
princes, and 1 knew not."1' He fails not to condemn in the
most pointed language the pretended power of the Pope to
loose this Scripture, By Me kings reign, and after his custom
makes a personal address to the King. His style sometimes
betrays him into mere verbal arguments, and he so handles
his text as to leave out of sight that it is he who removeth as
well as setteth up kings.1 A commission was given for the
setting aside of Jehoram, and even for his death.
Upon Christmas-day our prelate preached at Whitehall
from our Lord's words, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see
my day, and he saw it, and was glad; but a sermon upon the
same words, and less broken, may be seen in his Orphan
Lectures.
These lectures have not been reprinted in the Library of
Anglo- Catholic Theology. In the concluding volume of that
edition of Andrewes it is alleged that there does not appear
sufficient evidence to justify me in ascribing the sermons, at
least in their present form, to Bishov Andrewes. (p. Ixxvii.)
No reason is given by the editor for this remarkable assertion.
I believe that this is the first time that these remains of
Bishop Andrewes have been called in question. A careful
perusal of the whole volume would have led the editor, if
indeed he was capable of sympathizing with his author, into
the full conviction that the substance of the volume was
attributable only to Andrewes ; neither is there any reason to
doubt that the sermons are given as accurately as a taker of
notes could have given them.
The author of the Preface, T. P., supposed to have been
Dr. Thomas Pierce, who at the Kestoration was made Presi
dent of Magdalene College, Oxford, fully admits the genuine
ness of these fragments and their excellence, although he
would have it believed that the Bishop was not always of the
same mind in theology, but changed, as we know did some of
his contemporaries. He professes to reprove the printer for
publishing that which he nevertheless recommends to the
perusal of the reader.
There is however no ground for admitting that Bishop
Andrewes ever changed his theological principles. Neither
is there in these posthumous Lectures any contrariety to the
teaching of those discourses which were put forth by Laud
and Buckeridge. There is not less patristic learning, not
less variety of imagination and illustration in this volume
than in the greater folio. There are the same excellencies
and the same defects, yet the latter are perhaps not so per
ceptible or so frequent in the posthumous fragments, as they
are in his more finished compositions.
Dr. Pierce would undoubtedly have withheld his services
altogether from the publishers of this volume, had it not been
known to him as the work of Andrewes. He calls the lectures
" these sacred fragments." " But having said thus much in
veneration of the author, to whom the printer hath offered
this well-meant injury, I have something to allege by way of
apology for the printer, by whose devotion of care and cost
these sacred fragments were thus collected. He knew the
fame of the author was so transcendently high, and placed so
far out of the reach of spite or envy, defamation or disgrace,
that he supposed it a lesser crime thus to communicate these
lessons as now they are, than to deprive posterity of their
advantage. He looked not so steadily upon the name and
credit of the author, as upon the interest and good of souls.
He thought the reader would esteem it, not only as an excus
able but as a commendable transgression, which being no
way injurious to more than one, will redound to the benefit of
many thousands."
Andrewes, on March 20th, 1614, admitted both to deacon's
and priest's orders on the same day the celebrated Joseph
Mede, M.A., at Ely Chapel, Holborn. Dr. Worthington, the
excellent Master of Jesus College, Cambridge, in the time of
Cromwell, relates that Mede, by his Latin tract De Sanctitate
relativd, &c. so gained the esteem of our Bishop, that Mede
shortly after having need of the King's favour concerning his
election to a Fellowship, Andrewes stood his firm friend, and
not only maintained his right then, but afterwards desired
him for his household chaplain. Mede declined this honour
that he might more fully enjoy his beloved retirement in
Christ College, Cambridge. It was reserved to a late Master
of that College, the late Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Kaye, to erect
a memorial in the College chapel, of Mede, More, and Cudworth
Very excellent is his Easter-day sermon, April 24, 1614
from the second chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Philip-
pians, on the voluntary humiliation of Christ and his exaltation
But it may well be questioned whether he does not fall into
error in regard of the words, u and hath given him a name,'
which he explains after the schoolmen, of the grace of union
or of Christ's human nature being united or assumed into the
Godhead. Well does he observe that this very name of Jesus
is one of the names of God, for beside him is no Saviour.
This whole passage is well illustrated in Dr. Waterland's
Lady Moyer's Lectures.
Upon the following Sunday the Kev. Norwich Spackman
preached before the King at Whitehall, from those words of
our Lord, But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have
mercy and not sacrifice, for I am not come to call the righteous
but sinners to repentance. The preacher, who was educatec
at Christ Church, Oxford, was chaplain to the Hon. Dr. James
Montagu, the munificent Bishop of Bath and Wells ; was foi
some years Vicar of Mitcham, and twenty-six years Kector
Merstham in Surrey, where he died July 1617, and was
buried in the chancel.1
Upon this Sunday, May 1st, Casaubon's son Meric received
the holy Communion, for the first time after the order of
the Church of England, at the hands of Bishop Andrewes,
who had previously examined and confirmed him. Casaubon
received with his son, and admired the adherence of Bishop
Andrewes to the ancient pattern. Probably he means his
mixing water with the wine, and breaking of the bread,
according to his own Consecration Service.
On Thursday May 5th Andrewes was appointed to meet
at eight A.M. in the Painted Chamber on a committee upon
an Act for the preservation and increase of wood and
timber.
On Sunday May 22nd Andrewes wrote as follows to the
Hon. Sir John Ogle, Knight, Lord Governor of the Forces at
Utrecht :
" MY LORD, — It happened that your letter with the book
came unto my hands at such time as the Parliament or Con
vocation began ; busy times, as you may easily conjecture.
There needed no excuse concerning the sending thereof. I
do esteem both of them (but especially your letter) as a singular
courtesie, and a great honor done unto me, and therefore do
remain, and will continue, much beholding unto you for the
same. I have read over the book with such diligence as time
would permit me. In the mean time it happened that Sir
George Douglas, of himself and of his own accord making
both acquaintance and the conference, began to discourse of
the book and the binding and the contents thereof, further
adding, that it was sent to be presented to his Majestic as
soon as I had read it over, and so insinuating himself as if
before he had known that such a book was delivered, but was
remaining in my hands. Wherefore as soon as I thought
myself able to give a sufficient reason unto his Majestic con
cerning my reading of it over, if in case it should be enquired,
I presented the same unto his Majestic (yet not without the
knowledge and consent of Mr. Latham), in whose hands it is
still, and hath been for the space of fourteen days. But I
think that the businesses of this present Parliament are so
troublesome that he hath had very little or no leisure for the
reading thereof; for as yet he never spoke anything thereof
unto me in all my service and attendance upon his Majestic,
which if he had leisure, I make no doubt but he would have
spoken of it. Neither do I think that as yet there will be any
leisure for the reading of anything of. that subject. Although
otherwise of himself he is wonderfully inclined thereunto,
yea, more than any Prince else in the world. And if, may
be, at any time he shall declare himself hereafter, and speak
his meaning concerning that book, I shall not fail (with the
first occasion that shall present itself) to acquaint you there
with. And peradventure your meaning is that I should tell
you my opinion thereof. Indeed Uitenbogard is well known for
a very learned man, as are most that are in those parts, and has
shewed himself no less herein ; and Mr. Douglas, his translator,
for his part (if I give any judgment) is not behind him with the
same. But yet to the end I deal plainly with you, for I know
that it is your desire that I should do so ; I deny not but that
there are divers passages in the book which I should not
lightly approve, or can condescend thereunto, but yet with
such a dissent as may be between Christians and brethren,
which at this present I cannot fully express myself. Like as
Mr. Latham lately for me and can sufficiently declare unto
you, for now at this present it is in the heat of the business
which until this present have gone forward but slowly wherein
my presence and attendance is so required, besides other
accidents, that I scarcely had leisure (being spoken unto by
Mr. Latham before his departure) to write this letter. I hope
hereafter to have better occasion. Until then and ever I will
be ready to perform any acknowledgment that shall be in my
power, and to shew with how great and hearty kindness I
attempt this same, in that it hath pleased you after such a,
manner to write unto me, and so to begin the first foundation
of our acquaintance, which I wish may never end so long as
life shall last. Thus very heartily recommending you with
all yours unto the protection of the Most High, I take my
leave.
" From the Court at Whitehall this 22nd May, 1614.
" Your Lordship's
" Very faithful
" LANG. ELIE."
Uitenbogardt (Johannes Vytenbogardus) was Professor of
theology and preacher at Leyden. He died in his 49th year
in 1609. The work alluded to in this letter was De Officio
Magistrates circa Sacra. This brief notice of him is taken
from Henning Witte's Diarium Biographicum, 1688.
On the 23rd Casaubon, at this time a sufferer from
strangury, dined at Ely House with Andrewes.
Upon Monday the 30th of May Andrewes was appointed
to meet at eight A.M. in the Painted Chamber with King,
Bishop of London, Neile, Bishop of Lincoln, Bridges, Bishop
of Oxford, and Montagu, Bishop of Bath and Wells, upon a
Bill which had been read a second time on the 26th for
punishing divers abuses committed on the Sabbath-day called
Sunday.
On Whitsunday, June 12th, he preached before the King
an excellent sermon at Greenwich, from Thou art gone up on
high, Psa. Ixviii., one of the best of his Whitsunday sermons,
full of the vitality of Christian doctrine. Let the reader
observe how weightily he describes our captivity under sin ;*
how touchingly he passes on to the gifts of this day.2 Of
that captivity he says, in a manner utterly foreign to those
who are content to learn but one or two instead of the thousand
lessons they might gather out of his works, t( If any have felt
it, he can understand me, and from the deep of his heart will
cry. Turn our captivity, 0 Lord"
He alludes in this sermon to God's wonderful deliverances
of our nation in 1588, and afterwards from the Popish Plot :3
the fruits of this deliverance have outlived our national
memorial of it.
At the breaking up of the Parliament the peers agreed
among themselves to give their best piece of plate, or the value
of it, in a present of money as a speedy benevolence to supply
the King's wants. The Archbishop of Canterbury began with
a basin and ewer, and redeemed it with £140 ; Bilson, Bishop
of Winchester, gave as much ; Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, £120.
This year died that most unprincipled and hypocritical
nobleman, Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton. He lived
a concealed Papist, was extremely forward in conducting the
trial of the Gunpowder conspirators, and prosecuted a man in
the Star Chamber who had called him a Papist. Archbishop
Abbot is said to have stayed the prosecution by producing
a letter of the Earl's to Bellarmine, owning his secret ad
herence to Popery. In the old family mansion at Compton
Wingates is a curious chapel in the roof, partitioned off for
the celebration of Romish worship. Mr. Howitt, in his Visit
to Remarkable Places, appears ignorant of its origin, as
he has overlooked the history of this time-serving individual.
It might have been erected by him. How remarkable
a sign of the times is it that the work here alluded to, the
work of one professing himself to be a member of the
Society of Friends, should yet laud the ages of superstition,
and commend even Romanism itself in some of its external
seductions, seductions of an openly antichristian character !
Such is the inconsistency of false liberality.
Casaubon had been informed on the 13th of December
that he was in danger of strangury. From that time his
health was in a state of perpetual fluctuation. The 23rd,
24th, and 25th of March this year he was confined to his bed.
On the 27th he revived, but was again a great sufferer on the
30th. He was on the 29th of May obliged again to consult
his friend and physician, De Maierne. Again on the 18th of
May he was compelled to betake himself to his bed. At
length from the 14th of June his complaint gradually pre
vailed, until on the 1st of July it terminated his earthly
career. Bishop Andrewes has left us a brief notice of his
last illness.
The ten days preceding his death he gave entirely to
spiritual things, and after signing his will his soul was alto
gether engaged upon God and heaven. He felt within himself
the harbingers of death. He died on Friday July 1st, after
he had received the Eucharist in the morning at the hands of
Bishop Andrewes. He then desired the Nunc Dimittis to be
recited, and took part himself, although his voice was failing
and the effort was a trial to him. Although he suffered much
the two last days, nothing escaped his lips but what was in
harmony with his profession as a Christian. Finally he gave
his blessing to his children and all his household. He then
composed himself to rest, and scarcely spoke afterwards. He
expired after five at noon. His remains were deposited in
Westminster Abbey before the entrance to Henry VII. 's
chapel, and were followed to their last resting-place by six
Bishops, two Deans, and almost all the clergy of the metropolis.
The sermon was preached by his faithful friend Dr. John
Overall, who had on the 3rd of April been consecrated to the
see of Lichfield.
Bishop Andrewes wrote the above narrative for the infor
mation of their mutual friend Daniel Heyn, whom he instructed
to deny the false reports of Heribert Rosweyd the Jesuit, who
gave out that he wavered in regard of his religion to the last.
He had published, shortly before Casaubon's death, a book
entitled Lex Talionis Duodecim Tabularum — The Law of
Requital of the Twelve Tables. It was intended as a reply
to his work against Baronius, and to destroy the influence of
Casaubon's name by taxing him with insincerity, dwelling
amongst other things upon the allegation that he had promised
Cardinal Perron that he would join the Church of Eome at
Whitsuntide 1610.1
On August 5th, the anniversary of the Gowrie Conspiracy,
Bishop Andrewes was in attendance upon the King at
Burleigh-on-the-Hill near Okeham. Here the King was
entertained in his first journey into England. It was then
the seat of Sir John (afterwards Lord) Harrington. His son
succeeded to his title and estates in 1613, but died in 1614.
It was afterwards purchased of the heirs by the favourite
Villiers.2 Our prelate in his anniversary sermon made the
following quaint but ingenious allusion to the first words
of his text : lt I have found David my servant ; with my holy
oil have I anointed him." " The colours of the crown are
not water colours to fade by and by ; they be laid in oil to
last and hold out all weathers. So in oil, not in water.
" And in oil, not in wine ; that is, no acrimony, nothing
corrosive in it. It is gentle, smooth, and suppling, all to teach
them a prime quality of their calling, to put in oil enough to
cherish that virtue, that the streams of it may be seen, and
the scent to be felt of all. For that will make David to be
David, that is (as his name is) truly beloved.
" Oil, and holy oil ; holy, not only to make their persons
sacred, and so free from touch or violating (all agree of that),
but even their calling also. For holy unction, holy function.
Now this holy oil troubles the Jesuit shrewdly and all those
that seek to unhallow the calling of kings. For if the holy
oil be upon them, why should they be sequestered quite from
holy things more than the other two that have but the same
oil?"
He proceeds to say that his holy oil is more than material
oil in the prophet's horn or in the priest's phial : " his drops
immediately from the true olive, the Holy Ghost." But
would he have said that all kings were so anointed? Cer
tainly not. Yet is there great significance in the application
of the emblem which we know is divinely appointed, and has
continued to this day, and not without that very design and
moral and spiritual mystery so well insisted on by our
prelate.
On the 25th of September Bishop Andrewes ordained
Richard Fletcher, M.A., and Humphrey Tovey, M.A. deacons,
and Edmund Topcliffe, M.A. priest, at Downham, in the chapel
of the palace there.
Richard Fletcher was of St. John's College, Cambridge,
B.A. 1608, M.A. 1611 ; Tovey was Fellow of Trinity College,
Cambridge, 1611, M.A. 1614, B.D. 1626, and died May 1st,
1640.
In his sermon on Saturday, 5th of November, on My son,
fear thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with them
that are given to change, he condemns both the policy of the
Romanists who put into their martyrology such as attempt
the life of kings, and the over-boldness of the Presbyterians
who observed but little modesty in their intercourse with
princes. Toward the end he thus satirizes the Jesuits : " Will
ye hear some new divinity, how some Fathers here with us
counselled their ghostly children ; the Fathers of the Society,
their sons of the Society, the wicked society of this day?
You shall see the text turned round about clean contrary,
* My sons, fear God and the Pope, (so is the new edition) ; and
as for those that would fain change things here, do meddle
with them, say Solomon what he list. Lo, a greater than
Solomon; you know where. He (as yet it stands in the gloss
to be seen) made this book of Proverbs authentical by citing
it ; and as he made it, can unmake it again at his pleasure.
Nothing in it shall bind you.' Here is the counsel crossed.
u But then how shall we do with the latter verse ? For
that take no thought. Where he tells you (this Solomon) of
destruction, it is nothing so. On with your Powder Plot
notwithstanding. You shall be so far from this (he tells you)
that if aught come to the plot or you otherwise than ye wish,
it shall be no destruction : no, but a holy martyrdom. And
guis scit f Who knows the blessed estate you shall come to
by these means ? But martyrs you shall be straight upon it
in print. And who knows whether there may not be wrought
a straw miracle to confirm as much, if need be ?
" But to put you clean out of doubt for your meddling,
you shall have of us the Fathers of the Society to meddle in
it as well as you, to make up this holy medly with you ; to
confess you, to absolve you, to swear you, to housel you, to
say mass for you, and to keep your counsel in all holy equivo
cation. You see what work was made ; how the matter was
used with this Scripture when time was ; how the Fathers of
the Society took this Father by the beard, and affronted him
and his counsel in every part of it."
On November 26 Bishop Andrewes preferred Daniel
Wigmore,1 B.D. of Queens' College, Cambridge, to the first
stall in his church at Ely. He had been ordained deacon and
priest on the same day by Bishop Heton at Downham Decem
ber 28, 1602, was made a minor canon of Ely (Dr. Tyndale
being then Dean and also President of Queens' College) in
1605, Master of the Grammar School in 1609, and in 1611
Divinity Lecturer of the Cathedral, an office most probably
conferred in those days only upon individuals well qualified
by their theological erudition to discharge its duties. It is
remarkable that he held his minor canonry together with his
prebendal stall. The first stall he quitted for the second in
March 1616, exchanging with the learned Dr. John Boys.
In that same year he was doubly preferred by Bishop An-
drewes, being made by him Archdeacon of Ely, and on the
3rd of December Rector of Northwold, between Thetford and
Downham Market.1 He was also for some time Eector of
Snailwell near Newmarket, and in the troublous times retired
to his estate at Little Shelford near Cambridge, where he
died, and was buried in 1646. He had purchased the manor
of Little Shelford of the son of Sir Toby Pallavicini.2 Gilbert
Wigmore, D.D. by royal mandate in 1661, was Eector of
Little Shelford early in the following century, and one Daniel
Wigmore appears as B.A. of St. John's College, Cambridge,
in 1702.
Upon Sunday December 18 Andrewes, being then at his
palace in Holborn, consecrated Walter Balcanqual, M. A., James
Wedderburn, M.A., and Richard Fletcher, M.A., priests in Ely
Chapel. Wedderburn was born at Dundee. He was one year,
says Antony Wood, at Oxford, for the benefit of the University
Library there. On August 26, 1615, Bishop Andrewes collated
him to the Vicarage of Waterbeach, which he exchanged in
1616 for that of Harleston or Harston, between Cambridge
and Royston. He was after this Vicar of Mildenhall, Suffolk,
and in 1626 Prebendary of Ely.1 On May 26, 1631, also
Prebendary of Whitchurch in the church of Wells, which
stall he retained till his death. That at Ely he resigned.
He was made Professor at the Scotch University of Aberdeen.
He was chosen to the see of Dumblane March 28, 1635, but
not consecrated until February 11, 1636. His abode in
Scotland was of no long continuance. He appears to have
been unfavourably received there, and is charged with inno
vating in the Semi-Pelagian direction. He therefore returned
to England. He died probably at Canterbury September 23,
1639, and was buried in the Cathedral in St. Mary's, now
called the Dean's Chapel, a very elegant addition to that
Cathedral, built by Prior Goldstone who died in 1468. His
epitaph is as follows : u Reverendissimus in Christo Pater,
Jacobus Wedderburnus, Taoduni in Scotia natus ; sacelli regii
ibidem Decanus; denique Dunblanensis sedis per annos iv
episcopus; vir antiques probitatis et fidei magnumque ob
excellentem doctritfam patrise sues ornamentum H. S. E.
Obiit An. Dom. MDCXXXIX. 23 die Sept. ^Etatis Liv."2
Upon Sunday, Christmas-day, Bishop Andrewes preached
before the King at Whitehall his truly Christian discourse
upon the name Immanuel. Here he saith : tc I shall not need
to tell you that in nobiscum (with us) there is mecum (with
me). Out of this generality of with us in gross may every one
deduce his own particular with me, and me, and me. For all
put together make but nobiscum (with us)." Then citing the
first verse of the thirtieth chapter of Proverbs, according to the
Vulgate, he adds, " The wise man out of Immanuel, (that is)
God with us, doth deduce Ithiel, (that is) God with me, his
own private interest. And St. Paul, when he had said to the
Ephesians, of Christ, l Who loved us and gave himself for us
might with good right say to the Galatians, ' Who loved me
and gave himself for me.'" He proceeds to observe that we
cannot estimate the force of these words with us aright, unless
we consider what we should have been without him ; also that
he is a sign both from above and from beneath, from above as
God, from beneath as man. He is with us not in nature only
as man, but even as sinful man. Though not like us in sin,
he is by unity of person with us even here. So St. Paul said,
he was made sin.
li With us to eat butter and honey seemeth much, and it is
so for God. What say ye, to drink vinegar and gall ? This
is much more I am sure ; yet that he did. I cannot here say
with uSj \\\ifor us ; even drank of the cup with the dregs of
the wrath of God, which passed not from him that it might
pass from us, and we not drink it.
" This, this is the great with us ; for of this follow all the
rest. With us once thus, and then with us in his oblation on
the altar of the Temple ; with us in his -sacrifice on the altar
of the cross ; with us in all the virtues and merits of his life ;
with us in his satisfaction and satis-passion both of his death;
with us in his resurrection to raise us up from the earth ;
with us in his ascension to exalt us to heaven ; with us even
then when he seemed to be taken from us, that day by his
Spirit as this day by his flesh."
Thus full of devout affection, the true spirit of holy elo
quence, was this good bishop and reverend father of the English
Church : if that name be at all applicable to mortal pastors,
then rarely better bestowed than upon him.
CHAPTER XVI.
Page 395
Bishop Andrewes with the King at Cambridge 1615 — His Easter
Sermon — Bishop Wren — Andrewes' Sermon on our Lord's Bap
tism — j)r. John Bois, Prebendary of Ely — Bishop Andrewes'
Sermon on the 5th of November — Dr. Balcanqual — Bishop An-
Sermon on Micah v.
THE first transaction in which we find our prelate engaged
in 1615 was an ordination on the 25th of February (probably
at Ely Chapel, Holborn) when he ordained William Beale,
M.A., deacon, and Christopher Wren, M.A., afterward Dean
of Windsor, and Thomas Macarness, M.A. of King's College,
priests. William Beale was B.A. not of Pembroke but of
Jesus College, Cambridge, 1610, M.A. 1613, B.D. 1620, and
D.D. 1627. He has been said, but probably without authority,
to have been Archdeacon of Caermarthen, and to have been
collated to that preferment 3rd January, 161f , but he was not
ordained at that time. The name is given in Le Neve as
Beale or Beeley. He was brother to Jerome Beale, Fellow of
Pembroke Hall 9th October, 1598, and Master in 1618. He
was born in Worcestershire, perhaps at Beoley in that county,
whence we find his name spelt both Beale and Beeley.
As his brother had been removed from Christ College to
Pembroke Hall, so had he from Trinity to Jesus College.
He was a native of Oxfordshire (according to Sherman), and
was admitted a Fellow of Jesus College in 1611. As a tutor
he was celebrated for the many pupils of illustrious rank
whom he had brought up. He was made Master of Jesus
College July 14, 1632, by Dr. Francis White, Bishop of
Ely, in the place of his unworthy successor, Dr. Eoger
Andrewes, who for his misrule was the aversion of his College,
and whom nevertheless we find loaded with preferments by
his brother the Bishop ; a point which as it cannot be com
mended, so neither ought it to be concealed.
In 1633 Dr. Beale was removed hence to the Mastership
of St. John's College. He was made Eector of Cottingham
near Buckingham in Northamptonshire, and on October 31st,
1637, of Paulerspury near Towcester, on the presentation of
the King, being in high favour with Laud, and accounted an
Anti-Predestinarian. He was deprived of his Mastership
March 13, 1644, and nominated to the Deanery of Ely 1645,
but never put in possession. Having taken part in gathering
and conveying the plate belonging to the University to the
King, he was, with Dr. Sterne, Master of Jesus College, and
Dr. Martin, Master of Queens' College, carried prisoner to
London. After having been in prison some time, but under
three years, the period assigned in Carter's History of the
University of Cambridge, he fled to Madrid in company with
Lord Cottington, the King's Ambassador. He is there said
to have lived in his family. He died at Madrid October 1st,
1651, and being denied Christian burial, was privately buried
in the Ambassador's garden.
Thomas Macarness was B.A. 1610, M.A. 1614, of King's
College, Cambridge.
The King in very disadvantageous weather visited Cam
bridge with the Prince of Wales, afterward King Charles I.
fl The King made his entry there/' wrote Mr. Chamberlain to
Sir Dudley Carleton then at Turin, " the 7th of this present
[in March] with as much solemnity and concourse of gallants
and great men as the hard weather and extreme foul ways
would permit. The Prince came along with him, but not the
Queen, by reason, as it is said, that she was not invited,
which error is rather imputed to their Chancellor than to the
scholars, that understood not these courses." The Chancellor
was Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, Lord Treasurer. He
had been elected 8th July, 1614, on the death of Henry
Howard, Earl of Northampton, and held that office till his
own death, May 28th, 1626. He was Thomas Lord Howard
of Walden before he was advanced to the title of Earl of
Suffolk by James the First in 1603. He was the son of
Thomas, fourth Duke of Norfolk, (who was beheaded on
Tower Hill in 1573), by his second wife Margaret, daughter
and sole heir of Thomas Lord Audley of Walden, K.G.
and Chancellor of England. He was restored in blood by
Act of Parliament in 1584, and in 1588, being in that
memorable engagement of the Spanish Armada, was by the
Lord High Admiral knighted at sea for his good services
therein, and made by Queen Elizabeth Lord Howard of
Walden. In the neighbourhood of Saffron Walden he built
the very noble and once extensive mansion called Audley
End. James made him first his Chamberlain, and afterwards
Lord High Treasurer. He built Audley End, designing it
for a palace for his sovereign ; and when it was completed with
all the taste and elegance of that magnificent period, the King
was invited to see it, and as he passed to Newmarket he took
up a night's lodging there ; when, after having viewed it with
great astonishment, he was asked by the Earl how he approved
of it. He answered, "Very well, but troth, man, it is too
much for a King, but it may do for a Lord High Treasurer;"
and so left it upon the Earl's hands, who is reported to have
had then an estate of £50,000 per annum. However Charles II.
purchased it, and so it became and continued a royal palace
until the reign of William III., who, finding that there was
great truth in the remark of King James, regranted it to the
family of its founder. Henry Earl of Suffolk hereupon pulled
down the greater part of it. The Earl died at Suffolk House
(which occupied the site of the present Suffolk Street) in
Westminster, May 28, 1626.
To return to the royal visit. The Lord Treasurer is said
to have expended a thousand pounds a day on this occasion.
His family appear to have constituted no small part of the
spectacle, there being few or no noble ladies present but such
as were of his own kindred ; as Alethsea the Countess of
Arundel, youngest daughter and coheir of Gilbert Talbot,
seventh Earl of Shrewsbury, married to Thomas Howard
Earl of Arundel j1 her sister the Lady Elizabeth Grey, the
Earl of Shrewsbury's second daughter, married to Sir Henry
Grey, Lord of Kuthin, son of Charles Grey, Earl of Kent ;2
the Countess of Suffolk (the Earl's second wife), Catherine,
eldest daughter and coheir of Sir Henry Knyvett of Chorlton
in Wilts, Knt. ;3 with her daughters, namely, Frances her second
daughter, not long after too well known by her divorce from
the Earl of Essex and subsequent marriage with Robert Carr,
Earl of Somerset ; and Catherine, Countess of Salisbury, the
third daughter of the Countess of Suffolk f together with the
Lady Walden, Elizabeth, daughter and coheir to George,
Lord Hume, Earl of Dunbar ;5 and lastly, Elizabeth, daughter
and sole heir of William Basset, Esq., after whose death she
was married to William Cavendish, Duke of Newcastle.6
Fuller relates that the King's entertainment at Cambridge
cost the Earl of Suffolk five thousand pounds and up
wards ;7 and Chamberlain that the Earl spent twenty-six tun
of wine in five days. He lodged and kept his table at St.
John's College, but his lady and her retinue at Magdalene
College, of which her grandfather Audley, Lord Chancellor,
was a kind of second or co-founder. To him the College owes
its present name, having been previously called Buckingham
Hall (1519) from Edward Stafford, third Duke of Bucking
ham. The King and Prince Charles lay at Trinity College,
where the plays were represented. The hall was so well
ordered for room, that above two thousand persons were
accommodated.
On the first day, Tuesday the 7th of March, the King
attended a Divinity Act which was kept by Dr. Davenant,
Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity and President of
Queens' College. He disputed on three questions. Nulla
est temporalis Papce potestas super Reges in ordine ad bonum
spirituale. The affirmative had been maintained by Bellar-
mine (lib. v. De Rom. Pont. cap. 6), who professed to mode-
rate the doctrine taught up to his time respecting the power
of the Pope, by changing his dominion over all things into an
indirect instead of a direct power. Augustinus Triumphus,
of the order of Eremites of St. Augustine, of the country of
Ancona, and who was present at the Second Council of Lyons
in 1274 (called the Fourteenth General Council, when a
forced union of the Greek and Latin Churches took place
under Pope Gregory X. and the Emperor Michael Palgeologus,
and which lasted but a few years owing to the imperiousness
of Pope Martin IV.), had taught without reserve the direct
dominion of the Roman Pontiff over the whole world in
things both political and ecclesiastical. In this he had been
followed by Alvarus Pelagius, a Spaniard of the Friars
Minorites, Penitentiary to the Pope and Bishop of Corunna,
early in the next century, and many others. Bellarmine indeed
only threw a veil over the monstrosity of the papal claims by
asserting an indirect in the place of a direct dominion. Others
however continued to affirm the Pope's dominion in the more
undisguised form, as Augustinus Steuchus of Eugubium or
Gubbio (at the foot of the Apennines above Perugia), who
died in 1550, and a host besides, whose names are given in Dr.
John Gerhard's Confessio Catholica.1 Bellarmine, whilst he
learnedly refuted the older opinion, as Dr. Field shews at
length in the 44th chapter of his 5th book Of the Church, gave
back to the Pope with his left hand all that he appeared to
take from him with his right ; grounding his power to depose
princes and to dispose of their kingdoms on his right in
or dine ad lonum spirituale, " that is, in a kind of reference to
the procuring and setting forward of the spiritual good."
This claim the learned Dr. Field exposes and refutes in the
45th and 46th chapters of his 5th book.2
In this Act the eminently learned and pious Davenant,
afterward Bishop of Salisbury, was answerer, and the muni
ficent and very able Eegius Divinity Professor and Master of
Peterhouse, Dr. John Richardson, one of the opposers. In
behalf of the excommunicating of kings, Dr. Kichardson
vigorously pressed the practice of St. Ambrose, who excom
municated the Emperor Theodosius. The King with some
warmth replied, Profecto fuit hoc db Ambrosio insolentissime
factum; upon which Dr. Richardson answered, "Responsum
vere regium et Alexandro dignum; hoc non est argumenta
dissolvere sed dissecare," (a truly royal answer and worthy of
Alexander, "this is not to untie but to cut arguments"), and
sitting down desisted from any further dispute.
The second thesis was, Infallibilis fidei determinatio non est
annexa cathedrae, Papali. Dr. Field states the general opinion
in the Romish Church at this time to have been, that the Pope
whether he might err personally or not, yet could not tl define
for falsehood," i. e. could not err as Pope. Bellarmine main
tained, but as Field proved, falsely, that all "Catholics" con
sented that the Pope with a General Council could not err.1
The third thesis was, Gceca obedientia est illicita. This
was against that doctrine of implicit and unquestioning obe
dience which is the foundation of the Jesuit system, and
which makes it therefore an essentially dangerous, irreligious,
and immoral institution, namely, that the mind, will, and con
science of the members of that Society should be one and the
same with the mind, will, and conscience of their superior.
So Ignatius Loyola, in the epistle De Virtute Obedientice at the
end of the Rules of the Society : " Obedience comprehends not
only the execution, that one should do what he is commanded,
and the will, that he should do it willingly, but also the
judgment, that whatsoever the superior thinks and enjoins,
the same should appear true and right to his inferior, in so far
as I have said the will can bend the understanding by its
own power."2
The first night's entertainment was a comedy made and
acted by St. John's men. It is but slightingly alluded to by
Chamberlain in that letter to Dudley Carleton from which so
much of our information respecting the royal visit is drawn.
A Law Act was moderated by Dr. Henry Mutlow, first
Gresham Professor of Civil Law. He had been a Fellow of
King's College, was Proctor in 1589 and 1593, a Burgess of
Parliament, many years Public Orator ; he died 1634, aged
eighty years, and was buried at St. Mary's.
The second night, March 8, the celebrated comedy of
Ignoramus was acted to the great entertainment of the King,
who was the more pleased as the whole was a satire upon the
professors of the common law, for which his imperial bias
would gladly have substituted the civil law as more in unison
with his favourite theoiy of absolute monarchy.
The author was the Kev. George Euggle, whose family
name was derived from Eugely in Staffordshire. He had
been educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was
B.A. 1594, and M.A. 1597. He was thence transferred to a
fellowship and tutorship at Clare Hall 1598, a time when
that foundation was favoured with a constellation of genius
and learning, as we have noticed elsewhere. He was born at
Lavenham in Suffolk. He was Taxor of the University in
1604, went to Oxford when the King visited that University
in 1605, and was there incorporated M.A. He resigned his
fellowship in 1620, and died about a year after. His Igno
ramus was not published until some years after his death,
first in 1630, then in eight editions to one at Dublin inclusive
in 1736, and lastly, with ample notes and a valuable life of
Euggle by Sir J. S. Hawkins, in 1787. A translation by Eobert
Codrington, M.A. of Magdalene College, Oxford, appeared in
1662, and a mutilated one in 1678, under the title of The
English Laicyer, a Comedy acted at the Royal Theatre;
written by Edward Ravenscroft, Gent., in 1678. The play was
acted by (amongst others) several members of the University
in holy orders, which was not overlooked at Oxford, where a
more discreet course had been observed in 1605. Amongst
them were Towers, afterwards Bishop of Peterborough, Bar-
grave, Dean of Canterbury, Love, Dean of Ely, and Mason
of Pembroke Hall, Dean of Sarum. Spencer Compton, then
a youth only thirteen years of age, only son of Lord Compton,
and of Queens' College, Cambridge, attracted especial observa
tion. He personated three several characters in this comedy.
Mr. John Holies, of Christ College, eldest son of Sir John
[Holies, whom he succeeded as second Earl of Clare in 1637,
was another of the actors. He was a man of honour and
courage, and remarkable for his moderation in the troubles of
the ensuing reign. He died January 2, 1665, and was
succeeded by his son Gilbert. Love, afterwards Dean of Ely,
was also with Bargrave of Clare Hall.
In the Physic Act the King's Physician, Sir Edward
Radcliffe, distinguished himself. He was brother of Dr.
Jeremiah Radcliffe, one of the Senior Fellows of Trinity
College, and also one of the translators of the Bible. He
some time lived at Orwell, where his brother was Rector,
and erected a monument to his memory. He was grandson
of Ralph, a celebrated schoolmaster at Hitchin.1 He died
September 1631, aged 78. The family still reside at the
Priory near Hitchin.
On the third night, March 9th, a comedy, Albumazar, was
acted before the King. Its author was Mr. Tomkis, scholar
of Trinity College 1594, and B.A. 1598. The comedy was
published in quarto in 1615, and again in 1634. It is re
printed in the ninth volume of Dodsley's Collection. Tomkis
was in part indebted, as was also Ruggle, to John Baptist
Porta, an Italian dramatist of the preceding century.
The last evening Melanihe, a Latin pastoral composed by
Mr. afterwards Dr. Brook,2 was acted.
Chamberlain, who did not exercise the good feeling of the
witty Corbet,3 who being asked to criticise the performances
of the University, answered that he had left his malice and
judgment at home, and came thither only to commend, admits
that the Philosophy Act was excellently kept.
After it was concluded Bishop Andrewes sent the mode
rator, the answerer, the varier or prevaricator, and one of the
repliers, who were all of his College, twenty angels each.
Wren was answerer or respondent ; Preston, tutor of Queens'
College, the celebrated Puritan, was first opponent ; Dr. Reade
of Pembroke Hall was moderator.
Alexander Eeade, B.A., was chosen to a Fellowship at
Pembroke Hall November 5th, 1605, whilst Harsnet was
Master ; Humanity Lecturer (the first of Mr. Farr's founda
tion) 1616. Mr. Farr was Henry Farr, Fellow 3rd November
1570, whilst Dr. John Young, afterward Bishop of Rochester,
was Master; he was M.A. 1574, and Junior Proctor 1586.
Reade held the same office in 1617, had a testimonial for
orders in 1618, was made D.D. and President,^, e. next to the
Master or Vice-Master, in 1624, and Perpetual Curate or
Minister of Yately, a small preferment in the gift of the
Master of St. Cross' Hospital, on the northern border of
Hampshire, east of Bramshill Park. He died about 1628.
" Their moderator was no fool ;
He far from Cambridge kept a school."
For this last information we are indebted to " A grave
poem, as it was presented in Latin by certain divines before
his Majesty in Cambridge, by way of interlude, styled Liber
novus de adventu Regis ad Cantabrigiam. Faithfully done
into English with some liberal advantage ; made rather to be
sung than read. To the tune of Bonny Nell" It is inserted
in Corbet's poems, and has been reprinted by Sir J. S. Hawkins
in his edition of Ignoramus, and by Nichols in his Royal
Progresses.
The question was whether dogs could make syllogisms,
suggested by a passage from Chrysippus in Sir W. Raleigh's
Sceptic, in which the position is affirmed. Wren, whose
abilities had early recommended him to the kind patronage of
Andrewes, pleaded a kind of divine right for the King's
hounds. Fuller in his Worthies has in his own way per
petuated this Act. After identifying him from his arms with
the worshipful family of the Wrens in Northumberland, he
adds, l He was bred Fellow of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge,
where he kept the extraordinary Philosophy Act before King
James. I say, kept it with no less praise to himself than
pleasure to the King, where, if men should forget, even dogs
would remember his seasonable distinction, what the King's
hounds could perform above others by virtue of their pre
rogative.11
On Easter-day, April 9, Bishop Andrewes preached before
the King at Whitehall a sermon of the most unparalleled
ingenuity upon those words of our Lord, Destroy this Temple,
and within three days I will raise it up again. His prose
continually reminds us throughout of Herbert's verse, the
same fertility of invention, the same facility of application.
He notes how the sign our Lord gave the Pharisees was far
greater than that which was in their thoughts. The Temple
men could raise again, but not this temple the body.
He takes occasion to condemn the avaricious sacrilege of
his times, that will leave nothing standing of the house of
God, not even the roof if it be of lead. He briefly touches on
the typical character of the Temple and its furniture, adducing
St. Ambrose, saying, " that is truly a temple wherein is. the
purification of our sins."
Toward the end he observes that we make our bodies
anything rather than temples, or if temples, temples of Ceres,
Bacchus, Venus. " But if this be the fruit of our life, and we
have no other but this, to fill and farce our bodies, to make
them shrines of pride, and to maintain them in this excess, to
make a money-change2 of all besides, Commonwealth, Church,
and all, 1 know not well what to say to it. I doubt at their
rising they will rather make blocks for hell-fire than be made
pillars in the temple of God, in the holy places made without
hands."
In the course of this year Bishop Andrewes added Matthew
Wren (afterward Bishop of Ely) to the number of his chap
lains. He had been Fellow of Pembroke College from 1605,
and on January 20, 1610, had been preferred by the same
patron to the Vicarage of Harston, and on March 26, 1614, to
that of Barton. These he resigned, Harston in November
1615, and Barton in the year following, being instituted on
the gift of Bishop Andrewes to the Rectory of Teversham this
same year, in which he was also made his chaplain, on May
15. His learning was such as to rank him amongst the first
scholars of the University ; and by his application to whatsoever
affairs concerned the interest of the Colleges to which he suc
cessively belonged, Pembroke and St. Peter's College, he has
been deservedly regarded by those societies as one of their
principal benefactors. Such merits could not fail to attach
Andrewes to him, who was himself unrivalled as a promoter
of learning and of learned men. Thus Wren was brought
into the royal presence, and all courtly favours from that time
flowed in upon him, if not in rapid yet in sure succession.
In 1621 he wras made Chaplain to Prince Charles, and accom
panied him in that imprudent and unsuccessful journey to
Spain. On his return he was in May 1624 made Eector of
Bingham in the county of Nottingham. The town itself, still
of no great size, owed what little importance it possessed to
a noble collegiate church, now no longer collegiate, but highly
interesting for its architectural features. This preferment was
of considerable value. Not long before, on the preceding 10th
November 1623, he was installed in the first stall of Win
chester through Andrewes, then Bishop of that see. On July
26, 1625, he was elected Master of Peterhouse, and in 1628
was made Dean of Windsor and Registrar of the Order of
the Garter. Some time after he was made Clerk of the
Closet, and attended the King to Scotland. In 1634 he was
promoted to a prebend in the abbey-church of Westminster,
in the room of Dr. John Wilson, and the same year was
consecrated to the see of Hereford on the death of the learned
Dr. Augustine Lindsell. In the following year he was trans
lated to Norwich on the decease of the poetical Bishop Corbett.
On the death of Bishop White he was removed to Ely.
Whilst Master of Peterhouse he collected contributions and
built the college chapel, which was dedicated March 17, 1632.
With the same liberality, on his restoration to his see after an
unjust imprisonment of eighteen years in the Tower, he built
a new chapel to Pembroke College, elegantly designed by the
famous Sir Christopher Wren, and gave to the College the
manor of Hardwick near Cambridge, to keep it in repair. The
chapel of Pembroke College cost him above £5000. The
first stone was laid on May 13, 1663, by Dr. Mark Frank,1
who had in the preceding year succeeded to the Mastership in
the place of Dr. Benjamin Laney, Bishop of Peterborough.
Bishop Wren himself consecrated it upon St. Matthew's-day,
September 21, 1665. He died at Ely House, Holborn, April
24, 1667.
As a prelate and theologian Wren possessed neither the
prudence nor the sound and solid piety of his great patron
Andrewes. He professed to adhere to him as a ritualist, but
in regard of that great practical point, the observance of the
Lord's-day, he departed from the doctrine of Bishop Andrewes.
That prelate maintained the divine institution of the day and
the sanctification of the whole of it. Not so Bishop Wren,
who although not guilty in so many instances as were objected
to him, yet acknowledged that he had excommunicated some
of his clergy for not publishing the King's declaration of the
Book of Sports?
He was very rigid in confining his clergy to the form of
the bidding prayer, which form itself was continually varied
and accommodated to the occasion in the time of Bishop
Andrewes, as may be seen in the Bidding Prayers inserted in
his Posthumous Works. Bishop Wren was not therefore
justified in the use which he made of his name in his defence.8
George Herbert used his own form,4 and the 55th canon itself
permits each minister and preacher to frame his own prayer
upon the model of the canon, unrestrained as to the very form
itself.
Wren was also over-zealous for the custom of bowing to
the altar, for which in his defence he alleged without any
ground Jewel's Defence of his Apology. There in page 203
(ed. Lond. 1565) Jewel has not one word of bowing to the
communion-table, but only, " kneeling, bowing, standing up,
and other like are commendable gestures and tokens of de
votion, so long as the people understandeth what they mean."
He more pertinently appealed to Bishop Morton on the
Institution of the Sacrament^ who however is entirely silent
upon the mystical meaning of bowing as it is now understood
by some, and as it was perhaps in the mind of Laud himself.
11 The use of bowing toward the Lord's table hath in it no
other nature or meaning than Daniel his kneeling with his
face towards Jerusalem and the Temple. For as this was a
testification of his joint society in that religious worship which
had been exercised in the Temple and altar thereof at Jeru
salem, so ours is a symbol of our union in profession with
them who do faithfully communicate at the table of the Lord."
He again has recourse to the name of Andrewes in behalf of
bowing to the holy table. But Andrewes at least, as Dr. Fuller
has left on record, did not impose upon any in any of the dio
ceses which he governed, unauthorized ceremonies. No wonder
that Wren incurred the displeasure of those who felt that from
his hands they had suffered unjustly, and who saw clearly
that overmuch zeal for such external points was incompatible
with purity of doctrine and with the maintenance of the
reformed faith. It was indeed a sort of Pharisaism that
punctiliously bowed at the altar, and the next moment
looked on with satisfaction at the congregation released from
church to dance around the maypole. This was to set up
human institutions (the Book of Sports) practically and
imperiously above divine, 'the day which the Lord hath
made.'
On April 16th the Council wrote to the Bishop to request
him to supervise the priests to be sent to Wisbeach Castle,
and to appoint learned divines to converse with those who
might desire it. Letters were sent to the neighbouring
justices cautioning them against any attempt at escape or
rescue. Orders were sent at the same time for the better
government of the said priests to Matthias Taylor, Keeper of
the Castle.
Amongst these seem to have been Alexander Faircloth,
Richard Cooper, George Muskett, and John Ainsworth.
On May 24th the Bishop wrote to the Keeper the answers
of the Council to divers points of the requests made by the
priests. Their breviaries were to be restored to them, and
they permitted to see or write to friends who wished to relieve
them without the names being known. He wrote further
that he could not allow his own house to be used for the
prisoners, as it had been during the vacancy of the see.1
The Romish historian Dod highly eulogizes George Mus
kett alias Fisher, which latter he regards as his true name.
He says that he had a brother at Attlebridge in Norfolk near
Repham in the hundred of Taverham. He was educated at
the English College at Rome, and was ordained priest there.
He resided mostly in London, and was very zealous in prose
lytizing to his communion. He and the Jesuit Fisher were
engaged for two days, April 21 and 22, 1621, in controversy
with Drs. Goad and Featly. He was in prison in 1635, being
then 53 years old. He was condemned to die, being convicted
of saying mass, but remained twenty years a prisoner under
sentence. But all this time, says Dod, he found means to
exercise his functions with the same success as if he had
enjoyed his liberty. He remained a prisoner until 1641,
having been reprieved by the Queen's intercession. He was
chosen to succeed Dr. Kellison as President of the English
College at Douay. Again the watchful zeal of Henrietta,
directed by those about her, found an opportunity of for
warding the plans of Rome and the interests of the Romish
Church. The Queen prevailed to have his imprisonment
exchanged for exile. He arrived at Douay November 14th,
1641. He died of consumption December 24th, 1645. In
his presidentship he was succeeded by Dr. William Hyde.
Muskett was called at Rome, Flos cleri Anglican* — The
flower of the English clergy.
On May 28th1 Andrewes preached before the King at
Greenwich upon our Lord's baptism. Here the peculiar gift
of his prolific genius appeared to great advantage, in illus
trating from analogy the design of our Lord's baptism as our
federal head ; the character of his baptism as the sanctification
and pattern of ours ; and the dovelike spirit of true Chris
tianity and of the true Church in contradistinction to the
vulturelike nature of the Church of Eome. " The Holy
Ghost is a dove, and he makes Christ's spouse the Church a
dove, a term so oft iterate in the Canticles and so much stood
on by S. Augustine and the Fathers, that they make no
question, no dove no Church. St. Peter," he adds, " was Bar-
Jona, the son of a dove, and without such a dovelike spirit
there is no remission of sins, no Holy Ghost in the Church."2
Upon July 9th our prelate assisted at the consecration of
Dr. Richard Milbourne to the see of St. David's. The other
prelates were Archbishop Abbot, Dr. John King, Bishop of
London, Buckeridge, Bishop of Rochester, and Dr. John
Overall, who had in April 1614 been raised to the see of
Lichfield and Coventry. Dr. Richard Milbourne was of a
Pembrokeshire family but a native of London. He was
educated at Winchester School and at Queens' College,
Cambridge, was successively Rector of Sevenoaks, Chaplain
to Prince Henry, Precentor of St. David's, and Dean of
Rochester. This last preferment he resigned in the following
year, and was succeeded by Dr. Robert Scott.3 In 1621 Dr.
Milbourne was translated from St. David's to Carlisle, and
Laud was consecrated to the former see. He died in 1624,
when Dr. Richard Senhouse was raised to his see of Carlisle.
Dr. Senhouse was also of the University of Cambridge, of
Trinity and then of St. John's College, and Chaplain first to
the Earl of Bedford and afterward of Prince Charles.
On Saturday August 5th our prelate being in attendance
upon the King, preached before him in Salisbury Cathedral,
from the four first verses of the 21st Psalm. This sermon,
preached before a concourse of people and of considerable
length, must have lost much of its effect from the unhappy
custom, for which nevertheless our prelate himself contended,
of interspersing every ten lines with Latin.
On the 25th of this month Bishop Andrewes preferred the
learned John Boys to the second stall in his cathedral of Ely.
"At the vacancy of the prebend he was sent for to London,"
writes his biographer Anthony Walker, u by Lancelot An
drewes, then Lord Bishop of Ely, who bestowed it upon him
unasked for. When he had given him, as we commonly say,
joy of it (which was his first salutation at his coming to him),
he told him ' that he did bestow it freely on him without any
one moving him thereto ; though,' said he, l some pickthanks
will be saying they stood your friends herein.' Which pre
diction proved very true."1
Under the patronage and probably at the request of Bishop
Andrewes, Boys began his comparison of the Vulgate with
the modern versions of the New Testament by Beza and
others, to point out where the moderns had needlessly varied
from the Vulgate. This work he completed to the end of the
Acts of the Apostles, but upon the death of Bishop Andrewes
desisted from his undertaking, having then entered but a little
way into the Epistle to the Romans.2 These notes, to the
end of the Acts, appeared in 1656, entitled, Veteris Interpretis
cum Beza aliisque Eecentioribus Collatio in Quatuor Evangeliis
et Apostolorum Actis. In qua annon scepius absquejustd satis
causa hi ab illo discesserint disquiritur , &c.
Thus closely connected as is the name of Boys with that
of Andrewes, it may not be out of place to add a brief notice
of him, taken from the memoirs from which has been drawn
the anecdote relating to his promotion at Ely.
His grandfather John Boys was an inhabitant of Halifax
in Yorkshire, where also his father William was born. His
father was sent to Cambridge and lodged in Michael House
(afterwards swallowed up in Trinity College), but went to
lectures to St. John's College to Mr. John Seaton, afterward
D.D. and Prebendary of Winchester, and author of a com
pendium of logic for the use of junior scholars. Mr. William
Boys entered into holy orders, but becoming a convert to the
doctrine of the Reformers, withdrew himself from the Uni
versity and took a farm at Nettlestead, between Hadleigh and
Needham Market, and married a gentlewoman named Mirable
Pooley, of an ancient and respectable family. Her son, the
learned translator, records of her that she had read the Bible
over twelve times, and the Book of Martyrs twice, besides
other books not a few.1 When Queen Elizabeth came to the
throne he took upon him to serve the cure of Elmset, between
Nettlestead and Hadleigh ; and on the death of the incumbent
was presented by the Lord Keeper to the Rectory, and not
long after to the Rectory of West Stow by his brother Mr.
Pooley, a small parish between Bury St. Edmund's and
Mildenhall. He died in his sixty-eighth year, and his widow
survived him about ten years, dying about her seventy-eighth
year.
His son John was born January 3, 1560, at Nettlestead.
His father taught him to write Hebrew when he was but six
years old, and took great pains himself in his education,
sending him also daily to school at Hadleigh, two miles from
his house at Elmset. There commenced his acquaintance
with the learned Dr. John Overall, Dean of St. Paul's and
afterwards Bishop of Norwich. He was admitted of St.
John's College under the tuition of Mr. Henry Coppinger on
the 1st of March, 1675.2 He was of the ancient family of
the Coppingers of Buxhall, between Stow Market and Laven-
ham. To St. John's College he was sent to be under Dr.
Still,1 who on the 21st of July in the preceding year had
been raised to the Mastership, being also Kector of Hadleigh.
In 1576 Dr. Still was made Archdeacon of Sudbury, and in
1577 advanced to the Mastership of Trinity College, Cam
bridge. His good management of the revenues of the latter
foundation is memorialized by Dr. Fuller in his Holy and
Profane State; and Walker, himself a Fellow of St. John's,
says of him at that College, " This is he who procured the
alteration of the College statutes, before which few Masters
continued seven years ; which gave occasion to the then
common merry saying, viz. c that the College was a good
horse, but that he would kick till Still went to court and got
new girths.' "
There were then in St. John's three Greek lectures read.
In the first grammar was taught, as is commonly now in
schools. In the second an easy author was explained in a
grammatical way. The third was of a more advanced kind.
A year was usually spent in attending upon the first course
of lectures, and two upon the second. Within six weeks,
however, Boys being a fair Greek scholar at the time of his
admission was remitted to the third and higher lecture.
Andrew Downes (in 1585 Eegius Greek Professor) then
lectured at St. John's five times a week with great diligence,
but took such delight in this young scholar as to read over to
him privately twelve of the more difficult Greek authors,
both in prose and verse. Boys was in his first year elected
to a scholarship.
York. This stall he resigned to Ambrose Coppinger, whom Dr. Toby Mathews
collated June 2, 1619. The Earl of Oxford being patron of Lavenham presented
Coppinger to it, and after resolving to keep back from him all tithe of his park
(almost half the land of the parish), on Coppinger' s offering rather to resign
than be a party to such sacrilege, retracted his ill-made resolution. But the
Earl's successor being a minor, his agent iniquitously put this exemplary person
to the cost of £1600 before he could recover the rights of the Church. He was
for forty-five years the very laborious and charitable incumbent of Lavenham,
where he died on St. Thomas' s-day, 1662, in his seventy-second year.— See
Fuller's Church Hist. b. x. c. 6.
In 1577 his tutor Henry Coppinger was advanced by the
Queen to the Mastership of Magdalene College, whereupon
he left his Fellowship and went to Magdalene and took his
pupil Boys along with him. This stretch of her prerogative
however was not suffered to pass without animadversion, for
the appointment belonged to the Earl of Suffolk. Coppinger
therefore resigned, and lost both his Mastership and Fellow
ship. Boys was readmitted to his scholarship, and in due
time chosen a Fellow, having the small-pox upon him at the
time of his election. Whilst a Fellow he continued his
studies in the summer in the University Library from four
in the morning till eight at night. He resided upon his
Fellowship, and delayed receiving holy orders the full time
that the College statutes permitted him. On Friday, June 21,
1583 (having been eight years a member of St. John's Col
lege) he was ordained deacon, and on the following day,
by dispensation, priest by Dr. Edmund Freake, Bishop of
Norwich. Such was the esteem in which Boys was held by
Dr. Whitaker (who, on the elevation of Dr. Richard Howland
to the see of Peterborough, was made Master of St. John's
on St. Matthew's-day, February 25, 1586,) that every Friday
evening he came to Boys' chamber to hear his pupils declaim.
This may be observed as an instance also of the forgiving and
kind spirit of that famous controversialist, for Boys had voted
against his election. However as he acknowledged to Walker
his sorrow afterward for the part he then took, so he probably
evinced to Whitaker, after his better knowledge of him, the
deference and regard that were his due. Dr. Whitaker died
December 4, 1595. Robert (afterwards Sir Robert) Naunton,
Fellow of Trinity College and University Orator, was ap
pointed to deliver the oration at Great St. Mary's, and Boys
in his own College. He has testified in his notes, to the
commendation of Whitaker, that under his governance learning,
if at any time, flourished and increased, but that after his death
the College was augmented in its buildings but declined in
letters. Mr. Boys was afterwards made Philosophy Lecturer,
and in the course of one year commented upon the greater
part of Plato's Timceus. These lectures were held in the
schools, the Vice-Chancellor and a great concourse of auditors
flocking to him. He was for ten years chief Greek Lecturer
in his College, and besides the College lecture read a Greek
lecture at four of the clock in the morning in his own chamber,
which was frequented by many of the Fellows. At the death
of his father, his mother by request commanding him that it
might be continued to her for a place of abode, he asked Mr.
Pooley for the living of West Stow, which he promptly gave
him, but resigned upon Mr. Pooley 's taking his mother under
his own roof.
About 1596 the Earl of Salisbury made Boys one of his
chaplains, who the same year thus became possessed of the
rectory of Boxworth in the county of Cambridge. lt When he
was about thirty-six years old Mr. Holt, Kector of Boxworth,
dying, left the advowson of that living in part of a portion
to one of his daughters, requesting of some of his friends
that, if it might be by them procured, Mr. Boys of St. John's
might become his successor by the marriage of his daughter.
Whereof when he was advertised he went over to see her, and
soon after, they taking a liking to each other, he was pre
sented to the parsonage, and instituted by Archbishop Whit-
gift, it being then the great vacation of the see1 of Ely." He
was instituted October 13, 1596. "The College at his
departure gave him £100, though I must confess," adds
Walker, " that was then custom more than courtesy."
From Boxworth he came constantly into the University to
hear the lectures of the Greek and Hebrew Professors,
Downes and Lively (the former of St. John's, the latter of
Trinity College), as also of the Regius Divinity Professor,
his friend Dr. Overall. Meanwhile he fell into debt and was
obliged to part with his library, a rare collection of classical
authors. He was, moreover, unhappy for a while in his
domestic relations, but a reunion of affection ensued, and
those affections were but the more confirmed. About twelve
of the neighbouring clergy met every Friday at each other's
house to dinner, amongst whom Boys was one. Then they
gave an account of their studies, and discussed and resolved
such questions as might be propounded.
He was employed in tuition and kept some young scholars
in his house, as well for the instruction of his own children
and those of the gentry who were entrusted to him, as of the
poorer children of his parish.
When the present translation of the Bible was commenced,
he, with Dr. Duport, Master of Jesus College, Dr. William
Branthwayt, Master of Gonville and Caius College, Ward,
afterward Master of Sidney College, Dr. Jeremiah Kadcliffe,
one of the Senior Fellows of Trinity College, Professor
Downes, Mr. afterward Dr. Ward, Fellow of Queens' College,
Prebendary of Chichester, and also by the same patron, his
old scholar, Bishop Andrewes, Rector of Bishop's Waltham,
was appointed to undertake the Apocrypha. But having
finished his portion, he also relieved another of another
College, whither he went and lodged during the week until
that second portion was finished. The several companies of
translators were engaged upon the work four years, after
which two of each company were selected to review the whole
work, and to put it to the press. Of his company Boys
himself and his friend Downes were appointed to this second
labour. These (six in all) went daily to Stationers' Hall, and
in three quarters of a year finished their task. Whilst thus
engaged the Company of Stationers paid them 30s. per week.
Boys alone, it is said, took notes of their proceedings, and
these he kept till his dying day.
Coming to the knowledge of that lay-bishop, Sir Henry
Savile, as Walker pleasantly calls him, he read over for his
edition of St. Chrysostom the greater part of that voluminous
Father in the MSS., besides the supervising of both Sir
Henry's and his friend Downe's notes. It is probable that
but for the death of Sir Henry he would have been rewarded
for this labour with a Fellowship at Eton. He was indeed
nominated to a Fellowship in the projected Theological Col
lege at Chelsea, but the College and with it his Fellow
ship soon came to nothing. Bishop Andrewes rewarded his
labours as a translator, as we have seen, in 1615. He lived
however still at Boxworth till 1628 when he removed to
Ely, not sparing himself even in his old age, but preaching
not only in his own turn, but frequently for his friends, some
times only at an hour's warning. He was often called upon to
preach funeral sermons. Twice a year he went from Ely to
his living at Boxworth to administer the holy Communion, and
preach to his parishioners. At Ely he went twice, sometimes
thrice, a day to prayers in the Cathedral to his very death,
for he survived the suppression of the Liturgy by the Kebels
only five days. In his extreme old age he would study eight
hours a day. He read walking, and in his youth often walked
from college to his mother's house at West Stow to dinner,
which was above twenty miles. This he did doubtless between
about four and twelve at noon. Such were the primitive habits
of our literary giants. Not only to Sir Henry Savile but also
to that industrious patristic antiquary, Augustine Lindsell,
Bishop of Hereford, he rendered very considerable assistance.
He was very temperate, very charitable, very devout. To
the poor of Boxworth he sent annually forty shillings at
Christmas, besides the relief he gave them at his going to
them. Some poor person he feasted for some years on the
Lord's-day at his own table. He visited the prisoners, and
often sent or carried them money. He seldom began any
thing without invoking the blessing and help of God. He used
very many rather than very long prayers. He never carried
any book into the pulpit with him but his Bible, and though
a prodigy of learning, sought nothing so much as to be under
stood by the least instructed of his congregation. His wife
departed this life May 16, 1642, and after a most painful
illness which he endured with great resignation, entreating of
his children and all who were about him that if at any time
he expressed anything which savoured of impatience they would
tell him of it, he died upon Sunday, January 14, 1643, being
eighty-three years and eleven days old. He was buried on
February 6th, Mr. Thurston of St. John's College preaching
his funeral sermon.1
Return we now from this most worthy person, well worthy
of so great and renowned a patron to the patron himself, whom
we find on the 5th of November discoursing at Whitehall
very admirably upon the divine mercy : The Lord is good to
allj and his mercies are over all his works. Here indeed
he proceeds so far as to say that the very angels have some
need of mercy. " The very seraphim have somewhat to
cover. As for the cherubim they will set mercy a seat upon
the top of their wings." He accommodates a passage of St.
Chrysostom from his Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans :
" Great is the deep of my sins, but greater the abyss of the
mercy of God ;" and adds, " Great is the whirlpool of my
wicked works, but greater is the Bethesda, the wide and deep
gulph of the mercy of God that hath no bottom. And
indeed it were not truly said, It is above all his works (all his,
and much more then above all ours,) if any of all our works
were above it. No more then there is a Lamb that taketh
away the sins of the world if there were any sin of the world
he takes not away."
On November 29th Bishop Andrewes preferred Walter
Balcanqual, Fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge, to the
Vicarage of Harston (in the place of Wren). Balcanqual
was M.A. of Pembroke College 1609, elected to a Fellowship
there September 8, 1611, B.D. 1616, and in that year was
preferred to Waterbeach near Cambridge. In 1617 he was
made Master of the Savoy, and in 1618 was sent as the
representative of the Scotch Church to the Synod of Dort,
being at that time one of the King's Chaplains. The
Mastership of the Savoy he resigned in 1618, in favour of
the rapacious and unstable Mark Antony de Dominis. In
1621 that remarkable person left this kingdom, and Balcanqual
was reinstated in the Mastership of the Savoy. In 1624 he
was made Dean of Eochester, and in 1639 of Durham. He
escaped from the siege of York and took refuge at Chirk
Castle in Denbighshire, but sinking under the fatigue died
there on Christmas-day 1645. He was buried in the church,
and Sir Thomas Middleton of Chirk Castle erected a monu
ment to his memory. Bishop Pearson wrote his epitaph.
On December 3rd Bishop Andrewes, King, Bishop of
London, and Neile, Bishop of Lincoln, assisted Archbishop
Abbot at the consecration of the incomparably learned and
indefatigably laborious Dr. Eobert Abbot, Master of Balliol
College, and Kegius Professor of Divinity in the University
of Oxford, to the see of Salisbury, on the decease of Dr.
Henry Cotton of Magdalene College in that University.
Kobert Abbot was the eldest brother of the Archbishop,
and was born at Guildford in 1560. They were both edu
cated at the Free School there, founded by Edward VI. He
was sent to Balliol College, Oxford, 1575, and upon an
oration made by him the 17th of November, the day of Queen
Elizabeth's accession, was chosen a scholar of that famous
foundation. His brother George became a student there in
1578. Eobert took his degree of M.A. in 1582. At Oxford
he first distinguished himself by his eloquence as one of the
lecturers at Carfax Church in the High Street. He officiated
also for a time at Abingdon. He was, upon the first sermon
he preached at Worcester^ admitted to a lectureship in that
city, and was soon after, in 1588, appointed Hector of All
Saints, between Bridge Street and the Cathedral. John
Stanhope, Esq., hearing him preach at St. Paul's Cross, ap
pointed him Eector of the rich benefice of Bingham in
Nottinghamshire. He was made D.D. in 1597, and on the
accession of James I. one of his Majesty's Chaplains. On
the death of Dr. Edward Lilly, late of Magdalene College
but Master of Balliol, he was elected to succeed in the Master
ship March 5, 1610, in which year the King, who greatly
esteemed him, appointed him one of the Fellows of his new
Controversial College at Chelsea. On the 2nd of November,
1610, he was collated, and on the 27th admitted, to the pre-
bendal stall of Normanton in the church of Southwell. This
was one of the three original prebends of that church.
Abbot first published A Mirror of Popish Subtleties, written
against a Cavilling Papist, in the behalf of one Paul Spence,
dedicated to Whitgift, 1594. 2. The Exaltation of the King
dom and Priesthood of Christ, being a Commentary upon the
110th Psalm , dedicated to Gervase Babington, Bishop of
Worcester. Lond. 1601. 3. Antichristi Demonstratio} dedi-
cated to the King, printed at London in 1602 and 1608. The
second edition was, by the King's command, accompanied
with his own comment upon the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th verses
of the 20th chapter of the Revelation. 4. A Defence of the
Reformed Catholic of Master William Perkins , lately deceased,
against the Bastard Counter Catholic of Dr. Bishop , Seminary
Priest, dedicated to King James, 1st part, quarto, Lond. 1606,
the 2nd part 1607, the 3rd part 1609. 5. The True Ancient
Roman Catholic, dedicated to Prince Henry, Lond. 1611 ; but
previously to this a single sermon at St. Mary's, entitled The
Old Way, quarto, Lond. 1610, translated into Latin by
Thomas Drax. It was preached on July 8th, Act Sunday,
and dedicated to Archbishop Bancroft.
On the death of Dr. Thomas Holland, also of Balliol
College, Abbot was preferred by the King to be Eegius
Professor of Divinity March 25, 1612. In the following year
appeared his able work, already referred to in these pages,
Antilogia adversus Apologiam Andrece Eudcemon Johannis
Jesuitce pro Henrico Gfarnetto proditore, dedicated to the
King. L'Heureux's Apology for Garnet, under the as
sumed name of Andreas Eudsemon Johannes, had appeared
at Cologne in 1610. His noblest work, his Commentary
on the Epistle to the Romans, lies still in MS. in the
Bodleian Library. He preached a sermon (also in MS.) at
St. Mary's, on the notes to the Geneva Bible, and clearing
Calvin from Arianism. This was against Dr. Howson, of
whom Sir Thomas Bodley makes no very honourable mention
in his Letters. Howson, however, who was more of the
courtier than of the divine, by command of the King tl turned
his edge," says Dr. Featly, tl from Geneva to Eome, and in
the next sermon he preached at St. Mary's fell fierce and foul
upon the Pope himself, threatening to loose him from his
chair though he were fastened thereunto with a tenpenny
nail."1 Howson had been educated at Christ Church, and
had been appointed Prebendary of Hereford July 15, 1587,
and of Exeter May 29, 1592, and Canon of the second stall
at Christ Church May 15, 1601. He was also Rector of
Brightwell and one of the Yicars of Bampton. He was
consecrated to the see of Oxford May 9, 1619, and translated
to Durham in 1628. He died in his seventy-fifth year, Feb
ruary 6th, 1632, and was succeeded by that illustrious prelate
Dr. Thomas Morton.
Preaching on the afternoon of Easter-day, 1615, at St.
Peter's-in-the-East before the University, Dr. Abbot attacked
Laud, Howson, and their partisans, saying that there were
men who, under pretence of truth and preaching against the
Puritans, struck at the heart, and root of that faith and religion
now established amongst us, which was the very practice of
(the Jesuit) Parsons' and Campian's counsel, when they came
hither to seduce young students, who, afraid to be expelled
if they should openly profess their conversion, were directed
to speak freely against the Puritans as what would suffice ; so
these do not expect to be counted Papists, because they
speak only against Puritans ; but because they are indeed
Papists they speak nothing against them, or if they do, they
beat about the bush, and that softly too, for fear of disquieting
the birds that are in it."
At length his all but incredible diligence in the University
was rewarded by his elevation to the see of Sarum. He was
accompanied to the borders of the diocese of Oxford to North
Hinksey by the heads of houses and many others, all lamenting
his departure. At Salisbury he was as heartily welcomed, and
on the Sunday following preached in the cathedral from Psalm
xxvi. 8 : Lord, 1 have loved the habitation of thy house, and
the place where thine honour dwelleth. And soon did he shew
the sincerity of this profession ; for finding that the cathedral
had been greatly neglected, he used his authority and influ
ence with the chapter, which led to an expenditure of £500,
a great sum in those days, upon the building.
It appears that his elevation to the episcopate was opposed
by a party at court favourable to the Church of Home ; for the
King said to him, soon after his consecration, Abbot, I have
had very much to do to make thee a Bishop, but I know no
reason for it, unless it were because thou hast written against
one, an allusion to his defence of Perkins' Reformed Catholic,
against Bishop the Seminary Priest. Abbot visited his whole
diocese in person, and preached every Lord's-day whilst he
enjoyed his health, either in the city or in the churches in its
vicinity. He was engaged in his last illness upon a Latin
reply to Eichard Thompson, commonly called Dutch Thomp
son (noticed in this volume), on falling away from grace and
justification. Thrice a-week this Prelate sent provisions to
the prison at Salisbury, and at Christmas feasted all the poor
of the city. He suffered very greatly from that most painful
complaint the stone, which brought him to his end. The
judges being then on their circuit visited him during this
illness. His last words were, Jesu, come quickly ; finish in me,
the work that thou hast begun. Then he added in Latin, Into
thy hands, 0 Lord, I commit my spirit, for thou hast redeemed
me, 0 God of truth. Save thy servant who hopeth and trusteth
only in thee. Let thy mercy , 0 Lord, be upon me. 0 Lord,
in thee have I trusted, let me never be confounded. He died
between 7 and 8 in the evening of March 2, 1618.
He was buried in his cathedral on the following Thursday
in the choir over against the Bishop's throne.
Bishop Abbot was twice married, the second time, after he
became a bishop, to Mrs. Bridget Cheynell. He left one son
and two daughters. Of these, one married Sir Nathaniel
Brent, Warden of Merton College, Oxford, whose daughter
Margaret married Dr. Edward Corbet, Hector of Haseley in
Oxfordshire, who presented some of this Prelate's MSS., in
cluding his Commentary on the Romans, to the Bodleian
Library.
Abbot was succeeded in his Professorship by a divine who
ably upheld the same theology which he had maintained,
Dr. John Prideaux, Hector of Exeter College. Dr. Prideaux
was B.A. of that College January 31, 1600. He succeeded
Dr. Holland as Eector of Exeter College April 4, 1612, and
Abbot as Eegius Professor of Divinity December 8, 1615.
He was installed Canon of the fifth stall at Christ Church
March 16, 1617, was consecrated Bishop of Worcester De
cember 19, 1641, and on August 3, 1642, resigned the Eec-
torship of his College. He died July 20, 1650, in his
seventy-fourth year, and was buried at Bredon in Worcester
shire. His Fasciculus Controversiarum was published at
Oxford in 1649, and dedicated by him to William Hodges,
Henry Button, Rowland Crosby, Edward Best, Eleazar
Jackson, Emanuel Smith, William Lole, and other his
brethren in the ministry in his diocese.
At Salisbury succeeded Dr. Martin Fotherby, the author of
Atheomastix, published in folio in 1622, of Grimsby in Lincoln
shire, a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Prebendary
of Canterbury. He died March 12, 1620.
Bishop Fotherby 's Atheomastix was published two years
after his death, but then only two out of four books saw the
light. The work, a small folio, abounding in classical and
other learning, was entitled, "Atheomastix, clearing Four
Truths against Atheists and Infidels :
1. That there is a God.
2. That there is but one God.
3. That Jehovah our God is that one God.
4. That the Holy Scripture is the word of that God.
All of them proved by natural reasons and secular authorities.
Lond. 1622." It was dedicated to the Right Hon. Sir Robert
Naunton, Secretary to the King.
Bishop Andrewes had upon last Christmas-day treated of
the first prophecy cited in the New Testament. He now took
the second, namely, that of Micah, foretelling the birthplace
of Christ, Bethlehem (the house of bread) Ephrata (fruitful).
He enlarged upon the twofold sense of the word rendered
ruler , as implying both guidance and protection. His whole
discourse he, as his manner was, drew out of his text with a
facility peculiarly his own, but doubtless much assisted by his
patristic studies. Thus, as Christ came forth from eternity,
so he is our guide, leader, and shepherd to bring us thither.
The words themselves raised this association of ideas in the
mind of the preacher. Very many would meditate upon
them a thousand times and not light upon a similar combi
nation. Excellently does he enforce humility as the grace
which the comparative obscurity of the place, and all the
circumstances of our blessed Redeemer's birth, was designed
to teach us. Alluding to Ephrata (fruitful) he well remarks :
"We fall still upon one extreme or other: if fertile, then
proud ; if humble, then barren." There is much contained in
this, not that true humility will be unfruitful, but a mere
sentimental self-abasement will ever excuse itself the works of
obedience.
The King was disabled by the gout from attending at the
Royal Chapel, but heard the sermon and received the Eucha
rist in private.
CHAPTER XVII.
Page 424
Cosin — Drusius — Whitsunday 1616 — The King at Burleigh-on-the
Hill — Andrewes a Privy Councillor — Thomas Earl of Arundel —
Amner — Beale — The King's Progress to Scotland — Andrewes at
Durham 1617.
JOHN COSIN, at the Restoration Bishop of Durham, one of
the most diligent ecclesiastical antiquaries of his age, was in
1616 invited both by Bishop Andre wes and by Overall, Dean
of St. Paul's, to become his librarian. He attached himself
to the latter. The Deanry of St. Paul's offered facilities of
literary intercourse with the learned both of our own nation
and of the Continent, perhaps above any other ecclesiastical
residence.
On February 12 died the learned John Drusius, one of
those eminent foreigners who are said both by Bishop Bucke-
ridge and by Isaacson to have enjoyed the patronage and
munificent friendship of Andrewes. He came over to
England from Flanders in 1567, was admitted of the Uni
versity of Cambridge August 3, 1569, and on his return
from France 1572, was entered at Merton College, Oxford,
and read lectures on Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriac at Merton
and Magdalene Colleges, and afterward in the Public Schools ;
but in 1576 he left Oxford for a Professorship at Leyden, and
thence removed to the University of Franeker, in Friesland.
At Franeker Sixtus Amama succeeded to some share of his
reputation.
Andrewes was called upon as usual to preach before the
King at Whitehall on Easter-day, March 31. His sermon on
this occasion is not so remarkable as many that preceded it.
But whatsoever is his subject it is sure to be amply illustrated
in his hands.
Upon Whitsunday, May 19,1 he preached before the King
at Greenwich, upon our Lord's words to his Apostles, Receive
the Holy Ghost. In the introduction he says, u Now what is
here to do, what business is in hand, we cannot but know, if
ever we have been at the giving of holy orders. For by these
words are they given, Receive the Holy Gfhostj whose sins y6
remit j &c., were to them, and are to us even to this day, by
these and by no other words. Which words, had not the
Church of Rome retained in their ordinations, it might well
have been doubted (for all their Accipe potestatem, &c., Receive
thou authority to sacrifice for the living and for the deadj)
whether they had any priests at all or no. But, as God
would, they retained them, and so saved themselves. For
these are the very operative words for the conferring this
power, for the performing of this act." He next refutes the
Eomish tenet that holy orders are a sacrament, denying that
it confers grace, the grace being but in office or function.
Again, Christ alone instituted sacraments, but this ceremony
he instituted with breathing upon the parties, which ceremony
hath since been changed to laying on of hands. But such a
change is inadmissible in a sacrament.
Very full of meaning is his unfolding the symbol of wind
and of breath as betokening in Scripture the Holy Ghost.
" For as for this let it not trouble you, that it is but breath,
and breath but air, and so, one would think, too feeble 5 as
indeed what feebler thing is there in man than it ? The more
feeble, the more fit to manifest his strength by. For, as weak
in appearance as it is, by it were great things brought to pass.
By this puff of breath was the world blown round about.
About came the philosophers, the orators, the emperors.
Away went the mist of error ; down went the idols and their
temples before it."2
With equal beauty does he apply in the patristic manner
to the Apostles the words of the 8th Psalm, Out of the mouth
of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained praise.
In this sermon, as elsewhere, he removes the gross notion
of the real presence, insisted on even now by not a few.
Christ's body is received, he says, even as the Holy Ghost
was, that is, not the substance but the virtue of it. Both are
tl truly received in the same sense." So too Jeremy Taylor
on the Eeal Presence. He also notes how this passage con
demns those who are sent only by themselves, who take that
to them which none ever gave them.
The Spirit of Christ, he observes here as elsewhere, is not
an artificial but a constant principle and power working upon
the will: " Of ourselves to move: not wrought to it by any
gin, or vice, or screw made by art. Else we shall move but
while we are wound up for a certain time till the plummets be
at the ground, and then our motion will cease straight. All
which1 (but these last especially) are against the automata ,
the spectra, the puppets of religion, hypocrites. With some
spring within their eyes are made to roll, and their lips to
wag, and their breast to give a sob. All is but Hero's pneu-
matica} a vizor, not a very face ; an outward show of godli
ness, but no inward power of it at all."
The grace of apostleship he interprets to be the office itself,
for it is a grace to be a conduit of grace any way. The
anointing was no inward holiness, " but the right of ruling
only. So here it is no internal quality infused, but the grace
only of their spiritual and sacred function. Good it were and
much to be wished, that they were holy and learned all ; but if
they be not, their office holds good though." These again as
conduits may, by transmitting the water, make the garden to
bear both herbs and flowers, though themselves never bear
any. Those who built the ark were yet drowned themselves.
In the month of August our prelate was in attendance
upon the King at Burleigh-on-the-Hill, and on Monday the
5th, the anniversary of the Gowrie Conspiracy, preached
before him from the 2nd chapter of Esther. Ahasuerus
Bishop Andrewes takes to be the same with Artaxerxes
Longimanus. He notes in this discourse how contrary the
Komish doctrine of the seal of confession is to the 1st verse
of the 5th chapter of Leviticus, and altogether unchristianizes
the Komanists.
But though this may by some "be condemned in him as
inconsistent with some passages in his works, and as against
certain favourite opinions respecting the essential nature of
the Apostolical succession, it is no more than the Holy Ghost
doth, when by St. Paul he asks, " What agreement hath the
temple of God with idols ?" 1 So Bishop Andrewes, speaking
of Bellarmine and King James, a The King in die hoe (in
this day) neither heathen, I am sure, nor that can have the
least touch of idolatry fastened on him. He that shamed not
to say i No Christian] and hath been fain since to eat his
word; he durst not say an idolater, that would soon have
rebounded back upon himself. And no idolater is a Christian,
nor Christian an idolater, I am sure."2
This is one of many instances in which the truth will force
itself a way out of the pulpit, however it may be racked or
fettered in the Schools. Even Laud (according to Stilling-
fleet in his preface to his work on The Idolatry of the Romish
Communion) held the Eomanist to be an idolater. Idolatry
excluded from the Jewish Church, and it is incumbent for
those who maintain that the practice of it is compatible with
Christianity to shew their warrant out of the Holy Scriptures.
On the following day the King knighted at Burleigh Sir
Francis Bodenham.1
On September 2nd Bishop Andrewes ordained Edward
Catherall, M.A., deacon, and William Beale, M.A., and
Humphrey Tovey, M.A., priests, in the chapel of Downham
Palace. Catherall was B.A. of Jesus College 1614.4 One
William Tovey, B.D., occurs as Prebendary of the first stall
at Worcester October 15, 1586.1 He was also Prebendary of
Hereford March 17, 1588. He died in 1598.2
On September 29 Bishop Andrewes was admitted into the
King's Privy Council/ but his custom was always to with-
1 Hardy's Le Neve, vol. iii. p. 79. 2 Ibid. vol. i. p. 503.
3 Bilson, Bishop of "Winchester, had died June 18th (he was buried by night
in "Westminster Abbey), and had been succeeded by the King's not unworthy
favourite the pious and munificent Dr. James Montagu, Bishop of Bath and
Wells. He was brother of that most loyal and Christian patriot Edward, first
Lord Montagu of Boughton in Northamptonshire, whose third brother Sir Henry
was first Earl of Manchester, father of Edward, Earl of Manchester in the suc
ceeding reign, and ancestor of the Dukes of Manchester. Our prelate was edu
cated in Christ College, Cambridge. " He was afterwards Master" [the first]
"or rather nursing father" (says Fuller) "to Sidney College" [1595—1608]
" for he found it in bonds to pay 20 marks per annum to Trinity College for the
ground whereon it is built, and left it free, assigning it a rent for the discharge
thereof." Fuller records, both in his Worthies and in his History of the University
of Cambridge, how this prelate expended a hundred marks to bring running
water into the King's Ditch, to the great conveniency of the University.
On the death of Dr. George Boleyn, Prebendary of Canterbury and Chichester,
and Dean of Lichfield, Montagu was preferred to that Deanry, and installed
July 16, 1603. On the death of Dr. Eedes, Dean of Worcester, he was presented
to that Deanry, December 20, 1604, being succeeded at Lichfield by Dr.
"William Tooker, of whom see an account in Bliss's Wood's Athence Oxonienses.
On the death of Bishop Still, Master of Trinity College and Bishop of Bath and
Wells (B.A. 1561, M.A. 1565, of Christ College, Cambridge), known not only
by the memory of his talents in his several offices, but as the author of the
second English comedy in point of time, Gammer Gurton's Needle, Montagu
was, on April 17, 1608, consecrated to the see of Bath and Wells, Andrewes
with four other prelates assisting Bancroft at his consecration. Whilst Bishop
of that see he completed the abbey at Bath, the west part of the nave of which
was still uncovered. He was now, on the death of the learned Bishop Bilson,
translated to Winchester, which was said to have been the occasion of Andrewes
being appointed a Privy Councillor to compensate in some measure for his
disappointment. "This honour was done the bishop to put him in heart upon
the distaste he had in missing the bishopric of Winchester ; but, for aught I
hear, he is yet as silent as Mr. Wake's nuncio, the new cardinal." — Chamberlain
to Sir Dudley Carleton, October 12, 1616. (Birch's Court of James /., vol. i.
p. 429.) Lloyd in his State Worthies says of Andrewes, "He did not concern
himself much with civil politics. He would say when he came to the council-
table, ' Is there anything to be done to-day for the Church ? ' If they answered
* Tea,' then he said, ' I will stay ;' if ' No,' then he said, ' I will be gone.' '»
The flippant John Chamberlain will not have our prelate to have preached at
court this Christmas, but confined to his house, " being surprised by a sudden
surfeit of pork that had almost carried him away."
draw as much as possible from all state affairs. No greater
proof could he give of his freedom from ambitious motives. It
is true that a courtier's life was in those days a dangerous
one and that was sure to make enemies ; but ambition always
calculates upon labours and adventures, and is generally of a
subtle if not intriguing nature.
On November 4th Andrewes was present at the creation
of Charles, Prince of Wales.
Our prelate's 5th of November sermon is one of the most
remarkable of that series, abounding however with pleasantries
and witticisms, well deserved indeed by those at whom they
were pointed. Irony, though forbidden by some moderns, is
confirmed by precedents from both the Old and New Testa
ment.
On December 8th Bishop Andrewes assisted at the conse
cration of the very pious and learned Dr. Arthur Lake to the
see of Bath and Wells, and that excellently devout author,
Dr. Louis Bayley, to that of Bangor.
His Christmas-day sermon, taken from the 85th Psalm,
is excellent throughout, and is probably one of the best known
of all his discourses. His personifying of the divine attributes
and the reconciling of them all in the sacrificial death of the
Lamb of God, these render this sermon as favourite an illus
tration of the doctrine of the atonement, as Hooker's cele
brated sermon from Hdbdkkuk i. 4 (The wicked doth compass
about the righteous] is of the doctrine of justification.1 This
same day Thomas Earl of Arundel, who had been educated in
the Eomish religion, and had lately travelled through Italy,
seeing that religion in all its deformity, abjured it, and
received the holy Communion in Whitehall Chapel. The
same day also Montagu, now Bishop of Winchester (upon
the death of Bilson), preached before the King ; and in the
afternoon Dr. King, Bishop of London, preached at St. Paul's ;
Buckeridge, Bishop of Eochester, also in his own church of
St. Giles', Cripplegate, was much commended.
Thomas Earl of Arundel was the son of Philip Howard,
son of the daughter of Henry Fitzalan, the eleventh and last
Earl of that surname. He, " not able to digest the wrongs
and hard measure offered unto him, by the cunning sleights
of some envious persons, fell into the toil and net pitched for
him, and being brought into extreme peril of his life, yielded
up his vital breath in the Tower. But his son Thomas, a most
honourable young man (in whom a forward spirit and fervent
love of virtue and glory most beseeming his nobility, and the
same tempered with true courtesy, shineth very apparently),
recovered his father's dignities, being restored by King James
and Parliament authority."1 Thus Holland in his edition of
Camden. Thomas was restored to his titles in 1603.
It has been remarked, probably with justice, that the great
and repeated reluctance which Elizabeth evinced, previously
to the final condemnation of his father the Duke of Norfolk in
1572, may relieve her memory of the charge of hypocrisy so
recklessly urged against her by the advocates of her rival the
Queen of Scots.
On the 1st of March, 1617, Andre wes ordained John
Amner, Bachelor of Music, Deacon at Ely Chapel, the chapel
of the noble palace of the Bishops of Ely, Holborn. Amner
was organist of Ely Cathedral and master of the choristers.
He had been admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Music at
Oxford in May 1613.2 He composed and published sacred
hymns of three, four, five, and six parts, for voices and viols.
Lond. 1615, quarto. He set the 6th Psalm, old version, as
an anthem. The words are given as the 141st anthem in
Clifford's Collection, published soon after the Eestoration.
On the 16th of March Andrewes collated his friend Jerome
Beale to the third stall in Ely Cathedral, vacant by the death
of Dr. Kobert Tinley, Prebendary and Archdeacon of Ely.
To the Archdeaconry Andrewes preferred his friend Daniel
Wigmore, who held that dignity to his death in 1646, and to
whom he had given the second stall in his cathedral in 1615.
Wigmore was also Rector of Northwold in Norfolk and Snail-
well in Cambridgeshire. He was probably of a Somersetshire
family. He purchased the manor of Little Shelford of Sir
Toby Pallavicini, and dying in 1646, was buried at Little
Shelford. One of his family, Dr. Gilbert Wigmore, was Eector
of Little Shelford after the Bestoration, and living to a great
age was Eector there in 1709.
Beale was born at Gloucester, and educated first at Christ
College, Cambridge, and on October 9, 1579, was elected to
a Fellowship at Pembroke College, being then B.A. An-
drewes on September 25, 1616, preferred him to the Vicarage
of Barton near Cambridge, and on July 13, 1615, to the
Eectory of Willingham. He was also Eector of Nuthurst
near Horsham in Sussex, probably by the favour of the same
patron. When Dr. Nicholas Felton, Bishop of Bristol and
Master of Pembroke College, was translated to the see of Ely,
Beale was elected to succeed him in the Mastership, February
21, 1619. He was amongst the most eminent scholars in his
University, in great favour with the King, who made him his
chaplain and sub-almoner, and appears as a constant corre
spondent of Isaac Vossius.1 Like Andrewes he was a great
student of patristical learning. Doublet makes honourable
mention of Beale and Balcanqual as amongst the most devoted
friends of Vossius.2 In the collection of epistles to Vossius is
one from Pembroke Hall by Beale, April 2, 1628, highly
commending Vossius's History of Pelagianism. For this
Vossius received the unbounded thanks of Laud,3 and due
acknowledgments, but with some animadversions from the
pious and learned Dr. Ward, Master of Sidney Sussex Col
lege.4 In a letter of Andrew Colvin's to Vossius, Wren,
Beale, and Creighton are memorialized as the most learned
individuals belonging at that time (1629) to the University of
Cambridge.5 Creighton succeeded George Herbert as Public
Orator, and was in his old age raised to the see of Bath and
Wells.6 Dr. Beale died in 1630, being succeeded in his
Mastership by Dr. Benjamin Laney, successively Bishop of
Peterborough, Lincoln, and Ely.
In this same month1 (March 1617) Andre wes with Dr.
Valentine Carey, Dean of St. Paul's and Master of Christ
College, Cambridge, and Laud, now Dean of Gloucester and
Chaplain to the King, attended his Majesty upon his visit to
Scotland. On Sunday March 30,2 the King being at Lincoln
attended divine service at the cathedral, being met at the great
west entrance by Andrewes, his old servant Montagu, Bishop
of Winchester, and his most humble of servants and entirely
devoted of courtiers, Dr. Neile, Bishop of Lincoln, who
preached before him. After the sermon the King (we read)
healed fifty persons of the King's evil. He dined at the
Bishop's palace, formerly one of the most elegant specimens
of both late and early Gothic in this kingdom.3 After dinner
the King went in his carroche in private to St. Catherine's.
On Tuesday April 1 Chancellor Eland preached before the
King in his chamber of presence.4
From Lincoln the King went to Newark, and thence
to Worksop, Doncaster, Pontefract, and York, where on
April 11 he attended service at the Minster. On the
12th he rode with his train to Bishopthorpe, and dined
with the aged but most sprightly and cheerful Toby Mathew,
Archbishop.1
On Sunday the 13th Dr. Mathew preached a learned
sermon before him, after which there were brought to him
seventy persons to be cured of the King's evil. This day
the King and all his court • dined with the Lord Mayor, and
after dinner knighted Sir Robert Ayscough the Lord Mayor,
and Sir Richard Hutton the Eecorder. This same year Sir
Richard was made a judge of the Common Pleas.2
On Monday the 14th the King rode to Sheriff Hutton
Park, and there knighted Sir Richard Harper of Derbyshire,
Sir John Hippisley, and Sir William Bellassis of Durham.3
On Tuesday April 15 Dr. Phinehas Hodson, of the Uni
versity of Cambridge, who had in September 1611 been made
by Toby Mathew Chancellor of York, preached before the
King at the Manor House.4 Probably it was through the
Archbishop that Dr. Hodson was either now or before Chaplain
to the King.
On Wednesday April 16 the King was entertained at
Aske Hall in the parish of Easby, the seat of Talbot Bowes,
Esq.5 On the skirts of the high country and looking down
the fertile vale of Gilling, with swelling lawns in front, and a
long sweep of rising woods beyond, Richmondshire has not
perhaps a single residence which surpasses Aske in point of
situation.
On the 17th the King was received at the palace Bishop
Auckland by Dr. William James, successor to Toby Matliew
in the see of Durham. There he spent Good Friday, and on
Saturday the 19th entered Durham. The 20th being Easter-
day Bishop Andrewes preached in the cathedral on the sign
of the prophet Jonas, with his usual ingenuity laying open
the whole scope and force of the words. First he exposed
the hypocrisy and impenitent hardheartedness of the Phari
sees, worshippers of their own imaginations, literally an
adulterous generation, contradicting themselves with a mali
cious mind in asking yet another after so many signs.
But u the worse the men, the more importune ever, and
the harder to satisfy."1 Yet Christ in his goodness gives
them a sign, and the greatest of all signs. Other prophets
had raised the dead, none had raised themselves. Christ
would compare himself to the prophet Jonah, that prophet
who was a sinner and a fugitive. He came in the simili
tude of sinful flesh, and accordingly would make sinful
flesh his similitude. Jonah was sent to the Gentiles, and
sent the first in order of time of all the sixteen, the four great,
the twelve less. So Jonah was every way a sign of salvation
to us sinners of the Gentiles. Jonah and none but he had
the honour to be a kind of expiatory sacrifice, when by his
being cast out the ship was saved. And he alone gave a type
of the resurrection. He came forth the third day by special
grace, not by the course of nature. Incomparable is our
prelate's comparison of Jonah in the whale to the security
of the state of death. " There he was, but took no hurt there.
1. As safe, nay more safe there than in the best ship of
Tharsis : no flaw of weather, no foul sea could trouble him
there. 2. As safe, and as safely carried to land: the ship
could have done no more. So that upon the matter he did
but change his vehiculum [carriage], shifted but from one
vessel to another ; went on his way still. 3. On he went, as
well, nay better than the ship would have carried him ; went
into the ship, the ship carried him wrong, out of his way clean
to Tharsisward ; went into the whale, and the whale carried him
right, landed him on the next shore to Ninive, whither in
truth he was bound, and where his errand lay. 4. And all
the while at good ease as in a cell or study, for there he
indited a psalm, expressing in it his certain hope of getting
forth again. So as in effect where he seemed to be in most
danger, he was in greatest safety. Thus can God work. And
the evening and the morning were Jonah's second day."
We may add, how great a proof is here of the faithfulness
of God's protection and the omnipotence of his providence.
What darkness should bring us into the deep of despair who
are commanded to trust in such a God, whose miracles in the
world of spirits never cease, and whose tender pity is as great
toward the meanest and poorest of his children now as once
toward the prophet Jonah? This is a sign as well for the
comfort of his children as for the conviction of his enemies.
But how triumphantly did our prelate pursue the com
parison : Jonah but given up for dead, Christ really so, taken
down from his cross, laid in, sealed up in his grave, a stone
rolled on him, a watch set over him. The whale, not Jonah,
delivered the prophet, but Christ by his own power broke
the bars of death and loosed the sorrows of hell, of which it is
impossible he should be holden. Jonas rose but to the same
state, mortal still. Christ rose never to die more. Jonas
was but cast out upon the dry land, but Christ was received
into glory. And in sign of it the place whereon Jonas was
cast was dry land or cliffs, where nothing grows. The place
wherein Christ rose was a well-watered garden, wherein the
ground was in all her glory, fresh and green and full of
flowers at the instant of his rising this time of the year.
And yet behold a greater than all these. For Jonas when
he came forth, came forth and there was all, left the whale as
he found it. Christ slew the whale that devoured him • he
was the death of death.
Our good bishop fails not towards the conclusion to teach
that lesson of faith in God's providence touched upon above,
and to speak of the great deliverance of all from the power of
Satan the spiritual Leviathan.
CHAPTER XVIII.
Page 436
The King's progress to Scotland — Whitsunday 1617 — Carey and
Laud — Grotius " Delmperio Summarum Potestatum circa Sacra"
— Felton, Bishop of Bristol.
THE King's visit to Scotland was professedly to discharge
some points of his kingly office in reforming abuses both in
the church and commonwealth. But in attempting these
changes he outran the zeal and prudence of the Scottish
Bishops, who themselves with great moderation interposed,
and prevented consequences that the Sovereign himself was
too disinclined to provide for, ever as ready to exalt his
prerogative as he was unable to maintain his claims. Hence
his visit was ineffectual, and served only to increase mutual
prejudice and aversion.
On June the 8th, being Whitsunday, Bishop Andrewes
preached before him in Holyrood chapel, saying many ad
mirable things upon our Lord's first sermon upon his com
mission; dwelling much upon the guilt of assuming the
ministry without being sent, since Christ himself went not
before he was sent ; highly commending the ancient Fathers
as those who were endued with a greater measure of the
Spirit than men in later ages (which, had he confined it to the
apostolic age, might peradventure have been true), and excel
lently unfolding the design of our Saviour's commission to
bind up the broken-hearted, to deliver us from captivity, and
to bring with him the true year of jubilee. " On this day of
salvation the sun never goes down." Our Lord's commission,
he observed, was only to them that are of a broken spirit.
Elias healed none but the poor widow of Sarepta ; Eliseus,
only Naaman after his spirit came down ; Christ, none but
such as were of a contrite spirit.
" The right hammer," he remarks, tl to break the heart is
the sight of our sins. And I will say this for it, that I never
in my life saw any man brought so low with any worldly
calamity as I have with this sight. And these I speak of
were not of the common sort, but men of spirit and valour,
that durst have looked death in the face. Yet when God
opened their eyes to see this sight their hearts were broken,
yea, even ground to powder with it, contrite indeed."
Toward the end of this sermon he notes that the " jubilee
ever began with no other sound but even of a cornet made of
the horns of a ram. Of which horns they gave no other
reason but that it was so in reference to the horns of that ram
that in the thicket was caught by the horns and sacrificed in
Isaac's stead, even as Christ was in ours, to shew that our
jubilee has relation to that special sacrifice so plainly pre
figuring that of Christ's."
On June 21 Mr. Chamberlain thus wrote to Sir Dudley
Carleton : " Our churchmen and ceremonies are not so well
allowed of, the rather by an accident that fell out at the
burial of one of the guard who died there, and was buried
after the English fashion ; and the Dean of St. Paul's [Valen
tine Carey] preaching, desired all the assembly to recommend
with him the soul of their deceased brother to Almighty God,
which was so ill taken that he was driven to retract it openly
and to confess he did it in a kind of civility rather than
according to the perfect rule of divinity. Another exception
was taken to Dr. Laud's putting on a surplice when the corpse
was to be laid in the ground.1 So that it seems they are very
averse from our customs, insomuch that one of the bishops,
Dean of the chapel2 there to the King, refused to receive the
Communion with him kneeling."
On the King's return Dr Morton, then Bishop of Chester,
preached before him at Hoghton in the hundred of Blackburn,
Lancashire, August 17. About 10 or 11 in the evening there
was a mask of noblemen, knights, gentlemen, and courtiers
before the King in the middle round in the garden of Hoghton
tower.1 Very frequent instances occur of the Sovereign's
profanation of the Lord's-day in his progresses, even in this
his tour of ecclesiastical reformation.
On August 26 Mr. Thomas Dod (uncle to the pious Non
conformist, usually called Dod the decalogist,) preached before
the King, who was so pleased with him that he made him
one of his chaplains in ordinary.2
Upon July 9 (N.S.) we find Grotius writing to Isaac
Vossius, commending to him his book De Imperio Summarum
Potestatum circa Sacra, and requesting him to shew it to
those of whom he thinks highly, especially to Bishop An-
drewes.3 The same year he wrote to Overall, referring to his
judgment his book against the Socinians, and touching at
some length upon his book De Imperio Summarum Potes
tatum, expressing at the same time his fears that it will not
be altogether satisfactory to Andrewes and others in England.
In this work he sets the authority of the chief magistrate in
religion sufficiently high, and enters with his usual learning
upon various topics relating to the discipline and government
of the Church in the earlier ages. He establishes the power
of princes in matters of religion. They have authority to
restrain and punish evil of every kind, authority over every
soul, over both clergy and laity ; he is the minister of God to
thee for good, good of every kind without limitation. He is
appointed that we may live a quiet and peaceable life, not
only in all honesty but in all godliness. For the true happi
ness of a state is that it love God and be loved of him ; that
it acknowledge him for its king, itself for his people, as
St. Austin excellently says/ who also adds, that those kings
are happy who make their power subservient to his majesty,
to the entire promotion and advancement of his worship. So
the Emperors Theodosius and Honorius in their epistle to
Marcellinus, i For we seek no other end by the toils of war,
we purpose nought else by the counsels of peace, than that
the people of our empire may with full affection observe the
true worship of God.' So Theodosius in his epistle to Cyril,
1 It is the office of the emperor to provide that his subjects
live not only peaceably but piously.' And therefore Isidore
of Pelusium saith that the same is the end both of the priest
hood and of the kingly power, namely, the salvation of their
subjects. Aristotle, reasoning only by the light of nature,
comes to a similar conclusion. But to proceed to the Scrip
tures, kings are commanded as kings, in their office, to observe
the whole law of God, to serve the Lord, to salute his
Christ. As St. Augustine saith, ' Kings then fulfil the divine
command when they enjoin good and forbid evil, not only in
its relation to human society but also to true religion.'2 And
Isidore of Seville, * Let the princes of this world know that
they must render an account to God for the Church which is
entrusted by Christ to their protection. For whether the
peace and order of the Church be strengthened by faithful
princes, or whether it be brought to nought, he demands of
them an account who hath committed the Church to their
power.3 With regard to the practice of the Church, the
ecclesiastical historian Socrates has summed it up in those
words of his, ' From the time that the emperors became Chris
tian all ecclesiastical affairs depended upon their authority.'4
Constantine is called on an old inscription the patron of
religion and of the faith. The Emperor Basil, calling the
Church the ship universal, saith that the guidance of it is by
God entrusted to him. And so in the epistle to Lucius,
ascribed to Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome, the king is called
ecclesiastically the Vicar of God. To this doctrine agreed
the reformed Confessions of Belgium, of Switzerland, of Basle ;
to this the Church of England, to this the writings of
Musculus, Bucer, Jewel, Whitaker, Rainolds, and more lately
of King James, of Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, of Burhill, Tooker,
Casaubon, and Paroeus. The same was asserted in the volu
minous works of Melchior Goldastus.
Again, the very nature of religion, which inclines men to
peace, obedience, the true love of their country, and of justice
and equity, commends it to princes as a fit object of their care
and protection. The very enemies of Christianity have testified
to its great moral efficacy, and to the purity of its precepts.
Add to this, that doctrine and worship themselves have no
small influence upon the manners and happiness of mankind.
This is obvious in the doctrine, for instance, of the spirituality
of the divine nature. From the all-seeing presence of God it
follows at once that we should do nothing offensive to him.
From the fulness of his knowledge and prescience flows this
consolation, that nothing can happen to the good but for their
good. Nor said Plato without cause that it was not to be
endured that any should teach that God was the author of
evil actions. Had Silius Italicus, instead of
Heu primse scelcrum causse mortalibus segris
Naturam nescire Deum,
written Dei, he had written truly enough.
Amongst inferior reasons for the ecclesiastical supremacy
of the civil power may be placed the great influence of the
priesthood, and the danger of the more ambitious part of
them. Curtius himself bears witness that the multitude will
sooner follow their priests than their generals. Add to this,
that all changes in religion, if not by general consent and
manifestly for the better, are always dangerous to the state. For
these two last reasons even those confess that the actions of
the priesthood should be subjected to the supreme power, who
deny such subjection where inconsistent with the due exercise
of their spiritual function. So John Paris, Francis Victoria,
and Roger Widdrington.1
In the second chapter he gives the history of the union and
disjunction of the spiritual and civil power, and shews that they
are not naturally opposed, but were for a long time joined in
the same person, as in the patriarchal age, but severed both
under the Mosaic and Christian dispensations. This however
he would so restrict as that it should not be understood that
every business of a secular kind is inconsistent with the exercise
of the spiritual function. On the other hand, the Christian
Emperors took to themselves ecclesiastical titles, not assuming
them officially but in a wider sense, to signify their general
overseership and care of the Church.
In the third chapter he considers the power of the civil
magistrate to oblige, and to what actions it extends ; also of
the lawfulness and unlawfulness of resistance. Passive obe
dience is due where the chief magistrate is neither bound by
law nor created by it ; so the Roman Emperors were obeyed .
by the early Christians • so David did not lift up his hand
against Saul, who, though a tyrant, was a king by a positive
and unconditional ordinance. But where the chief magistrate
is rather primus than summus, the first not the absolute head,
the nobles may, upon just cause, take up arms against him.2
He then condemns the doctrine that the chief magistrate
may make laws in opposition to the Word of God, a necessary
error of those who would mould all institutions anew upon the
principle that wealth alone is to legislate, wealth alone to be
had in honour, wealth to draw all things to itself.
So the civil magistrate cannot lawfully forbid preaching
and the administration of the sacraments, or alter the divinely
instituted form or substance of the sacraments, or the law of
marriage, or innovate, that is, make new articles of faith, or
essentially new kinds of worship, or new sacraments. But
his power does extend to the circumstantials of religion, as to
the age that shall qualify for the episcopate, the laws relating
to residence and non-residence ; also that the priest shall utter
the canon of baptism and of the holy Communion with an
audible voice, &c. He may also take away whatsoever
ministers occasion to the violation of God's commandments.
So Hezekah removed the high places and ground to powder
the brazen serpent. So Josiah abolished idolatry and the
idolatrous priesthood. So the Christian Emperors shut up the
Pagan shrines and temples. He may also punish profane-
ness, as Nebuchadnezzar ordered those to be punished who
should speak against the God of the Hebrews.1 So too
Grotius decides against the Puritans that the laws of the civil
magistrate can bind in all things not contrary to Scripture, and
make that binding which before was not so. This he ratifies
by the Augustan and Bohemian Confessions.2 These positions
he defends against objectors, and further explains in the
three following chapters, after which he proceeds to treat of
the history, origin, and limits of the power of Councils.
In his ninth chapter he gives his opinion upon absolution
and the power of the keys, and denies that the acts concerning
them are properly acts of jurisdiction. He follows Peter
Lombard,3 who defines the power of absolution to be the
power of shewing to men that they are, or declaring that they
are, bound or loosed, as the priest pronounced who were
leprous and who free from the leprosy.4 He adduces Cyprian,
Ambrose, and Augustine.5 The same appears to be the
doctrine of Jewel in the early part of his Apology. On the
history of absolution let me refer my reader to the 24th
chapter in Field's Appendix to the third book Of the Church,
and to the ninth book of Forbes' Instructiones Historico-
Theologicce.
In his tenth chapter he treats of the election of pastors,
and here he regards the Apostles themselves as presbyters.
In the eleventh chapter he discusses at large the name and
office of the bishop, pleading for its apostolic origin, but
denying it to be of divine right, since many appointments
were equally apostolical for which no such high distinction is
claimed. He shews that episcopacy cannot be repugnant to
Scripture, from the 12th chapter of the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, God appointed in the Church first apostles,
secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers. So it is plain that
distinction and disparity of ranks is not antichristian. And
here he affirms that he truly follows Zanchius, Chemnitz,
Hemmingius, Calvin, Melancthon, Bucer, and Beza. Jerome
he treats more fairly than does Saravia, who with much
special pleading endeavours to disprove that Father entirely
in his celebrated Epistle to Evagrius. He says truly enough,
that when the Fathers speak of custom they do not exclude
apostolical institution. So Augustine, i Whatsoever the whole
Church observes, and that though not set up by Councils, has
been always retained, is most rightly believed to have been de
livered by no other than apostolical authority.'1 Epiphanius
himself attests that some places were suffered to remain with
out bishops, but adds that in such places none could be found
worthy of the episcopate. Even in the case of ordination the
concurrence and cooperation of presbyters were required.2
^ Meanwhile," observes Grotius, u I see not how it can be
refuted that where there are no bishops, ordination may be
validly conferred by a presbyter, as William of Auxerre, the
school divine, has long since admitted."3 He proceeds to
vindicate the foreign churches who did not perpetuate epis
copacy, and treats also fully of lay elders, proving, as in the
case of bishops, that they are not of divine right, but that
they are not contrary to the Holy Scriptures. This work was
translated in 1651.
In a letter from John Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carleton,
dated October 31, Chamberlain states that on the receipt of
Sir Dudley Carleton's letter of the 19th, he went to Bishop
Andrewes, who received him with great kindness, and expos
tulated with him for the very long interval which he had
suffered to elapse without seeing him. He delivered him Sir
Dudley's proposition, " and withal upon long conference
something you had written touching the Arminians counte
nancing themselves with some of his letters. Whereupon he
fell into a long speech of a writing that the Archbishop
Whitgift had got from him in some parts of that argument,
and that he knows not what became of it, for he never gave
a copy of it, but only one to Mr. Hooker, who promised to
return it, but never did. But he expressed not all the while
which opinion he inclined to, but still insisted if they had any
writing of his they should shew it ; concluding that I should
assure you that they have no letter of his, and with that
vehemency that he would give me leave to send you his head
in a platter if they could shew any letter of his. He told
me further that Grotius when he was here dined once with
him, and supped another time ; but other communication than
passed at table he had none with him, though he under
stands since that he gave out and fathered many things
upon him that were neither so nor so. Surely he hath a
wonderful memory, for he not only calls to mind any matter
that passed at any time, but the very time, place, persons,
and all other circumstances, which seemed strange to me in a
discourse of almost two hours."1
On the 5th of November Andrewes preached before the
King at Whitehall Chapel on Luke i. 74, 75. He in this
sermon reminded his hearers of our memorable national
deliverance in 1588. His wit remarkably discovers itself
throughout this discourse as a holy ingenuity, full of practical
point. He speaks much of reverence in worship. But let it
be remembered to the credit of Laud, that he first broke off
the custom of breaking off the prayers for the sermon upon
the King's coming into the chapel.
On the 30th of November Bishop Andrewes collated his
brother Roger to the fourth stall in Ely Cathedral, which he
held till his death in 1635. He was then succeeded in his
stall by John Harris, M.A., Rector of Passenham on the
borders of Northamptonshire, near Stony Stratford.
The Dean of Ely at this time was Dr. Henry, son of Dr.
Julius Caesar, brother of Sir Julius Caesar, Master of the
Rolls, and son of Julius, physician to Queens Mary and
Elizabeth, a most munificent benefactor to Jesus College,
Cambridge, although himself of the University of Oxford.
The other prebendaries were Dr. John Boys, one of the
translators of the Bible, Eector of Boxworth, who had been
preferred by Andrewes himself; Daniel Wigmore, Arch
deacon of Ely, another of the Bishop's friends ; Jerome Beale,
also in the enjoyment of the same honour; the learned and
pious Andrew Willet, whose works have fallen into undeserved
neglect. He was as a Biblical scholar not inferior to any of
his contemporaries ; his life in Fuller's Abel Redivivus was
written by his son-in-law Dr. Peter Smith of King's College,
Cambridge. John Hills, B.D., Master of Catharine Hall,
Cambridge, Archdeacon of Lincoln, his patron being Bishop
Barlow, Eector of Fulbourn All Saints, the place of his nativity.
He was buried at Horsheath near Newmarket September
1626. He had been raised to the Mastership of Catharine
Hall from a Fellowship at Jesus College. Dr. John Duport,
Master of Jesus College, Precentor of St. Paul's, Vicar of
Fulham, Middlesex, and Eector of Bosworth and Medbourn
in his native county of Leicester ; and lastly, Dr. James
Taylor, Eector of Westmill, Hertfordshire, where he was
buried. He died March 19, 1624.
Our prelate on the 5th of December joined in a letter to
the King respecting the retrenchment of his expenses.1
Upon December 14th Andrewes, with Dr. King, Bishop of
London, Buckeridge, Bishop of Eochester, Marc Antony de
Dominis, late Archbishop of Spalatro, and Overall, Bishop of
Lichfield and Coventry, assisted Abbot at the consecration of
Dr. George Montagu to the see of Lincoln, and of Andrewes7
most worthy, learned, and upright friend Dr. Nicholas Felton,2
Master of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, to the see of Bristol.
There he succeeded Dr. John Thornborough, who had but
a contentious and disturbed rule in that see. He was now,
on the death of that eminent prelate Dr. Parry, translated to
Worcester.
Dr. George Montagu was bom at Cawood in Yorkshire,
north-west of Selby, and educated at Queens' College, Cam-
bridge, was Lecturer in Gresham College, Master of the
Savoy, Rector of Great Cressingham, Norfolk, January 25,
1603, on the presentation of Lord Keeper Egerton, and
November 22, 1609, Eector of Cheam on the presentation of
the King. He succeeded Neile as Dean of Westminster
December 10, 1610. He resigned this Deanry upon this his
consecration to the see of Lincoln, and was succeeded in it
by Dr. Thomas Fuller's uncle, Dr. Eobert Townson, who was
born in Cambridge and educated also at Queens' College in
that University. He was translated to London July 20,
1621, on the death of Bishop King, and to Durham early in
1628 on the promotion of Neile to Winchester, and a few
months afterward to York. He was succeeded at Durham by
Howson. He was elected to York June 26th, was enthroned
October 24th, and dying (probably 6th of November) that
same year, was buried in Cawood Church. Hugh Holland
wrote an epitaph upon him. His tomb is in the chancel with
his bust in his lawn sleeves. He was succeeded at York by
Harsnet, Bishop of Norwich.
Of Dr. Felton the reader may find several notices in my
Memorials of Dr. Thomas Fuller.1 He was the son of a
merchant of Yarmouth. He was B.A. of Pembroke Hall,
Cambridge, 1580, and was elected to a Fellowship, M.A. 1581,
B.D. 1591, Eector of St. Antholin's and St. Mary-le-Bow,
London, and of Great Easton near Dunmow in Essex, and of
Blagden or Blagdon near Bristol, Somersetshire, Prebendary
of St. Paul's, London, 4th March, 1616. On the translation
of Andrewes to Winchester Felton was removed from the see
of Bristol to that of Ely, being elected March 2nd, 1619, and
confirmed March llth. He died October 5th, 1626, and was
buried under the Communion-table in the chancel of St.
Antholin's, London, without any memorial. At Ely he was
succeeded by Dr. John Buckeridge, Bishop of Eochester.
He was a prelate of eminent piety and integrity, and of no
less learning, for which he was appointed one of the trans
lators of the Bible. " He had," says Fuller in his Church
History? " a sound head and a sanctified heart, was beloved
of God and all good men, very hospitable to all and charitable
to the poor." Andrewes assisted in procuring for him the
Mastership of Pembroke Hall, which he held from 1616 to
1619.
In the course of this year appeared Epphata to F. T.
(Thomas Fitzherbert, mentioned under 1613) ; or, the Defence
of the Right Reverend Father in God the Lord Bishop of
Elie, Lord High Almoner and Privy Councillor to the King's
most excellent Majestic. Concerning his Answer to Cardinal
Bellarmine's Apologie : against the slanderous cavils of a
nameless Adjoinder ; entitling his book in every page of it,
A Discoverie of many foule absurdities, falsities, lies, &c.,
wherein these things chiefly are discussed (besides many other
incident) :
1. The Pope's false Primacie claiming by Peter.
2. Invocation of Saints, with Worship of Creatures and
Faith in them.
3. The Supremacie of Kings both in Temporal and
Ecclesiastical Matters and Causes, over all States and
Persons, &c., within their Realms and Dominions.
By Dr. Collins, Chapleine to His Majestic. Apoc. xviii. 7.
Give her torture (an allusion to the title of the Bishop's book,
Tortura Torti}. Printed by Cantrell Legge, Printer to the
University of Cambridge, 1617. This work was, for abun
dance of learning, force of argument, and felicity of illustration
and application, not unworthy the great reputation of its
author, who was accounted one of the most learned theologians
and scholars of his age, and who at school had given early
promise of the ability which distinguished him at the Uni
versity. He was a constant guest at Buckden at the table
of the munificent and hospitable Williams, with Dr. Samuel
Ward and Dr. Brownrigg, afterwards Bishop of Exeter. He
was born at Eton, where he was also educated ; was from a
Fellowship raised to the Provostship j^f King's College 1615,
succeeded Dr. Richardson, Master of Trinity College, as
Regius Professor of Divinity 1617, and was, on the death of
Dr. Duport, Master of Jesus College, Cambridge, collated by
Bishop Andrewes to the seventh stall at Ely February 9th,
1618. He was deprived in 1644, and died, aged 75, Sep
tember 16th, 1651, and was buried in King's College chapel.
He fully exposes the weakness, incompetence, and sophistry
of Fitzherbert. This elaborate work is one of many proofs
how valuable is the study of the Fathers to those who have
sufficient learning to profit from them, and how dangerous it
is merely to dabble in them, as Fitzherbert appears to have
done. But in truth we need never look into the writings of
those who adhere to Kome for right views of the Fathers.
Their learned men are fully aware that the Fathers often and
in many things make against them. Hence we find the
theory of development anticipated by Bishop Fisher.
As some in our own time have done, so Fitzherbert caught
at Andrewes' words, that Christ is to be adored in and with
the sacrament. "The Bishop grants that Christ is to be
worshipped, and that he is to be worshipped in the sacrament,
which he infallibly accompanieth, and effectually assisteth :
ergo, with you he is a Pontifician, and maintaineth your cause,
and letrayeth his own. No such thing, gentle sir. To make
him yours, more goes to it than so. Especially these two,
corporal presence, and transubstantiation or conversion. These
are the two main badges or rather buttresses of your Cyclops,
neither of which is to be found in the Bishop's writing, and
God knows is far off from his belief." " Though again, when
we say that Christ is in the sacrament (because we would not
be mistaken), we say not that he is there after a corporal
manner : nay, that your own Captain and Cardinal dis-
claimeth, corporaliter esse Christum in Sacramento; but we
say not so much as that his flesh is there, or his body there at
all, not only after a bodily or fleshly manner. Christus, saith
St. Leo, quadragesimo post resurrectionem die, coram dis-
cipulis elevatus in coelum, corporalis praesentise modum fecit,
&c. Christ made a period of his bodily presence, being lifted
up into heaven before^he face of his disciples the fortieth
day after his resurrection. And St. Austin, out of those words,
Matt, xxvi., Non semper habebitis me vobiscum, with other
like in St. John xii., resolves it plainly that secundum carnem
non semper, according to the flesh he is not always with
us. (Tract. 109 in Joh.) It were not hard to produce divers
more to the same purpose. Yea, si esset in terra, non esset
sacerdos. (Heb. viii.) If Christ were on the earth, he could be
no priest, &c. So as you destroy his priesthood, while you
stand for such presence, to commend your sacrifice. I say,
therefore, neither bodily nor in body at all." The contrary
to this is insisted upon by the late Archdeacon Wilberforce
in his work upon the Eucharist ; and accordingly whilst he
affixes a literal, Dr. Collins gives a more just and reasonable
interpretation to Cyril's Catecheses, where the author of that
uncertain book touches upon the Eucharist. For Rivet did
not without reason call the authorship of the Catecheses in
question.1 In a note Dr. Collins ridicules those who make
Christ's body to be a figure of itself in the Sacrament.2
Collins was, besides his other preferments, Eector of
Braintree, Essex, February 15, 1611, and of Fen Ditton
in 1643. He was ejected thence by the Earl of Manchester.
He had declined the see of Bristol. He was the son of Master
Baldwin Collins, whom the Queen for his piety used to call
Father Collins.
Dr. Collins quotes that most admirable passage from St.
Augustine, in which he limits adoration to him who is the
source of our felicity, thus shutting out at once every kind of
worship besides, whether addressed to men or angels : u Solus
ille colendus est, quo solo fruens, beatus fit cultor ejus, et quo
solo non fruens, omnis mens misera est, etsi qualibet re alia"
perfruatur." (Contra Faustum Manichceum, lib. xx. c. 5.3)
" He alone is to be adored by the enjoyment of whom alone
the worshipper is made happy, and without the enjoyment of
whom alone the mind is miserable, whatsoever else it may
enjoy."
Dr. Collins defends the imputation of our Saviour's
righteousness to us (p. 376), and quotes St. Jerome; and,
on the other hand, for the imputation of the sin of Adam,
St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio in Baptism., that Adam's
eating the forbidden fruit was so ours, that of itself it was
enough to condemn us.
He speaks of regeneration as including the whole life
of a Christian ; we are regenerating here all the time of
our life. (p. 377.) He applies the 7th chapter of the Epistle
to the Komans to the regenerate, as did St. Augustine, and as
Bishop Andrewes also did in his Boole of Devotions, p. 379.
Dr. Collins defends Calvin, who says that Christ bade his
disciples receive^ not adore the sacrament. Calvin would
have us refrain from worshipping the sacrament of the Eu
charist for safety's sake : " Quia non tutum. Nam ut Christum
illic rite apprehendant pise animae, in ccelum erigantur necesse
est." (Instit. lib. iv. c. 17, § 36.) "It is not safe; for that
the faithful may duly apprehend Christ in that sacrament,
it is requisite that their minds should be lifted up to heaven."
Dr. Collins observes that St. Augustine and St. Ambrose
interpreted the footstool of God — the earth is my footstool,
Isa. Ixvi. 1, of our Lord's human nature. So Augustine on
Psa. xcviii. (Psa. xcix.), where he is careful not to be mis
understood, as though he intended the presence of Christ
bodily in the Eucharist, as the sequel clearly demonstrates.
CHAPTER XIX.
Page 451
Andrewes and Grotius, 1618 — Condemnation of Trash — Peter du
Moulin — Dr. Preston — Andrewes translated to Winchester —
Christmas 1619 — The King at Farnham 1620 — Consecration of
St. Mary's Chapel near Southampton — Tilenus.
WE find Chamberlain again with Andrewes in February.
He wrote to Sir Dudley Carleton on the 14th: " I made an
errand to Ely House to have shewn the Bishop the Pope's
determination 'twixt the Franciscans and Jacobins, if he had
not seen it ; as likewise what you wrote concerning Grotius
to make him more wary hereafter, though, for aught I ever
heard, he hath used caution enough that way ; but he was at
Lambeth." He found him at home a few days after, and he
informed Chamberlain "that he had had letters lately, and
that before Christmas one came to him for an answer; but
being presently to preach at court, and not finding himself
well at ease, he made his excuse. But I perceived by this
that he holds him for a very learned and able man : yet I doubt
not but this little conference will serve him for a caveat
hereafter. I lent him the Pope's determination 'twixt the
Franciscans and Jacobins, and the censure of the Sorbonists
upon the Archbishop of Spalatro's books, which I met with all
by chance, none of which he had, or had seen."1
Our prelate preaching before the King at Whitehall on
April 5, Easter-day, 1618, prefaced his sermon with a suitable
application of his text, 1 Cor. xi. 16 : But if any man seem
to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches
of God, to the question of the authority of the Church in
things ceremonial.1 This passage is similarly applied by
the learned Dr. John Forbes in his Theologia Moralis, who
quotes Calvin upon it.2 Andrewes proceeds to the conditions
to be regarded in the putting forth of Church authority, that
all customs be agreeable to the general custom of the Church :
especially is a custom to be commended if it be ancient and
from the Apostles.
The third part of this sermon is a learned dissertation upon
the various computations of the time of Easter in the first
four centuries, and a reference to many patristic testimonies
of the observance of the festival. That the Apostles them
selves instituted this festival he maintains on the ground of
St. Augustine's often quoted and but too often misapplied
assertion : For such things as come to us not ly writing, but
by practise (and yet such as are observed quite through the
world], we are given to understand they were commended to
us, and were instituted either by the Apostles themselves, or by
General Councils, whose authority hath ever been accounted of
as wholesome in the Church. " Now," adds Andrewes, " what
be those things so generally observed toto orbe terrarum?
These: that the passion, the resurrection, the ascension of
Christ , and the coming of the Holy Ghost from heaven, anni-
versaria solemnitate celebrantur, are yearly in solemn manner
celebrated. And, saith he" [St. Augustine], " if there be any
beside these : for these are most clear."
When we call to mind that the Apostles would, by the
Passover and the Day of Pentecost, be annually led back to
the still more wonderful events which endeared those seasons
to their hearts, we may well conjecture that from the very
earliest they annually commemorated at those seasons the
sufferings and the resurrection of Christ, and the descent of
the Holy Ghost.
His Whitsunday sermon, May 24th, preached before the
King at Greenwich from Acts ii. 7, is not one of the most
felicitous of his discourses. He observes the tendency of the
age to turn religion into an auricular profession; but whilst
the whole is upon the effusion of the Spirit, it is not a pouring
forth worthy of the occasion. But one comparison there is in
it, which would have sufficed for a sermon of itself ; when he
remarks that as copious as was the effusion of Christ's blood,
so copious was the effusion of the Spirit, " He as liberal of
his grace , as Christ of his blood."1
Andrewes appears to have been nominated to the see of
Winchester on the ver y day of the decease of Bishop Montague
at Greenwich, 20th July, 1618. The conge d'elire for his
election is dated 29th July, 1618.
But a short time before he was, on June 23rd, put in
commission for banishing Jesuits, Seminary Priests, &c.2
This year, 1618, the King appointed Drs. Carleton, Hall,
Davenant, and Ward to represent the English Church at the
Synod of Dort.3 George Carleton was born at Norham in
Northumberland, and was educated by the famous Bernard
Gilpin, the apostle of the North, (whose zeal was emulated by
the indefatigable Edmund Bunney, of an eminent family from
the village of Bunney in Nottinghamshire, B.D., and Fellow
of Merton College, Oxford, and Prebendary of St. Paul's, of
York and Carlisle, and Kector of Bolton Percy4). He first
went to St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, and thence to Merton
College, of which he was chosen a Fellow. He was made
D.D. 1613. He held the stall of St. Dubritius in the church
of Llandaff, previously to his being appointed to the bishopric.
He was consecrated to that see a few months before he wrent
to Dort, namely, July 12, 1618, at Lambeth. Abbot was
assisted on this occasion by Dr. John King, Bishop of London,
Dr. John Buckeridge, Bishop of Eochester, Dr. John Overall,
Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and Dr. George Monteigne,
Bishop of Lincoln. Dr. Joseph Hall of Emmanuel College,
Cambridge, was at this time Dean of Worcester and Arch
deacon of Nottingham. The latter dignity he received on the
promotion of Dr. King, Dean of Christ Church, to the see of
London in 1611, and his Deamy to the promotion of that other
equally noble and illustrious divine Dr. Arthur Lake to the
see of Bath and Wells in 1616. Dr. Samuel Ward was at
this time Master of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, Rector
of Much Munden, between Ware and Buntingford, Arch
deacon of Taunton, and Prebendary of Ampleforth in the church
of York. In 1622 he succeeded Bishop Davenant at Cam
bridge as Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity. Dr. John
Davenant, uncle to the celebrated Dr. Thomas Fuller, was of
a wealthy London family, had been for a short time Vicar
of Oakington near Cambridge,1 received his education at
Queens' College, Cambridge, and was appointed President
of Queens' College 1614, on the death of Dr. Humphrey
Tindall, Dean of Ely, having been Lady Margaret's Divinity
Professor from 1609. He was in 1622 made Bishop of
Salisbury, and Carleton was in 1619 translated from LlandafF
to Chichester. Ward, Davenant, Hall, and Carleton had an
interview with King James at Newmarket previously to their
departure for Dort. Andrewes was probably with the King
at the same time, when his commissary came to Newmarket
to lay a complaint against the celebrated preacher Dr. Preston,
at this time a Fellow of Queens' College. Ward and Davenant
were again summoned to the royal presence at Royston on
the 8th of October, " where," says Fuller in his Church
History? il his Majesty vouchsafed his familiar discourse unto
them for two hours together, commanding them to sit down
by him, and at last dismissed them with his solemn prayer
that God would bless their endeavours, which made them
cheerfully to depart his presence."
On October 16th Andrewes admitted Edmund (or Edward3)
White, M.A., to be his domestic chaplain.4 He had been
admitted as a sizar at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, in
1605, was B.A. 1609, M.A. 1612.
On November 5th our prelate preached before the King at
Whitehall from Esther ix. 31 : To confirm these days of Purim,
according to their seasons, &c. Comparing the plot to that
of Haman, he observed, tl Haman was to the Jews a stranger
in nation, for he was an Agagite : a stranger in religion, for
he was an heathen man. Ours were no strangers in nation,
the same nation that we. No Turks or infidels, but professing
the same Christ that we j and better than we, say they, for
right Catholics they ; and not Christians, but (which is more
than Christians) Jesuits some of them."1
On the 10th of December Walter Balcanqual, B.D., Fellow
of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, was also sent over as in the
name of the Church of Scotland. On the 8th of March, 1625,
he was installed Dean of Rochester on the promotion of Dr.
Goodman to the see of Gloucester, but about three weeks
before the death of King James. On the 13th of May, 1639,
he was installed Dean of Durham. The same cause was
forwarded at home by Archbishop Abbot, who joined with Sir
Henry Savile in publishing Bradwardine's Causa Dei.
Dr. Hall returning home on account of ill health, Dr.
Thomas Goade was sent over to supply his place. In the late
Mr. Carwithen's History of the Church of England, Goade
is thus depreciated : " Goade, a chaplain of Abbot, of whom
nothing more can be said than that he was ready to join in
any measure which might be adopted against the Remon
strants."2 Goade was the learned son of a learned father, who
when Provost of King's College discerned the talent of Dr.
Collins, and pointed him out as his successor. This came to
pass five years after his death, two Provosts succeeding in the
interim, Dr. Fogge Newton, Rector of Kingston near Cam
bridge, where he lies buried, and Dr. William Smyth, one of
King James's Chaplains, who from his Fellowship at King's
College was chosen Master of Clare Hall in 1598, and thence
raised to the Provostship of King's College in 1612, on the
death of Dr. Newton. Goade was in the time of Bishop
King made Precentor of St. Paul's February 16, 1618,
Prebendary of the tenth stall at Winchester August 25, 1621,
Proctor of his University in 1629, and Professor of Civil Law.
in 1635. If he was ejected he was probably restored. His
successor in the Professorship was not appointed until 1666.
At the Synod of Dort met not only the divines of Holland
with those sent from England, but also from the Palatinate,
from Hesse, from Switzerland, from Herborn in Nassau, from
Bremen, Emden, and Geneva. The French Protestant divines
were not suffered to attend, the King being displeased with
the Dutch for their noncompliance with his intercession in
behalf of Barneveldt, and other political reasons.1 It was
found that not a few favourers of Socinianism concealed their
errors under colour of anti-Predestinarianism ; and this the
Lutheran historian Weismann confesses was the principal
cause of the great hostility of the Predestinarian divines to the
Remonstrants.2
The canons of the Synod of Dort have recently been
republished in Niemeyer's Collectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis
Reformatis publicatarum. Leipz. 1840.
In the course of this year Andrewes delivered his speech
in the Star Chamber against that unstable and fanatical
person John Traske. His speech was a confutation of
Traske's two judaical points, namely, that we should abstain
from all the forbidden meats enumerated in Leviticus, and
that we should observe the Jewish Sabbath or Saturday.
Some few there are still in our own country and in America
who appear to have inherited his perverseness in the latter
particular. In 1620 he put forth a recantation, entitled A
Treatise of Liberty from Jadaism, or an Acknowledgment of
true Christian Liberty , indited and published by John Traske;
of late stumbled, now happily running again in the Race
of Christianity. Bishop Andrewes himself, we have before
seen, acknowledged the moral nature and obligation of the
Lord's-day ; and so in the recantation of Traske we read, ' A
new spiritual service we are to yield. And that a Sabbath-
day we do still acknowledge, it is by virtue of the command
ment itself, as far as it is moral.'
Andrewes began his speech thus : " It is a good work
to make a Jew a Christian ; but to make Christian men Jews
hath ever been holden a foul act, and severely to be punished."
Respecting the distinction of meats he cites our Saviour's
words, that there is nothing that goeth into the mouth that
defileth a man. And he adds, " This is our ground : Sermo
Christi omnes cibos mundanSj saith Gregory Thaumaturgus
more than 1300 years since."1
He proceeds to observe that the distinction of clean and
unclean was only appointed for the Jews. He passes over
the distinction of clean and unclean in Genesis viii. 20,
probably because it was made with a view to the law of
sacrifice. He alleges not only the ceremonial nature of the
prohibition which proved that it was not a part of the moral
and eternal law, but of the law of ordinances, which was in
its own nature temporary, but the vision related in the tenth
chapter of the Acts. He observes that this distinction was
not insisted on in the fifteenth chapter. He observes from
St. Augustine that the prohibition of eating the blood was, in
like manner, but for a time.2
In his remarks on the Sabbath he, in alleging St. Atha-
nasius, attributes to him the Creed called after his name.
Dr. Waterland refers the composition of this Creed to Hilary,
Archbishop of Aries, about A.D. 430 ; Alt, in his Christliche
Cultus* ascribes it to Vigilius of Thapsus (on the coast of
the province of Byzacium or Byzacena below Carthage), about
A.D. 460.
In November commenced his correspondence with Peter
du Moulin, who on the death of Bilson betook himself to the
patronage of Andrewes, it being well known that the King
had destined him to the vacant see. Du Moulin (although, in
a work intended to answer the Jesuit Arnold, he had owned
the very rise and prevalence of episcopacy, and had highly
complimented the English prelacy,) had given offence by
affirming that in the New Testament the names bishop and
presbyter were interchanged ; that the order of bishop and
presbyter was but one and the same ; and that episcopacy was
not of divine right, meaning thereby that it was not of
indispensable obligation. The first of these three Andrewes
admitted, but complained that Du Moulin had not guarded
against the ill inferences that some might draw from it. For
the second and third he contended, admitting however that
episcopacy was not so of divine right as to be essential to
the being of a Church or to the salvation of any Christian
community. Du Moulin took the same ground with Grotius,
and both agree in witnessing that theirs was the opinion of all
the reformed Churches abroad.
Not long before Bishop Andrewes was translated to
Winchester, there appears to have been no small commotion
in the University from the popularity of the celebrated
Puritan Preston, then a Fellow of Queens' College. Fuller
thus warily (to use his own words) expresses himself hereupon
in his History of the University of Cambridge : " Master John
Preston, Fellow of Queens', suspected for inclination to non
conformity, intended to preach in the afternoon (St. Mary's
sermon being ended) in St. Botolph's Church. But Dr.
Newcombe, Commissary to the Chancellor of Ely, offended by
the pressing of the people, enjoined that service should be
said without sermon. In opposition whereunto a sermon was
made without service, whence large complaints to Lancelot
Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, and in fine to the King himself.
Hereupon Mr. Preston was enjoined to make what his foes
called a recantation, his friends a declaration sermon ; therein
so warily expressing his allowance of the Liturgy and set
forms of prayer, that he neither displeased his own party nor
gave his enemies any great advantage."1
This incident is related much more circumstantially in
Clark's Lives of Thirty -two English Divines / but both he
and Fuller place it under the Vice-Chancellorship of Dr.
Scott, Master of Clare Hall, before whose Vice-Chancellorship
Andrewes was translated to the see of Winchester ; in which
case Dr. Newcombe would not have brought a complaint
before him. According to Clark, Dr. Newcombe seeing the
crowd, commanded that only evening prayer should be read,
and no sermon preached. The incumbent entreated that for
that time Preston might be suffered to preach, as did the Earl
of Lincoln and others present. But the Commissary refused
his permission, and went home with his family. However
Preston preached from 2 Peter iii. 17, 18. There was so
much time spent in debates and messages before the Com
missary left the church, that the prayers were omitted, that so
the scholars might depart in time for their College services.
This furnishing the Commissary with farther ground of
complaint, he went the next day to the court at Newmarket
where the Bishop also was. Upon complaint made to the
King, a letter was directed to the Vice-Chancellor (Dr. Scott,
who however was not then Vice-Chancellor,) and to the other
heads to call Preston before them. He appealed to Andrewes,
and offered himself to undergo an examination by Andrewes
if he was in any way suspected of disaffection to the established
order. On Andrewes objecting to him his dislike of the Liturgy,
he replied that it was a slander of his enemies, for he thought
set forms of prayer lawful, and refused not on all occasions to
be present at prayers in College, and to read them in his turn.
The Bishop answered that he was glad, and would inform the
King, and do him all the good he could, and bade him wait
awhile, and return to him. But time passed on, and nothing
further was done. Dr. Young, " an honest Scotchman," Dean
of Winchester, told Preston plainly that the Bishop was his
greatest adversary, and desirous of his expulsion, but to save the
odium, as desirous that this should be left to the University.
Preston then waited upon Andrewes, calling upon him at once
to say what he would do, and whether he would stir in his
behalf or no. The Bishop upon this bade him come again,
and said that he would deal with the King in his behalf.
The Bishop is said to have gone to the King, and to have
advised that the harsher course should be dropped, and
Preston enjoined to deliver his opinion at St. Botolph's the
next Sunday on set forms of prayer. He the next Sunday
preached accordingly, commending as well private extem
poraneous prayer as public set forms of devotion. And there
this affair ended. We are not bound to believe that Andrewes
dissembled, as Clark represents him to have done.1
Dr. Young, Dean of Winchester, was brother of the learned
Patrick Young, who leaving Scotland was made a Chaplain
of New College, and otherwise preferred. He was an excellent
classical scholar, and translated the King's works into Latin.
His brother the Dean did not attain such celebrity, but besides
his Deanry he was appointed to the prebendal stall of Riccall
in the church of York April 30, 1613, in the place of Dr.
Henry Banks, who was appointed to the Precentorship. He
died some time after, 1642.
" On November 26th, upon report made to the Lords of
the Council by Sir Clement Edmunds, it was ordered by their
lordships that the Earl of Arundel, Dr. Andrewes, Bishop
of Winchester, the Lord Carew, Mr. Treasurer, and Mr.
Comptroller of his Majesty's Household, Mr. Chancellor of
the Exchequer, the Master of the Rolls, and Mr. Edward
Coke, or any four of them, should take consideration of the
state of the business, &c. \_i. e. of the drainage of the fens],
and prepare some opinion to be delivered to the board, of
what present course might be fit to be taken therein. The
Earl of Arundel made a journey to the fens, and treaty with
Sir William Ayloff, Knight, and Antony Thomas, Esq., and
others. They undertook to drain all the fens in Cambridge
shire, the Isle of Ely, Norfolk, Suffolk, Lincolnshire, North
amptonshire, and Huntingdonshire."2
"The work nevertheless," says Lysons, " meeting with
much opposition in the country, was carried on with little
effect." Of the subsequent vicissitudes of the drainage system
Lysons gives a concise account in his History of Cambridge
shire, to whom I remit the reader.
On Friday, Christmas-day 1618, our prelate preached an
incomparable discourse from the gospel for the day, before the
King and Court at Whitehall. Well does he observe of the
meanness of our Saviour's birth and of the glory that yet
attended it, the angels themselves making melody upon it:
"It is a course, (this) the Holy Ghost began it (here) at his
birth, and after observed it all along, Sociare ima summisj
et insolita solitis temperare ; to couple low and high together,
and to temper things mean and usual) with others as strange
every way."1
Affectingly in his own simple way does he note how the
sign by which the Lord was to be found suited the time, his
coming in humility, and the persons : " The poorest of the
earth may repair to him, being no other place but this ; and
by this sign to find him."
Yet was this sign not without glory. " It was much, from
a babe floating in the flags of Nilus, in a basket of bulrushes,
(Moses) to gather himself a people, even the nation and
kingdom of the Jews, and to deliver his law. It was infinitely
much more, from this babe (here) lying in the cratch, to work
the bringing in of the Gentiles, and the turning about of the
whole world, and to publish his gospel, the power of God to
salvation."2
Then does he open to us our sign of Christ's presence,
humility: "As St. Augustine saith well, Signum vobis si
signum in vobis , A sign for you if a sign in you."3 How
would men's minds turn from the externals to the internals of
religion, if they bore in their hearts the teaching of our prelate,
that to be but babes in Christ they must to faith join
Those who would pour contempt upon patristic reading
and upon the name of Bishop Andrewes, and have men go
no farther than to some modern commentator, or some idolized
name of the last or present century, would never come upon
so pregnant a passage, such a storehouse of illustration, as the
few following sentences.
"But then if it be signum volts'" [a sign to you] "to
some, it is for some others signum contra vos" [a sign against
you] : " and that is, the proud. For the Word of God hath
two edges : and if it go one way, that for humility, it cuts as
deep the contrary, against pride. And withal, under one
leads us to the cause straight, and shews us the malignity of
the disease of pride, for the cure whereof this so profound
humility was requisite in Christ. There was one, when time
was, took the disease of Ero similis Altissimo" [I will be like
the Most High], a and he breathed upon our first parents with
his Eritis sicut Dii" [ye shall be as gods], " and infected
them with it. To make themselves equal with God is plain
robbery (saith the Apostle, Phil, ii.) For that robbery of
theirs was the Son of God robbed (as I may say), and quite
spoiled of his glory. For their puffing up, e/eez/oxre, he was
made empty ; for their lifting up, eraTretVoxre, was he brought
thus low ; for their comparing with God, came he to be
compared to the beasts that perish; lay in their manger,
we see."
This one sermon might suggest many others to the con
templative preacher.
On February 9th, 1619, Bishop Andrewes received the
royal assent to his translation to Winchester.1
In March he was attending the King, then lying ill at
Eoyston, and was appointed to preach the Easter-day sermon
there before him on the 28th;2 but if preached, it was not
printed with the rest of his Festival Sermons.
On May 13th he was present at the funeral of Queen
Anne,3 and on the Sunday following, being Whitsunday,
preached before the Court at Greenwich in the royal chapel
there. From his text, Of a truth I perceive that God is no
respecter of persons, he acutely exposed the sophistry of the
pretended Papal infallibility. St. Peter himself owned that
hitherto he had been in error respecting the divine purpose to
open the Church to the Gentiles.
1 Andrewes was confirmed in his new see 25th of February, and obtained the
temporalities March 19th. He had been previously made Dean of the King's
Chapel.
God is no accepter of persons. This St. Peter knew, yet
he falsely reasoned that God was an accepter of one nation
above another. So inconsistent is human nature !
God accepts those who fear him ; who fear him not with a
mere servile but holy fear, a fear opposed to presumption, a
fear proceeding from a true faith, and working righteousness
not occasionally, but constantly as the very occupation of life.
The works of Cornelius were alms, prayer, and fasting. And
as to his faith, "if you will reach it further," says our prelate,
" to faith in Christ ; living in garrison among the Jews, he
could not choose but have heard somewhat of him, to move
him to throw himself down before him ; and he took him up."1
God accepts, that is, graciously, not upon a claim of merit.
The word accepted here used is but a capacity that he may be,
lays no necessity that he must be accepted.2 And " if this
fearer, this worker be accepted and not in himself, in whom
then ? Who is it ? The Apostle tells us directly, He hath
made us accepted in Ms beloved Son"z
On the 1st of September Peter du Moulin sent to our
prelate his work against the Arminians, undertaken at the
request of the Dutch Church. He speaks very modestly of
this treatise as not coming up to his own wishes, and also of
the difficulty of the subject as being a most thorny one, and
one in which it is impossible to satisfy men's judgments. But
he adds, " I shall readily think nothing of the judgments of
others, if I satisfy yours. For you alone are equal to all,
inasmuch as with me you are above all. But if I seem to you
to have undertaken a work beyond my powers, you will
nevertheless look with kindness on the attempt, and will take
into consideration the great difficulty of writing accurately
upon the most difficult subjects, and upon which men with an
ill-directed ingenuity have cast additional obscurity, in a life
full of occupation and time at the mercy of a thousand various
calls. But if I may not look for thus much, you will accept this
volume as a token of my regard and entire devotedness to you,
which is such that I had rather be corrected and taught by
you than praised by others. May God long preserve you,
most reverend prelate, and long make use of your influence to
the good of his Church.
" Farewell.
" Paris, Gal. Sept. 1619."
Du Moulin's work was translated into English in 1635
with the following title, The Anatomie of Arminianism : or
the Opening of the Controversies of these times (formerly
handled in the Low Countries] concerning the Doctrine of
Providence, of Predestination, of the Death of Christ, of Nature
and Grace, &c. By Peter du Moulin, Minister of the Church
at Paris. London : printed for Nathaniel Newbery, at the
sign of the Star in Pope's Head Alley. Anno Dom. 1635.
The translation is dedicated by Nathaniel Newbery to Sir
Henry Mildmay, Knight, Master of his Majesty's Jewels, and
Sir Henry Howe, Knight. The work was prefaced by the
author with an epistle to the Lords the States-General of the
United Provinces of the Low Countries. In this epistle King
James is commended for his sanction of the Synod of Dort.
Du Moulin expresses his regret that he could not be present
at that assembly, adding that he did what he could, by
sending to the Synod his opinion upon the subjects there
treated of. The answers he thus gave, he drew out at full
length in this treatise. From it he appears to have been
opposed to the supra-Lapsarian theory, against which he
writes very unreservedly in the sixth chapter, Of the Sin of
Adam.
Of the efficacy of the death of Christ he says : " When we
say that Christ died for all, we take it thus, to wit, that the
death of Christ is sufficient to save whosoever do believe ; yea,
and that it is sufficient to save all men, if all men in the whole
world did believe in him : and that the cause why all men are
not saved, is not in the insufficiency of the death of Christ, but
in the wickedness and incredulity of man."1
Gn the difficulties which those who maintain what is called
particular redemption have thrown in the way of those whom
they should encourage to believe in the Gospel, Dr. Chalmers
has delivered himself with an effectiveness peculiarly his own,
in the eleventh chapter of his Institutes of Theology, entitled,
On the warrant which each man has to appropriate the calls of
the Gospel to himself, and what that is which marks his doing
so.1 Let the reader also peruse the third chapter of the third
part, entitled, On the Universality of the Gospel. He will
then perceive that the doctrine of divine predestination is not
necessarily at variance with that of universal redemption. The
opposite opinion has arisen from the injudicious and un
hallowed attempts of some to harmonize their own misgivings
of the truth with their imperfect conceptions of it.
Calvin was altogether too practical to lose himself in the
artificial reasonings of such as have made it impossible for
themselves to testify to all men with St. Paul, repentance
towards God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts
xx. 21.) With Calvin, faith was the receiving of Christ as he
is offered to us in the Scriptures, that is as at once our redemp
tion and sanctification.2
Neither do we find the tenet of particular redemption coun
tenanced in the Synod of Dort, but the very contrary :
" Casterum promissio evangelii est, ut quisquis credit in
Christum crucifixum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam.
Quas promissio omnibus populis et hominibus, ad quos Deus
pro suo beneplacito mittit evangelium, promiscue et indis-
criminatim annuntiari et proponi debet cum resipiscentiae et
fidei mandato.3 ( But the promise of the Gospel is, that who
soever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but shall
have eternal life. And this promise is to be proclaimed and
set forth to all nations and individuals without exception
and without any difference, with the command to repent and
believe, to whom God, according to his own good pleasure,
sends the Gospel.'
Upon Saturday, Christmas-day, December 25th, our
prelate delivered one of his most copious and eloquent dis
courses. How many sermons might be produced from this
one. What a multitude of holy lessons does it contain, what
heavenly peace pervades it. How fit an exposition of the
angels' hymn, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace,
good will towards men. Most happily too, whilst its excellencies
are incomparable, its defects are few.
On the 5th of February, 1620, our prelate was on the
Committee of Privileges of the Lords. On the 14th he was
one of the Conference with the Commons for the uniting of
both Houses in a petition to the King for the better execution
of the laws then in force against Jesuits, Seminary Priests,
and Popish recusants.
On Saturday, February 17th, he was on a committee to
consider a Bill that had been read a second time for the con
firmation of the King's letters-patent to Sir Philip Carey,
Knight, and others, of the manor of Minster in the Isle of
Thanet. On the 21st he was to meet on the naturalization of
Sir Francis Stewart, Knight, Walter Stewart, James Maxwell,
and William Carr, Esquires. James Maxwell was afterwards
Groom of the Bedchamber to Charles I., and was with the
King when he was surprised by Colonel Joyce at Holdenby
in Northamptonshire.
On Thursday the 22nd he was appointed to meet in a
committee for clearing the passage by water from London to
beyond Oxford, at two P.M. in the council-chamber, Whitehall.
On the 1st of March he was to meet, by eight A.M. in the
committee-chamber, to enable Edmund Clough, Esq., and
other bargainers in trust to convey the manor of Temple
Newsome, &c. to Esme Stuart, Lord Aubigny, and Earl of
March, and the Lady Catharine his wife, or such as they shall
name and appoint.
On Monday the 5th of March he was appointed to meet at
eight A.M. in the Painted Chamber on an Act for the con
firmation of the Hospital of King James founded in Charter
House at the humble petition and only costs, &c., of Thomas
Sutton, Esq.
On the 9th he was to meet upon a projected academy for
the training of the younger nobility and gentry.
On the 12th, respecting abuses on the Lord's-day ; and on
a committee of grievances complained of by the House of
Commons, as also of complaints respecting the patents of gold
and silver thread.
On March 26th he attended the King to St. Paul's, one of
the most venerable Norman structures in England, and of
unusual dimensions. This was with a view to promote the
repairs of that vast edifice, upon which the munificence of the
whole church and nation was liberally expended so long as it
remained. We may be allowed to regret that it was not
restored and preserved, as peradventure it might have been,
after the great fire.
Not less to be commended is his Easter-day sermon,
preached at Whitehall in the following year April 16, being
taken from the account of our Lord's resurrection by the
Evangelist St. John.
His discourse upon the 4th of June, Whitsunday, is
among the best of that series.1 It is full of patristic learning
such as may be gathered from the commentaries of Lorinus.
Both learnedly and piously has the same place — This is he
that came ly water and blood — been treated of in the second
of Bishop Heber's Sermons in India.2
On April 27th Andrewes was on a commission for selling
some of the crown jewels, and on the 29th on the High
Commission.
On the 6th of August, 1620, he admitted Christopher
Wren, the younger brother of Matthew, and father of the
famous architect, one of his domestic chaplains. Wren
preached before him in Windsor chapel. He then received
his appointment, and with his brother accompanied the Bishop
to Farnham, where the King and his Court were feasted three
days at a cost of above £3,000.3
Buckeridge observes of this entertainment, in his funeral
sermon for our prelate, that it was as bountiful and great an
entertainment as ever King James received at a subject's
hands. Christopher, afterwards Dean of Windsor and Wolver-
hampton in 1635, was born in 1589. He was of St. John's
College, Oxford, B.D. 1620, but D.D. 1630 of the University
of Cambridge. Andrewes made him Hector of Knoyle Magna
or East Knoyle near Hindon in the south-west part of Wilt
shire. In 1628 he was appointed chaplain in ordinary to
Charles I. ; in 1635 Dean of Windsor and Wolverhampton ;
and in 1638 Kector of Haseley in Oxfordshire. His Deanry
was plundered in 1642. He died at Blechindon near Oxford,
29th of May, 1658, at the parsonage of Mr. William Holder
(who had married his daughter), and was buried in the
chancel. He was a good mathematician, and gave proofs of
that ingenuity which shone so eminently in his only son the
architect.
On Sunday September 17th Andrewes consecrated the
new chapel in St. Mary's parish, called St. Mary's Extra,
near Southampton, for the benefit of the village of Weston
and the hamlets Itchen, Wolston, Kidgway, and part of Bittern
Manor.
This form, which is every way more impressive than those
now in use, was followed by Laud at the consecration of St.
Catharine Cree, Leadenhall-street (a remarkable specimen of
the mixed architecture of his age) in 1630.1 This consecration
gave occasion to many aspersions upon Laud both before and
at his trial, and these have, with the usual veracity of blind
party-spirit, been continued by Kapin and others, as though
they had never been refuted. Happy had it been for Laud,
if he had followed the judgment of Bishop Andrewes as well
in points of doctrine as of ceremony.
Bishop Andrewes, attended by his two chaplains Matthew
and Christopher Wren, proceeded to the chapel, and at eight
in the morning, being in their proper habits, came out of the
chapel ; and the Bishop addressed Captain Richard Smith,
who gave into the hands of William Cole, the Bishop's
registrar, the instrument praying for the consecration and
constant appropriation of the chapel to the service of God.
After this the two chaplains read alternately the 24th
Psalm, and after the Doxology had been said, the Bishop
advancing nearer the porch, said, / was glad when they said
unto me. We will go into the house of the Lord. Our feet shall
stand in thy gates, 0 Jerusalem.
Then all entering the chapel, the Bishop read, with some
few accommodations to this service, the dedication prayer of
King David, the 29th chapter of the First Boole of Chronicles,
from the 10th to the 18th verse inclusive. Then followed the
prayer, * Most glorious God.' This prayer is in part taken
from one in common use at that time, and recorded to have
been offered up also at the consecration of a chapel at
Edmonton by Bishop King in 1615,1 and of another chapel
in Clay Hall in the parish of Barking, Essex, September 15,
1616, by Dr. Thomas Morton, Bishop of Chester (afterward
of Durham). It is remarkable that in the Parentalia Bishop
Wren is said to have prepared an office for consecrating a
church at Dore in Herefordshire,2 in 1634.
After the longer prayer commemorating the precedents of
such acts of consecration, followed a prayer and benediction
in the name of the Holy Trinity. Then the Bishop laying
his hand upon the font consecrated it with a short prayer, as
also the pulpit, reading-desk, communion-table, site of joining
of hands in matrimony, and the whole pavement with reference
to such bodies as should be interred beneath. Then a general
prayer of dedication for the whole church was said by the
Bishop before the communion-table. Then the morning ser
vice commenced. For the psalms were read the 84th, 122nd,
and 132nd. The first lesson was the 28th chapter of Genesisj
in which is read the dedication of Bethel by Jacob. For the
second was read the 2nd chapter of St. John from the 13th
verse to the end, in which is read the purifying of the Temple.
After the three Collects the Bishop said a fourth, full of that
humility and earnest devotion for which he was ever so
conspicuous. Then the other chaplain read the Litany, and
the Bishop concluded with a prayer, as for himself and from
himself apart from the congregation, that God would be
pleased to hear whatsoever prayers should in that place be
made according to his will. After the benediction the 132nd
Psalm was sung, and Mr. Eobinson, B.D., brother-in-law to
the founder, preached the sermon from the 16th verse of the
28th chapter of Genesis.
After the sermon a poor woman returned thanks to
Almighty God for safe deliverance. The psalm used pre
viously to the last review was the 121st. The Communion
service was then commenced by the two chaplains, standing
one on either side the holy table. Before the Epistle for the
day a special Collect was read : ' Most blessed Saviour, who
by thy bodily presence at the feast of dedication didst honour
and approve such devout and religious services as we have
now in hand, be thou present also at this time with us, and
consecrate us into an holy temple unto thyself, that thou
dwelling in our hearts by faith, we may be cleansed from all
carnal affections, and devoutly given to serve thee in all good
works. Amen.'
The Epistle was 1 Cor. iii. from ver. 16 to the end ; the
Gospel from the 10th chapter of St. John, from ver. 22 to the
end. Then after the Nicene Creed the Bishop, casting himself
down before the holy table, prayed the dedication prayer of
Solomon, 2 Chron. vi. from ver. 18 to ver. 40, praying also
at the end that God would favourably hear this congregation
as he did Solomon. Then sitting in his chair, with his head
covered, Thomas Ridley his Chancellor standing on his right
hand,*-and Dr. Barlow,1 Archdeacon of Winchester, on his
left, he read in Latin the Act of Consecration, Dedication, and
Appropriation, The chapel was named Jesus Chapel, as a
chapel-of-ease to St. Mary's parish near Southampton. The
officiating minister was to be endowed with at least 20 marks
per annum. The patronage was to be in the family of the
founder. Then a short prayer was added by the Bishop, that
God would bless this day's action unto his people. After
this those who did not communicate were dismissed.
At the Offertory was collected £4 12s. 2d., which the
Bishop ordered to be appropriated to the purchasing of a
chalice for the use of the chapel. Before the consecration
prayer of the Communion service the Bishop washed his hands,
and mixed water with the wine, according to the custom
of the Church from the age of St. Cyprian. After he had
received the holy Communion, he delivered it first to the
founder, then to his chaplains, and delivered the bread to all
the rest, one of the chaplains delivering the wine. The
Bishop read the first of the two prayers that precede the
Gloria in Excelsis, and concluded with a prayer for the
founder and for all who should hereafter enjoy the benefit
of this his munificent and pious act.
After the Bishop and a numerous company had dined at
the founder's house at Peer Tree (now called Pear Tree), the
congregation reassembled in the chapel, and one of the
chaplains read the Lord's Prayer, and for the psalms was
read alternately the 90th Psalm. The act of consignation
of the churchyard was then read, and after confirmed by the
founder and his neighbours. The time being short the second
lesson was omitted, and only the 23rd chapter of Genesis
read, being the account of the burial of Sarah. The act of
consignation and remainder of the consecration service was
read in the churchyard ; which being completed they returned
to the chapel, and sang the first part of the 16th Psalm, and
Matthew Wren preached the sermon from The zeal of thine
house hath even eaten me. After sermon, was sung the rest of
Psalm xvi., and the service, beginning at the Apostles' Creed,
proceeded in the ordinary course.
The Rev. James Bliss, M.A., of Oriel College, Oxford, the
able editor of Bishop Andrewes' Minor Works (Oxford, 1854),
and Vicar of Ogbourne St. Andrew near Marlborough, observes
of Andrewes' Form for the Consecration of a Church or Chapel,
that it was first published in 32mo in 1659, with a preface
dated May 29 of that year ; that the only copy of this edition
which he had seen was now in the Bodleian Library, and
that it was afterwards reprinted in quarto, and appended to
Bishop Sparrow's Collection of Articles. It has since been
reprinted and bound up with Bishop Sparrow's Rationale of
the Book of Common Prayer.
In a letter from Junius to Vossius dated from Paris
September 18, Junius relates that on the 15th he had met
with Tilenus. He writes of him in terms of high commend
ation as most strenuous in behalf of the truth. Tilenus
informed Junius that he was about to visit England to enjoy
an interview with the King, from whom and from Bishop
Andrewes he had received letters. The King had sent over
his physician to attend him on this journey.1
Upon Monday, Christmas-day, Bishop Andrewes preached
before the King at Whitehall, very ably and with much
learning, upon the wise men's coming to our Saviour. If any
will see the force and beauty of typical illustration, let them
read this sermon, and let them confess that many types there
are in Holy Writ besides those that are there called so.
CHAPTER XX.
Page 473
Bishop Andrewes preaches at the opening of Parliament 1621 — His
Sermon upon Fasting — Upon St. John xx. 17 — Whitsunday — *
Archbishop Abbot's calamity — Andrewes befriends Allot — Enter
tains Junius and Doublet at Farnham — Dr. Thomas Goad.
ON the assembling of the Parliament, 1621, our prelate
preached before them in the Abbey of Westminster from the
first psalm in the evening service (Psalm Ixxxii.), God standeth
in the congregation of princes ; in the midst will he judge
the gods. Upon the words God standeth, he contrasts with
God's unchangeable the mortal nature of princes, these earthly
gods ; and says, in allusion to that most solemn sanctuary of
death in which they were then met, " This could not be told
us in a fitter place : the place where we stand is compassed
about with a congregation of these fallen gods, these same
Dii caduci (fragile gods), with monuments of the mortality of
many a great Elohim (God) in their times. And let me tell
you this, that in the Hebrew tongue the grave is called a
synagogue as well as the church. All shall be gathered,
even the gods, even the whole synagogue of them, into this
synagogue at last." Very plain and earnest is the whole
sermon, treating of the presence of God, and of the duty of
being well affected toward his presence if we would stand in
the judgment.
On February 14, Ash-Wednesday, Bishop Andrewes
preached at Whitehall upon the duty of fasting, overthrowing
the cavils of those who would expunge when from the text
(Matt. vi. 16), by leaving it so at liberty as that it should
never be performed.
About the 15th or 16th of March Andre wes and Moun-
taigne, Bishop of Lincoln, in the name of all the rest, pre
sented to the King at Hampton Court a grant of subsidies
passed by the clergy of the province of Canterbury.1
Upon Easter-day, April 1st, he resumed his discourse upon
the narrative of the resurrection, as it is given in St. John's
gospel, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father,
giving the three interpretations of Chrysostom, Gregory, and
Augustine, which last is also followed and expressed with his
usual energy and conciseness by Leo the Great. The first
is that our Lord saw in her a degree of irreverence. Under
this head our prelate condemns the too familiar and irreverent
handling of the doctrine of predestination, and the familiar
taking of Christ in the sacrament, when to touch the ark itself,
that other symbol of him, was death. Yet we have those who
most familiarly pray to God and plead that they are his
children, a most irreverential excuse for this much worse than
childish practice. But even this irreverence is not without
some share of popularity, and that amongst some who profess
themselves, notwithstanding, members (not children] of the
Church of England.
The second and third interpretations however will stand
better, and may well stand together ; that our Lord forbade
her at this time, when his disciples were still full of sorrow,
to spend her moments in the enjoyment of his presence. Add
secondly, that thus too she was admonished that the touch
of faith was more excellent than to touch him corporeally,
whom the wicked could indeed also touch, and yet not be
thereby healed of their spiritual diseases.
On April 30th Andrewes attended with other peers on
Lord Bacon, to ascertain from him whether, he acknowledged
as his own the petition and confession made in his name to
the House.2
On May 2nd our prelate was appointed to take examinations
in the case of Sir John Bennet, who had been charged by
the House of Commons with abusing his office of Judge of
the Prerogative Court to purposes of corruption and fraudulent
self-aggrandisement, and was eventually committed to custody
for a short time, fined the enormous sum of £20,000, and
deprived of his office.
On the 8th of May Bishop Andrewes was on a committee
for confirming the sale of the Rectory of Dorking, heretofore
made by Charles Earl of Nottingham, and William late Lord
Howard of Effingham, deceased, to Thomas Trevor and
William Bryan and their heirs.
On the 12th of May he was appointed to meet on committee,
at two P.M. in the Painted Chamber, respecting an Act for
the making good of grants made by collegiate churches and
corporations to the late Queen Elizabeth after the 2nd of
April in the thirteenth year and before the 8th of February
in the twenty-fifth year of that Queen.
On the 18th he was again on a committee upon an Act
for the confirmation of exchange of lands between Prince
Charles and Sir Lewis Watson, Knight.
On May 20th, Whitsunday, our prelate preached before
the King at Greenwich from St. James i. 16, 17. u If," he
says, " we look forth, let it not be about us, either on the
right hand or on the left, on any place here below. Look up ;
turn your eye thither. It is an influence, it is no vapour ; an
inspiration, no exhalation: thence it comes; hence it rises
not : our spirit lusts after envy, and worse matter. (James iv. 5.)
Why should thoughts arise in your hearts? saith Christ. If
they arise they are not good; if they be good, then they come
down from above."1 The lights from above he begins with
" the light of nature, for rebelling against which, all that are
without Christ suffer condemnation. Solomon calls it the
candle of the Lord^ searching even the very bowels (Prov. xx.),
which though it be dim and not perfect, yet good it is : though
lame, yet (as Mephibosheth) it is regia proles, of the blood
royal."2
This sermon, excellent in detail, is however unhappily too
much broken up, too variegated in its texture. It might be
made the groundwork of more than one discourse upon the
noble diversity of God's heavenly gifts.
On June the 10th Andrewes was present at the delivery
of the great seal to Dr. John Williams, Dean of Westminster.1
Monteigne, Bishop of Lincoln, being elected to the see of
London on July 20th, on the death of Dr. John King, Williams
was raised to the see of Lincoln. He was elected the 3rd of
August, and consecrated on the 10th of November. He was
permitted to hold his Deanry in commendam.
On July 12th Andrewes was on a commission for examining
Lewis Bayly, Bishop of Bangor.2 Bayly was committed to
the Fleet Prison July 15th, but soon after liberated. The
most serious charges are said to have been brought against
this prelate ; they are mentioned in a letter by the celebrated
Mede of Cambridge, but his early liberation is the best answer
to them.
On July 24, 1621, there befel a great calamity to the
primate Abbot, who, upon a visit to Lord Zouch at Bramshill
Park (two miles to the west of Hartford Bridge in the north
east corner of Hampshire), shooting with the cross-bow at a
buck, and his arrow meeting with a swelling bough in the
way, had the mishap to wound one of the keepers. It was
but a flesh-wound and a slight one, but being under the care
of an heedless surgeon, the poor man died of it the next day.
The King, upon hearing it, feelingly remarked that an angel
might have miscarried in that sort. ' The Archbishop,' says
Hacket, f was an happy man in this unhappiness, that many
hearts condoled with him, and many precious stones were in
the breastplate which he wore, that pleaded for him. He was
painful, stout, severe against bad manners, of a grave and a
voluble eloquence, very hospitable, fervent against the Roman
Church, and no less so against the Arminia^ns, which in those
days was very popular.'
Laud was raised by Williams at the solicitation of Villiers
the great favourite. Abbot's first patron was the more truly
illustrious Thomas Sackville Earl of Dorset. Laud was ever
fearful of the excess of that popular aversion to Romanism
which was natural enough in a period in which it was the
ill fate of his country to be governed by a family proud of
Romish alliances. Abbot was the intrepid assertor of
Protestantism as essential to the good of the commonwealth.
Hence the friends of Laud have always depreciated his equally
honest and far more consistent, nay more honest and upright
predecessor. It could not be said of Laud as of Abbot, that
' that Archbishop was wont to dissent from the King as often
as any man at the Council-board.'1 In Abbot it was a merit,
in Laud it would have been. For years the latter was,
according to Heylyn, the King's chief adviser, in effect, after
the death of the royal favourite, his prime minister, the
flatterer of his royal master, the inquisitor of his more
exemplary brethren, of men such as Hall, who found it no
small trial to hold the episcopal office under so arbitrary a
primate.
And now the question was agitated both at home and
abroad, what penalty was incurred by Abbot lying under the
charge of casual homicide. The Romish party were not
backward to exult over him, and to shew what kind of
opinions and individuals were sure of their most cordial
aversion. But ambition magnified his difficulties in the eyes
even of some of his brethren. Hacket, the good and eloquent
Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry (a more impartial author
than Wharton would concede2), remarks of his great bene
factor Williams the Lord Keeper, that he did not come
forward in Abbot's behalf as he might have done. That he
came out of this great trouble unhurt, he owed to the good
offices of Andrewes and to the kind heart of the King — a King
who could discern merit and admire integrity.
According to Fuller, Abbot and Andrewes were not upon
terms of intimacy. It has been imagined that the latter
regarded Abbot as his undeservedly successful rival. An
drewes was probably much less at the Council-table than
Abbot, and would doubtless hear many reports to his dis
advantage from those who were immediately about the King.
Hence might arise mutual misunderstanding. But be this as
it might, tl the party," writes Fuller, " whom the Archbishop
suspected his greatest foe, proved his most firm and effectual
friend, even Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester. For
when several Bishops inveighed against the irregularity of
the Archbishop, laying as much (if not more) guilt on the act
than it would bear, he mildly checked them : ' Brethren,'
said he, l be not too busy to condemn any for uncammicals
according to the strictness thereof, lest we render ourselves in
the same condition. Besides we all know Canones qui dicunt
lapsos post actam pcenitentiam, ad clericatum non esse restitu-
endos, de rigore loquuntur disciplines, non injiciunt despera-
tionem indulgentice, (' that the Canons that say that persons
who have fallen into some offence are not, after they have
repented, to be restored to their place in the church, speak in
regard of the strict execution of discipline, but do not design
to create despair of pardon.'1) But to set at rest all doubts
and canonical scruples, he advised theJKing to grant a dis
pensation to Abbot in virtue of his royal supremacy, and so
an address was prepared praying a dispensation from the
King, and signed by Andrewes, Monteigne, Bishop of
Lincoln, Buckeridge, Bishop of Kochester, and Williams,
Bishop elect of Lincoln, Carey, Bishop elect of Exeter, and
Laud, Bishop elect of St. David's ; together with Judges
Hobart, Doddridge, Marten, and Stywarde.2 The dispensation
was granted on November 21.
By a letter from Junius to Vossius, dated London, August
18, Bishop Andrewes appears to have been at Farnham.
Their kinsman George Eataller Doublet had, about this time,
come to England.
On September 3rd we find Doublet himself writing from
London to Vossius, and most gratefully alluding to the muni
ficent hospitality and frank affection with which he and Junius
were entertained at Farnham, always supping and dining
with Bishop Andrewes in his own hall, who never failed to
drink to the health of Grotius, Vossius, and Erpenius. Bishop
Andrewes had already seen Grotius when that politic and
eminently learned person had visited this country to plead the
cause of the Remonstrants and of the edict of pacification. But
whatever the favour they appeared to obtain, and however they
might colour over their opinions, the endeavours of that party
did not prevail with the King to side with them at the Synod
of Dort. Nor until after that Synod did that party openly
profess itself in this country, and not then without some
repulses. Erpenius had been in England before Grotius,
and was ^personally well known to Andrewes. Yossius he
earnestly desired to see also.1
On November 24th Vossius wrote to Bishop Andrewes in
reply to a letter from that prelate received by the hands of
Doublet. He excuses his long delay on the ground of the
protracted illness of his wife. Everywhere indeed in his
correspondence does the affection of Yossius shine forth
unabated and undiminished by the multitude of his literary
avocations. He mentions how Junius, in all his epistles to
him, had ever reverted to the name of Andrewes with the
liveliest emotions of grateful regard.2
Junius, in a letter to Yossius from London on the 1st of
December, informs him of Abbot's casualty, and of the doubt
of the four bishops elect respecting the canonicalness of a
consecration performed by the Archbishop. Nor were there
wanting, he adds, some who were desirous of making this an
occasion of deposing Abbot, and of placing Andrewes in his
room; Andrewes himself indeed strenuously opposing the
project, and shewing himself a firm friend to the primate.
The King is here said to have appointed ten persons to take
this emergency into consideration, and Andrewes to have
brought over the greater part to milder proceedings by alleging
this canon, ' Clericus de quo dubitatur an sit regularis^ non
est irregular is."1 CA clerk of whose irregularity there is doubt,
is not irregular.' The King himself, he relates, was delighted
with the moderation of Andrewes, and told Abbot to regard
Andrewes on this occasion as the sole person to whom he
owed his escape from deprivation. Junius adds that Andrewes
would have answered Vossius earlier but for this sudden
interruption.
On the 25th of August Dr. Thomas Goad, Precentor of
St. Paul's, Chaplain to Archbishop Abbot, and who had been
sent by the King on Hall's return home to take his place
in the Synod of Dort, was installed Prebendary of the tenth
stall of Bishop Andrewes' church of Winchester. He retained
this dignity to his death in 1638. He was Proctor of the
University of Cambridge 1629, being then Fellow of King's
College. He was also LL.D., and Begius Professor of Civil
Law in that University in 1635.
This year saw the elevation of Williams and Laud to the
episcopal bench. Williams owed his rise to the King himself,
Laud to Williams, who recommended Laud to the King, and
pressed his promotion upon him in order to shew a favour to
Villiers. At the same time he recommended to the King his
secretary, the pious and highly talented Dr. John Donne, for
the Deanry of St. Paul's, Dr. Valentine Carey for the see of
Exeter, and Dr. Davenant for that of Salisbury. So Carey
and Davenant were consecrated to Exeter and Sarum, and
Laud to St. David's on the same day, November 18th, the
very Sunday after the consecration of the Lord Keeper
Williams, Dean of Westminster, to the see of Lincoln. The
King herein yielded to Williams, as he so often did to others,
against his better judgment, and after remonstrating with
Williams on Laud's restless temper instanced in his advice to
him and urgency with him respecting the affairs of the Scotch
Kirk.
CHAPTER XXI.
Bishop Andrewes* Sermon on Hypocrisy — The Archbishop of Spalatro
— The King's Letter to Preachers — William Knight — Disputes
on Predestination at Cambridge — Junius — Andrewes* Christmas
Sermon on the Wise Men.
NEVER was the pious severity of Bishop Andrewes more
effectually put forth than in his sermon against hypocrisy
preached upon March 6, 1622, Ash- Wednesday, from When
ye fast, be not as the hypocrites are. It is a masterpiece of its
kind. The worshippers indeed of their own imaginations,
who have resolved fasting, holy-days, and all religious reve
rence into Popery, will but condemn the good Bishop as a
patron of superstition. To such objectors to fasting he very
pertinently replies that as well might they object to prayer
and almsgiving, for that these also have been observed by
some to the same evil end, to obtain praise of men. Hypocrisy
is c the moth that frets in sunder all that holy or good is.'
In truth, since men have learned an easier repentance, a
repentance that only humbles them whilst they are upon
their knees, and then but with a superficial sentimentality,
they have taken upon them to despise all abstinence, and the
more because the Church directs it to be observed at set
times. And to justify themselves they turn from the Scrip
tures by which they cannot be justified, to plead other men's
abuse of that which is good; thus excusing themselves a
neglected and unpopular duty, as some excuse their attendance
upon the holy Communion.
On March 23rd Bishop Andrewes assisted at the conse
cration of Dr. Kobert Wright to the see of Bristol.
On the 30th of this month Bishop Andrewes sat in com
mission at Lambeth with Archbishop Abbot, Williams, Lord
Keeper of the Great Seal, and Bishop of Lincoln, Mountaine,
Bishop of London, Neile, Bishop of Durham, and other Privy
Councillors, upon that most eminently learned but most
worldly-minded and ambitious person, Mark Antony de
Dominis, late Archbishop of Spalatro. Bishop Neile pub
lished an account of Mark Antony de Dominis, and Hacket
in his Life of Williams exposes upon the most incontestable
evidence the double-mindedness of this unstable and in the
end most unhappy ecclesiastic. Spalatro, as appears from
Fuller,1 took the side of the Kemonstrants, and so found a
zealous advocate in that most partial of controversialists and
doubtful of historians, Dr. Heylyn.
Archbishop Abbot, in the name of the rest, by his Majesty's
special command, in a long Latin speech recapitulated the
many misdemeanours of Spalatro, especially animadverting
upon his inconstancy, who, coming hither as a refugee from
Italy, now designed to return to Eome, having for that purpose
held correspondence with the Pope without the King's know
ledge. Spalatro made answer, an answer that was regarded as
' rather a shuffling excuse than a just defence.' Then the
Archbishop in his Majesty's name commanded him to depart
the kingdom within twenty days, and never to return. His
erudition was very great, but the love of money was his snare
and his destruction. His own countrymen did not confide
in him, but received him only to imprisonment in the Inqui
sition. He probably never cordially again professed their
religion, and had his integrity been equal to his learning, he
would have gone down to his grave with fame not surpassed
by any of his contemporaries. But so it is, the greatest
talents lose no small part of their reward when once devoted
to sinister ends.
Upon Easter-day, April 21, Bishop Andrewes preached
his third sermon upon the resurrection as recorded by St. John.
Of these three, the first is the most replete with interest, but
each is well worthy of its very pious author. The last, as
more quaintly subdivided than the preceding, will be least
acceptable to modern taste.
His Whitsunday sermon is entitled one ' prepared to be
preached.' It might be that he was already suffering from
his sedentary habits, as we find he did most afflictively some
two years after. It displays his usual fertility of ideas, a mul
titude of verbal allusions, and many most pertinent observa
tions, but embraces too many topics for a single sermon. He
plainly condemns those who without gifts yet seek for places
and offices or callings in the church. Again he speaks against
le officiousness of the weak-minded, who, without either gifts
r calling, take upon themselves to meddle in public and in
rivate with divine things. e Either a calling without a gift, or
gift without a calling. What say you to them that have
either, but fetch their run for all that, and leap quite over
ift and calling, Christ and the Holy Ghost both, and chop
Qto the work at the first dash? that put themselves into
•usinesses which they have neither fitness for, nor calling
o?' And our prelate justly observes that the gift should
recede the calling : and as no man comes to Christ but by
be Holy Ghost, so no man to the catting but by the gift.
£et how fearfully, how generally, is this still lost sight of!
Still but comparatively little regard is had to the office and
dignity of the Holy Ghost, whose it is to make men overseers
of the flock which the Lord hath purchased with his own blood.
On July 4th we find Andrewes on a commission for de
fective titles.
Upon August 5th Andrewes preached at Windsor the
anniversary sermon on the Gowrie Conspiracy, from 1 Sam.
xxiv. 5. He again touched upon the treasons of the Romanists,
and on the assassination of Henry III. and IV. of France.
Chamberlain dined with Andrewes, and did not leave him
until half-past five. The weather was so hot, and he so
faint and wet, that he was fain to go to bed for some little
time after he came out of the pulpit.1
On the 15th Andrewes wrote from Farnham to his Arch
deacon to forward to his clergy copies of the King's Letter :
1. to limit preachers to such topics as are in the Articles and
Homilies ; 2. to enjoin that (except funeral sermons) none
shall preach in the afternoon, but on the Catechism or on
some text taken from the Ten Commandments or the Lord's
Prayer, and those to be most encouraged who spend the
afternoon in catechising ; 3. to restrain preaching on predesti
nation, election, or reprobation, or the universality, efficacy,
resistibility or irresistibility of grace; 4. that in respect of
the royal prerogative, they shall in their public teaching be
regulated by the Homilies upon obedience, &c.j 5. to forbid
all violent invectives against the persons of Papists and
Puritans, but modestly and gravely to touch upon the con
troversies relating to them as the text may call the preacher
to it ; 6. that the Bishops be more wary in licensing preachers,
and that lecturers be licensed only on the recommendation of
the Bishop, with a fiat from the Archbishop, and confirmation
under the great seal.2
It may well be doubted whether this was a wise extension
of the royal authority. It is especially to be noted that
Heylyn himself supposes that Laud had a hand in drawing
up these instructions.
Doublet, in a letter to Vossius from London, August 16th,
informs Vossius of William Knight of Broadgate Hall, Ox
ford, who, on Palm Sunday, had maintained in a sermon that
it was lawful for subjects to take up arms in defence of religion
against the King, and on being called into question for his
doctrine, defended himself by the authority of Parseus.
Upon this occasion Andrewes himself, with other bishops,
directed a mandatory letter to the Vice-Chancellor and Heads
of Houses at Oxford, intimating to them their judgment
in this case. Doublet with his own epistle sent to Vossius
the decree of the University of Oxford condemnatory of
Paraeus On the Romans, and speaks of the theological tem
perament of the University of Cambridge as somewhat over
heated in regard of such as were strictly for the Genevan
Eeformation, either through their great animosity to every
thing savouring of Puritanism, or through their inclination to
the opinions of the Kemonstrants. He was at Cambridge
during the Commencement. There he heard very warm
disputes upon predestination, free-will, and other kindred
points; some strongly maintaining the side of the Bemon-
strants against Dr. Balcanqual. He was informed by one
and another of the Doctors to whom he had introductions
from Bishop Andrewes, that it was a doubt which was the
greater party in the University, the Eemonstrants or the
Anti-Bemonstrants. The Vice-Chancellor himself (Dr. Leo
nard Mawe), he adds, was l remonstrantissimus' He found
many much attached to Vossius, especially Balcanqual and
Dr. Jerome Beale.1
On September 13th Vossius wrote to Bishop Andrewes,
thanking him with much affection for his kindness to his
son-in-law Francis Junius, and that at a time when Junius
was suffering from the neglect of his other friends.2
Bishop Andrewes had commended Junius to the Earl of
Arundel, the Marshal of England, who took him into his
family, and with whom he long continued.
The Earl of Arundel was one of the greatest patrons
of the fine arts whom this age produced. A part of his
noble collection remains in the hands of the University
of Oxford. He in the reign of James relinquished the
errors of Komanism, and appears to have enjoyed the con
fidence of his sovereign. The succeeding monarch created
him Earl of Norfolk, but would not raise him to the Dukedom.
He was variously looked upon, by some with suspicion, as he
would not live in dependence upon the smiles and favour of
the Court. He took no part in the subsequent commotions,
but went over to Italy, where he died at Padua October 4,
1646.
Upon Wednesday, Christmas-day, Bishop Andrewes pro
ceeded with the history of the Wise Men's coming. Here, he
said, are three stars, the star in the firmament, the star of
faith in their hearts, and Christ himself, the bright and
morning star. Their faith believed that he, though of the
Jews, had relation to them ; that benefit was to come to them
by him ; that therefore their worship was due to him. They
did the work of faith, they confessed him boldly. They had
a faith that was well grounded. They had seen his star.
They most probably were led to that star by Balaam's
prophecy, that a King should arise who should not only smite
the corners of Moab, that is Balak their enemy, for the
present ; but should reduce and bring under him all the sons
of Seth, that is, all the world. For all are now Seth's sons ;
Cain's were all drowned in the flood. The West had some
glimmering of knowledge of this star. It is seen in Virgil's
sixth Eclogue, but not having the word of prophecy they
missed it. So this, this book must be our morning light,
a more sure word of prophecy, as St. Peter saith. And
besides these, there must be a light within, in the eye. And
that must come from him and the enlightening of his Spirit.
The work of their faith they shewed in that they came. They
left their country, and so walked in the steps of the faith of
Abraham ; did Abraham's first work. They came not a short
journey, as the shepherds, but a long and wearisome one over
the deserts and rocks and insecure ways of Arabia, and in
the worst season. And they set out without delay. No
sooner did they see the star than forthwith they set out. And
having come they inquired where he was born ; they enquired
of the scribes; they went not to a conventicle but to the
church. And as they enquired themselves, so must we, and
seek Christ not by another but by ourselves.
And they came and worshipped him, not in hypocrisy, as
Herod at his birth, or the other Herod at his death. They
came and found him in a stable, and yet they turned not away.
They find him in so humble a state that he might seem more
like to be abhorred than adored of such persons. lt Will they
be as good as their word, trow ? Will they not step back at
the sight, repent themselves of their journey, and wish them
selves at home again? But so find him, and so finding,
worship him for all that ? If they will, verily then great is
their faith"
u The Queen of the south, who was a figure of these
Kings of the east, she came as great a journey as these. But
when she came she found a king indeed, King Solomon in all
his royalty • saw a glorious king and a glorious court about
him ; saw him and heard him ; tried him with many hard
questions, received satisfaction of them all. This was worth her
coming. Weigh what she found and what these here : as poor
and unlikely a birth as could be ever to prove a king, or any
great matter. No sight to comfort them, nor a word for which
they any whit the wiser : nothing worth their travell. Weigh
these together, and great odds will be found between her faith
and theirs. Theirs the greater far."
CHAPTER XXII.
Page 488
Easter, 1623 — Cluverius — Bishop Andrewes foresees the coming
dangers — The Isle of Jersey.
FROM Laud's diary we find the name of Andrewes once
more involved in secular and state affairs. On the 23rd of
February, 1623, he, with Laud, Villiers, Marquess of Buck
ingham, and the Lords Arundel and Pembroke, appear to
have made up the Commission of Grievances.
On the 26th of the same month he preached before the
Court upon the fruits meet for repentance. Better had it been
if he had more dwelt upon the motives to it. Useless indeed
is a repentance that does not exercise the heart, and humble
both the soul and the body, and put both to grief. But first
there must be the root, and he who should look for the fruit
without watering the root itself, would but fall into the
extreme of superstition by way of avoiding that of irreverence.
His Easter-day sermon for the 13th of April is not liable
to any such objections. Amongst the latest, it is also amongst
the best of Bishop Andrewes' discourses. It is taken from
the beginning of the 63rd chapter of Isaiah. There is
throughout a vividness and depth of colouring that could
proceed only from such a hand. He brings before our eyes
the winepress of redemption and the winepress of triumphal
retribution ; the first in which the Lord himself was trodden
under foot, the second in which he treads down his enemies,
hell itself, the spiritual Edom, the most inveterate of all the
foes of Israel. Over Edom, strong as it was, David cast his
shoe, that is, set his foot upon it, and trod it down. And
Bozra, as impregnable a hold as it was holden, yet David
won it, was led into the strong city ; led into it and came
thence again. So did the son of David, this day from his
Edom, death, how strongsoever, yet swallowed up in victory
this day. In 0 death where is thy victory he supposes an
allusion to ' the Eoman standard that had in it the image of
the goddess Victory.'
Here having direct occasion he passes not over the doctrine
of our justification, and that as he had done elsewhere, Christ,
he saith, * laid by his own righteousness to be clothed with
our sin : he to wear our colours that we his : he in our red
that we in his white. So we find our robes are not only
washed clean, but dyed a pure white in the blood of the
Lamb. Yea, he died and rose again both in our colours, that
we might die and rise too in his.' And again, a little after,
' He in Mount Golgotha, like to us ; that we in Mount Tabor,
like to him.'
On the 13th of June we find Vossius writing to our prelate,
expressing his grief upon the death of their common friend
Cluverius,1 who had left his young family but a poor in
heritance. But he is comforted from the consideration that
their grandmother survives, herself an Englishwoman and of
good parentage. She was preparing to come to England
to claim her property, at that time unjustly detained from her.
He begs of Bishop Andrewes to put her cause into the hands
of some honest and sufficient person. He mentions with
cordial and not undeserved commendation the unparalleled
benevolence of Andrewes, as eminent as his great learning.
He complains that antiquity finds now but few admirers, and
that solid learning is out of favour.
Upon Sunday, July 20th, Bishop Andrewes administered
to the ambassadors the oath for the observance of the articles
with Spain. This was celebrated at Whitehall Chapel with
great ceremony, all of which is fully detailed in Nichols'
Progresses of King James? The marriage-treaty, however,
and the consequent articles with it fell to the ground. Our
unhappy nation was to be ruined from another quarter.
Bishop Andrewes was appointed to preach before the King
on the oth of August, and prepared a sermon which from
some cause or other does not appear to have been delivered.
After the 5th of October, the day of the return of Prince
Charles from Spain, occurred the following incident noted
down by Bishop Wren, Chaplain both to the Prince and to
Bishop Andrewes.
"After our return from Spain, my Lord of Winchester
(among other great expressions of his respects to me) made me
promise to him that upon all occasions of my coming to
London (for I abode still at Cambridge) I would lodge with
him ; to which end he caused three rooms near the garden2
to be fitted and reserved for me ; and twice or thrice I had
lodged there.
11 And at another time, coming suddenly to London and
late, I lodged at my sister's in Friday Street ; and the next
day being Friday, I went to Winchester House to dinner,
and craved his lordship's pardon that I lodged not there;
because that my business was to treat with some country
gentlemen who lay in Holborn, whom I should not meet with
but in the evening and morning, when it would not be safe
for me to pass the bridge or the Thames ; and so after dinner
I took my leave of him, hoping to return for Cambridge on
Monday.
" But on Saturday, going to do my duty to my Lords of
Durham [Neile] and St. David's [Laud], and telling them of
my sudden return, they would needs overrule me, and made
me promise them, though I had taken leave of my Lord of
Winchester, yet to meet them next day at Whitehall at my
lord's chambers at dinner. I did so, and there we sat after
dinner above an hour. And then, I shewing them that on the
morrow my business would be dispatched, and I would be
gone on Tuesday, I took my leave again of them all. But
on Monday morning by break of day (before they used to be
stirring in Friday Street) there was a great knocking at the
door where I lay ; and at last an apprentice who lay in the
shop came up to my bedside, and told me there was a
messenger from Winchester House to speak with me. The
business was to let me know that my lord, when he came
from court last night, had given his steward charge to order
it so that I might be spoken with, and be required as from
him without fail to dine with him on Monday ; but to be at
Winchester House by ten of the clock, which 1 wondered the
more at, his lordship not using to come from his study till
near twelve. My business would hardly permit this ; yet
because of his lordship's importunity, I got up presently, and
into Holborn I went, and there made such dispatch that soon
after ten o'clock I took a boat and went to Winchester House,
where I found the steward at the Water-gate, waiting to let
me in the nearest way, who telling me that my lord had
called twice to know if I were come, I asked where his lord
ship was. He answered, in his great gallery (a place where
I knew his lordship scarce came once in a year), and thither
I going, the door was locked ; but upon my lifting the latch,
my lord of St. David's opened the door, and letting me in,
locked it again.
a There I found none but those three lords, who causing
me to sit down by them, my lord of Durham began to me :
1 Doctor, your lord here will have it so, I that am the unfittest
person must be the speaker. But this it is ; after you left us
yesterday at Whitehall, we, entering into farther discourse of
those things which we foresee and conceive will ere long come
to pass, resolved again to speak to you before you went hence.
We must know of you what your thoughts are concerning
your master the Prince. You have now been his servant
above two years, and you were with him in Spain. We
know he respects you well, and we know you are no fool, but
can observe how things are like to go.' ' What things, my
lord?' qut)th I. 'In brief,' said he, c how the Prince's heart
stands to the Church of England, that when God brings him
to the crown, we may know what to hope for?' My reply
was to this effect, that, however, I was the most unfit of any
to give my opinion herein, attending but two months in the
year, and then at a great distance, only in the closet and at
meals ; yet seeing they so pressed me, I would speak my mind
freely. So I said, f I know my master's learning is not equal
to his father's ; yet I know his judgment to be very right ; and
as for his affections in these particulars which your lordships
have pointed at, for upholding the doctrine and discipline
and right estate of the Church, I have more confidence of him
than of his father, in whom they say (better than I can) is
so much inconstancy in some particular cases.'
" Hereupon my lords of Durham and St. David's began to
argue with me, and required me to let them know upon what
ground I came to think thus of the Prince. I gave them my
reasons at large, and after many replyings (above an hour
together), then my lord of Winchester, who had said nothing
all the while, bespake me in these words : c Well, Doctor,
God send you may be a true prophet concerning your master's
inclinations in these particulars, which we are glad to hear
from you. I am sure I shall be a true prophet. I shall be in my
grave, and so shall you, my lord of Durham • but my lord of
St. David's and you, Doctor, will live to see that day that
your master will be put to it, upon his head and his crown,
without he will forsake the support of the Church.'
" Of this prediction made by that holy Father, I have now
no witness but mine own conscience and the eternal God, who
knows I lie not; nobody else being present when this was
spoken but these three lords."
Hence it would appear that whatsoever might be the
connivance of the King's advisers in the matter of the Spanish
match, they were not without their secret apprehensions.
They dreaded the return of Popery, and so questioned Wren
respecting the inclinations of the Prince. It is very certain
that Andrewes was more thoroughly imbued with a sense of
the essential evil of the Komish system than Laud, and
probably Neile himself was inferior to Andrewes in this
respect, as in every other. Neile was himself some years
younger than Andrewes, and lived to see the beginning of
those troubles of which the false friends of the Prince were
themselves so great and so guilty a cause.
Bishop Andrewes' sermon on Christmas-day, upon the
summing up of all things in Christ, displays his usual inge
nuity, piety, and learning, but is not equal in point of interest
to many of the preceding.
In the course of this year the Isle of Jersey was, after
many efforts throughout the greater part of this reign, brought
to conformity with the Church of England, and David Bandi-
nelli, an Italian and minister of St. Mary's, was appointed
Dean. A book of canons was then drawn up by the Dean
and ministers, and examined and corrected by Archbishop
Abbot, Bishop Williams, Lord Keeper, and Bishop Andrewes,
now Diocesan of Jersey. The rupture with Spain prevented
the application of the same regulations to the Isle of Guernsey.
CHAPTER XXIII.
Bishop Andrewes on Repentance and Fasting — Andrewes and Neile on
the King 's Prerogative — Meric Casaubon — The Death of King
James — Moderation of Andrewes — Fast Service — Richard Montagu
— Death of Andrewes.
BISHOP ANDREWES this year (1624) completed his doctrine
of repentance in his Ash- Wednesday sermon, February 10th.
The last five of the eight Ash- Wednesday sermons may be
regarded as one treatise. The first of them, from the 2nd
chapter of Joel, treats of repentance generally as a turning out
of the way of sin to God, a sincere turning with the heart,
and, for the manner of it, with fasting. This he commends
not only as preventive of sin but as a correction of it / wept
and chastened myself with fasting.1 For " if in very sorrow
we are to fast when the bridegroom is taken away, much more
when we ourselves, by our sins committed, have been the
cause of his taking, nay, of his very driving away from us.
And must we then fast ? Indeed we must, or get us a new
Epistle for the day, and a new Gospel too."
tl But how fast ? Two kinds of fasting we find in Scripture :
1. David's, who fasted, tasted neither bread nor aught till
the sun was down; no meat at all: that is too hard.
2. What say you to Daniel's fast? He did eat and drink,
but no meats of delight, and (namely) eat no flesh. The
Church as an indulgent mother mitigates all she may; enjoins
not for fast that of David, and yet he who can, let him receive
it for all that. She only requires of us that other of Daniel,
to forbear meat of delight (and flesh is there expressly named),
meats and drinks provoking the appetite, full of nourishment,
kindling the blood.
" And yet even this also doth the Church release to such
as are in Timothy's case, have many infirmities. It is not
the decay of nature but the chastisement of sin she seeketh.
But this must not be hypocritically taken advantage of. Then
weeping, and if we cannot weep, yet mourning is required.
Mourning they call the sorrow which reason itself can yield.
Complain and bemoan ourselves we can, and desire and pray
for some portion of the grace of tears. 0 that my head were
full of water, and mine eyes fountains of tears. And we can
humbly beseech our merciful God and Father, in default of
ours, to accept of the strong crying and bitter tears which, in
the days of his flesh, his blessed Son in great agony shed for
us. Our hearts must be rent, contrite, ground as it were
to powder, to feel that it is a bitter and an evil thing to have
turned away and forsaken the Lord. We must be angry
with ourselves, or we are not truly grieved with ourselves.
Indignation naturally seeks revenge. We must abhor our
selves for our sins, not from mere earthly principles, but for
the manifold indignities offered by our sins to God, to the
law of his justice, to the awe of his majesty, to the reverent
regard of his presence, to the dread of his power, and to the
long-suffering of his love. And let repentance be without
delay. Now is the only sure part of our time."
Then in the second discourse our prelate establishes the
duty of fasting from our Lord's own injunction in the 6th
chapter of St. Matthew, and this preceded by the constant
practice of the Old Testament saints ; the fast of Ai, under
Joshua;1 at Gibeah,2 under the Judges; at Mizpah, under
Samuel f at Hebron, under David ;4 of Jeremiah, before the
Captivity ;5 of Daniel under it ;6 of Zachary after it ;7 at
Jerusalem, of the Jews at the preaching of Joel ,8 at Nineveh,
of the Gentiles at the preaching of Jonas.1 And so the
Christians at Antioch, the prophets of the New Testament
there, as well as the prophets of the Old.2 So the rest of
Christ's ministers shewed themselves such by this proof of
fasting amongst others.3 And what themselves did, they
advised others to do, to give themselves to fasting and
prayer.4 In truth, it accompanied ever all great acts of
devotion, whether for the deprecating of evil, or the obtaining
of good.
He returns to treat of the time and circumstances. The
forty days' fast is sanctioned by Moses, Elias, and Christ, and
God gave the same number to the people of Nineveh to repent
in. We may here consider whether those go not a presump
tuous length, who deny anything of an exemplary nature in
the fast of our Saviour. As we take less pleasing meats, less
luxurious and dainty, so we may diminish the quantity and
put off the time. Cornelius fasted to three at noon, Peter to
twelve at noon.5
The third discourse is, as we have seen, against hypocrisy.
The fourth and fifth are upon the fruits of repentance. The
fruits are works meet for repentance. For spiritual sins let
us now bring forth prayer and works of devotion ; for fleshly,
bodily self-denial; for worldly, alms and works of charity,
and compassion.
'For the first Simon Magus went not through with his
bargain ; did but think the Holy Ghost had been ware for his
money, all was but thinking ; went no further than the Spirit.
St. Peter prescribes him what to do, to fall to prayer ; pray,
saith he, if it be possible, this thought of thy heart may be
forgiven thee. Prayer serves where it goes no further than
thought.
1 For the second, the king of Nineveh and his people, they
fell to fasting on all hands. What was their sin ? Nahum
will best tell us that : he wrote the burden of Nineveh. This
it was, Because of the fornications of the harlot. For that
kind of fleshly sin, that was the proper fruit.
For the third, one example shall be the King of Babylon.
He had been a mighty oppressor of his people. There have
ye now a worldly sin. Break off thine iniquities with mercy
to the poor, is Daniel's prescript to him.'1 These make up the
corrective or penal part of repentance.
But most certain it is that he denies to the best of our
works everything that is strictly of the nature of satisfaction.
' Shall we put them into the balance, to weigh the worthiness
of our fruits with the unworthiness of our sins, and the conse
quent of our sins, the wrath of God ? the dignity of the one
with the indignity of the other, and think by their dignity to
satisfy God's great indignation ? I trow not. At this beam
no fruits of ours will hold weight ; none so found worthy ; no,
not if we could, I say not, shed or pour out, but even melt
into tears, and every tear a drop of blood. The honour of
worthy in this sense belongs to the fruits of no tree but the
tree of the cross of Christ ; to his sufferings, and to none but
his.'2 To apportion to each his proper works of repentance,
that there may be no self-deception, he commends that the
minister of God be consulted. So it was of old time. ' In
the law every man was not left to himself. The offering for
sin, which was to them a fruit of repentance, it was rated ever,
ever taxed by the priest.3 According to his ordering, so it
went : he made the estimate, how much was enough, what
would serve. And here now in St. John's time — to St. John
they come with their What shall we do ? — and under the Gospel
there we see, for the Corinthian St. Paul said, This much is
enough, this shall serve : his conscience may be quiet ; I
restore him to the Church's peace. And the canons peni
tential which were made in the times under persecution, the
very best times of the Church, lay forth plainly what is to be
followed and observed in this kind.' He witnesses the general
neglect of casuistry of this kind, and laments over it. ' Truly
it is neither the least nor the last part of our learning, to be
able to give answer and directions in this point ; but therefore
laid aside and neglected by us, because not sought after by
you; therefore not studied but by very few, because it is
grown out of request quite.'
He who would faithfully treat both of repentance and the
fruits of repentance, may well consult Bishop Andrewes'
Manual for the Sick, edited by Dr. Drake in 1685.1
We find a sermon prepared to be preached on March 28th,
Easter-day, from the 18th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
the benediction toward the end of the chapter. It abounds in
pious applications of the text, but embraces too many points
to have been easily carried away by the auditory, the greatest
perhaps of all. the faults of that age of learned and truly able
preachers.
On May 29th, the day after the proroguing of Parliament,
Mr. Waller, "going to see the King at dinner, overheard a
very extraordinary conversation between his Majesty and
Bishops Andrewes and Neile, who were standing behind the
King's chair. His Majesty asked them, ' My lords, cannot
I take my subjects' money when I want it, without all this
formality in Parliament?' The Bishop of Durham readily
answered, 'God forbid, Sir, but you should; you are the
breath of our nostrils.' Whereupon the King turned and
said to Bishop Andrewes, 'Well, my lord, what say you?'
4 Sir,' replied the Bishop, ' I have no skill to judge of parlia
mentary cases.' The King answered, i No put-offs, my lord,
answer me presently.' l Then, Sir,' said he, ' I think it
lawful for you to take my brother Neile's money, for he
offers it.'"2
Bishop Andrewes' name frequently occurs upon committees
of the Peers in this and occasionally the following year. On
February 26th he was on a committee of privileges. On
March 1st he had leave to be absent. On March 8th he was
on a committee on the observance of the Lord's-day. On
March llth on the Bill respecting recusants made in the
third of this reign. On March 12th on a committee to
prevent the carrying of gold out of the country by bills of
exchange, « and, as they conceive, by the Papists.' On March
16th on a committee to enable Prince Charles to make leases
of lands parcel of the Duchy of Cornwall. On May 29th, at
eight in the morning, respecting an Act for the confirmation
and continuance of hospitals and free-schools that had been
called in question. About this time Dr. Field, Bishop of
Llandaff, was to be admonished in the Convocation House
before the Bishops, a charge having been laid against him
by the Archbishop of dealing in bribery.1 On May 31st
Andrewes was placed on a committee, " the session not to be
closed by the royal assent being given to some acts."2
In the month of August our prelate was afflicted with
a very dangerous illness at his palace at Waltham, Hants.
On the 6th of August he wrote to Dr. Fenton. His rest was
disturbed and his whole system disordered. His appetite
for meat had left him. " No drink," he says, to me." He also suffered great pain in his left side. After
detailing his symptoms, he adds : " This I hope will make
you to come. I have sent my own coach for you to be here
on Tuesday. I would it could be sooner, but not to fail of
you then. You shall never come more welcome. Till then
and for ever God have you in his keeping. Waltham, 6 Aug.
1624.
" Your very assured loving friend,
"LA. WINTON."
He complains in a P.S. that he is disappointed in respect
of his brother and his wife ; " so that," he adds, " you are like
to come alone. You shall be never a wit the loser, but better
welcome. See you come in any wise."
But we find him named in a committee on a private bill
the following 1st of December) again on Saturday, December
the 5th, to meet at eight A.M. in the Painted Chamber on a
committee for making the Thames navigable for barges, boats,
or lighters from the village of Bercott (Buscott or Burwardscot
in Berkshire) to Oxford. On that day he was also on a
commission for the banishing of Jesuits and Seminary Priests.
In December 16243 the King was a third time in Cam-
bridge (having paid two visits to the University in 1615),
and kept his court at Trinity College. Prince Charles also
was with him ; and here Monsieur de Villiariler and the
Marquis d' Effiat, Embassadors Extraordinary from the King
of France, had audience of his Majesty, who, on the 12th of
December, signed here the ratification of the treaty with
France respecting the marriage of the Prince of Wales with
the Princess Henrietta Maria. The King was confined with
the gout in his hands and arms, but the Prince, Embassadors,
and Nobility were entertained with public disputations, &c.
There was an extraordinary Commencement, when many
degrees were granted.1
i Doctors created by his Majesty's letters-patent :
Shaw, Peterhouse.
John Leslie, Trinity, took no other degree.
Anthony Topham, Trinity (Fellow), B.A. 1605, M.A. 1609, B.D. 1616.
Thomas Rayment, Peterhouse, M.A. 1606.
Laurence Burnell, John's, B.A. 1600, M.A. 1604.
Alexander Reade, Pembroke, B.A. 1604-5 — 1608.
Gabriel Moore, Christ, B.A. 1605-6, M.A. 1609.
John Towers, Queens', B.D. 1615.
Abraham Gibson, John's, B.A. 1606-7, M.A. 1610, B.D. 1617.
Thomas Warner, Emmanuel, B.A. 1604-5, M.A. 1608.
Amongst those who received the degree of M.A. were Sir Kenelm Digby
and Sir "William Fleetwood.
Richard Bagnall intruded himself, and his name not being found in the King's
list, he was three days after (*'. e. the 16th) deprived of his degree.
The King, by a letter to the University on the 17th, gave instructions that
all persons so taking their degrees should promise to perform the usual exercises
according to the statutes and customs of the University.*
Dr. Anthony Topham was Vicar of Trumpington, and 7th September, 1629,
installed Dean of Lincoln. He retired, after the loss of his preferment, to
Clayworth, to the south of the road between Bawtry and Gainsborough, and
died there October 22, 1655.
Dr. Thomas Rayment, or Raymond, of Peterhouse, was at this time Preben
dary of Milton Ecclesia in the church of Lincoln, to which he had been collated
November 17th, 1620, and installed January 19th, 1621. He was also Prebendary
of Chamberlainswode in the church of St. Paul's, London, and Archdeacon of
St. Alban's. He died in his 47th year November 4th, 1631, and was buried in
St. Paul's. The Latin inscription on his gravestone is given in Dugdale's
St. Paul's, and in Browne Willis's Survey of Lincoln Cathedral, p. 221.
* See Mr. Charles H. Cooper's Annals of Cambridge, vol. iii. p. 171.
Of this visit to Cambridge of King James with Andrewes,
Isaak Walton relates in his Life of George Herbert, " the year
following the King appointed to end his progress at Cam
bridge, and to stay there certain days ; at which time he was
Dr. John Towers of Norfolk was B.A of Queens' College, Cambridge, 1602,
M.A. 1606, Fellow of his College, B.D. 1615. His letter to Sir J}hn Lamb, to
intercede for him with Laud for the bishopric of Peterborough, is given in p. 354
of Prynne's Compleat History of the Trial and Condemnation of William Laud,
Archbishop of Canterbury. He was accordingly promoted from the Deanry, to
which he had been nominated 14th November, 1630, to the see of Peterborough
November 21, 1638. He was consecrated 1639 by Laud, Juxon, Bishop of
London, Curie, Bishop of "Winchester, Wren, Bishop of Ely, and "Warner, Bishop
of Rochester. Prynne gives also this prelate's orders for and concerning the
sermon weekly on "Wednesday in St. James's Chapel, Brackley, September 14th,
1639. These orders contain the names of the clergy appointed to preach the
lecture, the time of the service, which was nine A.M., and the order of divine
service. By these instructions it appears that the whole morning service was to
be read as now, i. e. the Morning Prayer, Litany, and the Communion Service,
" commonly called the second service." A psalm was to be sung after the Litany.
The preacher was to go up into the pulpit immediately after the Nicene Creed, in
his surplice and hood. He was to use no form of prayer before sermon, but the
bidding prayer as set down in the 55th Canon. Only he might, if he would, insert
"the names of the Universities and of his College, or of his patron, he being one
qualified by law to have a chaplain." The sermon was to be at the utmost
within the compass of an hour, and no prayer was to be used after it, but it was
to end with Glory be to God, &c. ; and after the sermon the preacher was to
return to the Communion-table, and read the prayer for the whole state of
Christ's Church, &c., and one or two of the Collects at the end of the Communion
Service, and lastly the blessing, The Peace of God, &c. If the prayers were
neglected or deserted, the lecture was to be altogether discontinued. Dr. Towers
died January 10th, 1649, and was buried in his cathedral near his predecessor
Bishop Dee, without any memorial, in the middle of the choir. The choir of
this cathedral was, until at least about the middle of the last century, much
more spacious than at present. It commenced with the last pillar but one on
either side the nave, thus standing partly beneath the lantern tower. It is
now much too contracted for the wants of the city.
Dr. Laurence Burnell was B.A. of St. John's College, Cambridge, 1601,
M. A. 1604, Chancellor of Exeter July 20th, 1624. He died in his 68th year,
November 12th, 1647.
Dr. John Lesley, of Trinity College, was Bishop of Sodor August 17, 1628,
and was translated to Raphoe in Ireland in 1633.
Dr. Reade, who was minister of Yately, Hants, has been already mentioned in
the account of the royal visit to Cambridge in 1615.
Gabriel Moore, of Christ College, was Taxor in 1616 and Proctor in 1620,
Prebendary of the first stall at Westminster March 8, 1632. He held it until
the Usurpation.
attended by the great secretary of nature and all learning, Sir
Francis Bacon (Lord Verulam), and by the ever memorable
and learned Doctor Andre wes, Bishop of Winchester, both
which did at that time begin a desired friendship with our
orator." " And for the learned Bishop, it is observable that
at that time there fell to be a modest debate betwixt them
two about predestination and sanctity of life ; of both which
the orator did not long after send the Bishop some safe and
useful aphorisms in a long letter written in Greek; which
letter was so remarkable for the language and reason of it,
that after the reading it the Bishop put it into his bosom, and
did often shew it to many scholars both of this and foreign
nations, but did always return it back to the place where he
first lodged it, and continued it so near his heart till the last
day of his life."1
This same year Bishop Andrewes preached his last
Christmas-day sermon before the King, from the 2nd Psalm^
TJiou art my Son, &c. ; first, treating of them as spoken to our
Lord; secondly, as the law preached by him to all that are
adopted into the family of God.
About this time he preferred Meric the son of Isaac
Casaubon, but far his inferior in learning, to the Rectory of
Bleadon, a small village west of Axbridge in Somersetshire.
He was bora at Geneva in August 1599, but coming over
with his father was admitted at Christ Church, Oxford, and
in 1621 published a vindication of his deceased father against
the false rumours and artifices of the Papists, Heribert Rosweid,
a Jesuit, Andrew Scioppius, Julius Caesar Bullinger, and the
traitor of 1605 (the favourite of the great Anglo-Romish
historian), Andrew Eudsemon Joannes. After the death of
Andrewes Laud became Casaubon's patron,2 and preferred
him in 1628 to a prebendal stall in Canterbury.
Fuller, in his Church History, b. xi. I. § 46, says that
Andrewes' gravity in a manner awed King James, who re
frained from that mirth and liberty in the presence of this
prelate, which otherwise he assumed to himself. However
the King highly esteemed his wit, which as it shone forth in
all his writings, his sermons not excepted, would doubtless
have given an unrivalled charm to his conversation. Those
who enjoyed the society of the late incomparable Bishop of
Lincoln will never fail to remember that unaffected playfulness
which never lost sight of the higher requisites of conversation.
Both were perhaps the greatest patristic scholars of their day,
both eminent for their benevolence, and both have left behind
them monuments of as learned piety as their several ages can
boast.
On January 1st, 1625, Andrewes was on the High Com
mission.
His royal master in his last illness desired his attend
ance, but by reason of a severe fit of the stone and gout,
at the same time, he was unable to be with him. The King,
however, had the comfort of the presence of Abbot and
Williams, both soon to lose the best of masters, and to fall
into great and undeserved disgrace. The King ended his
days in much peace of mind. He was indeed but too incon
stant, and an uncertain friend to that religion in which he
professed to die, and in defence of which he had written with
sufficient learning. He was a true patron of learning, and
protector of the rights and revenues of the Church. But he
lived in the contaminating atmosphere of flattery, from the
shameless adulation of Whitgift at the Hampton Conference1
to that of Neile standing behind his table. He was indolent
and irresolute, seeing a better way than that which he would
walk in, and thus guilty of injustice which he but inade
quately regretted. He left his throne to a son weaker and
more arbitrary, but less conciliating, and far less versed in
theoretical wisdom. He left him to young and inexperienced
counsellors, who soon aggravated the difficulties with which the
crown was already environed, and raised up a host of enemies
to the Church by attempting innovations both in doctrine and
ceremonies. Andrewes was always of an unambitious and
quiet spirit. Laud took the place which he alone was fitted
to occupy, and Villiers soon thrust aside Williams.
On Wednesday, March 24th, our prelate was one of a
committee of the Lords for the confirmation of Wadham
College and its possessions. It had been founded in 1610.
On March 27, Midlent Sunday, whilst Laud was preaching
at Whitehall, news was brought in of the King's death.1 He
died at Theobalds about three-quarters of an hour past eleven
in the forenoon. The King fell sick March 4th, on Friday.
On the 1st of April Laud received letters from the Earl of
Pembroke, Lord Chamberlain to the King, and therein a
command to preach before him and the House of Peers in the
opening of Parliament to be held on the 17th of May. This
Parliament, however, was deferred to the 18th of June, and
on the 19th Laud preached before the King at Whitehall.2
Abbot and Andrewes were both henceforth superseded
most effectually, and Laud became the real primate and
director of all ecclesiastical affairs. So on April 5th he de
livered to the Duke of Buckingham a list of divines marked
O and P, Orthodox and Puritans. Thus was all church
patronage placed at once under his influence. After this most
responsible step had been taken he received a command to go
to Andrewes, and learn from him what he would have done
in the cause of the Church, and especially in regard of pre
destination. There can be little doubt that this was in con
sequence of Laud's own suggestion. The next day being
Sunday, April 10th, he went to Bishop Andrewes, who was
then in his chamber at court. He acquainted him with what
he had received in command. Andrewes gave Laud his
answer, but the purport of it we learn from Laud's chaplain
and panegyrist Heylyn. It accorded with the moderation
and experience of Andrewes, and, by advising that nothing be
done, and no controversies stirred, checked the ardent spirit of
Laud. There can indeed be no doubt that their opinions
and whole theology varied widely. Laud denied the character
of a Church to every communion that was not episcopal ; not
so Andrewes; as may be seen in his letters to Du Moulin.
Andrewes maintained that the Pope was Antichrist, Laud
that he was not. Andrewes never deserted the doctrine of
St. Augustine on predestination; Laud was at this time, in
all probability, at least a concealed Arminian. With much
subtlety and little ingenuousness both he and Neile indirectly
answered to the charge of Arminianism when it was objected
to them in the latter part of this reign, v Laud's answer on his
trial was, ' I have nothing to do to defend Arminianism,
no man having yet charged me with the abetting any point
of it.'1
On June 6th, Whit-Monday, Laud and Andrewes dined
together with Buckeridge, Bishop of Bochester, at his house
at Bromley.
On June 7th he was on a commission for mortgaging some
of the crown lands to Edward Allen and others.2
On Friday, June 24th, Andrewes was, with Laud, Moun
tain, Bishop of London, Neile, Bishop of Durham, Buckeridge,
Bishop of Rochester, Harsnet, Bishop of Norwich, and Abbot
the Archbishop, appointed to advise concerning a public fast
and a form of prayer, to implore the divine mercy on occasion
of the spreading of the plague, and the extraordinarily wet
weather which threatened a famine ; and also to beg the divine
blessing upon the fleet now ready to put to sea. This form of
prayer was altered and enlarged from that which was put
forth in 1563, which had also been used with some altera
tions and accommodations in 1603, on occasion of the plague
that raged at the time of the late King's coronation. The
same responses were now used instead of the 95th Psalm,
and for the psalms the seven penitential psalms, the 6th,
32nd, 38th, 51st, 102nd, 130th, and 143rd, were read at the
morning prayer; and at the evening prayer the 9th, 39th,
86th, 90th, and 91st. The lessons were Deuteronomy xxviii.
and xxx., 1 Kings viii., 2 Sam. xxiv., Joel ii., Jonah iii.,
i Wharton's History of Laud's Troubles and Trial, p. 352. 2 Rymer.
St. Matthew vi. or viii. or ix., and St. Luke xiii. or xxi. The
prayer, '0 almighty, most just, and merciful God,' was
altered so as to be less pointedly opposed to Eomanism : for
the words hitherto used, f thou hast delivered us from all
horrible and execrable idolatry,' were substituted, 'thou
hast delivered us from superstition and idolatry.' To this
form was appended as a preface the prayer for the High
Court of Parliament, since excellently altered and inserted
into the Liturgy. After 'the welfare of our sovereign and
his kingdoms,' it proceeded, 'Lord, look upon the humility
and devotion with which they are come into thy courts ; and
they are come into thy house in assured confidence upon the
merits and mercies of Christ (our blessed Saviour), that thou
wilt not deny them the grace and favour which they beg of
thee. Therefore, O Lord, bless them with all that wisdom
which thou knowest necessary to speed and bring great
designs into action, and to make the maturity of his Majesty's
and their counsels the happiness and the blessing of this
commonwealth. These and all other necessaries for them,
for us, &c. For the second lesson at the evening service were
appointed 1 Cor. x. to the 16th verse, I Cor. xiii., or 2 Cor.
ix., or 1 Thess. iv. The homily put forth in 1603 was
printed at the end of the prayers.
On the 23rd of July the Bishop promoted his brother
Dr. Roger Andrewes, Master of Jesus College, to the sixth
stall in Winchester Cathedral, on the death of William Barlow,
Archdeacon of Salisbury.
On September 8tli Andrewes was on a commission for
charitable uses, to inquire into the disposition of the property
of Andrew Windsor, Esq., who had bequeathed property for
the support of eight poor persons in an almshouse founded by
himself at Farnham. The gift was declared good.1
This year a third of the inhabitants of London and of the
suburbs died of the plague. Andrewes gave 100 marks
during this time to the parish of St. Saviour's, Southwark.
Buckeridge adds in his funeral sermon, that since the year
1620 he gave in private alms to the sum of £1340.
In Secretary Conway's Letter Book is the following
minute : "To Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester, to
admit Dr. Middleton to the place of Confessor of the House
hold," October, 1625. This was the occasion of the following
letter from our prelate :
" R.T. HON. AND MY VEET GOOD LoED,
"Your lordship's from Salisbury of the 25th October came
not to my hand till this day the 4th November, lest your lordship
should impute the delay of mine answer to any neglect of dutie.
May it please your lordship to be advertised that there hath nothing
been done in this matter of the Confessorship but with the know
ledge and by order of his Majestic.
" Mr. Beckett, the confessor that now is, and that hath been for
a great part of the time of our late Sovereign Lord King James
(whose remembrance be ever in blessing) had the grant of that place
not by me, but by Bishop Montague my predecessor, then Dean of
the Chapel, to whom appertaineth the gift of that place, to appoint
one of his own chaplains (as by the Book of the Household appeareth,
and as ever hath been used).
"It hath ever been the most gracious goodness of the Kings and
Queens, his Majestie's precedessors, so far to commiserate their poor
servants, as if the hand of God were upon them (as upon Mr.
a stall in that cathedral, and made him Archdeacon of Chichester 23rd February,
1608, as he had previously made him Chancellor October 16th, 1606. He was
the first who commenced a College Register. He was undoubtedly deserving of
promotion, for his learning obtained for him a place amongst the translators of
the Bible in the reign of King James. He died in 1635. He was succeeded in
his stall at "Winchester by Dr. Thomas Buckner, in his Mastership by Dr.
William Beale, brother of Jerome, Master of Pembroke College. His stall at
Southwell he resigned in 1631, and was succeeded by Dr. Henry "Willis. John
Scull was on his decease appointed Chancellor, and Laurence Pay Archdeacon
of Chichester.
Beckett it hath been now for these few years past, hath been stricken
with a palsy, not yet recovered), they could continue in their place
still, and serve them by a deputy.
" It may please his Majestic to call to mind, that not long after
his happy coming to the crown, upon the humble petition of Mr.
Beckett, his Majestic' s pleasure was to me signified by my Lord
Duke of Buckingham, and after by his Majestic himself, that he
would have Mr. Beckett continue in the place during his life;
whereupon he was orderly sworn by me. This as among the
multitude of far more weighty affairs it very well may, so it is
likely his Majestic calleth not to his remembrance. Under reforma
tion and craving pardon, I thought it to stand with my duty to
make this known. May it please it your lordship to put his Majestic
in mind thereof. And his memory being informed, his pleasure
shall be fulfilled, as becometh me.
" I beseech your lordship to bear with and to support this my
imperfect manner of writing, who have been under the hand of God
sick of an ague these seven weeks, for the most part forced to keep
my bed, where your letter found me. I remain while I live, to
pray and to wish your lordship continuance and increase of health,
honour and happiness from God, who long preserve you.
" In all duty and service
" At your lordship's commandment,
"LA. WlNTON.
" Bishop' s Waltham,
"Novemb. 4, 1625." l
Thus early was the very patronage of Andrewes as Dean
of the Chapel Koyal invaded, and that with the royal
sanction. So little reverence did the Sovereign shew to
his recently departed father's most deserving friend and
favourite. Had Abbot been removed before Andrewes from
his trials to that world for which his afflictions doubtless
ripened him, nothing can be more improbable than that
Andrewes would have been raised to Canterbury. Laud
would not have declined such an opportunity — Laud, who
was already aiming at the metropolitan functions.
On December the 8th Bishop Andrewes wrote as follows
to the Lords of the Council :
" RT. Hotf. MY VERY GOOD LOEDS,
" Your Lordships' letters of the 30th October I received on
Monday night last (the 5th of this present), wherein I am required
1 In the margin is as follows :
" (By his Majestie himself] in the gallerie at Whitehall, my Lord Chamberlain
and divers others then present."
to signify to the Lord Marquess of Winchester and to his son (the
Lord St. John) his Majestie's pleasure touching the removing of
their arms and other habiliments of war, and taking them into my
custodie.
" My Lords, I would my body were to my mind, and wish with
all my heart, that for the present state of my health, I were as able
to perform this service as I shall ever be found willing readily to
obey and to execute any of his Majestie's commands, or your Lord
ships' letters, to the uttermost of my endeavours. But at this present
God hath laid upon me the ague, the stone, and the gout all at
once. The ague hath held me these twelve weeks and more, and is
now come to plain tertian, which forceth me (being now low brought)
to keep my bed every other day. And within these three weeks I
have had at times three grievous fits of stone in the bladder, which
afflicteth me still. And to both these is now come the gout, to make
me more unhable for undertaking a journey, or taking on me a
matter of so great importance. All which, offering to your Lord
ships' grave judgment (that his Majestie's service sustain no preju
dice), I humbly desire your favourable report to his Majestie of my
weak estate. And the business requiring speed, that your Lordships
will be pleased to think of some other that are not only for the state
of their health and strength of their bodies, but besides better hable
every way than myself. Or, if it be required that I do it, that I may be
respited some time till it please God I may recover some strength to
go about it. Which I write not as any way unwilling to any of
his Majestie's service in this kind (for I shall be ever most ready to
execute it or any the like to the uttermost of my power), but only
that as my case is I have neither health nor strength to perform it.
" And here withal I have returned the letter sent to the two
Lords, expecting his Majestie's further pleasure and your Lord
ships' command, whereto my ability I will ever yield due obedience.
Beseeching God with all his graces ever to bless that most honourable
board at all your meetings, and to crown your consultations with all
prosperous success.
"At your Et. Honourable Lordships'
" Commandment,
"In all humble duty and service,
" LA. WINTON.
" Bishop's Waltham,
"Decemb. 8, 1625."
On January 16, 1626, by the King's command a con
sultation was held to resolve what should be done in the case
of Richard Mountague. This learned and able writer, now
Dean of Hereford and one of the King's Chaplains, had
given great offence, not to the Puritans only, but to many
whom it would be unjust to characterize by that name.
He had, in answer to a proselytist who troubled his parish
of Stanford Rivers near Ongar, put forth in 1624 a work
entitled A New Gag for an Old Goose, &c. This book
was severely animadverted upon by Yates and Ward,1 two
Puritan ministers of Ipswich. Antony Wotton, Divinity
Professor of Gresham College, afterwards entered into the
controversy in as severe a spirit, but with far more ability.
To Ward and Yates Mountagu replied in his Appello Ccesarem,
A Just Appeal from Two Unjust Informers. This second
work is written with gall rather than with ink, and proved its
author to be indeed what in that age would have entitled
him to be called ' a man of a stout spirit.' True it is, how
ever, that the two informers exaggerated his offences. In
Bishop Carleton Mountagu found a far more formidable
opponent. This prelate had himself taken part in the Synod
of Dort, and was well read in Christian antiquity. He wrote
piously and gravely, and without mingling false charges with
true, exposed the subtlety, sophistry, and inconclusiveness of
Mountagu, where he innovated upon the then received doctrine
of the Church. His examination of Mountagu's errors he
dedicated to King Charles, but it may be questioned whether
that monarch had either the knowledge or the impartiality
requisite for so deep and (to speak the truth) repulsive a
subject.
Upon the assembling of the Commons June 21, 1625,
amongst other subjects they took into consideration the
alleged errors of Mountagu. In the late reign the cause was
put into the hands of Archbishop Abbot, and ended in an
admonition being given to Mountagu.
Afterward the Bishops of the Arminian party, says Rush-
worth, consulted the propagation of the five articles condemned
in the Synod of Dort, [and] concluded that Mr. Mountagu,
being already engaged in the quarrel, should publish his
Appeal to Casarj at first attested by their joint authority,
which afterward they withdrew by subtlety, having pro
cured the subscription of Dr. Francis White,1 whom they left
to appear alone in the testimony, as himself ofttimes com
plained publicly. The Archbishop disallowed the book and
sought to suppress it ; nevertheless it was printed and dedi
cated to King Charles, whereby that party did endeavour to
engage him in the beginning of his reign. Mountagu himself,
on the contrary, asserts in his Epistle Dedicatory to King
Charles , that his royal father acquitted him of all the charges
that were brought against him, and gave express order to Dr.
White, Dean of Carlisle, for the authorising and publishing
thereof.
The Commons appointed a committee to examine the
errors therein, and gave the Archbishop thanks for the admo
nition given to the author, whose books they voted to be
contrary to the articles established by the Parliament, to tend
to the King's dishonour and disturbance of Church and State,
and took bond for his appearance. Hereupon the King
intimated to the House that the things determined concerning
Mountagu without his knowledge did not please him, for that
he was his servant and chaplain-in-ordinary, and he had
taken the business into his own hands ; whereat the Commons
seemed to be much displeased.2
It is reported that the King at one time thought of
leaving Mountagu to the Parliament, and to this that
reflection in Laud's Diary was supposed by some to refer:
1 1 seem to see a cloud arising, and threatening the Church of
England; God for his mercy dissipate it!' This occurs in
Laud's Diary January 29 : ' Jan. 29. Sunday. I understood
what D. B. had collected concerning the cause, book, and
opinions of Richard Mountague, and what E. C.' [King
Charles] ' had determined with himself therein. Methinks
I see a cloud rising/ &C.1
On January 16th, about a fortnight before the preceding
observation of Laud, he, with Monteigne, Neile, and Bucker-
idge, met at Winchester House, where they together with
Bishop Andrewes signed a letter, doubtless very satisfactory
to the King and sufficiently exculpatory of Mountagu. The
letter was addressed to the royal favourite, the Duke of
Buckingham :
"MAY IT PLEASE YOTTB, GltACE,
" Upon your late letters directed to the Bp. of Winchester,
signifying his Maties pleasure that, taking to him the Bps. of
London, Durham, Rochester, Oxford, and St. David's, or some of
them, he and they should take into consideration the business con
cerning Mr. Mountagu' s late book, and deliver their opinions
touching the same, for the preservation of the truth and the peace
of the Church of England, together with the safety of Mr. Mountagu' s
person, we have met and considered, and for our particulars do
think, that Mr. Mountagu in his book hath not affirmed anything
to be the doctrine of the Church of England, but that which in our
opinion is the doctrine of the Church of England, or agreeable
thereunto. And for the preservation of the peace of the Church,
we in humility do conceive that his Matle shall do most graciously
to prohibit all parties, members of the Church of England, any
further controversy of those questions by public preaching, or
writing, or any other way to the disturbance of the peace of the
Church for the time to come. And for any thing that may further
concern Mr. Mountagu's person in that business, we humbly com
mend him to his Maties gracious favour and pardon. And so we
humbly commend your Grace to the protection of the Almighty,
resting
" Yor Grace's faithful and humble servants,
" GEO. LONDON.
"B. DUNELM. LA. WlNTON.
"Jo. ROFEENS*
" GTJIL. MENEVE.
" From "Winchester House,
"January 16, 1625." 2
It is evident that the King and the Duke, probably swayed
by Laud, had previously determined upon Mountagu's ac-
quittal. This is clear from the wording of the Duke's letter.
The Bishops were to consult for the safety of Mountagu's
person. The prelates appointed to conduct the cause were all
prelates in favour at court. It is not on record that any of
them, except Andrewes, had ever appeared on the side of
the doctrine of the Church of England as maintained during
at least the greater part of the preceding reign. Both the
Archbishops were passed over, and so Williams, Bishop of
Lincoln, Davenant, Bishop of Salisbury, Carleton, Bishop of
Chichester, Morton, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry ; on
the other hand, Laud, Buckeridge, and Howson, Bishop of
Oxford, were known to be his friends. Thus the King in fact
asked the assistance of Monteigne, Neile, Andrewes, and their
assessors in shielding his chaplain Mountagu from the prose
cution of the Commons.
The House of Commons charged Mountagu with main
taining that the Church of Rome is and ever was a true
Church ; that it hath ever remained firm on the same founda
tion of the Sacraments and doctrine instituted by God ; that
no points of faith, hope, charity, and good manners are con
troverted between Protestants and Romanists; that images
may be used to raise devotion ; that in his treatise upon the
invocation of saints he had maintained that they have a more
peculiar charge of their friends, and that it may be believed
that some saints have tutelage of countries, &c. ; that he had
also taught, contrary to the 17th Article, that justified men
may fall away; that he had misquoted the 16th Article, and
sought to bring in Arminianism ; that he had factiously used
the term Puritan of such as conform to the discipline and
ritual of the Church ; and that the scope and end of Richard
Mountagu was to give encouragement to Popery, and to
lay the ground for a reconciliation with Popery ; lastly, that
he, in some things that he had written, reflected upon the
late King, and had used railing and bitter speeches to
many other persons and contemptuous to foreign reformed
churches.1
Mountagu, in his New Gag for an Old Goose, or Answer
to the late Gagger of Protestants, begins with the controversies
touching the relative places of Scripture and the Church. He
affirms that ' the written Word of God is the rule of faith
with us.' x c Unto the law and unto the prophets was a direction
of a perpetual morality, and is continued in that of our
Saviour, (John v.) Search the Scriptures, for in them you hope
to have eternal life : a rule absolute in itself, a rule most
«/ 7
sufficient unto us, for that end intended, to make the man of
God perfect in every good work.' c Plainly delivered in
Scripture are all those points which belong unto faith and
manners, hope, and charity, to wit.' But other points there
are which are obscure and open to controversy. These the
Church has power to interpret and resolve.2
He adduces Cyril of Jerusalem in his Fourth Catechism
speaking thus, ' In any point concerning the divine and holy
mysteries of our faith, not any the least thing must be tendered
without warrant of divine Scripture.' And he (Cyril) addeth,
1 Believe me not that speak and deliver these things unto you,
unless for proof of them I do bring plain and evident demon
stration out of divine writ.' Mountagu proceeds : * Was this
man a Protestant or a Papist? Those Bibles he had then
which we have now : and it seemeth that addressing his own
belief and doctrine accordingly varied not in judgment any
whit from us, who make Scripture the rule of our belief, and
in doubtful points that require determination, appeal unto the
Catholic Church for judgment in that rule.'
He then comments upon that passage so little understood,
but so much in some men's mouths, The Scribes and Pharisees
sit in Moses1 chair; all therefore whatsoever they bid you
observe, that observe and do.3 He asks, ' Do you suppose that
our Saviour approved them so well, as that he would have
had the Jews in matters of faith to rely upon them and their
decisions, as pastors of the Church in points of faith ? If this
were his meaning, what meant he then to give warning else
where, Take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees ? that is, as
the Holy Ghost expoundeth it, of their doctrine. If the
question had been put, Art thou the Christ f would he have
sent them unto the Scribes or Pharisees for resolution, or
advised the people to believe on them? We find it not
practised : the contrary we do. What then is this text in
consequence unto the point ? Surely he meant no more but
this, and in that he will declare himself a Protestant • What
soever they bid you observe out of Moses^ observe ; that is, so
long as they teach but Scripture they must be heard ; if here
they fail, then hear them not. Verba legis proferendo, in the
opinion of St. Augustine, so long as they speak law. Then
he adduces the Jesuits Maldonatus and Barradas giving the
same exposition.1
His antagonist had alleged from the 10th chapter of
St. LuJce, He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. These words,
he observes, might relate to the Apostles in the fullest sense
as having mission immediate from the Son himself, which
none ever had but they. But in relation to those after them,
it must be understood as St. Bernard understood it, with this
restriction, 'as far as man doth not gainsay the will and
commandment of the Most High.' ( A flat Protestant in his
assertion,' adds Mountagu, ' and upon reason ; for a nuncio
must go to his commission.' 2
St. Anselm he calls ' a factionist for Pope Urban, his good
lord and master.'3
As upon the authority of Scripture so of traditions, he might
have written more clearly. Thus why say that i traditions
derived from the Apostles have equal authority with their
preachings and their writings?' The love-feasts were such
traditions, and yet who would affirm that they were of equal
authority with the Eucharist, equally binding upon the ob
servance of the Church? It is not true that we hold all
apostolical traditions as binding. Such a tradition was baptism
by immersion ; yet neither is this observed by us. Such a
tradition was the order of deaconesses, yet where is it to be
found?
In animadverting upon the Komanist's allegation, that it
is our doctrine that the Church can err, Mountagu maintains
the same doctrine with some in our own day, that the Church
representative, true and lawful, cannot err in fundamentals.
The Church representative is in the second chapter of the
second part of his Appeal identified with a general council.
This is a fruitless controversy, and upon Mountagu's own
shewing, a needless one. For as all things according to
him requisite to be believed in order to salvation are in
Holy Scripture, why should general councils be called?
not to clear points of doctrine. And in points of disci
pline they may err without question, since they are liable
to err on points of fact which are always involved in the
administration of discipline. It is remarkable how those who
speak much for general councils are not careful to define
them. Even deacons spoke in antient councils. Would the
modern advocates of them be content with the antient
model?
In his fifth chapter occurs in Latin that passage which
gave just cause of offence to the House of Commons : l And
although this present Roman Church hath departed in no
small degree, not only in regard of purity of manners and
discipline, but also in regard of uncorruptness in doctrine,
from that antient Church whence it arose and was derived,
yet it hath ever stood firm upon the same foundation of
doctrine and of the Sacraments instituted by God, and recog
nises and keeps communion with the antient and undoubted
Church of Christ. Wherefore it cannot be another and a
different church from that, however unlike it in many respects.'
So then, the half-communion, idolatrous worship, and the
enjoining as essential to salvation doctrines of human origin
and no part of the Word of God, all this however unlike the
primitive Church is not so unlike it as to constitute a separate
being ! Now Mountagu admitted the gross idolatry of the
Church of Rome, and therefore the absurdity is his own.
" 1 do not, I cannot, I will not deny that idolatry is grossly
committed in the Church of Rome." This is his own testi
mony. But will any say, it is one thing for the Church to
commit idolatry, another thing for idolatry to be committed
in the Church ? He answers, that the idolatrous worship of
the image of Christ as maintained by [St. Thomas Aquinas
u is an article of faith in the Roman Church."1 To what end
we may well ask, did the Apostle write to the Corinthians,
What agreement hath the temple of God with idols?* No
wonder that the multitude have ever suspected of Popery
those who have thus palliated idolatry, and taught that it has
ceased under Christianity to be that mortal sin which it was
under the law.
Upon the question how St. Peter fell, whether totally or
finally, he forgets his usual caution, and condemns Ward and
Yates for their doctrine of final perseverance,3 forgetting that
it was the doctrine of Hooker. Here his factious use of the
term Puritan is apparent, and justifies the animadversion
both of the Commons and of the learned and pious Bishop
Carleton.
To his opponent objecting to the Protestants the doctrine
that the Pope is Antichrist, Mountagu replies that this is but
a private opinion of some men, but that for himself he inclines
to think that the Mahometan and Papal powers taken together
are the Antichrist of the Scriptures. This point he discusses
at some length in his Appeal. The reader will peruse him
with advantage upon the topics of absolution and confession.
Well had it been if, in regard of the former, the language of
Peter Lombard had satisfied himself and some other divines.
According to Peter Lombard, the priest is commissioned not
to give but to declare absolution ; and if to give, to give it
sacramentally, or in the administration of the Sacraments, and
thus only indirectly and mediately. It is no small indication
of the true feeling upon this subject that the more startling
and repulsive form of absolution was not in existence for
many centuries. It did not arise until the priesthood itself
had learnt to claim a kind of deification.
In treating of works of supererogation, Mountagu declared
himself in favour of the doctrine that Christ had given two
kinds of instructions, precepts and counsels ; precepts obliging
all, counsels left to those who were able to receive them.
This was grounded upon the 19th chapter of St. Matthew,
If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to
the poor; and, lie that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Here, as in the case of confession, he adduces the opinion of
Bishop Morton, 'that we allow the distinction of precepts
and counsels' ^ He quotes on this topic Saints Chrysostom,
Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine, deeming the authority of
the Fathers in all cases a sufficient proof of the fitness of an
interpretation of Scripture. Our Saviour's words, He that is
able to receive it, let him receive it, are indeed an irrefragable
proof that this is no superstitious distinction. But it is to be
feared that such an attestation to the excellency of a purely
spiritual life, and to the possibility of leading it, is opposed
and rudely dealt with in our age from the very prevalent
disposition to abide by a lower standard of holiness and of
self-denial than is consistent with true religion.
In treating of free-will, Mountagu seemed to affirm that
the will, unable at the first to choose good, spiritual good,
was upon our renewal able to wwk together with grace by its
own ability, by a power lodged in itself. He admits that the
Fathers did in some instances venture too far in what they
asserted of the power of the will.2
He defended his own modes of speaking upon this most
difficult point by the language of Whitaker, Chemnitz,
Perkins, and others. But indeed it is easy to conceal a man's
real opinion here under terms that are used by his opponent
in a far different sense. These writers would probably have
agreed that without the preventing grace of God the will
could not turn to him. They would have resolved every
good thought and desire into the same degree of divine grace ;
in a word, they would have resolved the goodness of man's
will from first to last into the grace of God. To his working
with us they would have ascribed it that man had a good will
kept alive in him. This is in words confessed by Mountagu,
but it is at variance with another part of his system, that the
calling of them that are saved is in consideration of their
faith, repentance, and obedience.3 This it was which identified
him with the Semi-Pelagians and Arminians. He refused
the name, and denied knowledge of the works of Arminius ;
but this one dogma, perhaps on his part incautiously owned,
left no doubt upon the more discriminating of his contem
poraries, of his real adherence to Arminianism.
Mountagu very ably and learnedly exposes and refutes the
impious doctrine of the Romanists respecting the possibility
of human perfection, or rather, of rendering to God a perfect
obedience.1
His statement of the doctrine of justification is open to
exceptions if he is not fairly read and allowed to explain
himself. At the same time he shewed a disposition to extend
the use of the term justification, so as to include in it both our
forensic justification in Christ, or by the imputation of his
righteousness, and our declarative justification by works,
which he would call our second justification. But what would
be the result? That which has already followed in the
attempt at a departure from the accustomed language of the
Church, a bringing in of opinions still less excusable than the
novel expressions under which they are veiled.
Mountagu did, it is true, use language liable to exception
in one page, but in the very next 2 he so rectified himself that
it was uncandid in his opponents to overlook all that he had
said in explanation and correction of his own words. Nor is
there any reason to suspect him here. He wrote in language
that could not be misunderstood by the Eomanists. He fully
honoured the name of Christ as our justifying righteousness,
and faith as that by which alone we lay hold of it. " In the
first signification then of justification, the which properly is
justification, we acknowledge instrumentally faith alone, and
causally God alone."
"In the second and third [to be more just inherently,
and to be declared just at last by works,] beside God and faith,
we yield to hope and holiness and sanctification and the
fruits of the Spirit in good works. But both these are not
justification, rather fruits and consequents and effects and
appendants of justification than justification, which is a
solitary act."3 " Our justification in the act thereof, is only
the work of God for Christ's sake, whose death and passion
apprehended by faith, which is the sole peculiar work of faith
to do, as it hath made an atonement betwixt God and us, so
hath it procured remission of our sins at his hands, and there
upon a new state of grace, not for any merit or deserving of
our own, which is utterly excluded in this act." " Faith that
is without charity doth not justify, but faith may yet justify
without charity. They have their several distinct acts, and
the act of faith is to justify, though both are virtues incident
to a just man."
Accordingly he explains St. Paul and St. James as speaking,
the one of the attaining of justification which is i confessed to
be the act of faith,' the other of justification now obtained,
which necessarily is not separate from works. Justus factus
through the grace of Christ, is Justus declaratus by his holy
life and conversation. And so St. James is expounded by
yourselves, or else hath access of justification, as it is also
taught by your own men."1 Now this last expression is
apparently a contradiction to the preceding, and accordingly
in the Appeal we find the sting taken out of it. He there
explains thus, ' Access unto justification is not by me made
essential unto justification, but only declaratory ,'2
Mountagu then was unjustly charged with Romanism and
with innovation in the doctrine of justification, and with equal
injustice the two informers imputed to him the Romish doc
trine of merit. He rightly notes the patristic use of mereor
as expressing simply to procure, to incur, to purchase, not to
deserve. Thus the Vulgate, ' My iniquity is greater than that
I can obtain pardon.'3
The Romanist objecting to the Protestants the opinion that
faith once had cannot be lost, Mountagu affirms that it can,
and that this is the doctrine of the Church of England, that
Judas was as much given to Christ as Peter or John, and that
Simon Magus was a sincere Christian, but afterward apos
tatized. Bishop Carleton has copiously answered and refuted
him on this point, and vindicated St. Augustine from the
tenet here imputed to him, that to some men God gave faith
and justification, and afterward left them to perish in apostacy.
It is but an adventurous assertion, that as God gave Peter and
John, so he gave Judas to Christ. If all were alike given to
him as apostles, they were not all alike given to him as heirs
of his kingdom. There was a sense in which they were not
all his. So St. John saith at the beginning of the 13th
chapter, Having loved his own which were in the world, he
loved them to the end. Again he said, / know whom I have
chosen.1 Judas was one of the world for which he did not
pray. The Apostles were both his own and his Father's in a
sense in which Judas was not. I pray for them ; I pray not
for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they
are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine ; and
I am glorified in them?
In the topic of predestination Mountagu proceeded with
some wariness, yet not able to act an entirely neutral part.
He attacked the supralapsarian doctrine, and laboured to
make it appear odious. But it may not be denied that all
things are resolvable into the divine decrees • yet let us not
hold this so as to deny that which we feel, our natural
liberty, neither let us deny that to God we owe the renewal
of the will, and that in an inscrutable manner he worketh
in them that love him to will and to do of his good pleasure.
The invocation of saints Mountagu calls 'grand foolery,'
but touches upon the impiety of offering false worship with
a gentle peradventure, ' Perhaps there is no such great impiety
in saying — St. Laurence, pray for me.'3
For lay-baptism in cases of emergency he pleads, as did
Whitgift before him in his Answer to Cartwright, ' the use
and warrant of antiquity.' He does not imagine any true
baptism independent of faith. i As in little infants the faith
of the Church, and those that present them to be baptized, is
by God reputed their own ; so the willingness and desire of
the same Church, of their godfathers and parents, is reputed
theirs.'
Upon the real presence he uses the same language with
others of his own and the preceding century, who gave "but
a handle to the Romanists to charge them with unmeaning
distinctions, whilst they professed to take literally (which
Tertullian and Augustine did not) the words of Christ, This
is my body. Allow this, and we partake of Christ's natural
body in the Eucharist, for he gave no other if he gave it at
all. Allow this, and Tertullian, Theodoret, and Augustine must
be condemned for heterodox, and with them all the believers
of their times; for they do not appear to have condemned
them for agreeing in this, that This is my body is the same
with This is the figure of my body.
We find in him the doctrine of quasi-sacramentals though
not the word. Nor is there any valid reason to the contrary.
This distinction forces itself upon us in the case of marriage,
confirmation, and ordination, which all border upon the nature
of a sacrament, being consecrated to holy ends. Yates and
Ward here shewed their Puritanism when they objected to
the form of the ordination of priests, Receive ye the Holy
Ghost; not that we are to look for that divine gift ex opere
operato. There must be fit dispositions to receive it. Simon
Magus had it not, neither do those amongst us who seek
ordination not for the work of the ministry but for its
emoluments.
Mountagu supposes, on the ground of the antiquity of the
opinion, that Christ took the saints up with him to heaven at
his ascension. He also asserted the literal descent of Christ
into the place of the damned. But our Lord went into
Paradise. And so the more antient opinion, that of Irenasus
and Tertullian, was that the only hell into which our Lord
went was Hades, the state of departed spirits, where they
lived in Abraham's bosom in the comfort of the hope of a
joyful resurrection.
He also follows some of the antients in their veneration
of the sign of the cross, pleading for its use as a token of
Anti-Puritanism. So zealous was he against ' the brethren,'
as he calls the Puritans in the very title of his appeal, Appello
Ccesaremj An Appeal from the Brethren.
Such are the Gag and the Appeal, a mass of learning and
of satire, coarse in style and full of invective; erroneous
enough, but by no means so erroneous as some of his oppo
nents represented.
Upon Bishop Andre wes' acquittal of Mountagu, given in
the above letter to the Duke of Buckingham, he has himself
been claimed as a convert to the opinions upon predestination
maintained in Mountagu' s Appeal. Yet it may admit of
doubt whether he did not act in this instance upon the grounds
of general policy, considering the attack made by the Puritans
and by the Commons on Mountagu as intended to wound the
Church of England and to elevate the Puritans. Their charges
against him were partly groundless, partly false, partly exag
gerated. It was not possible for him to have effected a
reconciliation of England and Rome on the basis maintained
in his New Gag. At the same time he was evidently desirous
of giving the Romanists every possible advantage, every
concession that seemed to him not to compromise essential
truths. His spirit was not that of a Christian, but his learning
was so great and so undoubted that it seems to have covered
all his defects. He had promised too, at the end of his last
performance, to return the royal protection with the service
of his polemical sword. And therefore, in perfect accordance
with the then principles of government, which singled out for
promotion those who were most obnoxious to unpopularity
(a rule savouring of petulance rather than of discretion, and of
weakness rather than true dignity), the King speedily raised
Mountagu to a bishopric, to the very see of his late opponent
Carleton. On August 24th, 1628, he was consecrated to the
see of Chichester by Archbishop Abbot, assisted by Laud,
now Bishop of London, by Neile, Bishop of Winchester,
Buckeridge, now Bishop of Ely, and Dr. Francis Whiter
Bishop of Carlisle. On the translation of Wren from Norwich
to Ely, Mountagu was in 1638 appointed his successor, and
Dr. Brian Duppa consecrated to Chichester. Mountagu was
elected to Norwich May 4th, 1638, and died in April 1641,
when, to make episcopacy more popular, Bishop Hall was
translated thither from Exeter.
Besides Bishop Carleton, Anthony Wotton, Yeates, and
Ward, Mountagu was animadverted upon by Dr. Matthew
Sutcliffe, Dean of Exeter, Dr. Daniel Featley, Francis Rouse,
and Henry Burton of Friday Street, London. Dr. Featley,
Abbot's Chaplain, put forth his animadversions in 1626,
entitling them, Pelagius Redivivus, or Pelagius Ratid out of
the Ashes by Arminius and his Scholars. This book consists
of two parallels, one between the Pelagians and Arminians,
the other between the Church of Eome, the Appealer, and
the Church of England, in three columns. Francis Rouse
(made by the Parliamentarians Provost of Eton) did not
direct his work by name against Mountagu, but published in
the same year his Testis Veritatis ; The Doctrine of King
James and of the Church of England plainly shewn to be one
in the points of Predestination , Free- Will, and Certainty of
Salvation. 1626. He was a member of the House of
Commons, and thus sustained a mixed character. He was
especially busy in the ecclesiastical innovations of his party,
and in opposing episcopacy. He died in January 1659.
The recommendation in the letter of the Bishops was
enforced, and the works that were written against Mountagu
were sought after and suppressed. But whether or not this
prohibition put a stop to the publication of works directly
treating of these controversies, certain it is that it was not until
a later period that the Universities declared in favour of the
Court divinity. Dr. Prideaux, afterward Bishop of Worcester,
Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, and Dr. Ward, Master
of Sidney Sussex College, and Lady Margaret's Professor of
Divinity at Cambridge, continued the Predestinarian doctrine
in their respective Universities.
On January 18th, 1626, the before-mentioned prelates met
together to prepare a form of thanksgiving for the staying
of the plague, to be used on Sundays, Wednesdays, and
Fridays.
On the 2nd of February Bishop Andrewes was present at
the coronation, and carried the golden plate for the Com
munion.
On April 12th, Wednesday, at nine A.M., Archbishop
Abbot, Andrewes, Neile, and Laud met together by the
King's command to consult concerning a sermon preached
before the King on the Fifth Sunday in Lent last past
by Dr. Goodman, Bishop of Gloucester. He had spoken
ambiguously upon the real presence in the Sacrament, and
was already suspected of Komanism. They advised together,
and gave answer to the King that some things were therein
spoken less cautiously, but nothing falsely ; that nothing was
innovated by him in the doctrine of the Church of England ;
that the best way would be that the Bishop should preach the
sermon again at some time to be chosen by himself, and should
then shew how and wherein he was misunderstood by his
auditors.1
On May 1st, Monday, Andrewes was on a commission
upon an Act concerning the issuing of citations out of the
Ecclesiastical Courts.
This is the last transaction with which we find the name
of Bishop Andrewes connected. And now let his grateful
secretary Isaacson conclude this imperfect narrative of his
life. " He was not often sick, and but once (till his last
illness) in thirty years, before the time he died, which was at
Downham in the Isle of Ely, the air of that place not agreeing
with the constitution of his body. But there he seemed to be
prepared for his dissolution, saying oftentimes in that sickness,
* It must come once, and why not here ? ' And at other times
before and since he would say, ' The days must come, when,
whether we will or nill, we shall say with the Preacher,
/ have no pleasure in them' Of his death lie seemed to
presage himself a year before he died, and therefore prepared
his oil that he might be admitted in due time into the bride-
chamber. That of qualis vita finis ita, &c. was truly verified
in him, for as he lived so died he. As his fidelity in his
health was great, so increased the strength of his faith in his
sickness. His gratitude to men was now changed into thank-
fulness to God; his affability to incessant and devout
prayers and speech with his Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier;
his laborious studies to restless groans, sighs, cries, and
tears, his hands labouring, his eyes lifted up, and his heart
beating and panting to see the living God, even to the last of
his breath."
He died on September 25th, 1626, about four of the clock
in the morning.
Thus eloquently also Bishop Buckeridge in his funeral
sermon for him : i God's house is truly called, and is indeed
the house of prayer; it accompanies all acts done in God's
house. Of this reverend prelate I may say his life was a life
of prayer. A great part of five hours every day did he spend
in prayer and devotion to God. After the death of his brother
Mr. Thomas Andrewes in the sickness time, whom he loved
dearly, he began to foretel his own death before the end of
summer, or before the beginning of the winter. And when
his brother Mr. Nicholas Andrewes died, he took that as
a certain sign and prognostic and warning of his own death,
and from that time till the hour of his dissolution he spent
all his time in prayer, and his prayerbook, when he was
private, was seldom seen out of his hands. And in the time
of his fever and last sickness, besides the often prayers which
were read to him, in which he repeated all the parts of the
confession and other petitions with an audible voice, as long
as his strength endured, he did, as was well observed by
certain tokens in him, continually pray to himself, though he
seemed otherwise to rest or slumber. And when he could
pray no longer with his voice, yet by lifting up his eyes and
hands he prayed still ; and when both voice and eyes and
hands failed in their office, then with his heart he still prayed,
until it pleased God to receive his blessed soul to himself."1
Bishop Andrewes was buried on Saturday, November llth.
The funeral procession went from Winchester House, South-
wark, where he had died 26th September. It was ordered
and directed by Sir William Segar, Garter Principal King-
of-Arms,1 Henry St. George, Bichmond Herald,2 and George
Owen, Eouge Cross.3 Neile, Bishop of Durham, chief mourner,
assisted by Dr. Boger Andrewes, the Bishop's brother, Mr.
Burrell, the husband of his sister Mary, Mr. Salmon, the
husband of his sister Martha, Mr. Boger Andrewes, the son
of his brother Thomas, and Mr. Booke, the husband of his
niece Mary, daughter of Mary Burrell. The great banner was
borne by Mr. William Andrewes, the son of his brother
Nicholas ; the four bannerolls by Mr. Prinseps, the son of his
sister Martha Salmon by her first husband; Mr. Samuel
Burrell, third son of his sister Mary Burrell ; Mr. Peter Salmon,
eldest son of Martha by her second husband ; and Mr. Thomas
Andrewes, the eldest son of his brother Thomas. The corps
assisted by Drs. Collins, Beale, Wren, and Green of Corpus
Christi College, Oxford, Bector of Stockton, Wilts. The
inhabitants of St. Saviour's parish honoured his funeral by
hanging the church with 165 yards of black baise. The
house mourners made an offering, and Mr. Archer, one of the
chaplains, received £11 17s. 7d., which he paid to the wardens
as their due, but they handsomely returned it to him and Mr.
Micklethwaite the other chaplain.4
The sermon was preached by Dr. Buckeridge, at that time
Bishop of Bochester. His text was Hebrews xiii. 16 : To do
good and to distribute forget not: for with such sacrifices God
is well pleased. He at once enters into the subject of sacrifices.
"Our head, Christ," he observes, "offered his sacrifice of
himself upon the cross; Crux altare Christi ; and the cross
of Christ was the altar of our Head, where he offered the
unicum, verumj et proprium sacrificium, the only, true, proper
sacrifice, propitiatory for the sins of mankind ; in which all
other sacrifices are accepted, and applicatory of this pro
pitiation.
" 1. The only sacrifice, one in itself, and once only offered,
that purchased eternal redemption ; and if the redemption be
eternal, what need is there that it should be offered more than
once, when once is all-sufficient ?
"2. And the true sacrifice. All others are but types and
representations of this sacrifice; this only hath power to
appease God's wrath, and make all other sacrificers and
sacrifices acceptable.
" 3. And the proper sacrifice : as the psalm saith, Corpus
aptasti mihi (Psa. xl. 6, Ixx.), * Thou hast fitted me with a
body' ; the deity assumed the humanity that it might accipere
h nobis quod offerret pro nobis (c receive of us what it might
offer for us'); being the deity could not offer, nor be offered to
itself, he took flesh of ours that he might offer for us.
u Now as Christ's cross was his altar where he offered
himself for us, so the Church hath an altar also, where it
offereth itself, not Christum in capite but Christum in membris,
not Christ the head properly, but Christ the members. For
Christ cannot be offered again and properly, no more but once
upon the cross ; for he cannot be offered again, no more than
he can be dead again ; and dying and shedding blood as he
did upon the cross, and not dying and not shedding blood,
as in the Eucharist, cannot be one action of Christ offered on
the cross, and of Christ offered in the Church at the altar by
the priest by representation only, no more than Christ and
the priest are one person : and therefore though in the cross
and the Eucharist there be idem sacrificatum, the same sacri
ficed thing, that is, the body and llood of Christ offered by
Christ to his Father on the cross, and received and partici-
pated by the communicants in the sacrifice of the altar;
yet idem sacrificium quoad actionem sacrificii or sacrificandi,
it is impossible there should be the same sacrifice, under
standing- by sacrifice the action of sacrifice; for then the
action of Christ's sacrifice, which is long since past, should
continue as long as the Eucharist shall endure, even to the
world's end ; and his consummatum est is not yet finished :
and dying and not dying, shedding of blood and not shedding
of blood, and suffering and not suffering, cannot possibly be
one action, and the representation of an action cannot be the
action itself."
He gives the true design of the term the Real Presence as
used by the Church of England, when deriving Eucharistia
from good grace, he says the Lord's Supper is so called
because "it really contains Christ, who is full of grace."
It is true he quotes this from Aquinas, but Aquinas here
conveyed a truth, if the words are taken in a spiritual sense,
expressive of the faith of both catholic antiquity and of the
Keformers of our Church. He proceeds to shew clearly out
of Aquinas himself, as Dr. Field had also done in the 19th
chapter of his Appendix to his third book Of the Church?
li Here is a representative or commemorative and partici
pated sacrifice of the passion of Christ the true sacrifice, that
is past ; and here is an eucharistical sacrifice : but for any
external proper sacrifice, especially as sacrifice doth signify
the action of sacrificing, here is not one word. And therefore
this is a new conceipt of latter men, since Thomas his time
unknown to him, and a mere novelism. And the cure is as
bad as the disease. Though Thomas gives no other reasons
why it is called a sacrifice, yet (say they) Thomas denieth it
not: for that is plainly to confess that this is but a patch
added to antiquity. And yet when he saith it is a repre
sentative or commemorative sacrifice, respectu prceteriti, in
respect of that which is past, that is, the passion of Christ,
which was the true sacrifice, he doth deny by consequent that
it is the true sacrifice itself, which is past. And if Christ be
sacrificed daily in the Eucharist according to the action of
sacrifice, and it be one and the same sacrifice offered by
Christ on the cross, and the priest at the altar, then can it not
be a representation of that sacrifice which is pasty because it is
one and the same sacrifice and action present."1
He proceeds thus : " Therefore St. Paul proceeds in the
15th verse, By Mm therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise
to God continually, that isj the fruit of our lips, giving thanks
to his name. Let us offer up to God; Christians then have
an offering : and let us offer up to God continually ; this is the
ground of the daily sacrifice of Christians that answereth to
the daily sacrifice of the Jews. And this sacrifice of praise
and thanks may well be understood the Eucharist, in which
we chiefly thank and praise God for this his chief and great
blessing of our redemption. And this and all other sacrifices
of the Church external or spiritual must be offered up and
accepted per ipsum, in, by, and through Christ. St. Paul
saith not, Ipsum offeramus. Let us offer him (that is) Christ ;
but let us offer and sacrifice per ipsum, by him, in whom only
we and our sacrifices are accepted." He afterwards affirms
that " all the offerings of the Church are the Church itself."
And then, after having again spoken of Christ having once
offered himself for us, he adds, a Neither doth Christ there
(that is) in heaven, where he now appears in the presence of
God, offer often or any more for us, but this once ; there is
appearing but no offering. And the Apostle gives the reason
of it : For then he must have often suffered since the foundation
of the world, (Heb. ix. 24, 25, 26). He appears in heaven
as our high priest, and makes intercession for us ; but he offers
his natural body no more but once, because he suffers but
once. No offering of Christ (by St. Paul's rule) without the
suffering of Christ. The priest cannot offer Christ's natural
body without the suffering of Christ's natural body."
We have lived to see St. Augustine deserted in the doc
trine both of our Lord's sacrifice and sacrament, but not so
Buckeridge. He fully shews out of St. Augustine that the
Church herself is the only sacrifice which in the Church is
offered up to God.2 He next proceeds to treat of alms, and
to shew that nothing that we can offer to God can merit
anything. We can only be justified by the imputed righteous
ness of Christ.
" What is the reason the prophet saith (Psa. Ixxi. 16),
O Lord, memorabor justitice tuce solius, I will remember thy
righteousness only, but because there is no other righteousness
worth^the remembering but only thy righteousness only? That
righteousness that is a Domino'1'' [from the Lord], " inherent
in us by sanctification of the gifts and graces of the Lord, is
not worth the remembrance, for it is a defiled cloth and dung
in itself; and were it never so good, God hath no need of it;
nay, being offered to God, he is nothing increased by it. If
thou do all good works, Deus meus es, et bonorum meorum non
indiges: Thou art my God, saith David (Psa. xvii. 2), my
goods, and therein are his good worJcs also, are nothing to
thee : God is not increased or enriched by them. If thou do
commit all manner of sins with all manner of greediness, thou
canst not defile God, nor take any thing from him ; thy evil
cannot decrease or diminish him. But it is Justitia in Domino,
Righteousness in the Lord, (that is) Christ's righteousness
communicated or imputed to us ; for Christ is made to us
wisdom from God, and justice or righteousness and sancti
fication, and redemption. And he doth not say fecit nos, he
made us righteous in the concrete, but factus est nobis, he was
made righteousness to us in the abstract, because he commu
nicates his righteousness to us, and thereby covers our naked
ness, as Jacob clothed in his elder brother's garments received
the blessing.1 And therefore the name of the Son of God is
Jehovah, Justitia nostra, the Lord our Righteousness". After
descanting farther upon this most essential topic, and exposing
the false pleas of the Church of Rome for her doctrine of
merit, Buckeridge gives a very valuable account of Bishop
Andrewes, which has already been quoted in various places,
according as the chronological order of these memorials gave
occasion. I will here add the following extracts :
" His admirable knowledge in the learned tongues, Latin,
Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, besides other modern
tongues, to the number of fifteen (as I am informed), was
such and so rare that he may well be ranked in the first
place, to be one of the rarest linguists in Christendom; in
which he was so perfect and absolute, both for grammar and
profound knowledge therein, that he was so perfect in the
grammar and criticism of them, as if he had utterly neglected
the matter itself; and yet he was so exquisite and sound in
the matter and learning of these tongues, as if he had never
regarded the grammar."
He mentions his love and encouragement of learning and
of learned men, " which appeared in his liberality and bounty
to Master Casaubon, Master Cluverius, Master Vossius, Master
Grotius, Master Erpenius, whom he attempted, with the offer
of a very large stipend out of his own purse, to draw into
England, to have read and taught the Oriental tongues
here." To these his secretary Isaacson adds Moulin, Barclay,
and Bedwell.
"He meddled little with them" (the goods of the world),
" but left the taking of his accounts from his officers to his
brothers; and when he began his will at Waltham a year
before his death, he understood not his own estate; nay,
till about six weeks before his death, when his accounts
were delivered up and perfected, he did not fully know his
own estate: and therefore in his first draught of his will
he gave but little to his kindred, doubting he might give
away more than he had ; and therefore in a codicil annexed
to his will he doubled all his legacies to them, and made
every hundred to be two hundred, and every two hundred to
be four hundred : and yet, notwithstanding this increase, he
gave more to the maintenance of learning and the poor than
to his kindred. His charity and love of God and the poor
was greater in him than natural affection, and yet he forgot
not his natural affection to them."
For many years since he left St. Giles's, Cripplegate,
Buckeridge records that he sent £5 about Christmas, besides
the number of pounds given to the poor of that parish when
he was almoner. " And," he adds, " I have reason to
presume the like of those other parishes mentioned in his
will, to which he also gave legacies : to St. Giles an hundred
pounds, where he had been Vicar ; to All-Hallows, Barking,
where he was born, twenty pounds ; to St. Martin's, Ludgate,
where he dwelt, five pounds ; to St. Andrew's in Holborn,
where Ely House stands, ten pounds ; and to this parish
of St. Saviour's in Southwark, where he died, twenty pounds :
which parishes he hath remembered for his alms to the poor,
when the land shall be purchased for the relief and use of
the poor."
u The total of his pious and charitable works mentioned in
his will amounts to the sum of six thousand three hundred
twenty-six pounds. Of which to Pembroke Hall for the
creation of two fellowships and other uses mentioned in the
codicil, a thousand pound, to buy fifty pound land per annum
to that purpose, besides a bason and ewer like that of their
foundress, and some books."
"To buy two hundred pound per annum, four thousand
pound : viz. for aged poor men, fifty pound per annum ; for
poor widows the wives of one husband, fifty pound ; for the
putting of poor orphans to prentice, fifty pound ; to prisoners,
fifty pound."
" After he came to have an episcopal house with a chapel,1
he kept monthly communions inviolably ; yea, though himself
had received at the Court the same month, in which his
carriage was not only decent and religious but also exem
plary : he ever offered twice at the altar, and so did every one
of his servants, to which purpose he gave them money, lest it
should be burthensome to them." " A great part of five
hours every day did he spend in prayer and devotion to
God."
tl He instructed his chaplains and friends to inform him of
such young men at the University as stood in need of
assistance. He of his own accord preferred men of learning,
as Boys and Nicholas Fuller the Orientalist. If any deserving
youths missed their election to the University from the great
schools of London and Westminster, he sent them to the
University at his own charge.
11 He always observed a most noble hospitality, and at the
same time paid regard to all the appointments of the Church
in regard of fasts, at Lent, Embers, and other times. He dined
at noon, giving his mornings to prayer and study. He was
averse to be interrupted by calls before that time. t( He
doubted," says Isaacson, " they were no true scholars that
came to speak with him before noon. After dinner, for two
or three hours' space, he would willingly pass the time either
in discourse with his guests or other friends, or in despatch of
his own temporal affairs, or of those who (by reason of his
episcopal jurisdiction) attended him. And being quit of these
and the like occasions, he would return to his study, where he
spent the rest of the afternoon even till bedtime, except some
friend took him off to supper, and then did he eat but
sparingly."
He suffered much by suits at law sooner than willingly
institute persons whom he suspected of simoniacal engage
ments. When Bishop of Winchester he would not renew
some leases that would have been most lucrative to himself,
when he foresaw that such renewals would tend to the injury
of his successor.
His secretary Henry Isaacson was born in St. Catharine
Coleman's parish September 1581. He was the son of
Kichard Isaacson, Sheriff of London, who died January 19th,
1620, son of William Isaacson of Sheffield, by Isabel his first
wife. Henry Isaacson died about the 7th December, 1654,
and was buried in St. Catharine's, Coleman Street, London
(since rebuilt), on December 14th.1 Isaacson is reckoned
amongst the writers of Pembroke Hall. Antony Wood
appears to have been unable to have discovered more respect
ing him than that which is here presented to the reader.
Bishop Andrewes' Devotions in Greek and Latin, Preces Privatce, fyc.,
were published at Oxford 1675, pp. 359, with a portrait (probably by no
means a good one) by Loggan, the admirable engraver of those most
beautiful folios the ' Oxonia and Cantabrigia Illustrata.' There is the
usual old view of the Sheldonian Theatre in the title-page. Upon Log-
gan's successor as University engraver, Burghers, see the second volume
of ' Hearne's Diary,' recently edited by Dr. Bliss, p. 630. This edition of
Bishop Andrewes' Devotions was put forth by Dr. John Lamphire, of New
College, Oxford, from the MSS. of Samuel Wright, the Bishop's own
amanuensis, communicated by Dr. Richard Drake, Chancellor of Sarum,
and with other fragments from the then recently edited collection of Dr.
David Stokes.
John Lamphire was the son of George an apothecary of Winchester,
and was born in St. Lawrence's parish in that city. He was educated first
at Winchester School, and then at New College, Oxford, of which he was
Fellow in 1636. He was ejected thence by the Parliamentary authorities,
practised medicine at Oxford, and lived to be restored in 1660. Being
again Fellow of New College, he was elected Camden Professor of Ancient
History August 16th, 1660, and appointed Principal of New Inn Hall
September 8th, 1662, on the ejection of Dr. Christopher Rogers of Lincoln
College. Thence he was removed to Hart Hall, of which he was made
Principal May 30th, 1663. After he had published this very neat edition
of Bishop Andrewes' Devotions in 1675 in 12mo., he obtained a more
perfect copy, which other avocations hindered him from giving to the
world. He died at Hart Hall March 30th, 1688, aged 73 years, and was
buried in the ante-chapel near the west door of New College. He was
succeeded in his professorship by that learned but somewhat eccentric
genius Henry Dodwell, for an account of whom the reader may refer to
' Hearne's Diary.' Hearne does his memory ample justice.
Dr. David Stokes was educated at Westminster School, was first
a scholar of Trinity College,1 then a Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge,
D.D. 1630, also a Fellow of Eton College, Rector of Binfield near Windsor ,
and Canon of Windsor, to which he was appointed llth July, and installed
12th July, 1628, on the promotion of Richard Montagu to the see of
Chichester. He was also preferred by Sir Henry Wotton to the Eectory of
Everdon near Daventry (in the gift of Eton College) September 19th,
1638. He assisted Walton in the Polyglott, wrote on the Twelve minor
Prophets, 1659, 8vo.
Verus Christianus, or Directions for Private Devotions and Retire
ments, with an Appendix containing some private devotions of Bishop
Andrewes.
Truth's Champion.
Some Sermons.
He was also M.A. of Peterhouse in 1618. He was elected to his
Fellowship in the place of the Rev. John Blithe, who was instituted to the
College living of Statherne in Leicestershire. Blithe founded some scholar
ships at Peterhouse. His portrait is in the hall of the College (Johannes
Blithe, Bac. Theol. Socius Collegii anno 1617), on the south side of the
hall. Dr. Stokes resigned his Fellowship in 1625. He was made D.D.
1630. The College chapel at Peterhouse was built in 1632. He con
tributed £10. He was deprived of all his preferments, and took refuge at
Oxford. He was reinstated in them in 1660, and spent the remainder of
his days in peaceful enjoyment to his death, May 10th, 1669. To his stall
at Windsor succeeded Henry Wotton, M.A., May 28th, 1669. He resigned
on May 1st, 1671. He was M.A. of Merton College, Oxford, 1660.
In Lamphire's edition of Andrewes' Prayers in Greek and Latin, Dr.
David is by a mistake called William Stokes. The beautiful copy by
Samuel Wright is a small 12mo., still in the Library of Pembroke College,
Cambridge. The portions alluded to by Lamphire as taken from Stokes,
are taken from the Appendix to his Verus Christianus, published at
Oxford.
Wright's copy, consisting of 168 pages, contains the Devotions in
Greek without any Latin translation, down to the Meditation on the Day
of Judgment at p. 252 of the Oxford edition recently set forth in the
* Anglo -Catholic Library.' The two meditations on the Last Judgment
and on Human Frailty, are from Dr. Stokes, and also many passages in
the Latin Devotions. The prayers as thus edited have been reprinted in
1828 and 1848.
The recent Oxford edition in 8vo. has a third part from the Harleian
MSS. No. 6614. That manuscript indeed is not in the handwriting of
Andrewes, as a MS. note by J. Cole asserts.
Andrewes' Manual of the Sick, first put forth with some spurious
additions in 1647 by Humphrey Moseley, a bookseller at the Prince's
Arms in St. Paul's Churchyard, was edited with fidelity in 1648, by
Richard Drake, with the other Devotions translated from Wright's MS.,
with a dedication to the Prince of Wales. The Preface to the Christian
Reader is dated on the Nativity of St. John Baptist, 1646.
Dr. Richard Drake was a scholar of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, on Dr.
Watts's foundation, March 15th, 1626, B.A. 1628, M.A. 1631, Rector of
Radwinter, between Thaxted and Walden in Essex, D.D. by royal mandate
August 2nd, 1660, Prebendary of North Alton in the Cathedral of Salis
bury September 9th, 1660. He resigned this stall on March 23rd, 1663,
having been appointed to the Chancellorship of that church on the 12th
of March. He was installed Prebendary of Bricklesworth in the church of
Sarum, February 24th, 1665. He was, as was also Dr. Stokes, one of
Walton's assistants in the Polyglott. He died in 1681.
In 1655 a volume appeared entitled Holy Devotions, with Directions
to Pray, fyc,, by the Rt. Rev. Father in God L. Andrewes, late Bishop of
Winchester. The 4th edition, printed for Henry Seile, &c. 1655.' The first
edition had appeared in 1660, with another title, Institutiones Pice, or
Directions to Pray. The initials of the Compiler are given as H. I. This
was retained in the second and third editions. The initials are those of
Henry Isaacson. He died in 1654. The date of his death (1654) accords
with H. Seile's statement in the preface to the fourth edition, that the
three previous editions had been dressed up by a kind foster-father who
now sleeps in the Lord. It is most likely, says Mr. Bliss, that the volume
was compiled By Isaacson from some of the Bishop's papers. The earlier
portion appears to be notes of sermons either made by Andrewes himself
to assist in composition, or else taken down by some of his hearers. Other
passages agree exactly with portions of his Latin Devotions, especially with
some recently published in the Oxford 8vo. edition. The volume can in
no other and stricter sense be regarded as Andrewes'. The first editor
(Isaacson) states that he had originally compiled the Devotions for his
own use.
This volume has been re-edited by a recent successor of our prelate in
the Vicarage of St. Giles', Cripplegate, Archdeacon Hale.
Milton had been sent from St. Paul's School to Cambridge, and
admitted of Christ's College there February 12th, 1625, under the tuition
of Mr. William Chappel.1 He probably wrote his Elegy on the death
of Andrewes whilst an undergraduate at Christ College. Here he took his
degree of B.A. in 1629, and of M.A. in 1632, after which he left the Uni
versity, and went to live five years with his parents at Horton in Bucking
hamshire. There he lived until the death of his mother. Her remains are
buried beneath a dark slab in the centre of the chancel, on which is this
inscription :
Heare lyeth the body of Sara Milton, the wife of
John Milton, who died
The Zrd of April, 1637.2
Milton's elegy is evidently a youthful exercise. After a poetical com
plaint that death exercises his dominion over not only the material
creation but over man himself, he presents to the reader a vision of Para
dise, and the joyful reception of Andrewes by its celestial inhabitants to his
new abode.
" A List
" of persons to whom I intend rings, as in my will mentioned," probably
six weeks before his death : Abbot ; Neile, Bishop of Durham ; Bucke-
ridge ; Laud, Bishop of Bath and Wells ; Sir Thomas Edmondes, Comp
troller of the Household ; Sir Julius Caesar, Master of the Eolls ; Sir
Thomas Lake, Secretary of State in the reign of James ; his Lady Mary ;
Sir Henry Martin, Judge of the Prerogative Court ; Dr. John Young,
Dean of Winchester ; Dr. Steward, a civilian ; Dr. Collins, Provost of
King's College, Cambridge ; Dr. Ward of Waltham, Herts ; Dr. Beale of
Pembroke Hall ; Dr. Wren of Peterhouse ; Mr. Man of Westminster,
probably a bookseller ; Mr. Eoger, late Proctor in the Court of Arches ;
Mr. Greene, Prebendary of Bristol ; Mr. William Johnson ; and Mr. Joseph
Fenton.
Prynne, whose Canterbury's Doom and Necessary Intro
duction to Laud's Trial contain a vast store of most valuable
information, doubtless frequently betrays the most exaggerated
feelings and unhappy prejudices. Nowhere is this more
apparent than in his unhandsome charges against Bishop An
drewes. He takes up with Father Giles' or Davenport's
misrepresentations of our prelate, who would persuade his
readers that Andrewes held not the doctrine of the Keformation
but of the Church of Rome respecting justification by faith.
The reader will, if he refer to the Bishop's sermon on
Jer. xxiii. 6, perceive at once the untruthfulness of such a
statement. Laud was indeed most blameable in procuring
sanctuary for so perfidious a writer in the University of
Oxford. Prynne was not less blameable in giving currency
to his falsities. See p. 424, and sequel of his Compleat History
of Laud.
Prynne speaks in one place of the Popish furniture, &c.
of Bishop Andrewes' private chapel ; in another he professes
to doubt whether Laud did not make an unwarrantable use of
Bishop Andrewes' name. Speaking of his form of conse-
cration he says, that he took his form from Bishop Andrewes
is only avowed by himself, not proved by any witnesses,
(p. 503.)
It is certainly most remarkable that if Andrewes did
observe the ceremonies comprised in the notes to the Liturgy
ascribed to him, and involved in the account of his private
chapel to be found in Prynne, pp. 121 — 124, there is evidence
that at Winchester there were in the time of Andrewes neither
rails to the Communion-table, which probably stood then in
the middle of the choir, nor bowing to it. tf From Canter
bury," says Prynne, "we shall next hunt this Romish Fox
to the cathedral of Winchester, where, keeping a visitation in
the year 1635 by Sir Nathanael Brent, his Vicar-General, he
did by his injunctions under seal enjoin them to provide four
copes, to rail in the Communion-table, and place it altarwise,
to bow unto it, and daily to read the epistles and gospels
at it. This was attested by Sir Nathanael Brent himself,
manifested by his own injunctions to that Church, and by his
articles proposed to the College of Winchester, produced and
read in the Lord's house.'7 (p. 79.) Then follow the in
junctions themselves, (p. 80.) This verifies the assertion of
Dr. Fuller that it " was the constant practice of Dr. Andrewes,
successively Bishop of Chichester, Ely, and Winchester,
never to urge any other ceremonies than those which he found
there." This remark of Fuller's drew down upon him the
indignation of Heylyn, in whose eyes Laud's greatest indis
cretions were his highest excellencies. He accordingly takes
care that they shall not be hid.
Andrewes was the most imaginative of all our older divines,
and would therefore have a natural bias toward a ceremonial
piety. He was as remarkable for pathos and simplicity as for
wit and fancy. He was an intense student of both the
Fathers and the divines of succeeding ages. As a critic he
was often led away by his excessive love of illustration. He
was perfectly free from covetousness and pride, a lover of
learning and of learned men. His infirmities were a want of
firmness in opposing the unwise and unhallowed counsels of
his sovereign ; and an undue partiality toward his kindred and
friends, whom he loaded with preferments in an age in which
pluralities were found to be a grievance — a grievance to the
cause of piety, however they might operate in favour of
learning. His own brother was unworthy of his name. He
was the object of general aversion in the College over which
Andrewes placed him. He was not however what he has
been represented even in our own time, an ambitious courtier.
He never intermeddled with state affairs. He did indeed
sometimes his sovereign's bidding where others, more faithful
in some remarkable instances, declined. But he never forced
himself into observation. His rise was due to his great
learning, piety, and munificence. His patrons were men
whose names will be had in honour so long as piety and
patriotism shall perpetuate the names of Henry, third Earl
of Huntingdon, and Secretary Walsingham. He was by his
sermons a truly pastoral prelate, and his Prayers will probably
continue to the end of time to cherish the devotion of an
innumerable company who shall follow him to his heavenly
rest.
APPENDIX.
THE FAMILY OF ANDREWES.
The name of our prelate was variously spelt, — Andrew, Andrews,
Andrewes, and Andros. The e in Andrewes was sometimes omitted
in the early part of the seventeenth century. Sir Robert Andrewes
of Normandy, knt., came over with William I., and married the
daughter and heiress of Sir Robert Winwick of "Winwick, Nor
thamptonshire, and afterward of Denton in the same county.1
In 1303 occurs John Andrew, Alderman of Redingate, Canter
bury.2 A Sir William Andrewes of Northamptonshire and Carlisle
occurs in 1234.3
Thomas Andrews of Beggar's Weston, or Weston Bigard, (or
Begard,) a few miles east of Hereford, was born in 1501, and died
in 1615. See the genealogy of this branch in Nichol's Leicestershire,
parish of System* From him was descended the late highly re
spected Gerard Andrewes, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,
Rector of St. James', Westminster, and 8th November, 1809, Dean
of Canterbury. He died, aged 75, on June 2nd, 1825.
In a window in St. Bartholomew the Less, London, over the
door in the passage into the church, are the arms and crest (painted
in glass) of Henry Andrewes, Alderman of London, 1636 : argent,
a saltire azure on a chief gules ; 3 mullets or : crest, a Moor's head
in profile.
In 1649 and 1651 Thomas, a leatherseller, son of Robert An
drewes of Feltham near Hounslow, Middlesex, and of the Fish
mongers' Company, was Lord-Mayor of London.
Jonathan Andrewes was a member of the court of Merchant
Taylors 1665, and Richard Andrewes, M.D., 1627—1634.
Sir Matthew Andrewes, knt., was one of the Elder Brethren of
Trinity House, 1625.5
Our prelate in his will makes mention of William the son of his
deceased brother Nicholas; Thomas, Nicholas, and Roger the sons
of his deceased brother Thomas, and their eldest sister Ann, married
to Arthur "Woollaston ; also her younger sister Mary. His brother
Nicholas was born in 1567, and died in 1626. His brother Thomas
was named after his father, who appears as a benefactor to All
Hallows', Barking, " 1593, towards repairs of the church, £2; to
the poor £5;" probably bequeathed. Our prelate's mother, Mrs.
Joan Andre wes, left in 1524 a bequest of £10. He also makes
mention of his sister Mary Burrell. One Alexander Burrell, B.A.,
Trinity College, Cambridge, 1706, M.A. 1710, was Yicar of Buck-
den, July 5, 1717, which he resigned in 1721, being made in 1720
Rector of Adstock near Winslow, Bucks., by Dr. Gibson, then Bishop
of Lincoln, and also Rector of Puttenham, Herts, by the same patron.
His father was also of Trinity College, B.A. 1666, M.A. 1670.
There have been about twenty members of the University of Cam
bridge of that name. The name is also spelt Burwell; Mr. Samuel
Bur well was at our prelate's funeral. Of this name was Thomas,
LL.D. of the University of Cambridge, 1661 ; Thomas, M.B. of the
same University per Literas Regias, 1662 ; Francis, A.M. of the same
University per Literas Regias, 1675 ; Thomas, M.B., King's College,
1677; and Charles, M.B., Pembroke College, 1717. The name
Burwell appears to have merged into Burrell. The children of the
Bishop's sister, Mary Burrel, were Andrew, John, Samuel, Joseph,
James, Lancelot, Mary Rooke, and her daughter Martha. His
sister Martha, born in 1577, married first to Robert Princep, by
whom she had a son Thomas. Charles Robert Princep (probably
a descendant) was B.A. St. John's College, Cambridge, 1811, M.A.
1813. At Oxford was John Princep, B.A., BaUiol College, Oct. 12,
1738. Martha was married secondly to Mr., probably Peter,
Salmon, by whom she had two sons, Peter and Thomas. The Rev.
Thomas Peter Dod Salmon was B.A. St. John's College, Cambridge,
1782, M.A. 1786, Fellow of that College, B.D. 1793, and was
living in 1811. Mr. Salmon had a sister Martha and a daughter
Anne Best. The Bishop also makes mention of his cousin Anne
Hockett. John Hockett was B.A. of Trinity CoUege, Cambridge,
1662, M.A. 1666, and a Fellow of that society. Another of the
same name was B.A. of that College 1696. He names another
cousin, Sandbrooke; also his cousin Robert and his two children;
his cousin Rebecca; his father's half-sister Joan; her first hus
band's name was Bousie. Also his godson Lancelot Lake, son of
Sir Thomas Lake. There was a Lancelot Lake, B.A. Catharine
Hall, Cambridge, 1666, M.A. 1670. Also his two godsons Robert
and Charles Barker, son of Mr. Robert Barker, " latelie the King's
printer." His principal executor was Mr. John Parker, citizen and
Merchant Taylor, of London, to be assisted by Sir Thomas Lake,
Sir Henry Martin, and Dr. Nicholas Styward or Steward. His
will was_ witnessed by Robert Bostock, Prebendary of Norton
Episcopi in the church of Lincoln, and afterward Archdeacon of
Suffolk, and (if not in 1626) Prebendary of Chichester; Joseph
Fenton, probably our prelate's physician; John Browning, Rector
of Buttermere near Hungerford, whom he had preferred to that
living in 1624, author of Six Sermons concerning Public Prayer
and the Fasts of the Church (Lond. 1636); Thomas Eddie and
"William Green, two of the Bishop's servants. Archdeacon Wig-
more also signed the three several codicils to the will.
The family of Andrew or Andrewes has seated itself in Gloucester
shire ; Plymouth, Devon ; Bisbrook, Rutlandshire ; Norfolk, Suffolk,
Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, Lancashire, "Wilts, Bucks, Hert
fordshire, Cambridgeshire, Surrey, and Hants. In Cambridgeshire
it is still represented by the Rev. Thomas Andrew of Pembroke
College, Cambridge, Yicar of Triplow ; and by another descendant,
a respectable yeoman at Litlington in the same county. In Hert
fordshire, by the father of this latter, a yeoman in the parish of
Buckland near Barkway. In Suffolk, by George W. Andrewes,
Esq., Sudbury, Suffolk. In Surrey, by the Rev. William Gerard
Andrewes, M.A., Magdalen Hall, Oxford, curate of Morden near
Mitcham, and grandson of the late Dean of Canterbury. The Rev.
Thomas Andrew of Triplow is descended of a Northamptonshire
branch of this family. Erom Northamptonshire a branch of this
family migrated about the beginning of the seventeenth century to
the neighbourhood of Canterbury. Thence Henry Andrews re
moved to London, and was cut off with his whole household, except
one infant, in the Great Plague in 1665. This infant lived to a
considerable age, and having acquired some fortune by merchandise,
thought it right to take out arms afresh in 1729. He died in 1730.
His grandson Joseph was at a very early age appointed Paymaster to
the Eorces serving in Scotland 1715. His son Joseph was created
a Baronet in 1766. His brother, James Pettit Andrews, born at
Shaw House near Newbury, 1737, was the author of a miscellaneous
collection entitled Anecdotes, Ancient and Modern, fyc. Lond. 8vo.
1789. A supplement to this volume in 1790; History of Great
Britain, 1794, vol. I., from CaBsar's invasion to the death of Richard I.
4to. Lond. In 1795 appeared a second part, to the accession of
Edward YI. The plan of this work was founded on that of Dr.
Henry. He appears to have discontinued it for the purpose of com
pleting Dr. Henry's history, which, in 1796, he brought down to
the accession of James I. He translated The Savages of Europe ;
a popular Erench novel now forgotten. In 1798 he published The
Inquisitor, a Tragedy in five Acts altered from the German, in
conjunction with his friend H. J. Pye, the Poet Laureate. He was
a contributor to the Archceologia and the Gentleman's Magazine. On
the establishment of the London Police Magistracy in 1792, he was
appointed Magistrate for Queen's Square and St. Margaret's "West
minster. He died in London August 6th, 1797. He had married
Anne daughter of the Rev. Rumney Penrose, Rector of Newbury.
He survived her twenty years. The present excellent Master of the
Grammar School, Stamford, the Rev. Erederic E. Gretton, B.D.,
late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, and author of some
valuable Parochial Sermons,1 is descended from Bishop Andrewes
both on the mother's and father's side. His father married a Clay,
and his grandfather a Pigott, the granddaughter and daughter re
spectively of Catharine and Ellen Andrewes, whose father died and
was buried at Southwell in or about 1717. Mr. G. "W. Andrews of
Sudbuiy is a younger brother of the Rev. Robert Andrews, B.D.,
who was ninth Senior Optime, Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and
B.A. 1821, of Middleton near Sudbury. The eldest brother is Lieut. -
Colonel Andrews, residing at 57, Ecclestone Square, London; and
the youngest, the Rev. "William Nesfield Andrews, of Jesus College,
Cambridge, M.A. 1832, Rector of Chilton near Sudbury 1853.
A.D. 1600.
Five days after the death of Hooker, Andrewes wrote to Dr.
Parry, afterward Bishop of Worcester :
" SALTJTEM IN CHRISTO.
" I cannot choose but write though you do not ; I never failed
since I last saw you, but daily prayed for him till the very instant
you sent me this heavy news. I have hitherto prayed Serva nobis
hunc ; now must I Da nobis alium. Alas, for our great loss ! and
when I say ours, though I mean yours and mine, yet much more
the common : with [which ?] the less sense they have of so great
a damage, the more sad we need to bewail them ourselves, who
knew his works and his worth to be such as behind him he hath
not, that I know, left any near him. And whether I shall live
to know any near him, I am in great doubt that I care not how
many and myself had redeemed his longer life, to have done good
in a better subject than he had in hand, though that were very
good. Good brother, have a care to deal with his executrix or
executor, or (him that is like to have a great stake in it) his father-
in-law, that there be special care and regard for preserving such
papers as he left, besides the three last books excepted. By pre
serving, I mean, that not only they be not embezzled and come to
nothing, but that they come not into great hands who will only
have use of them quatenus et quousque, and suppress the rest, or
unhappily all; but rather into the hands of some of them that
unfeignedly wished him well, though of the meaner sort, who may
upon good assurance (very good assurance) be trusted with them ;
for it is pity they should admit any limitation. Do this and do it
mature ; it had been more than time long since to have been about
it, if I had sooner known it. If any word or letter would do any
good to Mr. Churchman, it should not want. But what cannot
yourself or Mr. Sandys do therein? For Mr. Cranmer is away;
happy in that he shall gain a week or two before he know of it.
Almighty God comfort us over him, whose taking away, I trust
I shall no longer live than with grief remember; therefore with
grief because with inward and most just honour I ever honoured
him since I knew him.
" Your assured poor loving friend,
" L. ANDREWES.
"At the Court, Nov. 7, 1600."
About a month after this letter was written the Archbishop sent
Andrewes to Mrs. Hooker to enquire after the MSS. He did not
however succeed in obtaining any information. Upon this the
Archbishop sent for her to London, when she confessed that Mr.
Chart, a Puritan, and another minister of the same bias, had de
stroyed some of his papers as being in their opinion not such as
should see the light. However the rough drafts of the three last
books of the Eccl. Polity were discovered and delivered by Whitgift
to Dr. Spenser, who drew up as perfect a copy as he could, a tran
script of which was given to Andrewes amongst others. — Strype's
Whitgift, ii. 441.
Family Members
Siblings
Half Siblings
Children
-
![]()
Lancelot Andrewes
1555–1626
-
Mary Andrews Burrell
1555 – unknown
-
Judith Andrews
1557–1559
-
William Andrews
1559 – unknown
-
Agnes Andrews
1561–1571
-
George Andrews
1563–1571
-
Sarah Andrews
1564 – unknown
-
Nicholas Andrews
1566–1626
-
Sarah Andrews
1571–1579
-
John Andrews
1574–1575
-
Roger Andrews
1575–1635
-
Martha Andrews Salmon
1576–1653
-
Ann Andrews
unknown–1613
-
Thomas Andrews
unknown–1626
Advertisement
Explore more
Sponsored by Ancestry
Advertisement
