decease of Dr. Anthony Watson. He was consecrated by Archbishop Bancroft, assisted by Dr. Richard Vaughan, Bishop of London, Jegon, Bishop of Norwich, Dr. Thomas Ravis, 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. 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. Andrewes resigned 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.

3

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 nominated 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 Winchester 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 superfluous 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.

2 Sir John Harrington's Brief View, p. 141. Lond. 1652.

3 Rymer, vol. ii. 143.

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 commendations of the King-Sermon on Easter-Day-On Whit-SundayOf 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 being 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 NeileDr. 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; 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 by the hand and saved him, and of Lot and his daughters1 in the like danger.

"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 apprehension, are fruits of this seed here, this blessed seed, for whose sake, and for whose truth's 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

1 Gen. xix. 6.

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 Romanism 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.3

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

1 p. 7.

2 Cooke's History of the Church of Scotland, ii. pp. 73, 130, 158.

3 Dr. (afterwards Bishop) Russell. See his History of the Church in Scotland, vol. ii.

4 This topic, which is very briefly touched upon by Dr. Russell, is given at more length by Dr. Cooke. The jury were threatened to be prosecuted as traitors if they hesitated to bring in the desired verdict. With this threat before their eyes, six out of fifteen-a noble proportion considering the usual self-love and timidity of human nature--declared the ministers innocent. See Cooke's History of the Church of Scotland, ii. pp. 160-168.

time hence commanded to London, apparently to hold conferences, really to be inquisitorially 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 parliamentary 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 Roger, gent. against Robert, 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. Report 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."3

1 Journal of the House of Lords, vol. i. p. 410.

2

p. 390.

3 p. 391.