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. Vossius he earnestly desired to see also.'

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 Vossius 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.*

Junius, in a letter to Vossius 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 irregularis.' 'A clerk of whose irregularity there is doubt, is not irregular.' The King himself, he relates, was delighted

1 Cl. Virorum ad Voss. Ep. 48, p. 28.

2 Fossii Ep. 20, pp. 43, 44.

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 Regius 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.'

Hacket's Life of Williams, ann. 1621.

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 reverence 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 '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 Scriptures 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 consecration of Dr. Robert Wright to the see of Bristol.

On the 30th of this month Bishop Andrewes sat in commission 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 published 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,' took the side of the Remonstrants, 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 Rome, having for that purpose held correspondence with the Pope without the King's knowledge. Spalatro made answer, an answer that was regarded as " rather a shuffling excuse than a just defence.'2 Then the

1 Church History, b. x. p. 100. Dr. Christopher Wren, Dean of Windsor, reports of him (Parentalia, p. 148) that he was indeed of most sufficient learning, but most lavish in his expenditure, and a slave to his table. He came over to England in December 1616 (Fuller), having left Italy in discontent and with personal ill-will to Pope Paul V., yet probably not without a conviction of the errors of Romanism; such convictions we may not uncharitably believe to be entertained by very many who never leave that communion. It may seem in a manner to require ignorance and credulity together to hold cordially the palpable contradictions of their real yet unbloody sacrifice, to say nothing of the lying wonders multiplied even in our own age and inserted into the Breviary. Such however was Spalatro's 'conscience, that he resigned his archbishopric to his nephew on condition of receiving a yearly pension out of it, which pension he bitterly complained to Archbishop Ussher was never paid him. Count Gondomar is said to have enticed him into his departure, and this was done probably first to revenge a sarcasm upon the Count himself; secondly, the lasting injury which Antony de Dominis had done the Church of Rome by his writings.

2 Fuller's Church History, b. x. p. 98.

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 Inquisition. 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 multitude of verbal allusions, and many most pertinent observations, 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 the officiousness of the weak-minded, who, without either gifts or calling, take upon themselves to meddle in public and in private with divine things. Either a calling without a gift, or a gift without a calling. What say you to them that have neither, but fetch their run for all that, and leap quite over gift and calling, Christ and the Holy Ghost both, and chop into the work at the first dash? that put themselves into businesses which they have neither fitness for, nor calling to?' And our prelate justly observes that the gift should precede the calling: and as no man comes to Christ but by the Holy Ghost, so no man to the calling but by the gift. Yet how fearfully, how generally, is this still lost sight of! Still but comparatively little regard is had to the office and