being persuaded that it was according to the mind of Christ, as he should shortly answer it before Him.1 Of the sincerity of his attachment to the Church of England there can be no doubt. Much more doubt there may reasonably be as to whether his policy and his way of supporting the Church, had been of real service to her interests. The king was arbitrary, overbearing,

meddlesome. He was at the same time feeble and vacillating. Already under his irritating rule had taken place in England that ominous conjunction of Patriots and Puritans, destined to produce such terrible results in the next reign. Men who really loved the Church of England, but who were still more eager to secure their privileges as citizens, were forced into an alliance with the narrowminded, tyrannical Puritan, simply because he was in opposition as well as themselves, and because there seemed a sufficient promise of strength in the alliance to induce them to forego their dislike of their associates.

1 Hacket's Williams, i. 223.

NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS.

MARC ANTHONY DE DOMINIS. ARCHBISHOP OF SPALATRO. The most illustrious convert to the Church of England at this time was M. Anthony de Dominis, Archbishop of Spalatro, in the State of Venice. Some Italian friars, who had previously professed themselves converts, had turned out badly, but the greatest hopes were entertained of the archbishop. After the settlement of the quarrel between Venice and Rome, a fine had been laid upon the see of the archbishop by the pope. This greatly displeased him, and he entered into negotiations with Sir H. Wotton, the English ambassador at Venice, and Dr. Bedell, his chaplain, as to joining the Church of England. He was promised a hearty welcome in England, and having decided on coming here, and professing his acceptance of the English Church, he was entertained at Lambeth, and received a stipend of £600, made up by contributions among the bishops. He wrote a book to justify the step he had taken, and was extremely popular in England. Cambridge made him a D.D. The king gave him the deanery of Windsor and the mastership of the Savoy. Having, however, offended the Spanish ambassador, a trap was laid

for him by his intrigues and the connivance of Rome. He was promised a large payment if he would go to Rome, and he immediately embraced the offer. The king, very indignant at his duplicity, ordered him to leave England in twenty days. After this, however, De Dominis had the assurance to ask for the archbishopric of York. He repaired to Brussels, where he wrote a railing book against the Church of England, called Concilium Reditus, and went on his way to Rome. Immediately on his arrival there he was seized by the Inquisition and immured in prison, where he died, when his body was burned as that of a heretic. Dr. Fitzherbert, rector of the English College at Rome, describes him thus:-"He was a malcontent knave when he fled from us, a railing knave while he lived with you, and a motley parti-coloured knave now he is come back." His book, Concilium Reditus, gave occasion for the writing of the Defensio Ecclesiæ Anglicance by Crakanthorp -one of the ablest controversial works of the period. A vast mass of letters relating to the archbishop exists among the State Papers, vols. xc. xcii. xciv. cxxviii. There are also full accounts of him in Goodman (Court of King James), Fuller, Crakanthorp, Wilson, Hacket, and Heylin

CHAPTER XXV.

THE CHURCH MADE TO SUPPORT ABSOLUTIST VIEWS.

1625-1629.

§ 1. Effect of the accession of Charles I. on the Church. § 2. His marriage. Treatment of the Romanists. § 3. Parliament again attacks Richard Montagu. § 4. Laud's influence established. Project for decreeing Arminian doctrine in Convocation. § 5. The Coronation. § 6. The attack on Montagu renewed. § 7. Bishop Goodman's sermon. § 8. "Tuning the Pulpits." § 9. Dr. Sibthorp's sermon. § 10. Dr. Bargreave's sermon. § 11. Dr. Wren's sermon. § 12. Dr. Mainwaring's sermon. § 13. Dr. Hall made Bishop of Exeter. § 14. Parliament condemns Dr. Mainwaring. § 15. Censures Bishops Laud and Neile for Arminianism. § 16. Attempts made to conciliate the House of Commons in religious matters. § 17. The Declaration before the Articles. § 18. Debate in the Commons and the "Vow" of the House. § 19. Mr. Oliver Cromwell attacks Neile and Mainwaring. § 20. Feeling in the country as to the clergy on the dissolution of Parliament.

§ 1. By the accession of Charles I. to the throne of England the Church gained a zealous and faithful patron, and one who by the purity and decorum of his life did not throw discredit upon the religion which he upheld. At the same time, the impolicy which marked his rule, and the arbitrary notions which he had inherited from his father, involved the Church which he loved in no small discredit, and inflicted on it a severe and long-continued persecution.

§ 2. The negotiations for his marriage with Henrietta Maria of France had been completed before the death of James, and by a secret engagement between the king, the prince, and the pope, even greater concessions were made to the Romanists in England than had been promised to Spain.1 On May 8 (1625) the marriage was solemnised in Paris, King Charles being represented by deputy, and soon after the king welcomed his young French bride to England (June 23). The large number of French servants and the detachment of priests of the Oratory who came with the new queen, sufficed to cause great jealousy and uneasiness among the people, and this discontent at once found utterance in Parliament. On July 8 the Parliament presented a petition praying the king to cause the laws against recusants to be executed, and the king replied favourably. Divers proclamations directing the laws to be

1 Dodd, Ch. Hist. v. 154.

put in force were issued. It was afterwards alleged against him by the French that this was a direct infringement of the secret treaty, but Charles replied that the treaty had only been made subject to the condition that it should be practicable to carry it out.1 He promised, however, to do what he could to temper the severity of the penal laws.

§ 3. The Commons, not content with attacking the Romanists, also turned their attention to those in the Church of England whom they held to be favourers of the Romanist doctrine. Richard Montagu had defended himself from the censure pronounced upon him by Archbishop Abbot by the publication of the book called Appello Cæsarem. In this he was thought to have countenanced much Arminian and Popish error. The House of Commons, distrusting probably the action of the archbishop, as likely to be ineffectual, assumed the character of religious censors, and appointed a committee of their body to examine the book. The report was delivered by Mr. Pym "so well and fully," says Joseph Mead, "that the most admired, and Montagu's friends were amazed. The effect was that no one man spoke in the House but in detestation of him, and his best friends were observed to leave the House before the question came. The opinion of the house was that he was guilty of an offence against the State, and so to be presented to the Lords." 2 The king, however, now interfered, and told the Commons that "what had been spoken in the House and informed against Mr. Montagu was displeasing to him. He hoped one of his chaplains might have as much protection as the servant of an ordinary burgess." 3 At the session of Parliament held at Oxford, the matter was again before the House of Commons. Bishops Laud, Houson, and Buckeridge, who supported Montagu, wrote to the Duke of Buckingham to solicit his assistance. They declared that Montagu's doctrines were in accordance with the teaching of the Church of England, and that Convocation was the only fitting judge of such matters. It is probable that Parliament would have taken some stronger steps against Montagu had it not been prematurely dissolved. The members were very angry at discovering that while the king was apparently acceding to their requests by issuing proclamations against the Romanists, he was all the time secretly giving them dispensations and pardons.

§ 4. In the Convocation, held concurrently with this Parliament, it was seen that now an influence was at work differing from the temporising policy of Bishop Williams, which had found favour

1 Tierney's Notes to Dodd, Ch. Hist. v. 162.

2 Joseph Mead to Sir M. Stuteville; Court and Times of Charles I. i. 96. 3 Rushworth, i. 174.

with King James. Laud, Bishop of St. David's, had been for some time in favour with Buckingham, but had never recommended himself to King James. The influence of Buckingham was even greater with Charles than it had been with his father, and Buckingham's favourite bishop was exactly of a temper to suit the new king. Fixed, clear, and decided in his principles, without any regard to expediency, without any power, as it seemed, of estimating the policy or prudence of measures, Laud's straightforward and impetuous character satisfied the conception which Charles had formed of what a Churchman should be, and from the very beginning of the reign Laud's influence was paramount in ecclesiastical matters. Williams at once fell from power, being hated by Buckingham and despised by Charles, and a new régime commenced. Laud was employed first of all to distinguish all the chief divines by appending to their names in a list the letters O or P, to signify Orthodox or Puritan; and the king yielded to his advice to call upon the Convocation to settle the five points of the Arminians by synodical decrees. Bishop Andrewes, however, was first to be consulted, and the learned and prudent Bishop of Winchester at once declared against the project. It was a dangerous matter to broach, he said; the clergy might very possibly determine in the direction opposite to that which was desired.1 It is probable, however, that Laud would have persisted had not the Parliament been so rapidly dissolved.

§ 5. In the coronation ceremony of the king the influence of Laud and the ascendency of his views were conspicuously shown. Williams, Dean of Westminster, being in disgrace, the part in the ceremony ordinarily performed by the dean was deputed to Laud, who was a prebendary of the Church; and at his recommendation an old prayer formerly used at coronations, which suggested the idea of the king being clothed with a quasi-priestly power, was revived. A request was also introduced for the clergy, the king was exhorted to give them greater honour than others, and to be the "mediator between clergy and laity."

2

§ 6. Four days after the coronation (February 6) the new Parliament was opened, and the Commons immediately returned to the attack against Montagu. The committee of religion over which

1 According to Neal, this would certainly have been the case.-Puritans, ii. 137. Sanderson, then a proctor in the Lower House, speaks of the expectation of the matter being brought forward, and of preparing himself for it. Wordsworth, E. B. iv. 417.

2 "Let him obtain favour for the people, like Aaron in the Tabernacle, Elisha in the waters, Zacharias in the temple; give him Peter's key of dis cipline, and Paul's doctrine." "This," says Collier, sounds extremely high for the regale, and might serve very well for the consecration of a patriarch."-Ch. Hist. viii. 7.

Mr. Pym presided, renewed their censure of his book; and the House of Commons voted a petition to the Crown that Mr. Montagu might be punished according to his demerits, and that his book might be suppressed and burnt.1

§ 7. The Parliament, although perfectly aware that penal proceedings were being vigorously enforced against the Romanists, was by no means satisfied with the king's zeal in the matter. They suspected him of double-dealing, and called loudly for greater strictness in enforcing the laws. A sermon preached before the king by Goodman, Bishop of Gloucester, on April 12, further exasperated them. Bishop Goodman advocated the real presence in the Eucharist, using such materialistic terms that he was accused of maintaining the doctrine of transubstantiation. Convocation examined the passages excepted against, but came to no decision. The king referred the matter to Archbishop Abbot, Bishops Andrewes and Laud; they reported that some things had been spoken "less warily," and recommended that the bishop should be allowed to explain. This tender treatment was not likely to satisfy the Commons; and when the Parliament was recklessly dissolved to shield the Duke of Buckingham, a more violent feeling than ever against the Popish and Arminian bishops, who were favoured by the king, was spread abroad throughout the land.

§ 8. The influence of the Church was, indeed, every day waning; yet it was thought by the rash counsellors who surrounded the king that a counterpoise to the strength of public opinion produced by the treatment of the Parliament, might be effected by the process of "tuning the pulpits," as it was called. This practice had been resorted to, but in very different times, by Queen Elizabeth, and with considerable success. It was thought it might serve now, and with a view to carrying it out Laud drew up a paper of instructions to be sent in the king's name to the archbishops and bishops, and by them to be communicated to the clergy. This paper commences by saying that the Church and State may be accounted but as one, being both made up of the same men, who are differenced only in relation to civil and spiritual ends. They ought, therefore, mutually to help one another; and now, in the danger and necessity of the State, the clergy should preach to their people that the charges of the war entered into with full consent of Parliament can only be met by liberal aids. They are also to recommend unity,

1 Rushworth, i. 212. With this the proceedings against Montagu ended; he was soon afterwards made a bishop.

2 Collier, viii. 14. Goodman died a Romanist, and it is very probable that he held Romanist doctrine at this time.

3 Especially in the case of the execution of Lord Essex. See State Papers of Elizabeth (Domestic), cclxxviii. 62, 126.