A. D. 1610.

To obtain a spiritual character superior to the order of presbyters, it was necessary that the new bishops should receive consecration. Soon after the James I. assembly was dissolved, the king sent for the archbishop of Glasgow to attend him in England, and to bring two other bishops, selected by himself. The king, on their arrival, informed them, that he had recovered the temporalities of the bishops, but that he was unable to convey a spiritual authority; they could not assume such an authority without consecration, and there were not left enough of the episcopal order in Scotland to perform the ceremony. He had therefore summoned them to England, that, having themselves been rightly invested with the episcopal character, they might communicate it to their brethren on their

return.

To remove any jealousy of reducing the Scottish in subjection to the English church, the archbishops of Canterbury and York were to have no share in the solemnity, but a commission was issued to the bishops of London, Ely, Bath and Wells, and Rochester. A difficulty was started by Andrews, bishop of Ely, that, before the consecration, the Scottish prelates should be ordained priests, because they had never received episcopal ordination. The invalidity of presbyterian ordination the Scottish divines were unwilling to admit, and Bancroft decided that where episcopal ordination could not be had, ordination by presbyters must be deemed lawful. Abbot, bishop of London, was of opinion that there was no necessity of passing through the inferior orders of deacon and priest, but that the

XXI.

CHAP. episcopal character might be conveyed at once*. The difficulty was settled according to the suggestion of Abbot, and the three Scottish prelates Oct. 21. were consecrated in the chapel of London-house.

In this manner James established his supremacy over the kirk of Scotland, and subverted its presbyterian constitution. Contrary to the sense of the majority of the Scottish nation, the bishops were made pastoral superintendents, moderators of synodical assemblies, lords of parliament, lords of the privy-council, and lords-commissioners in ecclesiastical causes.

Of these measures, Bancroft was supposed to have been the principal adviser, and incurred the heaviest load of obloquy. Death, however, soon removed him beyond the reach of human censure; for he survived the consecration of the Scottish prelates only ten days. Whether James fully coincided with the opinions of Bancroft, and whether the opinions of Bancroft were still to be acted on, depended chiefly on the choice of a successor.

The acknowledged merit of Andrews, bishop of Ely, pointed him out as the fit metropolitan of the English church; and the other bishops were so deeply impressed by this conviction, that they formally recommended him to the king. On the character of Andrews, thus distinguished by the general suffrage of his brethren, who can forbear to dwell?

By those who had the best opportunities of ap

*This is stated by Collier to have been the opinion of Bancroft; but Neal, with more probability, has ascribed it to Abbot.

1610.

preciating its excellence, and who were qualified A.D. to bestow on it a discriminative commendation, this eminent man has been called Doctor Andrews James I. in the schools, Bishop Andrews in the church, and Saint Andrews in the closet. In all these capacities, though long since "dead, he yet speaketh." His theological knowledge, and particularly his skill in the sacred languages, qualified him for taking a prominent part in the last translation of the bible; his eloquence in the pulpit may be estimated from his sermons, which, though vitiated by the quaintness and pedantry of his age, contain passages worthy of admiration, and even of imitation; his devotions are still one of the best manuals for private use, and their merit will be impressed on the mind more strongly by recurring to the apostrophe of their latest editor: "Pray with bishop Andrews for one week, and he will be thy companion for the residue of thy years: he will be pleasant in thy life, and at the hour of death he will not forsake thee*."

Though sanctity and devotion were the most conspicuous features in his character, yet he was remarkable for skill and address in business. His principles of church government were those of Bancroft, but he asserted them without bitterness. The doctrinal Calvinists have never presumed to claim him as their own, and they have been constrained to speak of him with respect. His principles on civil government are a complete refutation of the popular assertion that the Arminians under the house of Stuart were the friends of despotism;

CHAP. for Andrews was moderate, and even liberal, in his

XXI.

1610.

political opinions*.

That such a man should have been designated as the most proper head of the church, is an honour to the judgment of the English prelates. They had reason to believe that the opinion of the king agreed with their own; and, under this persuasion, they retired to their respective diocesses. But by desisting from their solicitations they failed in their objectt. The earl of Dunbar, taking advantage of his frequent intercourse with James, and of his recent services in the establishment of a Scottish episcopacy, effectually recommended Abbot, bishop of London, to preside over the church of England. When James complied, he told Abbot that he had conferred on him the primacy, not for his own sake, but for the sake of the earl of Dunbar.

* For an anecdote in point, see Johnson's Life of Waller. † Collier's Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. b. 8.

CHAPTER XXII.

Opposition of James to the Doctrines of Arminius.-His Controversy with Vorstius.-Quinquarticular Controversy.— Synod of Dort.-Decline of doctrinal Calvinism in the Church of England.-Partiality of James to the Doctrines of Arminius in his latter Days.-Relaxation of the Penal Laws against the Papists.-Writings of Montague.-Death of James I.

At the commencement of his reign, James was an enemy to a Scottish presbytery; but it was not till Abbot had succeeded to the primacy, that he declared his hostility to the Arminian doctrines. The one he thoroughly understood from his own experience; but the other he understood through the misrepresentations of others. But the antipathy of James to Arminianism, at any part of his reign, will rescue it from the imputation that it is favourable to despotism. It has no necessary connexion with any form of civil or ecclesiastical government, or with popery and arbitrary power. The conduct of the Calvinistic and Arminian divines in the reign of James has been adduced to establish such a connexion; but no example is less in point. Whitaker at Cambridge, and Robert Abbot at Oxford, both doctrinal Calvinists, decidedly opposed the Calvinistic discipline, and especially on account of its encroachments on the prerogatives of the crown. James himself, whether

A. D.

James I.