the commissioners ordered, and to pay such fees as the commissioners shall think fit.

"The execution of the commission is no less grievous to the subject; for, (1.) Laymen are punished speaking of the simony and other misdemeanours of spiritual men, though the thing spoken be true, and tends to the inducing some condign punishment. (2.) These commissioners usually allot to women, discontented, and unwilling to live with their husbands, such portions and maintenance as they think fit, to the great encouragement of wives to be disobedient to their husbands. And (3.) Pursuivants and other ministers employed in apprehending suspected offenders, or in searching for supposed scandalous books, break open men's houses, closets, and desks, rifling all corners and private places, as in cases of high treason.

“A farther grievance is, the stay of writs of prohibition, habeas corpus, and de homine replegiando, which are a considerable relief to the oppressed subjects of the kingdom. His majesty, in order to support the inferior courts against the principal courts of common law, had ordered things so, that writs had been more sparingly granted, and with greater caution. They therefore pray his majesty, to require his judges in Westminster-hall to grant such writs in cases wherein they lie.

"But one of the greatest and most threatening grievances, was the king's granting letters patent for monopolies, as licences for wine, alehouses, selling sea-coal, &c. which they pray his majesty to forbear for the future, that the disease may be cured, and others of like nature prevented."

The king, instead of concurring with his parliament, was so disgusted with their remonstrance, that he dissolved them [December 3, 1610] without passing any one act this session,* after they had continued above six years; and was so out of humour with the spirit of English liberty that was growing in the houses, that he resolved, if possible, to govern without parliaments for the future. This was done by the advice of Bancroft, and other servile court-flatterers, and was the beginning of that mischief, says Wilson,† which, when it came to a full ripeness, made such a bloody tincture in both kingdoms as never will be got out of the bishops' lawn sleeves.

Faller's Church Hist. b. 10. p. 56.

+ Hist. of King James, p. 46.

From the time that king James came to the English throne, and long before, if we may believe Dr. Heylin, his majesty had projected the restoring episcopacy in the kirk of Scotland, and reducing the two kingdoms to one uniform government and discipline; for this purpose archbishop Bancroft maintained a secret correspondence with him, and corrupted one Norton, an English bookseller at Edinburgh, [in the year 1589] to betray the Scots affairs to him, as he confessed with tears at his examination. The many curious articles he employed him to search into are set down in Calderwood's History, p. 246. In the month of January 1591, his letters to Mr. Patrick Adamson were intercepted, wherein he advises him, "to give the queen of England more honourable titles, and to praise the church of England above all others. He marvelled why he came not to England, and assured him he would be well accepted by my lord of Canterbury's grace, and well rewarded if he came."* This Adamson was afterward excommunicated, but, repenting of what he had done against the kirk, desired absolu tion; part of his confession runs thus: "I grant I was more busy with some bishops in England, in prejudice of the discipline of our kirk, partly when I was there, and partly by intelligence since, than became a good Christian, much less a faithful pastor; neither is there any thing that more ashameth me, than my often deceiving and abusing the kirk heretofore by confessions, subscriptions, and protestations."

Upon his majesty's arrival in England he took all occasions to discover his aversion to the Scots Presbyterians, taxing them with sauciness, ill-manners, and an implacable enmity to kingly power; he nominated bishops to the thirteen Scots bishopricks which himself had formerly abolished; but their revenues being annexed to the crown, their dignities were little more than titular. In the parliament held at Perth in the year 1606, his majesty obtained an act to restore the bishops to their temporalities, and to repeal the act of annexation; by which they were restored to their votes in parliament, and had the title of lords of parliament, contrary to the sense both of clergy and laity, as appears by the following protest of the general assembly :

"In the name of Christ, and in the name of the kirk in general, whereof the realm hath reaped comfort this forty*Pie.ce, p. 166.

six years; also in the name of our presbyteries, from which we received our commission, and in our own names, as pastors and office-bearers within the same for the discharging of our necessary duty, and for the disburdening of our consciences, we except and protest against the erection, confirmation, or ratification, of the said bishopricks and bishops by this present parliament, and humbly pray that this our protestation may be admitted and registered among the records."

In the convention at Linlithgow, December 12, consisting of noblemen, statesmen, and some court-ministers, it was agread, that the bishops should be perpetual moderators of the kirk-assemblies, under certain cautions, and with a declaration that they had no purpose to subvert the discipline of the kirk, or to exercise any tyrannous or unlawful jurisdiction over their brethren; but the body of the ministers being uneasy at this, another convention was held at Linlithgow, 1608, and a committee appointed to compro mise the difference; the committee consisted of two earls and two lords, as his majesty's commissioners; five new bishops, two university-men, three ministers on one part, and ten for the other; they met at Falkland, May 4, 1609, and debated, (1.) Whether the moderators of kirk-assemblies should be constant or circular; and (2.) Whether the caveats should be observed. But coming to no agreement they adjourned to Striveling, where the bishops with great difficulty carried their point. And to increase their power, his majesty was pleased next year [in the month of February 1610], contrary to law, to put the high-commission into their hands.

Still they wanted the sanction of a general assembly, and a spiritual character; to obtain the former, an assembly was held at Glasgow, June 8, 1610, means having been used by the courtiers to model it to their mind. In that costly assembly, says my author,* the bishops were declared mo derators in every diocesan assembly, and they or their deputies moderators in their weekly exercises; ordination and deprivation of ministers, visitation of kirks, excommunication and absolution, with presentation to benefices, were pinned to the lawn sleeves; and it was farther voted, (1.) That every minister at his entry shall swear obedience to

*Course of Scots Conformity, p. 53.

his ordinary. (2.) That no minister shall preach or speak the acts of this assembly. (3.) That the question of the parity or imparity of pastors shall not be mentioned in the pulpit under pain of deprivation. This was a vast advance upon the constitution of the kirk.

To obtain a spiritual character superior to the order of presbyters, it was necessary that the bishops elect should be consecrated by some of the same order; for this purpose the king sent for three of them into England, viz. Mr. Spotswood, archbishop of Glasgow, Mr. Lamb, bishop of Brechen, and Mr. Hamilton, bishop of Galloway, and issued a commission under the great seal to the bishops of London, Ely, Bath and Wells, and Rochester, requiring them to proceed to the consecration of the above-mentioned bishops according to the English ordinal: Andrews bishop of Ely was of opinion, that before their consecration they ought to be made priests, because they had not been ordained by a bishop. This the Scots divines were unwilling to admit, through fear of the consequences among their own countrymen; for what must they conclude concerning the ministers of Scotland, if their ordination as presbyters was not valid? Bancroft therefore yielded, that where bishops could not be had, ordination by presbyters must be valid, otherwise the character of the ministers in most of the reformed churches might be questioned. Abbot bishop of London,* and others, were of opinion, that there was no necessity of passing through the inferior orders of deacon and priest, but that the episcopal character might be conveyed at once, as appears from the example of St. Ambrose, Nectarius, Eucherius, and others, who from mere laymen were advanced at once into the episcopal chair. But whether this supposition does not rather weaken the arguments for bishops being a distinct order from presbyters, I leave with the reader. However, the Scotch divines were consecrated in the chapel at Londonhouse [October 21, 1610], and upon their return into Scotland conveyed their new character in the same manner to their brethren. Thus the king, by a usurped supremacy over the kirk of Scotland, and other violent and indirect means, subverted their ecclesiastical constitution; and contrary to the genius of the people, and the protestation of * Collyer, as Dr. Grey observes, mentions that as Bancroft's opinion, which Mr. Neal ascribes to bishop Abbot.-ED.

+ Collyer's Eccles. Hist. vol. 1. p. 702.

Calderwood, p. 644.

the general assembly, the bishops were made lords of council, lords of parliament, and lord-commissioners in causes ecclesiastical; but with all their high titles they sat uneasy in their chairs, being generally hated both by the ministers and people.

About ten days after this consecration, Dr. Richard Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, departed this life; he was born at Farnworth in Lancashire, 1544, and educated in Jesus-college, Cambridge. He was first chaplain to Cox bishop of Ely, who gave him the rectory of Teversham near Cambridge. In the year 1585 he proceeded D. D. and being ambitious of preferment, got into the service of sir Christopher Hatton, by whose recommendation he was made prebendary of Westminster. Here he signalized himself by preaching against the Puritans; a sure way to preferment in those times. He also wrote against their discipline; and was the first in the church of England who openly maintained the divine right of the order of bishops. While he sat in the high-commission, he distinguished himself by an uncommon zeal against the Nonconformists, for which he was, preferred, first to the bishoprick of London, and upon Whitgift's decease, to the see of Canterbury; how he behaved in that high station has been sufficiently related. This prelate left behind him no extraordinary character for piety, learning, hospitality, or any other episcopal quality. He was of a rough inflexible temper, yet a tool of the prerogative, and an enemy to the laws and constitution of his country. Some have represented him as inclined to Popery, because he maintained several secular priests in his own house; but this was done, say his advocates, to keep up the controversy between them and the Jesuits. Lord Clarendon says, "that he understood the church excellently well, that he had almost rescued it out of the hands of the Calvinian party, and very much subdued the unruly spirit of the Nonconformists; and that he countenanced men of learning." His lordship might have added, that he was covetous,+ passionate, ill-natured, and a cruel persecutor of Vol. 1. p. 88. ed. 1707.

+ Fuller, and after him Dr. Grey and Dr. Warner, vindicate the character of arch bishop Bancroft from the charges of cruelty and covetousness;" which, when they are examined into (says Dr. Warner), appear not to deserve those opprobrious names in the strictest acceptation." On the other hand, the author of the Confessional calls him, the fiery Bancroft; and Dr. Warner sums up bis account of him in a manner not, very honourable to his name, "In short (says he) there have been archbishops, who