1606. Chap. III. following, a unanimous answer to the charges made by the archbishop. The document was drawn up by Sir Edward Coke, and is to be found in his Institutes. It is a highly important and very curious record, throwing much light upon the state of the Church at the period. It will be remembered that towards the end of 1604, the judges being consulted in the Star Chamber as to the authority of the Court of High Commission, gave an opinion which ran in favour of its most arbitrary proceedings. They seem, however, soon to have changed their minds. "Within four or five months after," says the archbishop in his Articles of Abuses, "a prohibition was awarded to the said commissioners out of the King's Bench, upon suggestion that the party ought to have a copy of the articles, being called in question ex officio, before he should answer them." And, "Whereas certain lewd persons (two for example sake) one for notorious adultery, and other intolerable contempts, and another for abusing a bishop of this kingdom, with threatening speeches and sundry railing terms, were thereupon fined and imprisoned by the said commissioners: the one was delivered by an habeas corpus out of the King's Bench, and the other by a like writ out of the Common Pleas." Again: "Forasmuch as imprisonment upon the writ of excommunicato capiendo, is the chiefest temporal strength of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and that by the laws of the realm, none so committed for their contempt in matters of ecclesiastical cognizance ought to be delivered until 1606. the ecclesiastical courts were satisfied, or caution Chap. III. given in his behalf, we would gladly be resolved by what authority the temporal judges do cause the sheriffs to bring the said parties into their courts, and by their own discretions set them at liberty.' To this last the judges answer: "We affirm, that if the party excommunicate be imprisoned, we ought upon complaint, to send the King's writ for the body and the cause, and if no sufficient cause appear, then we do, as we ought, set him at liberty." The judges are rather severe upon the bishops in some part of their reply.† They will deprive a minister," they say, "not for matter appertaining to the ecclesiastical cognizance, but for that which doth merely belong to the cognizance of the King's temporal courts." They accuse them of "strange presumption," and of utter ignorance of law. They say that so bad is the character of the ecclesiastical courts for justice, that a "temporal man" will prefer to have a claim against him for tithes tried in the King's court, though there, if cast, he will have to pay treble value, than in the spiritual courts, which are not allowed to award more than double value. Tithes, we see by this document, were at that time, as well as since, a fruitful source of litigation. The judges say, "Many turbulent ministers do infinitely vex their parishioners for such * Bancroft's Articles of Abuses Desired to be Reformed, reprinted in Cardwell's Doc. Annals, ii., 82-105. The document is too long for insertion here, but is well worth a careful perusal. "To each of the articles of complaint the judges made separate answers, in a rough, and some might say in a rude style, but pointed, and much to the purpose."-Hallam, Cons. Hist., i., 318. 1606. Chap. III. kinds of tithes as they never had, whereby many parishes have become impoverished. For example: one minister did demand seventeen different kinds of tithes, whereupon the party suing a prohibition, had eight or nine of them judged against the minister upon demurrer of law." Another "did confess to us that he was to sue his parishioner but for a calf and a goose; and that his proctor nevertheless put in a libel of seven or eight things more than he had cause to sue for." Another caused great trouble to the courts by a composition of a singular character, "that in regard of a special receipt, called a cup of buttered beer, made by the great skill of the said parishioner, to cure a grievous disease called a cold, which sorely troubled the said minister, all his tithes were discharged." That some stand against the proceedings of the ecclesiastical courts was absolutely needed, we may infer from the fact, that 570 prohibitions according to the archbishop, 251 according to the judges, had been issued from the temporal courts in the three years of King James's reign. It is satisfactory to know that the archbishop's attempt to check the judges failed, and that they continued to issue their prohibitions, and to curb the abuses of the ecclesiastical courts. *Hallam, Cons. Hist., i., 318. Bancroft repeated the attempt in 1608, but with similar ill success. CHAPTER IV. 1606. King's design of introducing Episcopacy into Scotland-Scotch Chap. IV. ministers at Hampton Court-The Pope condems the Oath of Allegiance-The Venetian dispute with the Pope-Complaint of the ministers in the west-Translators of the BibleKing's letter about their preferment-Directions for their work -Death of Lively and Reynolds-Character of Dr. Reynolds -Dr. Laifield and Miles Smith-King's Treatise on Oath of Allegiance-The Epistle Dedicatory-Blackwell's moderation -Church discipline in the Channel Islands-Mr. Molle's sufferings at Rome-Effects of Bancroft's administrationViews of the Puritans on toleration-Arminius in HollandChelsea College for controversial divinity-Queen Elizabeth's rapaciousness-Disputes between the Church and the lawyers -Case of Nicholas Fuller-Anger in Parliament at the ecclesiastical power-Cowell's interpreter-Dr. Cowell imprisoned and his book called in-Bancroft's proposal for improving revenues of the clergy-Parliament busy with their grievances -Archbishop's letter to the bishops-Work of the Convocation. -Overall's Convocation Book-King's letter to Dr. AbbotProgress of the design for restoring Scotch episcopacy-Consecration of the Scotch bishops at London House-Court of High Commission established for Scotland -Death of Bancroft -His character-Unpopularity of the Church with the laity begins under him. of intro ING JAMES had never for a mo- King's design ment abandoned his favourite pro- ducing episject of introducing an episcopacy copacy into into Scotland, having the same Scotland. powers and privileges as that order which he delighted to honour in England. By various shifts and contrivances, he 1606. Chap. IV. had managed to continue the appointments to the principa, sees of Scotland, though the titular bishops were without consecration, jurisdiction, or revenue. They continued, however, to enjoy the privilege of sitting in Parliament, and they were a body of active and willing instruments for furthering and upholding the King's views and policy. Naturally, they were regarded with great jealousy and dislike by the Presbyterians, who saw them absorbing all the sunshine of the royal favour, and beheld in them a perpetual danger and menace to their beloved discipline. Scotch mi nisters at Hampton This summer, some of the chief of the Presbyterians had to meet their enemies, the titular bishops, before the King at Hampton Court. In spite of the prohibition of the meeting of the General Assembly, in the year 1605, some few determined ministers, assembling at Aberdeen, had agreed to call themselves the General Assembly, and to adjourn. Being arraigned for this before the council, they had objected to, and declined the jurisdiction, and were accordingly convicted of high treason.* The King now wished to make the chief men of the Kirk disavow their act, and profess their submission to his prerogative. An obsequious Parliament, held at Perth, had just passed an act magnifying the prerogative, and another restoring the temporalities of the bishops. All would go well, if the stubborn spirit of the chief elders of the Kirk could be made to bend, to acknowledge the * Cunningham's Church History of Scotland, vol. ii., chap. 1. |