which the bishops of London (Montaigne), Durham (Neile), Winchester (Andrewes), Rochester (Buckeridge), and St. David's (Laud) reported to Buckingham that Montagu 'hath not affirmed anything to be the doctrine of the Church of England, but that which in our opinions is the doctrine of the Church of England, or agreeable thereunto' (Laud, Works, vi. 249). This was followed on 11 Feb. by a conference, held 'at the desire of the Earl of Warwick' in Buckingham's house, between the Bishop of Lichfield (Morton) and the master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge (Dr. Preston), representing the opposition to Montagu and Dr. White, dean of Carlisle, as his defender. It lasted for two days, 'many of the nobility being present' (Laud, Works, iii. 178-9).' The result of the conference can hardly be expressed better than in the words of the Earl of Pembroke, 'that none returned Arminians thence save such as repaired thither with the same opinions' (Fuller, Church History, xi. i. 35). The committee of religion renewed their censure of the 'Appeal,' and the House of Commons voted a petition to the king that the author might be fitly punished and his book burned (Rushworth, i. 212). The king issued a proclamation (14 June 1626) commanding silence on points of controversy. In March 1628 the House of Commons again appointed a committee of religion to inquire into the cases of Montague, Mainwaring, and Cosin.
It was only in appearance that the king had ceased to protect Montagu, for Montagu had the strongest supporters at court in Laud and Buckingham himself (cf. Laud, Works, iv. 273); and on the death of Carleton, bishop of Chichester, who had not long before hotly controverted the tenets of the 'Appeal,' he was appointed to the vacant see. He was elected on 14 July 1628 (Le Neve, Dignitaries, ed. 1716, p. 114), received dispensation to hold Petworth with his bishopric (Cal. State Papers, 18 July 1628), did homage (ib. 24 July?), and on 22 Aug. was confirmed in Bow Church. During the ceremony one Jones, a stationer, made objection to the confirmation (full details in Fuller, Church History, xi. 67-9; and cf. Sir Francis Nethersole to Elizabeth, queen of Bohemia, Cal. State Papers, 14 Feb. 1629, &c.), but the objection was overruled as informal; and on 24 Aug. (St. Bartholomew's Day) he was consecrated at Croydon, on the same day that news came of Buckingham's assassination (Laud, Diary in Works, iii. 208). He was installed on 22 Sept. (Cal. State Papers). The appointment was a rash one; more magnanimous, as Heylyn says, than safe (Cyprianus Anglicus, p. 185). A bitter pamphlet, called 'Anti-Montacutum, an Appeale or Remonstrance of the Orthodox Ministers of the Church of England against Richard Mountague,' was published in 1629 (at Edinburgh, thus throwing light upon its presbyterian origin) and addressed to parliament. To this was added 'the character of an Arminian or mere Montaguist,' in which the bishop is thus described: 'He is an animal scarce rational, whose study is to read and applaud Peter Lambard and John Duns before Peter Martyr and John Calvin, and for more modern polemics he prefers Bellarmine before Chamierus.' The House of Commons at once took np the matter, and great alarm was felt among the king's advisers (cf. Letter of Heath to Montagu, quoted in Gardiner, vii. 19-20). Attempts were made at conciliation, by the issue of the declaration prefixed to the Thirty-nine Articles and still printed in the Book of Common Prayer, by a letter from Montagu to Abbot disclaiming Arminianism, by the grant of a special pardon to Montagu, and by the issue of a proclamation suppressing the 'Appello Caesarem ' (Cal. State Papers, 17 Jan. 1629). But the commons were in no mood to surrender their position. A vain attempt was made to show that Jones's objection to his confirmation was illegally disallowed.
Montagu set himself at once, and diligently, to the work of his diocese. He lived chiefly, 'without state or retinue,' at Aldingbourne, the summer residence of the bishops of Chichester, which he repaired (cf. Letter to Windebanke, Cal. State Papers, 26 June 1632), but we still find letters from him dated Petworth. His first endeavour was to recover the alienated estates of the see (ib. 1629-34, passim; and his own case in manuscript, Harleian MS. No. 7381). He was not wholly successful : his process to recover the estate and manor of Selsey, Sussex, for instance, being decided against him by Heath, chief justice, in the common pleas, in 1635. His primary visitation was held in 1635, and the articles which he then issued were afterwards reprinted (Prynne, Canterburie's Doome, p. 94). He was diligent in procuring obedience to church discipline in his diocese (e.g. Letter to Laud, 16 Jan. 1632). He pressed on the general collections for St. Paul's Cathedral (Cal. State Papers, 18 June 1635, 12 Feb. 1636, 2 May 1637, &c.) He was also engaged in his researches into ecclesiastical history, and published several learned treatises. In 1638 he was at work on a book on the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which he submitted to the approval of Laud (ib. 29 March 1638; Prynne, Canterburie's
