Dr. Andrewes just after the metropolitical visitation of 1634 that no gentleman^ and but very few others of lower rank, sat uncovered or kneeled at prayers.[1] There were disorders of other kinds : the curates of Biddlesden and Stone and the rector of Grove were censured at about the same time for abetting secret marriages marrying people ' in gloves and masks.'[2] It was not indeed without cause that Sir Nathanael Brent at the visitation above named, reported that ' this corner of the diocese, being most distant, is much suspected of Puritanism.'[3] John Andrewes had written just before to the chancellor of Lincoln, ' Good sir, for the honour of God and the love to Jesus Christ, I beseech you to do your endeavour, that we all, both priests and people, may walk after one rule, and not every Jack to overrule the Church laws.'[4] The ecclesiastical authorities certainly did their endeavour, at the metropolitical visitation of 1634 and at others which followed during the next few years, but the mischief had gone too far. Much was hoped from the coming of Sir Nathanael Brent in August 1634; Sir Edmund Verney[5] and John Hampden [6] both made apology for their misdemeanours ; but in the October following Andrewes complained that though ' the injunctions of Mr. Vicar General ' were kept ' even by the dreadful grandees of our parish ' for a day or two, yet as soon as he had turned his back, things went back to their old way. [7] One whom he met out riding asked him ' in sober sadness ' whether the orders of Sir Nathanael were seriously intended to be kept ; for neither clergymen nor laymen (especially gentlemen and men of wealth) would keep them, but laughed and jeered at them.[8] The talk of the common people [9] showed where their sym- pathies lay : ' yourself,' writes Andrewes to Sir John Lambe, ' are banned and cursed to the pit of hell for suspending Mr. Gladman of Chesham and Mr. Valentine of Chalfont St. Giles. Oh how severely will God exact at your hands the blood of so many souls which must necessarily (notwithstanding Mr. Calvin's predestination) be damned for want of these bibble-babble sermons ! " These priests and bishops, they set them to vex the godly. As for Mr. Foster, Mr. Askew, Mr. Langley, Mr. Wright, if these stay long they will bring the whole country to the papist orders of the canons and such fopperies." [10] Andrewes writes with the bitter energy of a man who fights in a losing cause ; and if his words were unsupported by other evidence we might suspect them of exaggeration. But the visitation reports of 1634, 1635 and 1637 show that the account he gives of the state of the
- ↑ S. P. Dom Chas. I. cclxxix. 36, and cclxxxvi. 86 ; and also a case in the visitation of 1637.
- ↑ It may be noticed that these three had to live on very small stipends and were more open to such temptations. S. P. Dom. Chas. I. cclxxiv. 12.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ S. P. Dom. Chas. I. cchxxvi. 86.
- ↑ At the Metropolitical Visitation.
- ↑ Hampden was accused at the same time, but made his peace with Sir Nathanael Brent privately. Ibid. cclxxvi. 35.
- ↑ Ibid. Jas. I. clxxiii. 4.
- ↑ 8 Ibid. Chas. I. cclrxxvi. 86.
- ↑ The gardener of one of Andrewes' neighbours took upon himself to accuse the Catechism of containing false doctrine because of the words ' hath redeemed me and all mankind."
- ↑ S. P. Dom. Chas. I. cclixxvii. 31. John Wright was vicar of Burnham. Foster had some connection with the ecclesiastical courts in Bucks, and was a friend of Andrewes (S. P. Dom. Chas. I. ccxci. 16).
323
