SO.

When in 1618 the king, alarmed at the novelties of puritanism, and wishing to restore things to the state in which they were during the first years of the Reformation, published a declaration for permitting sports and pastimes on the Lord's Day, out of Church hours, the archbishop would not permit it to be read at Croydon. It does not, however, appear that he suffered any inconvenience for his refusal. The strict observance of the Lord's Day, so as to make it a fast, was introduced by the puritans. The Church, before, had kept Friday as a fast, and Sunday as a religious festival; but on what authority was Sunday to be kept at all? The puritans would not admit the authority of the Church and the bible does not command us to keep holy the first day of the week; and yet the bible was the only authority to which they would defer. They applied therefore to the first day, what the bible commands as to the seventh day, and affirmed that the bible does not refer to a particular day, but to a seventh day. So strong was the force of custom, that they would not change the day, as Calvin proposed, from Sunday to Thursday, but they converted the Lord's Day unto a Jewish Sabbath. But if such were their authority for observing. the day, they were obliged, in order to be consistent, to observe it with Jewish strictness. It appears to have been the wish of James and his advisers to retain the Friday as the weekly fast-day, and to restore Sunday to its place as a festival, such as the first reformers observed it; to require an attendance at public worship, and then to permit people to enjoy their innocent sports. But if this were conceded, the principle of the puritans, before adverted to, would have been violated; it would in the present age be worse than folly to seek to change our mode of keeping the Lord's Day: it is one of the ordinances still respected; its strict observance is a tradition from our fathers; and if the observance of Sunday were relaxed, it does not seem likely that the fast of Friday would be generally kept. But these reasons did not exist in the reign of king James, and we must not therefore condemn

the measure which he attempted to introduce, though he failed in its introduction. Abbot's opposition proceeded from his being of the puritan party.

It was in the year 1616, that Laud's influence began to be felt at court, and from that time Abbot's authority had decreased, and he took more decidedly the popular side in religion and politics, and so helped on rebellion. But all his speculations in religion and in politics were brought to a close by that event which has cast a still greater gloom over his disastrous primacy. Being on a visit to lord Zouch at Bramzil park in Hampshire, he thought proper to join in the sports of the field, notwithstanding the prohibition of so many canons. But in trying to exhibit his skill as a marksman he aimed at a deer, and shot one of the keepers, who died on the spot. The greatest consternation prevailed, and although no further blame could attach to the archbishop than the original blame for shooting at all, he found himself without friends the low-churchmen were grieved at the disgrace thus thrown on the leader of their party, and the moroseness of Abbot's character had prevented his contracting private friendships. The archbishop by canon law had become incapable of performing any sacred function; by the common law, his personal estate was forfeited to the king, who graciously sent him a letter under his own hand, "that he would not add affliction to his sorrow, nor take one farthing from his chattels and moveables." But the scandal brought upon the Church was not so readily removed; it was a subject of discourse in the foreign universities, and, after three several disputations, was declared by the Sorbonnists to amount to a positive irregularity. To add to the difficulty, four bishops elect were waiting for their consecration-Dr Williams elect of Lincoln, Dr Davenant of Salisbury, Dr Cary of Exeter, Dr Laud of St. David's; all of whom, except Davenant, who was under personal obligations to the archbishop, scrupled to have his hands laid upon them, and declined his consecration, "not out of enmity or superstition, (says

Hacket, p. 66) but to be wary, that they might not be attainted with the contagion of his scandal and uncanonical condition.”

To determine the question and settle men's minds, the king directed a commission on the 3rd of October to the lord keeper, (Williams,) the bishops of London, (Monteigne,) Winchester, (Andrews,) and Rochester, (Buckeridge;) to the elects of Exeter, (Cary,) and St David's, (Laud;) Sir Henry Hobart, lord chief justice of the common pleas; Sir John Doddridge, one of the justices of the king's bench; Sir Henry Martin, dean of the arches; and Dr Steward, a civilian. The three following questions were submitted to their decision.

1. Whether the archbishop were irregular by the fact of involuntary homicide? The two judges and two civilians held the negative; the others held that he was irregular, except bishop Andrews, who said that he could not conclude so. 2. Whether the act might tend to a scandal in a churchman ?—Bishop Andrews, Sir H. Hobart, and Dr Steward, doubted; the rest concurred that there might arise from such an accident scandalum acceptum non datum.' 3. How the archbishop should be restored, in case he should be found irregular? All agreed that it could be no otherwise than by restitution from the king; but they dissented in the manner of its being done. Andrews, Hobart, and Steward thought it should be done immediately from the king, and from him alone, in the same patent with the pardon; Williams, Monteigne, Buckeridge, Cary, and Laud, wished that a commission should be directed by the king to some bishops, to absolve him ' manu clericali;' Doddridge and Martin agreed in having it done both ways, for the greater caution. The latter suggestion was adopted; for the king, under his broad seal, granted the archbishop a full and entire pardon, and restored him to all metropolitical authority; and on the 22nd of November issued a commission to the bishops of Lincoln, (Williams,) London, (Monteigne,) Winchester, (Andrews,) Norwich, (Harsnet,) Lichfield and

Coventry, (Morton,) Bath and Wells, (Lake,) Ely, (Felton,) Chichester, (Carleton,) to grant the archbishop a dispensa tion in full form; which was done upon the 12th of Dec. following, 1621.

Thus was the archbishop absolved from this unhappy business, chiefly by the influence of Andrews, whom he suspected for his greatest foe, though, except on the ground of his being a sound churchman, there does not appear to be any reason for his so doing. How far or how consistent it was with sound principles to permit the crown to usurp so much authority is very questionable. Abbot, who had retired to Guildford during the progress of these debates, now returned to Lambeth and resumed his functions, contrary to the sense of many learned and pious men, who thought that he should have spent the remainder of his days in privacy. It is said that he petitioned the king for leave to retire, but perhaps the petition was not strongly urged, and he contented himself with instituting a monthly Tuesday fast, in memory of this accident; and allowing the widow of the man an annuity of £20. The reader will not fail to remark that the puritans in those days did not consider fasting to be unscriptural,

But though the archbishop was thus absolved, Williams and the others still scrupled at receiving consecration from his hands; and the king therefore permitted them (a few days before issuing the above commission) to be otherwise consecrated; Williams in king Henry VIIth's chapel, at Westminster, Nov. 11; Cary and Laud in the chapel of the bishop of London's palace, Nov. 18. The bishops who performed the ceremony were-London, (Monteigne,) Worcester, (Thornborough,) Ely, (Felton,) Oxford, (Howson,) Llandaff, (Godwin.)

But he had resumed his duties in 1623, in the January of which year he assisted Dr Monteigne, bishop of London, in the consecration of St James' church, Aldgate. Nor was he prepared to permit any encroachment upon his rights as primate. When, on the 20th of February, 1623-4, convocation met, and the subsidies,

which the king demanded, fell heavy upon the poorer clergy, Laud devised a plan to relieve them from the burden, which he communicated to the duke of Buckingham, who promised to procure the sanction of the king and prince. But the primate was much offended when the measure was proposed to him: he asked bishop Laud what business it was of his to concern himself for the church; and he told him that no bishop at any time had done the like, nor would any but himself; that he had wounded the church by speaking to a layman about it, in such a manner as could not be healed.

About this time the king issued a proclamation rigidly enforcing all laws against popish recusants, and he caused two letters to be addressed to the archbishops of Canterbury and York, signifying unto them, that "no good means be neglected on their part for discovering, finding out and apprehending of seminary priests and jesuits, and other seducers of the people to the romish religion; and also on the other hand he enjoined the two primates to observe that a vigilant care be taken with the rest of the clergy, for the repressing of those who, being ill affected to the true religion here established, keep more close and secret their ill affections that way, and as well by their example, as by their secret underhand contrivances do much encourage and increase the growth of popery and superstition in different parts of this kingdom." The archbishop of York, in obedience to the royal proclamation, sent letters to the suffragans of his province, commanding them to instruct their clergy to counteract the designs of the jesuits and their emissaries, and also to be no less watchful of the puritans, who were as indefatigable as the papists in their endeavour to subvert the reformed church, or at least to model it according to their own notions of doctrine and polity. But archbishop Abbot, in his letters to his suffragans, while he rigidly enforced the king's command, so far as the papists were concerned, took no notice of the other part of the royal proclamation, which bore against the puritan extravagances