with nothing which in the common and gross sense of the term we should call immorality, nothing more nearly approaching to it than such a degree of luxury in eating, and drinking, and dress, and in the ornament of their buildings, as he considered inconsistent with strict monastic life. It is as Benedictine monks, it is for their Benedictine irregularities, and for departures from the rule which they professed,. (that is, however, we must recollect, for perjury,) that Bernard attacks them. In fact, Milner is in some sort a voucher for this; for, from Peter's reply, he characterizes the matters in dispute as "frivolous punctilios and insignificant ceremonies." His testimony as to the merits of the case may be admitted, though he happened to mistake between the plaintiff and defendant; for it is quite obvious that Bernard was the aggressor, and that Peter was only replying to his charges; that Bernard was the person insisting on punctilios, and that Peter was in some cases repelling charges of perjury, and in others asserting his Christian liberty, and claiming a right to modify such small matters according to his discretion. This is, I say, obvious; and if it should not immediately appear so to any reader, I hope to make it plain; for the contention and correspondence of two such persons, and so situated, as Bernard and Peter, is quite worthy of further discussion. In the meantime, it may be right to explain how the historian from whom I have borrowed my motto came to entertain the opinion which is there expressed. He was too much in the habit of forming his opinion of authors from the brief accounts and extracts which he found in the English translation of Dupin's Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, to which work he very honestly refers us on the present occasion. The works of Peter he does not profess to have seen. As printed in the Bibliotheca Cluniacensis they extend from col. 621 to col. 1376,-that is to say, they occupy about 377 folio pages, which are not, I believe, defrauded of their full measure by a single note. Dupin's account of the life and writings of Peter, in this English translation, does not fill quite seven folio pages, not so large, but, owing to a smaller type, containing rather more than an equal number of the others. Of these seven pages, a large, though I do not know that we should say a disproportionate, share is given to an abstract I do not know how far this translation is faithful, not being much acquainted either with it or with the original work; and I shall be very much obliged to any one who can communicate the history of this version. I have seen two or three persons named as translators, but, I suspect, incorrectly. The tenth volume, with which we are at present concerned, is, as far as I see, anonymous; and so is the ninth: but the eighth is dedicated to the Bishop of London, by William Jones, in terms which distinctly imply that he was the translator. Some of his notes look as if he might be the person whom Watt mentions as the author of a "Poem on the Rise, Progress, and present State of the New Reformation. Lond. 1691, fol." Whoever he was, I cannot help suspecting, from the little which I have seen, that he was not very familiar with ecclesiastical matters and language. In this present article he tells us that Peter wrote " Several pieces of prose," which he certainly did (and perhaps without being aware of it). But the translator (for the mistake can hardly be Dupin's) does not seem to have known that a prose was something in verse-especially as he goes on to say that Peter wrote "a discourse in prose on the Virgin Mary." of the letter which Peter wrote in reply to Bernard's Apology. Dupin naturally thought this letter one of the most curious among nearly two hundred of Peter's which are extant; and the abstract which he gave of it, including the translator's addition, occupies exactly two pages out of the seven. Yet, long as it is, this is a very brief abstract of Peter's long letter, and, compared with it, little more than a table of contents, stating the points in dispute. Mr. William Jones, in all probability, knew nothing about the matter but what he found in Dupin, and did not consider that Peter was replying to the particulars of a charge of perjury, urged with great heat by a man whose character and station made it necessary that every such charge should be fairly met and discussed. He only thought, perhaps, that the bookseller who employed him wanted to have Dupin's work turned out of French into English, as he tells us that Peter "procured the Alcoran to be turned out of Arabick into Latin ;" and having learned and taught his readers in the foregoing chapter that St. Bernard "touches the heart with his movements," he perhaps expected to produce the same effect in the present case (or, more probably, took the opportunity of shewing his zealous protestantism,) by annexing to this abstract what might be called a note, if it were not inserted in the text in manner and form following : [And now upon this whole debate or controversie between the monks of Cisteaux and those of Cluny, we cannot forbear making this one remark, that, according to our old coarse English proverb, here has been a great cry but little wool; a great noise and clamour about the externals, but scarce one word said, pro or con, about the internals, of religion; which sufficiently shews, that when men are once wedded to any party in religion, their greatest heats happen about the circumstantials of religion to which that party adheres, and that they have little or no concern for the fundamentals of the truly catholic and Christian church.] This passage, printed almost entirely in italics, probably caught Milner's eye as he turned over Dupin; and it is perhaps owing to this effusion of Mr. William Jones that Peter owes the notice which he received from the historian. It is evidently on this suggestion, and almost in the language, of Mr. Jones, that Milner says, "He takes large pains to vindicate the manners and customs of his monastery from objections, and in doing this he is so verbose and circumstantial, that he may seem to have placed the essence of Christianity in frivolous punctilios and insignificant ceremonies." It is not wonderful that, in the practice of these sortes Dupiniana, Milner sometimes formed wrong opinions respecting the character and writings of authors of whose history and works he knew nothing. If the matter is to be decided by a casual dip, it should at least be made in the author's own works; and who will venture to say that Peter would have been pilloried as an ignorant and trifling writer, if Milner had happened to open on col. 865, and to have read in one of his epistles, "Libri, et MAXIME AUGUSTINIANI, ut nosti, apud nos AURO PRECIOSIORES sunt"? *Cent. XII., c. viii. THE series of extracts now continued through the archiepiscopate of Bancroft, was interrupted in the last number in order to point out, before leaving the reigns of the Tudors, the momentous interests that were at stake in some of the conflicts which, under Queen Elizabeth, the archbishop had to maintain against the influence of the " temporal lords" in the disposal of the higher church preferments. The struggles for the appointment to the Mastership of the Temple (in 1584) and to the see of London (1597), seemed to require particular notice. The importance of the latter more especially was incalculable; and we are hardly aware to how great an extent, and in how many ways, (amongst others, in regard to our invaluable translation of the Bible,) we are indebted to Archbishop Whitgift for securing Bancroft, to the exclusion of "the learned, but morose, Hugh Broughton," for the important post from which his rise was easy, through the favour of King James, to the archiepiscopal throne of Canterbury. The extracts now given will contain the history of his elevation, and trace the influence which he exercised with the sovereign in the disposal of ecclesiastical offices.† A few lines are repeated at the head of the following extracts, in order to connect them the better with those which have gone before. The difficulty referred to in a note inserted in the last number (p. 385), of reconciling Heylyn's statement respecting Hugh Broughton with that of Strype, may be removed by comparing Heylyn's Life of Laud, pp. 25, 26. "The Calvinists," he there observes," are subdivided into three opinions," which he there explains more fully; so that Broughton might seem to maintain a doctrine at variance with "the opinion of Geneva," (Strype's Whitgift, p. 502,) and yet oppose the doctrine of the church of England, as set forth by Bishop Bilson, against that of" Calvin and the Genevian English." As to Strype's representation of the matter as though Broughton had brought Whitgift &c. over to his way of thinking, it rests upon Broughton's own statements, (Strype, p. 482;) and how much credit is to be attributed to these may be judged from what Hooker says of the report, that, in regard to another point, he had "fully satisfied" Dr. Reynolds, who had "now assented unto him." (Vid. sup. p. 383.) Upon the point now in question, he had the same Dr. Reynolds, as well as Dr. Bancroft and the archbishop, opposed to him. (Strype, p. 431.) The archbishop seems, with his accustomed mildness, to have signified that he "resisted him not," as this "morose" scholar so vehemently complained. Erratum in the last Number, p. 384, line 29.-The sentence, Hooker, whose own deep Hebrew learning probably," &c., should read thus: "Hooker, whose own deep Hebrew learning had obtained for him such commendations of his excellent knowledge in that tongue that he was appointed to read the public lecture at Oxford during the illness of Mr. Kingsmill, the Regius Professor, as his friend Dr. Saravia's Hebrew learning probably," &c. + Those which are given in a note, and which relate to preferments in the church in Scotland, will appear of great importance, when compared with the traces which will be found in the sequel of the influence of a different system, as adopted in the early part of the following reign. KING JAMES I. (ARCHBISHOP WHITGIFT.)" He (the Archbishop) lived and died in great reputation, and particularly happy in being highly esteemed for his wisdom, learning, and piety, by both his sovereigns, Queen Elizabeth and King James, who both consulted with him in all matters of the church, and in making laws and ordinances for the well-governing of it, and likewise in taking always his advice for proper men to be placed in the chief preferments of it. . . . In which respect, as he took part with Hooker, and at the council table against the complaints and informations of Travers, as before is said, so he received into his service Mr. Samuel Harsnet, then being one of the Fellows of Pembroke Hall, who, in a sermon preached at St. Paul's Cross, the 27th of October, 1584, had so dissected the whole Zuinglian doctrines of reprobation, as made it seem ugly in the ears of his auditors, as afterwards in the eyes of all spectators, when it came to be printed; which man he did not only entertain as his chaplain at large, but used his service in his house as a servant in ordinary, employed him in many of his affairs, and, finally, commended him to the care of King James, by whom he was first made Master of Pembroke Hall, and afterwards preferred to the see of Chichester, from thence translated to Norwich, and at last to York,”* In March following (1603) Archbishop Hutton, (of York,) in a letter to him, (Bishop Matthew, of Durham,) dated at Bishopthorp, March 7th, condoling with him for the great loss the church was like to sustain by the death of Archbishop Whitgift, has the following expressions :-" God move his majesty's royal and religious heart (the sooner the better) to make special choice of some one to succeed him; and I think that either your lordship or my lord of Winchester (Bilson) is like to have the place. Albeit, the dealing with the sec. (secular) priests against the Jesuits in her majesty's time is now said to be a good service, and that it was done only to advance his majesty's title against the Spanish faction."† Bishop Bancroft, accordingly, who is alluded to in the last sentence, (vid. inf.) was nominated, Oct. 9th, 1604, to succeed the archbishop; in that high dignity, to which he was elected Nov. 17th, and confirmed in Lambeth Chapel Dec. 10th." Let us now hear what one says of him whose affection to the order of bishops was now much boasted of :—“ He came to all his preferments very clearly, without prejudice or spoil of his churches; that by means of the Lord Chancellor Hatton, whose chaplain he was, Queen Elizabeth came to take knowledge of his wisdom and sufficiency, especially from his writings against the Genevising and sectising ministers, of which King James also had heard, so as he became a favourite to both those princes and to the state. The seditious sectaries maligned him in libels and rhymes, laying on him the imputation of papistry, for which some were punished in the Star Chamber; but he was so far from being popishly affected, that it may be truly affirmed, the greatest blow which the papists received in all Queen Elizabeth's time came from his hand, or at least from his head; for he, having wisely observed the emulation between the secular priests and Jesuits, found means to set them one against another, Watson against Parsons, so he divided their languages as scarcely they can understand one another yet. In the disputations at Hampton Court, King James found him both learned and stout, and took such a liking of him, that, passing by the bishops of Winchester (Bilson) and Durham (Matthew), both men of eminent learning and merits, Heylyn's History of the Presbyterians, pp. 343, 4. + Le Neve's Protestant Archbishops of York, p. 106, comp.; Strype's Whitgift, Appendix No. xlviii. Whose "faithful chaplain" he had been, and, in 1584, "recommended by the archbishop, for the Deanery of Gloucester." (Strype's Annals, book i. chap. xix., vol. iii. p. 229.) he made choice of Bishop Bancroft for the filling up the then vacant see of Canterbury, as a man more exercised in affairs of state."* (ARCHBISHOP BANCROFT.)—“ In the beginning of the reign of King James, (by the power and mediation of Archbishop Bancroft,) he (Doctor Richard Neile) was made clerk of the closet to that king, that, standing continually at his elbow, he might be ready to perform good offices to the church and churchmen; and he discharged his trust so well, that though he lost the love of some of the courtiers, who were too visibly inclined to the puritan faction, yet he gained the favour of his master, by whom he was preferred to the deanery of Westminster, and afterwards successively to the richest in the kingdom, which shews that there was in him something more than ordinary which made that king so bountiful and gracious to him." He was "a man who very well understood the constitution of the church of England, though otherwise not so eminent in all parts of learning as some of the bishops of his time. But what he wanted in himself he made good in the choice of his servants, having more able men about him from time to time than any other of that age. Amongst which (not to reckon Laud, of whom now I speak) were Doctor Augustine Linsell, Bishop of Hereford; Dr. Thomas Jackson, President of Corpus Christi College in Exon, and Dean of Peterborough; Dr. John Cozen, Prebend of Durham, and Dean of Peterborough after Jackson; Dr. Benjamin Lang, Master of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge, and Dean of Rochester; Dr. Robert Newell, his half brother, Prebend of Westminster and Durham, and Archdeacon of Buckingham; Dr. Gabriel Clarke, Prebend and Archdeacon of Durham; Dr. Eliazer Duncum, one of the Prebends of Durham; also, Mr. Barlow, a right solid man, but not possessed of any dignity in the church to my best remembrance; and some others of good note, whose names and titles I cannot presently call to mind. . . None of his chaplains were received so much into his counsels as Dr. Laud, whom he found both an active and a trusty servant, as afterwards a most constant and faithful friend upon all occasions. . . . . The bishop, before his going off from the Deanery of Westminster, which he held in commendam with his bishopric of Rochester, obtained for him of King James (to whom not otherwise known but by his recommendation) the reversion of a prebend in that church, which, though it fell not to him until ten years after, yet it fell at last, and thereby neighboured him to the court." "In 1606, he (Dr. Morton) took the degree of D.D., which brought him into the acquaintance and esteem of Dr. John Overall, the Regius Professor at Cambridge. About the same time he was sworn Chaplain in Ordinary to King James, and by him presented to the Deanery of Gloucester, (June 22nd, 1607,) through Archbishop Bancroft's recommendation."§ "But while these things were in agitation, there happened a great alteration in the church of England, by the death of the most reverend Archbishop Bancroft, who died on the second of November, 1610, and with whom died the uniformity of the church of England. A man he was of eminent parts, and of a most undaunted spirit; one who well knew his work and did it. When chaplain only to the Lord Chancellor Hatton, he pieced himself with Dr. Whitgift, not long after his first coming to the see of Canterbury, to whom he proved a great support in gaining the Lord Chancellor for him, by whose assistance he was enabled to hold out against the overruling power of the Earl of Leicester, the patron-general of the faction. In the year 1588, he preached a sermon at St. Paul's Cross, and therein made an open declaration of those manifold dangers which the prevalency of that faction would bring upon the church and state, if they might be suffered; which blow he followed in a Le Neve's Protestant Archbishops of Canterbury, p. 80. Heylyn's Life of Laud, pp. 54, 55. § See Life by Barwick, p. 26, Biog. Brit. |