ANDREWES, Lancelot (1555-1626)

Andrewes was born in All Hallows Barking, London, the son of a successful seaman who was latterly a master of Trinity House. ‘From his tender years, he was totally addicted to the study of good letters’, mastering both Greek and Hebrew while still a schoolboy, and showing such promise that in 1571 the archdeacon of Middlesex bestowed on him a scholarship at Pembroke Hall, Cambridge.58 Isaacson, sig. *. There he continued to attract attention, demonstrating a particular talent for languages; reputedly he learnt over 20, including Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic and most modern European tongues.59 Works of Lancelot Andrewes ed. J.P. Wilson and J. Bliss, v. 291; Lossky, 12. In 1572 Andrewes briefly joined the entourage of Henry Hastings^†, 3rd earl of Huntingdon, when the latter took up the presidency of the council of the North. Six years later he received financial assistance from Robert Dudley^†, earl of Leicester, the queen’s favourite, and became acquainted with the influential secretary of state, Sir Francis Walsingham^‡.60 HMC Hastings, i. 433; HMC 4th Rep. 614; CSP Dom. 1547-80, p. 627. Meanwhile, having completed his master’s degree, he turned to the study of divinity, rapidly displaying considerable proficiency in this field as well. As Pembroke’s catechist from 1578, his lectures were reportedly attended not just by members of other Cambridge colleges, ‘but diverse also out of the country’, an early indication of his future fame as a preacher.61 Isaacson, sig. *2. His evident skill at expounding mainstream Anglican beliefs led to his employment by the government to dispute with both imprisoned Catholic priests and Protestant separatists in the following decade or so. With his usefulness to the state now becoming clear, rapid promotion beckoned. After a spell in the mid-1580s as Huntingdon’s chaplain, he was nominated in 1589 to the vicarage of St Giles Cripplegate, London by Walsingham, and to prebends at St Paul’s Cathedral and Southwell Minster by Leicester’s widow and the queen respectively. In the same year he became a royal chaplain, and master of Pembroke. Shortly afterwards he was also appointed a chaplain to the archbishop of Canterbury, John Whitgift^†.62 CSP Dom. 1581-90, p. 157; Lossky, 13-15; Fasti, i. 50; CCEd.

Anti-Calvinist leanings, c.1589-1603

As an academic, Andrewes made a particular study of the Church Fathers, becoming reputedly the greatest patristic scholar of his age. In a period when most Protestant theologians relied exclusively on the bible as their authority, he instead immersed himself in the thought and customs of early Christianity, which he came to see as a more authoritative guide to modern practice than the novel dogmas generated by the Reformation. Empowered by this knowledge, he gradually re-evaluated the norms of the Elizabethan Church.63 J. Davies, Caroline Captivity of the Church, 51; A. Milton, Catholic and Reformed, 274-5. As a young Cambridge student Andrewes had moved in puritan circles, but during the 1580s he began to question conventional Calvinist thinking, for example criticizing the emphasis placed on preaching in church services at the expense of prayer.64 N. Tyacke, ‘Lancelot Andrewes and the Myth of Anglicanism’, Conformity and Orthodoxy in the Eng. Church ed. P. Lake and M. Questier, 9; Fincham, 233. In its developed form, his own spirituality was built around an intense personal relationship with Christ, which he believed was vital for promoting both true repentance and the good works which showed that believers had achieved a state of grace. This was not a Catholic viewpoint; Andrewes held firm to the Protestant understanding that Christ’s merits alone, rather than individual good works, were sufficient for salvation. Nevertheless, by comparison with this intimate communion with God, Calvinist theorizing about the mechanics of predestination seemed to him empty and unproductive.65 P. Lake, ‘Lancelot Andrewes, John Buckeridge, and Avant-Garde Conformity at the Court of Jas. I’, Mental World of the Jacobean Court ed. L.L. Peck, 121-2. Consequently, when Walsingham offered him a Cambridge readership around 1589, with a brief to promote Calvinist teachings, Andrewes turned it down, explaining that expounding such dogma would be ‘contrary both to his learning and to his conscience’.66 Lossky, 14-15.

Other key elements of Andrewes’ thinking emerged during the following decade. In March 1590, his first Lent sermon at court took up one of Archbishop Whitgift’s favourite themes, the concept of civil government and the Church as twin pillars of the state, united and upheld by the crown. Indeed, Andrewes acquired a reputation for encouraging reverence towards both God and the monarch, and he became a determined advocate of the religious establishment.67 McCullough, 30, 97-8. In July 1591, at the request of the bishops, he delivered a lecture at Cambridge defending High Commission’s use of the ex officio oath, a controversial weapon deployed against puritan clergy. Two years later, in a sermon before the southern Convocation, he urged the bishops to crush disorder within the Church, be it doctrinal or liturgical. Again, his target was puritanism, which by 1592 he was condemning as a corruption of true religion, the promoter of false new theories of worship and church government.68 HMC Hastings, i. 432-3; Fincham, 236, 288; McCullough, 160.

By 1600 Andrewes had become friendly with Richard Hooker, whose Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity encouraged the idea of Anglicanism as a broad church unified in public worship, in contrast to more extreme Protestant notions of the separation of the godly from the reprobates.69 Lake, 113-14. The latter views derived largely from the key Calvinist doctrine of double predestination, the belief that people were either saved or damned according to God’s predetermined and immutable judgement. This was a central tenet of the Elizabethan Church, enshrined in the Thirty-Nine Articles, and reaffirmed by the Lambeth Articles of 1595, and for many years Andrewes concealed his reservations about it. However, in 1594 he challenged the related argument that the righteous could not fall from grace, citing the well-known biblical example of Lot’s wife. Six years later, he also stirred up controversy by endorsing priests’ power to absolve sins, the implication being that grace remained available to the truly penitent. For many people this was popish teaching, and he was summoned before the secretary of state, Sir Robert Cecil^* (later 1st earl of Salisbury) to explain himself.70 Tyacke, ‘Lancelot Andrewes’, 16-18; Fincham and Tyacke, 84, 86; Letters and Memorials of State (1746) ed. A. Collins, ii. 185.

Nevertheless, Andrewes ventured only rarely into such territory, and retained the favour of the queen, ‘who took such delight in his preaching and grave deportment’ that she bestowed on him a prebend at Westminster Abbey in 1597. Indeed, further promotion was on the cards, and shortly afterwards Elizabeth offered to appoint him bishop of either Salisbury or Ely. However, in return Andrewes was expected to agree to the alienation of key diocesan estates to the crown. To him this amounted to obtaining a spiritual office by bribery, in other words the sin of simony, on which basis he rejected both sees.71 Works of Andrewes, v. 292; Isaacson, sigs. *3, **4v. Despite this affront to the monarch, Andrewes retained all his existing posts, and in 1601, with the backing of Fulke Greville^* (later 1st Lord Brooke), he became dean of Westminster. As Elizabeth’s reign drew to a close, Andrewes showed greater political guile by strengthening his relationship with Robert Cecil. Probably already one of the secretary’s clients, as master of Pembroke he helped to present Robert Cecil with the chancellorship of Cambridge University in 1602, and also kept a kindly eye on the secretary of state’s son William (Cecil^*, later 2nd earl of Salisbury), who was attending St John’s College. Thus, when the queen died in the following year, he was well placed for the transition to a new regime.72 HMC Hatfield, xi. 236; xii. 64, 448; Fincham and Tyacke, 84.

Early favour of James I, 1603-5

Andrewes was reappointed a royal chaplain following the accession of James I, and thus enjoyed regular access to the new king. As dean of Westminster he also assisted Archbishop Whitgift at the coronation in July 1603.73 Fincham, 306; J. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata (1693), pt. 2, p. 68. Andrewes attended the Hampton Court Conference in the following January, but contributed little to the debates, aside from defending the use of the sign of the cross during baptisms, a practice offensive to puritans. The greatest legacy of this meeting was the project for a new English translation of the Bible, the King James Version. Andrewes was placed in charge of the scholars responsible for the first 12 books of the Old Testament, but the precise extent of his contribution is unclear.74 Welsby, 81-4.

Meanwhile, on Good Friday, 6 Apr. 1604, Andrewes preached what may have been his first sermon before the king. Daringly selecting a text strongly associated with Catholic rites for this feast day, he upheld the universal saving grace of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and further broke with tradition by using elaborate word-painting to draw the congregation into the physical events of the Passion. James, a connoisseur of preaching, had probably never heard the like, and was deeply impressed. This was the first court sermon for decades to be published by the royal printer, and Andrewes thereafter rose steadily in the king’s favour.75 McCullough, 149-50. During this reign, ten of his court sermons were published, the largest number by a single preacher. According to Andrewes’ early biographer, Henry Isaacson, James ‘admired him beyond all other divines; not only for his transcendent gift in preaching, but for his excellency and solidity in all kind of learning’.76 Ibid. 154; Isaacson, sig. *2v.

There was a comfortable reciprocity about this relationship. On the one hand Andrewes could be relied upon not just to keep the king intellectually stimulated during his sermons, but also to endorse James’s claims that his authority derived from God and should not be resisted. In March 1611 he even used his Easter sermon to compare the king directly with Christ, arguing that James had similarly endured persecution in the form of the 1600 Gowrie conspiracy, an alleged assassination attempt, before ascending to an exalted throne. Andrewes, convinced that absolute royal power was the best defence against disorder in Church and State, was routinely obsequious to James, publicly commending his learning and love of peace, praising his personal union of the Scottish and English crowns, and frequently ending his sermons with heartfelt prayers for the king’s well-being in this world and the next.77 Fincham, 37-8; McCullough, 31. On the other hand, James found Andrewes useful as a theological counterbalance to senior clergy of a more Calvinist persuasion, demonstrating the royal vision of a national church which embraced many shades of opinion. Accordingly, he happily tolerated his intermittent anti-Calvinist outbursts, even when the criticism was obliquely directed at himself. In 1607, for example, Andrewes returned to his old theme that church services placed too much emphasis on preaching at the expense of prayer. Well known for the ‘singular zeal and piety’ of his personal devotions, he used a sermon at Greenwich Palace to lambast the common practice at court of attending chapel only to hear the preacher rather than to participate in the rest of the service, knowing full well that James was one of the principal offenders.78 Fincham, 25; Isaacson, sig. *3; McCullough, 160-1.

The irony of this particular line of argument was not only that Andrewes now relied almost entirely on the king as his patron, but also that his public standing rested substantially on his celebrity as a preacher. His friend John Chamberlain, the newsletter-writer, reporting his 1609 Christmas Day sermon, noted that Andrewes performed ‘with great applause, being not only sui similis, but more than himself by the report of the king and all his auditors’; James insisted on having a copy, which he claimed he would keep under his pillow.79 Fincham, 25; Chamberlain Letters, i. 292, 295. Six years later, the king greeted his latest Christmas sermon with the cry: ‘Before God, never man spake like him from the days of the apostles’. In October 1606 John Buckeridge^* (later bishop of Rochester) was accused of plagiarism after he checked what Andrewes was planning to say in his next sermon and then, ‘coming immediately before him, preoccupated much of his matter’. Thus, it was no surprise when, in October 1605, James presented Andrewes with the newly vacant post of royal almoner, which in addition to its primary charitable duties, made him the unofficial principal preacher at court. Simultaneously he nominated him as bishop of Chichester. This time there were no strings attached to the appointment, and Andrewes accepted, though he forthwith relinquished the mastership of Pembroke and almost all of his existing benefices apart from his prebends at St Paul’s and Southwell.80 McCullough, 21, 150; Chamberlain Letters, i. 209, 232-3.

Parliamentary debutant and bishop of Chichester, 1605-7

Andrewes was consecrated as bishop on 3 Nov. 1605, and two days later took his seat in the House of Lords for the first time.81 Chamberlain Letters, i. 214. He attended more than four-fifths of the 1605-6 session, with just one extended period of absence in mid February. Andrewes was present for all three November sittings prior to Parliament’s suspension in the wake of the Gunpowder Plot, but left no surviving mark on proceedings. He was rather more prominent in the parallel meetings of Convocation, where he was appointed one of the presiding bishops.82 Recs. of Convocation ed. G. Bray, viii. 91. Convocation’s records are incomplete, but Andrewes was certainly also named as a presiding bishop in Nov. 1606, 1614 and 1626: ibid. 136, 142, 155. After Parliament resumed in January he attracted 19 appointments, but was recorded as speaking only once. The paucity of his speeches may, of course, reflect the absence of diary material for this session, but even in the 1620s, when debates were much better recorded, Andrewes scarcely ever featured as a speaker. It seems clear that Andrewes, one of the most eloquent men of his time, preferred to exercise his rhetorical skills in the pulpit rather than the Lords’ chamber.

Predictably, much of Andrewes’ business in early 1606 related to religious affairs. The Gunpowder Plot having dramatically returned the Catholic threat to the top of the political agenda, he was named to the committee to consider new legislation for clamping down on popish sedition. He was also appointed to confer with the Commons on this issue, and to scrutinize two bills for suppressing recusancy.83 LJ, ii. 360b, 367b, 419b. When the lower House complained about the government’s treatment of more godly Protestants, including the deprivation of nonconforming ministers, and the growing use of ecclesiastical commissions, Andrewes was nominated in April to a conference on these matters. Debate between the two Houses resumed on 5 May with the same personnel, and three days later Andrewes reported the discussion of the controversial ex officio oath, though his speech’s content was not noted by the clerk.84 Ibid. 411a, 428a. Andrewes was also named to two legislative committees concerned with blasphemous swearing, and a third to confirm letters patent for the maintenance of divinity lecturers at Cambridge University.85 Ibid. 365a, 381a, 386b.

Perhaps on account of his increasing personal proximity to James I, Andrewes attracted several appointments relating to the king’s possessions and finances. These included the committees for both versions of the bill to preserve the crown’s regalities.86 Ibid. 360b, 431b. Named to scrutinize a bill to reform purveyance, Andrewes was also nominated to a conference concerning the Commons’ own proposals on that vexed topic. The same committee employed for that conference was also subsequently instructed to examine a bill to annex certain properties and jewels to the crown in perpetuity. Similarly, Andrewes was appointed to the committee for the bill to confirm royal letters patents.87 Ibid. 393b, 407b, 413a; Bowyer Diary, 116-17. His London background and residence at court, a consequence of his role as almoner, probably also explain two further nominations related to the capital, namely bills to restrict the spread of the city’s suburbs, and to reform the Marshalsea court.88 LJ, ii. 389a; 436b.

Andrewes’ approach to his new episcopal duties at Chichester was firm but distant. At one level he clearly resented the additional responsibilities, which interfered with his scholarly pursuits. ‘From the hour he arose (his private devotions finished) to the time he was called to dinner, which … was not till twelve at noon at the soonest, he kept close at his book, and would not be interrupted by any that came to speak with him.’ Administrative matters were dispatched in the two or three hours after dinner, then, ‘being quit of these … he would return to his study, where he spent the rest of the afternoon, even till bedtime’.89 Isaacson, sig. **3v. Because his almoner’s duties obliged him to remain at court, he rarely visited his diocese except briefly in the summer and, unusually for a Jacobean bishop, he eschewed the role of local magistrate. He never attended his consistory courts, and was present at just one of his visitations, in 1609, the worst known record for any bishop during this period.90 Fincham, 42, 55-6, 97, 113.

However, Andrewes was far from being a neglectful prelate, assembling a reliable team of local officials to act on his behalf, and taking great care over the maintenance of his episcopal residences in Sussex, on which he spent over £400. In addition, he took his duty of hospitality very seriously, bestowed large sums in alms, sought out talented young clergy who deserved preferment, and liberally supported scholars, both English and foreign.91 Ibid. 54, 56; Isaacson, sig. *4r-v; Works of Andrewes, v. 292, 294. When in London he seems to have been a regular presence at sessions of the High Commission, and was quite prepared to deprive clergy in his own diocese who failed in their duties, for example removing two incumbents for drunkenness in 1607 and 1609. His only serious blind spot was nepotism; at every stage of his career as a senior cleric, he used his patronage to benefit his brother Roger, who at Chichester became archdeacon and chancellor of the cathedral.92 Fincham, 191, 207-8, 316-17.

On 5 Nov. 1606 Andrewes preached the first of the annual sermons commemorating the failure of the Gunpowder Plot.93 McCullough, 120. During the ensuing 1606-7 parliamentary session he attended a little less assiduously, particularly after mid March, but he was still present for 70 per cent of the individual sittings. He was not recorded as speaking in the Lords, but received 16 appointments, covering a wider range of business than previously. In November 1606 he was named to confer with the Commons about the Instrument of Union, and in June 1607 to consider the related bill to abolish hostile laws between England and Scotland.94 LJ, ii. 453a, 520b. The king’s estates were again under discussion, and Andrewes was appointed to consider three separate bills to confirm grants made to crown tenants. Having presumably displayed some understanding of such matters, he was also nominated to the committee for a bill relating to bequests of land.95 Ibid. 470b, 471b, 494a, 524b.

In May Andrewes was named to scrutinize a bill confirming an exchange of property between the king and the archbishop of Canterbury, an issue on which he presumably nursed strong opinions, given his perennial dislike of the Church surrendering land to the crown. He probably also took an interest in the bill to use the revenues from the Devon prebend of Cutton to fund a school and preacher. The Church’s disapproval of usury most likely explains his nomination to examine a bill to repress this practice, but he was certainly well equipped to comment, having explored this topic in his BD thesis. As a bishop he probably welcomed his inclusion in the committee for the bill to block the implementation of ecclesiastical canons which had not received parliamentary approval.96 Ibid. 471b, 489a, 503a, 504a; Welsby, 19. Once again, Andrewes was named to two legislative committees on London affairs, this time addressing both suburban expansion and the property ownership of the City companies.97 LJ, ii. 460b, 479a.

Jacobean polemicist and bishop of Ely, 1607-13

Following the Gunpowder Plot, a new oath of allegiance was introduced to help the government identify treasonable recusants. Because this oath expressly denied that the pope could dispense Catholics from their duty of loyalty to the crown, it was condemned by Paul V in September 1606, and again in August 1607 after the first papal brief was ignored by some English recusants. The king himself now entered the fray with an anonymous tract, the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance, on which Andrewes was consulted, and a war of printed words ensued. Cardinal Bellarmine, a notable controversialist, replied to James with his Responsio Matthaei Torti, ostensibly the work of one of his chaplains. The king in turn reissued his Apology under his own name, and commissioned Andrewes to answer Bellarmine.98 Welsby, 143-5.

For Andrewes this was a thoroughly unwelcome development. As John Chamberlain observed in October 1608: ‘I doubt how he will undertake and perform [the task, it] being so contrary to his disposition and course to meddle with controversies’. To make matters worse, James insisted on being closely involved in the project himself. A month later Chamberlain noted that Andrewes was likely to do a good job, ‘if he might take his own time, and not be troubled or entangled with arguments obtruded to him continually by the king’. The whole saga had by now attracted international interest, the French ambassador reporting that Andrewes’ text ‘was a web of Penelope, for as soon as he had completed a portion, the king found much that had to be rewritten’.99 Chamberlain Letters, i. 264, 270; D.H. Willson, King Jas. I and VI, 456. The finished treatise, Tortura Torti, finally reached the press in June 1609, a lengthy and learned argument on both papal power and the royal supremacy, but ‘marred by a facetiousness and smart cleverness’ rather different from Andrewes’ normal style, according to his modern biographer, Paul Welsby.100 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 99; Welsby, 147-9; Lossky, 330. Bellarmine counter-attacked within months, this time under his own name, and by early 1610 Andrewes was at work on a second polemical tract, his Responsio ad Apologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini, which appeared later that year. The battleground had now shifted somewhat, and the Responsio was more obviously theological in tone, disputing Bellarmine’s claims that the English Reformation marked a complete break with the country’s Catholic past.101 Chamberlain Letters, i. 292, 295; Welsby, 151-2. Under other circumstances that might have proved a controversial line of argument. However, it was in keeping with Andrewes’ Gunpowder Plot anniversary sermon of 1609, which attacked the Jesuits but recommended gentler treatment of moderate, loyalist English Catholics. This was seen at the time as propaganda for the government’s new, more conciliatory approach to the recusant problem.102 McCullough, 123-4. Andrewes might not have enjoyed engaging in these controversies, but the king was delighted with his efforts, and in August 1609 promoted him to the diocese of Ely.103 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 537.

Perhaps because Andrewes was so busy with the Responsio, he missed virtually the whole of the first parliamentary session of 1610, his presence being recorded only on 26 Mar., 4 June - when he witnessed the creation of Prince Henry as prince of Wales - and the afternoon of 23 July.104 Rymer, vii. pt. 2, p. 169. Unsurprisingly, given this attendance rate of just 3 per cent, he attracted no business in the Lords.

On 5 Aug. 1610 Andrewes delivered the now usual annual sermon marking the anniversary of the 1600 Gowrie conspiracy. Conflicting accounts of this incident had led to rumours that it was rigged by the king in order to eliminate the 3rd earl of Gowrie [S], and Andrewes had reportedly asked James in private to confirm what really happened. Nevertheless, this was another occasion when a show of ultra-loyalism was expected, and Andrewes never disappointed. The 1610 Gowrie celebrations were particularly significant, given the recent assassination of Henri IV of France, and William Knollys^*, Lord Knollys (later earl of Banbury) noted ‘the best and aptest sermon for the day that ever I heard by the bishop of Ely’. The king agreed, and had it printed.105 Welsby, 141-3; McCullough, 138-9; SP14/57/6.

When Parliament reconvened in October 1610, Andrewes attended more frequently, but still notched up just nine appearances during this short session. Despite having missed all the debates earlier in the year on the Great Contract, he was twice appointed to confer with the Commons about this controversial proposal for restructuring the crown’s finances.106 LJ, ii. 671a, 678a; HMC Hastings, iv. 222-6.

When the archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Bancroft^*, died on 2 Nov., Andrewes was widely expected to replace him. Instead, in March 1611 the office was bestowed on the less experienced bishop of London, George Abbot^*. James himself claimed that in appointing Abbot he had granted the dying wish of the latter’s patron, the royal favourite George Home, earl of Dunbar [S], but this was merely a smokescreen; not only was Abbot Bancroft’s own preferred candidate, but he had repeatedly demonstrated a better grasp than Andrewes of the king’s priorities. In October 1610, for example, both men had been appointed to consecrate three Scottish bishops, a critical moment in James’s sensitive project to restore episcopacy to his northern kingdom. While Abbot happily cooperated, Andrewes tried to insist on the Scots first being re-ordained as priests, in effect arguing that their earlier presbyterian ministries were invalid. This tactless objection, which was overruled, can scarcely have gone unnoticed by the king. The two men also had differing attitudes towards the king’s Catholic subjects. In late 1610, following Henri IV’s murder, James once again saw recusants as a threat. However, while Andrewes lacked any appetite for clamping down on them, the staunchly Calvinist Abbot displayed a marked enthusiasm for this task. Given his reservations about royal policy, it is unclear whether Andrewes seriously expected to be appointed archbishop, but any disappointment which he felt was carefully concealed.107 HMC Downshire, ii. 396; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 110; Fincham, 27-9; S.M. Holland, ‘George Abbot: the Wanted Bishop’, Church History, lvi. 172, 182-3; Rymer, vii. pt. 2, p. 176; Milton, 483.

Meanwhile, Ely diocese presented its own challenges. The previous bishop, Martin Heton^*, had left the episcopal houses in a poor state of repair, and Andrewes vigorously pursued his widow for dilapidations, as well as spending £2,000 himself on improvements.108 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 537; 1611-18, p. 38; Works of Andrewes, v. 293. In addition, the see was blighted by non-resident clergy, partly a consequence of Cambridge fellows acquiring livings there as a source of income. Despite his academic sympathies, and his own habitual absenteeism, Andrewes made this pastoral issue a priority, and launched a major drive against negligent incumbents.109 Fincham, 54-5. As bishop of Ely, he also automatically acquired many of the secular responsibilities that he had avoided while at Chichester, becoming a magistrate for the only time in his career, and being expected to provide leadership over local concerns such as fen drainage. Tellingly, the one issue over which he was accused of laxness was supervision of the Catholic priests imprisoned at Wisbech Castle, Cambridgeshire, one of his official residences.110 Fincham, 57; APC, 1615-16, pp. 108-15.

The international war of words over the oath of allegiance had not completely died down after Andrewes’ second attack on Bellarmine, and in November 1611 the bishop collaborated with both the king and a visiting Genevan scholar, Isaac Casaubon, on a letter to Cardinal Du Perron, who had entered the fray in support of Bellarmine. A few months later, Andrewes and Casaubon composed a joint treatise, since lost without trace, which was delivered to Du Perron by John Pory^‡ in January 1612.111 Welsby, 152-3; Chamberlain Letters, i. 332. By now Andrewes’ reputation was spreading on the Continent, as Sir Dudley Carleton^* (later Viscount Dorchester) reported to Chamberlain from Venice in March 1614: ‘he is much reverenced by such learned men in these parts as dare read his books; … some of these nòbili … have been heard this Lent using his arguments and disputing with their preachers in their church doors’.112 Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 162.

However, there were drawbacks to Andrewes’ burgeoning fame, as other theological controversialists now sought his support for their own battles. In early 1613 Casaubon introduced him to a visiting Dutch Arminian, Hugo Grotius, who discovered that Andrewes still privately held the anti-predestinarian opinion that the saved could fall from grace. Under pressure from the king, Andrewes had kept his views to himself, but Grotius, keen to show James that the Arminians had support in England, assured him that Andrewes continued to favour that position. The king promptly informed Archbishop Abbot, who in turn questioned Andrewes, and warned him ‘to be wary how he had to do with any of those parts ill-affected’.113 Winwood’s Memorials ed. E. Sawyer, iii. 459-60. The bishop denied everything, but he was clearly attracted to Arminian arguments about the nature of salvation. As early as 1611 he became the patron of Richard ‘Dutch’ Thomson, one of the first English scholars to make direct contact with Arminians in the Netherlands, and he continued to follow events there with interest. In May 1614, for example, Sir John Ogle, governor of the English forces stationed at Utrecht, sent him a book by the leading Arminian theologian Jan Uyttenbogaert, and Andrewes praised the author’s learning, albeit with some reservations: ‘I deny not but that there are diverse passages … which I should not lightly approve or can condescend thereunto; but yet with such a dissent as may be between Christians, friends and brethren’.114 Welsby, 107, 168; N. Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 36; SP14/77/27.

Meanwhile Andrewes faced a major conflict between loyalty to the king and his own conscience. In the summer of 1613 he served as a commissioner for the divorce proceedings of Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex. The countess wished instead to marry the royal favourite, Robert Carr^*, Viscount Rochester (later earl of Somerset), and enjoyed James’s support. However, many clergy opposed the idea, including Andrewes, who was described by Henry Wriothesley^*, 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton as ‘vehemently against it’. The king, finding that there was no natural majority in favour of an annulment, applied pressure to the commissioners. Archbishop Abbot risked disgrace by sticking to his principles, but Andrewes switched sides, reportedly arguing that if Essex and his wife were forced to live together ‘it might be the cause of poisoning and destroying one another’. Andrewes’ compliance with the royal will pleased James, but seriously damaged his reputation for integrity. Chamberlain, writing on 1 Aug. to Carleton, observed: ‘At my last being with the bishop … he made no dainty to tell me his opinion [of the divorce], which I could wish were otherwise if there be no more reason in it than I see or conceive’.115 Winwood’s Memorials, iii. 475; A. Somerset, Unnatural Murder, 152-3; Chamberlain Letters, i. 469; Fincham, 49.

Rising status at court, 1614-18

When the 1614 Parliament met, Andrewes was jointly assigned the proxy of Anthony Rudd^*, bishop of St Davids, with whom he otherwise had little obvious connection.116 LJ, ii. 686a. This proxy was held jointly with Archbishop Abbot and John King, bishop of London. Present for the state opening on 5 Apr., when he was named by the crown as one of the prestigious triers of petitions from Gascony and other overseas territories, he also turned up three days later. However, he then absented himself until early May, from which time he appeared on a fairly regular basis. In total he attended approximately two-thirds of the session.

Andrewes was apparently kept fully occupied during this period. Writing on 22 May to Sir John Ogle, he apologized for not responding sooner to the gift of a book: ‘it happened that your letter … came unto my hands at such time as the Parliament or Convocation began. Busy times, as you may easily conjecture’.117 Ibid. 687a; SP14/77/27. Nevertheless, he kept out of the Addled Parliament’s numerous controversies, and attracted just three other appointments. Named to consider bills on the preservation of woodlands and timber, and on the enforcement of Sabbath observance, he was also nominated to confer with the Commons about the latter measure.118 LJ, ii. 697b, 708b, 713b. After the Parliament was abruptly dissolved without supply being granted, he donated £120 to the Benevolence.119 Chamberlain Letters, i. 542.

In October 1615 the government employed Andrewes to extract a confession from Richard Weston, one of Sir Thomas Overbury’s murderers, but without success. In desperation the bishop proposed that the prisoner be interviewed by a Catholic priest, whereupon Weston remarked that if neither Andrewes nor the bishop of London (John King^*) could make him talk, ‘neither Jesuit nor priest could do it’.120 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 320; Somerset, 318. A year later Andrewes became a privy councillor. According to Chamberlain this was compensation for his recent failure to secure the plum diocese of Winchester, which had instead been awarded to James Montagu^*. Andrewes attended the Council regularly until mid 1619, but normally contributed little to its discussions unless they concerned ecclesiastical business. While he remained bishop of Ely, however, he used his position to influence the outcome of disputes concerning fen drainage, proving an effective advocate for the residents of his diocese.121 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 28; APC, 1616-17, p. 29 et seq.; 1618-19, p. 292; Works of Andrewes, v. 292-3; Fincham, 70.

In November 1616 Andrewes formally witnessed the creation of Prince Charles (Stuart^*) as prince of Wales. The death of the latter’s elder brother four years earlier seemingly weighed still on the bishop’s mind, prompting an uncharacteristic faux pas at court shortly afterwards, when he prayed publicly for the health of Prince Henry, and failed to notice his mistake.122 Rymer, vii. pt. 2, p. 217; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 32. The king was already considering marrying Charles to a Spanish infanta, and in the closing weeks of the year it was reported that Andrewes would be sent to Spain with Sir John Digby^* (later 1st earl of Bristol) to negotiate a match. This trip did not go ahead, but in March 1617 Andrewes was instructed to consider the implications of Charles marrying a Catholic.123 HMC Downshire, vi. 51; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 447; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 66.

With Andrewes now clearly perceived as being at the very heart of government, it was rumoured in February that year that he might be the next lord chancellor. Again this was wide of the mark, but he featured prominently in the entourage which travelled to Scotland with the king shortly afterwards.124 HMC Downshire, vi. 109, 129, 139; CSP Ven. 1615-17, p. 476. Andrewes’ presence was required largely because of James’s ongoing project to remodel the Scottish Church along English lines. Having restored the episcopate there, the king now wished to reform the patterns of worship, and to give the Scots a taste of the more ceremonial style to which he had become accustomed in England. On these issues Andrewes was an acknowledged expert. As early as 1590 he had praised the liturgical splendour of Elizabeth I’s royal chapels during one of his court sermons, and while vicar of St Giles Cripplegate he apparently redesigned the chancel layout there, with the communion table railed in, and possibly set altarwise.125 Tyacke, ‘Lancelot Andrewes’, 20, 29; Fincham and Tyacke, 86; McCullough, 98; As a bishop he was finally able to realize his ideals fully. According to Isaacson, his Ely House chapel ‘was so decently and reverently adorned, and God served there with so holy and reverend behaviour of himself and his family [ie. household] … that the souls of many that …came thither in time of divine service were very much elevated’. By the end of his life, Andrewes’ chapel furnishings at Winchester House included an altarwise communion table set on a dais at the east end, altar-hangings with biblical images, a chalice engraved with a figure of Christ, and a vessel for burning incense during services.126 Isaacson, sig. *3; Tyacke, ‘Lancelot Andrewes’, 25; Fincham and Tyacke, 121, 242. The king made little attempt to reproduce such features in Scotland, where they were seen as popish, but he did propose certain other changes, eventually adopted in 1618 as the Articles of Perth. Andrewes, whom James added to the Scottish Privy Council during his visit, threw his full weight behind this programme even after his return to England, preaching at court in November 1617 and April 1618 in support of the two most contentious innovations, the observance of major holy days, and kneeling to receive communion.127 S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. 1603-42, iii. 228-9, 236; McCullough, 138.

The king took several other anti-Calvinist clerics with him to Scotland, including Richard Neile^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York), and the dean of Gloucester, William Laud^* (later archbishop of Canterbury). Andrewes shared much common ground with them in outlook and convictions, and apparently backed their own liturgical innovations, but in general he treated them as allies rather than close associates, perhaps because he lacked their taste for controversy and political intrigue. Neile’s circle in turn dubbed Andrewes ‘Gamaliel’, after the famous Jewish scholar who avoided confrontation and always urged caution.128 Tyacke, ‘Lancelot Andrewes’, 29-30; Fincham, 278-80, 286; Fincham and Tyacke, 117, 134. Indeed, circumspection was required at this juncture, as the Arminian crisis in the Netherlands came to a head. In October 1617 Carleton warned Andrewes from The Hague that the Dutch Arminians were again claiming that he backed their cause, and had endorsed their opinions in writing. This he vehemently denied, though he refused to be drawn over where his actual sympathies lay. Towards the end of the year Grotius appealed directly to Andrewes for his support, but the bishop, no doubt mindful of the king’s reaction in 1613, declined to respond.129 SP84/79, f. 179; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 110-11, 141-2; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 512. Nevertheless, he took a close interest in the Synod of Dort of 1618-19, which condemned Arminianism, later expressing disapproval of the Calvinist articles of faith agreed there.130 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 174-5, 186-7; Carleton to Chamberlain, 268-9; Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 103.

Bishop of Winchester, 1618-21

Having this time stayed out of trouble, Andrewes reaped his reward in the summer of 1618, when James finally nominated him as bishop of Winchester. Almost simultaneously he was named to the Treasury commission established following the disgrace of the lord treasurer, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk. In the latter capacity he shared the oversight of the crown’s finances until December 1620, but he lacked practical experience in these matters, and delegated key decisions to a fellow commissioner, his former patron, Sir Fulke Greville.131 HMC Downshire, vi. 455; R.A. Rebholz, Life of Fulke Greville, 248-9. Andrewes also became dean of the Chapel Royal in January 1619, another post which entailed residence at court and extensive preaching duties. Surprisingly, given his burden of responsibilities, he hung onto the almonership until the following May, and only resigned this position ‘against his will’.132 Fincham, 43; McCullough, 150-1.

At Easter 1619 the king was taken seriously ill, and Andrewes was summoned to his bedside at Royston, in Hertfordshire. He arrived to find that James believed he was dying. At this moment of crisis, the bishop revealed his deepest fears for the future, and ‘bewailed with great affliction the sad condition which the Church was like to fall into, … the prince being in the hands of the Scots, which made up the greatest part of his household, and not well principled … either as to the government or liturgy of the Church of England’. In his weakened state, and probably taken aback by this outburst, James conceded that he had indeed neglected this aspect of Charles’s education. Moreover, he promised that, should he recover, he would personally instruct his heir in ‘the controversies of religion’, and ensure that he respected the Anglican hierarchy and liturgies.133 P. Heylyn, Short View of the Life and Reign of King Charles (1658), 17-18. Indeed, the king subsequently removed several Scottish Calvinists from the prince’s household, replacing them with more acceptable figures such as Matthew Wren^† (later bishop of Ely), one of Andrewes’ chaplains. Charles is also said to have compiled commonplace books with extracts from the works of both Andrewes and Hooker, thereby acquiring a firm grounding in their vision of the Church. The significance of Andrewes’ intervention at Royston should not be overstated. Charles’s commonplace books were a product of the prince’s childhood, not the years after 1619, while the purging of his Calvinist servants was at least partly prompted by their opposition to the continuing Spanish Match negotiations. Nevertheless, this episode was a personal turning-point for the bishop, who henceforth retained a firm hold over the king’s affections, and was thus able to pursue his own agenda more freely.134 McCullough, 205; R. Perrinchief, Royal Martyr (1676), 261.

As bishop of Winchester, Andrewes once again embarked on a maintenance programme at his episcopal residences. His predecessor Montagu had repaired Winchester House in Southwark but had left other properties in a poor condition, and therefore Andrewes sued his executor for dilapidations, besides spending £2,000 himself on improvements.135 Fincham, 5; Isaacson, sig. *4. Now enjoying a much greater income, he was also able to entertain the king lavishly at Farnham Castle for three days in the summer of 1620, reputedly at a cost of £3,000. Indeed, Sir Edward Zouche, knight marshal of the king’s household, observed that the bishop ‘made provision enough to entertain the emperor and all his army (being to him more affected than the king of Bohemia as I think)’.136 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 316; Works of Andrewes, v. 293; SP14/116/82.

Zouche’s comment reflected not only Andrewes’ new-found wealth but also a growing perception that the bishop was sympathetic towards the Catholic Church, or at least favoured a negotiated peace based on Prince Charles marrying a Habsburg princess. In reality, Andrewes rarely revealed his own political opinions, and was merely doing whatever the king required as the complex international situation developed. In the spring of 1620 he helped rally the English clergy behind the loan raised to help pay for the military effort in Bohemia, contributing £300 himself.137 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 132; CSP Ven. 1619-21, pp. 211, 229; Add. 34324, f. 128v. Similarly, during the summer of 1621 he defended the Spanish Match, James’s diplomatic strategy for resolving the Palatine crisis, refuting at the king’s command a treatise by one of Prince Charles’s own chaplains, George Hakewill, which warned of the perils of Charles marrying a Catholic. However, as with the Bellarmine controversy, such polemical tasks pushed Andrewes into uncharacteristically extreme statements, and even his friend Chamberlain was shocked when he denied that all Catholics were necessarily idolators.138 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 392-4.

On 30 Jan. 1621, prior to the state opening of the third Jacobean Parliament, Andrewes preached before the king and Lords in Westminster Abbey, using as his text the opening verse of Psalm 82, ‘God standeth in the congregation of princes’. Naturally supportive of the crown’s agenda, he warned that Parliament should act at all times in a manner pleasing to God, eschewing private interests in favour of the important business before it, and working harmoniously for the common good. ‘And in very deed, if we consider it well, it is the virtue (this of concord) that is most proper, nay essential then, to a congregation: without it, a gregation it may be, but no congregation. The con is gone; a disgregation rather.’ James clearly appreciated this message, paraphrasing it during his speech to both Houses on 3 Feb., and he commanded Andrewes to publish it.139 Works of Lancelot Andrewes, v. 203-22 (quoting p. 219); ‘Hastings 1621’, p. 6; Welsby, 224; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 363. Rather more contentiously, given the strong anti-Habsburg feeling that marked this Parliament, and the king’s efforts to raise funds to defend the Palatinate against Spanish forces, Andrewes used his Easter sermon at court to defend James’s search for a diplomatic solution, condemning criticism of the Spanish Match negotiations as puritan presumption. These remarks formed part of a broad and colourful attack on Calvinist theology and churchmanship, but such was the mood at court that the sermon was ‘excellently commended’.140 Fincham, 47, 235; Chamberlain Letters, 362.

Once again, Andrewes preferred to do his talking outside Parliament. He is not known to have spoken in the Lords during the 1621 session, despite being present for over four-fifths of the first sitting, during which he received 34 appointments. Now a very senior figure on the bishops’ bench, he held the proxies of both William Cotton^*, bishop of Exeter and Tobie Matthew^*, archbishop of York.141 LJ, iii. 3b-4a. Cotton’s proxy was held jointly with Abp. Abbot, and Matthew’s proxy with Abbot, Bp. King of London and Bp. Neile of Durham.: PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 54v. Andrewes was himself twice given leave of absence during February, once because he was unable to travel from Southwark, ‘the Thames being frozen’, and then because he was ill.142 LJ, iii. 12b, 18a. Andrewes is also recorded in the LJ, iii. 91a as having leave on 26 Apr., but this statement is not supported by the ms minutes: PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/1, f. 55. He failed to pay the fee owed for his first summons to Parliament as bishop of Winchester, presumably through oversight.143 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/1, f. 55. As bishop of this diocese, he should automatically have been selected again as a trier of petitions, but apparently opted out of this role, presumably wishing to avoid the accompanying responsibilities. He was, however, nominated to the newly established standing committee for privileges, though it is not known how many of its weekly meetings he attended.144 LJ, iii. 10b.

As usual Andrewes attracted a string of nominations relating to religious affairs. Appointed to confer with the Commons about the proposed joint petition to the king for tougher measures against recusants, he was also named to the committee for the bill to tighten up existing anti-Catholic legislation.145 Ibid. 17a, 18b, 101a. In addition, Andrewes was nominated on 8 Mar. to help scrutinize the latest, puritan-sponsored bill to punish Sabbath abuses. Later that day an unrelated measure concerned with legal writs and process was referred to the same committee. Both measures became the subject of a conference with the Commons in May, out of which emerged a joint subcommittee to expedite both pieces of legislation, Andrewes being named to all stages of this process.146 Ibid. 39b, 130b.

Another potentially sensitive issue, given the bishop’s recent service as a treasury commissioner, was the parliamentary inquiry into the abuse of crown-awarded monopolies. This began in the lower House, so it was not until early March that Andrewes was appointed to a conference to discuss how best to apprehend the notorious patentee, Sir Giles Mompesson^‡, who had just evaded the Commons’ clutches. As more information about monopolists’ offences began to reach the Lords, Andrewes was nominated to another conference at which further details were requested. He was then named to the select committee for investigating the patent to manufacture gold and silver thread, with which Mompesson was closely associated.147 Ibid. 34a, 42b, 47a. Andrewes was subsequently appointed to the committee for the bill to reform monopolies, and also selected to consider a petition complaining of the Muscovy Company’s attempted monopoly over the Greenland fisheries.148 LJ, iii. 132a, 137a.

Meanwhile, the Commons had found a bigger target in the form of Francis Bacon^*, Viscount St Alban, who, as lord chancellor, had been intimately involved in the granting of monopolies, and who also stood accused of judicial corruption. Charges were transmitted from the lower House in mid March, whereupon Andrewes was instructed to help examine the witnesses. As a longstanding friend of St Alban, he must have found this a singularly painful task, but he apparently applied himself to it conscientiously and impartially. On 27 Mar. the Lords ordered that the questioning process should continue during the Easter recess. For the next few days Andrewes was incapacitated by an attack of gout, but thereafter took a prominent part in the proceedings against the lord chancellor. He was appointed to the committee which collated the evidence against St Alban, and when the latter unexpectedly declined to contest the charges against him, Andrewes was sent on 30 Apr. to check that this sudden confession was genuine. Later that day he accompanied Prince Charles when the king was requested to dismiss St Alban from his offices.149 Ibid. 58b, 74a, 80a, 101a; Welsby, 225-6; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 357. Almost immediately a further case of judicial wrongdoing was transmitted to the Lords, this time concerning Sir John Bennet^‡, judge of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. Andrewes was appointed to investigate the corruption charges against Bennet, but otherwise he seems to have shown less interest in this case.150 LJ, iii. 104b.

During the clash between the Lords and Commons over the latter’s attempt to punish the recusant Edward Floyd, Andrewes was selected to help draft a message to the lower House requesting a conference, and then appointed to the committee of both Houses which thrashed out a resolution.151 Add. 40085, f. 115; LJ, iii. 116a. As usual he was named to legislative committees concerned with the crown estates, including the confirmation of grants made by collegiate churches to Elizabeth I, and the relief of royal tenants from dubious claims of concealments.152 LJ, iii. 114b, 126b. Andrewes must have taken a close interest in the bill to confirm the foundation of the Charterhouse Hospital in London, of which he had been a governor since 1611, and will therefore have welcomed his appointment to the committee. He was also named to scrutinize bills to settle the endowment of Wadham College, Oxford, and to improve the maintenance of other hospitals and free schools generally. In March he was nominated to consider a proposal by George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, for a new academy to train young gentlemen and noblemen, but ultimately nothing came of this suggestion.153 Ibid. 32b, 37a, 126b, 136a; Chamberlain Letters, i. 323. According to his biographer Isaacson, Andrewes also voted against a bill relating to Sherborne Castle, a former property of Salisbury diocese which had been ceded to the crown in 1598; it was Andrewes’ opposition to this transaction that had prompted him to turn down the bishopric. This must be a reference to the bill for the restitution in blood of Carew Ralegh^‡, who possessed a claim to this estate. The measure passed its second and third readings in late May, with Andrewes present on both occasions, but as votes in the Lords were not recorded in the Journal during this period it is not possible to confirm Isaacson’s statement.154 Isaacson, sig. **4v; LJ, iii. 132b, 140b; E.R. Foster, House of Lords 1603-49, pp. 52-3; J. Hutchins, Dorset, iv. 214-5; Oxford DNB, ii. 106. Isaacson states that the vote occurred during a Jacobean Parliament; however, Andrewes was not present for the debates on the revived Ralegh bill in 1624.

Four months into this session, most legislation had still not completed its passage through both Houses, and would be lost if Parliament was now dissolved. Andrewes was appointed to the committee for the emergency bill which declared that the king could give his assent to the subsidy bill without triggering a dissolution. He was then selected as a member of the deputation which formally requested James to grant an adjournment; and on 4 June he was one of the commissioners appointed by the king to suspend Parliament’s proceedings until the autumn.155 LJ, iii. 146a, 155a, 158b.

During the recess a number of perceived troublemakers were detained and questioned by the government. Andrewes was drawn into this process, and certainly examined the earl of Southampton. However, he clearly disapproved of the arrest of his fellow scholar, John Selden^‡, for he entertained him to dinner shortly after his release. The bishop was now one of the king’s busiest servants, Chamberlain lamenting that he was ‘so much employed at court, in the High Commission, and other such services’ that he rarely saw him.156 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 385, 392; Add. 72254, f. 41. At this juncture, in July 1621, Archbishop Abbot accidentally killed a gamekeeper while hunting, after which it was widely reported that he had resigned or been dismissed, with Andrewes replacing him.157 Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 275; William Whiteway of Dorchester (Dorset Rec. Soc. xii), 40. In fact, the archbishop retained the king’s support, and instead a commission was set up in October to consider the whole affair. Andrewes was a leading figure in this inquiry and, contrary to all expectations, he gave Abbot his full backing, breaking ranks with his fellow clergy, and ensuring that the archbishop was cleared of irregularity. Given that other anti-Calvinist figures such as Laud rushed to distance themselves from Abbot, Andrewes’ decision was all the more remarkable. According to one report he was simply swayed by Christian compassion for the archbishop’s plight. However, James’s attitude must also have influenced him, and he may well have been reluctant to become archbishop under such circumstances. In the event, it was his last opportunity to become primate, but the episode did much to restore his reputation, in contrast to the Essex divorce case.158 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 295; SP14/123/98; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 406; T. Fuller, Church Hist. of Britain (1655), pt. xi. 126-7.

Meanwhile, the second sitting of the 1621 Parliament opened in late November. This time Andrewes’ attendance rate was poor. Present for the first week or so, he was then absent for several days without explanation, obtained formal leave on 3 Dec., and then appeared for the last time on 5 December. In all, he missed two-thirds of the sitting, and was peripheral to its main events, receiving just two committee nominations for minor bills, one to improve navigation on the Thames, the other to confirm Prince Charles’s purchase of Kenilworth Castle, Warwickshire.159 LJ, iii. 171a, 173b, 178b.

Declining years, 1622-6

Over the next two years Andrewes, who was now in his late sixties, gradually reduced his workload. Preaching was slowly becoming more of an effort for him. Chamberlain heard him at Windsor in August 1622, and observed: ‘his voice grows very low … The weather was very hot, and he so faint and wet that he was fain to go to bed for some little time after he came out of the pulpit’. He now rarely attended the Privy Council, though his influence over ecclesiastical policy increased steadily, and in January 1623 he was one of three bishops given oversight of all business relating to the Irish Church. Andrewes probably helped to draft the king’s new ‘Directions on Preaching’, issued in mid 1622, which effectively banned discussion of contentious issues such as the technicalities of predestination, and encouraged clergy to replace some sermons with catechism classes.160 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 448; APC, 1621-3, p. 398; Fincham, 245. As dean of the Chapel Royal, he also oversaw a major renovation of the chapel at Whitehall Palace, where the altar was railed in, and figurative wall-paintings introduced. At Christmas 1622, reforms were made to the services themselves, with kneeling at communion now mandatory, and congregations instructed to behave with greater decorum. In the following May the king authorized a similar programme of redecoration at Greenwich Palace chapel.161 McCullough, 32-5, 151-2; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 400; Fincham and Tyacke, 119, 121. As the prospect increased of Prince Charles marrying the Infanta, a silver crucifix was even temporarily installed at Whitehall, though significantly Andrewes himself never went that far in his own houses. The portable chapel sent to Spain in the spring of 1623 for the prince’s use probably contained furnishings in keeping with the bishop’s reforms.162 Tyacke, ‘Lancelot Andrewes’, 31-2; R. Cust, Chas. I, 16. Andrewes was one of the privy councillors who swore in July to abide by the Spanish Match articles, which authorized much greater toleration of English recusants. However, when the negotiations collapsed, and Charles and the duke of Buckingham began pushing for war with Spain, he again became anxious that this might herald a Calvinist revival at home. Around October 1623, the prince’s chaplain, Matthew Wren, was summoned to a meeting with Andrewes, Neile and Laud, who questioned him closely about Charles’s views on the future direction of the Church of England, finally accepting his assurances that they had nothing to fear.163 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 185; C. Wren, Parentalia (1750), 45-7.

Andrewes was present for the opening phase of the final Jacobean Parliament in February 1624, but was granted leave of absence on 1 Mar., presumably due to illness, as he failed to deliver his expected Lent sermon at court the next day. Having missed a week, he attended with occasional short breaks in service until late April, and was then absent without explanation for the final month.164 LJ, iii. 237a, 267b; LC5/183, f. 1. In total, he participated for slightly less than half of this session, and received only 15 nominations. He held no proxies this time, and once again he was not recorded as speaking in the Lords.

Apart from his appointment to the committee for privileges, Andrewes attracted no business in the Parliament’s opening weeks.165 LJ, iii. 215a. By the second week of March, when he resumed regular attendance, discussions on how to fund a war against Spain were already well advanced. On 11 Mar. he was named to a conference with the Commons at which Prince Charles clarified the king’s request for supply. The next day, following reports that Catholics were exporting gold bullion, he was nominated to a committee to consider how to prevent this problem and also to a further conference on achieving adequate military spending. This complex issue required yet another conference on 22 Mar., after which the participants attended the king to explain their proposals, Andrewes being named for both tasks.166 Ibid. 256a, 258a-b, 273b,275a. As parliamentary supply would take a long time to collect, the duke of Buckingham suggested meeting immediate needs with a short-term private loan secured against future parliamentary subsidies, and Andrewes was nominated on 1 Apr. for a conference with the Commons to consider this idea, which was not adopted. However, continuing concerns about financial provision for the expected war led to Andrewes receiving yet another conference appointment on 17 Apr. to address this issue.167 Ibid. 285a, 312a.

Alongside the discussion of military preparations, Parliament took steps to guard against the Catholic threat at home. Andrewes was named to the committee for a bill advocating tougher measures to suppress recusancy. He was also required to attend a meeting at which the Commons’ representatives proposed that both Houses should petition the king against recusants. Andrewes subsequently helped present this document to James.168 Ibid. 252b, 287b, 304a. When the king responded to the petition, he cited Andrewes as a witness that he had always tried to discourage the education of recusants’ children in foreign seminaries. Other godly concerns were not entirely forgotten by Andrewes amid this anti-Catholic fervour, as he was appointed yet again to a legislative committee concerned with Sabbath abuses. His interest in patterns of Sunday worship dated back at least to his Cambridge lectures in the 1580s, and was presumably well known in the Lords.169 Ibid. 249b, 318a; Fincham, 233.

Beyond the twin issues of war and religion, little of this Parliament’s other mass of business came Andrewes’ way. Indeed, he received just three further committee nominations, all concerning bills, whose subjects were Sir Horatio Palavicino’s estates, the leases of Prince Charles’s duchy of Cornwall lands, and (once again) the endowment of Wadham College.170 LJ, iii. 263b, 275a, 293a. However, he was mentioned in his absence at the very end of the session. On 29 May, responding to the Commons’ petition of grievances, the king reserved to himself the complaints levelled at Dr Anyan, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and explained that he had already referred them to Andrewes who, as bishop of Winchester, was the college’s visitor.171 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 259.

War with Spain did nothing to ease Andrewes’ fears about the future direction of the Church of England. At Christmas 1624 he launched his strongest attack yet on the Jacobean policy of unity at all costs, which he insisted was of no real value if the fundamental rights and wrongs of Christianity had to be disregarded in order to embrace all shades of Protestant opinion. James apparently ignored this rebuke, and on his deathbed in March 1625 repeatedly requested Andrewes’ ministrations. However the bishop was himself too ill to attend him.172 Fincham, 237; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 608-9; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 5.

The new king, Charles I, apparently contemplated appointing Andrewes as archbishop of Canterbury if a vacancy arose, despite the bishop’s advanced years and growing infirmity. Less than a fortnight after his accession, Charles instructed Laud to visit Andrewes, and ‘learn from him what he would have done in the cause of the Church’. The bishop’s response was not recorded, but he evidently did not recommend a radical policy shift in favour of his fellow anti-Calvinists. Around the same time, Richard Montagu^* (later bishop of Norwich), a high-profile Arminian polemicist, lamented Andrewes’ reluctance to ‘open his mouth and speak out’ in his defence, though in fact the prelate did advise him behind the scenes.173 Cust, 83; Works of Abp. Laud ed. J. Bliss, iii. 160-1; Corresp. of John Cosin ed. G. Ornsby, i (Surtees Soc. lii), 70, 75.

Andrewes attended virtually the whole of the Westminster sitting of the 1625 Parliament, absenting himself only twice, but contributed relatively little to its proceedings. Named to attend a conference with the Commons about the proposed joint petition to the king against recusancy, he was also appointed to attend Charles when the petition was presented.174 Procs. 1625, pp. 48, 78, 97. In addition, he was nominated to the bill committees concerned with the estates of Edward Sackville^*, 4th earl of Dorset, and the maintenance of hospitals. On 9 July, as the most senior bishop of Canterbury province then present, he brought in the grant of clerical subsidies, which had just been agreed by the southern Convocation.175 Ibid. 88, 95, 109. Andrewes was one of the privy councillors who formally instructed Oxford University to prepare to host the Parliament’s second sitting, but he did not attend, nor is he known to have supplied a proxy.176 Ibid. 661.

By now Andrewes was frequently succumbing to sickness, which kept him away from court. For over three months in late 1625 he battled an acute fever that intermittently confined him to bed. He was also increasingly suffering from gout and bladder stones, and in December informed the Privy Council that he was physically incapable of executing an order to confiscate the arms of the recusant peer, William Paulet^*, 4th marquess of Winchester.177 SP16/9/23; 16/11/35. Nevertheless, he remained too important to be excluded from government discussions about the Church. In January 1626, ahead of the York House Conference on the Arminian controversy, he put his name to a letter from the leading anti-Calvinist bishops, including Neile and Laud, which affirmed that Richard Montagu’s views were doctrinally orthodox. This missive was cited at the conference by Buckingham, though Andrewes’ involvement was not revealed.178 Harl. 7000, f. 193; Cust, 89; Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 166.

Predictably, given his poor state of health, Andrewes missed most of the 1626 Parliament. Having attended for the first three days, he obtained leave of absence on 11 Feb., and thereafter appeared in the Lords only for a few days in late April, and on 13 June. He attracted just two nominations, for legislative committees concerned with better maintenance of the ministry, and citations out of ecclesiastical courts. By the time the latter committee met, he was absent again. Ironically, the disgraced John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln, is said to have given Andrewes his proxy for this session after Charles I reluctantly sent him a writ of summons on the understanding that Williams would not use it.179 Procs. 1626, i. 43, 292, 313; Hacket, pt. 2, p. 68.

Andrewes’ illness continued through the summer, apparently without a break.180 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 107; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 356. He drew up his will on 22 Sept., making bequests totalling more than £9,000, including over £2,000 to assorted relatives, £1,000 to his old college, and nearly £1,200 for other charitable purposes.181 PROB 11/150, ff. 1-4v. Andrewes died ‘peaceably and quietly’ at Winchester House three days later, and was buried in St Mary Overie, now Southwark Cathedral.182 Works of Andrewes, v. 297; J.G. Bishop, Lancelot Andrewes (Chichester Pprs. xxxiii), 26. Laud, noting his passing, described him as the ‘great light of the Christian world’, and, with John Buckeridge, published his collected sermons in 1629 by royal command. Andrewes’ volume of private devotions, his Preces Privatae, appeared in 1648, sealing his reputation as a man of deep personal spirituality.183 Works of Abp. Laud, iii. 196; N. Tyacke, ‘Abp. Laud’, Early Stuart Church ed. K. Fincham, 62; Welsby, 264-5.

Writing after the Restoration, Edward Hyde^†, 1st earl of Clarendon claimed somewhat implausibly that if Andrewes had become archbishop of Canterbury in 1611, he would have prevented the puritan excesses that contributed to the Civil War.184 Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion, i. 118. However, by the late seventeenth century such praise was relatively unusual. The bishop’s unique and celebrated style of preaching, which relied heavily on the exhaustive analysis of every word in a scriptural text, had passed out of fashion, the diarist John Evelyn dismissing it as ‘full of logical divisions, in short and broken periods, and Latin sentences’. As a politician, certainly, Andrewes had significant flaws; in recent times he has been described, a little harshly, as ‘a man chronically devoid both of political sense and gumption, unwilling to take the necessary risks to fight for what he believed in’. Andrewes himself admitted that he was addicted to the quiet life, ‘both by nature and choice’, and therein lay the essential contradiction of his career. At heart a scholar, rather than a man of affairs, his intellectual gifts and rhetorical skill made him a Jacobean celebrity. Although often uncomfortable with his public role, he nevertheless exploited his position to promote his personal religious convictions, and in the process became ‘the intellectual progenitor of Laudianism’, paving the way for the anti-Calvinist triumph of Charles I’s reign.185 Welsby, 194; Diary of John Evelyn ed. E.S. de Beer, iv. 330; Lake, 132; Fincham, 279; Fincham and Tyacke, 99.