Both were eminent men; but, as it appears to us, the one was better fitted for the duties of the pastor, and the other for the chair of the evangelical professor.

The writings of Ames prove that he was a profound theologian, a careful expositor of Scripture, and a learned casuist. The chief of them were published during his professorship at Franeker.* During the same period, also, he was summoned to act as one of the synod of Dort,† and, it is reported, furnished the English ambassador with notes of the respective arguments advanced on both sides. But his constitution proved too feeble for his arduous duties, and after twelve years of eminent service, he resigned his professorship. Moreover, the air of Franeker was thought to be too keen for him, and he was therefore advised to remove to a more congenial neighbourhood. Besides this, he was very anxious to resume the office of pastor and preacher, which he had of necessity relinquished some years before. He, therefore, accepted the invitation of the English congregation at Rotterdam to become their co-pastor with Hugh Peters, and went to reside in that town. Here, also, his health failed him, and he determined if possible to leave Holland for New England. But, like Robinson before him, he was not permitted to gratify his desires.

nians, as offered in the synod of Dort. being used as a text-book in our colleges.

The last is still worthy of

* Besides those mentioned already, he published during this period his "Medulla Theologica;" notes in English and Latin on both Epistles of Peter, under the title of "Explicatio utriusque Epistolæ S. Petri ;" a work against Socinianism, or the "De Incarnatione Verbi ;" a work against popery, entitled, "Bellarminus Enervatus;" a very celebrated book on cases of conscience; and some others.

† Coronis, præfatio.

While he was engaged in the composition of his last work, entitled “A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God's Worship,"* his health failed, and mortal sickness ensued. He died in the early part of November, 1633.†

The position occupied by Ames in relation to the religious parties of his day, has been variously estimated. At one period we find Robinson regarding him as an antagonist; at a much later period, Canne, who succeeded Ainsworth at Amsterdam, endeavoured to vindicate the separatists from his censures. The explanations we have already given respecting the difference between the separatists and the rigid puritans, will account for this seeming variance. Ames was a Congregational Independent, yet, in theory, against separation from the church of England. He not only agreed with Robinson, in regarding with affection all the godly, and all the congregations of the godly within her pale; he admitted the right of the magistrate to interfere, in some degree, in ecclesiastical matters, and wrote severely against those who gloried in their separation from what they deemed an iniquitous and unscriptural system. Thus he did some injury to the reputation of his fellow-exiles, amongst the conformists and puritan nonconformists; which Canne sought, not

* Thomas Hooker, who assisted Ames between 1630 and 1633, edited and, in part, wrote this work. It was of great service; and is referred to by Baxter as conferring great benefit upon him, when he was beginning to inquire into matters ecclesiastical. Orme's Life of Baxter, i, 23.

His widow and children went to New England the next spring, taking over with them "his valuable library." Fuller's Cambridge, 222; Neal, i. 579.

without considerable success, to repair.* At the same time he was opposed to the power of synods and classes; and in some of his writings shows that he objected to the temper of the separatists, much more than to their separation. On the whole, his position was one of great eminence, and his death was lamented as a public loss. Learned Amesius," says Hugh Peters, "breathed his last breath into my bosom, who left his professorship in Friesland to live with me, because of my church's Independency, at Rotterdam. He was my colleague and chosen brother to the church where I was an unworthy pastor."+

"With the coming forth of this book into the light,” says Hooker, in his preface to the Fresh Suit, "the learned and famous author, Dr. Ames, left the light, or darkness rather, of this world, a pattern of holiness, a burning and shining light, a lamp of learning and arts, a champion of truth." Thus did they speak of him, who knew him best; but the testimony of all his contemporaries is to the same effect.

* Hanbury, i. 515-524, 533. Canne's work is entitled, "A Necessity of Separation from the Church of England proved by the Nonconformists' Principles, specially opposed to Dr. Ames his Fresh Suit against Human Ceremonies, in the point of Separation only; also Dr. Leighton, Mr. Dayrell, and Mr. Bradshaw are here answered, wherein they have written against us." (1634.) † Ibid., i. 257.

CHAPTER V.

INDEPENDENCY FROM THE DEATH OF ARCHBISHOP ABBOT TO THE LONG PARLIAMENT. 1633-1640.

THE elevation of Laud to the see of Canterbury, was one of those measures which proved either the infatuation of King Charles or the perfect identity of their spirit and aims. The probability of the case is in favour of the latter view; since on Laud's first appearance at court, after the vacancy of Lambeth had been certified, he was saluted by the title of "My Lord's Grace of Canterbury." The question of Abbot's successor had in fact been settled long ago.* It is said, that Rome offered at this particular period to make him a cardinal; an offer which, according to his own statement, he somewhat reluctantly declined. If he had anticipated the issue of the conflict in which he was about to plunge the nation, he might probably have overcome his reluctance, and given a new turn to the course of public affairs.

One of Laud's first steps, after his promotion, was to enforce the provisions of the Book of Sports, notwithstanding the decision of the judges respecting its demoralizing influence on the people. During their Western Circuit in 1631, Richardson, the Lord Chief

*Laud was at this time also Chancellor of Oxford and Dublin Universities, Privy-counsellor for England and Scotland, First Commissioner of the Exchequer, &c.

Justice, and Baron Denham, had, in compliance with the request of the justices of the peace, and with the unanimous consent of the whole bench, made an order for suppressing "revels, church ales, and clerk ales,” on the Sunday; and, acting in accordance with precedent, had required every parish minister to read the order in the parish church, twice a year. Their object in thus acting, was to prevent the great excesses and crimes that had been committed in consequence of these religious customs. As soon, however, as the matter came to the knowledge of the archbishop, he cited Richardson before the Council by order of his majesty, charged him with invading the episcopal jurisdiction, reprimanded him in the severest terms, and charged him to reverse the order at the next assizes. The Lord Chief Justice obeyed, but in such a manner as to show that he was unchanged in his opinion. At the ensuing assizes he declared before his brother justices, "that he thought he had done God, the king, and his country good service by that good order that he and his brother Denham had made, for suppressing unruly wakes and revels; but that it had been misreported to his majesty, who had expressly charged him to reverse it. Accordingly (says he,) I do, as much as in me lies, reverse it, declaring the same to be null and void, and that all persons may use their recreations at such meetings as before."

The people, it is said, were fond of these recreations, -a point which need not be questioned. The justices of the peace, however, regarded this interference with deep regret, and signed a petition to the king, in which they declare that these revels had led to the profanation of the Lord's day, to riotous. tippling, contempt of authority, quarrels, murder,