A HISTORY OF DURHAM 



A letter of Richard (afterwards Bishop) Montague, written to congratu- 

 late Cosin on his promotion to a prebend, indicates the methods of the new 

 school, and the advice which its leaders gave : — 



All that I now advise you is, do nothing suddenly nor without my Lord [Neile]. Make 

 him your counsellor that is the author of them [his preferments] to you. So he can not 

 take it but well, and you shall further engage him. A most honest, thorough friend he is, 

 and such must be held omni modo. Refer all to him so shall you hold and endear him.^^* 



We cannot clearly trace the progress of Arminian influence outside Durham 

 through the diocese,'*" but when we take into consideration the number of 

 benefices held by the little knot of prebendaries, and the opportunities of 

 influence enjoyed by the archdeacons in their visitations and at other times, it 

 is natural to conclude that the impress left upon the 1 18 parishes then exist- 

 ing in the county of Durham'" would be profound. There is no surface 

 proof that resentment was widely felt towards innovations which were intro- 

 duced. If opposition was manifested it came probably from the clergy 

 themselves. Two of the prebendaries were conspicuous in this connexion. 

 Robert Hutton, son of the former bishop, and rector of Houghton-le-Spring, 

 preached a 'reflecting' sermon in the cathedral in 1621, taking occasion to 

 give his own views as to ' the king, the bishop, and the church ceremonies.' 

 Peter Smart became famous throughout England "' for the fierceness of his 

 attack upon the changes at the cathedral. Under Neile he had contented 

 himself by staying away from Holy Communion, perhaps limiting his protest 

 to this negative action out of friendship for his former schoolfellow. Neile 

 was translated in 1627, and Monteigne was appointed bishop, but was trans- 

 ferred to York after three months. During the vacancy which followed. 

 Smart, as the senior prebendary, save one, undertook a manifesto against the 

 spread of Arminianism. This took the form of a sermon at the July assize, 

 1628, when the cathedral echoed with the violent recital of all that had been 

 done in the way of innovation. The sermon, ' almost Miltonic in the strain 

 of its invective,' was at once considered at a sitting of all the available mem- 

 bers of the recently reappointed High Commission to the province of York. 

 Suspended after a month or two by this court, Smart had his case transferred to 

 the London High Commission at Lambeth, which deposed, degraded, and fined 

 him /^500.'*^ Smart might have found the money, for friends were ready to 

 help him, but he preferred to languish in prison, from which he was only 

 released some ten years later by the Long Parliament in its early sittings. 

 The whole case is important as illustrating the Laudian changes in progress, 

 and also because there is no evidence to show that there was any real volume 

 of sympathy with him. Indeed, his wife in a curious letter tells him to make 

 the most of his case, because ' there is not one man that will shew himself in 

 all this country for you but Mr. Wright.''^" In the growing irritation felt 



"' Surtees See. Puhl. cii, Cosin' s Correspondence, 35. 



^^ In certain articles exhibited before the High Commission in 1630 {Cosin's Correspondence, i, 165) it is 

 alleged : 'All which your abominations both town and country began to imitate ... to the complaint of all 

 well affected people in the king's dominions.' 



'" So summed from Camden's Map by a writer in S.P. Dom. Addenda, 1 580-1625, vol. 43, No. 4. 



^^ Surtees, Hist. ofDur. i, 149. 



^'^ The best source of information is C. Hunter, Illustration of Mr. D. Neal's Hist, of the Puritans, 1736 ; a 

 summary of the case in Diet. Nat. Biog, ; cf. too, Gardiner, Hist, of Engl, vii, 44. 



^ Hunter, op. cit. 64. 



44 



