t ' Order-Book' Gray's Inn, p. 16, Segar MS.
X In Carter's History of the University of Cambridge (pp. 202-6), and Graduati Cantabrigienses, Dr Brownrig is erroneously stated to have been elected Master of Catharine Hall in 1631. Even so accurate a writer as Mr Russell (' Memorials of Fuller', p. 114) repeats the blunder.
§ ' Dr Woodelark.' The Cambridge Antiquarian Society have published a Cata- logue of Books presented by the founder to ' Catharine HaU.'
I MEMOIE OF RICHAKD SIBBES, D.D.
It had some subsequent 'benefactors,' among whom appear, earlier and later, Barnardistons and Clajrpoles. At the period of Sibbes's election, the buildings were dilapidated, the revenues limited, the students few in number. But he threw his whole soul into his office, and speedily not only attracted a fair share of young men, but also persuaded his many noble and wealthy friends to become ' benefactors.' So early as 1G30, there were no fewer than twenty- eight new entries of students ; and, by that time, the hall was reno- vated and adorned.
Sibbes entered on his mastership in ' troublous times.' When deprived of his ' lectureship' at Trinity — which in all probability, as we said, originated with the memorial addressed to him by the parishioners — he was succeeded by a John Jeffrey, of Pembroke Hall, wha resigned in 1621. Upon his resignation a remarkable contest for the situation ensued. The ' townsmen' — who were now leavened with Puritanism through his preaching, and that of his associates — were desirous of electing Dr Preston ; and to make it better worth his acceptance, raised the stipend from i?-iO or i?50, to £80 a year. He was opposed by Paul Micklethwaite, fellow of Sidney College, who was supported by the Bishop of Ely, Francis White, a creature of Laud's, and the heads of colleges. It is diffi- cult to understand on what plea there was interference with the ' townsmen.' They had themselves originated the lectureship ; had themselves appointed Sibbes, had themselves supported it. But the matter came before the king at Boyston, and so intense was the royal wish to root out Puritanism, his primate inciting him to the dastardly work, that Dr Preston was actually offered a bishopric, the see of Gloucester being then void. He refused to withdraw. He accepted and entered upon the lectureship. AU honour to the ma,n who spurned a mitre, its honours and revenues alike, when offered at the price of proving false to the earnest desires of 'the people' to have the gospel, the very gospel, preached to them, — wherein, in the high but truthful enco- mium of Goodwin, he did ' bow his more sublime and raised parts to lowest apprehension.'* When Sibbes returned to Cambridge therefore, he found in Preston one like-minded, while equally did Preston find in him one worthy to stand by his side, and ' display a banner because of the truth.'
Preston and Sibbes, from the date of the mastership of the latter, were the two great centres of influence in Cambridge, in so far as the preaching of the gospel was concerned. They loved one an- other with a love that was something wonderful. They were as * To the Reader. . , . Sermons before Hia Majesty, 1630. 4to.
MEMOIR OF EICHARD SIBBES, D.D. K
David and Jonathan in earlier, and as Lutlier and Melanclithon in later, days. They were never found apart when anything was to be done for theie Master. To the last it was so ; and when the prematurely old Master of ' Emmanuel' died, he left all his papers to his beloved friend the Master of Catharine Hall, along with John Davenport, sending words of kindly greeting by Lord Say and Seale to Gray's Inn. As Sibbes's return to Cambridge, and association with Preston, formed a marked era in his life and hfe-work, it is needful to dwell for a little on the history of his friend. Dr Preston was a man of extraordinary force of character and splendour of eloquence, and burned with the zeal of a seraph. Very remarkable were his antecedents. For years, like John Cotton, he had been the glory of the ' wits ' fc his learning and faculty of utterance. But by John Cotton's first sermon after his 'change,' he had been smitten as between joints and marrow, soul and spirit, and thenceforward had known nothing but Christ Jesus crucified. Cotton Mather tells the story of his conversion finely, and we may pause over it for a moment. ' Some time after this change upon the soul of Mr Cotton,' he says, ' it came to his turn again to preach at St Mary's ; and because he was to preach, an high expectation was raised through the whole university that they should hear a sermon flourishing indeed with all the learning of the whole university. Many diffi- culties had Mr Cotton in his own mind, and what course to steer.' And then he proceeds to tell how he decided ' to preach a plain sermon, even such a sermon as in his own conscience he thought would be most pleasing unto the Lord Jesus Christ ; and he discoursed practically and powerfully, but very solidly, upon the plain doctrine of repentance.' What then ? * The vain Avits of the university, disappointed thus with a more excellent sermon, that shot some troublesome admonitions into their consciences, discovered their vexation at this disappointment by their not humming, as according to their sinful and absurd custom they had formerly done ; and the vice-chancellor, for the very same reason also, graced him not as he did others that pleased him. Never- theless,' adds Mather, 'the satisfaction which he enjoyed in his own faithful soul abundantly compensated unto him the loss of any human favour or honour ; nor did he go without many en- couragements from some doctors, then having a better sense of religion upon them, who prayed him to persevere in the good way of preaching which he had now taken.' And then he continues, with exultation, ' But perhaps the greatest consolation of all, was a notable effect of the sermon then preached. The famous Dr