clergyman) at the beginning of the eighteenth century; another by the excellent Bishop Horne in the later part of the century; another by J. H. N[ewman] of the first part only, which was published first in the ‘Tracts for the Times,’ and afterwards in a separate form, the second part also being translated and bound up with it. They have reached the hearts of all classes of Christians, even of those who have differed most widely from the writer's views. Few prelates have had less sympathy with the school of thought to which Andrewes unquestionably belonged than the late Archbishop Tait; and yet he adopted Andrewes as his manual of devotion during all the later years of his life, and it was the very last devotional book which was used with him on his death-bed. Among his many admirers Bishop Hacket may be noticed, who knew him well, and concludes an eloquent panegyric with the question: ‘Who could come near the shrine of such a saint, and not offer up a few grains of glory upon it?’ (Life of Williams, p. 45). Andrewes died a bachelor; he was buried at St. Saviour's, Southwark, his old friend, Bishop Buckeridge, preaching the funeral sermon.
[Andrewes's Works in the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology; Exact Narrative of the Life and Death of Bishop Andrewes, 1650 (H. Isaacson); Russell's Life and Works of Lancelot Andrewes, 1863; Teale's Lives of English Divines, 1846; Fuller's Church History and Worthies; The St. James's Lectures, second series, Lecture 3, 1876; articles on Andrews, or Andrewes, in the Biographia Britannica and Hook's Ecclesiastical Biography; Prynne's Canterburie's Doome, 1646; Dean Church's Essay on Lancelot Andrewes, in Masters in English Theology; and the various editions of the Devotions with the Introductions, &c.]
ANDREWS, EUSEBIUS (d. 1650), royalist, of good family ‘but inconsiderable estate’ in Middlesex, was secretary to Lord Capel and a barrister (probably of Lincoln's Inn). Early in the civil war he joined the king's army; but on the surrender of Worcester in 1645, despairing of the success of his cause, he returned to the private practice of his former profession. He did not acknowledge the party in power, either by compounding for his ‘delinquency,’ or by subscription to the covenant and the tests which succeeded it. But his course of life, however retired, could not escape the vigilance of the regicide rulers, his actions, for years together, being as well known to the council of state ‘as if they had kept a diary for him.’ John Barnard, a major formerly under his command, was his frequent visitor, and ‘obtruded upon his acquaintance two cavaliers, Captain Holmes, and John Benson, a copying clerk under Rushworth—who proposed to take advantage of the discontent of the dismissed parliamentary officers, and of their repentant desire to serve the young king. It was suggested that Andrews should go into Cambridgeshire, to ascertain whether an old plan of his for the surprise of the Isle of Ely were still feasible; but this project was abandoned on the failure of the royalist movements in Scotland and Ireland. An ordinance having passed that all who had not taken the prescribed tests should leave London, Andrews prepared to quit England, and was in treaty with Sir Edward Plowden for some land in New Albion, when Barnard persuaded him to remain, on pretence of a rising to be headed by ‘persons of quality’ in Kent, Dorset, and Bucks. Andrews was induced to subscribe this new royalist ‘engagement,’ and to endeavour to draw in Sir John Gell, of Hopton, who was known to be influential and disaffected. But Gell, though protesting his loyalty, was too wary to commit himself; and Andrews, finding that the whole scheme was a delusion, prepared to carry out his former resolution of leaving the country, when he was arrested at Gravesend (24 March 1650). Barnard had been the spy of the council, and had only delayed the arrest of Andrews that other cavaliers might be, through him, decoyed to a like ruin. On his arrival in London, Andrews was examined by President Bradshaw, Sir Henry Mildmay, and Thomas Scott, with a view of extorting admissions to be used against others. Disappointed in this, they committed him to the Tower on a charge of treason in endeavouring to subvert the government; and the evidence of this design was furnished by the ‘Narrative’ he had himself handed in. Andrews charged Bradshaw with setting spies to trepan him, and Bradshaw acknowledged and defended the practice. Andrews was kept close prisoner for sixteen weeks. As prisoners then had to bear their own expenses, ‘his score for necessaries was swollen beyond his ability to discharge,’ and ‘his friends were not permitted to visit or relieve him’ (a few persons were allowed to see him on law business only in the presence of the lieutenant) (State Papers, Dom. 1650). Having vainly petitioned the council four times for a pardon or a speedy trial, he addressed the same prayer to the parliament. The answer was his arraignment before the high court of justice (16 Aug.), where the attorney-general, Prideaux, urged his condemnation on the evidence of his own ‘Narrative.’ Andrews demurred to the jurisdiction of the tribunal, as a mere court-martial,
