ive them of all further
opportunity of resisting it. The ministers were much perplexed as to
whether they should go or stay, but at last they decided to face all
risks and obey the King's summons.

On reaching London at the end of August (1606), they got a warm welcome
from many ministers in the city who were friendly to their cause. They
were offered hospitality by their Graces of Canterbury and York, but
they declined a meeting with these prelates till they had seen the
King. They soon learned that the King's object in bringing them to
London was that they might be set to the public discussion of the
affairs of the Church. This the ministers, for many good reasons, were
resolved not to do: they could be no parties to any proceedings which
brought into question the Church's discipline, and they had no warrant
for taking part in such proceedings. With whom were they to hold debate?
The English prelates could find within their own Church those who would
take them up in regard to the merits of their ecclesiastical system: and
the two Scottish archbishops who had come to London to be present at the
conference between the King and the eight brethren, could not open their
mouths against Presbytery, as the ministers had brought with them
documents, in which these prelates had bound themselves to maintain the
established constitution of the Presbyterian Church.

The ministers were nearly a month in London before they met the King,
who had been making a tour in England. The first interview between them
took place at Hampton Court on 20th September. The King was in good
humour, and very familiar; he bantered James Balfour on the length to
which his beard had grown since they last met in Edinburgh, and was
gracious all round.

Next day was the Sabbath, when they were all enjoined by the King to
attend a service in the Royal Chapel, to be conducted by Dr. Barlow,
Bishop of Rochester. They had been brought to London to be schooled
into conformity; and as part of the process, the English bishops had
been commanded to prepare a series of sermons for their benefit. These
were such a travesty on the texts of Scripture they were supposed to
expound, that if they had been addressed to the ministers' own
congregations in Scotland, the humblest of their hearers would have
resented them. Whatever these bishops could do, they certainly could not
preach. They belonged to that section of the clergy who disparage the
preacher's function in c