CHAPTER IX.

1626-1629.

Removal of Laud to the Bishopric of Bath and Wells-His appointment to manage the subsidies by loan-Remarks on his instructions-Apology for the King's conduct-His hazardous situation-Death of Bishop Andrews-Laud's appointment-Bishop Williams-His conduct-Comment on it— Dr. Sibthorpe and Sir John Lamb-Sermons by Dr. Sibthorpe and Dr. Manwaring-Their fallacious positions-Passive obedience-Sentiments of the two preachers—Remarks on the doctrine of non-resistance-Definition of it-The opinions of the Classic writers and the Primitive Christians-Of modern writers-Publication of the sermons-Conduct of Archbishop Abbot-His sequestration-Received again into favour—Public affairs-Transactions of Buckingham-Promotion of Laud -The bishopric of London-Its importance-Dr. Montaigne -Death of Archbishop Matthews of York-The third Parliament-Impolitic measures of the King-Meeting of the Parliament-Conduct of the Commons—Their proceedings— Specimens of their injustice-Their practices-Arminianism -Subtle tenets of Calvin-Remarks on Arminianism-Definition of it-Observations on the Synod of Dort-Remonstrance of the Commons against Laud and Neile-Pretended Letter of a Jesuit-Remarks on it-Practices of the Jesuits-Their union with the Puritans-Prorogation of the ParliamentLaud removed to the Bishopric of London-General observa

tions.

As it is not my intention to go minutely into detail on the general connected history of this momentous

period, except where it illustrates the conduct and actions of this great prelate, the candid reader will perhaps pardon whatever may seem to have been passed over hastily in the former chapter, since it is impossible in these limits to do justice to the events recorded. It is now necessary to follow minutely the order of those times.

Laud had been five years in the See of St. David's, during which period he had been engaged in state affairs, though not unmindful of the welfare of the Church. His fidelity had secured for him the favour of the King, and it was just that his services should be rewarded. On the 4th of May, 1626, Dr. Arthur Lake', Bishop of Bath and Wells, died at London, and on the 20th of June Laud was nominated by the King to the vacant see. After his nomination, we find him preaching before the King and Court at Whitehall, on the 5th of July, a day appointed as a solemn fast, partly on account of the pestilence yet raging in many parts of the kingdom, and partly on account of the danger of enemies threatening us." This sermon was afterwards published by command of the King, and is the fourth of those preached on

This prelate was at first Warden of New College, Oxford, then Master of the Hospital of St. Cross, Dean of Worcester, and, finally, Bishop of Bath and Wells. He was brother to Sir Thomas Lake, Secretary to King James. He was a man of most exemplary piety and great learning.

Heylin, p. 151. Fuller, book xi. p. 126. Wood, Athen. Oxon. vol. iii.

2 Diary, p. 34.

public occasions1.

On the 16th of August he was translated to Bath and Wells, and on the 19th of September he had restitution of the temporalities 2.

About this period Laud was appointed by Charles to draw out certain instructions for the Archbishops, Bishops, and Clergy of the kingdom. The two Parliaments had refused to grant the King the usual subsidies, and taking an ungenerous advantage of his necessities, they had acted in a manner which warranted their immediate dissolution. As nothing could be got from the Parliament, the King's only resource was by way of loan, since, though bills for three subsidies had passed, the Parliament had been dissolved before they had become acts of statute. The sum of 173,4117.

was deemed equal to three subsidies, which was the sum required to be raised, and as the King, had already pledged the crown plate and jewels, and sold property to the city of London to the amount of 120,0007. he had no other resource than this expedient. Had the Parliament been actuated less by the outrageous enthusiasm of Puritanism; had they, instead of appointing committees on reli

1

They were all published in 4to. in the respective years they were preached, viz. 1621, 1622, 1625, 1626, and 1628.

2 Diary, p. 35, 36. Under August 25, we find the following entry. "Friday, two robin-redbreasts flew together through the door into my study, as if one pursued the other. That sudden motion almost startled me. I was then preparing a sermon on Ephes. iv. 30, and studying."

gion, transacted the business of the nation, and left the concerns of religion to those whose duty it was, as well from their education as from their responsibility, to superintend them, Charles would never have been compelled to have had recourse to such expedients to preserve his own dignity, and his honour towards his allies. But the public encouragement of schismatics, whose hatred towards the Church even exceeded that of the Papists, fomented the sectarian fanaticism of the times, and cherished that dangerous spirit which was destined to run to fearful extremes. The King, actuated by his regard for the Protestant Reformation, and bound by his political relations, wished to aid his uncle, the King of Denmark, who was as much involved as himself with the Kings of France and Spain, their common enemies; but his Parliament had disappointed him, his subsidies were denied, and he himself, who, from his situation, was held as the grand supporter of the Reformed Faith, was rendered ridiculous in the eyes both of the Protestant and Popish states of Europe.

The King's instructions were communicated to Laud through the Duke of Buckingham, by whom he was given to understand, that he was to prepare letters to be issued to the two archbishops, and their suffragans, the contents of which were to be communicated by the latter to the inferior clergy, and by them to the people, persuading them to pay cheerfully the taxations necessary to be imposed upon them, since it was for the general peace of

nd Christendom, and the welfare of the Protestant reit ligion. The instructions, as Laud informs us, were p" partly political, and partly ecclesiastical, in the

66

cause of the King of Denmark," and were to be S published in every parish of the kingdom. The Bishop engaged in this confidential duty with his wonted alacrity, more especially as he saw the King's peculiar situation, and knew well the proceedings of the Puritans in the two dissolved Parliaments. A few days after he received the royal commands, he had his instructions prepared; they were first read to the Duke, and then to the King, who expressed his approbation, and they finally received the full assent of the Lords of the Privy Council. They were issued in the form of a letter from the King to the two Archbishops, and were by them communicated to their suffragans, who in turn published them in their respective dioceses.

It is, perhaps, a difficult matter to justify these instructions: not that Laud, as the author or writer of them, is to blame, because he only acted as a faithful servant to the King; but because they afford a dangerous precedent, which, were it followed, would be attended with the worst consequences. It appears from these instructions', that the people were to be taxed without the consent of Parliament, or without an investigation of its necessity by their representatives in the Lower House. It is, indeed, true, that the nation had never been represented in