Page images


that his majesty's instructions were punctually observed in CHARLES their dioceses; and that in other respects they were likewise in a regular condition: the bishop of Chichester's certificate is much to the same purpose : only he adds, that this diocese is not so much troubled with Puritan ministers, as with Puritan justices of peace; of which it seems there were a great many: the rest of the dioceses returning nothing remarkably amiss, I shall pass them over.

. This was the last annual information the archbishop sent the king. Now, if we consider the condition of the Church at Laud's coming to Canterbury, we shall find him very successful in his administration : and had not the rebellion come on, and thrown him out of his seat, he would, in all likelihood, either have converted, or crushed, the Puritan sect, and recovered his province to an entire conformity.

But now the English faction being animated by the king's late indulgence to the Scots, the times grew disturbed, and the government was much embarrassed. To relieve his majesty under these difficulties, the earl of Strafford, lord deputy of Ireland, the archbishop of Canterbury, and the marquis of Hamilton, advised the calling a parliament; it was likewise Hist. of the resolved at the board to give the king an extraordinary assist- Troubles,

&c. ance, in case the houses should prove incompliant, and refuse Archbishop

Laud's the passing of subsidies ?.

Diary, p. 59. · The divine theory of kingship, set forth in Scripture and illustrated by the Fathers, was unhappily little understood in the times of the Stuarts. That divine theory combines all that is true in the doctrines of Filmer on one side, and Locke on the other. It supposes that king and people are alike parts of one political system,—the head and members of one political personification. As such, both king and people possess not only certain united, but certain distinct rights, which must be mutually respected in order to produce syncretic harmony, so warmly eulogized by Cicero in his treatise “De Republicâ.” The king, as supreme head, is doubtless to be reverenced and obeyed under God with every possible submission consistent with the conscience of the subject. So far Filmer is right. But there always exists a possibility that kings may exceed their office, and command things that are notoriously opposed to the laws of God and nature, or impossible in themselves. Now, in such case there may be many who think themselves as subjects bound to obey the constitutional power at all risks, believing that the moral responsibility of wrong orders rests with the sovereign from whom they emanate. But there will likewise be many for “quot homines tot sententiæ,” who agree with Locke, and think their own consciences bound to an act of discrimination, and feel themselves obligated to resist all commands opposed to their private convictions of right. Both these classes of men take their stand upon the text, “it is better to obey God than the monarch," when their injunctions can be proved irreconcileable. But questions are continually arising between them in critical predicaments, whether the law of God and the monarch are reconcileable or not, and how far one involves and implies the other. In this dilemına, the divine or biblical theory comes to our aid, and shows us that the rights of conscience, in king and people, are reciprocally to be

A.D. 1640.

LAUD, Upon the thirteenth of April the parliament met at WestAbp. Cant.

minster. Soon after the opening of the session the king sent a ment meets at message to the lower house, to put them in mind of supplies ; Westminster, reporting the intolerable usage he had received from the Scots; and, not givin 7 satis- and declaring, that provided they granted him an aid suitable faction, is quickly dis

to the occasion, he would give up his claim of ship money, and solved. satisfy all other reasonable demands : but the commons, as

things were managed, were in no disposition for compliance; they insisted upon farther securities for property, for better settlement of religion, and for privilege of parliament. Now the question was, whether the king's message, or the commons' request, was first to be considered? After several conferences between the two houses, the lords voted a preference for the king's business, and the commons for that of the subject : but this dispute was quickly ended, no less unfortunately than it began : for secretary Vane being ordered to acquaint the commons in what proportion the king desired to be assisted,


respected; that both must be allowed to exert their proper influence in their respective spheres; and that neither can violate the other with impunity. The New Testament frequently enforces this sublime philosophy. It shows that there exists a universal intermembership in all social constitutions: that the head cannot say to the members, I have no need of you ; nor the members to the head, We have no need of you. The application of this doctrine, in the form of a fable, once saved the Roman empire from ruin. But in the time of the Stuarts, the quiet voice of truth was drowned in the dissonance of polemics, and Britain fell a sacrifice to the madness of her sects and parties. The biblical system of mutual charity, mutual concession, and reciprocal toleration, was kept out of sight. The king on one side wished to be absolute, and the parliament on the other wished to be absolute. That holy and blessed syncretism, which endeavours to combine all that is truest and best in every sect and party, without indifferentism, and without confusion,—without partiality, and without hypocrisy, was trampled in the dust, by tyranny on one side and rebellion on the other. That admirable maxim, “Live and let live,” which might have proved the salvation of the nation, was obliterated from the memory of men by exacerbated bigotry and exclusivenesss ; and so universal conflict and revolution ensued. I am the more anxious to take the initiative, in restoring the divine theory of government, which reconciles the respective verities of Filmer and Locke; for the country is even now threatened with many of the calamities that obtained in the days of the Stuarts; and if our sects, parties, schisms, and factions, proceed in their virulent altercations, the integrity of the British empire will be once more demolished. In attempting to produce this reconciliation between Filmer and Locke,-both of them men of admirable worth and sagacity,—it will probably be found, that Filmer is far nearer to the truth of monarchical politics than his antagonist, though he exaggerates many arguments in the ex-parte spirit of an advocate. Locke's books on government, though invaluable as counter-pleas on the other side of the question, necessary to balance the reason of the student, and restore the equipoise of his judgment; yet taken by themselves apart, are fraught with sophistry and danger. Hence those men who swear by Locke as their sole authority, not only become party men, but party men peculiarly dangerous to a monarchical constitution, should they get the ascendancy. They are so because, taking only a one-sided view of the case, they sacrifice the royal prerogative without compunction; call that independence which is, in fact, rebellion; and hurry all the institutions of society into revolution and anarchy.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


tion at St.







proposed twelve subsidies; whereas, it was said, he had ex- CHARLES press orders to mention no more than six : this being looked on as an excessive demand, shocked the commons, and threw


May 5, them off their temper: and thus proceeding to some unaccept- A.D. 1640. able debates, the king, despairing of any good issue, by the advice of his council, dissolved the parliament.

To give some account of the convocation : this provincial A convocasynod met April the 14th, at the chapter-house of St. Paul's. Paul's

. The sermon was preached by Dr. Turner, residentiary of that L'Estranye,

, church. His text was Matt. xvi. 16,

Behold, I send you K. Charles. forth as sheep in the midst of wolves.” In the close of Lord Clathe sermon, he took notice, that all the bishops did not Hist, of the hold the reins of discipline equally strait ; that some of them Rebellion, were too remiss and indulging ; that though, by this popular Rushworth’s bias, they might gain the reputation of gentle governors, part 2. they disserved the rest of their order, and made them pass Synodus for men of rigour. He therefore exhorted them to act up


Append. to the rubric and canons, and insist upon a strict conformity. After sermon, Dr. Richard Stuart, clerk of the closet, and dean of Chichester, was presented prolocutor. When this They receive matter was settled, and the customary ceremonies

a commisover, the

sion under archbishop produced a commission, under the broad seal, ena- the broad

seal for bling the two houses to consult and agree upon the explanation altering the or altering any canons then in force, or for the making such making new new ones as should be thought convenient for the government of the Church. The commission was to remain in force during the present session of parliament, and no longer. By a remarkable clause in this instrument, nothing could be done without the archbishop's being a party at the consultation.

Cyprian. The latitude of this commission was very acceptable to the p. 423.

Anglic. majority ; and, by way of acknowledgment for the trust his Synod.

Anglican. majesty had lodged with them, they granted him six subsidies, at the rate of four shillings in the pound, to be paid within six years. After this, the archbishop brought in a canon" for suppressing the farther growth of popery.” This was put into the hands of the prolocutor, with directions that the lower Some new house might enlarge and alter it as they thought proper. But afterwards, Laud, considering this canon proceeding wholly from himself might wipe off some aspersions and prove serviceable to his reputation, recalled the paper into his own hands, and, after a review, returned it to the lower house in


[ocr errors]


ones made.

LAUD, the same form it stands at present. While this matter was Abp. Cant.

settling, a canon was drawn“ for the better keeping the day of his majesty's inauguration.” Another canon was levelled against the spreading the Socinian heresy. The next provision was

a restraint of sectaries. By this canon it was decreed, that all those proceedings and penalties, mentioned in the canon against popish recusants, should, as far as they are applicable, stand in full force and vigour against all Anabaptists, Brownists, Separatists, Familists, or other sects whatsoever, who refuse repairing to their parish-churches for hearing divine service and receiving the holy communion.

Thus far the convocation had gone when the parliament was unfortunately dissolved ; and possibly this ecclesiastical meeting had broken up the next day, according to customary practice, if one of the lower house had not acquainted the archbishop with a precedent of queen Elizabeth's time, to encourage them to continue their session. This precedent, entered upon the convocation-records, was an authority that the clergy might grant a subsidy, and levy it by the force of synodical acts, without a parliamentary confirmation. From this instance, the majority, inferring an independency of the convocation upon the parliament, adjourned themselves several times, with a design to enter upon business and enlarge the number of their canons. However, not a few of the members were surprised at this resolve, because their continuing the meeting was plainly crossing upon common usage ; and, besides, the powers granted in the commission above-mentioned were to expire at the recess of the parliament. To remove these scruples, it was alleged, on the other side, that the writs for calling a parliament and convocation were couched in different forms, and no way depending upon each other; and -which reinforced the argument—the present convocationwrit, and the commission enabling them to make canons, were distinct instruments. From whence the inference is, that, though the commission determined with the dissolution of the parliament, yet, by virtue of the writ, they were to remain

a convocation till dissolved by another writ. This reasoning had Synod. its effect upon several of the members. However, to give farAnglican. Append.

ther satisfaction, the king put the question to the most eminent

lawyers then at court, who delivered their resolution in these May 14. words: “That the convocation, called by the king's writ, is to

p. 33.


The lord

convocation may


of the par

Ch. Hist.

continue till it be dissolved by the king's writ, notwithstanding CHARLES the dissolution of the parliament.” This opinion was signed by Finch, lord keeper ; Manchester, lord privy seal; Littleton, keeper, sevechief justice of the Common Pleas ; Banks, attorney-general ; ral of the

judyjes, foc. and Whitfield and Heath, two of his majesty's council, learned declare the in the law. To fortify this resolution, a new commission was sent the two houses, to remain in force during the king's fully sit

after the pleasure. Notwithstanding this encouragement, Dr. Brownrig, dissolution Dr. Hacket, Dr. Holdsworth, Mr. Warmistry, with others, to liament. the number of thirty-six, protested against the continuance of the convocation. But, in regard the session was warranted by Fuller's so many considerable persons of the long robe, these dissenting book 2. members neither withdrew from the house, nor entered their p. 168. protest in scriptis, or form of law.

And now the convocation, somewhat reassured, went on with their business, though, it must be said, the prospect was dark, and the juncture very discouraging: for five hundred of May 11. the mob had lately made a midnight march to Lambeth, and attacked the archbishop's palace two hours; but, being disap- Archbishop pointed in their malice, and forced to retire, they resolved to Diarys assault the convocation. The king, being informed of the danger, ordered them a guard, consisting of some companies of the trained bands of Middlesex, commanded by Endymion Porter, groom of the bedchamber, a loyal and well-affected gentleman.

The canons passed in this convocation being in Sparrow's collection, and easily met with, I shall neither transcribe nor abstract them. It may be sufficient to add the titles of those already unmentioned. The second, third, fourth, and fifth have been already related. The first is entitled, “ Concerning the Regal Power.” This canon carries the regale to a remarkable height, and declares strongly for passive obedience. The title of the sixth stands thus : “ An Oath enjoined for the Preventing of all Innovations in Doctrine and Government. And because this oath was so loudly declaimed against, and so much battered in the next parliament, I shall insert it at Rushworth's length. It stands thus :




part. 2. p. 1337.

“I, A. B., do swear, that I do approve the doctrine and


The oath so discipline, or government, established in the Church of Eng- much ex

cepted land, as containing all things necessary to salvation : and that


« PreviousContinue »