fortune that, knowing his opinions to be held by a minority amongst the clergy, and by a still smaller minority amongst the laity, he found in the enthusiastic and idealist King, twenty-seven years his junior, not only a docile. pupil who had already for seventeen years drunk in his teaching both in Church and State, but an ardent supporter and coadjutor, burning, without any regard to consequences, to employ the whole force of the royal authority, which he had been taught to regard as absolute, in what appeared to be the glorious campaign for the stern repression of Anti-sacerdotalism in England.

Charles's first Parliament attacked Montague, a preacher, for using arguments against Rome which seemed to them inconsistent with the Reformation. Charles made him his Chaplain, and afterwards Bishop of Chichester. Laud was one of a Committee of Bishops appointed to report on the sermon. In writing with two other Bishops on his behalf, Laud used these characteristic and significant words: "We cannot conceive what use there can be of civil government in the commonwealth, or of preaching or of external ministry in the Church, if such fatal opinions as some which are opposite

and contrary to those delivered by Mr. Montague shall be publicly taught and maintained." The Romanists are fond of quoting Bishop Montague.

In 1626 Laud advised that no such questions as those raised by the Commons as to Montague should be discussed by public preaching or writing. Preaching before the second Parliament, he magnified the royal authority in State and Church alike. Already the House of Commons regarded him as hostile to civil liberty as well as to religious truth. He prepared Charles's speeches on behalf of Buckingham, and corrected Buckingham's defence.

The same year Charles promised him the Deanery of the Chapel Royal and the Archbishopric of Canterbury. In 1627 he made him a Privy Councillor, promised him the Bishopric of London, and placed him on a Commission for executing the Primacy during Abbot's sequestration. In 1628 he became Bishop of London.

In 1628 the present preface to the Articles was issued. Parliament struggled for a time; but in 1629 it was silenced for eleven years, and Laud received no further check till the beginning of the end.

Laud's great mistake, quite apart from his

theological attitude, is summed up in one word: Compulsion. "Ignoring the example of Andrewes, who, without irritating any one, had simply recommended the observance of the religious usages of which he approved, Laud held it incumbent on him to compel observance even by those who disapproved of them. In his mind the external obligation always took precedence of the spiritual conception. Uniformity to him was the surest propagator of unity of spirit."

It is characteristic that throughout the awful contest which he had provoked Laud was not hopeful on the one hand and absolutely fearless on the other. To Vossius he wrote in 1629 that he had done his best to find a quiet way out of the difficulty; but his fears outwitted his hopes. In the same year a paper intimated that his life was sought: "I beseech Thee deliver my soul from them that hate me without a cause Iwas his comment.

This year he was made Chancellor of the University of Oxford. Here again he made his personal rule a reality in new statutes and vigorous discipline.

The year 1630 introduces us to Laud in his least favourable aspect. There were two Courts,

the Star Chamber and that of High Commission, which represented the personal powers of the Crown. The Star Chamber was an offshoot of Henry II.'s Court of Appeal; it had been systematised by Henry VII., and "had received great development, especially on the side of criminal law, under the Tudors. Forgery, perjury, riot, maintenance, fraud, libel, and conspiracy were the chief offences cognisable; but its scope extended to every misdemeanour, and especially to charges where, from the imperfection of the common law, or the power of offenders, justice was baffled in the lower courts.' The Court of High Commission was established by Elizabeth for dealing with ecclesiastical matters. "All opinions or acts contrary to the Statutes of Supremacy and Uniformity fell within its cognisance. A right of deprivation placed the clergy at its mercy. It had power to alter or amend the statutes of colleges or schools. Not only heresy and schism and nonconformity, but incest or aggravated adultery were held to fall within its scope; its means of inquiry were left without limit, and it might fine or imprison at its will. By

" 1

1 Green.

the mere establishment of such a court half the work of the Reformation was undone. The large number of civilians on the board indeed seemed to furnish some security against the excess of ecclesiastical tyranny. Of its fortyfour commissioners, however, few actually took part in its proceedings; and the powers of the Commission were practically left in the hands of the successive Primates. No Archbishop of Canterbury since the days of Augustine had wielded an authority so vast, so utterly despotic, as that of Whitgift, and Bancroft, and Abbot, and Laud. The most terrible feature of their spiritual tyranny was its wholly personal character. The old symbols of doctrine were gone, and the lawyers had not yet stepped in to protect the clergy by defining the exact limits of the new. The result was that at the commission-board at Lambeth the Primates created their own tests of doctrine with an utter indifference to those created by law."1 Of both these terrible engines of personal despotism Laud was the leading member during the greater part of the reign of Charles till his impeachment; and he exercised his authority with an

1 Green's History of the English People.