of the ‘Divine Right of Episcopacy.’ Hall undertook the charge, and sent to Laud the heads of his proposed work. The archbishop, approving generally of the draft, returned it with some alterations. These Hall readily accepted, and wrote the treatise as desired. Contrary to his anticipation it was again carefully revised by Laud and his chaplains. They made the case stronger against the foreign reformed churches and the sabbatarians, and objected to the pope being called antichrist. Hall humbly accepted Laud's directions.
The latter years of the bishop's sojourn at Exeter seem to have been peaceful. He writes: ‘I had peace and comfort at home in the happy sense of that general unanimity and loving correspondence of my clergy till the last year of my presiding there, after the synodical oath was set on foot.’ This was the oath known as the et cetera oath, ordered by the convocation of 1640 to be taken by all clergymen. Hall declares that he never administered this oath, but he defended and explained it, and thus incurred no small share of the unpopularity of Laud and his party. The anger of the parliament of 1640 was especially directed against the late convocation. The order of bishops and the whole status of the church were violently assailed in pamphlets. No less than 140 of these passed the press before the session was very far advanced. Hall came gallantly forward to defend his order and church. In a speech delivered in the House of Lords he claimed protection for the church, and in a published work, ‘An humble Remonstrance to the High Court of Parliament’ (1640 and 1641, published by Nathaniel Butter), he vindicated liturgies and episcopacy with great skill and power. He was immediately answered by five puritan divines, the initials of whose names made up the word Smectymnuus. In reply to their treatise the bishop wrote a ‘Defence of that Remonstrance,’ which produced a ‘Vindication’ from the divines, and an ‘Answer to the Vindication of Smectymnuus’ from Bishop Hall. Other writers joined in the controversy, Milton contributing no less than five tracts to it. Hall appealed to the learned Ussher to lend a helping hand, which drew from the Irish primate the tract entitled ‘The Original of Bishops and Metropolitans briefly laid down.’ In the attempt made by Archbishop Williams to effect a compromise which might satisfy the puritans, and which led to the lords' committee on religion (March 1641), Bishop Hall took a part. He, together with Williams, Morton, and Ussher, as being among the most moderate of the prelates, sat on the committee.
Hall none the less protested boldly in his place in the House of Lords (1 May 1641) against the bill for taking away the bishops' votes in parliament. On 31 July (1641) a committee was appointed to draw up articles of impeachment against thirteen bishops, of whom Hall was one, for having passed canons in the late convocation by which it was asserted that they had fallen under the præmunire statute. On this occasion Hall made a speech in defence of the canons and the action of convocation. During the king's absence in Scotland and the recess of parliament Hall went to his diocese of Exeter, where he was enthusiastically received, and on 7 Sept. preached a sermon at Exeter on the pacification between the English and Scots, in which he bewails the troubled state of the church. The king, who had conceded the abolition of episcopacy in Scotland, was now desirous to show that his mind was not changed as regards the English church, and accordingly issued congés d'élire for filling up the vacant sees. Hall was translated to the see of Norwich (15 Nov.) Laud in his ‘History of his Troubles’ mentions this appointment in answering the charge that he offered preferment only to ‘such men as were for ceremonies, Popery and Arminianism.’ On the reopening of parliament in the winter of 1641, the bishops, insulted by the rabble, petitioned the king, declaring that they were hindered by violence from attending to their parliamentary duties, and protesting against the legality of all acts of parliament done in their enforced absence. The House of Lords, resenting this proceeding, immediately sent a message to the commons. The lower house voted that the bishops were guilty of high treason, and they were at once sent for, brought to the bar of the House of Lords, and committed to the Tower (30 Dec. 1641). Hall has given in his ‘Hard Measure’ a touching account of the way in which he and his brethren were treated; how they were brought again and again amidst the greatest tumults to the bar of the House of Lords to plead; and how, when it was found that the impeachment could not be sustained, they were voted by parliament to be guilty of a præmunire, and all their estates forfeited. A sum was allowed for their maintenance, 400l. a year being assigned to Hall. The bishops were now liberated from the Tower on bail, but the commons objecting to this, they were again arrested and confined for six weeks longer, when upon giving bonds for 5,000l. they were allowed to depart, ‘having spent the time betwixt New-year's eve and Whitsuntide in those safe walls.’ Hall now made his way to his new diocese of Norwich, which he had not
