the table, was the "old crucifix" which he had found amongst them.21

6. On the 6th, parliament met.22 In the commons,

24

26

a committee for religion was appointed as usual. Bills against scandalous ministers, for the mitigation of the sentence of the greater excommunication,25 against adultery, concerning granting administrations, the disposition of unadministered goods, and the receipt of money in commutation of penance," for the keeping the sabbath,28 concerning citations issuing out of the ecclesiastical courts,29 against clergymen being justices of the peace,30 for the discovery of

21 The use of the crucifix was illegal. It was afterwards charged against Laud that "by his means in Passion week in the years 1636, 1637, etc., a rich large crucifix, embroidered with gold and silver, in a fair piece of arras, was hung up in his majesty's chapel to the great scandal and offence of many." The 3 Jac. I. c. 5, § 26, had ordered that crucifixes of value should be defaced at quarter sessions and then given back to their owners. See Neal, 1. p. 505; Rushw. II. p. 278; Cant. Doom. p. 67, and Laud's explanation; Hist. pp. 316, 318. The primate would be responsible and not Laud.

22 It was dissolved on June 15th. Nothing was done in convocation, but in that of York it was decided, after debate, that only members could be proxies for other and absent members. Wilk. Conc. IV. pp. 469-471; Wake, p. 514; Collier, VIII. pp. 9-15.

23 Journ. pp. 817, 818, 844, 850, 851. The committee was to "consider of all points concerning religion, and to present their opinions to the house," as well as to "have power to send for any persons to inform them, or for any books or records concerning, and to make a sub-committee."

24 Journ. 1. pp. 818, 819, 825, 838. It was read twice in the lords. Journ. III. pp. 536, 556.

25 A member, Sir R. Howard, had been excommunicated for not taking the oath ex officio, and it was referred to a committee, and the judge summoned to appear and answer, as being a supposed breach of privilege. An act was in the end brought in, read twice, and committed. Journ. 1. pp. 820, 821, 834, 839, 851, 852, 854, 857, 858, 869.

Journ. I. pp. 823, 838.

26 This appears to have been read once. 27 It was read once. Journ. I. p. 824. "The church," in papal times, usually took the lion's share of intestate estates, in pios usus, and left the widows and orphans, if any, the well-picked bones. See the constitutions of Boniface, Stratford, and Touche, Johns. Eccl. Const. § 15, 7-9, 4; Lyndw. Prov. p. 171.

28 Journ. pp. 827, 840. It was read thrice in the lords. Journ. H. of L. III. pp. 567, 569, 575.

29 Journ. pp. 826, 827, 833, 839. It was sent up to the lords. Journ. p. 567. 30 Journ. pp. 834, 841. It was read twice in the lords. Journ. H. of L. III. pp. 567, 569, 575.

31

33

church papists, for the better allowance to curates by non-residents," against corrupt presentations to benefices, and concerning the hearing of preaching," were brought in. Divers articles were tendered against the Bishop of Bangor, and the matter was referred to the committee for religion, as was also the gilding of, and the images upon, the cross in Cheapside." The marshal of Middlesex is said to have petitioned the house touching the seizing of priest's goods in the Clink.37

35

7. On May 30th, Urban VIII. forbad, by a bull and by a letter to Smith, the taking of the oath of allegiance, on the ground that it deposed the Prince of the Apostles from his throne, and he also wrote to his "beloved children, the catholics of England," encouraging them to resist, and impressing on them the necessity of the rejection of the oath.38 In

31 It was read twice. Journ. p. 857. "Hollow church papists are like the roots of nettles, which themselves sting not, but yet they bear all the stinging leaves." Bacon, Works, I. p. 334.

32 This passed the commons and was read twice in the lords, where a new bill was brought in. Journ. H. of C. p. 857; H. of L. pp. 566, 582.

35 Journ. pp. 845, 850, 851, 853, 856, 862, 863, 871; St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. XXV. 10, xxx. 8. One of the charges was the keeping twenty-one churches or chapels in his hands and ill-serving them.

36 Journ. p. 858; St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. XXVII. 36. It was pulled down on May 2nd, 1643. Laud, Hist. p. 203.

37 An order had been given on February 17th to seize certain lurking Jesuits and priests and "all their massing stuff." St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. XXI. 25, XXXI. 86, 87. A warrant to search the prison and seize all popish and superstitious matters there found had been made out by the attorney-general. It resulted in the discovery of four priests there, with several altars, many rich copes, surplices, crosses, crucifixes, chalices, beads, boxes of oil, "and such like trash.' The attorney-general at once informed Abbot of it, who, on April 8th, pleaded successfully for two of them and for the restoration of their books. They had, he said, taken the oath of allegiance, and found the prison the safest place from the wrath of the pope, for if he could catch them "they are sure to be burnt and strangled for it." Rushw. I. pp. 240-243; ante, n. 16.

38 Wilk. Conc. IV. p. 471; Flanagan, II. pp. 311, 312; St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. XXVII. 35, XCIX. I, R. The Jesuits in England opposed the taking of the oath. The Jesuit Santarelli's book, De Potestate summi Pontificis, had been published by authority at Rome in 1625. It taught that "papa habet potestatem in Reges directivam et coactivam," and so could punish heretical princes by

September this year, a book of instructions was ordered to be sent round to every minister.3

39

8. A.D. 1627. In February, the sermon, which was the cause of the primate's troubles, was preached before the judges at Northampton.40 It was sent by the king to Abbot, with an order to licence it. This he refused to do, stating his objections. Upon this, Laud and others were called in,41 and, on July 5th, the primate was directed to retire to Canterbury,42 and, on Oct. 9th, a commission issued sequestering him from all his ecclesiastical offices and jurisdictions."

43

On March 4th, the king directed the removal of a diocesan chancellor for not being a professor of the civil law, and gave

excommunication, deposition, and absolving their subjects from the oath of allegiance, "quia papae et Christi est unum tribunal." The book was, however, burnt in France by the executioner. Palatio, IV. col. 551.

39 The nature of the instructions is not known, but they were to be kept secret by the printers and ministers. They perhaps related to the forced loans. Abbot regarded the proceedings as "unusual.” St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. xxxvi. 81, 85, 88.

40 The sermon, on Rom. xiii. 7, magnified the power of kings, citing Eccl. viii. 3, 4. The doctrine affirmed was, as Collier remarks, "arbitrary enough in all conscience," and pursued to the end "would make Magna Charta and the other laws for securing property signify but little." But Laud wrote of Magna Charta that it "had an obscure birth from usurpation, and shewed to the world by rebellion," and was in force only salvo jure Coronae, which was implied or intended in all the oaths and promises of the sovereign. He added, too, to the declaration solicited from the king that "every free subject had a fundamental propriety in his goods and a fundamental liberty of his person," the words, "but deprivable of them upon just cause and so fiscal." Mainwaring afterwards went further than Sibthorp. Collier, VIII. p. 20; St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. XCVI. 31, CII. 14; Neal, I. pp. 509-510; post, p. 394, n. 69.

41 By the king's command, Laud expressed to Montaigne the king's wish that he, with the bishops of Durham, Rochester, and Oxford, should read the sermon, and consider the objections and report. This was done, and the book licensed by Montaigne was published with the title, "Apostolical Obedience." St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. LXI. 93; Collier, VIII. p. 20.

42 St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. LXIV. 66, LXX. 56, 57; Rushw. I. pp. 436–450. 43 St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. LXXX. 72; Wilk. Conc. IV. p. 474; Card. D. A. II. pp. 165, 301; Collier, VIII. pp. 21, 25, 40; Fuller, XI. p. 127. See Abbot's account, in Rushworth, of the whole affair, laying the blame on Laud, who was "the only inward counsellor with Buckingham, sitting with him sometimes privately whole hours, and feeding his humour with malice and spite." He

orders for the appointment, in the future, of professors of the civil law to all offices of ecclesiastical jurisdiction."

9. Cosin visited his archdeaconry some time this year. His articles require

45

the communion table to be placed according to the injunctions, and the minister is, in administering the sacraments, to observe "all the orders, rites, and ceremonies prescribed in the book of common prayer, in such manner and form only as is there enjoined, without any omission, or addition, or alteration whatsoever." And "when any sacrament be administered or any other rite or ceremony of the church solemnised," to "use and wear the surplice, without any excuse or pretence whatsoever.” 46 At "the second service" he is to leave his former and ordinary seat or pulpit, and go "unto the north side of the holy communion table, and, standing there, begin with the Lord's Prayer, etc., according to the form prescribed, until the sermon time, and, if there be no sermon, until the end of the service." he is not to "add to the public prayers and service of the church any

And

repeats Hacket's story, "that the first observable act that he did was the marrying the Earl of D. to the Lady R. when it was notorious that she had another husband who had divers children then living by her." Hist. Coll. I. p. 440. Laud, on the other hand, notes, in 1611, that Abbot was the cause of all his then trouble. The Bishop of Lincoln was suspended on July 24th, 1637, and so, on March 29th, 1640, was the Bishop of Gloucester for refusing to subscribe to the canons, Laud remarking that "he had long been suspected of popery." Hist. Laud, pp. 3, 36, 54, 58; Collier, VIII. p. 14; ante, p. 375, n. 221.

44 St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. LVI. 27; ante, n. 15.

45 Works, II. p. 4, § 3.

The article refers to its place out of service time.

46 Id. p. 9, §§ 13, 14. Cosin plainly knew nothing of any maximum or minimum of observance, and in 1627 took it that the surplice and hood satisfied both the canons and rubric. By a printer's error, for the date in the draft was correct, the Judicial Committee are made to refer to these articles as issued in 1687. But they without doubt express the state of the law both in 1627 and 1687, for in both those years, and under both the old and the revised rubrics, the minister was to remain at the north side, not end, of the table and perform all things there, standing at the north side, and before the table, so as to order the bread and wine that he might with the more readiness and decency break the bread before, or in the sight of, the people who are waiting at and around the table to receive. The invitation to the people and the prayer of access, etc., were placed after consecration in the first book of Edward VI., but put before consecration in the second book of 1552, and so remain. The reason, meaning and effect of the change are very clear. Brooke, pp. 120, 198; see post, n. 49. 47 Id. p. 8, § 7.

prayers of his own or other man's framing," nor to substitute of his own head and appoint any other psalms, hymns, or lessons in the place of those which are appointed by law, nor to use at any time any other manner of common prayer, or to administer the sacraments "in any other manner or form than is prescribed."48 At the communion the minister is to first communicate kneeling, and then to deliver to such only as "before God's board do also humbly kneel upon their knees."49

10. A.D. 1628. The calling a parliament having been decided on at a council, held on January 29th, at Whitehall,50 warrants were sent for the release of those who were in jail on account of the loan money,51 and writs were issued for a

48 Cosin's Works, II. p. 8, § 12.

49 Id. p. 12, § 30. The Judicial Committee decided in 1868 that the words "all meekly kneeling” applied to the celebrant as well as to other clerks and to the people. Dr. Pusey, in a letter to the Times, at once fell foul of the Committee. He remarked, "If this clause, 'all meekly kneeling,' applied at all to the celebrant, it would grammatically involve the direction that he should kneel while administering to others. A direction which occurs after the mention of two acts of a person cannot (if it applies to him at all) be limited to the first of these two acts, to the exclusion of that the mention of which immediately precedes that direction." And assuming this to be correct, he objected that, "if this, as it would, involves an absurdity, then the whole construction is faulty, and it follows that the direction can apply to neither." Now, the word all in "all meekly kneeling" was inserted in the revision of 1662, and Cosin, in his notes upon the rubric (as it was before the revision), and in answer to the objection that the rubric did not direct the minister to kneel when receiving or delivering the communion, says "kneeling here, for all the puritans' objections hath reference as well to the minister himself as to the people and other ministers." The addition of the word all in 1662 put the matter beyond doubt or question. Cosin, Works, v. p. 112; Parker, Introd. p. ccxix.; Brooke, p. 120. The Privy Council were therefore right and the critics wrong. Reception at rails, the minister standing, instead of the reverent receiving and communion at and around the table, all, both minister and people, meekly kneeling, is a serious and wanton defiance and breach of the law of the church and realm, and of very plain church order, besides being fatal to the idea of a communion, in which all receive at and around the table with the minister. At the rails, with the minister standing and the people kneeling, it is no communion at all, and it is not a question about which there can be any doubt as to the law of the church or, save as to kneeling, the ancient and catholic use. 50 Rushw. I. p. 467; Parl. Hist. II. p. 211.

51 There were 24 knights, 15 esquires, 4 gentlemen, and 31 citizens in custody; amongst them John Hampden and Sir T. Wentworth. They were "chiefly in the people's eyes to be elected to serve in the ensuing parliament." Rushw. I. p. 473; Neal, 1. pp. 509, 512.