parliament to meet on March 17th, the southern convocation being summoned for the 18th.52

No business of importance was done in either convocation, save perhaps the grant of five subsidies. Privilege was however claimed and granted in two cases, the one being the arrest of a servant, and the other, common law proceedings against a member of convocation. The House of Lords ordered the release of the one and stayed the suit against the other "during the privilege of parliament." 53

II. Before parliament met, a "nest of wasps' was dug out at Clerkenwell, and their papers seized.54 In the

commons

a "grand committee for religion" of the whole house was appointed ;55 an act for the reformation of sundry abuses committed on the Lord's day was brought in and passed. Bills for a better allowance to

52 The York convocation is said to have been called for February 18th, but it is probably a printer's mistake. Wilk. Conc. IV. p. 473; Fuller, XI. p. 131; Wake, p. 514.

53 Journ. H. of L. 111. pp. 774, 798, 805, 809, 860, 870. For a list of LL.D.s and LL.B.s in convocation from 1586 to 1627, see St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. LXXXVIII. 16. The king had directed Abbot to send his proxy in parliament to whom he liked, but had appointed the bishops of London and of Bath and Wells to act for him in convocation, and nominated the Dean of Lichfield as prolocutor of the clergy house. St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. XCIV. 35, XCV. 14. Abbot was not restored to favour till Christmas.

54 The Jesuits or "missioners" were conspirators, credited, not without cause, both by friends and foes, with a great hand in stirring up the troubles of the time. They opposed the oath of allegiance, but pressed on Buckingham and the king in their fatal course, being also Puritans, Arminians, Independents, and Fifth Monarchy-men as occasion served. Cromwell, however, spoilt their plans. Rushw. 1. pp. 474, 514; St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. XCIX. I; Foxes and Firebrands, pp. 72-90; Baxter, Key, pp. 368–376; Journ. H. of L. III. p. 704; Neal, 1. pp. 514, 516; ante, n. 38.

5 Journ. H. of C. 1. pp. 872, 873, 875, 878, 883. A sub-committee was appointed to meet each Monday. A petition to the king for a fast was also agreed to by both houses, and communion was ordered to be received, on April 6th, at St. Margaret's, the offertory of over £80 being disposed of by the commons. The king appointed April 21st for the fast. Journ. H. of L. III. pp. 693, 697, 698; Rushw. I. p. 498; Parl. Hist. II. p. 230.

56 It passed as the 3 Car. I. c. I. Journ. H. of C. 1. pp. 877, 894; Journ. H. of L. III. p. 788; Collier, VIII. p. 27; Fuller, IX. p. 131.

62

64

61

60

63

preaching curates," concerning appropriations and vicarages,5 for the mitigation of the sentence of the greater excommunication," for the hearing of the word of God preached, concerning citations issuing out of ecclesiastical courts, for the punishing adultery and immorality, against scandalous ministers, and against clergymen being justices of the peace, were brought in. A petition and articles were also presented against the vicar of Witney for profaneness in catechising and preaching, and he was ordered to attend the committee for religion, as a delinquent, to answer his misdemeanors.65 Mainwaring's committee was directed to peruse the books of common prayer and send for the printer. A letter and a petition from a minister named Gurnay, concerning images in churches, was read, and Prynn brought up a report from the committee for religion concerning Mr. Montague, who was ordered to attend the committee and there answer the charges against him.68 Two sermons preached before the king, and another at St. Giles', on May 4th, by a Dr. Mainwaring, were brought before the house and referred to the grand committee for religion, who reported, on May 14th, that their complaint and Mr. Mainwaring's crimes should be transmitted to the lords. On May 31st, Mainwaring, desiring to be heard by the

69

57 Journ. H. of C. 1. pp. 877, 889, 895, 899. It was read twice and committed. A bill for the better maintenance of ministers was read thrice in the lords and once in the commons. St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. CVII. 45; Journ. H. of L. III. pp. 697, 701, 769, 771; Journ. H. of C. 1. p. 889; Collier, IX. p. 28. 58 Journ. H. of C. 1. pp. 878, 886. It was read twice. 59 Read twice and committed. Journ. H. of C. 1. pp. 878, 60 It passed the commons and was read once in the lords. pp. 878, 885, 887, 899; Journ. H. of L. p. 823.

882, 884, 886.

Journ. H. of C. I.

61 It passed the commons and was sent up to the lords. Journ. H. of C. I. pp. 880, 899, 904; Journ. H. of L. III. p. 823.

62 This was read twice. Journ. H. of C. 1. pp. 880, 886.

63 It passed the commons and was sent up to the lords. Journ. H. of C. I. pp. 882, 885, 887, 890, 898, 904; Journ. H. of L. III. p. 823.

64 This passed the commons and was read once in the lords. Journ. H. of C. I. pp. 884, 886, 888, 891, 899, 904; Journ. H. of L. I. p. 823.

65 Journ. H. of C. 1. pp. 889, 905, 908.

66 Id. p. 902, 903.

67 Id. p. 903.

68 The articles were read and proved, and then presented to the lords. Journ. H. of C. I. pp. 889, 911, 913; ante, n. 40.

69 Journ. H. of C. 1. p. 897; Collier, 1x. p. 27; Fuller, IX. p. 129; Neal, 1. p. 509; for Pym's report, see St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. CIII. 88.

house, was ordered to appear on the following Monday." On June 3rd, Mr. Rouse brought in the charge against him," and on the 4th, a message was sent to the lords desiring a conference with them, when certain articles having been framed were presented. On June 9th, the declaration being engrossed and a long speech made by Mr. Pym in support of it, Dr. Mainwaring's excuses and the commons' answers to the same generally and specially having been heard, he was committed to the serjeant-at-arms, Mr. Serjt. Crewe and the attorney-general to charge him at the bar on the morrow, Mr. Pym to give in the names of the witnesses to the sermon of May 4th. On the 11th, he was brought to the bar and, having been charged, he demanded to be tried by the bishops as to "the inferences and logical deductions" in his sermons. For this the lord keeper blamed him for that he divided his judges, the matter belonging to all the lords jointly. He was, however, given a copy of the charge, and leave to go home, with a keeper, to prepare his defence." On the 13th, he appeared at the bar, and begged pardon of both houses, and the next day judgment was pronounced, and the king petitioned to call in the books, by proclamation, to be burnt. On June 21st, Mainwaring read his submission, penned by the lords, on his knees at the bar of both houses, and so the matter ended for the time.73

70 Journ. H. of C. p. 907.

71 Id. p. 911; Parl. Hist. II. p. 378; Rushw. 1. p. 577.

72 The declaration made three charges: 1. That the king was not bound to keep the laws and customs of the realm, but might of his royal will and pleasure tax his subjects without their consent in parliament, and they were bound in conscience to submit. 2. That the disobedient did offend against the law of God as well as the king's supreme authority. 3. That the authority of parliament was not needful for raising aids and subsidies. Rushw. I. p. 596; Parl. Hist. II. p. 387; Journ. H. of L. III. pp. 838, 843, 845-851; St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. CVII. 2. The charges made on the third sermon were : I. That in cases of necessity the king had the right to order as seemed good to him without the consent of his people. 2. That the king might require loans and avenge it on those who denied. 3. That the subject's property in his goods was only ordinary, but the king's extraordinary. Id. p. 848.

73 The sentence was: 1. That he be imprisoned during the pleasure of the house. 2. That he be fined £1000 to the king. 3. That he make a written apology on his knees at the bar of each house. 4. That he be suspended for three years. 5. That he be disabled to preach at court. 6. That he be for ever disabled to hold any ecclesiastical or secular office. 7. That his book be burnt, and a proclamation issued calling it in. And this was "the judgment of the lords." Journ. H. of L. pp. 853, 855, 859, 860, 862, 869, 870; Rushw. I. p. 605;

74

On June 11th, the remonstrance, under eight heads, was reported, and on the 26th the king prorogued the parliament.75 12. During the recess, the king's declaration, prefixed to a new edition of the thirty-nine articles, was put forth, upon, it is said, Laud's suggestion, for the purpose of silencing the controversy between the Arminians and Calvinists, and to prevent their being wrested out of their obvious and literal sense. They were said to contain

"the true doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God's word, which we do therefore ratify and confirm, requiring all our loving subjects to continue in the uniform profession thereof and prohibiting the least difference from the said articles. . . And no man hereafter shall either print or preach to draw the article aside anyway, but shall submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof, and shall take it in the literal and grammatical sense.'

1976

Collier, IX. pp. 31, 32; Fuller, XI. p. 130; St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. cvII. 26, CVIII. 9. The proclamation calling in the book was issued on June 24th. On July 6th the king, who had made him one of his chaplains, directed the attorneygeneral to prepare a pardon, and on the 28th, granted him a dispensation to hold Stanford Rivers with St. Giles-in-the-Fields, then made him dean of Worcester, and finally, in 1635, bishop of St. David's. St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. CIX. 42, CXI. 18; Rushw. I. pp. 633, 635; Collier, IX. p. 39; Cyp. Ang. p. 170; Neal, I. P. 513.

74 The fear of alteration and innovation in religion was one of them, Laud and Neal, the bishop of Winchester, being mentioned as being justly suspected to be unsound in their opinions. Journ. H. of C. 1. p. 911; Rushw. 1. p. 621; Parl. Hist. II. p. 434. To this document Laud, by the king's orders, drafted a reply. The charge against "those two eminent prelates" was spoken of as a great wrong, no proof being produced, and it was said that “should they or any other attempt innovation of religion. . . . we should quickly take other order with them and not stay for your remonstrance." Cyp. Ang. p. 173; Collier, Ix. p. 34. But the draft was not used, as the king changed his mind. St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. CVIII. 66, 67. 75 The York convocation met, but did not sit, owing to Archbishop Matthews' death. Parliament was prorogued to October 20th, and then to January 20th, 1629.

76 The declaration also said that the king was supreme governor of the Church of England, and that "if any differences arise about the external policy concerning injunctions, canons, or other constitutions whatsoever thereto belonging, the clergy in their convocation are to order and settle them, having first obtained leave under our broad seal so to do." Laud, like Cosin, appears to have thought that convocation was a provincial synod. Cosin, Works, IV. p. 368; ante, p. 169, § 39. For the declaration, see Wilk. Conc. IV. p. 475; Card. D. A. 11. p. 169; Collier, Ix. p. 36; Neal, I. p. 513.

13. On July 27th, Smart preached his celebrated sermon, containing an historical relation of the popish ceremonies and practices, "which Mr. John Cosins hath lately brought" into the cathedral church of Durham. They were

the turning the communion table into an altar, and the worshipping it by ducking to it, the going in a cope to the altar to say two or three prayers after the sermon, the wearing a cope to read the epistle and gospel and to sing the Nicene creed, the use of anthems, little better than profane ballads (instead of psalms), organ playing, piping and singing, the crossing of cushions and kissing of clouts, the starting up and squatting down, the nodding of heads and whirling about till their noses stand eastward, setting basons, candlesticks, and crucifixes on the altar, burning wax candles in excessive number, gilding of angels, garnishing of images, the turning the sacrament into a theatrical stage play, the use of the stately, sumptuous, embroidered, mock, and scornful copes, "used a long time at mass and may-games," instead of a decent cope, and the placing the table altarwise, with "the two ends looking north and south," as of purpose altars were set in popery, that the mass priest might stand on the west side with his face toward the east and his back to the people, which was done some eleven years before."

77 Cosin denied some of the charges and explained others. There appears to have been no ground for the statement as to worshipping the altar. The bowing was not "to the table of the Lord, but to the Lord of the table," and was used whether there was an Eucharist on it or no, for this reverence, said Laud, "is to God as to the Creator, and so divine; but it is only toward, not to the altar, and so far short." The use of a cope at the reading of the epistle and the gospel was ordered by the Advertisements and the canon following and enforcing them, and Cosin said he never wore anything but a plain white satin cope; that the altar and cherubim were set up before he ever saw the country, and that he never approved of the picture of the Trinity or the image of God the Father as a little old man to be made or placed anywhere; that the two fair candles on the communion-table, with a few small sizes near them, were put for the use of the people all about for singing and reading, the number of lights being regulated by the congregation; and there is no reason to doubt Cosin's personal statements. Bishop Howson, at his primary visitation in September, 1630, gave orders, to the dean and chapter, "to prevent scandal of innovation, that the uniformity of common prayer used before the alterations in the time of the late bishop to be observed"; and he wrote to Laud in March, 1631, "that he had provided for uniformity of service according to the ancient use of the church, before the late alterations which bred all these quarrels." Cosin was certainly not the author of them all. Smart indicted the dean and chapter at the assizes, and they returned the compliment. Eventually