all crucifixes, scandalous pictures of any one or more persons of the Trinity, and all images of the Virgin Mary, shall be taken away and abolished; and that all tapers, candlesticks, and basins, be removed from the communion-table.--That all corporal reverences at the name of Jesus, or towards the east end of the church, chapel, or chancel, or towards the communion-table, be forborne*." These orders to be observed in all cathedral and collegiate churches and chapels, in the two universities, by the respective officers and ministers of these places, and by the readers and benchers of the inns of courtt. The house of lords consented to some of these resolutions, but not to all. They agreed in their committee," that no rails should be placed about the communion-table, where there were none already, but not to the pulling down all that were set up; and that all chancels raised within fifteen years past should be levelled; that images of the Trinity should be abolished, without limitation of time; and all images of the Virgin Mary erected within twenty years past." But as for bowing at the name of Jesus, they in sisted that it should be left indifferent. So that when the question was put, to agree or not agree with the resolutions of the commons, it passed in the negative, eleven against nine. The commons therefore published their resolutions apart, and desired the people to wait patiently for the intended reformation, without any disturbance of the worship of God, and of the peace of the kingdom. Upon which the lords in a heat appointed their order of Jan. 19, 1640-1, already mentioned, to be reprinted§," that divine service should be performed as it is appointed by act of parliament; and that all who disturb that wholesome order shall be severely punished according to law. That all parsons, vicars, and curates, in their several parishes, do forbear to introduce any rites or ceremonies that may give offence, otherwise than those that are established by the laws of the land." This was voted by twelve of the lords present, the other six entering their protest ||; after which both houses adjourned for six weeks. Mr. Rapin observes, that there seems no necessity for the lords to renew this order; and that it was done out of spleen and revenge, because the commous had made a declaration against innovations, and it was not doubted but the bishops were the chief authors of it. Lord Clarendon represents the putting these orders of the house of commons in execution, as a transcendent presumption, and a breach of the privilege of the house of lords; and though in one place his lordship acknowledges, that little or nothing of moment was done in pursuance of the orders of the two houses, yet upon this occasion he ** says* "that seditious and factious persons caused Nalson's Collection, vol. 2. p. 482. § Rushworth, part 3. vol. 1. p. 387. Nalson's Collection, vol. 2. p. 485. ** Clarendon, vol. 1, p. 29. Rushworth, part 3. vol. 1. p. 386. Clarendon, vol. 1. p. 293. Vol. 2. p. 382, folio. the windows to be broken down in churches, tore away the rails, removed the communion-tables, and committed many insolent and scandalous disorders, and that if any opposed them they were sent for before the committee." But the fairest account of this matter may be gathered from Mr. Pym's report to the house at their first meeting after the recess. "The committee of religion (says he) have sent down divers of your declarations into the country, and have found that in some places where there were good ministers they were retained, and in other places neglected. We cannot say there have been any great tumults, though the execution of the orders of the house has occasioned something tending that way. In some parishes they came to blows, and in others they would have done the like, if care had not been taken to prevent it. At St. Giles's Cripplegate, the parishioners were almost at daggers drawing about the rails of the communion-table, which they would not suffer to be removed. The like opposition was made to the orders of the house at St. George's Southwark, St. Mary's Woolnoth, St. Botolph Aldersgate and a few other places; but in most places they were quiet." If the innovations complained of were according to law, neither lords nor commons had authority to remove them, for in a time of public peace and tranquillity a vote of parliament cannot suspend or set aside the laws; but if they were apparently contrary to law, I do not see why either house of parliament, or even the parishioners themselves, by a vote of their vestry, might not order them to be taken away. Remarkable are the words of of sir Edward Deering to this purpose; "The orders of the house (says he) are, doubtless, powerful, if grounded upon the laws of the land; upon this warrant we may, by an order, enforce any thing that is undoubtedly so grounded; and by the same rule we may abrogate whatsoever is introduced contrary to the undoubted foundation of your laws; but we may not rule and govern by arbitrary and disputable orders, especially in matters of religion*. The lords disapproved of the tumultuous attempts of private persons, and punished them severely. Complaint being made by the inhabitants of St. Saviour's Southwark, of certain persons who had pulled down the rails of the communion-table in an insolent and riotous manner, they were sent into custody, and having been heard by their counsel at the bar of the house, the church wardens of the parish were ordered to set up new rails, at the costs and charges of the offenders, in the manner they had stood for fifty years before, but not according to the model of the four or five last yearst. The rioters also were enjoined to make a public confession of their fault in the body of the church on a sabbath-day when the congregation should be present, and to stand committed to the Fleet, during the pleasure of the house. Upon another complaint of the parishioners of St. Olave's Southwark, against *Rushworth, vol. 1. part 3. p. 391. + Nalson's Coll. vol. 2. p. 271. 322. 1 Nalson's Collection, vol. 2. p. 291, 292. others that had made a tumult in their church, and used irreverent speeches during the administration of the sacrament; the delinquents were sent into custody, and after hearing they were committed to the King's-bench for six months, without bail or mainprize; and ordered to stand upon a high stool in Cheapside and in Southwark, for two hours on a market day, and to acknowledge their fault publicly: They were also fined 207. and to find sureties for their good behaviour; but when they had been imprisoned about a month, upon their humble petition, and acknowledgment of their misdemeanours, they were released*. If we may give credit to the petition from Canterbury, things were every where in great confusion; for it says, "that the religion and government by law established, has been of late most miserably distracted by ill-affected persons, by whose means the houses of God are profaned, and in part defaced; the ministers of Christ are contemned and despised; the ornaments, and many utensils of the church are abused; the liturgy and Book of Common Prayer depraved and neglected; that absolute model of prayer, the Lord's prayer, vilified; the sacraments of the gospel, in some places, rudely administered, in other places omitted; solemn days of fasting observed, and appointed by private persons; marriages illegally solemnised; burials uncharitably performed; and the very fundamentals of religion subverted by the publication of a new creed, and teaching the abrogation of the moral law; many offensive sermons are preached, and many impious pamphlets printed." Lord Clarendon says, that the pulpits were supplied with seditious and schismatical preachers. That in order to poison the hearts of the king's subjects, care was taken to place such ministers and lecturers in the most populous towns and parishes, as abhorred the present government and temperature of the church and state;" and then adds, "I am confident there was not from the beginning of this parliament, one orthodox or learned man recommended by them to any church in England." Strange! when scarce one was recommended who had not been educated in our universities, and subscribed all the doctrinal articles of the church of England! But his majesty's language is more severe in his declaration of August 12, 1642. "Under "Under pretence of encouraging preaching (says he) they have erected lectures in several parishes, and commended such lecturers as were men of no learning nor conscience, but furious promoters of the most dangerous innovations; many have taken no orders, yet were recommended by members of either house to parishes: and when mechanic persons have been brought before them for preaching in churches, and have confessed the same, they have been dismissed without punishment, and hardly with reprehension. All persons of learning and eminency in preaching, and of sober and virtuous conversation; of great examples in their lives, and even Nalson's Coll. vol. 2. p. 395. + Vol. 1. p. 295. such as among these men had been of greatest estimation, and suffered somewhat for them, were discountenanced, and such men cherished who boldly preached against the government of the church, against the Book of Common Prayer, against our kingly lawful power, and against our person. Farther, a licence even to treason is admitted in pulpits, and persons ignorant in learning and understanding, turbulent and seditious in disposition, scandalous in life, and unconformable in opinion to the laws of the land, are imposed upon parishes, to infect and poison the minds. of our people." What character the parliament-divines had for learning, for orthodoxy of doctrine, and sobriety of manners, will appear hereafter. The commons in their reply to his majesty's declaration, denied the whole of this charge, and averred, "that they were careful in their inquiries into the learning and morality of those whom they recommended; that they were not for encouraging faction and schism, but for preferring those who were for a parliamentary reformation in the church and state. That they had shewn their resentments against mobs and tumults, and against the preaching of laymen*;" for when they were informed that Mr. Robinson, Spencer, Banks, Durant, and Green, being mere laymen, had presumed to preach publicly, they sent for them [June 7], and reprimanded them by their speaker in these words; The house has a great distaste of your proceedings; and if you offend at any time in the like kind again, this house will take care you shall be severely punished. Far be it from me to apologise for the furious preachers of these times; though it will appear hereafter, that the complaints of the royalists are very much exaggerated. It was certainly a great disadvantage to the parliament's cause, that they could not get a good supply of learned and able preachers, the keys of admission into holy orders being at this time in the hands of the bishops, who were very strict in their examination into the political principles of those they ordained; this reduced the committee to the necessity of admitting some few who came well recommended from New England or Scotland, and had been only ordained by presbyters; and such young students, who, producing their testimonials from the universities, were allowed to preach for some time as candidates. They were under the like disadvantages as to presentations or inductions, most of them being in the hands of the king and the bishops. The archbishop of Canterbury continued to ordain clergymen of his own principles in the Tower; whereupon the house of lords ordered [October 28], that his jurisdiction should be sequestered, and administered by his inferior officers, till he should be acquitted of the charge of high treason that was against him. His grace often admitted such clergymen to livings as were obnoxious to the Nalson's Coll. vol. 2. p. 265. 270. two houses, insomuch that the lords found it necessary to enjoin him to acquaint their house with the names of such persons as he nominated to any ecclesiastical benefice, promotion, or dignity, within his disposal, to be approved of first by the house, before they were collated or instituted. On the other hand, when a minister was chosen by the parishioners, and recommended to his grace for admission, if he did not like his principles and character, he would either except against him, or suffer the living to lapse to the crown. This created him new enemies, and kept alive the resentments of the commons. At length the archbishop acquainted the king with his case, who sent him a peremptory letter, requiring him "that as often as any benefice, or other spiritual promotion, should become void within his gift, to dispose of it only to such persons as his majesty should nominate; and that if either or both houses should command him otherwise, he should then let it fall in lapse to the crown." As soon as the houses were acquainted with this, they published an order of their own, requiring the archbishop to dispose of no benefice or spiritual promotion that should become void at any time before his trial, without the leave and order of the two houses at Westminster. Such was the struggle between the king and parliament for the - pulpits! It being thought of great consequence on both sides, to fill them with men of their own principles, who would be zealous in the cause in which they were severally engaged. All the bishops were under a cloud, and in no degree of favour either with the parliament or people, except the bishop of Lincoln, who, having some years been in prison, had no share in the late innovations. This prelate, in the recess of parliament, visited his diocess; and exhorted the people in his sermons to keep to their lawful minister, and not go after tub-preachers in conventicles. He acquainted them with the laws, and told them that no power could protect them from the penalty of statutes unrepealed. "Look back (says his lordship) from the beginning of queen Elizabeth. Can the gospel stand better against the church of Rome, than it has done under the bishops, liturgy, and canons? Therefore don't abandon the good old way, for another which you do not know how much evil may be in it." But his rhetoric had very little effect; nor did the parliament approve of his conduct, at a time when his majesty was out of the kingdom, and when it was resolved to attempt some considerable alterations in the hierarchy. The distractions in the state were no less threatening than those of the church. The plague was in the city of London, which dispersed the members, so that they could hardly make a house. The disbanding the army infested the roads with highwaymen, insomuch that it was hardly safe to travel from one town to another. The officers (many of whom were Papists) crowded to London, and took lodgings about Covent-garden and Whitehall, under pretence of receiving the remainder of their |