'constant professions sealed with the blood of many martyrs, as Cranmer, Ridley, and others; by the thirty-six articles of Queen Elizabeth, and by the articles agreed upon at Lambeth as the doctrine of the church of England, 'which King James sent to Dort, and to Ireland, it appears 'evidently what is the established religion of the realm. 'Let us therefore shew wherein these late opinions differ 'from those truths; and what men have been since prefer'red, who have professed the contrary heresies; what par'dons they have had for false doctrine; what prohibiting ' of books and writings against their doctrine, and permit'ting of such books as have been for them. Let us enquire 'after the abettors, and after the pardons granted to them 'that preach the contrary truth before his majesty. It be. 'longs to parliaments to establish true religion, and to pu'nish false. We must know what parliaments have done 'formerly in religion. Our parliaments have confirmed 'general councils. In the time of King Henry VIII. the earl of Essex was condemned [by parliament] for countenancing books of heresy. The convocation is but a 'provincial synod of Canterbury, and cannot bind the 'whole kingdom. As for York it is distant, and cannot bind us or the laws; and as for the high commission, it 'is derived from parliament-___¶¶✯ Sir John Elliot said, "If there be any difference in 'opinion concerning the interpretation of the thirty-nine 'articles, it is said, the bishops and clergy in convocation 'have power to dispute it, and to order which way they 'please. A slight thing, that the power of religion should be left to these men! I honor their profession; there are among our bishops such as are fit to be made examples 'for all ages, who shine in virtue, and are firm for religion; 'but the contrary faction I like not. I remember a char'acter I have seen in a diary of King Edward VI. where 'he says of the bishops, that some for age, some for ignorance, some for luxury, and some for popery, were unfit 'for discipline and government. We see there are some among our bishops that are not orthodox, nor sound in religion as they should be, witness the two bishops com'plained of the last meeting of this parliament; should we Rushworth, vol. i. p. 659. be in their power, I fear our religion would be over'thrown. Some of these are masters of ceremonies, and labour to introduce new ceremonies into the church. Let us go to the ground of our religion, and lay down a rule on which all others may rest, and then enquire after ' offenders."* Mr. Secretary Cook said, "That the fathers of the 'church were asleep; but a little to awaken their zeal, it 'is fit (says he) that they take notice of that hierarchy 'that is already established, in competition with their lord'ships, for they [the papists] have a bishop consecrated by 'the pope; this bishop has his subaltern officers of all 'kinds, as vicars-general, archdeacons, rural deans, appa'ritors, &c. neither are these nominal or titular officers on❝ly, but they all execute their jurisdictions, and make their 'ordinary visitations throughout the kingdom, keep courts, ' and determine ecclesiastical causes; and, which is an ar'gument of more consequence, they keep ordinary intelli'gence by their agents in Rome, and hold correspondence 'with the nuncios and cardinals both at Brussels and France. Neither are the seculars alone grown to this height, but the regulars are more active and dangerous. Even at this time they intend to hold a concurrent 'assembly with this parliament." After some other speeches of this kind, the house of commons entered into the following vow. "WE the commons in parliament assembled, do claim, 'protest and avow for truth, the sense of the articles of religion which were established by parliament in the thir'teenth year of our late Queen Elizabeth, which by the 'public act of the church of England, and by the general 'and current exposition of the writers of our church have 'been delivered unto us. And we reject the sense of the 'jesuits and arminians, and all others that differ from us.”† * Rushworth, vol. i. p. 660-61. "This protestation," Dr. Blackburne remarks," is equivalent at least to any other resolution of the House. It is found amongst the most authentic records of parliament. And whatever force or opera❝tion it had the moment it was published, the same it has to this hour; 'being never revoked or repealed in any succeeding parliament, nor 'containing any one particular, which is not in perfect agreement with every part of our present constitution, civil and religious." Confessional, p. 142. Bishop Laud in answer to this protestation, has several remarks. "Is there by this act (says his lordship) any in'terpretation of the articles or not? If none, to what end is the act? If a sense or interpretation be declared, what authority have laymen to make it? for interpretation of 'an article belongs to them only that have power to make it." To which it might be answered, that the commons made no new interpretation of the articles, but avowed for truth the current sense of expositors before that time, in opposition to the modern interpretation of jesuits and arminians. But what authority have LAYMEN to make it? Answer. The same that they had in the 13th of Elizabeth to establish them, as the doctrine of the church of England; unless we will say with Mr. Collyer, that neither the sense of the articles, nor the articles themselves, were established in that parliament or in any other.* If so, they are no part of the legal constitution, and men may subscribe the words without putting any sense upon them at all: an admirable way to prevent diversity of opinions in matters of faith! But his lordship adds, "That it is against the king's 'declaration, which says, we must take the GENERAL MEAN"ING of them, and not draw them aside any way, but take them in the literal and grammatical sense." Has the king then a power, without convocation or parliament, to interpret and determine the sense of the articles for the whole body of the clergy? By the general meaning of the articles the declaration seems to understand no one determined sense at all. Strange! that so learned and wise a body of clergy and laity, in convocation and parliament, should establish a number of articles with this title, for the avoiding of diversity of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true religion, without any one determined sense! The bishop goes on, and excepts against the current sense of expositors, "because they may, and perhaps 'do go against the literal sense." Will his lordship then abide by the literal and grammatical sense? No, but "if 'an article bear more senses than onc, a man may choose 'what sense his judgment directs him to, provided it be a SENSE, according to the analogy of faith, till the church 'determine a [particular] SENSE; but 'tis the wisdom of the Eccles. Hist. p. 747. Prynne Cant. Doom. p. 164. • church to require consent to articles in general as much as • may be, and not require assent to particulars." His lordship had better have spoken out, and said, that it would be the wisdom of the church to require no subscriptions at all. To what straits are men driven to comply with the laws, when their sentiments differ from the literal and grammatical sense of the articles of the church! Mr. Collyer says, they have no established sense; King Charles, in his declaration, that they are to be understood in a general sense, but not to be drawn aside to a particular determined sense; bishop Laud thinks, that if the words will bear more senses than one, a man may choose what sense his judgment directs him to, provided it be a SENSE, according to the analogy of faith, and all this for avoiding diversity of opinions! But I am afraid this reasoning is too wonderful for the reader. While the parliament were expressing their zeal against arminianism and popery, a new controversy arose, which provoked his majesty to dissolve them, and to resolve to govern without parliaments for the future; for though the king had so lately signed the petition of right in full parliament, he went on with levying money by his royal prerogative. A bill was depending in the house to grant his majesty the duties of tonnage and poundage; but before it was passed, the custom-house officers seized the goods of three eminent merchants, Mr. Rolls, Mr. Chambers, and Mr. Vassal, for non-payment. Mr. Chambers, was fined two thousand pounds, besides the loss of his goods, and suffered six years imprisonment: Mr. Rolls's, werehouses were locked up, and himself taken out of the house of commons and imprisoned. This occasioned some warm speeches against the custom-house officers and farmers of the revenues; but the king took all the blame on himself, and sent the house word, that what the officers had done, was by his special direction and command, and that it was not so much their act as his own. This was a new way of covering the unwarrantable proceedings of corrupt ministers,and was said to be the advice of the bishops Laud and Neile; a contrivance that laid the foundation of his majesty's ruin. It is a maxim in law, that the king can do no wrong, and that all mal-administrations are chargeable upon his minis ters; yet now, in order to screen his servants, his majesty will make himself answerable for their conduct. So that if the parliament will defend their rights and properties, they must charge the king personally, who in his own opinion was above law, and accountable for his actions to none but God. It was moved in the house, that notwithstanding the king's answer, the officers of the customs should be proceeded against, by separating their interests from the king's: But when the speaker, Sir John Finch, was desired to put the question, he refused, saying the king had commanded the contrary.* Upon which the house immediately adjourned to Jan. 25, and were then adjourned by the king's order to March 2, when meeting again, and requir ing the speaker to put the former question, he again refused, and said he had the king's order to adjourn them to March 16, but they detained him in the chair, not without some tumult and confusion, till they made the following protestation. 1. "Whosoever shall by favor or countenance, seem 'to extend or introduce popery or arminianism, shall be re'puted a capital enemy of the kingdom. 6 2. "Whosoever shall advise the levying the subsidies of tonnage and poundage, not being granted by parliament, shall be reputed a capital enemy. 3. "If any merchant shall voluntarily pay those duties, ' he shall be reputed a betrayer of the liberties of England, and an enemy of the same."t The next day warrants were directed to Denzil Hollis, Sir John Elliot, William Coriton, Benjamin Valentine, John Selden, esqrs. and four more of the principal members of the house to appear before the council on the morrow: Four of them appeared accordingly, (viz.) Mr. Hollis, Elliot Coriton, and Valentine; who refusing to answer out of parliament for what was said in the house, were committed close prisoners to the tower. The studies of the rest were ordered to be sealed up, and a proclamation issued for apprehending them; though the parliament not being dissolved, they were actually members of the house. On the 10th of March, * Whitelocke's Memorial, p. 12, Rushworth, vol. 1. p. 669. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 670. |