were interrupted while celebrating religious services according to the directions of Convocation. The altar-rails were pulled down at St. Saviour's, Southwark. The officiant's surplice was torn at Halstead in Essex. Even in St. Margaret's, Westminster, when the House of Commons was assembled for divine worship, the congregation broke out into a Psalm as soon as the officiating clergyman began to read the communion service at the communion table. It became necessary to check these disorderly proceedings, and the two Houses of Parliament issued an order, "That Divine Service shall be performed as it is appointed by the Acts of Parliament of this Realm; and that all such as shall disturb that wholesome Order shall be severely punished, according to law." But, to strike at the innovations introduced by Laud, it was added, "that the Parsons, Vicars, and Curates in [the] several Parishes, shall forbear to introduce any Rites or Ceremonies that may give Offence, otherwise than those which are established by the Laws of the Land." 13

Early in February, petitions for church reform, and especially the two principal petitions-"the Ministers' petition" and "the Root and Branch petition "-came on for discussion in the Commons. The House was practically unanimous in the judgment that sweeping reforms were necessary: the only question at issue was, how far should they go? Lord Digby declared that there was no member of the House more sensible of" the heavy grievances of church government than himself, or "whose affections were keener to the clipping of those wings of the Prelates whereby they have mounted to such insolence"; but he was against the " Root and Branch petition," which seemed to him "a comet or blazing star raised and kindled out of the stench, out of the poisonous exhalation of a corrupted hierarchy." 14 He wanted to reform Episcopacy, not to destroy it. Lord Falkland took the same. side. The bishops, he said, "under pretence of uniformity [have] brought in superstition; and scandal under the titles of reverence and decency"; they have "defiled our Church by adorning our Churches"; and have separated us from foreign Protestants, "an action as unpolitick as ungodly." 13 L. J. (January 16, 1640-1), iv. 134. Repeated, for the County Palatine and City of Chester, April 22, 1641. Ibid., iv. 225. 14 Nalson, i. 748-749.

66

They had let the Romanists celebrate their mass in security, and made it a crime for Puritans who objected to the ceremonies to frequent a conventicle: they were more eager that men should conform to ceremonies than that they should conform to Christianity; and while men had been ruined for scruples, they had been only admonished for the grossest vices. He charged the bishops with betraying the civil and political rights of the nation, and of causing all the recent troubles between England and Scotland. They had been like the hen in Æsop," fattened with barley till it could lay no more eggs; they had been-some of them-so absolutely, directly, and cordially Papists, that it was all that fifteen hundred pounds a year could do to keep them from confessing it; in short, their work had been " to try how much of a Papist might be brought in without Popery, and to destroy as much as they could of the Gospel, without bringing themselves in danger of being destroyed by the law." 15 But, like Lord Digby, he wished to limit the powers of the bishops, not to abolish the episcopal office. At the close of the debate it was resolved by a majority of thirty-five to refer all the petitions to one of the Committees of Religion, to which the names of several of" the Root and Branch" members were added.16

While the House was engaged in this exciting discussion there was equal excitement outside. That the advisers of the King should have allowed him to remove the treaty with the Scots from Ripon to London, and to consent "upon any terms" that the Scottish commissioners should reside there before a peace was concluded, appeared to Lord Clarendon one of the gravest errors in the conduct of the King's affairs.17 The Commissioners were lodged in the very heart of the city, near London Stone. The Church of St. Antholin-" a place at all times made famous by some seditious lecturer "-was assigned to them for the conduct of services after the form of the Scotch Kirk. Sunday after Sunday the church was thronged with an eager, curious, and excited congregation. Those who were fortunate enough to get a place in the morning remained in their seats to make sure of a place in the afternoon;

15 Nalson, i. 768–769.

16 The numbers were 180 to 145. C. J. (February 9, 1640-1), ii. 81. 17 He describes it as the last and most confounding error of the

King and his advisers. History, i. 2'33.

and from the first appearance of daylight on Sunday till night the church was never empty.18 Henderson was a great preacher, and at St. Antholin's he had the chance of making a strong impression on the City of London in favour of Presbyterianism. He was not a man to let the chance slip, or to use it unwisely. Nor was this all. He and the other Commissioners, in private conference with leading men who were impatient of the oppression of the bishops, were able to add strength and definiteness to the growing conviction that the only effectual cure for the religious grievances from which the nation was suffering was to be found in the abolition of Episcopacy and the establishment of Presbyterianism. Now that the controversy had begun, and that there seemed some danger that the House of Commons might take a middle course and limit the powers of the bishops instead of abolishing them, Henderson issued a tract entitled The Unlawfulness and Danger of Limited Prelacie, or Perpetual Presidensie in the Church (1641). Baillie, another Commissioner, put forth a tract with a similar title. Henderson also published an account of The Government and Order of the Kirk of Scotland; and G. Gillespie, another Scotchman, stated The Grounds of Presbyterial Government in an Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland. There appeared on the other side, An Humble Remonstrance to the High Court of Parliament by a dutifull Sonne of the Church (Bishop Hall)-a defence of Episcopacy and the Liturgy. To Hall's pamphlet there was published a reply bearing a title which indicates its Presbyterian origin, An Answer to a Booke entituled "An Humble Remonstrance," in which the Originall of Liturgy (and) Episcopacy is discussed. And Queries propounded concerning both. The Parity of Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture demonstrated. The occasion of their Imparity in Antiquity discovered. The Disparity of the Ancient and our Modern Bishops manifested. The Antiquity of Ruling Elders in the Church vindicated. The Prelaticall Church Bounded. Written by Smectymnuus.' 19

The pamphlet was the production of five Puritan divines18 Ibid., i. 266.

19 Masson (Milton, ii. 219) quotes the lines of Cleveland "on the appearance of the pamphlet, expressing the half-comic wonder with which the name of Smectymnuus was everywhere greeted."

"Smectymnuus! The goblin makes me start.

I' the name of Rabbi Abraham, what art ?"

Stephen Marshall, Edmund Calamy, Thomas Young, Matthew Newcomen, and William Spurstow; and the amazing name under which it was published is composed of the initials of its five authors.20

On March 9 the Committee of the Commons submitted their Report, and on the next day, March 10, the House resolved, "That the legislative and judicial power of bishops, in the House of Peers in Parliament, is a great hindrance to the discharge of their spiritual function, prejudicial to the Commonwealth, and fit to be taken away, by bill." On March 11, it was further resolved, that for bishops or other clergymen to act as magistrates, or as judges in any civil courts, or to be members of the Privy Council was equally objectionable.21 A Bill embodying the substance of these resolutions, and entitled A Bill to restrain Bishops, and others in Holy Orders, from intermeddling with secular affairs, was brought in on March 30 and read a second time on April 1.2 The progress of the Bill was delayed by Strafford's trial, and it was not read a third time till May 1. On May 14, two days after the execution of Strafford, it came on for the second reading in the Lords.

22

During the six weeks which had passed since it was introduced into the Lower House, a large number of petitions had been sent up praying for the reform of the polity of the Church and remonstrating against its destruction. Williams, Bishop of Lincoln and Dean of Westminster,23 had on March 1

20 Young, one of the Smectymnuans, had, twenty years before, been private tutor to John Milton. Masson (Milton, ii. 238, 260) is of opinion that Milton contributed "rough notes or material" for about twenty pages of the pamphlet. Immediately after its appearance, Milton himself wrote a pamphlet on the controversy-Of Reformation touching Church Discipline in England, and the Causes that hitherto have hindered it: Two Books, written to a Friend (1641). This was immediately followed by another in reply to a pamphlet of Ussher's: the second pamphlet was entitled Of Prelatical Episcopacy, and whither it may be deduc'd from the Apostolical times, by vertue of those Testimonies, which are alleg'd to that purpose in some late Treatises. Milton issued a third pamphlet in the course of the same year under the title Animadversions upon the Remonstrants Defence against Smectymnuus. This was in answer to Bishop Hall. (Masson, ibid., ii. 251, 257.)

21 C. J. (March 10, 11, 1640–1), ii. 101, 102.

22 The title of the Bill varies slightly in form. C. J. (March 30, and April 1, 1641), ii. 114, 115.

23 At the instigation of Laud, Williams, who was friendly to the Puritans, was suspended by the High Commission court from all his

obtained the appointment of a Committee of the House of Lords, consisting of ten bishops and thirty lay peers, to consider and report to the House on the means of restoring peace to the Church. This Committee, described as "a Committee for Innovations in religion," had invited a large number of eminent Puritans--Marshall, Calamy, and Young, three of the Smectymnuans, among them-to a conference. Many reforms were proposed by this Committee, which, had they been offered earlier, would have alleviated or prevented Puritan discontent. Ussher had a scheme for what he termed a "reduced Episcopacy. Williams had another. The Lords were disposed to make large changes in the Church, but were not prepared to accept the revolutionary scheme of the "Root and Branch" Williams himself was firmly opposed to depriving the bishops of their seats in the House of Lords. On June 8 (1641) the Bishops' Exclusion Bill was rejected.2

men.

24

25

A week later, June 15, the Commons made a vigorous reply to the vote of the Upper House by resolving that "all Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, Prebendaries, Chanters, Canons and Petty Canons, and their Officers, be utterly abolished and taken away out of the Church," and "That all the Lands taken by this Bill ... shall be employed to the Advancement of Learning and Piety; Provision being had and made, that his Majesty be no Loser in his Rents, First-Fruits, and other Duties: and a competent maintenance shall be made to the several Persons concerned, if such Persons appear not peccant and Delinquents to this House." 26

A still more sweeping proposal was already before the House in the form of a Bill. In the course of the month of May it became certain that the Bishops' Exclusion Bill would be thrown out in the Lords; and a Bill-for which Sir Arthur Haselrig, Sir Harry Vane, and Oliver Cromwell were responsible -was read a first time on May 27, described in its title as intended For the utter Abolishing and Taking away of all Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors and Commissaries, Deans, offices, heavily fined, and committed to the Tower during the King's pleasure. He was kept in close imprisonment for four years. He was liberated and restored to his offices immediately after the opening of the Long Parliament. 25 L. J., iv. 269,

24 See Note A, pp. 404-406.

26 Rushworth, iii, (1), 285; C. J., ii. 176,