ships, indeed, would have interpreted those words, "the true reformed Protestant religion, expressed in the doctrine of the church of England," to have included the government or hierarchy of the church; but it was resolved and declared by the house *, that by those words was and is meant,- only the public doctrine professed in the said church, so far as it is opposite to Popery and Popish innovations; and that the said words are not to extend to the maintenance of any form of worship, discipline, or government, nor of rites and ceremonies t.-Within two days the protestation was taken by eighty temporal lords, seventeen bishops, nine judges, and four hundred and thirty-eight of the house of commons. Next day it was printed, and sent to the sheriff's and justices of peace in the several counties of England, to be taken by the whole nation, with the following directions.

"That it be taken in the afternoon of some Lord's day after sermon, before the congregation be dismissed, by all masters of families, their sons that are of a proper age, and men-servants, in the manner following. First, That notice be given to the minister by the churchwardens of the intention.-Secondly, That the minister acquaint the people in his sermon of the nature of the protestation. Thirdly, That the minister first take it himself, reading it distinctly with an audible voice, that all present may hear it; then the assembly shall take the writing in their hands, saying with a distinct and audible voice, I, A. B., do in the presence of Almighty God vow and protest the same, which the leading person that reads it did,' naming the person.-Fourthly, The names of all that take it shall be subscribed in a register; and the names of those that refuse shall be entered."

The cities of London and Westminster observed these directions, but the remoter counties were complained of for neglect; upon which the house of commons passed a bill to oblige all persons to take it throughout the kingdom; which was lost in the house of lords, the whole bench of bishops opposing it; whereupon the commons came to this resolution, that "whosoever would not take the protestation was unfit to bear offices in the church or commonwealth."

This was carrying matters to a very extraordinary length.There had been a parliamentary association in the reign of queen Elizabeth, which her majesty confirmed, and a solemn league and covenant in Scotland, which the king had complied with; but the enforcing a protestation or vow upon his majesty's subjects without his consent, was assuming a power, which even this dangerous crisis of affairs, and the uncommon authority with which this parliament was invested by the late act of continuance, can by no

• Mr. Neal, according to lord Clarendon, has misrepresented this matter. For he says, that this explanation was procured in the house of commons, without ever advising with the house of peers. The peers had previously taken the protestation. Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. 2. Mr. Neal is properly corrected here by Dr. 252. p.

Grey.-ED.

Rushworth, part 3. vol. 1.

means support or justify. The odium of putting a stop to the protestation fell upon the bench of bishops, who were already sinking under their own weight: and his majesty's not interposing in this affair at all, was afterward made use of as a precedent for imposing the solemn league and covenant upon the whole kingdom without his concurrence *.

The Puritans had also objected to the lordly titles and dignities of the bishops; but their votes in the house of peers were now esteemed a very great grievance, and an effectual bar to the proceedings of parliament. It was remembered that they had been always averse to reformation; that they had voted unanimously against the supremacy in king Henry VIII.'s reign; and against the act of uniformity in queen Elizabeth's. It was now observed that they were the creatures of the court, and a dead weight against all reformation in church or state; twenty-six votes being sufficient at any time to turn the scale in that house, whose full number was not above a hundred; it was therefore moved, that a bill might be brought in to take away their seats in parliament, which was readily agreed to. The bill, says lord Clarendon †, was drawn up with great deliberation, and was entitled, "An act for restraining bishops, and others of the clergy in holy orders, from intermeddling in secular affairs." It consisted of several branches, as, "that no bishop should have a vote in parliament, nor any judicial power in the star-chamber, nor be a privy-councillor, nor a judge in any temporal courts; nor should any clergyman be in the commission of peace." Tomake way for the passing of this bill, it was alleged, that if this were granted the commons would be satisfied, and little or nothing further attempted to the prejudice of the church. It therefore passed the house of commons without opposition, and was sent up to the house of peers May 1, 1641. Mr. Fuller says, that lord Kimbolton would have persuaded the bishops to resign their votes in parliament, adding, that then the temporal lords would be obliged in honour to preserve their jurisdiction and revenues. The earl of Essex also employed somebody to treat privately with the bishops on the same head; but they rejected all overtures of accommodation, resolving to make their utmost efforts, and to keep possession of their seats till a superior strength should dispossess them; accordingly the bill met with a vigorous opposition in the upper house, and after a second reading was thrown out, without so much as being committed (a countenance frequently given to bills they never intend to pass); but the whole bench of bishops voting for themselves, it is no wonder it was lost by a considerable majority. Mr. Fuller says it would have been thrown out if the bishops had not voted at all; for though the temporal lords were content to exclude them from all secular offices and employments in the state, they were in no disposition to take away their suffrages in the house of peers.

Nalson's Col. vol. 2. p. 414.

Book 9. p. 185.

Vol. 1. p. 234.

9

Many learned speeches were made in both houses upon this occasion; the reasons of the commons for passing the bill were these: (1.) Because their attendance on secular affairs, not relating to the church, is a great hinderance to their spiritual function *. "No man that warreth (saith St. Paul to Timothy) entangleth himself with the affairs of this life." (2.) Because it is contrary to their ordination-vow; for when they enter into holy orders they promise to give themselves wholly to that vocation. (3.) Because councils and canons in several ages have forbid their meddling in secular affairs. (4.) Because the twenty-four bishops depend on the two archbishops, and take an oath of canonical obedience to them. (5.) Because their peerage is not of the same nature with the temporal lords, being but for life. (6.) Because they depend on the crown for translation to greater bishopricks. (7.) Because it is not fit that twenty-six of them should sit as judges upon complaints brought against themselves and their order t.

Bishop Williams published an answer to these reasons, entitled the Abstract, to which there presently came out a reply. The chief speakers on behalf of the bishops, in the house of peers, were, the lord-viscount Newark, afterward earl of Kingston, Dr. Williams, lord-bishop of Lincoln, afterward archbishop of York, the marquis of Hereford, the earls of Southampton, Bath, and Bristol. But instead of transcribing their speeches, I will give the reader a summary of their arguments, and of their adversaries' reply.

First, It was argued, that "bishops had voted in parliament almost ever since the Conquest, according to Matthew Paris, sir Henry Spelman, and others." To which it was replied, that time and usage ought to be of no weight with lawmakers, on the behalf of things which are allowed to be inconvenient : abbots had voted as anciently in parliament as bishops, and yet their votes were taken away.

Secondly, It was said that "the bishops voting was no considerable hinderance in their spiritual function; for parliaments were to sit but once in three years, and then but for a month or two together; but though no clergyman should entangle himself with the affairs of this life, the apostle does not exclude him from intermeddling." To which it was answered, that the

Rushworth, p. 281. Nalson's Collection, vol. 2. p. 260.

+ On these reasons, Dr. Harris observes, "that, whatever might have been thought of them at that time, we are to suppose that they have long been of no force. The zeal for the constitution in church and state, the abhorrence of all ministerial measures inconsistent therewith, the opposition to every thing contrary to liberty and the public good; and above all, the self-denial, and contempt of the world, humility, and constant discharge of episcopal duties, required in the New Testament: I say, all these things shew how much the bishops since the Reformation are altered, and how much those are mistaken who represent them as a dead weight in the house of lords, and a useless expense to the public." Life of Charles I. p. 330, 331.

Nalson's Collections, vol. 2. p. 251, &c.

episcopal function, if well discharged, was enough for all their time and thoughts; and that their diocesses were large enough to employ all their labours, in visitation, confirmation, preaching, &c. The design of the apostle Paul was certainly to exhort Timothy to withdraw himself as much as possible from the affairs of this life, that his thoughts might be more entire for his evangelical work; and therefore, in another place, he exhorts him to give himself wholly to these things.

Thirdly, it was said, that "clergymen had always been in the commission of the peace, from the first planting of Christianity, and that they were best qualified for it." To which it was answered, that they were most unfit for this employment, because it had a direct tendency to hinder their usefulness in their pulpits; and to the fact it was replied, that the first clergymen that were made justices of the peace, or had power in temporal jurisdiction, were the bishops of Durham and York, 34 Edw. III. That before the act of conformity, 1 Edw. VI. the clergy were not put in commission for the peace; and that the reason of their being then admitted was, that they might persuade the people to conformity; but if in conscience they held it not consistent with their spiritual calling, they might refuse.

It was farther said, that the taking away one whole bench out of the house of peers was an ill precedent, and might encourage the commons one time or other to cut off the barons, or some other degree of the nobility. To which it was replied, that the peerage of the bishops did not stand upon the same footing with the rest of the nobility, because their honour does not descend to their posterity, and because they have no right to vote in cases of blood; if they had the same right of peerage with the temporal lords, no canon of the church could deprive them of it; for it was never known, that the canons of the church pretended to deprive the barons of England of any part of their inherent jurisdiction.

It was argued further, that if the bench of bishops were deprived of their votes, they would be left under very great disadvantages; for whereas the meanest commoner is represented in the lower house, the bishops will be thrown out of this common benefit; and if they have no share in consenting to the laws, neither in their persons nor representatives, what justice can oblige them to keep those laws?

To which it was replied, that they have the same share in the legislature with the rest of the freeholders of England; nor is there any more reason that the bishops, as bishops, should be a part of the legislature, than the judges or the lawyers, as such, or any other incorporated profession of learned men.

But the principal argument that was urged in favour of bishops was, that "they were one of the three estates in parliament; that as such they were the representatives of the whole body of the clergy, and therefore to turn them out would be to alter the con

stitution, and to take away one whole branch of the legislature: the parliament would not then be the complete representative body of the nation, nor would the laws which were enacted in their absence be valid. To support this assertion it was said, (1.) That the clergy in all other Christian kingdoms of these northern parts, make up a third estate, as in Germany, France, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Scotland; and therefore why not in England? (2.) When king Henry V. was buried, it is said, the three estates assembled, and declared his son Henry VI. his successor. The petition to Richard duke of Gloucester, to accept the crown, runs in the name of the three estates; and in his parliament it is said expressly, that at the request of the three estates (i. e. the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons in parliament assembled,) he was declared undoubted king of these realms; to which may be added, the statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 3, where the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, are said to represent the three estates of this realm.

It was replied to this, that the bishops did not sit in the house as a third estate, nor as bishops, but only in the right of their baronies annexed to their bishopricks, 5 Will. I. All the bishops have baronies except the bishop of Man, who is as much a bishop, to all intents and purposes of jurisdiction and ordination, as the others, but has no place in parliament, because he does not hold per integram baroniam. It must be admitted, that in ancient times. the lords spiritual are sometimes mentioned as a third estate of the realm, but it could not be intended by this, that the clergy, much less the bishops, were an essential part of the legislature; for if so, it would then follow, that no act of parliament could be valid without their consent; whereas divers acts are now in force, from which the whole bench of bishops have dissented, as the act of conformity, 1 Edw. VI. and the act of supremacy, 1 Eliz. * If the major part of the barons agree, and the house of commons concur, any bill may pass into an act with the consent of the king, though all the bishops dissent, because their votes are overruled by the major part of the peers. In the parliament of Northampton under Henry II. when the bishops challenged their peeraget, they said, "Non sedemus hic episcopi sed barones," We sit not here as bishops, but as barons; we are barons, and you are barons, here therefore we are peers. Nor did king Charles himself apprehend the bishops to be one of the three estates, for in his declaration of June 16, 1642, he calls himself one, and the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, the other two. ancient times the prelates were sometimes excluded the parliament, as in 25 king Edw. I. when they would not agree to grant an aid to his majesty in the parliament at Carlisle; and before that time several acts had passed against the oppressions of the clergy, in which the entry in the records stands thus, "the king having con+ Fuller's Appeal.

Nalson's Collections, vol. 2. p. 502, &c.

In