[Footnote 1:  Baillie, i. 408, 420, 431; ii. 11, 33, 37, 42, 57, 63, 66, 71.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1644.  Sept. 13.] [Sidenote b:  A.D. 1645.  March 5.]

from the sacrament of the Lord’s supper; but the parliament refused the first, and confined the second to cases of public scandal. They arrogated to themselves the power of judging what offences should be deemed scandalous; the parliament defined the particular offences, and appointed civil commissioners in each province, to whom the presbyteries should refer every case not previously enumerated. They allowed of no appeal from the ecclesiastical tribunals to the civil magistrate; the parliament empowered all who thought themselves aggrieved to apply for redress to either of the two houses.[1] This profane mutilation of the divine right of the presbyteries excited the alarm and execration of every orthodox believer.  When the ordinance for carrying the new plan into execution was in progress through the Commons, the ministers generally determined not to act under its provisions.  The citizens of London, who petitioned against it, were indeed silenced by a vote[a] that they had violated the privileges of the house; but the Scottish commissioners came to their aid with a demand that religion should be regulated to the satisfaction of the church; and the assembly of divines ventured to remonstrate, that they could not in conscience submit to an imperfect and anti-scriptural form of ecclesiastical government.  To the Scots a civil but unmeaning answer was returned:[b] to alarm the assembly, it was resolved that the remonstrance was a breach of privilege, and that nine questions should be proposed to the divines, respecting the nature and object of the divine right to which they pretended.  These questions had been prepared by the ingenuity of Selden and Whitelock,

[Footnote 1:  Journals, vii. 469.  Commons’, Sept. 25, Oct. 10, March 5.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1646.  March 26.] [Sidenote b:  A.D. 1646.  April 22.]

ostensibly for the sake of information, in reality to breed dissension and to procure delay.[1]

When the votes of the house were announced to the assembly, the members anticipated nothing less than the infliction of those severe penalties with which breaches of privilege were usually visited.  They observed a day of fasting and humiliation, to invoke the protection of God in favour of his persecuted church; required the immediate attendance of their absent colleagues; and then reluctantly entered on the consideration of the questions sent to them from the Commons.  In a few days, however, the king took refuge in the Scottish army, and a new ray of hope cheered their afflicted spirits.  Additional petitions were presented; the answer of the two houses became more accommodating; and the petitioners received thanks for their zeal, with an assurance in conciliatory language that attention should be paid to their requests.