1. True Relation for 1629, in Notestein, Wallace and Relf, Francis H. (eds.), Commons Debates for 1629 (Minneapolis, 1921), pp. 67–68Google Scholar.

2. Ibid., pp. 101-02.

3. See Harrison, A. W., The Beginnings of Arminianism to the Synod of Don (London, 1926)Google Scholar; Platt, Frederick, “Arminianism,” Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. Hastings, James (New York, 1908), I, 807–16Google Scholar; Colie, Rosalie L., Light and Enlightenment (Cambridge, 1957), pp. 8–16Google Scholar; Charles, H. and George, Katherine, The Protestant Mind of the English Reformation (Princeton, 1961), pp. 66–68Google Scholar; Ollard, S. L. (ed.), Dictionary of English Church History (2nd ed.; London, 1919), pp. 28–29Google Scholar.

4. A Declaration concerning the Proceedings with the States Generall of the United Provinces of the Low Countreys in the cause of D. Conradus Vorstius in The Workes of the Most High and Mightie Prince James (London, 1616), p. 356Google Scholar.

5. Ibid., p. 365.

6. See Lamont, William M., Godly Rule Politics and Religion 1603–1660 (London, 1969), pp. 30–31Google Scholar. Cf. Judson, Margaret A., The Crisis of the Constitution (New Brunswick, N.J., 1949), p. 188Google Scholar; Greenleaf, W. H., “James I and the Divine Right of Kings,” Political Studies, V (1957), 44–47Google Scholar; Shriver, Frederick, “Orthodoxy and diplomacy: James I and the Vorstius Affair,” English Historical Review, LXXXV (1970), 449–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. James, King, Declaration against Vorstius, p. 367Google Scholar.

8. See Geyl, P., The Netherlands Divided 1609-1648 (London, 1936), pp. 47–58Google Scholar. Cf. Parker, T. M., “Arminianism and Laudianism in Seventeenth-Century England,” in Studies in Church History, eds. Dugmore, C. W. and Duggan, Charles (London, 1964), I, 20–26Google Scholar.

9. See Harrison, , Beginnings of Arminianism, pp. 248–51Google Scholar.

10. Geyl, , Netherlands Divided, p. 59Google Scholar.

11. Matthew Kellison's pamphlet, A Gagg for the New Gospell (by The Gagger of all Protestants Mouths) was itself directed against a set of propositions prepared by Montagu to ward off the popish opinions he encountered in his parish. See D.N.B., XIII, 74.

12. See Montagu's letter to John Cosin on June 28, 1624, in Ornsby, G. (ed.), Correspondence of John Cosin [Surtees Society, LII] (London, 1869), p. 21Google Scholar.

13. Kellison, , Gagg, p. 107Google Scholar.

14. Ibid., pp. 157-70, 110.

15. Published in Yates, John, Ibis ad Caesarem Or a Submissive Appearance Before Caesar (London, 1626), p. 46Google Scholar.

16. Indeed, Taylor's, Thomas tract, The Parable of the Sower and of the Seed (London, 1623)Google Scholar, which was directed in good measure against Arminians, included no mention of English Arminians. Similarly, the long and inclusive antipapal tract by Gee, John, The Foot out of the Snare (London, 1624)Google Scholar, made no connection between English papists and Arminians.

17. Sources conflict as to the number of petitions against Montagu actually submitted. PRO, Sir Edward Nicholas diary, State Papers 16/97, fol. 204 mentions a single petition subscribed by both Yates and Ward, as does Heylyn, Peter, Cyprianus Anglicus (London, 1668), p. 125Google Scholar. Bodleian, Sir Thomas Holland diary, Tanner MSS, 392, fol. 87 mentions only Yates, as does Yates in Ibis ad Caesarem, p. 46. Journals of the House of Commons, I, 788Google Scholar contains a petition against Montagu from Dr. Anyan, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. [All parliamentary diaries cited were used in typescript at the Yale Center for Parliamentary History. The author here wishes to express his gratitude to Prof. Jack Hexter, Executive Director, and to Maija J. Cole, Asst. Editor.]

18. See PRO, Sir Edward Nicholas diary, State Papers 16/97, fols. 111 et seq.; cf. Heylyn, , Cyprianus Anglicus, p. 122Google Scholar.

19. See PRO, Sir Edward Nicholas diary, State Papers 16/97, fols. 194v et seq.; Bodleian, Sir Thomas Holland diary, Tanner MSS, 392, fols. 79v-81; Commons Journals, I, 784-ffGoogle Scholar. See also BM, Sir Walter Erie diary, Add. MSS, 18597, fol. 199v. The matters for which Harsnett was brought before the Commons would later have resulted in charges of Arminianism: approval of images in churches, praying toward the east, inhibiting local preachers from praying in the morning. Since Arminianism in 1624 had only doctrinal referents, and Harsnett was not charged with doctrinal variance, he was not accused of Arminianism.

20. Bodleian, Sir Thomas Holland diary, Tanner MSS, 392, fol. 87.

21. BM, Sir Walter Erle diary, Add. MSS, 18597, fol. 182.

22. Ibid. Mr. Wentworth referred in part to Statutes of the Realm (London, 1810–1828), III, 783–84Google Scholar: 32 Henry VIII, c. 26 where it is said that “Nothing doth more disturb the peace of the land than diversity of religion.” It is not absolutely clear whether this Thomas Wentworth was the lawyer representing Oxford or the baronet sitting for Pontefract, Yorkshire.

23. The diarist adding, “Parliament avoid meddling with deep points in religion though they may.” BM, Sir Simonds D'Ewes diary, Harleian MSS, 159, fol. 115v.

24. See Geyl, P., The Revolt of the Netherlands 1555-1609 (London, 1932), p. 289Google Scholar; Harrison, , Beginnings of Arminianism, pp. 98–100Google Scholar. Arminius, claiming only a desire for church unity, had similarly been fashioned by his opponents into the image of a Jesuit.

25. Platt, , “Arminianism,” Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, I, 810Google Scholar; Yates, , Ibis ad Caesarem, pp. 1–46Google Scholar.

26. Ornsby, , Cosin Correspondence, p. 78Google Scholar (Montagu to Cosin, July 10, 1625).

27. Heylyn, , Cyprianus Anglicus, p. 125Google Scholar.

28. The full title in 1624 was Immediate addresse unto God alone First delivered in a sermon before his Majestie at Windsore, Since revised and inlarged to a just Treatise of Invocation of Saints (London, 1624)Google Scholar. Montagu here maintained the value of saintly intercession at the foot of the Lord for man's salvation (p. 226). In doing so, he managed to emphasize the immense distance between a king and his subjects, which was parallel to the distance between God and man (p. 24, properly p. 22).

29. Montagu, , Appeal to Caesar, p. 88Google Scholar; see also pp. 15-16, 80. One of the more bitter issues in the Arminian controversy was Montagu's slander of Puritans.

30. Ibid., pp. 6-7; see also pp. 138-39, 320-21.

31. Cf. New, John F. H., Anglican and Puritan (Stanford, 1964), pp. 14, 46Google Scholar.

32. See Harrison, , Beginnings of Arminianism, p. 547Google Scholar. The English delegates to the Synod of Dort also refused to commit the Church of England to the Synod's decisions. See also Scott, Thomas, The Articles of the Synod of Dort (London, 1818), pp. 162–65Google Scholar.

33. Montagu, , Appeal to Caesar, pp. 105–07Google Scholar.

34. BM, Anonymous diary, Add. MSS, 48091, fols. 14v-19v.

35. Ibid., fols. 14-16v.

36. Ibid., fols. 19-19v; Commons Journals, I, 805Google Scholar.

37. Montagu, , Appeal to Caesar, pp. vi–viiGoogle Scholar.

38. Not only had Montagu crossed James on the issue of the Synod of Dort; Montagu had also refused to affirm, as James had maintained, that the Pope was the Antichrist. See BM, Anonymous diary, Add. MSS, 48091, fol. 17v; Commons Journals, I, 805Google Scholar; Heylyn, , Cyprianus Anglicus, p. 125Google Scholar.

39. The most detailed accounts of the report appear in BM, Anonymous diary, Add. MSS, 48091, fols. 16v-19v; Commons Journals, I, 805Google Scholar.

40. For an explanation of the doctrinal errors in greater detail, see BM, Anonymous diary, Add. MSS, 48091, fols. 16v-17.

41. Commons Journals, I, 805Google Scholar.

42. Ibid., Cf. BM, Anonymous diary, Add. MSS, 48091, fob. 19-19v.

43. Ibid., p. 806.

44. Montagu was to give bond of £2000 for his appearance before the Parliament in August. See BM, Anonymous diary, Add. MSS, 48091, fols. 20-20v. Cf. Montagu's letter to Cosin on July 10 in Ornsby, , Cosin Correspondence, p. 75Google Scholar.

45. Commons Journals, I, 806Google Scholar.

46. Calendar of State Papers Domestic (C.S.P.D.) 1625–1626, IV.18 (July 8, 1625)Google Scholar.

47. For various reports of this answer, see BM, Anonymous diary, Add. MSS, 48091, fols. 20-20v; Commons Journals, I, 807Google Scholar; C.S.P.D. 1625-1626, IV.29 (July 9, 1625); also Laud, William, Works, ed. Scott, William and Bliss, James [Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology, LVI-LXIV] (London, 1853), III, 167Google Scholar.

48. C.S.P.D. 1625-1626, IV, 19 (July 8, 1625).

49. BM, Anonymous diary, Add. MSS, 48091, fols. 20-20v.

50. See for example Montagu's, Diatribae Upon the First Part of the Late History of Tithes [by John Selden] (London, 1621)Google Scholar. Cf. Montagu's letter to Cosin on October 24, 1624 in Ornsby, , Cosin Correspondence, p. 22Google Scholar.

51. Montagu to Cosin, May 12, 1625, in Ornsby, , Cosin Correspondence, p. 68Google Scholar.

52. See Montagu's letter to Richard Neile, Bishop of Durham, July 10, 1625, in Ornsby, , Cosin Correspondence, p. 78Google Scholar.

53. See Laud, , Works, III, 167–68 (entry for July 13, 1625)Google Scholar.

54. Ornsby, , Cosin Correspondence, pp. 295–96Google Scholar.

55. Dutch Arminians, on the other hand, relied almost exclusively upon civil magistrates to determine the orthodoxy of doctrine. See Colie, , Light and Enlightenment, pp. 11–13Google Scholar; Harrison, , Beginnings of Arminianism, pp. 139–41Google Scholar.

56. For varying accounts and perspectives on this letter, see Rushworth, John, Historical Collections (London, 1721), I, 176–77Google Scholar; Heylyn, , Cyprianus Anglicus, p. 136Google Scholar; Lawson, John P., The Life and Times of William Laud (London, 1829), I, 278–79Google Scholar.

57. Heylyn, , Cyprianus Anglicus, p. 137Google Scholar.

58. Commons Journals, I, 809–10Google Scholar.

59. Laud, , Works, VI, 249Google Scholar.

60. Cosin, John, The Sum and Substance of the Conference lately had at York-House concerning Mr. Mountague's Books in Works [Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology, XXXIV-XXXVIII] (Oxford, 1845), II, 27Google Scholar.

61. [James, I], Declaration against Vorstius, p. 376Google Scholar.

62. At the conference, Buckingham said of the Synod of Dort, “we have nothing to do with that synod; it is all about the hidden and intricate points of predestination, which are not fit matters to trouble the people withal.” Cosin, , The Sum and Substance, p. 64Google Scholar. Cf. Lawson, , Life and Times of William Laud, I, 307Google Scholar.

63. For 1624, see PRO, Sir Edward Nicholas diary, State Papers 14/166; for 1626, see Trinity College, Dublin, Sir Richard Grosvenor diary, MS E.5.17, p. 39 (May 4, 1626).

64. Wotton had earlier been passed over for the Regius professorship of divinity at Cambridge, which was given instead to Bishop Overall, a friend of Grotius, and a moderate Calvinist. See the article by A. F. Pollard in the D.N.B., XXI, 961-62.

65. Wotton, A., A Dangerous Plot Discovered by a Discourse Wherein is proved, That, Mr. Richard Mountague, in his two Bookes; the one, called A new Gagg; the other, A just Appeale: Laboureth to bring in the faith of Rome, and Arminius: under the name and pretence of the doctrine and faith of the Church of England (London, 1626), dedicationGoogle Scholar.

66. Cambridge Univ., Sir Bulstrode Whitelocke diary, MSS, D.D. 12, 20-22, fol. 20.

67. Ibid., fols. 133-34. Cf. PRO, Sir Nathaniel Rich diary, Duke of Manchester's MSS, fol. 75v.

68. Commons Journals, I, 845Google Scholar.

69. Cambridge Univ., Sir Bulstrode Whitelocke diary, MSS, D.D. 12, 20-22, fols. 135v-36.

70. Commons Journals, I, 847Google Scholar. Cf. Montagu's letter to Cosin on April 20, 1626, in Ornsby, , Cosin Correspondence, pp. 88–89Google Scholar.

71. Commons Journals, I, 851Google Scholar.

72. The proclamation is printed in full in Heylyn, , Cyprianus Anglicus, p. 154Google Scholar.

73. See Montagu's letter to Cosin, June 28, 1626, in Ornsby, , Cosin Correspondence, p. 95Google Scholar.

74. Bishop Carleton of Chichester wrote two: An Examination of those things wherein the Author of the late Appeale holdeth the Doctrines of the Pelagians and Arminians, to he the Doctrine of the Church of England (London, 1626)Google Scholar; A joint Attestation avowing that the discipline of the Church of England was not impeached by the Synod of Dort (London, 1626)Google Scholar. Featley, Daniel also wrote two: A Parallel: Of New-Old Pelagiarminian Error (London, 1626)Google Scholar; A Second Parallel together with a Writ of Error against the Appealer (London, 1626)Google Scholar. The Wotton and Yates titles have already been cited. For mention of a work by Francis Rouse, see à Wood, Anthony, Athenae Oxonienses (London, 1691), I, 442Google Scholar; also Fuller, Thomas, A Church History of Britain (London, 1837), III, 339Google Scholar; Heylyn, , Cyprianus Anglicus, pp. 154–55Google Scholar. Only one work, The Unmasking of a Massmonger, was suppressed. Trevor-Roper, H. R., Archbishop Laud 1575-1645 (2nd ed.; Hamden, Conn., 1962), p. 75Google Scholar.

75. See Davies, Godfrey, “Arminian versus Puritan in England c. 1620-1640,” Huntington library Bulletin, V (1934), 164Google Scholar; Addleshaw, G. W. O., The High Church Tradition (London, 1941), p. 142Google Scholar; Addison, James T., “Early Anglican Thought, 1559-1667,” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, XXII (1953), 309Google Scholar; New, , Anglican and Puritan, pp. 67–68Google Scholar.

76. Wotton, , A Dangerous Plot Discovered, pp. 94–95Google Scholar; see also his “Catalogue of Mountague's erroneous poynts” in the preface.

77. See Yates, , Ibis ad Caesarem, pp. 16-23, 30–32Google Scholar.

78. Trinity College, Dublin, Sir Richard Grosvenor diary, MSS, E.5.17, p. 59 (May 9, 1626).

79. See Heylyn, , Cyprianus Anglicus, p. 153Google Scholar; D.N.B., VIII, 131.

80. The three sympathetic to ceremonial were William Murray (Llandaff), Theophilus Field (St. David's) and William Laud (Bath and Wells). The fourth, Joseph Hall (Exeter), a man erratic both in practice and beliefs, would by 1640 become one of Laud's chief partisans.

81. Addleshaw, , High Church Tradition, pp. 139, 142Google Scholar; see also Trevor-Roper, , Archbishop Laud, p. 120Google Scholar; Judson, , Crisis of the Constitution, p. 171Google Scholar.

82. For example, see Sydenham, Humphrey, Moses and Aaron, Or the Affinitie of Civil and Ecclesiastical Power (London, 1626), p. 4Google Scholar; Overall, John, Bishop Overall's Convocation Book, 1606 (London, 1690), pp. 9, 94Google Scholar.

83. Davies, , “Arminian versus Puritan,” Huntington Library Bulletin, V, (1934), 167Google Scholar. Cf. Yates, , Ibis ad Caesarem, pp. 10–12Google Scholar.

84. Cosin, John, A Collection of Private Devotions: in the practice of the Antient Church, called the Hours of Prayer, in Works, II (London, 1627), 90–91Google Scholar. Cf. Ornsby, , Cosin Correspondence, p. 129Google Scholar; Addison, , “Early Anglican Thought,” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, XXII, 300Google Scholar; Lamont, , Godly Rule, p. 64Google Scholar.

85. Montagu and Cosin themselves disagreed over the utility of images in churches. Ornsby, , Cosin Correspondence, p. 43Google Scholar. Cf. Lamont, , Godly Rule, pp. 64–65Google Scholar.

86. For Manwaring, see the article by Thomas Seccombe in the D.N.B., XII, 989-90; Snapp, Harry F., “The Impeachment of Roger Maynwaring,” Huntington Library Quarterly, XXX (1967), 217–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Sibthorpe, see the article by Alexander Gordon in the D.N.B., XVIII, 191-92. Both names, especially Manwaring's, are spelled variously.

87. The Privy Council had issued a directive to the Archbishops in September, 1626, to encourage the clergy of the Church of England to speak in favor of the loan, which Parliament had not approved. Acts of the Privy Council June 1626 to December 1626 (London, 1938), pp. 282–85Google Scholar.

88. D.N.B., XVIII, 191.

89. Sibthorpe, Robert, Apostolike Obedience Shewing the Duty of Subjects to pay Tribute and Taxes to their Princes (London, 1627)Google Scholar, prologue dedication. The epigraph was from Romans 13.7, “Render therefore to all their Dues.”

90. Sibthorpe, , Apostolike Obedience, p. 24Google Scholar. Cf. part of a sermon by Laud: “for both Commonwealth and Church are collective bodies, made up of many into one; and both so near allied, that the one, the Church, can never subsist but in the other, the Commonwealth; nay, so near, that the same men, which in a temporal respect make the Commonwealth, do in a spiritual make the Church.” Laud, , Works, I, 6Google Scholar.

91. Sibthorpe, , Apostolike Obedience, p. 16Google Scholar; cf. pp. 11, 27.

92. Rushworth, , Historical Collections, I, 437–43Google Scholar; C.S.P.D. 1627-1628, LXI.93; Lawson, , The Life and Times of William Laud, I, 366–67Google Scholar.

93. Manwaring, Roger, Religion and Alegiance: In Two Sermons Preached before the Kings Majestie: The one on the fourth of July, Anno 1627. At Oatlands. The Other on the 29. of July, the same yeere. At Alderton (London, 1627)Google Scholar, printed “By His Majesties Speciall Command.”

94. “Tithes are not claimed originally, by any Custome, or Canon, or Lawe; but by a more sufficient warrant and Charter of divine right.” Montagu, , Diatribae upon the First Part of the Late History of Tithes, p. 43Google Scholar.

95. Montagu, , Immediate addresse unto God alone, p. 24Google Scholar (misprint for 22).

96. Laud, , Works, I, 36, 44Google Scholar.

97. The Second Tome of Homilies (London, 1623), p. 277Google Scholar.

98. Manwaring, , Religion and Alegiance, p. 13Google Scholar.

99. Ibid., pp. 17-18, 26.

100. Ibid, p. 4, Cf. Wormuth, F. D., The Royal Prerogative 1603-1649 (Ithaca, 1939), p. 98Google Scholar; Judson, , Crisis of the Constitution, pp. 202, 215Google Scholar.

101. Manwaring, , Religion and Alegiance, pp. 30–32Google Scholar.

102. Ibid., pp. 23-24.

103. Ibid., pp. 5-7.

104. The bishops consecrated included Leonard Mawe (Bath and Wells), Richard Montagu (Chichester), Richard Corbet (Oxford), Walter Curie (Rochester). The bishops confirmed (translated from one bishopric to another) included John Howson (to Durham), John Buckeridge (to Ely), William Laud (to London), Richard Neile (to Winchester), and George Montaigne (to York).

105. Cf. Wormuth, , The Royal Prerogative, p. 77Google Scholar; Lamont, , Godly Rule, p. 46Google Scholar.

106. BM, Sir William Borlase diary, Stowe MSS, 366, p. 9.

107. Mass. Hist. Soc, Anonymous diary, “Debates and Proceedings in the House of Commons 1627-1628,” Sir Nathaniel Rich speaking on March 20, 1628 (p. 4).

108. BM, Sir William Borlase diary, Stowe MSS, 366, p. 16.

109. Ibid., pp. 29-30. The case of Lewis Bayly had also been taken up in 1626; see Commons Journals, I, 851Google Scholar.

110. Mass. Hist. Soc., Anonymous diary, pp. 22-24.

111. Ibid., p. 33.

112. Ibid., p. 36; cf. BM, Anonymous diary, Harleian MSS, 2313 and 5324, p. 19.

113. In Trinity College, Dublin, Sir Richard Grosvenor's Notes on the Parliament of 1627/1628, MSS, E.5. 33-36 [typescript and critical edition by Jeannette Saunders, M. A. thesis, Univ. of Minnesota, 1916] this report is dated May 5 and attributed to Francis Rouse: pp. 164-66. Rushworth, . Historical Collections, I, 585–86Google Scholar, also attributes the report to Rouse.

114. Accounts of the report can be found in the following: C.S.P.D., 1628-1629, CIII.88; BM, Sir William Borlase diary, Stowe MSS, 366, pp. 275-76; Trinity College, Dublin, Sir Richard Grosvenor's Notes, MSS, E.5 33-36, pp. 239-41; PRO, Sir Edward Nicholas diary, State Papers 16/97, pp. 120-21; BM, Anonymous diary, Harleian MSS, 2313 and 5324, pp. 147-48.

115. PRO, Sir Edward Nicholas diary, State Papers 16/97, p. 120.

116. Mass. Hist. Soc., Anonymous diary, pp. 241-42. Cf. the debate on May 9 over Richard Burgess, Vicar of Witney, accused of libelling Puritans. Perhaps because Burgess (not accused of Arminianism) was in no way seen to threaten parliamentary rights, more members of Parliament were willing to refer him to ecclesiastical authorities. See BM, Sir William Borlase diary, Stowe MSS, 366, pp. 265-66; Trinity College, Dublin, Sir Richard Grosvenor diary, MSS, E.5. 33-36, pp. 202-05.

117. Trinity College, Dublin, Sir Richard Grosvenor diary, MSS, E.5. 33-36, p. 242.

118. Mass. Hist. Soc., Anonymous diary, pp. 278-79.

119. The first sermon was preached on I Samuel 25.30, the second on Titus 1.10. Both were delivered at Oxford, and evidently neither was printed. See BM, Sir William Borlase diary, Stowe MSS, 366, p. 337.

120. Mass. Hist. Soc., Anonymous diary, p. 359.

121. BM, Sir William Borlase diary, Stowe MSS, 366, p. 337.

122. The declaration is printed in full in Rushworth, , Historical Collections, I, 593–95Google Scholar.

123. Fortunately, the notes for Pym's speech still survive. They include many references to Manwaring's sermons which were omitted in the final draft. See House of Lords Record Office, Braye MSS, 89, fols. 79v-80v. For the speech entire, see fols. 60v-62v. Cf. Rushworth, , Historical Collections, I, 595–604Google Scholar.

124. House of Lords Record Office, Braye MSS, 89, fol. 79v.

125. Ibid. See Manwaring, , Religion and Alegiance, p. 37Google Scholar.

126. House of Lords Record Office, Braye MSS, 89, f. 80. The section from Manwaring is in Religion and Alegiance, pp. 31-32.

127. Huntingdon Record Office, Sir Nathanial Rich diary, MSS, D. D. M. 58, f. 2.

128. See Mass. Hist. Soc., Anonymous diary, pp. 436-37; BM, Sir William Borlase diary, Stowe MSS, 366, p. 403; Journals of the House of Lords, III, 855Google Scholar; C.S.P.D. 1628-1629, CVII.26; Rushworth, , Historical Collections, I, 593–605Google Scholar; Gardiner, Samuel R., History of England 1603-1643 (London, 1884), VI, 313–14Google Scholar.

129. C.S.P.D. 1628-1629, CXVII.12, CXVIII.33, 47.

130. For the discussion preceding the Resolutions, see Notestein and Relf, Commons Debates for 1629. The text of the Resolutions appears in the True Relation, p. 23, and it is summarized in C.S.P.D. 1628-1629, CXXXIII.27.

131. The Protestation read, in full: “First, Whosoever shall bring in innovation in Religion, or by favour or countenance, seek to extend or introduce Popery or Arminianism or other opinions disagreeing from the true and orthodox Church, shall be reputed a capital enemy to this Kingdom and Commonwealth.

“Secondly, Whosoever shall counsel or advise the taking and levying of the Subsidies of Tonnage and Poundage, not being granted by Parliament, or shall be an actor or instrument therein, shall be likewise reputed an innovator in the government, and a capital enemy to this Kingdom and Commonwealth.

“Thirdly, If any merchant or person whatsoever shall voluntarily yield or pay the said subsidies of Tonnage and Poundage, not being granted by Parliament, he shall likewise be reputed a betrayer of the liberties of England and an enemy to the same.”

True Relation, pp. 101-02, in Notestein and Relf, Commons Debates for 1629.