Laud's vicar-general, from part of his public ministerial exercises. But, upon the publication of the Book of Sports, he refused to read it, when the archbishop sent for him to Lambeth; and, April 29, 1635, no less than fourteen charges were exhibited against him, to each of which he gave his answer, May 28th following. The substance of these articles, together with Mr. Wilson's answers, was as follows:

1. That canonical obedience is due by your oath, taken at your institution.

Answer. It is true, as I understand the oath, it is according to the canons of the church of England.

2. That a minister must have a popular election, as necessary to hold his place.

Ans. I never held such an opinion, nor ever spoke it, privately or publicly.

3. That there is little comfort for a minister instituted and inducted, without the approbation of the people.

Ans. I know and believe the contrary.

4. You have held conventicles in your house, and in other houses in the town of Otham, within this two years, and used exercises of religion by law prohibited.

Ans. I deny that I have holden conventicles, and used exercises of religion by law prohibited.

5. Within this four years you have collected in private houses, or caused to be collected, forty or fifty persons, and to them repeated sermons, expounded scripture, made tedious extemporary prayers, full of tautologies, and delivered dangerous doctrine, to the perverting and corrupting of his majesty's subjects.

Ans. I protest against such doctrine, and any such effect. I also deny that I collected, or caused to be collected, any such persons.

6. You refused to read the King's Declaration for Sports on Sundays, and spoke disdainfully to the apparitor and officer of the court.

Ans. I said to the apparitor, "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy;" and I said no more. I refused to read the book, not out of contempt of any authority, being commanded by no law. The king's majesty doth not in the book command or appoint the minister to read it, nor it to be read, but published. And seeing there is no penalty threatened, nor authority given to any one to question those who refuse to read it, my refusal to read it was upon sufficient grounds of law and conscience; which, for the satisfaction of this high court, and to clear myself from contempt, Į shall

briefly express myself thus: His majesty's express pleasure is, that the laws of the realm, and the canons of the church, be observed in all places of the kingdom; and therefore at Otham in Kent: but this book, as I conceive, is contrary to both.It is contrary to the statute laws. It is contrary to the ecclesiastical laws. It is contrary to the scriptures.-It is contrary to the councils. It is contrary to divines, ancient and modern. It is contrary to reason.*

7. In 1633, when the commission was granted for repairing St. Paul's, you said, to build sumptuous temples is to justify antichrist.

Ans. I deny this altogether.

8. In 1634, you bade the people, in scorn and derision, to take heed of dealing with high priest's servants.

Ans. I deny both the time and the words.

9. At Boxley, June 29, 1632, you said, No man can have a broken heart, who hath two steeples; meaning two benefices, alleging Acts xx. 20.

Ans. I never spake such words. But at the funeral of a grave and learned minister, I entreated the ministers present to prepare to give an account of their lives and livings, shewing the vanity of those who plead for pluralities, saying, "That if a man's heart were broken, it would not be with the weight of three churches;" and herein I followed no new opinion, but the general opinion of learned divines, both ancient and modern.

10. You have scandalized the governors and government of the church of England, as persecutors of God's faithful ministers and people.

Ans. This is not true, in the whole or in any part.

11. In April, 1633, you delivered a dangerous doctrine, even that if a subject suffer the penalty of the law from the civil magistrate, he is free from sin.

Ans. I deny the time, and words, and doctrine. I never taught, nor read, nor heard of this doctrine, till I heard this article; and I abhor it, and disclaim it as dangerous.

12. April 22, 1634, you lectured and expounded, after inhibition by the vicar-general.

Ans. This is not true. I did not preach, excepting on Lord's days and holidays; neither did I expound. Yet I had a license to expound, and was not forbidden expounding. I constantly instruct, by question and answer, in the

* Mr. Wilson enlarges upon each of these topics with great judgment, but the whole is too long for insertion.

cathechism, such as come to prayers, for which I had my institution and license, and from which I never received any prohibition; nor, so far as I understand, is it any sin against God or man.

13. You are accounted an enemy to the church of England, and draw others into schism after you:

Ans. I deny the whole of this, and every part.`

14. You are to promise, by your word and honour, to speak the truth.

Ans. I believe what I have confessed, and deny what I have denied in every part.

From the above articles, together with Mr. Wilson's replies, it is manifest that Laud had laid the snare to catch him, chiefly for refusing to read the Book of Sports. In this his lordship succeeded according to his wishes: for Mr. Wilson's answers, in which he declared his refusal to read the book, were no sooner given, than the archbishop replied, I suspend you for ever from your office and benefice till you read it; and he continued suspended for the space of four years. About the same time he was committed to Maidstone jail for nonconformity, but how long he remained in confinement it does not appear.‡ At the expiration of the above period, he was brought into the high commission court by means of the archbishop; and, to his great cost and trouble, was again prosecuted for the same crime. Indeed, the archbishop, in answer to this, said, that Mr. Wilson was not censured for not reading the book; but, according to his own confession, for dilapidations, in not repairing his house. With what kind of evidence this is asserted, the candid and intelligent reader will easily perceive.

Mr. Wilson, remaining under suspension, and being dissatisfied with the ministry of his successor, removed to Maidstone, where he gave private instructions among his friends. His adversaries, at the same time, traduced his character, and slandered him as a favourer of schism. Therefore, to wipe off. the reproach, he addressed a letter to the parishioners of Otham, exhorting them "to fear God and honour the king, and walk in love one towards another." For the information and satisfaction of all, this letter was read to the public congregation on the Lord's day. The news of this, however, soon reached London, when Mr. Wilson and Dr. Tuck, who

Prynne's Cant Doome, p. 149-Clark's Lives, part i. p. 18-21.
Neal's Puritans, vol. iv. p. 632.

Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. i. p. 344.

had read the letter, were cited to appear before the high commission. Mr. Wilson was charged in the court with having sent a scandalous and offensive letter to Otham, to nourish schism, and to confirm the people in the dislike of government; upon which he acknowledged his writing a letter, but denied its evil tendency, saying, "I know that it was to exhort the people to fear God and the king, and to meddle not with those that are given to change; to walk in faith and love, and to call upon God: but I utterly deny all occasion of derogating from the church of England, or confirmation of any in a dislike of the government, and protest against all aspersions and imputations of schism or scandal: neither did I direct any one to read it, nor intended or desired it should be read in the church." Notwithstanding all they could allege in their own defence, they were enforced to continue their attendance no less than three years, to their great cost and trouble.t

In the year 1639, the Scots having entered England, and a parliament being called, Laud took off Mr. Wilson's suspension. But his troubles and sufferings were not ended; for, September 30, 1640, he was cited to appear before the archbishop's visitors at Feversham, together with other ministers in Kent, to answer for not reading the prayer against the Scots. Upon their appearance, Mr. Edward Bright, being called first, was asked whether he had read the prayer; and when he said he had not, the archdeacon instantly suspended him from office and benefice, without admonition, or even giving him the least time to consider of it. Mr. Wilson, who witnessed this rash proceeding, was next called. When he was asked whether he had read the prayer, he answered in the negative; "because," said he, "in the rubrick of the Common Prayer, it is enjoined that no prayer shall be publicly read excepting those which are contained in the Book of Common Prayer, and that prayer against the Scots is not." This unexpected answer so confounded the archdeacon that he did not know what to say. It cooled his fury, and caused him to proceed more deliberately with Mr. Wilson than he had done with Mr. Bright. He gave him fourteen days to consider of it, and then deliver his answer at Canterbury ;+ but whether he delivered any other answer, and what after

* Life of Mr. Wilson, p. 90, 91.

+ Dr. Tuck's case was, indeed, more distressing than Mr. Wilson's; for, on account of bodily infirmities, he was unable to ride, and necessitated to make all his journies on foot.-Ibid. p. 13.

Ibid. p. 14-16.

wards followed relative to this case, we are not able, for want of information, to relate.

About the same time a warrant was issued from the lords of the council, among whom were Archbishop Laud and the Bishop of London, to apprehend Mr. Wilson. With this warrant a pursuivant was sent to bring him to London. It does not appear for what crime this prosecution was designed; yet no doubt it was the sin of nonconformity. The pursuivant, having received his warrant, hastened without delay to Otham; where, though he heard Mr. Wilson preach, and was afterwards in the same room with him in his own house, he let him slip out of his hands. Mr. Wilson, suspecting him as soon as he entered the room, retired and hid himself, and so escaped the snare. The pursuivant was enraged at his loss, and said he had been employed in this service thirty-six years, and had never been served so before. Mr. Wilson, having escaped the snare, withdrew from the storm till the meeting of the long parliament, when he went to London, and presented his case and petition to the house of commons. The house appointed a committee to take his case into consideration; and, November 30, 1640, Mr. Rouse, who was one of this committee, reported to the house, "That Mr. Wilson had been suspended four years from his living, worth sixty pounds a year, only for not reading the Book of Recreations on the Lord's day; that the archbishop himself had suspended him; and that for three years he had attended upon the high commission." The house therefore resolved, "That Mr. Wilson had just cause of complaint; and that there was just cause for the house to afford him relief."* Upon the presentation of his petition, Sir Edward Deering, one of the members for Kent, said, " Mr. Wilson, your petitioner, is as orthodox in doctrine, as laborious in preaching, and as unblemished in his life, as any minister we have. He is now separated from his flock, to both their griefs: for it is not with him as with many others, who are glad to set a pursuivant on work, that they may have an excuse to be out of the pulpit; it is his delight to preach."+ Sir Edward further observes of Mr. Wilson, " He is now a sufferer, as all good men are, under the general obloquy of a puritan. The pursuivant watches his door, and divides him and his cure asunder, to both their griefs. About a week since," he adds, "I went to Lambeth, to move that great bishop (too great indeed) to take this danger from off this minister, and to recall

*Rushworth's Collec. vol. v. p. 66.-Nalson's Collec. vol. i. p. 571. + Life of Mr. Wilson, p. 17-22.