remain a prisoner. It is said, that about three years after he wrote a recantation of his schismatical errors.*

ADAM BLACKMAN was a pious and useful preacher, first in Leicestershire, then in Derbyshire. But having endured the severity of persecution in his native country, he went to New England, and settled first at Guildford, then at Stratford in the new colony. Many pious friends accompanied him from England, who said to him, "Entreat us not to leave you, or to return from following after you. For whither you go, we will go; and your God shall be our God." He was a man of great holiness, a plain and profitable preacher, and a most worthy divine. He went to New England probably about the year 1636.t

THOMAS WARREN was a puritan minister, and some time curate at St. Lawrence's church, Ipswich. On account of his nonconformity, he was admonished by Bishop Wren's chancellor to observe the good orders of the church, and to certify his obedience on a future court-day: but, to avoid suspension, he gave up his curacy and left the place. It is observed, that he had no license to preach in the diocese of Norwich, nor had he produced his orders. He is charged with neglecting all the orders of the church and the rules of divine service, and with having quoted many dangerous passages in the pulpit, tending to the disparagement of the state and disquiet of the people. He was, therefore, cited to appear before the bishop; but, having left the town and removed into Bedfordshire, he heard no more of it.

WILLIAM HERRINGTON was some time curate at St. Nicholas's church, Ipswich, where he met with similar usage as Mr. Warren, mentioned in the preceding article. He was admonished by his diocesan's chancellor to observe the good orders of the church, and to certify his obedience on a future court-day but, to avoid further trouble, he resigned his curacy. It is insinuated, that he and Mr. Warren, after they were admonished, raised a great clamour, and deserted their cures: and it is added, that they refused to observe the orders

Paget's Heresiography, p. 161, 184. Edit. 1662.

+ Mather's Hist. of New England, b. iii. p. 94. Wren's Parentalia, p. 96, 97.

of the church only through fear of losing the means of their support, and not from any dislike to them. This, however, is exceedingly improbable. They were certainly in greater danger of losing their cures and support by refusing the ecclesiastical orders, than by a universal conformity.

NICHOLAS BEARD was a puritanical curate in one of the churches in Ipswich, but suspended by the intolerant proceedings of Bishop Wren. The principal cause for which he was thus censured was his refusal to produce his letters of orders and his license to serve the cure. This tyrannical prelate, it is said, was not hasty to restore him, because he had some years before overheard him inveigh very bitterly in his sermon against the state, and against a noble earl and great officer of the realm. His lordship was also informed, that Mr. Beard was of a very turbulent spirit, and was suspected of having been the secret promoter of a riot committed by a dangerous concourse of mean people against the bishop himself. Had he been suspected of so atrocious a crime, he ought to have been tried in a court of justice; and, if proved guilty by a regular course of law, to have been punished according to his deserts. But guilty or not guilty, his lordship, without waiting the formality of law, was determined to stop his mouth.

WILLIAM GREEN was curate of Bromholm, but, about the year 1636, was suspended by Bishop Wren for nonconformity. It is said that many defects were found in him, particularly his refusal to wear the clerical habit. This was certainly his greatest defect. Afterwards, however, upon his submission, he was absolved, and only his license to preach taken from him, for being illiterate and formerly a man of trade.t

WILLIAM POWELL was minister in the diocese of Norwich, and suspended or deprived by the arbitrary proceedings of Bishop Wren. It is said he was treated thus "for many defects against the canons, and had absolution soon after granted to his proctor, without coming for it himself." Mr.

* Wren's Parentalia, p. 96.

Ibid. p. 96.

+ Ibid. p. 94.

Richard Raymund, another puritan minister, experienced similar treatment, on account of his nonconformity,

WILLIAM KENT was minister in the city of Norwich, and suspended for his nonconformity. It is observed," that Bishop Wren's chancellor suspended him about ten o'clock in the forenoon, and absolved him before three in the afternoon of the same day, without receiving any fee for his admission." He died soon after his troubles. Messrs. Hudson, Brown, Mott, Ward, and many others, were among the great sufferers from Bishop Wren's intolerant proceedings.+

MR. DAVENISH, minister of Bridgwater in Somersetshire, was suspended by Bishop Pierce of Bath and Wells, about the year 1636, for preaching a lecture in his own church on a market day, though it had continued ever since the time of Queen Elizabeth; and he refused to absolve him till after he had faithfully promised to preach it no more. When his lordship absolved him upon this promise, he said, Go thy way; sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee. This tyrannical prelate put down all the lectures in his diocese as factious and nurseries of puritanism, and said, I THANK GOD, I HAVE NOT ONE LECTURE LEFT IN MY DIOCESE, hating the very name. He enjoined Mr. Humphrey Blake, churchwarden of Bridgwater, to do penance, because he had not presented Mr. Davenish for expounding the church catechism on the Lord's day afternoon, and using a short prayer before he entered upon that exercise. "This," said his lordship, "was against his orders and commands."

MR. BARRET was rector of Barwick in Somersetshire, but prosecuted by Bishop Pierce for refusing to observe his oppressive injunctions. This divine, and many others, instructed their parishioners in the principles of religion by catechizing them on a Lord's day afternoon; for which they were sharply reproved by this prelate, and threatened to be severely punished if they persisted in the practice. His

* Wren's Parentalia, p. 94.—Rushworth's Collec. vol. iii. p. 353. + Ibid. p. 94, 95.-Rushworth's Collec. vol. iii. p. 353.

Prynne's Cant Doome, p. 377.

Impeachment of Bp. Pierce, p. 3, 4.-Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 378.

lordship said, "That this was catechizing sermon-wise, and AS BAD AS PREACHING." He also charged them, "That they should not ask any other questions, nor receive any other answers from the people, than those contained in the Book of Common Prayer." Those who refused to obey his lordship were convened before him, and punished for their disobedience; among whom was Mr. Barret, who, as the reward of his transgression, was commanded to do penance.*

MR. SALISBURY was a pious and zealous divine, and an avowed enemy to popery and arminianism. In the warmth of his zeal for the welfare of Zion, in his sermon on Matt. xxiv. 6., he made use of the following expressions:-" How many thousands have made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience, renounced our true church, stept aside to arminianism, and from thence, being the widest gate open to Rome, relapsed to popery! Thus are we scattered in our Jacob, and divided in our Israel. The Low Countries not long since, if not still, sighed as deeply, and mourned as strongly, finding themselves overgrown with arminianism. And what a faction is likely to be in our deplorable England, between popery and arminianism together, except God be more merciful, and our state more vigilant and mindful! We shall see sooner than tell, and feel sooner than see."-For only using these expressions, the good man was convened before Archbishop Laud, and endured other troubles.+

MR. JEFFRYES was some time preacher in the diocese of Bristol, but driven from his place by the oppressions of the times. Archbishop Laud gives the following account of him" In the diocese of Bristol, in 1638, the bishop found out one Jeffryes, who commonly administered the blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, being either not in holy orders at all, or at least not a priest. As soon as he was discovered he slipt out of the diocese; and the bishop thinks, that he now serves in a peculiar under the dean and chapter of Wells." The archbishop then adds, "I will send thither to know the certainty, and see the abuse punished, if I can light upon the person."+

* Impeachment, p. 4.-Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 378.

+ Ibid. p. 362.

Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. i. p. 555. ́

HENRY PAGE was the pious vicar of Ledbury in Herefordshire, who, in the year 1638, was complained of to Archbishop Laud, and prosecuted in the high commission for refusing to read the Book of Sports. But that which proved an aggravation of his crime, was his uttering the following opprobrious and disgraceful expressions, as they were called : "Is it not as lawful to pluck at a cart-rope on the sabbath day, as at a bell-rope? Is it not as lawful for a weaver to shoot his shuttle on the sabbath-day, as for a man to shoot his bow? And is it not as lawful for a woman to spin at her wheel, or for a man to go to his plough, as for a man to dance that devilish dance ?"*

RALPH SMITH was a minister of puritan principles, who, in the year 1629, to escape the severities of persecution, fled to New England. He accompanied Mr. Higginson and the first planters of the Massachusets colony. He settled for a short time at Natasco, but was afterwards chosen pastor of the church at Plymouth, to which office he was separated by fasting and prayer, with the imposition of hands from the elders of the church. He was a grave man, of a good understanding, and much beloved by his people. For the space of two years he had Mr. Roger Williams for his assistant. was living as pastor of this church in the year 1638.§

He

EPHRAIM HEWET was minister of Wroxhall in Warwickshire, but persecuted for nonconformity. Archbishop Laud, in the account of his province in 1638, says, "He hath taken upon him to keep fasts in his parish, by his own appointment, and hath contemned the decent ceremonies commanded by the church. My lord the Bishop of Worcester proceeds against him, and intends either to reform or punish him."

DR. JENNINGSON, the pious lecturer at Newcastle-uponTyne, was much persecuted for nonconformity. In the year 1639, by the instigation of Archbishop Laud, he was

* Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 149, 150.

+ Prince's Chron. Hist. vol. i. p. 183.

Ibid. p. 188, 189.-Neal's Hist. of New Eng. vol. i. p. 115, 141.
Morton's Memorial, p. 108.

Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. i. p. 554.