« 上一頁繼續 »
would rejoice; many able students would be encouraged to enter the ministry;, and the religion of Jesus Christ would more extensively prevail.” - In the year 1583, Mr. Crane, with nine other learned divines of Cambridge, wrote to Mr. Thomas Cartwright, warmly recommending him to publish an answer to the Rhemist Translation of the New Testament. Afterwards, he was cast into prison for refusing conformity to the established church. He subscribed the petition presented to the lord treasurer, and signed by about sixty protestant nonconformists, then ...f. the various prisons in and about London.: Mr. Strype has placed this petition in the year 1592; but it should have been earlier. Mr. Crane died in Newgate, in the year 1588,5 where many of his suffering brethren shared the same fate.
LAWRENcE HUMPHREY, D.D.—This celebrated puritan was born at Newport-Pagnel in Buckinghamshire, about the year 1527, and educated first in the university of Cambridge, then in Magdalen college, Oxford, where, in 1549, he became perpetual fellow, and was chosen reader of Greek in 1552. Having applied himself closely to theological studies, he entered, about the same time, into the sacred function. He remained at Oxford, some time after the accession of Queen Mary and the commencement of her severities; but, at length, by the permission of the president, vice-president, and others of his college, was allowed to go abroad. “In the opinion of all,” says the Oxford historian, “he was much commended for his life and conversation, and for his wit and learning; and was permitted, for the benefit of his studies, to travel one year into foreign parts, on condition that he kept himself from such places as were suspected to be heretical, or favourers of heresy, and that he refrained himself from the company of those who are, or have been, authors of heresy or heretical opinions.” Having thus obtained liberty to leave the country, he went to Zurich, where he joined the English protestant exiles, and, not returning at the end of the year, was deprived of his fellowship." 5. his exile, we find his name subscribed to a letter from the exiles at Zurich, to their brethren at Frankfort. This letter is dated October 23, 1554.4 Upon the accession of Queen Elizabeth, Humphrey returned home. But having held a correspondence with the learned divines at Geneva, during his absence, he is said to have returned to England, so much the Calvinian, both in doctrine and worship, that the best that could be said of him was, that he was a moderate and conscientious nonconformist. Upon his return he was immediately restored to his fellowship, and, by her majesty, nominated queen's professor of divinity in the university of Oxford, being accounted the fittest person in the kingdom for that office. He soon after took his degrees in divinity, and was elected president of Magdalen college, though not without much opposition from the popish party. In this situation, many persons, afterwards famed for their celebrity, were brought up under him; among whom was the famous Sir Thomas Bodley.; In the following account of this celebrated divine, we shall have frequent occasion to mention his worthy and intimate friend, the famous Dr. Thomas Sampson. They were persons of great reputation, especially in Oxford, and were highly distinguished for their learning, piety, and zeal in promoting true religion. But their learning, piety, and zeal, were no sufficient screen from the prosecution of the high commission, for refusing to wear the popish habits. Accordingly, March 3, 1564, both Humphrey and Sampson, with four other divines, were cited before Archbishop Parker and his colleagues, at Lambeth. Upon their appearance, the archbishop urged the opinions of foreign divines: as, Peter Martyr and Martin. Bucer, with the view of bringing them to conformity. This, indeed, proved ineffectual; for their judgments remained unconvinced. They requested that they might be dismissed, and return to their usual exercises at Oxford; but this the archbishop refused, intending to bring them before the council. After attendance for some time, they prepared a supplication, in a very ...; but submissive style, which they presented to the Archbishop, the Bishops of London, Winchester, Ely, and Lincoln, and other commissioners. , In this supplication, they protested before God, how great a grief it was to them, that there should be any dissention about so small a matter as woollen and linen, as they styled the cap and surplice. . But it comforted them, that, under Christ, the captain of salvation, they all professed the same gospel, and the same faith; and that in the matter of habits, each party followed the dictates of their own. minds, where there was often room for liberty, and always for charity. They alleged the authorities of Augustin, Socrates, and Theodoret, to shew that in their times, there was a variety of rites and observances in the churches, yet unity and concord. They had many and powerful reasons, for this address: as, “That their consciences were tender, and ought not to be grieved.—That they were not turbulent, nor obstinate, nor did they study novelty, nor refuse to be convinced, nor attempt to disturb the peace of the church.--That they were certain, that things in themselves indifferent, did not always appear indifferent, even to persons of a tender conscience.—And that the law for restoring the ceremonies of the Romish church, was connected with bondage and superstition.” They also added, “Because these things do not seem so to you, you are not to be condemned by us; and because they do seem so to: us, we ought not to be condemned by you.” They beseech their lordships, therefore, that if there be any fellowship in Christ, they would follow the direction of divine inspiration, about things in their own nature indifferent, “ that every one might be persuaded in his own mind.” "
* Parte of a Register, p. 119—124. + See Art. Cartwright. # An abstract of this most moving petition is given in another place, See Art. John Greenwood. § Account prefixed to “Parte of a Register.”
| Great numbers perished in the various prisons where they were long confined and most cruelly used. Among the rest, was one Mr. Roger ‘Rippon; who, dying in Newgate, his fellow prisoners put the following : inscription upon his coffin :
“This is the corpse of Roger Rippon, a servant of Christ, and her “ majesty's faithful subject ; who is the last of sixteen or seventeen which “that great enemy of God, the Archbishop of Canterbury, with his high .* commissioners, have murdered in Newgate within these five years, “manifestly for the testimony of Jesus Christ. His soul is now with the “Lord ; and his blood crieth for speedy vengeance against that great “enemy of the saints, and against Mr. Richard Young, (a justice of the “peace in London) who in this and many the like points, hath abused his “power, for the upholding of the Romish antichrist, prelacy, and priest“hood. He died A, D, 1592.”—Strype's Annals, vol. iv. p. 133.
* Wood's Athenae Oxon, vol. i. p. 195,
+ Troubles at Frankeford, p. 10–12.
# Wood's Athenae, vol. i. p. 195.
§ Sir Thomas Bodley was celebrated as a statesman, and as a man of letters; but incomparably more, in the ample provision he has made for literature, in which he stands unrivalled. In 1599, he opened his library, called the Bodleian Library, at Oxford, which will perpetuate his memory as long as books shall endure. He drew up the statutes of the library; wrote the memoirs of his own life; and died Jan. 28, 1613,-Ibid. p. 326, 327-Granger's Biog. Hist, vol. i. p. 233,271.
purpose. They could not procure their release; but were obliged to continue their attendance. The commissioners themselves were very much divided in their opinions. Some wished to have their reasons answered, and the habits enforced: others were for a connivance. But the archbishop, who was at the head of the commission, would abate nothing. For April 29th, he peremptorily declared in open court, “That they should conform to wear the square cap and no hats, in their long gowns; to wear the surplice with non-regent's hoods in the choirs, according to ancient custom; and to communicate kneeling, with wafer bread; or immediately part with their preferment.” To this they replied, that their consciences would not suffer them to comply, whatever might be the consequences." Upon this, they were still kept under confinement; but the storm fell chiefly upon Dr. Sampson.t In one of their examinations, during this year, the archbishop put the following questions to them, to which they gave the answers subjoined. ". Question. Is the surplice a thing evil and wicked, or is it indifferent? Answer. Though the surplice in substance be indifferent, yet in the present circumstance it is not, being of the same nature as the garment of an harlot, or the apparel of idolatry; for which God, by the prophet, threatens to visit the people. - - - - - Q. If it be not indifferent, for what cause A. Because things consecrated to idolatry are not indif. ferent. - Q. May the bishop detesting popery, enjoin the surplice to be worn, and enforce his injunctions: - A. It may be said to such a one, in the words of Tertullian, “If thou, hatest the pomp and pageantry of the devil, whatsoever of it thou meddlest with, is idolatry.” Which, if he believe, he will not enforce. . . . . . . . Q. Is the cope a thing indifferent, being prescribed by law for decency and reverence, and not in respect of superstition or holiness?" * -- -- A. Decency is not promoted by a cope, which was devised to deface the sacrāment. St. Jerome says, “That the gold, ordained by God for the reverence and decency of the Jewish temple, is not fit to be admitted to beautify the church of Christ;” and if so, how much less copes brought
• Strype's Parker, p. 164, + see Art, Sampson.
in by papists, and continued in their service as proper ornaments of their religion. Q. May anything that is indifferent be enjoined as godly, for the use of the common prayer and sacraments : A. If it be merely indifferent, as time, place, and such necessary circumstances of divine worship, for which there may be ground brought from scripture, we think it may. Q. May the civil magistrate constitute by law, an abstimence from meats on certain days? - “ . A. If it be sufficiently guarded against superstition, he may appoint it, due regard being had to persons and times. Q. May a law be enacted to make a difference in the apparel of ministers from laymen? A. Whether such prescription to a minister of the gospel of Christ be lawful, may be doubted; because no such thing is decreed in the New Testament. Nor did the primitive church appoint any such thing, but chose rather to have their ministers distinguished from the laity by their doctrine, not by their vestments. Q. Ought the ministers going in popish apparel, to be condemned for so doing? A. We judge no man. To his own master he standeth or falleth. Q. Ought such preachers to be reformed or restrained, or not A. Irenaeus will not have brethren restrained from brotherly communion, for diversity in ceremonies, provided there be unity of faith and charity; and it is desirable to have the like charitable permission among us. - To these answers, they subjøined several additional arguments against wearing and imposing the habits: as, “ Apparel ought not to be worn, as meat ought not to be eaten; but according to St. Paul, meat offered to idols ought not to be eaten, therefore popish apparel ought not to be worn-We ought not to give offence in matters of mere indifference; therefore the bishops who are of this opinion, ought not to enforce the habits.—Popisho have many superstitious mystical significations, for which they are consecrated; we ought, therefore, to lay them aside.—Some suppose our ministrations are not valid, or acceptable to God, unless performed in the apparel; we apprehend it, therefore, highly necessary to undeceive the people.— Things indifferent ought not to be made necessary, because then their nature is changed, and we lose our liberty.—And if we are bound to wear popish apparel when commanded,