網頁圖片
PDF

master of Westminster school, containing certain dark expressions,” on the ground of which he was condemned in the additional fine of £5,000 to the king, and £3,000 to the archbishop, and kept close prisoner in the Tower. Mr. Osbaldeston was fined £5,000 to the king, and 25,000 to the archbishop; to be deprived of all his spiritual promotions, to stand in the pillory before his own school, and have his ears nailed to it, and to be imprisoned during the king's pleasure. Mr. Osbaldeston being among the crowd in the court, when the sentence was pronounced, immediately went home, burnt some papers, and absconded, leaving a note on his desk in his study, with these words: “If the archbishop enquire for me, tell him I am gone beyond Canterbury.” Mr. John Lilburne, afterwards a colonel in the army, for refusing to take an oath to answer all interrogatories concerning his importing and publishing seditious libels, was fined £5,000, and whipped through the streets from the Fleet to the pillory in Westminster. While in the pillory, he was gagged, then carried to the Fleet, and committed to close confinement, with irons on his hands and feet, where he remained betwixt two and three years, without any persons being allowed to see him.4 - These terrible proceedings, without serving the interest of the church, awakened universal resentment against those in power. Many thousand families were driven to Holland, and many thousands to New England. This so alarmed the king and the council, that a proclamation was issued, April 30, 1637, observing, “That great numbers of his majesty's subjects were yearly transported to New England, with their families and whole estates, that they might be out of the reach of ecclesiastical authority; his majesty therefore commands, that his officers of the several ports should suffer none to pass without license from the commissioners of the plantations, and a testimonial from their minister, of their . conformity to the orders and discipline of the church.” And to debar all ministers, it was ordered, “That whereas such ministers as are not conformable to the discipline and ceremonies of the church, do frequently transport themselves to the plantations, where they take liberty to nourish their factious and schismatical humours, to the hindrance of the

* These letters made mention of a little great man; and in another passage, the same person was denominated a little urchin. Such were the dark expressions which, by interpretation, were applied to Laud.

+ Rushworth's Collec. vol. ii. p. 417, 803, 817.

: Sylvester's Life of Baxter, part i. p. 18.

good cenformity and unity of the church; we therefore expressly command you, in his majesty's name, to suffer no clergyman to transport himself without a testimonial from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London.” The puritans must not be suffered to live peaceably at home, nor yet be allowed to take sanctuary in a foreign land. These unparalleled acts of cruel and tyrannical injustice in a protestant country, turned the hearts of tens of thousands to the cause of the puritans. Notwithstanding theabove prohibitions, multitudeswenton board ships in disguise, and got over to the new plantations. There were, indeed, eight ships in the river Thames bound for New England, and filled with puritan families, among whom was Oliver Cromwell; who, seeing no end of the cruel oppressions in their native country, determined to spend the remainder of their days in America. But the council being informed of their design, issued an order “to stay those ships, and to put on shore all the provisions intended for the voyage.” To prevent the same in future, the king prohibited all masters and owners of ships, from sending any ships with passengers to New England, without a special license from i. privy council; “ because,” says he, “the people of New England are factious and unworthy our support.” + The puritans who remained at home still groaned under the merciless oppressions of the prelates. Mr. Obadiah Sedgwick was driven from his living and the people of his charge. Mr. Cox was summoned first before Bishop Hall, then Archbishop Laud. Mr. Simonds, rector of St. Martin's, Ironmonger-lane, London, and Mr. Daniel Votyer, rector of St. Peter's, West-cheap, were deprived, and forced to flee into Holland. Mr. Show was cited before Laud, and he fled to New England. By the recommendation of Laud, Mr. Edward Moore, a student in the university of Oxford, was cast into prison, for the insignificant crime of wearing his hat in the town; and for his behaviour when reproved for his fault, he recommended him to be publicly whipped, and banished from the university. Mr. Bright was suspended for refusing to read the prayer against the Scots; and his brethren, the ministers of Kent, endured many troubles for the same crime. Mr. Barber was suspended and cast into prison, where he remained eleven months. Mr. Jessey and many others being assembled together for the purpose of fasting and prayer, were interrupted by the pursuivants, and sent to the Tower. Afterwards he was apprehended and several of his congregation, and committed to the Compter; but upon their application to the parliament, they were immediately released. Mr. Wilkinson was suspended, but restored by the house of commons.” Mr. Moreton, rector of Blisland in Cornwall, was driven from his living and his flock. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Todd were both silenced. Mr. Hieron was apprehended and prosecuted in the high commission, for very trivial matters. By these proceedings of the bishops, many thousands of excellent christians and worthy subjects were ruined in their estates, and driven out of the country.f In the year 1640, the convocation continued to sit, after the parliament was dissolved. The canons adopted in this synod, entitled “Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical treated upon by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, &c.” are extremely superstitious and tyrannical. They required of all clergymen to swear “That they would never consent to the alteration of the present government of the church, by archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons, &c.” And if any beneficed person should refuse this ridiculous and cruel oath, “he shall after one month be suspended from his office; after a second month, he shall be suspended from his office and benefice; and after a third month, he shall be deprived of all his ecclesiastical promotions.” These canons were evidently designed to crush all the puritans at once; but they were soon virtually annulled.| November 3, 1640, the LoNG PARLIAMENT first assembled, and continued sitting with some little interruption about eighteen years. The members of this parliament were all members of the church of England, and nearly all advocates for episcopal government.T #. first week was spent in appointing committees, and receiving the numerous petitions from all parts of the kingdom, craving a redress of grievances both in church and state.” Numerous petitions were also presented by the puritans who had been many years under close confinement; when the parliament favourably received them, released the prisoners, and voted them to receive considerable sums out of the estates of their persecutors, by way of damages. They released Dr. Leighton, who had been imprisoned ten years; Mr. Smart, eleven or twelve years; and Mr. Brewer, fourteen years. Also, Burton, Prynne, Bastwick, Walker, Lilburne, Bishop Williams, and many others, now obtained their liberty. The above canons were, at the same time, condemned in the house of commons, as being against the king's prerogative, the fundamental laws of the realm, the liberty and property of the subject, and as containing divers other things tending to sedition and dangerous consequence. . For which several of the bishops were impeached of high crimes and misdemeanours.” The archbishop was impeached of high treason, and committed to the Tower.{ The committee of accommodation was appointed by the upper house, to consider of such innovations as were proper to be taken away. It consisted of ten earls, ten bishops, and ten barons. They also appointed a sub-committee of bishops and learned divines, to prepare matters for debate, Bishop Williams being chairman of both.; The result of their conference was drawn up for the debate of the committee, in a number of propositions and queries. . But all attempts at an accommodation were blasted by the obstinacy of the bishops, and by the discovery of the plot for bringing the army up to London to dissolve the parliament. This widened the distance betwixt the king and the two houses, and broke up the committee, without bringing anything to perfection. The moderation and mutual compliance of these divines, it is justly observed, might have saved the whole body of episcopacy, and prevented the civil war : but the court bishops expected no good from them, suspecting that the puritans would betray the church. Some hot

* Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 409, 410. + Ibid. # Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. i. p. 559-568. $ Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. ii. p. 167.

* Calamy’s Contin. vol. i. p. 47, 91.

+ Calamy's Account, vol. ii. p. 144, 162,222, 797.

† Mather's Hist. of New Eng. b. iii. p. 136.

§ Sparrow's Collec. p. 359, 360.

| The above convocation, says Clarendon, gave subsidies, enjoined an oath, and did things, which, in the best of times, might have been questioned; and therefore, in the worst, were sure to be condemned.—Hist. of Rebellion, vol. i. p. 116.

1 Clarendou's Hist, vol. i. p. 184. ** Whitlocke's Memorial, p. 36.

* Rushworth's Collec. vol. iv. p. 359.
+ Prynne's Breviate of Laud, p. 23, 24.
# The names of these bishops and learned divines, were as follows:

Dr. Williams, bishop of Lincoln Dr. Richard Holdsworth,
Dr. Usher, archbishop of Armagh, Dr. John Hacket,
Dr. Morton, bishop of Durham, Dr. William Twisse,
Dr. Hall, bishop of Exeter, Dr. Cornelius Burgess,
Dr. Samuel Ward, Mr. John White,
Dr. John Prideaux, Mr. Stephen Marshall,
Dr. Robert Sanderson, Mr. Edmund Calamy,
Dr. Daniel Featley, - Mr. Thomas Hill.

Dr. Ralph Brownrigg, , Faller's Church Hist, b. xi. p. 174.

f

spirits would abate nothing of the episcopal power or profit, but maintained, that to yield any thing was giving up the cause to the opposite party.” In the year 1641, the parliament introduced two bills, one to abolish the high commission court, the other the star-chamber, both of which obtained the royal assent.* The former of these courts, observes Lord Clarendon, had assumed a disputable power of imposing fines; that it sometimes exceeded in the severity of its sentences; that it rendered itself very unpopular; and had managed its censures with more sharpness, and less policy, than the times would bear : but he declares he did not know that any innocent clergyman suffered by any of its ecclesiastical censures.f The abolition of these courts effectually clipped the wings of the persecuting prelates. Numerous petitions being sent up from all quarters for preaching ministers, a committee of forty members of the house was appointed, called the committee of ...; ministers, to send ministers where there were vacancies, an provide for their maintenance. And there being many complaints of idle and licentious clergymen, another committee was appointed, called the committee of scandalous ministers, to examine these complaints. A third committee was appointed, called the committee of plundered ministers, for the relief of such godly ministers as were driven from their cures, for adhering to the parliament." Many pious and learned divines were members of these committees, who employed their abilities to the utmost for public usefulness. Upon the presentation of numerous grievances from all

* Fuller's Church Hist. b. xi. p. 175.

+ Scobell's Collections, part i. p. 9, 12.

f Clarendon’s Hist. vol. i. p. 221,222.-The high commission, says Hume, extended its jurisdiction over the whole kingdom, and over all orders of men; and every circumstance of its authority, and all its methods of proceeding, were contrary to the clearest principles of law and natural equity. The commissioners were impowered to administer the oath er officio, by which a person was bound to answer all questions, and might thereby be obliged to accuse himself or his most intimate friend. The fines were discretionary, and often occasioned the total ruin of the offender, contrary to the established laws of the kingdom. This court was a real Inquisition; attended with all the iniquities, as well as cruelties, inseparable from that tribunal. It was armed, says Granger, with an inquisitorial power, to force any one to confess what he knew, and to punish him at discretion. —Hume's Hist. of Eng. vol. v. p. 189.-Granger's Biog. Hist, vol. i. p. 206. ,

§ Clarendon’s Hist, vol. i. p. 295.

| Sylvester's Life of Baxter, part i. p. 19,

I Walker's Suf. Clergy, part i. p. 73.

« 上一頁繼續 »