majesty for one whole year: and the same statute saith it must be wilfully and obstinately persisted in, which is not the case with me. Besides, the said trespass is already remitted by her majesty's gracious pardon; therefore, you have no just cause of deprivation.” The bishop, addressing Mr. Cawdrey, said, “If you will abide by such order as I and the other commissioners shall appoint; and will openly recant, in such places as we shall determine, those blasphemous speeches which you have uttered against that holy book, and use it in every point, then we will stay our proceedings.” To this tyrannical proposal, Mr. Cawdrey only said, “I would not do that for all the world.” ne of the commissioners entreated him not to be obstinate, but to submit to their order; “for,” said he, “we hear that you live honestly, are well thought of in your country, are a good housekeeper, and have a wife and many children; therefore, take our good advice.” To which he thus replied: “Both my wife and children shall go a begging, rather than I will offend God and my own conscience. And further, if you can justly charge me with any one instance of wickedness in life, or any false doctrine, during the time I have been in the ministry, or at any time before, let the sentence of the law be inflicted with the utmost severity.” “ False doctrine!” said the angry prelate, “I will stand to it, that whosoever shall say the book is a vile and filthy book, which hath epistles and gospels, psalms and holy prayers in it;" I say flatly he is an heretic, take the law upon me who will.” Afterwards, Mr. Cawdrey requested to have some time for further deliberation, but it could not be granted. Then, to give them all the satisfaction in his power, he made the following protestation:—“. If you can charge me with holding any point of doctrine, which I cannot prove to be true, both by the word of God, and the judgment of those learned writers, whose works you, the high commissioners, have authorized to be printed and allowed in England; then let me have no favour at all.” Notwithstanding all that he could say, the excellence of his character and doctrine was utterly disregarded, so long as he refused to come up to the standard of conformity. The bishop, therefore, pronounced upon him the sentence of deprivation, discharging him from the ministerial exercise in any part of the kingdom.” Mr. Strype, indeed, observes, that he was not only deprived, but continuing in his disobedience, he was also degraded by the high commission at Lambeth; and that he was charged, not only with nonconformity, but want of learning.4 Mr. Cawdrey, aware of the two-fold charge, presented the following humble vindication of himself to the lord treasurer: “As to my learning,” says he, “ though I have none to boast of; yet, seeing I have been employed in study, and have exercised .# in expounding the scriptures and preaching the word of God, almost twenty years, I hope God hath blessed me with some small measure of knowledge. I appeal to the people of my charge, and the good success of my ministry among them, which is a great comfort to my soul. I desire your lordship to examine me upon some portion of scripture, and I hope you will not find me so utterly void of learning, as to be wholly unfit to be exercised in the ministry. Indeed, I acknowledge, that, with respect to my important calling, and the ability that is requisite to a proper discharge of it, I am very unfit for the sacred function. Yet it affordeth me some comfort, that God in mercy hath so far blessed my labours, that I hope my people know as well as most, how to “render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God’s.”—And as to the charge of not using the Book of Common Prayer, I have always used it, and still purpose to use it. Only I humbly request, that I may not be more narrowly searched into, and more hardly dealt with, than many others ministers in England.”f Mr. Cawdrey having received the sentence of deprivation, and being dissatisfied with the ecclesiastical censure, was urged to submit his case to the further determination of Archbishop Whitgift and Bishop Aylmer; but he utterly refused, for the following reasons:—“Because he was persuaded in his conscience, and it was manifest from lamentable experience, that the lord bishops countenanced nonresidents, made many ignorant and idle shepherds, and dealt with great severity against many godly ministers for not observing the popish ceremonies:–Because they would allow any papist or atheist, being accused before them, to have a copy of their interrogatories and other proceedings; but the ministers, who could not in conscience observe some ceremonies, could neither know their accusers, nor enjoy the benefit of subjects:—Because, though the bishops condemned nonresidence as odious in itself, and injurious to the church of God; yet they tolerated it, and dispensed with it:—And because the said bishops did molest and deprive ministers for preaching the very same doctrines which they had themselves printed and published to the world.” On these grounds, he was unwilling to submit his case to the determination of the two ecclesiastical judges, whose tender mercy was cruelty.” - * * It will be proper also to observe, that he was no sooner brought under the ecclesiastical censure, than he made fresh application to the treasurer. He wrote two letters, the one dated May, 31st, being the day following his censure, and the other the 3d of the following month. In these letters he gave an impartial account of the hard usage he had met with, earnestly soliciting his lordship's favourable attention to his unhappy case. Upon the reception of these letters, the lord treasurer, convinced of the injuries he had received, warmly espoused his cause; and engaged Attorney Morrice,t to undertake Mr. Cawdrey's defence, even after his suspension and deprivation. The learned lawyer, therefore, held the bishop's sentence to be null and void in law; because Mr. Cawdrey’s benefice was not in Aylmer's diocese, and so not within his jurisdiction; and that the sentence was his lordship's sentence alone, and not the sentence of the commissioners. For by law the sentence should have been given in the name of all the commissioners present, and not in the name of one of them by the consent of the others, as in the present case. In addition to this, the bishop had declared expressly in his decree, that the cause was controverted before him by virtue of his office, which could not be before the commissioners. And if the cause were depending before his lordship, by virtue of his office, how could the judgment, said Morrice, be any other than his own 2 And as to the sentence itself, the attorney held it to be contrary to law. For by law several other censures and punishments, as admonition, excommunication, and sequestration, were to be inflicted previous to deprivation. But in Mr. Cawdrey’s case, that sentence which is the most severe, and ought to have been inflicted last, was inflicted first. This, therefore, was contrary to the statute, and not warranted by any of the queen's ecclesiastical laws." Thus Mr. Attorney Morrice endeavoured to make it appear, that the bishop's proceedings were illegal and oppressive. But the arguments of the learned barrister proved ineffectual. They were too weak to soften the mind of this relentless prelate. Mr. Cawdrey refusing to submit himself to the illegal and severe proceedings, was brought before Aoi. Who and other high commissioners. He appeared at Lambeth, May 14, 1590; and after being severely threatened, he was degraded and deposed from the ministry, and made a mere layman, On this occasion, Whitgift urging him to conform, Mr. Cawdrey replied, saying, “I never refused to conform, as far as the law requires, and as a minister of Christ is in conscience bound.” And one of the commissioners ść. that he was deprived for speaking against the Book of Common Prayer, our divine replied, “ that is not true; for it appears from my answers to the articles upon my oath, that it was for speaking against an inconvenience attending the book. If it were taken,” says he, “ as you have represented, and taken in the worst sense it could be, there was no deprivation by law, for the first offence. And according to law, I should have been indicted at the next assizes following, but was not; therefore, I am clear by the statute.” Upon these tyrannical proceedings, Mr. Attorney Morrice recommended the lord treasurer to make the #. of London feel his lawless severities; and, said he, happily. some remorse of conscience may move him to be more favourable. Though it might be offensive, he observed, to find fault with judicial proceedings, there was no evil in seeking to help the injured, to maintain law and justice, and to make ecclesiastical judges more careful of their proceedings in future. You need not be afraid of their frowns, especially as you have the law on your side." But the attorney soon drew down their vengeance upon his own head..! For this bold adventure in defending Mr. Cawdrey against the oppressions of the prelates, and for the motions which he made in parliament, as intimated in the above note, he was seized in the house by a serjeant at arms, discharged from his office in the court of the Duchy of Lancaster, disabled from any practice in his profession as a barrister at law, and kept some years prisoner in Tutbury castle, Staffordshire.: Mr. Cawdrey having experienced the above illegal and cruel usage, was advised to appeal to the court of exchequer, and proceed against his diocesan's chaplain, who had taken possession of his living. He made his appeal; and in the year 1591, the jurisdiction of the high commission court, together with its severe proceedings against Mr. Cawdrey, was argued before all the judges. Dr. Aubery, a learned civilian, and one of the high commissioners, confessed that their proceedings were not warrantable by the letter of the statute, and that no statute of the realm would justify the said proceedings; but what they had done was founded upon the old canon law still in force. And though their proceeding by way of inquisition, forcing the man to accuse himself, was warranted by no law whatever, the judges being of the same mind as the commissioners, confirmed their tyrannical proceedings, and left Mr. Cawdrey, with his family of eight children, to starve as a mere layman. Besides the good man having twentytwo journies to London, the suit cost his friends a round sum of money. But, as Mr. Neal justly observes, it was

* His lordship might, with equal propriety, have observed the same of the popish mass book. For, as our author justly affirms, it contains epistles and gospels, psalms and holy prayers.

* MS. Register, p. 795. - + Life of Aylmer, p. 130, 131, # Ibid. p. 132, 133, *

* Life of Aylmer, p. 134–138. + MS. Register, p. 797, 798.

# Attorney James Morrice was a most able and learned barrister, a man of great piety, a zealous opposer of vice, and an avowed friend to the reformation. He was attorney of the court of wards, a member of parliament, and a zealous and courageous defender of the rights and liberties of the people, against all oppression. In the parliament of 1592, he moved the house to inquire into the proceedings of the bishops in spiritual courts, and how far they could justify their inquisition, their subscriptions, and their binding the queen's subjects to their good behaviour, contrary to the laws of God and the realm ; their compelling men to take oaths to accuse themselves; and to deprive, degrade, and imprison them, and keep them in prison during their own pleasure. At the same time, he offered two bills to the house; one against the oath er officio, and the other against the illegal proceedings of the bishops, in which he was supported by Sir Francis Knollys and other great statesmen.—Strype's Whitgift, p. 387, 888. . . . r

* Strype's Aylmer, p. 131, 132, + Ibid. p. 139, 140.

* Strype's Aylmer, p. 143, 144.

+ Heylin’s Hist. of Pres. p. 320.

f This castle, now in a state of ruin, was formerly a spacious and strong place. Here Mary Queen of Scots, was, for a considerable time, in a state of confinement. This was occasioned by a jealousy and a quarrel arising betwixt her and Queen Elizabeth, when the latter, for her own safety, caused the former to be imprisoned. But what is most curious, during the queen's imprisonment in this castle, her extravagance was so great, that when she bathed, she bathed in wine. And in addition to the immense quantity of wine required for bathing, two tuns a month were not sufficient for her ordinary use. The Earl of Shrewsbury, in whose custody the queen was kept, and who appears then to have been governor of the castle, therefore applied to the lord treasurer, stating her extraordinary expenses; at the same time, soliciting some favourable allowance from the public treasure. Also there is preserved a most curious letter, from the Queen of Scots, to Queen Elizabeth, dated from Tutbury castle, March 14, 1569.-Strype's Annals, vol. i. p. 538, 539. Appen. p. 61, 62. *

$ Heylin's Hist. of Pres, p. 317.-Strype's Aylmer, p. 145, 146, ''

« 上一頁繼續 »