網頁圖片
PDF

us to hear them; for though our own fountains are dried up, yet if we seek for the waters of life elsewhere, we are cited into the spiritual courts, reviled, and threatened with excommunication.” The ground of this scarcity was the violence of the high commission, and the narrow terms of conformity. Most of the old incumbents, says Dr. Keltridge, were disguised papists, more fit to sport with the timbrel and pipe, than to take into their hands the book of God.4 The common topic of conversation now was the Queen's marriage with the Duke of Anjou, a notorious papist.f All true protestants were displeased and under alarming apprehensions. The puritans in general protested against the match, dreading the consequence of having a protestant body, under a popish head. Mr. John Stubbs, a student of Lincoln’s-inn, and a gentleman of excellent abilities, published a book, entitled “The Discoverie of the Gaping Gulph, whereinto England is like to be swallowed by another French marriage, if the Lord forbid not the banns, by letting her Majestie see the sin and punishment thereof.” It no sooner came forth, than the queen issued her proclamation to suppress the book, and apprehend the author and É."; Stubbs the author, Singleton the printer, and age the disperser, were apprehended, and sentenced to have their right hands cut off. Singleton was pardoned, but Stubbs and Page were brought to a scaffold erected at Westminster; where, with terrible formality, their right hands were cut off, by driving a cleaver through the wrist with a mallet; but as soon as Stubbs's right hand was cut off, he pulled off his hat with his left, and, to the great amazement of the spectators, exclaimed God save the Queen. He was then sent to the Tower, where he remained a long time; but afterwards proved himself a loyal subject, and a valiant and faithful commander in the wars in Ireland. Many of the puritans being dissatisfied with the terms of conformity, and the episcopal ordination of the church of England, went to Antwerp and other places, where they received ordination according to the practice of the forei reformed churches. Among these were Messrs. Cartwright, Fenner, Ashton, Travers, and Wright. The last, upon his return, became domestic chaplain to Lord Rich; but for saying, that “to keep the queen's birth-day as an holiday, was to make her an idol,” Bishop Aylmer committed him to the Fleet. Lord Rich, for attempting to vindicate him, was at the same time sent to the Marshalsea, and Mr. Dix to the Gatehouse.” Mr. Morley, a Norfolk minister, and Mr. Handson, preacher at Bury St. Edmunds, were both greatly molested, and suspended for nonconformity. The lord treasurer, with several other eminent persons, interceded with the bishop for the restoration of Mr. Handson, but all to no purpose. The angry prelate peremptorily declared, that he should not be restored, unless he would publicly acknowledge his fault, and enter into bonds for his good behaviour in future. Mr. Drewit was committed to Newgate, and Mr. Nash to the Marshalsea, where they remained a long time. Also, during this year, Mathew Hament, a poor plow-wright at - Hethersett, near Norwich, being suspected of holding many unsound and dangerous opinions, was convened before the Bishop of Norwich, condemned as an heretic, and, May 20th, committed to the flames in the castle-ditch. As a preparative to this punishment, his ears were cut off on the 13th of the same month. These proceedings were too conformable to those of the church of Rome. Great numbers of pious and learned ministers were now indicted at the assizes, for omitting to use the surplice, the cross in baptism, the ring in marriage, or some part of the common prayer. They were ranked with the worst of felons, and exposed to public contempt, to the great dishonour of God, and injury of her majesty's subjects. Many persons of quality in the various counties of England, petitioned the lords of the council in behalf of the persecuted ministers. In the Suffolk petition are these words:— “The painful pastors and ministers of the word, by what justice we know not, are now of late brought to the bar at every assize; marshalled with the worst malefactors, indicted, arraigned, and condemned for matters, as we presume, of very slender moment: some for having holidays unbidden; some for singing the hymn nunc dimittis in the morning; some for turning the question in baptism from the infants to the godfathers, which is only you, for thou; some for leaving out the cross in baptism; some for leaving out the ring in marriage; whereunto,” say they, “neither the law, nor the lawmakers, in our judgment, had ever any regard.;

* MS. Register, p. 300. + Strype's Aylmer, p. 32. f Strype's Annals, vol. ii. p. 566. § Kennet's Hist. of Eng. vol. ii. p. 487.

* Strype's Aylmer, p. 86. + Heylin's Hist. of Pres. p. 280,281. # Parte of a Register, p. 128,

But instead of relieving the suffering ministers, their burdens were greatly increased. In the year 1580, the parliament passed a law, entitled “An Act to retain the Queen's Subjects in their due Obedience,” which enacted “That all persons who do not come to church or chapel, or other place where common prayer is said, according to the act of uniformity, shall forfeit twenty pounds per month to the queen, and suffer imprisonment till paid. Those who are absent for twelve months, shall, besides their former fine, be bound with two sufficient sureties in a bond of two hundred pounds, until they conform. And every schoolmaster who does not come to common prayer, shall forfeit ten pounds a month, be disabled from teaching school, and suffer a year's imprisonment.” This, says a learned churchman, was little better than making merchandize of souls. The fine was, indeed, unmerciful, and the common people had nothing to expect but to rot in jails.

The legislature, by these violent measures, overshot the mark, and instead of crushing the puritans, or reconciling them to the church, they drove them farther from it. Men of integrity will not easily be beaten from their principles by canons, injunctions, subscriptions, fines, or imprisonment; much less will they esteem the church fighting with such weapons. Multitudes were by these methods driven to a total separation, and they became so far opposed to the persecuting church of England, as not to allow it to be a true church, nor its ministers true ministers. They renounced all communion with it, not only in the prayers and ceremonies, but in hearing the word and the sacraments. These were called BRow Nists, from Robert Brown, at this time a preacher in the diocese of Norwich. The Brownists did not differ from the church of England in matters of faith; but were very rigid in points of discipline. They maintained the discipline of the church of England to be popish and antichristian, and all her ordinances to be invalid. They apprehended that, according to scripture, every church ought to be confined within a single congregation; and the choice of its officers, and the admission and exclusion of members, with all its other regulations, ought to be determined by the brotherhood. Many of the Brownists were great sufferers in their zeal for nonconformity : among these were Mr. Copping and Mr. Thacker, ministers in the county of Suffolk. After suffering imprisonment seven years, for spreading Brown's books against the bishops and the established church, they were tried, condemned, and hanged at Bury St. Edmunds. At the same time, Mr. John Lewis, for denying the godhead of Christ, and, it is said, for holding other detestable heresies, was burnt at Norwich, September 17, 1583.” Upon the death of Archbishop Grindal, Dr. John Whitgift became Archbishop of Canterbury, and was confirmed September 23, 1583. The queen charged him “to restore the discipline of the church, and the uniformity established by law, which,” says she, “through the connivance of some prelates, the obstinacy of the puritans, and the power ...”some noblemen, is run out of square.”f Therefore, in obedience to her majesty's royal command, the new archbishop immediately published the following articles, and sent them to the bishops of his province, for their direction in the government of their dioceses:— “That all reading, preaching, catechising, and praying in any private family, where any are present besides the family, be utterly extinguished.—That none do preach or catechise except he also read the whole service, and administer the sacrament four times a year.—That all preachers, and others in ecclesiastical orders, do at all times wear the habits prescribed.—And that none be admitted to preach, or to execute any part of the ecclesiastical function, unless they be ordained according to the manner of the church of England; nor unless they subscribe the three following articles.” 1. “That the queen hath, and ought to have, the sove“reignty and rule over all manner of persons, born “ within her dominions, of what condition soever they be; “ and that none other power or potentate hath, or ought to “ have, any power, ecclesiastical or civil, within her realms “ or dominions. 2. “That the Book of Common Prayer, and of ordaining “bishops, priests, and deacons, containeth in it nothing “contrary to the word of God, but may be lawfully used; “ and that he himself will use the same, and none other, in “public prayer and administration of the sacraments. 3. “That he alloweth the book of articles, agreed upon “ in the convocation holden at London in 1562, and set “forth by her majesty's authority; and he believe all the “articles therein contained to be agreeable to the word << of God.”" These were called Whitgift's articles, because he was their principal author. Subscription to them was required for many years, without the warrant of any statute or canon whatsoever. By Whitgift's strict imposition of them upon all ministers, multitudes who refused to comply were suspended and deprived. They would most cordially have subscribed to the first and third, but could not in conscience subscribe, “That the Book of Common Prayer and Ordination contained nothing contrary to the word of God,”! These proceedings excited universal alarm, and great numbers of worthy ministers were brought under the ecclesiastical censure. Sixty-four ministers were suspended in the county of Norfolk, sixty in Suffolk,f thirty in Sussex, thirty-eight in Essex, twenty in Kent, and twenty-one in Lincolnshire. Among those in the county last mentioned, were Messrs. Charles Bingham, vicar of Croft, John Somerscales of Beseby, Joseph Gibson of Swaby, William Muming, vicar of Claxby, Reignald Grome of Thedilthorp

* Burn's Eccl. Law, vol. ii. p. 146. + Fuller's Church Hist. b. ix. p. 131.

* Parallei betwixt Phanatics, p. 11. Edit. 1661 : from Stow,

* Grindal, in his latter days, was much inclined to favour the puritans, and was, with great difficulty, brought to punish them for their nonconformity. He had not sat long in the chair of Canterbury, before he was suspended and confined in his own house, for pot suppressing the religious exercises called Prophesyings, which his conscience told him should have been encouraged and promoted. He continued under the tyrannical censure several years.-Hume's Hist. of Eng. vol. v. p. 188—Granger's Biog. Hist. vol. i. p. 204.

: Kennet's Hist. of Eng. vol. ii. p. 494.

* Strype's Whitgift, p. 115, 116. + MS. Register, p. 513.

# The names of those suspended in Suffolk, were the following, fortyfour of the last being suspended on one day;—Nicholas Bound, minister of Norton; Richard Grandish, A. M. rector of Bradfield; Lawrance Whitaker, A. B. rector of Bradfield; Richard Holden, A. B. rector of Testock; Gaulter Allen, B. D. of Rushbrook; Reignald Whitfield, A. M. of Barrow; Thomas Rogers of Horningsheath; Anthony Rowe of Hedgesset; Thomas Warren; William Cook; William Holden; Nicholas Bonnington, rector of Chettisham; John Tylmen, A. M. of Borgholt; Richard Dowe, A. M. vicar of Stratford ; John Carter, A. M. vicar of Bramford ; Martin Brige, A. M. vicar of Brettenham; Henry Sandes of Boxford ; John Holden, rector of Bildeston; Thomas Cranshawe, A. M. rector of Boxted ; Peter Cook, curate to Mr. Cranshawe; John Knewstubs, B. D. rector of Cockfield; William Hey, rector of Nedging; John Aulthroppe of Sudbury; Robert Ballard, A. B. rector of Clare: Lawrance Fairclough, vicar of Haverhil; John Ward ; Nicholas Egleston, rector of Stradshill; William Turner, rector of Wratting-Parva; Robert Prick of Denham; Thomas Sutton, A. M. rector of Eriswell ; Josias Hallington, Edmund Salmon, Thomas Jeffraye, Thomas Wattis, Mr. Phillips, Roger Nutle, Roger Geffrey, John Smith, John Forthe, Thomas Moore, William Browne, John Cooper, William Flemming, Robert Sweete, William Bentloc, John Smith, Thomas Hagas, Daniel Dennis, George Webb, William Bend, John English, Thomas Fowle, Robert Cotsford, Richard King, Mr. Lovell, Mr. . Mr. Pigge, Mr. Hill, Mr. Smith, and Dr. Crick.-MS. Register, P. 437.

« 上一頁繼續 »