while their families were starving, as the Rev. Mr. Fenner of Cranbrook suspended seven years, Mr. Leverwood of Manchelsea seven years, Mr. Percival Wyburne of Rochester five years, Mr. Rockeray prebendary of Rochester four years, Mr. Barber of Bow-Church, London, two years six months, Mr. Field of Aldermary, London, Mr. Smith lecturer of St. Clements, whose printed sermons were a family book all over England many years ;* Mr. Travers of the Temple, Mr. Colset of Easton on the Hill, Mr. Settle of Buxstead, Suffolk, Mr. Gellibrand, Dyke, Fleming, Mr. Kendal, Mr. Hubbock of Oxford, with many others whose names are before me. Mr. Hubbock was an excellent divine, and was called before the commission for saying, that a great nobleman (meaning the archbishop) had kneeled down to her majesty for staying and hindering her intent to reform religion. But his grace not being willing to insist upon this, commanded him to subscribe, and in case of refusal to enter into bonds not to preach any more, nor to come within ten miles of Oxford; which Mr. Hubbock declined, saying, "He had rather go to prison than con'sent to be silent from preaching, unless he was convinced 'that he had taught false doctrine, or committed any fault 'worthy of bonds." Sir Francis Knollys and the Treasurer interceded for him but to no purpose; upon which Sir Francis wrote back to the treasurer in these words; "You 'know how greatly, yea, and tyrannously the archbishop hath urged subscription to bis own articles without lawand that he has claimed in the right of all the bishops a 'superiority over the inferior clergy from God's own ordinance, in prejudice to her majesty's supreme government, though at present he says he does not claim it, therefore in my opinion he ought openly to retract it."

6

These high proceedings of the commissioners brought their powers under examination; most were of opinion that they exceeded the law, but some thought the very court itself was illegal, imagining the Queen could not delegate her supremacy to others. Mr. Cawdery, late minister of Luf fingham in Suffolk, had been suspended by the bishop of

* MS. p. 584.

+ Life of Whitgift, p. 341, 342.

London for refusing the oath ex officio; but not acquiescing in his lordship's sentence, the bishop summoned him before the high commissioners, who deprived him for non-conformity and lack of learning, and gave away his living to another, though Mr. Cawdery was one of the most learned clergymen, and best preachers in the country, and offered to give proof of his learning before his judges. When this would not be accepted he pleaded with tears his wife and eight poor children that had no maintenance; but the hearts of the commissioners not being mollified, Mr. Cawdery was advised to appeal to the court of exchequer, and proceed against the chaplain that bad possession of his living; on this occasion the jurisdiction of the court was argued before all the judges in Hilary term, 1591.* Dr. Aubrey the civilian confessed, that their proceedings were not warrantable by the letter of the statute 1st Eliz. but were built upon the old canon law still in force; though it has been shewn that their proceeding by way of inquisition was warranted by no law at all; but the judges confirmed the proceedings of the court, and left Mr. Cawdery with his large family to starve as a layman. The suit cost Mr. Cawdery's friends a round sum of money, besides two and twenty journies which he made to London. But it was a brave stand for the rights of the subject, and staggered the archbishop so much, that he declined the business of the commission afterwards, and sent most of his prisoners to the Star-chamber.

While these causes were depending, sundry books were written for and against the oath ex officio; among others Mr, Morrice, attorney of the court of wards, and member of parliament, published a learned treatise, to prove that no prelates, or ecclesiastical judges, have authority to compel any subject of the land to an oath, except in causes testamentary or matrimonial; and he gives these reasons for it, Because it is against the word of GOD :-It was never allowed by any general council for a thousand years after. Christ-It was forbidden by the pagan emperors against the christians:It is against the pope's decretals except in cases of heresy, and where there is danger to the accuser,

* Heyl. Hist. Presb. p. 318.

and not otherwise :-It is against the laws of the realm;and, Because it is against the Queen's prerogative.† Morrice's book was answered by Dr. Cosins a civilian, in his apology for the ecclesiastical proceedings; to which Morrice had prepared a reply, but the archbishop hearing of it, sent for him, and forbad the publication. The attorney complained of this usage to the treasurer in these words; "Cosins 'may write at his pleasure of ecclesiastical courts without 'check or controlment, though never so erroneously; but I poor man, such is my ill hap, may not maintain the right cause of justice without some blot or blemish." But this was his grace's shortest way of ending controversies.

Though Mr. Cartwright and his brethren above-mentioned had the resolution to lie in gaol for two years, rather than take the oath ex officio, others out of weakness, or some other principle, yielded to it, and discovered their classes, with the names of those that were present at them: Among these were Mr. Stone, rector of Warkton in Northamptonshire; Mr. Henry Alvey, fellow of St. John's, Cambridge; Mr. Thomas Edmunds, Mr. William Perkins, Mr. Littleton, Johnson, Barber, Cleavely, and Nutter. These divines confessed upon examination, that they had several meetings with their brethren in London, at the houses of Mr. Travers, Egerton, Gardner, and Barber, that there had been assemblies of ministers in Cambridge, Northamptonshire and Warwickshire; that at these meetings there were usually between twelve and twenty ministers present; that they had a moderator; that they began and ended with prayer; and that their usual debates were how far they might comply with the establishment rather than forego their ministry; here they revised their book of discipline, and consulted of peaceable methods in subordination to the laws for promoting a reformation in the church, and how far they might exercise their own platform in the mean time but the worst part of their confession was their discovering the names of the brethren that were present, which brought them into trouble. The reasons they gave for taking the oath were :-Because it was administered by a lawful magistrate :-Because the magistrate had a + Life of Whitgift, p. 340. Life of Whitgift, p. 371.

right to search out the truth in matters relating to the public safety-Because it was impossible to keep things any longer secret, many letters of the brethren having been intercepted:-Because there was nothing criminal in their assemblies, and the magistrate might suspect worse things of them than were true; and though their confessions might bring some into trouble, they might deliver others who were suspected. How far these reasons will justify the confessors, I leave with the reader; but it is certain they purchased their own liberties at the expence of their brethens'; for they had the favor to be dismissed, and lived without disturbance afterwards.

To render the puritans odious to the public, all enthusiasts without distinction were ranked among them; even Hacket and his two prophets, Arthington and Coppinger.‡ Hacket was a blasphemous, ignorant wretch, who could not so much as read; he pretended to be King Jesus, and to set up his empire in the room of the Queen's, who (he said) was no longer to be Queen of England. He defaced her majesty's arms, and stabbed her picture through with his dagger, in the house where he lodged. Being ap prehended and put upon the rack, he confessed every thing they would have him, and upon his trial pleaded guilty, declaring he was moved thereunto by the spirit: he was hanged July 18th, and died raving like a madman. Coppinger starved himself in prison, but Arthington lived to recover his senses, and was pardoned. Dr. Nichols says, that by the solicitations of these men the puritans stirred up the people to rebellion, their design being communicated to Cartwright, Egerton and Wiggington ; whereas there was not a single puritan concerned with them. Fuller the historian speaks candidly of the matter; "This business of Hacket (says he) happened unseasonably for the presbyterians; true it is, they as cordially detested ' his blasphemies as any of the episcopal party; and such of them as loved Hacket the non-conformist, abhorred Hacket the heretic, after he had mounted to so high 'a pitch of impiety." However, Mr. Cartwright wrote Strype's Ann. vol. ult. p. 71. § Pierce's Vindic. p. 140. || B. ix. p. 206.

an apology for himself and his brethren against the aspersions of Dr. Sutcliff, in which he declares, he had never seen Hacket nor Arthington, nor ever had any conference with them by letter or message. Had there been any ground for this vile charge, we should no doubt have found it among their articles of impeachment.

At the opening of the new parliament, Feb. 19th, the Queen signified her pleasure to the house, that they might redress such popular grievances as were complained of in their several counties, but should leave all matters of state to herself and the council; and all matters relating to the church to herself and the bishops. What an insignificant thing is a representative body of the nation, that must not meddle with matters of church or state! But her majesty was resolved to let them see she would be obeyed, for when Mr. Wentworth and Bromley moved the house to address the Queen to name her successor, she sent for them, together with Mr. Welsh and Stevens, and committed them to prison, where Wentworth remained many years.† When it was moved in the house to address the Queen for the release of their members, it was answered by those privy counsellors that were of the house, That her majesty had committed them for causes best known to herself; that the house must not call the Queen to account for what she did of her royal authority; that the causes of their restraint might be high and dangerous; that her majesty did not like such questions, nor did it become the house to deal in such matters.

After this it was a bold adventure of Mr. Attorney Morrice, and for which he paid very dear, to move the house, to enquire into the proceedings of the bishops in their spiritual courts, and how far they could justify their inquisition, their subscriptions, their binding the Queen's subjects to their good behavior contrary to the laws of God and of the realm; their compelling men to take oaths to accuse them

Heyl. Hist. Presb. p. 319.

This step of Mr. Attorney Morrice is described in more proper and happy language by Dr. Warner: who calls it "a noble attempt in fa• vor of religious liberty." Ed.

§ Life of Whitgift, p. 386-7.