Calvinists, who should venture to break it, while they should connive at the disobedience of the contrary party. It is certain, the Calvinists were prosecuted for disobeying the proclamation, while the Arminians were tolerated and countenanced. The puritans, who wrote in defence of the received doctrines of the thirty-nine articles, were censured in the high commission, and their books suppressed; and when they ventured to preach or dispute upon those points, they were suspended, imprisoned, forced to recant, or banished to a foreign land.+

The king now usurped an arbitrary power, much more extensive than any of his predecessors. Henry VIII. did what he pleased by the use of parliament; but Charles evidently designed to rule without parliament. To convince the people that it was their duty to submit to a monarch of such principles, the clergy were employed to preach up the doctrine of passive obedience and nonresistance. Dr. Manwaring preaching before his majesty, said, "The king is not bound to observe the laws of "the realm, concerning the subject's rights and liberties, "but that his royal will and pleasure, in imposing taxes "without consent of parliament, doth oblige the subject's "conscience on pain of eternal damnation."§

The church being governed by similar arbitrary and illegal methods, it was easy to foresee what the nonconformists had to expect. They were exceedingly harassed and persecuted in every corner of the land. In the year 1626, Mr. Brewer was censured in the high commission, and committed to prison, where he continued fourteen years. Mr. Smart, prebend of Durham, was many times convened before his ecclesiastical judges; then sent to the high commission at York, and kept a prisoner_nine months. He was next sent to the high commission at Lambeth; then returned to York, fined £500, and ordered to recant; for refusing which, he was fined a second time, excommunicated, deprived, degraded, and committed to prison, where he remained eleven or twelve years, suffering

*Rapin's Hist. vol. ii. p. 258.

+ Prynne's Canterburies Doome, p. 161.

Rapin's Hist, vol. ii. p. 259.

§ Manwaring, for this sermon, was sentenced by the house of lords to pay a fine of a thousand pounds, to make a public submission at the bar of both houses, to be imprisoned during the pleasure of the lords, and declared incapable of holding any ecclesiastical dignity: nevertheless, he was so much a court favourite, he obtained the king's pardon, with a good benefice, and afterwards a bishopric.-Ibid.

immense damages. These severities were inflicted by the instigation of Laud, soon after made Bishop of London, and prime minister to his majesty.* This furious prelate was no sooner exalted, than he made strange havoc among the churches. Agreeable to the king's injunctions, many excellent lecturers were put down, and such as preached against Arminianism or the popish ceremonies, were suspended; among whom were Drs. Stoughton, Sibbs, Taylor, and Gouge, with Messrs. White of Dorchester, Rogers of Dedham, Rogers of Wethersfield, Hooker of Chelmsford, White of Knightsbridge, Archer, Edwards, Jones, Ward, Saunders, Salisbury, Foxley, William Martin, and James Gardiner.+ Mr. Henry Burton was brought before the council-table, and the high commission. He was afterwards apprehended by a pursuivant, then suspended and committed to the Fleet. Mr. Nathaniel Bernard was suspended, excommunicated, fined £1,000, condemned in costs of suit, and committed to New Prison, where he was treated with great barbarity; and refusing to make a public recantation, after languishing a long time, he died through the rigour of his confinement. But the unparalleled cruelty of this prelate most appeared in the terrible sentence inflicted upon Dr. Alexander Leighton'. He was seized by a warrant from the high commission; dragged before Bishop Laud; then, without examination, carried to Newgate, where he was treated a long time with unexampled barbarity. When brought to trial before that arbitrary court, the furious prelate desired the court to inflict the heaviest sentence that could be inflicted upon him. He was, therefore, condemned to be degraded from his ministry, to have his ears cut, his nose slit, to be branded in the face, whipped at a post, to stand in the pillory, to pay £10,000, and to suffer perpetual imprisonment. This horrible sentence being pronounced, Laud pulled off his hat, and holding up his hands, gave thanks to God, who had given him the victory over his enemies.‡

During these cruel proceedings, Mr. Palmer and Mr. Udney, two lecturers in Kent, were silenced. Mr. Angier was suspended. Mr. Huntley was grievously censured in the high commission, and committed to prison, where he continued a long time. Mr. John Workman was

* Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 78.

+ Ibid. p. 362, 373.

For an account of the barbarous execution of this shocking sentence,

see Art. Leighton.

§ Calamy's Account, vol. ii. p. 395.

suspended, excommunicated, condemned in costs of suit, cast into prison, and obliged to make a public recantation at three different places. Mr. Crowder was committed close prisoner to Newgate for sixteen weeks, then deprived of his living, without there being any charge, witness, or other proof brought against him. Many others were prosecuted and deprived.* Bishop Laud being made chancellor of Oxford, carried his severities to the university. He caused Mr. Hill to make a public recantation; Messrs. Ford, Thorne, and Hodges to be expelled from the university; the proctors to be deprived for receiving their appeal; and Drs. Prideaux and Wilkinson to be sharply admonished. Mr. William Hobbs, fellow of Trinity college, having preached against falling from grace; and Mr. Thomas Cook of Brazen-nose college, having in his Latin sermon used certain expressions against the Arminians, they were both enjoined public recantations. Dr. Prideaux, Dr. Burgess, Mr. White, Mr. Madye, with some others, suffered on the same account.+

By the unfeeling persecutions of the bishops, the puritans were driven from one diocese to another, and many of them obliged to leave the kingdom, and seek their bread in a foreign land. Messrs. Higginson, Skelton, Williams, Wilson, Wheelwright, Philips, Lathorp, Hooker, Stone, Cotton, with many others, fled to New England. Many of these divines, previous to their departure, were harassed, prosecuted, and cruelly censured by the ruling prelates.

The distressed puritans who remained at home, presented a petition to his majesty, in which they say, "We are not a little discouraged and deterred from preaching those saving doctrines of God's free grace in election and predestination which greatly confirm our faith of eternal salvation, and fervently kindle our love to God, as the seventeenth article expressly mentioneth. So we are

brought into great strait, either of incurring God's heavy displeasure if we do not faithfully discharge our embassage, in declaring the whole council of God; or the danger of being censured as violaters of your majesty's acts, if we preach these constant doctrines of our church, and confute the opposite Pelagian and Arminian heresies, both boldly preached and printed without the least censure." This

Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. i. p. 519.

+ Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 173, 176.-Rushworth's Collec. vol. ii. Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 165.

p. 283.

appears, however, to have been followed with no good effect. By silencing so many learned and useful ministers, there was a great scarcity of preachers, and a famine of the word of God in every corner of the land; while ignorance, superstition, profaneness, and popery, every where increased.*

The sufferings of the people for want of the bread of life continually increasing, a number of ministers and gentlemen formed a scheme to promote preaching in the country, by setting up lectures in the different market towns. To defray the expence, a sum of money was raised by voluntary contribution, for purchasing such impropriations as were in the hands of the laity, the profits of which were to be divided into salaries of forty or fifty pounds a year, for the support of the lecturers. The money was deposited in the hands of the following persons, as FEOFFEES: Dr. George, Dr. Sibbs, Dr. Offspring, and Mr. Davenport, of the clergy; Ralph Eyre, Simon Brown, C. Sherland, and John White, esqrs.; and Messrs. John Gearing, Richard Davis, George Harwood, and Francis Bridges, citizens of London. Most people thought the design was very laudable, and wished them good success; but Bishop Laud looking upon the undertaking with an evil and a jealous eye, as if it was likely to become the great nursery of puritanism, applied to the king, and obtained an information against all the feoffees in the exchequer. The feoffment was, therefore, cancelled, their proceedings declared illegal, the impropriations already purchased, amounting to five or six thousand pounds, were confiscated to the king, and the feoffees themselves fined in the starchamber.+

If the persecuted puritans at any time ventured to except against the proceedings of this fiery prelate, they were sure to feel his indignation. Mr. Hayden having spoken against them from the pulpit, was driven out of the diocese of Exeter, but afterwards apprehended by Bishop Harsnet, who took from him his horse, his money, and all his papers, and caused him to be shut up in close prison for thirteen weeks. His lordship then sent him to the high commission, when he was deprived, degraded, and fined, for having preached against superstitious decorations and images in churches. Mr. Hayden venturing afterwards to preach occasionally, was again apprehended by Bishop Laud,

*Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 385.

+ Ibid. p. 385-387.

who sent him first to the Gatehouse, then to Bridewell, where he was whipped and kept to hard labour; then confined in a cold dark hole during the whole of winter, being chained to a post in the middle of the room, with irons on his hands and feet, having no other food than bread and water, and a pad of straw to lie on. Before his release, he was obliged to take an oath, and give bond, to preach no more, but depart from the kingdom, and never return. Henry Shirfield, esq. a bencher of Lincoln's-inn, and recorder of Salisbury, was tried in the star-chamber, for taking down some painted glass from one of the windows of St. Edmund's church, Salisbury. These pictures were extremely ridiculous and superstitious. The taking down of the glass was agreed upon at a vestry, when six justices of the peace were present. Towards the close of his trial, Bishop Laud stood up, and moved the court, that Mr. Shirfield might be fined £1,000, removed from his recordership, committed to the Fleet till he paid the fine, and then bound to his good behaviour. The whole of this heavy sentence was inflicted upon him, excepting that the fine was mitigated to £500.+

In the year 1633, upon the death of Archbishop Abbot, Laud was made Archbishop of Canterbury; when he and several of his brethren renewed their zeal in the persecution of the puritans. Numerous lecturers were silenced, and their lectures put down. Mr. Rathband and Mr. Blackerby, two most excellent divines, were often silenced, and driven from one place to another. Mr. John Budle, rector of Barnston, and Mr. Throgmorton, vicar of Mawling, were prosecuted in the high commission. Mr. Alder and Mr. Jessey were both silenced, the latter for not observing the ceremonies, and removing a crucifix. Mr. John Vincent was continually harassed for nonconformity. He was so driven from place to place, that though he had many

* There were in this window seven pictures of God the Father in the form of little old men, in a blue and red coat, with a pouch by his side. One of them represented him creating the sun and moon with a pair of compasses; others as working upon the six days creation; and at last as sitting in an elbow chair at rest. Many of the people, upon their going in and out of the church, did reverence to this window, because, as they said, the Lord their God was there.-Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 102. + Ibid. p. 103.-Rushworth's Collec. vol. ii. p. 153–156.

Archbishop Abbot, who succeeded Bancroft, is said to have imitated the moderation of Whitgift; and that Laud, who succeeded Abbot, imi. tated the wrath of Bancroft.-Kennet's Hist. of Eng. vol. ii. p. 665, note. Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. i. p. 526-529. Calamy's Contin. vol. i. p. 46.