and conceiving that "in this business her authority was shot at through the bishops' sides, . . . . . maintained the ecclesiastical jurisdiction inviolate against all opposers.' Mr. Cartwright and his brethren remained, without a gleam of hope, in their respective prisons. 1 Camden, 455. Heylin's Presb., Book IX. Sec. 318. CHAPTER XII. PURITANS IN THE SECULAR COURTS. ROBERT CAWDREY ARRAIGNED, DEPRIVED, AND DEPOSED. — LORD BURLEIGH ADVISES HIS APPEAL TO LAW. MR. CAWDREY COMMENCES A SUIT TO TEST, BY MUNICIPAL LAW, THE PRACTICE OF ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. — THE VERDICT OF THE JURY UPON THE FACTS. THEY REFER TO THE COURT WHETHER HIS DEPRIVATION WAS, OR WAS NOT, WARRANTED BY LAW. THE ARGUMENT UPON THIS POINT FOR THE PLAINTIFF. THE REBUTTING ARGUMENT OF THE COURT. A REVIEW OF THIS ARGUMENT. THE INDIGNATION OF LORD BURLEIGH AND OF THE PEOPLE. - JOHN UDAL ARRAIGNED BEFORE THE ASSIZES AT CROYDEN. HIS INDICTMENT.— HIS PREVIOUS TROUBLES. HIS TRIAL. THE VERDICT, GUILTY OF FELONY. -THE COURT URGE HIM TO SUBMISSION. — HIS PLEA FOR STAYING OF SENTENCE. IS SENTENCED TO DEATH. — ORDER FOR HIS RESPITE. - HIS CONFERENCE WITH A MESSENGER FROM THE QUEEN.SIR WALTER RALEIGH INTERFERES IN HIS BEHALF. ANOTHER OVERTURE. MR. UDAL SIGNS AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT. THE ARCHBISHOP UNWILLING FOR HIS PARDON. THE LONDON MERCHANTS SEEK HIS LIBERATION; BUT IN VAIN. — HIS SUFFERINGS AND DEATH IN PRISON. CONSIDERATIONS UPON HIS CASE. 1590-1592. THE strife of religious parties was thickening. Stern, jealous, Procustean ecclesiasticism, with its anathemas, its jailers, its secret tortures, and its hangmen, stood arrayed against high-minded but loyal Puritanism, which had no earthly might but remonstrance and endurance. Yet this despised might like the water which trickles beneath a sandy foundation, and which no daubing with untempered mortar can check was undermining the towering structure whose very pressure had forced its flow. The High Court of Commission - like the Roc of Eastern fable- had struck out wing and talon, and was swooping up its prey. Such prey! the choice ones of the flock of Christ! For the slightest ceremonial delinquency, the humble curate was beggared. For private and peaceable consultation upon lawful measures for ecclesiastical reform, the faithful adherent of the Church was consigned to a common prison, with the common herd of profligates. So also was the bolder, but no less offensive, Separatist. Between the years of 1586 and 1593, countless were the moans of Christ's disciples, whom he heard, comforted, and purified under their afflictions. Their stifled cries came not out to the busy crowds of London and Southwark ; but from the noisome prisons of the White-lion, the Clink, the Fleet, the Gate-house, Newgate, Bridewell, the Wood-Street Counter, and the Poultry Counter, they went up. The last whisper of affection, the last smile of hope, the last sigh of life from many souls ripe for heaven, were witnessed by the gloomy walls whence God took them to himself, and by the wondering reprobates from whom he delivered them. Some of them murmured their last invocation upon the gallows. But we anticipate a narrative whose details throng upon our vision. We resume, through many pages to verify our words. In the midst of these fiery trials, one man was destined to play an aggressive part. In view of its moral effect, we think it an important part. The rector of Luffenham, in the tiny county of Rutland,1 1 Coke, Part V. p. i was a man of good repute as a scholar, a preacher, and a Christian.' This man, Robert Cawdrey, happening in the pulpit to allude to a point in the communion book which seemed to warrant an ignorant and unfaithful ministry, exclaimed, under the excitement of the moment, "A vile book! Fie upon it!" Except in not using the sign of the cross and the ring in baptism and marriage, and in not wearing the surplice, a robe offensive to his parishioners, he was was a conformist.2 These six words cost him five several citations before the Consistory of St. Paul's, a temporary imprisonment, twenty-two journeys to London, much money, the deprivation of his living, suspension, and finally, by decree of the High Commission at Lambeth, deposition from the ministry. While these matters were in progress, from November, 1586, to May, 1590, the Lord Treasurer, after thoroughly investigating the case upon the representations of each party, had done all in his power to arrest the proceedings, but to no purpose. Mr. Cawdrey was deprived because he had spoken against the book, and because he would not bind himself to conform to it in every particular. He was deposed because, instead of submitting to the sentences of the Consistory, he still claimed title to the living and pastoral office of Luffenham. Upon the sentence of the Commissioners, the Bishop of Peterborough, his diocesan, sequestered him from his benefice and supplied it with his own chaplain, George Atton.1 We have already stated that it had been thought best by the Puritans that no minister - except in special cases-should abide by deprivation from the ministry decreed by the bishops, but that he should continue therein until otherwise compelled by the courts of common law. Upon this opinion, Mr. Cawdrey resolved to act. The Lord Treasurer, earnestly espousing his cause, had advised that Mr. Morrice, an able and learned barrister, should prosecute the case at law; but that he should first present to the Commissioners the legal exceptions to their proceedings, with the request that they would thereupon "review and examine" the case. The attorney consented, and proceeded accordingly. The Commissioners having taken shelter behind the ecclesiastical law from the legal exceptions submitted to them, Mr. Cawdrey, in January, 1591-2, brought an action of trespass in the Exchequer Court against George Atton, who had been instated in his place at Luffenham. His chief object was to bring the practice of the ecclesiastical courts to the test of the municipal law. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and the jury gave a special verdict. They found the truth of the case at large, referring the same for the law in the case to the judgment of the Court. They found that the plaintiff before the time of the trespass supposed was 3 1 Strype's Aylmer, 140. Coke, Part V. p. i. 2 Strype's Aylmer, 140, 141. 20. Heylin's Presb., Book IX. Sec. Brook I. 440. |