him" from it. He then resumed the functions of the ministry. For this, and for omitting part of the public prayers, the sign of the cross in baptism, and the surplice, the Commissioners deprived him of his living.

2

Against these proceedings it was argued at length before the Court, and by learned civilians, "That the suspension, even had it been for nonconformity, was contrary to all ecclesiastical law;1 because in cases like this, where the delinquent was such through conscientious doubts, he was entitled to the benefit of reasonable time and of conference for the purpose of having his doubts resolved, which had not been granted to Mr. Paget, although he had requested it; and because, by the same law, the delinquent should have had three several canonical admonitions before sentence of suspension, whereas in this case not even one had been given. But" the civilians further argued "the suspension was not for nonconformity, but for refusing to subscribe articles which the Court had no warrant to offer, for their authority reaches no further than to reform and correct facts done contrary to certain statutes specified in their commission, and contrary to other

1 I would add, and consequently contrary to the statute 1 Eliz., Cap. I. Sec. VIII., from which the Commissioners originally derived their authority; and also contrary to 1 Eliz., Cap. II. Sec. XI., which requires ecclesiastical officers to proceed "in like form as heretofore hath been used in like cases by the queen's ecclesiastical laws.”

2 Neal states this point thus: "Because he had not time, nor a conference, as he craved, and as the

ecclesiastical laws; and there was never yet any clause in their commission to offer subscription to articles of their own devising."

As to Mr. Paget's irregularity in exercising the ministry after suspension, "supposing the censure was valid," yet he had obtained from the Archbishop himself a release from that suspension before resuming the ministry. Now, even if this release was not sufficient, it was apprehended by Mr. Paget to be so, the Archbishop being chief in the Commission; and "all canonists allow that mistakes of ignorance, being void of wilful contempt, are a lawful excuse to discharge irregularity." But although these and other points were "argued at length," showing clearly the illegality of the censures, the Court with unblushing brow persisted in their act, and Mr. Paget's living was given to another.

The poor man then betook himself to keeping a small school, as the only means in his power to meet the necessities of a large family. But "the relentless court pounced once more on their mangled victim, requiring him to take out a license; and, as a previous condition, to subscribe the Articles "1 of Religion, all of them; and, because he could not do this, refused him a license, shut up his school, and left him and his family to beggary. Their curse was upon him as long as Archbishop Whitgift lived.3

2

It is not, however, the illegality of these proceedings merely which claims our notice; but their wanton and seemingly malicious cruelty. First of all, the prosecution seems to have been instituted

1 Marsden, 166.

2 Strype's Whitgift, 377.

3 Neal, I. 170, 171. Brook, II. 253.

a

to gratify a private pique of the complainant, thing of frequent occurrence even in the case of Puritan conformists. But more, it seems to have been a wanton prosecution on the part of the Commissioners; for Mr. Paget was a quiet, peaceable man in the exercise of his ministry, attached most affectionately to the Established Church, and had prelatic license for each of the offences which were alleged against him, and for which he suffered unto beggary. "A very good, quiet, and learned man," even Mr. Strype confesses; "one of those very peaceable and honest preachers upon whom the rigorous requirement of subscription to the Three Articles bore hard sometimes"; - how many times?"who duly complied with the customs and devotions of the Church enjoined, but could not so fully acquiesce therein as to approve every particular rite and usage." "" 1 This is a large and an important admission on the part of this historian, and we thank him for it, for it bears seriously upon those Church historians who have followed in his wake, but who, unlike him, represent that "peaceable nonconformists were unrestrained and unmolested."2 Even under all his persecutions and through all his years of pinching penury, he was submissive to the strokes of his ecclesiastical superiors and faithful to the services, to the sacraments, and to the unity of the Church. This appears clearly from a pathetic letter which he wrote some years afterwards to the Lord Admiral Howard "by whom he was much beloved." 3

1 Strype's Whitgift, 377.

2 Nares' "Life and Times of Lord Burleigh, III. 13, 344, 350. Strype's Whitgift, Appendix,

3

Book IV., No. XI. Marsden (166) and Neal (I. 171) are mistaken in supposing this letter to have been addressed to Sir John Hawkins.

"It is some consolation to record," says that candid writer Mr. Marsden, "that upon the primate's death Mr. Paget was reinstated in the ministry, and presented to the living of St. Agnes in Aldersgate. Kindness accomplished what severity had assayed in vain. A virtuous and godly minister was restored to usefulness and honor, and died in conformity with the Church of England."1

We trust this case may be remembered, as redolent, not only of the bald illegality, but also of the persistent inhumanity, of Archbishop Whitgift's administration. "Pages," adds Mr. Marsden, "might be filled with similar details." He might have said "volumes."

In the year 1584, Bishop Aylmer suspended thirty-eight laborious and devoted clergymen, in the county of Essex alone, for the single offence of not wearing the surplice, and threatened to proceed to their deprivation, saying, "that they should be white with him, or he would be black with them." For the same offence, a Mr. Knight was imprisoned six months and fined one hundred marks,

2

In the year 1585, Mr. Thomas Carew, minister of Hatfield, in the county of Essex, was brought before the High Commissioners. Mr. Strype says, that "he could not speak three words of Latin, and took upon him to preach without authority, nay, against authority"; and Collier, that "he had his mission only from the people's election." Yet

1 "Early Puritans,” 167.

2 Neal, I. 167, note.

8 Ibid., 167.

4

he had been educated in the University of Oxford, ordained by the Bishop of Worcester, and licensed by Archbishop Grindal and by Bishop Aylmer himself, who had also much commended his preaching. Mr. Carew happened to offend his lordship by informing him that "in Essex, within the compass of sixteen miles, were twenty-two non-resident ministers, and thirty who were insufficient for their office and of scandalous lives, while at the same time there were nineteen who were silenced for refusing subscription." His lordship immediately took occasion to summon him before the Commissioners, where various charges were brought against him, some of which it is recorded were false, and others were certainly improbable. But instead of proving the charges, or attempting to prove them, the bishop offered him the oath ex officio, and then sent him to the Fleet prison for refusing it. Another clergyman was sent to supply his cure, whom Mr. Allen, the patron, refused to admit, as he had a perfect right to do, and probably, as will appear, had good reasons for doing. For this he also was committed to prison. Both offered bail, which was refused except on the conditions, which they would not accept, that the patron would admit his lordship's clergyman and that Mr. Carew would preach no more in the diocese without further license. After being in prison eight weeks, they appealed to the Council, who liberated them. By this his lordship was incensed, and wrote to their Honors, that, "if such men-precisians, petty gentlemen, fools, rebels, and rascals1-were countenanced, he, for his part,

1 Neal, I. 167. Brook, II. 168.