974' LIVES OF THE PURITANS. In the year 1583, Mr. Sanderson's name is among thcse of the Norfolk divines, being upwards of sixty in all, who were not resolved to subscribe to Whitgift's three articles.. JOHN HILL was minister at Bury St. Edmunds, and, for omitting the cross in baptism, and making some trivial alteration in the vows, was suspended by the high commis- sion. Not long after receiving the ecclesiastical censure, hewas indicted at the assizes for the same thing. Upon his appearance at the bar, having heard his indictment read, he pleaded guilty. Then said Judge Anderson, before whom he appeared, what can you say that you should not suffer one year's imprisonment ?+ Mr. Hill replied, " the law hath provided that I should not be punished, seeing I have been already suspended for thesame matter, by the commissary." Upon this, the judge gave him liberty to produce his testimonial under the hand and seal of the commissary, at the next assizes. Accordingly, at the next assizes, his testimonial was produced and read in open court, when his discharge as founded thereon according to law being pleaded by his counsel, he was openly acquittedand dismissed. Notwithstanding his public acquittance in open court, at the Lent assizes in 1583, thegood man was summoned again by the samejudge, and for the samecrime. When he appeared at the bar, and heard the charges brought against himself, he greatly marvelled, seeing he hadbeen already discharged of the same things. He was obliged to attend upon the court many times, when being known to be a divine of puritan principles, nothing more was done than he was always bound to appear at the next assize. At length, however, the judge charged him with having complained of their hard usage. And, surely, he had great reason for so doing. To this charge Mr. Hill replied, " I have MS. Register, p. 436. 1- Sir Edmund Anderson, lord chiefjustice of the common pleas, was a most furious and cruel persecutor of the, puritans. He sat in judgment upon Mary, Queen of Scots, in October, 1586; and the next year presided at the trial of Secretary Davison, in the star-chamber, for signing the warrant for theexecution of that princess. His decision on that nice point was, "That he had done justnm, nonjuste ; he had done what wasright inan " unlawful manner, otherwise he thought him no had man." " This was excellent logic," says Granger, " for finding an innocent man guilty. But upon the queen's order, and no-order, he was obliged to find him guilty, upon painof being deprived of his oilice."-Biog.Hist. vol. I. p. 236.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=