firfl Volume of the Hiftorÿ of the Puritans. 87r " ntinifters of the word (lays he) impatient of delay, chofe rather to out- C' run the laws, and to fow the doétrine of the gofpel more freely, firft " in private, and then in churches, which occafioning difputes with the " papifts, the queen fet forth her proclamation." Mr. N. had alerted in his preface, that the queen having conceived apenal tawsa. ftrong averfwn to the puritans, pointedall her artillery again/? them. And, gainftpaPigs has this writer (hewn the contrary ? Did_not her majefty tell her parlia- andpur:tans. ment, in the i7th year of her reign, that thepuritans were dangerous top. 130. kingly rule, every man according to his own cenfure making doom ofthe va- Ïidity or gravity ofhis prince'sgovernment, with a common veil and cover of God's word. This was their crime, and the ground of the queen's fixed averfion to them. Her majefty was jealous of herfiepremeauthority, which fhe carried fo high, as to forbid her parliament medling with the reformation of the church : No wonder therefore, the would give no quarter to thofe who put the houles upon meafures, which tended to abridge her defpotic power. Look through the ftatutesof this reign, and fee, if almoft everypenal law does not, like a two edged fword, equally cut down papifts and puritans ; nay, was not this the cafeever after, till the at? of toleration? But the chief intent of theft laws (lays our author) was to fupport the p. 130. protßant religion. Were the puritans then enemies to the proteftant reli- gion.? or was it impofable to fupprefs the daring infolenceofpapifts, with- out fufpending, Jilencing, and imprifoning, fome of the molt zealous de- fenders of the reformation? Mr. N. is of opinion, that the proteftant religion, inftead of being weakened, has, been confiderably ftrengthned again(t popery, by the legal indulgence of proteftant non- conformifts. But the obfervation which ftands at the head of this chapter is veryLawragainjf furprizing, " that thegovernment made no penal laws again(l the puritans, meer non- asfuch, (r. e.) meer non- conformifIs." If the government made no penal ` 1ñ21711. laws againft meer non-conformifts, then all who were fufpended, de-p tz8. prived, fined or imprifoned, in the former part of the queen's reign, fuffered without law ; but was not the at? of uniformity, and the levy- ing a fine upon the laity of twelve pence afunday for not coming to church, aimed at meer non-conformjs? Were not dean Sampfon, and others, imprifoned, for meer non-conformi ty? When thirty feven out of an hundred of the London clergy, were fufpended, and their churches fhut up in the year x565. For what were they fufpended ? " my " ° matters, and ye minifters of London (fays the chancellor) the counfel's pleafureis, that ftritly ye keep the unity ofapparel ; ye that will fob- " fcribe write vol°, and thof that will not, write NoLo ; be brief; make no words." Not to mention the at of the 35th of ELIZA- BETH in this place s Were the articles of archbifhop Whitgift, in the *5T2 year
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=