trary to his majesty's instructions, and with holding a benefice near the place, at which, for the space of ten years, he had never constantly resided. Therefore, about the year 1629, by the particular instigation of Bishop Laud, he was suspended for nonconformity; but Archbishop Abbot presently restored him to his ministry, and inhibited the archdeacon from his jurisdiction; which, says our author, exposed all who acted in it to scorn and contempt.+ SAMUEL BLACKLOCK was preacher to a baptist congregation in London. A number of pious persons about the metropolis having espoused the sentiments of the baptists, could not be satisfied that any person in England was suitable to administer the ordinance of baptism; but hearing that some in the Netherlands baptized by immersion, they agreed to send over one Mr. Richard Blount, who understood the Dutch language, to receive baptism at their hands. He accordingly went, carrying letters of recommendation with him, and was kindly received both by the church there, and by Mr. John Batte their teacher. On his return, he baptized Mr. Blacklock the minister, and these two baptized the rest of the company, to the number of fifty-three. The generality of English baptists, however, accounted all this as needless trouble, and as founded on the old popish doctrine, that an uninterrupted succession is requisite to the proper administration of the sacraments.‡ MR. BRADSTREET, born of a wealthy family in Suffolk, was one of the first fellows of Emanuel college, Cambridge, and highly esteemed by persons distinguished for learning. In the year 1603 he appears to have been minister at Hobling in Lincolnshire, but was always a nonconformist to the church of England. He was afterwards preacher to the English congregation at Middleburg, where he was most probably driven by the severity of persecution. He was living about the year 1630. The first planters of New England had the highest respect for him, and used to style him, "The venerable Mordecai of his country.". He was father to the celebrated Simon Bradstreet, governor of New England, who died in 1697, aged ninety-four years." * Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 373. MR. CROWDER, vicar of Vell in Surrey, was a pious man, and a frequent preacher, but endur d cruel persecution. About the year 1631 he was commit.ed close prisoner to Newgate for sixteen weeks, and then deprived of his living by the high commission, without any articles, witness, or other proof brought against him. It was, indeed, pretended that he had spoken some treasonable words in the pulpit; but the truth was, he preached twice on a Lord's day too near the court, which at that time was not conformable to the oppressive measures of the ruling prelates. SAMUEL SKELTON was a pious and zealous minister in Lincolnshire, but much harassed and persecuted for nonconformity. In the year 1629 he accompanied Mr. Higginson and others to New England. Arriving in the Massachusets bay, they settled at Naumkeak, which they called Salem, where their first work was the formation of a christian church. Having on this occasion appointed a day of solemn fasting and prayer, Mr. Skelton was chosen pastor, and Mr. Higginson teacher.+ Mr. Skelton survived his colleague, and, after enduring many painful hardships, entered into the joy of his Lord, August 2, 1634. He was a man endowed with a strong faith, a most heavenly conversation, and was well furnished with ministerial abilities.§ HUMPHREY BARNET was minister at Uppington in Shropshire, where he and Mr. Wright of Wellington were accounted the first puritans in the county, for no other reason than their sedulous preaching and their sober and pious lives, though at that time they were both conformable to the estabblished church. He was a celebrated preacher, and much admired by the country people, who flocked to hear him twice every Lord's day, a practice then not very common. When the Book of Sports came forth, instead of reading it, he preached against it; for which he was cited to appear before the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and forced to leave the diocese. Being driven from the people of his charge, he removed into Lancashire, where he closed his labours and sufferings, probably about the year 1634|| Mr. Joshua Barnet, silenced in 1662, was his son.T Huntley's Prelates' Usurpations, p. 161. + Prince's Chron. Hist. vol. i. p. 183, 189. Mather's Hist. of New Eng. b. iii. p. 76. Calamy's Contin, vol. ii. p. 726. Palmer's Noncon. Mem. vol. iii. p. 150. Hist. of New Eng. p. 22. MR. BRODET was a zealous puritan minister, but shamefully persecuted by the intolerant prelates. For preaching against profane sports on the Lord's day, and some other instances of nonconformity, he, together with many others, was, about the year 1634, prosecuted in the ecclesiastical courts, subjected to heavy fines, and suspended or degraded from his ministry. RICHARD DENTON, a pious and learned man, was born in Yorkshire, and afterwards preacher at Halifax in that county. Having laboured at this place for some time, and with good success, the storm of persecution which drove multitudes out of the kingdom, forced him to New England; where first at Wethersfield, then at Stamford," his doctrine dropt as the rain, his speech distilled as the dew, as the small rain on the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass." He was a little man, but he had a great soul, and a wellaccomplished mind; and, though he had but one eye, he had a deep insight into those things which eye hath not seen.t JOHN VINCENT was born in the west of England, and died in the rich living of Sedgfield, in the county of Durham. It is observed of this excellent man, that he was so harassed and tossed about for his nonconformity, that, though he had many children, no two of them were born in the same county. He was living in the year 1634.‡ Mr. Thomas and Mr. Nathaniel Vincent, both ejected nonconformists, were his sons. JOHN TRASK was born in Somersetshire, and afterwards removed to London, where he discovered his zeal for nonconformity. He opposed the observance of the first day of the week, maintaining the obligation of the fourth commandment, and the necessity of keeping the seventh day as the sabbath of the Lord. For these opinions, he was, about the year 1655, convened before the tribunal of the star-chamber, and sentenced to be set in the pillory at Westminster, and to be whipt from thence to the Fleet, where he was ordered to * Huntley's Prelates' Usurpations, p. 175. + Mather's Hist. of New Eng. b. iii. p. 95. Calamy's Contin. vol. i. p. 30. Palmer's Noncon. Mem. vol. i. p. 155, 304. remain a prisoner. It is said, that about three years after he wrote a recantation of his schismatical errors.* ADAM BLACKMAN was a pious and useful preacher, first in Leicestershire, then in Derbyshire. But having endured the severity of persecution in his native country, he went to New England, and settled first at Guildford, then at Stratford in the new colony. Many pious friends accompanied him from England, who said to him, "Entreat us not to leave you, or to return from following after you. For whither you go, we will go; and your God shall be our God." He was a man of great holiness, a plain and profitable preacher, and a most worthy divine. He went to New England probably about the year 1636.t THOMAS WARREN was a puritan minister, and some time curate at St. Lawrence's church, Ipswich. On account of his nonconformity, he was admonished by Bishop Wren's chancellor to observe the good orders of the church, and to certify his obedience on a future court-day: but, to avoid suspension, he gave up his curacy and left the place. It is observed, that he had no license to preach in the diocese of Norwich, nor had he produced his orders. He is charged with neglecting all the orders of the church and the rules of divine service, and with having quoted many dangerous passages in the pulpit, tending to the disparagement of the state and disquiet of the people. He was, therefore, cited to appear before the bishop; but, having left the town and removed into Bedfordshire, he heard no more of it.‡ WILLIAM HERRINGTON was some time curate at St. Nicholas's church, Ipswich, where he met with similar usage as Mr. Warren, mentioned in the preceding article. He was admonished by his diocesan's chancellor to observe the good orders of the church, and to certify his obedience on a future court-day but, to avoid further trouble, he resigned his curacy. It is insinuated, that he and Mr. Warren, after they were admonished, raised a great clamour, and deserted their cures and it is added, that they refused to observe the orders * Paget's Heresiography, p. 161, 184. Edit. 1662. + Mather's Hist. of New England, b. iii. p. 94. Wren's Parentalia, p. 96, 97. of the church only through fear of losing the means of their support, and not from any dislike to them. This, however, is exceedingly improbable. They were certainly in greater danger of losing their cures and support by refusing the ecclesiastical orders, than by a universal conformity. NICHOLAS BEARD was a puritanical curate in one of the churches in Ipswich, but suspended by the intolerant proceedings of Bishop Wren. The principal cause for which he was thus censured was his refusal to produce his letters of orders and his license to serve the cure. This tyrannical prelate, it is said, was not hasty to restore him, because he had some years before overheard him inveigh very bitterly in his sermon against the state, and against a noble earl and great officer of the realm. His lordship was also informed, that Mr. Beard was of a very turbulent spirit, and was suspected of having been the secret promoter of a riot committed by a dangerous concourse of mean people against the bishop himself. Had he been suspected of so atrocious a crime, he ought to have been tried in a court of justice; and, if proved guilty by a regular course of law, to have been punished according to his deserts. But guilty or not guilty, his lordship, without waiting the formality of law, was determined to stop his mouth. WILLIAM GREEN was curate of Bromholm, but, about the year 1636, was suspended by Bishop Wren for nonconformity. It is said that many defects were found in him, particularly his refusal to wear the clerical habit. This was certainly his greatest defect. Afterwards, however, upon his submission, he was absolved, and only his license to preach taken from him, for being illiterate and formerly a man of trade.t WILLIAM POWELL was minister in the diocese of Norwich, and suspended or deprived by the arbitrary proceedings of Bishop Wren. It is said he was treated thus "for many defects against the canons, and had absolution soon after granted to his proctor, without coming for it himself." Mr. * Wren's Parentalia, p. 96. Ibid. p. 96. + Ibid. p. 94. |