pounds, and to be imprisoned in the Tower during the king's pleasure. He was kept a close prisoner about four years, till the meeting of the long parliament. The Rev. Mr.Osbaldeston was charged with plotting with the bishop of Lincoln to divulge false news, and to breed a difference between the Lord. Treasurer Weston and the Archbishop of Canterbury as long ago as the year 1633. The information was grounded upon two letters of Mr. Osbaldeston to Bishop Williams, found among the papers of the latter, in which were some expressions, which the jealous Archbishop interpreted as concerning himself. Though there was no foundation for conviction, yet the court fined him £5000 to the King, and £5000. to the Archbishop: to be deprived of all his spiritual dignities and promotions, to be imprisoned during the King's pleasure, and to stand in the pillory in the Dean's yard before his own school, and have his ears nailed to it. ever, Mr. Osbaldeston so effectually concealed himself till the beginning of the long parliament, that he fortunately escaped this very severe sentence. How CHAPTER IV. THOUGH there had been bishops in Scotland for some years, they were, in a great measure, but nominal, being subject to a presbyterian assembly. The attempt of establishing episcopacy in that country in the time of king James, and king Charles, was carried on in a rather arbitrary, and so unsuccessful a manner. A man of archbishop Laud's temper was very unfit to introduce that primitive mode of church government among a people remarkable for their love of liberty, and for sobriety and moral conduct. To impose upon that nation a set of canons, a liturgy of Laud's revision, and a declaration for sports on the sabbath, were such measures as "proved the fatal torch that put the two kingdoms into a flame."* When, in the year 1637, the liturgy, revised and altered by Laud, was sent into Scotland, and accompanied with a royal proclamation, com * Welwood's Memoirs, p. 45. manding all his majesty's subjects to receive it; the Scots tumultuously refused it, and afterwards assumed to themselves the liberty and power of holding a general assembly of their church, in which they passed an act for abjuring and abolishing episcopacy. They also passed sentence of deposition against the bishops; eight of them were excommunicated, four excluded from the ministerial function, and two only allowed to officiate as pastors or presbyters. Upon this, most of the bishops withdrew from Scotland, only four remained in the country, three of whom renounced their episcopal orders, viz. Alexander Ramsey, bishop of Dunkeld, George Graham, bishop of Orkney, and James Fairby, bishop of Argyle; but the fourth, George Guthrey, bishop of Murray, kept his ground, and weathered the storm. > In consequence of the Scots' assembly abolishing episcopacy as unlawful, Bishop Hall, at the recommendation of Archbishop Laud, undertook to write a book in defence of the DIVINE RIGHT OF EPISCOPACY, as a counterbalance to the proceedings of the Scots. Bishop Hall sent a rude draught or skeleton of his intended work to Archbishop Laud for his inspection and approbation. The following, according to Heylin,* were the original points and propositions submitted to the Archbishop, together with his Grace's remarks, and alterations:-" That episcopacy is a lawful, most ancient, holy, and divine institution, (as it is joined with imparity, and superiority of jurisdiction) and therefore where it hath through God's providence obtained, cannot, by any human power, be abdicated without a manifest violation of God's ordinance. "That the presbyterian government, however vindicated under the glorious names of Christ's kingdom, and ordinance, hath no true footing either in Scripture, or the practice of the church in all ages from Christ's till the present; and that howsoever it may be of use, in some cities or territories, wherein episcopal government through iniquity of times cannot be had; yet to obtrude it upon a church otherwise settled under an acknowledged monarchy, is utterly incongruous and unjustifiable." In order to prove these two points, he was to lay down some propositions or postulata, as the ground work of his proceedings; which were the following, before they were altered and revised :— (1)" That government, which was of apostolical institution, cannot be denied to be of divine right. (2.) Not only that government which was directly commanded and enacted, but also that which was practised and recommended by the apostles to the church, must justly pass for an apostolic institution. (3.) That which the apostles by Divine inspiration instituted, was not for the present time, but for continuance. (4.) The universal practice of the church, immediately succeeding the apostles, is the best and surest commentary upon the practice of the apostles, or upon their expressions. (5.) We may not entertain so irreverent an opinion of the saints and fathers of the primitive church, that they who were the immediate successors of the apostles would, or durst set up a government, either faulty, or of their own heads. (6.) If they would have been so presumptuous, yet they could not have diffused an uniform form of government through the world in so short a space. (7.) The ancient histories of the church, and writings of the eldest fathers, are rather to be believed in the report of the primitive form of the church government, than those of this last age. (8.) Those whom the ancient church of God, and the holy and orthodox fathers condemned for heretics, are not fit to be followed as authors of our opinion or practice for church government. (9.) The accession of honourable titles or privileges, makes no difference in the substance of the calling. (10.) Those scriptures wherein a new form of government is grounded, have need to be very clear and unquestionable, and more evident than those whereon the former rejected polity is raised. (11.) If that order |