Try out the new BibleStudyTools.com. Click here!

John Hill

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 commission. Not long after receiving the ecclesiastical censure, he was 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, u the law hath provided that I should not be punished, seeing I have been already suspended for the same 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 acquitted and dismissed.

Notwithstanding his public acquittance in open court, at the Lent assizes in 1583, the good man was summoned again by the same judge, and for the same crime. When he appeared at the bar, and heard the charges brought against himself, he greatly marvelled, seeing hehad been 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.

+ Sir Edmund Anderson, lord chief justice 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 the execution of that princess. His decision on that nice point was, "That he had done justum, nonjutte; hehad done what was right in an " unlawful manner, otherwise he thought bim no bad 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 bim guilty, upon pain of being deprived of his office."—Biog. Hitl. vol. i. p.'235.

spoken no untruth of your honours." Anderson then shewed him the copy of a supplication, demanding whether he had

thought he had, the angry judge said," we shewed you favour before in accepting your plea, but we will shew you no more." Mr. Hill then replied, " I hope your lordships will not revoke what you have done, seeing you have discharged me of this matter already." The judge then answered, " that which we did, we did out of favour to you." Here the business closed, and Mr. Hill was sent to prison, being charged with no other crime than that of which the same judge had acquitted him. He continued in prison a long time; but whether he was ever restored to his ministry, is very doubtful.*