Memoirs of the Puritans
John Elliston
The life and death of Mr. John
Elliston.
JOHN ELLISTON.
THIS pious, diligent, and faithful minister of the gospel of Jesus
Christ, had a benefice at Preston in Northamptonshire, where he labored
to reform his parishioners with the greatest assiduity, both by
preaching and catechizing; but endured much trouble and persecution on
account of his nonconformity to the ceremonies of the church. His
enemies were men strongly attached to popery, who, hating the simplicity
of the gospel as taught by Mr. Ellistou, complained to the chancellor of
Petersborough that he did not wear the surplice, read the litany, nor
use the cross in baptism. For these weighty reasons he was indicted to
stand trial at the assizes; where his case being heard before the judge,
he was dismissed. But having left an account of the troubles in which he
was involved, we shall suffer Mr. Elliston to speak for himself.
“Having been pastor at Preston (says he) only about ten weeks, and
anxious to instruct the people in the scriptural doctrines of religion
to the best of my ability, some of my parishioners, much attached to the
Romish ceremonies, complained to Dr. Ellis, the chancellor, that I did
not wear the surplice, read the litany, or use the cross in baptism; on
which I was cited before the judge at the assize, but acquitted and
dismissed. After this they exhibited a charge against me to Dr. Scambler,
bishop of Petersborough, consisting of Sixteen articles. On my
appearance before his lordship, February 10th, 1584, he asked me whether
I would subscribe; and on refusing, treated me with much abusive
language.
“The first article charged against me was, that I did not wear the
surplice. I said I did not refuse it. The second, That I did not use the
cross in baptism; and being asked why I did not, I answered, because it
was nowhere required in the word of God, the unerring rule by which the
conduct of all Christian ministers, as well as others, ought to be
regulated. Neither, said the bishop, is it required what kind of boots
you shall wear. To which I replied, the form or fashion of my boots can
give no offence, there being no law, human or divine, for regulating
that article of dress; but Christian baptism is distinctly held forth by
the author of our religion, without any such ceremony as the sign of the
cross, and to that original institution we do well to take heed, lest we
draw down upon ourselves the plagues threatened against all such as add
to the already perfect words of that inspired book. Here again the
bishop scoffed and abused me. In the next place, he asked why I
catechized the aged as well as the young. To which I replied,. that
having the charge of all, I considered it my duty to instruct all; and
that catechizing was one method, and a very profitable one, for
conveying instruction to persons of any age. Old people, he said, should
not be catechized, they did not stand in need of it. I begged he would
encourage and promote, rather than hinder good things. But, said he, you
omit the litany on Sabbath days. I preach, said I, on Sabbath. But, said
he, preach or not on Sabbath, the litany must be read. But why do you
keep persons back from the communion? Because, I replied, they will not
submit to be examined. You must admit them, said the bishop, if they can
say the Lord's prayer and the ten commandments. After many other
charges, which I answered as occasion served, I was suspended, and
informed, that unless I would subscribe, I should not remain in his
diocese. To this I only replied, that the earth is the Lord's, and he
hath no doubt a place for me to live in; so I departed.
“On March 6th, he cited me again, along with several other ministers,
requiring us to subscribe; and on May 30th, I was called a third time;
but not having had timorous warning, he had deprived me before I could
make my appearance. I therefore protested against his unjust sentence,
and appealed, telling him that he had not dealt uprightly in my case,
not' withstanding that I had endeavored, with all quietness, to
discharge the duties of my station with honest propriety, while he
treated others, if they would only subscribe, with great kindness and
civility, though destitute both of learning and integrity. If, however,
you go about thus to discredit the conscientious part of your clergy, be
assured you will thereby discredit yourself. After this, though
Petersborough was thirty-six miles from the place where I lived, I had
seven journeys thither in little more than one year. In April I went to
London for an inhibition; and after my return had to make another
journey to Petersborough to have it served on the bishop. In the
meantime, archbishop Whitegift, on purpose to prevent me from
prosecuting my appeal, had ine cited before him on ascension day. When I
appeared before his grace, two articles were charged against me—1st,
That at morning prayer, on whitsunday, I did not read two psalms and two
chapters, and then preach; and, 2d, That preaching from the second
psalm, and railing against my enemies, I affirmed that they would all be
damned who troubled me On hearing my answers to these charges, I was
dismissed; but the fees of the pursuivants, and other expenses connected
with all these travels, etc., were very considerable. After this, I was
called several times up to London, sometimes before Whitegift, and
sometimes also before the bishop of London. These, my troubles, says Mr.
Elljston, pressed me down for almost three years, during which period I
was obliged' to travel ten times to London, seven times to Petersborough,
many times to Leicester and Northampton, and once to Cambridge.” The
unavoidable expense attending so many journeys, together with a long
deprivation of his office, brought this peaceable and moderate puritan
to the verge of poverty. The Charges against him were so trifling, that
they were ashamed to commit him to prison; but determined on his ruin,
endeavored to compass it by wantonly subjecting him to these troublesome
and expensive travels. H& was a member of the classes at Deyontry, and
frequently attended the associations of the puritans. It is thought he
died in 1617.
|
|

Back to
Puritan Memoirs
|