under the ecclesiastical censure, he was afterwards restored to his beloved ministry. This, however, was not the end of his troubles: for in the year 1579, he was again suspended by the Bishop of Norwich, for not observing all the ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies. . Upon his suspension, his people soon experienced the loss of his excellent labours. Mr. Calthrop, a f.". of distinguished eminence in the county, and the d treasurer Burleigh, therefore, applied to the bishop for his restoration. But his grace observed, that what he had done in suspending him, was by virtue of the queen's orders, requiring him to allow no ministers to preach who were not in all things perfectly conformable to the rites and ceremonies of the church. Mr. Calthrop urged the great want there was of such excellent preachers as Mr. Lawrance, for whose fitness for the work of the ministry he would undertake to obtain the testimonial of the chief gentlemen in the county. But all was unavailable: the good man still remained under the episcopal censure.” Mr. Lawrance was greatly beloved by persons of a reliious character throughout the county where he lived, and #. suspension was the cause of much sorrow and grief to all who knew him. Therefore, in the month of April, 1580, the above worthy persons made a second application to the bishop, but with no better success. #o. remained inflexible, and declared that unless the treasurer commanded him, he would not restore Mr. Lawrance without perfect conformity. So he still continued under suspension,t

John HANDson was curate of St. James's church, Bury St. Edmunds, in Suffolk, and brought into trouble for nonconformity. He refused to wear the surplice, not onl in time of divine service, but even in the administration of the sacrament; saying, that by law he thought himself not bound to wear it. He was examined by the chancellor to the Bishop of Norwich; but it does not appear what penalties were then inflicted upon him. This was in the year 1573.t In 1581, he was again brought into trouble by his diocesan, Dr. Freke, who suspended him for nonconformity. The bishop gave an account of this affair, in a letter to the treasurer, dated April 19th, this year. -- Mr. Handson having continued for some time under the episcopal censure, the treasurer, after due examination of the case, wrote to the bishop in reply to his letter, desiring that the good man might be restored to his ministry. At the same time, Sir Robert Jermin, Lord North, and some others, wrote to his grace, requesting the same favour. Sir Robert, in his letter, said, “That his lordship had examined Mr. Handson's case at length, but, in his opinion, very indiscreetly, in many of the principal points; that t knew his ministry to have been very profitable to great numbers; that they who sought to remove him, were adversaries, rather than friends to the truth; that, as to faith and manners, he was ever held a sound teacher; that in these indifferent things (meaning the matters of conformity) he had never laboured much; and that, from these considerations, he requested the bishop would allow him the free exercise of his ministry.” But the angry prelate stood resolute, and declared peremptorily, that he never would, unless Mr. Handson would publicly acknowledge his fault, and enter into bonds for his good behaviour in future. Other applications were made to the bishop, to take off his suspension; but whether he ever became so favourably disposed, we have not been able to learn.”

* Strype's Annals, vol. ii. p. 585, 586. + Ibid. p. 660. # Strype's Parker, p. 452, . - *

Rob Eat WRIGHT.-He lived fourteen years in the university of Cambridge, was a very learned man, and tutor to the Earl of Essex, both in school learning and at the university. Being dissatisfied with episcopal ordination, he went to Antwerp, where he was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Upon his return to England, Lord Rich of Rochford, in Essex, made him his domestic chaplain; and he constantly preached and admi-, nistered the sacrament in his lordship's chapel, but in no other place, seeing the bishop utterly refused him a license. He was an admired preacher; and, for his great seriousness and piety, was universally beloved by the clergy in the county. While his noble patron lived, he protected him from danger; but this excellent lord was no sooner dead, than Dr. Aylmer, bishop of London, laid hands on him; and for saying, “That to keep the queen's birth-day as an holiday, is to make her an idol,” he was committed to the Gatehouse, where he continued a long time.*

[ocr errors]

Having lain in prison several months, he petitioned the bishop to be brought to trial, or admitted to bail. But all the answer he could obtain of his grace, was, that he deserved to lie in prison seven years. This very hard usage, together with Mr. Wright's open and undisguised honesty and piety, moved the compassion of his keeper; and, his poor wife being in child-bed and in great distress, he gave him leave, with the private allowance of the secretary of state, to make her a visit at Rochford, upon his parole. But it so happened, that Dr. Ford, the civilian, met him on the road, and acquainted the bishop with his escape; who, falling into a violent passion, sent immediately for the kceper, and demanded his prisoner. The keeper pleaded the great compassion of the case; but all was unavailable. For the bishop threatened to complain of him to the queen, and have him turned out of his place. Mr. Wright, having received information of his keeper's danger, returned immediately to his prison, and wrote as follows to the lord treasurer in his behalf:-‘Oh I my lord,” says he, “I most humbly crave your lordship's favour, that I may be delivered from such unpitiful minds; and especially, that your lordship will stand a good lord to my keeper, that he may not be discouraged from favouring those who profess true religion.” This was written in May, 1582. The keeper was therefore pardoned."

The bishop, however, was resolved to have full satisfaction of the prisoner; and, bringing him before the high commission, he was examined upon certain articles concerning the Book of Common Prayer; the rites and ceremonies; praying for the queen and church; and the established form of ordaining ministers. He was, moreover, charged with preaching without a license, and with being a mere dayman. To which he replied, “that he thought the Book j%Common Prayer, upon the whole, was good and godly, but could not answer for every particular. That as to rites and ceremonies, he thought that his resorting to churches where they were used, was a sufficient proof, that he did not utterly condemn them. That he prayed for the queen, and for all the ministers of God's word; consequently, for archbishops, bishops, &c. That he was only a private chaplain, and knew of no law that required a license for such a place. But he could not acknowledge, that he was a mere

[ocr errors][merged small]

layman, having preached seven years in the university with a license, and being since that time regularly ordained, by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery at Antwerp.” The bishop. having charged Mr. Wright with saying, “That the election of ministers ought to be by their flocks,” he acknowledged the charge, and supposed it was no error; adding, “That he was himself thus chosen by his flock at ord, that in his opinion, every minister was a bishop, though not a lord bishop; and that his grace of London, must be of the same opinion; because when he was last before him, he rebuked Mr. White for striking one of his parishioners, alleging that text, A bishop must be no striker; which had been impertinent, if Mr. White, who was only a minister, had not been a bishop.” When he was charged with saying, “That the ministers who only used the common prayer, were dumb dogs,” he said, “the phrase, though used in scripture, has very seldom been in my mouth, on any occasion whatever. But it can never be Fo that I ever called any man, especially any preacher, y that name. Yet a man who is professedly the pastor of a flock, and does not preach at all, may, according to the design of the prophet, deserve the name of dumb dog.” Aylmer also charged him with saying, “There were no lawful ministers in the church of England; and that those who arecalled ministers, are thieves and murderers.” To this, Mr. Wright said, “I will be content to be condemned, if I bring not two hundred godly, preaching ministers, as witnesses against this accusation. I do as certainly believe, that there are lawful ministers in England, as that there is a sun in the sky. In Essex, I can bring twenty godly ministers, all preachers, who will testify that they love me, and have cause to think that I love and reverence them. I preached seven years in the university of Cambridge with approbation, and have a testimonial under the hands and seals of the master and fellows of Christ's college, being all ministers, of my good behaviour.” ... This excellent divine having been a considerable time in the Gatehouse, in September, 1582, became willing to subscribe to the allowance of the ministry of the church of England, and the Book of Common Prayer. Yet Bishop Aylmer required his friends to be bound in a good round sum, that henceforth he should never preach, nor act, contrary to the same. Upon these conditions, his grace was not unwilling to grant him favour, if the queen approved of it.” It is, indeed, very doubtful whether the favour was ever obtained; for the unmerciful proceedings of the above prelate against the puritans, were almost unparalleled.*

* Strype's Annals, vol. iii. Appen. p. 38–43, WQL. I. R

Ben NARD GILPIN, B. D.—This celebrated person was

born of an ancient and honourable family, at Kentmire in

Westmoreland, in the year 1517, and educated in Queen's college, Oxford. He made the closest application to his studies, and uncommon progress in useful learning. Having determined to apply himself to divinity, he made the scriptures his principal study; and with a view to his better acquaintance with them, he resolved by the greatest industry to gain a thorough knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages. He had not been long thus employed before he was noticed as a young man of excellent parts and considerable learning; and became exceedingly admired and beloved for the sweetness of his disposition, and the politeness of his manners. At the usual term, he took his degrees in Arts, and was elected fellow of his college. His reputation was, indeed, so great, that he was chosen to supply the college newly founded by Cardinal Wolsey.f

* Strype's Aylmer, p. 87.

+ The zeal and assiduity of Bishop Aylmer in defence of the church of England, is said to have recommended him to the particular favour of Queen Elizabeth. Though in the early part of his life he declaimed against the wealth and splendour of bishops, and spoke with vehemence against their lordly dignity and civil authority, and was an avowed advocate of what was afterwards called puritanism : yet, as he rose in ecclesiastical preferment and worldly grandeur, he changed his opinions, and became the most violent in the opposite sentiments. And notwithstanding he is styled a person of extraordinary wisdom, a worthy prelate, and a blessing to the church ; he was certainly one of the most unfeeling and cruel persecutors, of which the pages of history afford sufficient proof. He was preceptor to Lady Jane Grey ; and, on the accession of Queen Mary, he went into exile. His escape was very remarkable. Being a little man, the merchant of the ship in which he made his escape, put him into a wine butt, with a partition in the middle ; so that he was inclosed in one end of the cask, while the searchers drank wine drawn out of the other.—He was a man of great courage, and had one of his own teeth drawn, to encourage Queen Elizabeth to submit to a similar operation. When he wished to rouse the attention of his audience while he was preaching, he usually took his Hebrew Bible out of his pocket, and read them a few verses, and then resumed his discourse. He was remarkably fond of bowls, even on the Lord's-day, when he commonly used very unbecoming language, to the great reproach of his character.—Strype's Aylmer, p. 215–292.-Wood's Athenae, vol. i. p. 611.—Biog. Britan. vol. i. p. 384–391. Edit. 1778– Granger's Biog. Hist, vol. i. p. 208.

# The following memoir of Mr. Gilpin is chiefly collected from the “British Biography,” vol. iii. p. 98–.

« 上一頁繼續 »