« 上一頁繼續 »
and in effect, expelled from the university. Lord Burleigh, the chancellor, procured his restoration, with a dispensation from wearing the habits for a twelvemonth, at the expiration of which, he was admonished three times by the master of the college, to conform himself in wearing the apparel. But he could not with a good conscience comply, and, therefore, was finally expelled, as an example to keep others in a state of obedience." He was one of the prebendaries of Rochester, where he was justly esteemed an admired and popular preacher; but, about the year 1584, was suspended from his ministerial function, and continued under the ecclesiastical censure many years.t
H. GRAY was a puritanical minister in Cambridge, and one of the preachers to the university. He delivered a sermon in St. Mary's church, January 8, 1586, in which he was charged with asserting the following opinions:—“That the church of England doth maintain Jewish music, contrary to the word of God, which alone ought to sound in his church.-That it is contrary to the same word, to use in sermons the testimonies of doctors and profane writers.That to play at dice or cards is to crucify Christ.—That there are in this church dumb dogs, Jereboam's priests, and Chemarins, that have place at the upper end of the altar, which by the word should have no place in the church.That it is thought there be some among us who send over news to Rome and Rheims, and would have us all murdered. —That whoever would, might fill his hand, and be minister among us, as in the time of Jereboam; whereby it cometh to pass that some go about the country to offer their service for ten pounds a year and a canvas doublet.—And that we celebrate the joyful time of the nativity throughout the land as atheists and epicures.”f *
For these assertions, alleged against him, he appears to have been called before the ruling ecclesiastics, when he gave the following answers to the various accusations:— “Concerning music, I had no set treatise against it, but only I made this simile, that set music and its curious notes is an imitation of the Jewish music; and because it is not understood, it may delight, but not edify; so affected and curious eloquence, which the people cannot understand, may affect and delight the outward sense, but it cannot enter
and descend into the heart.—Concerning citing of fathers and profane authors, I did not teach that it was simply unlawful; but when we are to teach the simple people, and to instruct and build the conscience, we are not to stuff our sermons with authorities of fathers or sentences of profane writers.—Concerning carding and dicing, I spake only against the unlawful use of it, and shewed the abuse of the celebration of the nativity.—I said that we have dumb dogs, and some such as were once Chemarins, when I did not, neither was it my purpose to, enter any question whether they might, or might not, lawfully be ministers.-I said, it is thought there be some among us, who are not of us, who lurk here to spy out what is done, that they may give notice to Rome; and they lie among us, that they may point out and set forth which of us should first go to the fire, when the days of mourning for Jacob should come : where I desire that my meaning may be thus interpreted, that I did not notice particulars, but spake only upon the probable suspicion, to stir us up to be diligent in searching whether there be any papists among us, who are the Lord's and her imajesty's enemies.—l said, for want of restraint, every man may fill his hand, and consecrate himself, alluding to 2 Chron. xiii. I would have this to be considered, that in citing or alluding to any place, every word is not to be observed, but the drift and purpose for which it is alleged. —I said, that we have some ministers who are not worthy to stand in the belfrey, but they sit at the end of the altar. I protest this to have been my meaning, that those who were altogether unfit for the ministry, did supply the places of those who ought to have been learned ministers.” These were Mr. Gray's answers to the foregoing accusa
tions. But it does not appear what prosecution was entered against him.
Robert Moone was rector of Guisely in Yorkshire, and prosecuted for nonconformity. January 9, 1586, he was cited before the Archbishop of York and other high commissioners, when twenty charges were exhibited and aggravated against him; but he so judiciously answered ‘them, and so fully proved his own innocence, that he was acquitted by law. Upon the complete failure of the proseacution, the angry archbishop charged Mr. Moore with
having said that he could not preach, calling him an old doating fool. This Mr. Moore denied upon his oath. When they failed in the proof of this charge also, his lordship was more angry than before; and seeing they could procure no evidence for any of their accusations, the good man was dismissed, and appointed to appear the week following. . January 16th, Mr. Moore appeared before the archbishop and nine other commissioners, when he was again charged with the same crimes, and they said that now they could prove him guilty. To this he replied, that as he had already cleared himself of all charges, except that of refusing to observe in all points the Book of Common Prayer, which he did not out of contempt, but from conscience; so, notwithstanding the malice of his enemies, he still stood on sure ground, and no honest man could prove him guilty. Upon this, he was immediately threatened with imprisonment and utter ruin, if they should proceed against him according to law. In the conclusion, he was obliged to enter into a bond of a hundred pounds to observe the Book of Common Prayer, and was then dismissed. The archbishop and his colleagues were aware of the disgrace that would necessarily fall upon their own heads, if Mr. Moore should escape without submission. Therefore, they cited him a third time; and upon his appearance, presented him with the form of a recantation, requiring him, as the condition of obtaining their favour, to confess and read the same publicly in his own church. But he absolutely refused to purchase his liberty at so dear a rate, declaring that he would be cast into prison, and even put to death, rather than thus dishonour the Lord by lying against the Holy Ghost and his own conscience. He was, therefore, again dismissed; but two of his servants were committed to r1SOIn.” p From the examination of Mr. Higgins, churchwarden of Guisely, before the above commissioners, January 10, 1586, which is now before me, Mr. Moore is evidently acquitted of the principal charges alleged against him. The uprightness of his deportment, and the purity of his character, were thus made manifest, even in the face of his enemies. He was a zealous, faithful, and laborious minister, spending his strength and his long life for the salvation of souls. H It is observed of our divine, that he survived most of his brethren, having lived to a great age. He baptized a child after he entered upon the benefice of Guiseley, and afterwards buried the same person threescore years of o: being rector of the place sixty-three years. He built the present stately parsonage house there.”
* MS. Register, p. 787. + Ibid, p. 788–790.
Edward Gellibrand.—This learned and pious divine was fellow of Magdalen college, Oxford, and a person of distinguished eminence among the puritans in that university. He was much concerned for a further reformation of the church, and ever zealous in promoting the desired object. The letters from the classis in London and other places, were commonly addressed to him, and, by the appointment of the brethren, he usually answered them. January 12, 1585, he wrote a letter to Mr. John Field, signifying how he had consulted several colleges about church discipline, and a further reformation; and that many were dis to favour it, but were afraid to testify any thing under their hands, lestit should bring them into trouble. This letter, which, in the opinion of Dr. Bancroft, tended to promote sedition, was the following —“I have,” says Mr. Gellibrand, “already entered into the matters whereof “you write, and dealt with three or four of several colleges, “concerning those among whom they live. ... I find that “men are very dangerous in this point, generally savouring “reformation; but when it comes to the particular point, “ some have not yet considered of those things for which “others in the church are so much troubled. Others are “afraid to testify any thing with their hands, lest it should “breed danger before the time. And many favour the “cause of reformation, but they are not ministers, but “young students, of whom there is good hope, if it be not “cut off by violent dealing before the time. As I hear of “you, so I mean to go forward, where there is any hope; “ and to learn the number, and certify youthereof.” The candid reader will easily judge how far this letter tended to promote sedition, being merely designed to effect by the Inost * means, a more pure reformation of the ehurch. He united with many of his brethren in subscribing the “Book of Discipline.”f
April 7, 1586, Mr. Gellibrand was cited before Archbishop AWhitgift, Bishop Cooper of Winchester, Bishop Piers of Salisbury, and other high commissioners. When he was galled before their lordships, and the charges alleged against him had been read, the reverend archbishop thus addressed him:-“You have spoken against the ecclesiastical state and governors, as confirmed and established by the laws of this land. You have inveighed against the swelling titles of bishops and archbishops. You are full of pride and arro'gancy, and the spirit of pride hath possessed you. And you have preached against the Bishop of Winchester, by which you have discouraged men from doing good to the church.” Then said the Bishop of Winchester, “If you had read any of the ancient fathers, or ecclesiastical histories, you could not have been ignorant, that the office of archbishops was from the time of the apostles, though the name be not found in the scriptures. Other churches do not condemn ours, as we do not theirs. This discipline which you dream of, may peradventure be convenient for Geneva, or some such free city, which hath half a dozen villages joining to it; but not for a kingdom. You are a child, yea, a babe.” Mr. Gellibrand, craving leave to answer for himself, replied to these accusations, and said, “Concerning preaching against the Bishop of Winchester, I am guiltless. I was not present at his sermon, nor did I hear of his sermon till after I had preached, according to my oath already taken.” And being charged with speaking against the consecration of bishops and archbishops, he replied, “My words were uttered simply as the occasion offered from a note of Beza on Heb. ii. 10. And concerning my exhortation to those who suffer persecution for the sake of Christ, it was necesrarily deduced from my text, in which the sufferings of christians are called the sufferings of Christ.” Then said Dr. Cosin, “Such ifs are intolerable under the government of so gracious a prince. And it is a most grievous thing that you have made discipline a part of the gospel.” The archbishop next charged him with having made a comparison between Jesuits, and nonresidents, saying, “You make nonresidents worse than Jesuits, and in this com4)arison there is neither truth, nor charity, nor honesty, nor christianity. I myself have been one of those whom you call nonresidents, and have done more . by preaching, partly in my own cure, and partly in other mens', than you will do as long as you live. The church hath not been built by you, nor such as you; but by those whom you
*Thoresby’s Vicaria Leodiensis, p. 65. t.Bancroft’s Dangerous. Positions, p. 74, 75. † Neal's Puritans, vol. i. p. 423,
* * *