תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

spoken no untruth of your honours." Anderson then shewed him the copy of a supplication, demanding whether he had not set his hand to it; and Mr. Hill answering that he 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.*

NICHOLAS BROWN, B. D.-This learned divine was fellow of Trinity college, Cambridge, and one of the preachers to the university, but dissatisfied with the discipline of the national church. In the year 1573, he was brought into trouble for two sermons which he preached in the university. For the erroneous and dangerous doctrines supposed to be contained in these sermons, he was several times called before the heads of colleges, and, after repeated examination, was kept for some time in a state of confinement. Dr. Whitgift, afterwards the famous archbishop, was a leading person in these severe proceedings.

Upon Mr. Brown's appearance before his learned judges, he was required to retract his dangerous positions; which, at first, he utterly refused; but afterwards, it is said, he complied. These dangerous positions were contained in the two following articles: "That in his two sermons, he uttered doctrine and reasons tending to infringe the order and manner of creating and electing ministers, and the regimen now used in the church of England.-And that no priests made in the time of popery ought to have any function in the church of England, except they be called afresh."+ These doctrines, said to have been delivered in his sermons, contain all the crimes with which he was accused even by his enemies. He was, therefore, required to make the following recantation, in the place, and before the congregation, where he had delivered the sermons : "Whereas, I preaching in this place, the Sunday before

* MS. Register, p. 314.

+ Strype's Parker, p. 391, 392.

"Christmas, and January 25, last past, was noted to have "preached offensively; speaking as well against the manner ❝ and form of making and ordering of ministers and deacons "in the church of England, as by law established: also, "against such priests as were made in the time of King "Henry and Queen Mary, saying that they were not to be "admitted into the ministry without a new calling. I now "let you understand, that I never meant so. For I do here " acknowledge and openly protest, that the manner and "form of ordering ministers and deacons in the church of "England, now established, is lawful and to be allowed. "Also, that the priests made in the time of King Henry and "Queen Mary, now allowed, and now exercising any "function in the church, are lawful ministers of the word "and sacraments, without any new ordering, otherwise than "is prescribed by the laws of this realm."*

Mr. Brown refused to comply with the above tyrannical requisition. He would not defile his conscience by doing that which was contrary to the convictions of his own mind. He considered it to be his duty to obey God, rather than men, though they were the spiritual rulers of an ecclesiastical establishment. He was, therefore, detained in prison a considerable time, but afterwards obtained his release. Notwithstanding this, his troubles were not over. After his deliverance from prison, he was repeatedly convened before the vice-chancellor and heads of colleges. On one of these occasions, the vice-chancellor commanded him to deliver another sermon in St. Mary's church, on a particular day, and at the usual hour of public service, requiring him to read openly and distinctly a paper, which the vicechancellor should deliver to him. He also charged him "to accomplish the same humbly and charitably, without any flouting, girding, twisting, or overthwarting any man, and without using any words or gesture tending to the discredit of any person, or to the stirring up or maintaining of any contention or dissention."+ That which the learned ecclesiastic delivered to him, and commanded him to read before the public congregation, was a kind of revocation of his opinions; but he remained inflexible, and would not comply with the tyrannical imposition.‡

On account of the cruelty with which he was treated, he presented his distressing case to Lord Burleigh, the chancellor, who warmly espoused his cause, and sent a letter to

Strype's Parker, p. 391, 392.-Baker's MS. Collec. vol. iv. p. 55, 56. + Ibid. vol. iii. p. 395, 396. Ibid. p. 399, 400.

the vice-chancellor, dated June 26, 1573, in which his lordship wrote as follows:-" Mr. Brown was with me," says he, "five or six days past, to entreat me, that by my means to you and others, he might forbear the execution of a certain order by you as vice-chancellor prescribed, to pronounce a certain declaratory sentence, in a sermon to be made by him now at the commencement. In which matter I had no disposition to deal; yet by the importunity of his sorrowful petition, and purpose not to offend in any such cause wherewith he hath been charged, I did with my pen write suddenly a few lines, to shew my inclination to have him favoured, and so dismissed him. Since which time, he is this day returned to me with a letter from Sir Thomas Smith, the queen's majesty's principal secretary, whereby you shall see how I am entreated to procure more favour for him. And yet without hearing you and others, who best know his cause, I dare not precisely require any alteration of your orders, but do recommend the party, who hath a good report, to be as favourably ordered, as he may find his repair to me hath in some measure relieved him, without hurting the public cause of good order.”*

This pacific address from the treasurer proved ineffectual. The tyrannical vice-chancellor and his reverend colleagues refused to observe the generous instructions of the chancellor. Mr. Brown still remained under their ecclesiastical oppressions; and on account of the cruel usage he met with, he again laid his distressing case before Burleigh, July 6, 1573; but whether with any better success, we have not been able to learn.+

The year following, a puritan divine of the same name, and no doubt the same person, was concerned in Undertree's sham plot, when many letters were forged in his name. After examination, his innocence, with that of his brethren, was made openly and perfectly manifest. Upon Mr. Brown's removal from the university, he became minister at Norton in Suffolk, where he was afterwards molested for nonconformity. For, in the year 1583, on the publication of Whitgift's three articles, he refused subscription, and, with many others, was immediately suspended. How long he continued under the ecclesiastical censure, or whether he was ever restored, we are unable to ascertain.§

*Strype's Parker, vol. xxix. p. 371, 372.

+ Ibid. vol. iv. p. 56.

MS. Register, p. 436, 437.

+ Ibid. p. 466.

RICHARD CRICK, D.D.-He was chaplain to the Bishop of Norwich, and much commended for his learning and sobriety. In the year 1573, he preached at Paul's cross; and having in his sermon commended Mr. Cartwright's reply to Whitgift, a special messenger was sent from Archbishop Parker to apprehend him. Though at that time he escaped the snare, he afterwards fell into the hands of the high commissioners, by whom he was deprived of his preferment in the church at Norwich.*

Dr. Crick being silenced, and many of his brethren in the same diocese, they united in presenting a supplication to the council, that they might be restored to their beloved ministry, and allowed again to preach the glad tidings of the gospel. This supplication was dated September 25, 1576; a further account of which is given in another place.+ Afterwards, he and many of his brethren, being the silenced ministers in that diocese, presented their humble submission, to their diocesan, dated August 21, 1578. In this submission, they request to be restored to their ministry, promising to subscribe to the articles of faith and the doctrine of the sacraments, according to the laws of the realm. They profess, at the same time, that the ceremonies and government of the church are so far to be allowed, that no man ought to withdraw from hearing the word and receiving the holy sacraments, on account of them. They also offer to the bishop, their reasons for refusing to subscribe, requesting to have their difficulties removed, without which they could never subscribe in the manner required. excellent divine, therefore, remained a long time under deprivation. Though he was afterwards restored to his ministry, yet, upon the publication of Whitgift's three articles, he was again suspended, with many others, for refusing subscription.§

This

ANTHONY GILBY.-This pious and zealous nonconformist was born in Lincolnshire, and educated in Christ's college, Cambridge, where he obtained a most exact knowledge of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages. He constantly laboured to promote a further reformation; and having published his sentiments of the habits, ceremonies, and corruptions in the church, more openly than many of

[blocks in formation]

his brethren, he is represented by some of our historians, as a fiery and furious opposer of the discipline in the church of England.

*

Upon the accession of Queen Mary, and the commencement of her bloody persecution, he became an exile in a foreign land. He, was among the first who retired to Frankfort, where he was deeply involved in the troubles occasioned by the officious interference of Dr. Cox and his party. When the order of church discipline, highly esteemed by many, was presented to the whole congregation, and rejected by the zealous episcopalians, "Mr. Gilby, with a godly grief, as was openly manifest, kneeled down before them; and with tears in his eyes, besought them to promote the desired reformation, solemnly protesting, that, in this matter, they sought not themselves, but the glory of God only adding, that he wished the very hand which he then held up, might be struck off, if godly peace and unity could thereby be promoted."+ Such was his truly generous spirit; and such his fervent zeal for the peace and unity of the church! Upon the unkind usage at Frankfort, Mr. Gilby removed to Geneva. Afterwards, he united with his brethren in writing a letter to those who still remained at Frankfort, defending the lawfulness of their departure, against the slanderous reports of those who stigmatized them as schismatics. This letter, signed by eighteen persons, among whom was the famous Mr. John Fox, breathes a most condescending, humble, and healing spirit. During Mr. Gilby's abode at Geneva, he assisted Coverdale, Sampson, and other learned divines, in the translation of the Bible.§

After the accession of Queen Elizabeth, our divine returned from exile, and was greatly admired and beloved by all who sought a thorough reformation of the English church. He is, indeed, exceedingly reproached by several of our bigotted historians. Dr. Bancroft says, that Mr. Gilby, with the rest of the Geneva accomplices, urged all states by degrees, to take up arms, and reform religion themselves by force, rather than suffer so much idolatry and superstition to remain in the land. Another peevish writer, with an evident design to blacken his memory, says, "That in obedience to John Calvin, the supreme head of Geneva,

* Fuller's Worthies, part ii. p. 167.

+ Troubles at Frankeford, p. 30.

§ See Art. Coverdale.

+ Ibid. p. 47.

Bancroft's Dangerous Positions, p. 62. Edit. 1640.

« הקודםהמשך »