as Aylmer calls him. These were all arrested and cast into prison by Bishop Aylmer, somewhere between 1579 and 1582. Mr. Wright was a very learned man, and had lived fourteen years in the university of Cambridge, where he had preached seven years with a license and the approbation of the university; but having scruples about episcopal ordination, he obtained ordination at Antwerp, and on his return to England, became domestic chaplain at Rochford Hall, having John Greenwood for an assistant. Having intimated that "he desired now to fill the pastoral office," and that, in his opinion, the "election of ministers ought to be by the flock or congregation," a church was or ganized in Rochford Hall, Mr. Wright was invited to become the pastor, and "a service was held to implore the divine blessing on this new relation." Thus was instituted one of those apostolic sort of churches in the house of a believer, of which we read so often in the Epistles. The object of these good people in thus organizing a church was, not to make a schism, but simply to promote their spiritual improvement: consequently, they did not withdraw from the parish church, but contented themselves with an evening service at the Hall, usually at eight o'clock.‡

* Davids' Nonconformity in Essex, pp. 69-70; Strype's Ann. vol. III. pt. 1. p. 179; 11. Nos. 23, 24; Aylmer's Life, 54; Brook, 1. 239-42.

↑ Romans 16: 5; 1 Cor. 16: 19; Col. 4: 15; Philemon 2.

Davids' Noncf. 70; Strype's Aylmer, 54.

But these movements were nevertheless considered disorderly by the State and Church authorities; and Aylmer endeavored to suppress them; and had, as he said, "many great storms with the late Lord Rich, and now lately, the present Lord Rich," about them; and when he refused to license Mr. Wright to preach in the diocese, the bishop tells us, that "the lord's aforesaid uncle did hereupon so shake him up, that he was never so abused at any man's hands since he was born." The "disorders practised in Essex, and particularly in the house of Lord Rich," were finally reported to the queen; and Aylmer was commanded to "forbid them." He did it, by arresting Mr. Wright and throwing him into the Fleet prison, first; and Lord Rich into the Marshalsea prison; Richard, his uncle, into the Fleet; and Mr. Dix into the Gatehouse, where they were all finally confined.

Mr. Wright and Lord Rich addressed a petition from prison to the privy council, that they might be either released or condemned." This was dated January 27th, 1581-82. But it was not until the September following that any of them could obtain release. Mr. Wright was required by Aylmer to subscribe "to the good allowance of the ministry of England and the Book of Common Prayer," and to give bonds with his friends, in "a good round sum, that from henceforth he

*Davids' Noncf. 71; Strype's Aylmer, 55.

shall neither commit to writing, nor preach anything contrary to the same."*

The ten years immediately succeeding the martyrdom of Thacker and Copping were fruitful in cruel persecutions of the Separatists and other good men. Whitgift was on the throne of Canterbury from September 23d, 1583, to February 29th, 1603-4; and Aylmer was bishop of London from March 24th, 1576-7, to June 3d, 1594; and a brace of more bitter persecutors have seldom hunted for the precious life. The prisons of England were filled with their victims; and many a godly, loyal man suffered unto death at their hands, for nonconformity to the ritual of the English church.

Rev. Giles Wigginton, a zealous puritan who was repeatedly before Whitgift, and suffered imprisonment and bonds, and all but death itself at his hands, writing to a nobleman, from the WhiteLion prison, in 1586, says: "My old adversary, the archbishop, hath treated me more like a Turk or a dog, than a man, or a minister of Jesus Christ. At Lambeth I was shamefully reviled and abused by the archbishop and those about him, as if I had been the vilest rebel against my prince and country. He then committed me to

* Aylmer's Letter to Lord Burleigh in Davids' Noncf. 72; Strype's Aylmer, 54, 57; Brook, 1. 239-41; Strype's Ann. vol. III. pt. 1. p. 179; pt. 11. Nos. 23, 24.

the keeper of the prison, in Southwark, who, by the archbishop's strict charge, so loaded me with irons, confined me in close prison, and deprived me of necessary food, that in about five weeks I was nearly dead.” *

In early life Aylmer professed to be a puritan and vehemently opposed the lordly dignity and civil authority of bishops. But with the putting on of the bishop's lawn, he laid aside his puritanism; and finally became one of the most cruel and relentless persecutors of his age. His morals seem to have deteriorated with his principles. It is recorded of him that "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."† Aylmer's own words, addressed to the queen in 1582, sufficiently expose his character. He thus boasts of his evil deeds: "To speak of punishment of disorders and corrupt opinions, [puritan and nonconformist views] was it ever heard of that any of my predecessors did either deprive, imprison or banish so many as I have done? Is there any man in England whom they take to be so professed an enemy unto them as they hold me to be? I am called a papist, a tormentor of God's children, a claw-back, a manpleaser." These titles were very expressive of

* Brook, 1. 420. See Barrowe's estimate of Whitgift, supra. ↑ Brook, 1. 249, note; Strype's Aylmer.

Life of Hatton, p. 245.

his character. His boasted cruelty to the children of God was fairly matched by his obsequious sycophancy to the queen, and to those supposed to have influence with her. See, for example, his letter to the Earl of Leicester, before whom he fairly crawls; and whom he flatters, and to whom he prays, saying: "I have ever observed in you such a mild, courteous and amiable nature! O, my lord! will God forgive, and her majesty forget, and my lord of Leicester retain and keep that which is not worth keeping, I mean the remembrance of offences? "* His cruelties sometimes seem to have disgusted Hatton, and even Elizabeth herself. †

*Life of Hatton, 348, 349.

† A letter written to Hatton in June, 1578, is a nauseating specimen of Aylmer's cringing, fawning sycophancy: "I beseech you sir, vouchsafe so to deal with me as I may not live but with her majesty's good liking. It is the honor of a prince to breathe life into dead bodies. I study with my eyes on my book, and my mind is in the Court. I preach without spirit; I trust not of God, but of my sovereign, which is God's lieutenant, and so another god unto me."-Hatton, 58. See also a characteristic letter written by the bishop to Hatton, May 28th, 1578. In another, written in March, 1581-82, Aylmer calls himself Hatton's "own creature"; and surely he was a creature of the serpent kind! "Sir, if you will have her majesty well served, your own creature somewhat in life preserved, and your credit kept uncracked for commending me first, protract no time," etc.-P. 240. Hatton's biographer, Sir Harris Nicholas, very justly says of these letters of "Doctor John Aylmer, bishop of London," to Hatton: "Perhaps prelatical hypocrasy was never more plainly shown than in some of these letters."-P. 51. Martin Marprelate is very severe against Aylmer-"Dumbe John of London”1 "Don John "—"John