« PreviousContinue »
Multitudes of the more serious and conscientious clergy of the church of England also suffered severely about this time for slight neglects of ritualism. In the single county of Essex, according to the statement of the privy council, nearly fifty ministers were silenced or deprived in the course of about three years; leaving their parishes, for the most part either entirely destitute, or furnished only with "persons neither of learning nor of good name"; while a great number of persons in that county and in other places were occupying the cures, "being notoriously unfit, most for lack of learning, many charged or chargeable with great and erroneous faults, and drunkenness, filthiness of life, gamesters at cards, hunting of ale-houses, and such like;" against whom the council say, we hear not of any proceedings, but that they are
Marelme" as he calls him. He accuses him of habitual profaneness and sabbath-breaking; and of covetousness, if not of downright robbery; of an ungoverned temper; of unfaithfulness to his duty; of inconsistency, carnality and meanness; and of unrelenting cruelty and oppression. See Martin's Epistle, p. 25; Epitome, pp. 32-42; Hay any Worke for Cooper, pp. 24, 71, 72, et passim: Petheram's reprints. Bishop Cooper's feeble defence of Aylmer against these serious charges substantially confirms the truth of some of Martin's worst representations. - Admonition to the People of England, pp. 39-47. See also Maskell's Marprelate Controversy, in relation to Aylmer's cutting down the elms at Fulham, for which Martin calls him "Marelme." Strype defends the bishop against the charge of plundering the timber lands; but yet admits, that he was ordered by her majesty "to take down no more of his woods."- Life of Aylmer, 46-48, 66-68.
quietly suffered." And this is represented as a sample of the "lamentable estate of the church." Petitions were sent to the privy council, by the clergy and by the laity, and to parliament itself, representing the sad state of the church in consequence of these violent proceedings; but neither the council nor the parliament could get any relief from the queen nor her persecuting archbishop.† Bills were actually introduced into parliament, in 1584-5 and 1586-7, for the relief of the puritans; but the queen sent for the Speaker, demanded the bills, and so treated him and other members of the House, that parliament dared not do anything in the way of reforming church abuses.‡
* See a letter of the privy council, addressed to Whitgift and Aylmer, in Davids' Nonconf. in Essex, pp. 79, 80; also Appendix to chap. IV., which contains "A Survey of Sixteen Hundreds in the County of Essex; containing Benefices, three hundred thirtyfive; wherein there are of Ignorant and Unpreaching Ministers, one hundred and seventy-three; of such as have two nefices apiece, sixty-one; of Non-Residents that are single beneficed, ten; Preachers of Scandalous Life, twelve."
t Davids, 75-84.
See a summary account of these proceedings, in Hopkins' Hist. Pur. 111. 154-74; Neal's Puritans, 1. 440-48.
JOHN GREENWOOD AND HENRY BARROWE,
MENT, REPEATED EXAMINATIONS AND SEVERE
Or the great mass of the good men and women who suffered for their nonconformity between the years 1583 and 1593, we know very little. But of a few we have quite full records; and from these we may safely estimate the character and sufferings of others. Among the best known and most distinguished of these sufferers were Rev. John Greenwood and Henry Barrowe, Esq. Though quite unlike in character and of different professions, they were intimate friends and fellow prisoners for many years, and in death were not divided.
Mr. Greenwood was a university scholar, probably of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and proceeded A. B. in 1580. He then took orders in the church of England; but becoming convinced of the
* Paget says: "Of this sect (the second sort of Separatists) Barrow was the father; afterward Greenwood, Brewis, Bois, Rutter."- Heresiography, 87. Of Brewis and Rutter I have not been able to find any account. Of Bois, I shall have occasion to speak in another place.
unscriptural character of these orders, renounced them, and became assistant chaplain, with the celebrated Robert Wright, in the family of Lord Rich, about the year 1581.* He was a married man, and had at least one young child in 1586.† Though he seems to have escaped arrest when Mr. Wright and other members of Rich's family were seized, yet his connection with that family must have made him a suspicious character in the eyes of the bishops, into whose hands he ultimately fell. The time of his arrest is not certainly known; but it seems most probable that it was in the autumn of 1586. He was thrown at once into the Clink prison, in London, and was there suffered to languish for months before he was subjected to any form of trial or examination whatever. At length, after having thus long been a close prisoner, he was brought to London Palace, Bishop Aylmer's city residence, and subjected to a severe inquisitorial examination, before the two Lord Chief Justices of England, the Master of Rolls, Lord Chief Baron, the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of London and Winchester, "with others."
*Masters' Hist. Corpus Christi, p. 227, Cambridge, Eng., 1753; Brook, 11. 23; 1. 239.
↑ Brook, 11. 34.
The time of Mr. Greenwood's arrest, the length of his confinement before examination, and the date of this examination, are all in uncertainty. I have done my best to fix them; but cannot do this satisfactorily. I conjecture that Greenwood could not have been long in prison before his friend Barrowe; because all
The commissioners first required Mr. Greenwood to lay his hand on a Bible and take an oath to answer truly. This he refused to do; saying, that he would swear by the name of God, if there was any need, "but not by, or upon a book." They then proceeded to examine him, without an oath as to the use of the Lord's Prayer, or any
their subsequent statements and those of their friends imply that their imprisonments were contemporaneous; and Barrowe, we know, was imprisoned in November, 1586; and Greenwood was before him in prison.
The time of Greenwood's examination could not have been when Barrowe was first examined; for Barrowe could hardly have failed to speak of it, if it had been. Paule, to be sure, in his Life of Whitgift, (p. 58,) says, the two were examined on the same day, and that it was in November. But Paule is not the best authority. And then, Greenwood says, he was examined at London Palace; while Barrowe's examination we know was at Lambeth. Greenwood's was before the high commissioners; while Barrowe's was before Whitgift, his archdeacon Mullins, and Dr. Cosins, only; and on the Lord's day, too, when the commissioners would not have been likely to hold a formal session. And finally, if Greenwood's examination had been in November, 1586, he would not have complained of the length of his imprisonment, as he did on the first examination: "I beseech you that I may not be urged by your law. I have thus long been close prisoner, and therefore desire you to show me wherefore, and not to entangle me by your law."- Ex. Harleian Miscellany, vol. 11. p. 28. Greenwood's examination might have been on the 24th of March, 1586-7, the same day on which Barrowe underwent a third examination, and this time before commissioners "especially appointed;" and the very same men, too, who examined Greenwood. But then Paule says that the examination of both was in November, 1587. He may possibly be right as to the time of Greenwood's examination; but he must be at fault about Barrowe's, unless Barrowe has omitted to mention one of his chief examinations, which is entirely improbable.