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 prison.*

The

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. 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.+

It is observed of our divine, that he survived most of his

MS. Register, p. 787.

+Ibid, p. 788-790.

Guiseley, and years of age, He built the

brethren, having lived to a great age. He baptized a child after he entered upon the benefice of afterwards buried the same person threescore being rector of the place sixty-three years. present stately parsonage house there.

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 disposed to favour it, but were afraid to testify any thing under their hands, lest it 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 you thereof." The candid reader will easily judge how far this letter tended to promote sedition, being merely designed to effect by the most peaceable means, a more pure reformation of the church. He united with many of his brethren in subscribing the "Book of Discipline."+

66

April 7, 1586, Mr. Gellibrand was cited before Archbishop

Thoresby's Vicaria Leodiensis, p. 65.

+ Bancroft's Dangerous Positions, p. 74, 75. Neal's Puritans, vol. i. p. 423.

Whitgift, Bishop Cooper of Winchester, Bishop Piers of Salisbury, and other high commissioners. When he was called 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 arrogancy, 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 neces rarily 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 comparison 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 good by preaching, partly in my own cure, and partly in other mens', than you will do as long as live. The church hath not been built by you, nor you; b those whom you

call nonresidents!!" Upon Mr. Gellibrand's attempting to answer, he was interrupted, and not allowed to proceed. And when Dr. Cosin charged him with speaking against the laws of the land, he replied, "I have long been of this opinion, and so have many others, that nonresidents are allowed by law."

Mr. Gellibrand being charged with seducing her majesty's subjects, and with bringing the archbishop and bishops into contempt, which, it was said, gave much encouragement to papists; he replied, "I never entered upon any discourse about the government of the church, but delivered the true sense of the scriptures." When he was urged to a further consideration of the charges brought against him, and to submit to the court, he was carried out, until the commissioners determined what punishment should be inflicted upon him. After some consultation, he was called in, when the archbishop thus addressed him :-" You deserve not only to be sequestered from your ministry, but to be expelled from your house, banished from the university, and cast into prison; and all this we could inflict upon you; but we will not deal thus with you, if you will revoke your errors, and give satisfaction for your offences. The good man was, therefore, suspended from his ministry, obliged to enter into a bond of a hundred pounds, either to revoke his errors in such form as their lordships should appoint, or to make his appearance at Lambeth at any time by them to be determined, when they would further proceed against him. But it does not appear whether he recanted, or was brought under additional hardships by the relentless prelates.

EDWARD GLOVER was a nonconformist to the church of England, as well in doctrine, as in ceremonies. He appears to have mixed faith and works in the article of justification, and to have denied the doctrine of predestination; for which, in the year 1586, he, together with some others, was apprehended by Archbishop Whitgift, and cast into prison. These persons, denominated "a poor handful of free-will men," it is said, could not assemble in a private conventicle, without attracting the rod of ecclesiastical censure, and suffering by means of the archbishop, the rigorous penalty of imprisonment. But whatever were their character and

* MS. Register, p. 801-803.

opinions, they were so far excusable to the Lord Treasurer Burleigh, that he warmly espoused their cause, and wrote a letter to the archbishop in their favour.* In all probability, says Mr. Toplady, Burleigh's humane application to the primate, in behalf of these theological delinquents, procured them a gaol-delivery, and set the free-will men corporally free. This he conjectures from the letter of thanks, which Mr. Glover afterwards wrote to the treasurer. Mr. Glover, says he, lays all the cause of his and his brethren's. imprisonment, on their dissenting from Luther's doctrine of justification without works, and from Calvin's doctrine of unconditional predestination; and loudly complains of the "iniquity and tyranny" of their prosecutors: which included a tacit fling at the archbishop himself. Had they not just cause to complain both of iniquity and tyranny ? And was not the archbishop the very person who exercised this cruel oppression? Without approving of their sentiments, it may be asked, what greater right had he to cast them into prison, merely for difference of religious opinions, than they had to cast him into prison, for the same cause? His lordship having the sword in his own hands, will afford no satisfactory answer to this question. But our author further observes, "the bishops had just as much regard för the free-will men, as St. Paul had for the viper he shook into the fire."+ This representation, which contains too much truth, will remain a stigma upon their character, and a reproach to their memory, as long as men are disposed to examine the impartial records of history.

JOHN WALWARD, D. D.-He was professor of divinity at Oxford, and a man of great learning, but involved in much trouble for nonconformity. He was summoned

before the high commission, April 7, 1586, and appeared before Archbishop Whitgift, Bishop Aylmer, the Bishops of Winchester and Sarum, and other commissioners, at Lambeth. And for having taught, that the order of the Jewish synagogue and eldership, was adopted into the christian church, by Jesus Christ and his apostles; and asserting that the same was designed as a perpetual modal of church government, he was enjoined a public recantation, and suspended from his public exercises in the university, till it should be performed. As the whole of this Strype's Annals, vol. iii. p. 431.

+ Toplady's Historic Proof, vol. ii. p. 201, 202. '