W. I have no less for what you say. And as to manners, you have no great cause to find fault. Walk. Thou art an ass; thou art a dolt; thou art a beardless boy. Thou hast neither learning, nor humanity in thee. W. Your words, sit, do not make me worse. We must and do bear these things at your hands, and have never requited you with the like. Mr. Wilson having received the above abusive language, was obliged to depart without the examination of his case, and without obtaining his certificate, though his ecclesiastical judges had promised to give it him. He waited upon them repeatedly for the same purpose, but with no better success; and it appears extremely doubtful whether he ever obtained it, or whether he was ever restored to his ministry.* JOHN ELLISTON was a most diligent and pious minister, beneficed at Preston in Northamptonshire, where he laboured much to reform his parish, by frequent preaching and catechizing. But he endured manifold troubles for his nonconformity. His enemies being inclined to popery, brought complaints against him to the chancellor of Peterborough, that he did not wear the surplice, read the litany, nor use the cross in baptism. He was, therefore, indicted at the assizes; but after his case was heard before the judge, he was dismissed. Mr. Elliston having left an account of his various troubles, let us hear him speak for himself. 66 Having been pastor of Preston," says he, " about ten weeks, and being desirous to instruct the people according to my ability, some of my parishioners, persons much inclined towards popery, complained of me to Dr. Ellis, the chancellor, and the case was heard before the judge at the assizes, when I was charged with not wearing the surplice, not reading the litany, and not using the cross in baptism; but was acquitted and dismissed. After this, they exhibited a charge against me to Dr. Scambler, bishop of Peterborough, consisting of sixteen articles. Upon my appearance before the bishop, February 10, 1584, he asked me whether I would subscribe; but when I refused, he treated me with much abusive language. "The first article charged against me, was, that I did not wear the surplice.-I said, I did not refuse it, and so denied the charge. * MS. Register, p. 832-834. "The second article was, that I did not use the cross in baptism. And when the bishop asked me why I did not, I replied, that I did not use it, because it was not required in the word of God. At this he scoffed, saying, neither is it required what kind of boots you shall wear. I replied, that my boots were not offensive, and what kind I shall wear is at my discretion, and therefore lawful; but God hath set down the holy sacraments in his word, and not left the ordering to our discretion. He then abused me as before. "In the next place, when he asked me why I catechized all persons, both old and young, I replied, that I had the charge of all, and must, therefore, instruct all. When he said that old people should not be catechized, and that they did not stand in need of it, I desired him to promote, and not to hinder good things. 3 "Another charge was, that I omitted the litany on sabbath days. When I replied, that I preached on sabbath days, he said, that whether I preached or not, the litany must be read. When he asked why I kept persons from the communion, I answered, because they would not submit to be examined. He then said, that I should admit them, if they could say the Lord's prayer and ten commandments, "There were many other articles charged against me," says Mr. Elliston, "to each of which I answered as the occasion served. At my departure, he suspended me, saying, I should not remain in his diocese if I would not subscribe. I said, if I do not remain in your diocese, the earth is the Lord's, and he hath a place for me to live in; and so I departed. "March 6th following, he cited me, and several other ministers, to appear before him, and required us to subscribe. And May 30th he cited me a third time; but not having sufficient warning, he deprived me before I could appear before him. I, therefore, appealed against his unjust sentence, and told him that he did not deal with me with uprightness, though I wished to discharge my duties with a good conscience; and that he treated others with great kindness, if they would only subscribe, though they had neither learning nor honesty. But if you go about to discredit us, you will gain no credit to yourself. After this I had four journies to Peterborough; and though it was at least thirty-six miles from the place where I lived, I went seven times in little more than one year. "April 6th I went to London for an inhibition; and upon my return, I went again to Peterborough, to have it served on the bishop. And on ascension-day, Archbishop Whitgift cited me to appear before him, who, by this means, sought to prevent me from prosecuting my appeal. When I appeared before the archbishop, he urged me to subscribe, but I refused. He then said, he had matter against me in the high commission; and I was therefore examined, but obtained leave to return home till the next term. But before the next term, the archbishop sent his pursuivant for me. This was my third journey to London. "When I appeared before his grace, two articles were brought against me. 1. That at morning prayer on Whit-sunday, I did only read two psalms and two chapters, and then preached. And, 2. That preaching out of the second psalm, and railing against my enemies, I affirmed, that they would all be damned, who troubled me.' But when they heard my answers to those articles, I was dismissed; though the fees of the pursuivant, and other expenses, were very considerable. After this I was called up to London several times, and appeared sometimes before the Archbishop, and sometimes before the Bishop of London. "These my troubles," says the good man, "endured almost three years, during which time, I had ten journies to London, seven to Peterborough, many to Leicester and Northampton, and one to Cambridge." By the expense unavoidably attending so many journies, Mr. Elliston was almost ruined. He was also a long time deprived of his living. He was a zealous and peaceable nonconformist, and, in the year 1587, was a member in the classis at Daventry, and often attended the associations of the puritans. A minister of the same name was preferred to the rectory of Chignal-Smeby in Essex, in the year 1597, but resigned it by death previous to September 20, 1617; when the next incumbent entered upon the benefice. We are not able to learn whether this was the same person.+ ROBERT CROWLEY, A. M.-This distinguished person was born in Gloucestershire, and educated in Magdalen college, Oxford. In the year 1542, having been at the university eight years, he was elected probationer fellow. Upon the accession of King Edward, he removed to London, and was for some time a printer and bookseller, and preached occasionally as opportunity offered. He was a * MS. Register, p. 579-582. + Newcourt's Repert. Eccl. vol. ii. p. 139. Fuller says he was born in Northamptonshire.-Worthies, pt. ii. p. 290. man of excellent parts and eminent piety, and received ordination from Bishop Ridley, afterwards the famous martyr. Upon the accession of Queen Mary, he withdrew from the storm, and fled to Frankfort, where he was involved in the troubles occasioned by Dr. Cox and his party. His name, together with the names of many of his brethren, is annexed to "The Form of Discipline reformed and confirmed by the Church and Magistrates of that city."+ Upon the death of Queen Mary, and the accession of her sister Elizabeth, Mr. Crowley returned from exile, and obtained some preferment in the church. In the year 1563, he had the prebend of Mora, of which, however, he was deprived in 1565; most probably for nonconformity. In 1566, he became vicar of St. Giles's, near Cripplegate, London, where he was much followed and respected. In 1576, he was collated to the vicarage of St. Lawrence Jewry, in the city, which, however, he did not hold long; for the living became void in 1578. It appears also, that soon after his return from exile, he became archdeacon of Hereford. He sat in the convocation of 1562, and subscribed the articles, together with the paper of requests then presented to the house, desiring a further reformation of the church. He was a learned and popular preacher; therefore, October 15, 1559, he was nominated to preach the sermon at Paul's cross. Early in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, one Campneys, a turbulent and abusive pelagian, sought to disturb the peace of the church, by publishing a book against the reccived doctrine of predestination, though he had not the courage to affix his name to it. This virulent publication was answered by Mr. Crowley and Mr. John Veron, one of the queen's chaplains, and both the learned replies were approved and licensed by public authority. Soon after the accession of Queen Elizabeth, her majesty was greatly offended with many of the clergy, especially those in the city of London, for refusing to wear the square cap, the tippet, and the surplice. "And it is marvellous,' says Mr. Strype, "how much these habits were abhorred by many honest, well-meaning men, accounting them the relics of antichrist, and that they ought not to be used in the church of Christ. Mr. Crowley called them conjuring * Wood's Athenæ, vol. i. p. 190.-Strype's Parker, p. 219. + Troubles at Frankeford, p. 114. Newcourt's Repert. Eccl. vol. i. p. 181. Strype's Annals, vol. i. p. 290. vol. ii. Adden. to Appen, p. 15. garments of popery, and would not, therefore, be persuaded to wear them." Previous to the year 1566, this worthy servant of Christ was suspended; and though the cause of his suspension is not mentioned, it was, undoubtedly, his nonconformity to those rites and ceremonies which he accounted popish, superstitious, and unlawful. During the same year he was involved in other troubles. For in the month of April, seeing a corpse coming to be buried at his church, attended by clerks in their surplices singing before it, he threatened to shut the church-doors against them; but the singing-men resisted, being resolved to go through with their work, till the alderman's deputy threatened to put them in the stocks for breaking the peace. Upon this, they slunk away. But complaint was made tó Archbishop Parker and other commissioners, and Mr. Crowley was summoned to appear before them. Accord ingly, April 4th, he appeared before the Archbishop, the Bishop of London, and the rest of their colleagues. Daring his examination, says our author, there fell from his lips several fond paradoxes, tending to anabaptism. These fond paradoxes, as he is pleased to call them, were the following: When speaking of a call to the ministry, he said, "A man may have a motion in his conscience to preach, without any external call. And, as pastor, he would resist the surplice-men." When the commissioners asked him whether he would resist a minister thus sent to him, (meaning in his surplice) he said, "That till he was deprived, his conscience would move him so to do." These are his fond paradoxes, said to be of so dangerous a tendency! When the archbishop discharged him from his flock and his parish, he refused to be deprived contrary to law, saying, "he would be committed to prison, rather than suffer a wolf to come to his flock." The good man was, therefore, deprived of his living, separated from his flock, and committed to prison. Also, the alderman's deputy mentioned above, for taking his part against the surplice men, was obliged to enter into a bond of a hundred pounds, to be ready when called. "So gentle," says Mr. "Strype, was our archbishop in his censure of so great a fault!"+ How long Mr. Crowley remained a prisoner, we have not been able to learn. Certain it is, that he continued under |