The English Home of Mr. Timothy Dalton, B. A. : Suspension – Flight – Resignation

As we have seen, Dalton’s last “mariage” at Woolverstone was solemnized on Marsh 29, 1636. Then came his sudden and unexplained “suspension” from all clerical duty. Of this the only available record is a brief memorandum — in fact, a single word — in the official account of Bishop Wren’s first “Visitation” of his diocese in April, 1636. We read:

That fatal word “Suspensus” was written by another hand than the registrat’s which had made the rest of the entry. It may have been the bishop’s or the chancellor’s. The Interlineation shows second thought. It was the rule on such occasions that the suspended priest should, upon his petition, be “absolved for a time of futhr tryall”; but if he refused to submit, or if his “Canonicall carriage” were afterward unsatisfactory, he would in the end be “deprived” of his benefice.

Perhaps Mr. Dalton had not read publicly the king’s declaration in favor of Sunday sports;¹ for the bishop admitted in 1673 that “many of [the ministers] refused to publish the same, and were suspended for their refusal.” Indeed, this was one of the grounds of the bishop’s subsequent impeachment.² Or it may be that the simplicity of the ritual at St. Mary’s was not in accord with “Wren’s Fancies.”

Throughout Suffolk little attention had been paid to his demand for an Anglican revival. “Popish rags,” and “base and beggarly ceremonies,” as they were called, were not in favor of that hotbed of incon-formity. When the pious folk of Woolverstone afterward (1640?) petitioned the Long Parliament for the removal of Dalton’s successor, Mr. Jonathan Skynner, it was in part because of his “bowing att ye com-munion-table, crossing ye brad & wine, & elevating it, & bowing to it after it is consecrated.” Hence we see that these performances must have been novelties in the parish when “high-flyer” Skynner came into possession.³ Mr. Dalton had been called “an honest man” only two years before. Is he changed in the interval? Is he now ready to sing, with the Distracted Puritaine of Bishop Corbet:⁴

Boldly I preache, hate a crosse, hate a surplice,
Niters, copes and roychets;
Come heare me pray, nine times a day,
And fill your heads with crotchets.⁵

However it might be with Dalton the priest, there was a strange bishop in the chair of Norwich. The “witty Corbet” had been replaced by Matthew Wren, a man of coarser grain, who had no sympathy with Discontent or Disobeience. Alas for his clergy! They soon found that his episcopate was not to be “a merry jest, like the last, but a stern reality.”⁶ He was bent upon carrying out the orders of a new primate for “decency and uniformity” in the services of the sanctuary.

Without being an apologist for William laud, the reader may safely admit that at this time the usual methods of divine worship in many of the English cathedrals and parish churches were at least irregular or irreverent. Frequently there was no pretense of conformity to rubric and canon; too often, a want of proper solemnity in the administration of the sacraments. The Holy Table was sometimes used for secular purposes. Instead of “meekly kneeling” when they received, the communicants stood around the table or sat in their pews; because, in the words of Crashaw, a poet of the period, the “will confess no knee”. Bishop Corbet said to his clergy: “Pews are become tabernacles, with rings and curtains to them: there wants nothing but beds to hear the word of God on.”⁷ Therefore it was that the new archbishop insisted upon a return to so much of the ancient ceremonial as should insure reverence and decorum in public worship; holding, as he said, that “ceremonies are the hedge that fence the substance of Religion from all the indignities which profaneness and sacrilege too commonly put upon it.”⁸ His argument is full of vigor and strength, in sharp contrast with the ribaldry of John Bastwick when he said that the Church was then “as full of ceremonies as a dog is full of fleas.”

Soon after Laud was raised to the primacy he sent Vicar-General Brent⁹ upon a tour of inspection through the entire province of Canterbury. Every church, every school, every hospital was to be visited; all imperfections and all irregularities were to be reported. In Suffolk, he found an excommunicated vicar still serving at Fakenham; a “ruinous” church at Bungay; a curate “charged with divers points of incon-formity” at Rumborough; and a lecturer who “never did wear the surplice nor use the cross in baptism” at Beccles. He declared the town of Ipswich to be “exceedingly factious; and yet the better sort are comfortable in a reasonable good measure. I ordered many things in the churches and church-yards. I suspended one Mr. Cave, a precise minister of St. Helen’s, for giving the sacrement of the Eucharist to nonkneelants.¹⁰ I excommunicated divers church-wardens in that town who were so precise that they would not take their oath; but afterward they all submitted, with protestations to reform their opinions.”¹¹ Our friend Mr. Frank J. Burgoyne advises us that “there is no allusion to either Dalton or Woolverstone in Vicar-General Brent’s report. Perhaps Rector Dalton, like some of the clerks in Norwich, carried himself “so warily that nothing could be proved” against him.

Matthew Wren, the new Bishop of Norwich, was, from, one point of view, equal to the occasion. He had boththe will and the courage to enforce the orders of the archbishop; but he was so over-zealous and indiscreet in the matter that, in 1638, it was thought best to translate him to the diocese of Ely;-not soon enough, however, to save him from the hatred of the whole body of Puritans throughout the length and breadth of the land. Not did they forget him when, in 1640, they came intopower. One of the earliest acts of the Long Parliament was his impeachment. The “articles”¹² speak of his “Popish affections,” and “bowings and adorations,” and “rigorous persecutions and dealings.” Some of them relate to the year (1636) when he drove our Rector Dalton out of Woolverstone; and the special reference, in the eighteenth article, to the bishop’s “superstitious and idolatrous actions and gestures” in the Tower Church at Ipswich “and other places,” may have had a close connection with Dalton’s own case. We quote a few paragraphs:

“2. That, in opposition to the rubric, [the bishop ordered that] the communion-table should be set up close under the wall, at the east end of the chancel, altar-wise; whereby the minister, who is by law to officiate at the north end of the table, must either stand and officiate at the north end of the table, so standing altarwise, or else, after the Popish and Idolatrous manner, stand and officiate at the west side of the table, with his back towards the people.”¹³

“7. That he enjoyned all the people to come to the rail [in front of the chancel] to receive the Holy Communion, and there kneel and do reverence before the holy table, placed altarwise.”¹⁴

“8. The more to hearten and conform the people in prophaning the Lod’s day, he enjoyned the ministers to read publickly in their churches a book published touching Sports on the Lord’s day; for not reading whereof some ministers were, by the command and directions of the said Bishop, suspended, viz: Mr. William Leigh,¹⁵ . . . and divers others.”

“13. That during the time of his being Bishop of Norwich — which was about two years and four months — there were, for not reading the second service at the communion-table, set altarwise, for not reading the Book of Sports, for using conceived prayers before and after sermons, and for not observing some other illegal innovations by him and his under officers, by and upon his directions and injunction, sundry godly, painful, preaching ministers, that is to say: Master William Powell, . . . and others, to the number of fifty, excommunicated, suspended or deprived, and otherwise censured and silenced, to the undoing of many of them, their wives and children; and they could not be absolved without giving promise to conform to his directions, editis et edendis; by means whereof some ministers were enforced to depart this realm into Holland¹⁶ and other parts beyond the sea; . . . and others, of Norwich, to remove into other peaceable dioceses; . . . and some of them so prosecuted, as hath been suspected to be the cause of their deaths, as namely, Mr. Thomas Scot, and others; . . . the terrour of which proceedings hath caused other ministers to leave their cures, and go away, viz: Mr. William Kirington, Mr. Thomas Warren, Mr. John Allen, and others.”¹⁷

“18. That he, being Bishop of Norwich in the said year, 1636, in the Tower Church, in Ipswich, and other places, did, in his own person, use superstitious and idolatrous actions and gestures, in the administration of the Lord’s supper, consecrating the bread and wine, standing at the west side of the table, with his face to the east, and his back towards the people, elevating the bread and wine so high as to be seen over his shoulders, bowing low neither to or before them, when he, after the elevation, had set them down on the table.”

The name of Timothy Dalton does not appear in this indictment, showing that he was not one of the leaders of his party. But there is abundant evidence that he was one of the “others,” referred to in the thirteenth article, who were caused by “terrour . . . to leave their cures, and go away.” In fact, he disappeared before the 10th of May, 1636, having placed his family in a modest cottage near to the old parsonage.

Our first proof of his desertion is found in an ancient document of the Tanner¹⁸ Collection of MSS. At the Bodlerian Library, Oxford. It is entitled: “Bp Wren’s Answers to various charges brought against him.” From another source we hear that at this time (1636) “two petitions against him, from Ipswich and Norwich, were secretly conveyed to the King’s hand by some great ones.”¹⁹ The Tanner MS. was undoubtedly used in the preparation of the Bishop’s defense upon these or similar complaints. It is, how- ever, in the nature of a diary, rather than a brief, and contains the original memoranda of his proceedings against several inconformables. We quote from the page²⁰ which includes Mr. Dalton’s name and fixes the time of his escape:

“Mar 31. 1616. A letter written by me to Dr Good.²¹ To know what defects pf Summons. To look to ye registers of St Matthews & St Mary Elmes. The cancels at St Mary Tower & St Margrets. Hoiw far to admit Mr Ashburn. To [ ] Mr Dade²² si. Sermons at ye Hospitall. Orders for Norwich to be given to Ipswich.
“My letters to ye chancellor,²³ that he do no act without a collegue in the Visitation. April 22, 1636.-May 3, 1636.
“To beware pf Exactions. Aug. 1636.
“To look to the supplying cures where they are suspended. To the Chancelour, May 3, 1636.
“Against Mr Dalton for Deserting. May 10, 1636.
“Of Pitman the preaching draper. Aug. 1636.
“Of Mr Farran the preaching weaver. Dec. 29, 1636.
“Deserters to be deprived. May 1910, 1636.”

These telltale notes show that Mr. Dalton’s troubles were coincident wit the special Visitation of “ye 12 parishes in Ipswch.” Was there any further connection between them? May it have been the chancellor, and not the bishop, who suspended Dalton? It was on May 3, as well as on April 22, that the Bishop cautioned the other to “do no act without a collegue in the Visitation”; and it was on the same 3d day of May, that he instructed him “to look to the supplying of cures where any [ministers] are suspended.” One week later he wrote to him “against M^r Dalton for Deserting,” and that “Deserters [are] to be deprived.”

Another document in the precious Tanner Collection is in evidence upon the subject of Mr. Dalton’s flight. It is endorsed: “Acta Curiæ [ ] contra inconformes in Archid. Suffolk.”²⁴ The name of the court is now illegible. We believe it to have been one of the diocesan tribunals at Norwich, but have found nothing to confirm the suspicion. We quote from folio 183, the same being inscribed:

“Notæ ex actis Suspenconum et Excommunicaconum Clericorum; Archinat. Suff.: Samford Decanat: . . .
“Burstall: . . . Mr Farroe.²⁵ Inhibitum a prædicando et motus est ad legendum honilem tamntum loco concionis et ad certificandum proxima curia post festum natalis domini
Belstead²⁶: . . . Mr Ramond suspenus
Capell: . . . . Mr Hudson conformavit
Chattisham: . . . Mr Courtnall curates, he read not Prayers, 50 nov. Mr Ravens²⁷ certified that the Lord Bishopp of Norwich was satisfied
Chelmodeston: . . . Mr. Wilhelmus Stone Rector non detectus
Copdock: . . . . Mr Garthwayt certificavit conformitatem

Erwarton: . . . . Mr Wicks. He hath promised conformity and to reade the Kinges declaration & certifie at the next court & hath set his hand to the Act
Eastbergholt: . . Mr Long similiter
Hengham: . . . Mr Collins similiter
Holbrooke: . . . Mr Mapletoft Rector non detectus
Holton: . . . . Mr. Bird conformavit se
Freston: . . . . Mr Basill is to certifie the readinge of His majesties declaration & hath Cerified his conformity
Hintlesham: . . Mr Marcus Sherman Rector certifi- Cavit conformitatem
Roydon: . . . Dr Mayor Similiter
Shelly: . . . Rector non Detectus
Shotly: . . . Mr Carter ægrotatus vt patet28 per cer- Tificatarium²⁸
Sprowton: . . Mr Fr. Fokes Rector non detectus est
Harksted: . . . Similiter. Mr Henricus Hudson, Rector
Stutton: . . . Similiter. Mr Henricus Hudson, Rector
Tatison: . . . Similiter. Mr Johannes Cole, Rector
Wenham magna: Similiter. Mr Fell Rector
Wenham combust: Mr.Fell certificavit conformitatem Suam
Wherstead: . . Mr Samuel Samwayes non detectus Est
Woluerston: . Mr Dalton abijt
Washbrooke: . Mr Clerke vicarious certificavit con- Formitatem.”

This list of the clergy who were in disgrace in the deanery of Samford in 1636, covers twenty-five if its twenty-eight parishes. One man is described as “suspended”; another as “deserted”; and a third is “inhibited from preaching.” Nine are “non detectus”; while twelve have prudently “submitted.” Mr. Carter, of Shotley, seems to have been too ill for classification; but if he were the Bezaleel Carter who became the minister of Woolverstone in 1645-47, he had then recovered his health so far as ti be a strong and able-bodied Presbyterian. We understand why the climate of Suffolk was less wholesome for dissenters in the days of Laud and Wren under the Long Parliament. Of the above-mentioned priests, Masters Hudon, Wicks, Basil, Mayer, Fell, and Samways were likewise engaged in the Presbyterian movement.²⁹ All of them were among Mr. Dalton’s near neighbors in 1636. We suspect that all had been as deeply involved in the quarrel as himself. Some if the precisians who refused to wear the surplice and “scrupled the cross in baptism,” and yet submitted tamely when they were called to account, seem to have had little regard for the moral obligation of the certificates of conformity. Timothy Dalton was a coward. He ran away — “abijt” — but he told no lies. It was better for him to seek safety in flight than to be another Vicar of Bray.³⁰ It appears elsewhere that the authorities discovered his retreat, or found some way of communicating with him. He was made to understand that the resignation of his living would be accepted in compromise. We now quote from the diocesan books:³¹

“Decimo nono Julij 1636 . . . . Eodem die acceptavit Dnus Epus antedcus [Revdus Pater Matthæus Norvicen Epus], Spontaneam Resinationem Timothei Dalton Clici Rectoris (uti asseruit) Woluerston in Com. Suffolc. Quam quidem Ecclesiam de persona Timothei antedci vacan et vacuam esse pronunciavit, &c. Totumq hoc Negotium Patrono seu Patronis Rectoriæ præd intimandum fore decrevit, &c.”

Of which we offer the following as a translation:
“July 19, 1636 . . . On the same day, the Lord Bishop aforesaid [to wit: the Reverend Father Matthew Wren, Bishop [of Norwich] accepted the Voluntary Resignation of Timothy Dalton, clerk, the Rector (as he alleged) of Woolverstone, in the County of Suffolk: Which church, indeed, [the Bishop] pronounced vacant and free of the person of the aforesaid Timothy, etc.; and he decreed that notice of the Whole Matter should be given to the Patron, or Patrons, of the aforesaid Rectory, etc.”

We note the sarcasm in the words: “Voluntary resignation,” and the legal caution in: “the Rector (as he alleged) of Woolverstone.” The truth is that Mr. Dalton did resign in order to escape deprivation, and in that limited sense his resignation was “voluntary”. As to the living, it was absurd to question his title to an office which he had held for twenty years.

His successor, Jonathan Skynner, was of course an Anglican. The record of a funeral at Woolverstone on May 1, 1636, is in Skynner’s handwriting. He may have been sent there from Ipswich for that special purpose, or he may have had the actual charge of parish at the time. It is certain that in the “somer” of the same year was in possession of the glebe.³² But his institution did not occur until the following October, as we learn from the Episcopal books:³³

“1636.
“Decimo quarto die Octobris antedicti institutus fuit Jonathan Skinner clericus in artibus magister ad Rectoriam Ecclesiæ Paroch. De Woluerston in Com. Suffol. Per libam resignationem Timothei Dalton clici ult. Incumbentis ibm Itime vacan: ad quam per Sereniss. Dnum nrm Regem Carolum indubitatem Rectoriæ ejusd. (ratione minoris ætatis h ærisid Philippe Bacon Arm. Defunti) pro hac vice Patronum prntatus fuerat mandatumq est Archino Suffol., &c.”

Or, as “done into English”:

“1630. On the 14th day of October aforesaid, Jonathan Skinner, clerk, Marster of Arts, was instituted to the Rectory of the Parish Church of Woolverstone, in the County of Suffolk, then lawfully vacant by the voluntary resignation of Timothy Dalton, Clerk, the last Incumbent; to which he [the said Skinner] was presented by his Highness our Lord King Charles, the Undoubted Patron of this Rectory for this turn (by reason of the minority in age of the heir of Philip Bacon, Esquire, deceased);³⁴ and a mandate was sent to the Archbishop of Suffolk, etc.”

A third Tanner manuscipt,³⁵ of which we give a photo-lithographic copy, was drawn up on or about November 12, 1636, and was intended for the use of the archbishop in replying to the strictures upon the bishop’s management of the diocese. This seems to have been the original draft, and we call attention to the great care shown in its preparation. For us it has a double value because it inclides the name of Mr. Dalton in its list of “Deserters.” Upon the outside is written: “Such as were under Censure in the Diocese.” Within it opens:

“The clergy of ye Diocese of Norw, comprehending all that are in Sprituall [ ] and office, all Parsons, Vicars, Curates, Lectures & teachers of Schole, is to be accounted near one thousand and a half: of wch some had been censured, but are restored againe, so that upon none of all that Number did any Ecclesiasticall Censure lye in the beginning of November, 1636, but as here followeth:

“Deprived. . . . The parson of Westhorp, in Suff: after notorious inconformity for above 12 yeares and often monition, & finall obstinacy, was Derived.

“Excmnicate . . . . In Norfolk foure. I where of was in an Action depending:
ye thr 3 were sayd to be run into Holland, were Excomunicated for not Appearance.
In Suffolk five. | Whereof 3 were very | inconformable, | 1 very Debauched

“Suspended, . . . . but upon petition eithr they awere absolved, for a time of furthr tryall to be had of them, In Norfolk, one. InSuffolk, seven. Or they Resigned their places. In Norff. one. | both notorious for fac- In Suff. One. | tion & inconformity.

“Suspended, . . and so persisting, In Suffolk, 6.

“Imhibited fro Preaching, In Norfolk, one. In Suffolk, three. | Whereof one by his ed- | ucation was a Draper | anothr was aweavr | a third a Taylor.

“To these add, prticulatrly for ye 12 parishes in Ipswch. The Curate of one church for Not ap- pearing at the Visitaion,³⁶ & for having many yeares intruded himself there wthout any Licence, and for refusing to submit himself & acknowledge his fault, was dismissed.

The Curate of anothr church, for refusing to read ye Divine Srvice (at ye command of the Visitors) in that church where ye Curate was wanting, as also for refusing to Exhibit his Ordrs & Licence, was Dismissed.

The Curates of tweo other parished, being admonished to carry themselves conform- able & to certify theire so doing at a day appointed, upon a confederacy did vol- untarily (before ye sayd appointed day) desert their Cures.

T

he parson of one Church was suspended by the Bps Visitors but was wthin a while aft. Absolved by ye Bp himself, and a long time given for tryll of his Canoni- call carriage.

“Aftr ye 12 of IXbr 2 othr fell undr ye 2d Censure. 3 undr the third. 3 undr ye fouth.

             

In this honor roll are the names of fifty-three clergymen who had been disciplined or had deserted their cures. Another name, the fifty-fourth, is now illegible. Eighteen parishes belong to Norfolk, and thirty-three to Suffolk, besides two others which we cannot locate. Only one minister is set down as “deprived”; but there is good reason to believe that Masters Burwell (Burr), Birroughs, Greenhill, Thomas Allen, John Ward, Bridge, Philips (Phillip), Peck, Powell, Raymond, and Amirant were subsequently punished in like manner.⁴⁶ They were admonished or suspended at the outset, but did not finally yield obedience. Some of them were absolved and relapsed. Two of the five who came to New England remained here permanently. Many went to Holland for a temporary refuge. Nearly all abandoned the Old Church, and became known as Congregationalists or Presbyterians or Independent.

Availing himself of this third Tanner MS., the archbishop prepared a “Certificate” for the information of the king, showing that though there are above 1500 clergymen in that Diocese, and many disorders, yet there are not 30 excommunicated or suspended; whereof some are for Contumacy, and well not yet submit; some for obstinate denial to publish your Majesty’s declaration, and some in contemning all orders and rites of the Church, and intruding themselves without a license from the Ordinary for many years together.”⁴⁷ William Prynne, in his scurrilous Newes from Ipshwich, wrote, under the date of November 12, 1636, corresponding with “ye 12 of IXbr” in the tanner manuscript, that :Little Pope Regulus⁴⁸ hath playued such Rex, that hee hath suspended above sixty of our sincerest, painefullest, conformable Ministers, both from their office and benefice; so as many of our churches (as the like never since King John’s days) are quite shut up, and Lord have mercy upon us may be written on their dores; the people cry for the bread of their soules, and their ministers are prohibited to give it them: this not only wounds but breakes their hearts, and makes them quite amazed.”⁴⁹ The effect upon the authorities was somewhat different. To them it promised relief. We find on the margin of the king’s copy of the archbishop’s “Certificate,” against the name of William Bridge, of Norwich, who was thereby reported to have :gone into Holland,” the king’s own memorandum: “Let him go; we are well berid of him.”⁵⁰

Returning to the case of Timothy Dalton, we acknowledge our perplexity, becusae of the vener-able tale that he was “deprived” of the living of Woolverstone. It appears for the first time in the letter of Brampton Guyrdon to Governor Winthrop, under the date of “Aprele 11th, 1637.”⁵¹ Mr. Gurdon says that “he [Dalton] & Mr Stansby [were] depryved.” Then we find it in the Woolverstone petition to the Long Parliament,⁵² wherein the parishioners declare that “as soone as Bpp Wren came to Norwich dioces, at his very first visitacon, [Dalton] was depriued & his liuing sequestred, soe as he was forced to leaue this kingdom.” Now the gossiping Mr. Gordon may be thought unreliable as a chronicler; but the people of St., Mary’s should have known what had occurred within the limits of their own parish. Moreover. The Bishop’s memoranda prove that on the 10th of May, 1636, he wrote to the chancellor “against Mr. Dalton for deserting,” and that “Deserters [were] to be deprived.” Yet the diocesan records tell of the bishop’s acceptance of Dalton’s “voluntary resignation.” The two stories can be reconciled in one way: proceedings for his deprivation were initiated, or even carried to a final decree, in the Consistory Court, and then abandoned or canceled because of the receipt of his resignation. It is possible that the whole matter is not set out in the Episcopal books, or that our correspondents have overlooked part of it.

Laud and Wren paid dearly for their harshness toward the Puritans. Wren was “the very first Bishop that was Deprived by the Rebel Parliament”: and was twice “Seiz’d and clapt up in the Tower, where he Continu’d a Prisoner until the End of the year 1659.”⁵³ Laud was taken into custody in December, 1640; and was beheaded on January 10, 1644-45. When he stood upon the scaffold, he said with much dignity: “This is no time to dissemble with God, least of all in religion; and, therefore, I desire it may be remembered that I have always lived in the Protestant religion, established in England, and in that I come now to die.”⁵⁴ On the same day when the bill of attainder in hids case had been passed, the Lords also agreed to the substitution of the new “Directory for the Publique Worship of God'” for the old Book of Common Prayer; and so “the Archbishop and the Servuce-book died together.”⁵⁵

The softening influence of time upon the earlier estimates of William Laud, reminds one of what was said of him by Thomas Fuller: “I could instance in some kind of course venison, not fit for food when first killed; and therefore cunning cooks bury it for some hours in the earth, till the rankness thereof being mortified thereby, it makes most palatable meat: so the memory of some persons, newly deceased, are neither fit for a Writer’s or Reader’s repast, until some competent time after their interment.”⁵⁶

1. It was on October 18, 1633, that King Charles renewed the deckaration (1618) of “our dear father of blessed memory, . . . that, after the end of Divine services, our good people be not disturbed, letted or discouraged from any lawful recreation, such as dancing, either men or women; archery for men, leaping, vaulting, or an other such harmless recreation; nor from having pf May games, Whitsun-ales and Morris-dances, and the setting up of May-poles and other sports therewith; so as the same be had in due and convenient time, without impediment or neglect of Divine service.”-Gee and Hardy’s Church History Documents, 528. For an account of the Puritan Sabbath in England, see Eggleston’s Beginners of a Nation, pp. 123-33, 137-40.
2. See, post in this chapter.
3. See, post, under the title: “The Smale Houes at Woolverstone.” For a definition of the word “High-flyer,” see Prince’s History of New England, 297.
4. Richard Corbet was the bishop of Norwich from 1632 until July, 1653, when he died. He was ever more ready to ridicule the Puritans than to punish them. Fuller says of him that he was “of a courteous carriage, and no destructive nature to any who offended him; counting himself plentifully repayed with a jest upon him.” (Worthies of England, II, 361.) Garrard thus describes his death-bed: “. . . prayers ended, he gave them all ‘Good Night,’ and died.”-State Papers, Sept. 18, 1635.
5. Percy’s Reliques of English Poetry (Bohn’s ed.), 178.
6. Browne’s Hist. of Cong. in Norf. and Suff., 65.
7. Gardiner’s History of England, VII, 310; Hutton’s William Laud, 72; State Papers, Dom. Series, Vol. 266, fol. 58; ib., Vol. 370, No. 90.
8. Laud’s Works, II, xvi.
9. Brent was a witness against Laud at his trial. “He followed the fashion: high-Anglican, to-day; furious Puritan when Pym and his colleagues ruled.”-Simpkinson’s Life and Times of William Laud, 141.
10. See, post, in “Wren’s list of clergy under Censure,” p. 89.
11. Gardiner’s History of England, VIII, 108-10.
12. Browne’s Hist. of Cong. In Norf. and Suff., pp 85-91; and Rushworth, IV, pp 351-55.
13. Laud was accused by the Scottish commissioners of directing the priests to represent the Deity by turning their backs upon the peole; and the reference was to Exodus xxxiii, 23.-Simpkinson’s Life and Times of Laud, 218.
14. It was said of Sir Henry Vane the Younger: “He is gone to New England for conscience sake; he likes not the discipline of the Church of England; none of our ministers will give him the sacrement standing.” (Calendar of State Papers, Colonial series, 1574-1660, p. 214.)
    

    The immediate cause of John Cotton’s emigration is said to have been his allowing the magistrates, in his church at Old Boston, “to stand while they received.”

15. This was Governor Winthrop’s former minister at Groton, Suff. In 1636 the governor’s sister, Lucy Downing, wrote to him: “The Bishope of Norwige, whose name is Wren, doth impose a hundred and 32 articles to the clergy in his dioceses, some whereof they fear will put by both Msr Lea and divers others wich though themselves conformable men.” In 1645 Mr. Leigh was classed among the Presbyterians.
16. As the Pilgrim Fathers had previously done: “unto ye Lowe Cuntries, wher they heard was freedome of Religion for all men.”-Bradford’s History of Plimouth Colony, 10.
17. For a further account of the last-named three ministers, see, post, in the notes to Bishop Wren’s “list of clergy under Censure,” p. 86.
18. Thomas Tanner was a chancellor of Norwich. He had a trick of “borrowing” valuable papers of all kinds. When he was about to die,he gave them to Bodleian. A friend says: “Tanner must have been a great thief; but as he left his spoils in such a way that they are kept for public good, I trust he has been lightly dealt with.”
19. Browne’s Hist. of Cong. In Norf. And Suff., 607
20. Tanner Collection Vol. 314, fol. 154.
21. Dr. Thomas Goode, one of the commissioners in the extraordinary Visitation of Ipswich then being made.
22. The commissary of Suffolk, who had made the complaint against Timothy Dalton and Samuel Ward in February, 1633-34.
23. The chancellor and “the Bishop’s Vicar General in causes spiritual” was Clement Corbett, LL. D. He was the chief commissioner in the Visitation of Ipswich.
24. Tanner Collection, Vol. 314, fol. 183 et seq.
25. This was :Mr Farran the preaching weaver.” See, post, p. 85.
26. Belstead is only four miles fromWoolverstone.
27. Mr. Raven, vicar of Chattisham, was himself “turned out, July 30, 1644, for being a Pluraist, Arminian, Superstitious, Popishly Affected, and an Ale-house Haunter.”-Walker’s Sufferings of the Clergy, III, 347.
28. This was probably Bezaleel Carter, who was the minister of Woolverstone in 1645-47. See post. Shotley and Woolverstone are nearly three miles apart.
29. Browne’s Hist. of Cong. in Norf. and Suff., pp. 151, 162. 163, 607, 608.
30. “This vicar, being taxed by one for being a Turn-coat and an unconstant changeling,-‘Not so,’ saith he, ‘for I always kept my principle, which is this, to live and die the Vicar of Bray.’ “-Fuller’s Worthie of England, I, 79.
    “And this is my law that I’ll maintain
    Until my dying day, sir;
    That whosoever King shall reign,
    Still I’ll be the Vicar of Bray,sir.”
    -OLD SONG: The Vicar of Bray.
31. Register, “Wren,” Norv. Epi., fol. 161.
32. See, post, under the title: “The Smale House at Woolverstone.”
33. Institution Books, Norv. Epi., Vol. XXIII, fol. 165.
34. The last burial service read by Mr. Dalton at Woolverstone was on July 26, 1635, over the remains of the same “Mr Philip Bacon Esq.” The delay in the institution of Mr. Skinner may have been owing to some difficulty in procuring the royal credentials.
35. Tanner Collection, Vol. 3314, folios 194, 195.
36. This was the extraordinary Visitation of Ipswich in the spring and fall of 1636.
37. Mr. Thomas Warren was the curate of the parish of St. Lawrence, Ipswich, having been appointed thereto in 1633, He was one of the two curates mentioned by the Bishop (supra), who, “being admonished, . . . did voluntarily . . . desert theire Cures.” The town Archives state that they were cautioned to desist “from several factious courses,” and were persuaded by “the Confederates” — the towns people — “to forsake their churches, and leave them unserved.” In Wren’s Parentalia (1750) it is said thet “they resigned to avoid trouble.” (Brook’s Puritans, II, 522.) We do not know what became of Mr. Warren; but in 1645 there was a Presbyterian minister of the same name at Polstead and Witnesham, Suff.
38. Mr. William Kerrington was made in 1635 that the curate of the church of St. Nicholas, in Ipswich. He was one of the two curates mentioned in the above notes. We lose sight of him after 1636.
39. All that we know of Mr. Furness is that he settled in the parish of St. John. Baptist and the Holy Sepulchre in Norwich, and that he was succeeded by Thomas Displain in 1635 — Blomefield’s Norfolk, IV, 138.
40. Browne says that this John Allen “removed to Dedham, New England, 1637.” (Browne’s Hist. of Cong. In Norf. and Suff., 88.) But that is probably a mistake. The colonists spelled his name Allin. (Savage’s Gen. Dict., I, 40.) We find a Presbyterian “John Allen” at Mettingham, Suff., in1643, and afterward at Great Yarmouth, where he died of the plague. — Suckling’s Hist. and Antiq. of Suff., I, 183; Browne’s Hist. of Cong., pp. 132, 609.
41. Thomas Allen escaped into New England in 1638; was settled at Charlestown, Mass., in 1639; and returned to England about 1651. He was then appointed one of the city preachers of Norwich, and served in his old church. Later he became the pastor of a Congregational society. He died in 1673.-Browne’s Hist. of Cong. In Norf. and Suff., pp 115, 258.; Savage’s Gen. Dict., I, 36; Sprague’s Annals of Am. Pulpit, I, 48.
42. John Philip “was chased out of Old into New England” in a638. he was settled fiurst in Salem and then in Dedham. Retrurning to England in1641, he found employment in his old pulpit in Wrentham. He died in 1660. — Savage’s Gen. Dict., III, 411; Ritchie’s East Anglia, pp. 9012.
43. Robert Peck was “a man of a very violent schismatical spirit.” He was punished by Bishop Harsnet “for keeping a conventicle at night, and in his own house.” Bishop Wren deprived him, for tearing down the alter-rail and depressing the floor of the chancel below the nave. Cotton Mather says that he was then “a light put under a bushel.” (Mather’s Magnalia, I, 536.) In 1638 he went to the New Hingham of the colony; but in 1641 he returned to his old home and church. He died in 1656-Blomefield’s Norfolk, II, 4234; Farmer’s Gen. Reg., 222.
44. This must have been the “Mr Stansby” in Bramton Gurdon’s letter of April 11, 1637 (see, post, under the title: “The Smale Houes at Woolverstone”) and the “Robert Stainsbye” who was a Presbyterian minister in Ipswich in the years 1645-47. (Browne’s Hist. of Cong. in Norf. and Suff. 607-8.) The bishop also described him (supra) as having been dismissed “after notorious inconformity for above 12 years, and often monition, & finall obstinacy.” His successor was Samuel Scrivener, who was prompty ejected by the Parliamentarians “for Drunkeness and Adultry, as likewise for Observing the Rules of the Church, Preaching against the Rebellion,” etc. — Walker’s Sufferings of the Clergy, II, 371.
45. This is understood to have been the “Jonathan Burr” who went to Dorchester, Mass., in 1639. He died in `1641. Hooker said of him: “Surely this man will not be long out of heaven, for he preaches as if he were there already.” (Spragie’s Annals of Am. Pulpit, I, 123.) John Farmer says that Aaron Burr was one of his descendants. — Farmer’s Gen. Reg., 49.
46. Browne’s Hist. of Cong. In Norf. and Suff. pp. 99, 115, 117. et al.
47. Ib., pp. 605-7.
48. In the Latin the word regulus means a petty king, as well as any small bird, like a wren. This the Irish call the wren “the king of all birds,” (Dryer’s British Popular Customs, 497.) Harbottle Grimstone described the bishop as ‘the least of all these birds, but one of them most unclean.” Cotton Mather called him “a bird of ill omen.” In one of the civil war caricatures the bishop and the Queen’s Roman confessor, who were then shut up in the Tower, are shown in a bird-cage, as being birds of a feather.
49. Browne’s Hist. of Cong. In Norf. and Suff., 96. The punishment of Prynne was brutal in the extreme, but he had his abundant revenge on January 10, 1644-45.
50. Ib., 606.
51. See, post, under the title “The Smale House at Woolverstone.”
52. Ibid.
53. Walker’s Sufferings of the Clergy, I, 53; II, 21.
54. Heylin’s Cyprianus Anglicanus, 527
55. Traill’s Social England. IV, 250; citing Hist. MSS. Comm., Report X, Aoo, 4
56. Fuller’s Worthies of England, I, 90.