protestants here generally hell,) the baptism of infants. Some condemned the use of all indifferent things in religion others held freewill, man's righteousness, and 'justification by works-doctrines which the protestants, in the times of King Edward, for the most part, disowned. By these opinions, a scandal was raised upon the true professors." Again, speaking of some "schismatical spirits" who had "imbibed principles of Pelagiani Arianism, and anabaptism, and endeavoured to infuse the same into those good men and women professing and 'suffering for the gospel," and having stated, on the authority of Fox, that "not only in private assemblies here [i.e., at Colchester] did these swarm, to pervert the right ways of the Lord, but also in divers prisons in London, they kept a continual hand: where they scattered their heretical doctrines among such as were committed for the 'love of the gospel;" he adds, that " some of the chief among them were these two-John Kemp and Henry Hart. . . . these were those they called freewill men: for so they were termed of the predestinators. . . . and 'there were thirteen articles drawn up, to be observed among their company that adhered to them . . . . there 'were certain articles of Christian religion, which Careless had sent to Tymms, a prisoner for the gospel in the King's Bench [read Newgate]: and these Hart undertook 'to confute "."

เ

Of these particulars the reader should be aware, and he should also know, that Dr. Martin was commissioned by the council to make inquiries respecting these quarrels which were said to exist among the nonconforming in Mr. Cattley's edition, vol. viii. p. 192, is changed to E. K. Why Fox, or whoever put the first of the three letters into the Martyrology, did not put in the other two, I do not know, except it were that the former of them is in a high strain of praise, gratitude, compliment, and full confidence for instance, "I am right suer we are both sealed vnto the daye of redemption ;" and again, "be you certaine and suer that God will likewise glorify you with himself in everlasting glory. For, as the Lord did know and elect you for his before the foundation of the worlde was layde so hath he called you by the sincere preaching of his holy gospel" -while the principal object of the latter seems to be, to let her know that he had been informed by credible persons that she was frequently guilty of" comming into the companye of filthy idolaters, at the time of their Antechristian service."

:

5 Mem. III. i. 586.

6 Annals, vol. ii. P. ii. p. 283.

prisoners; and in the course of his investigation, Careless came before him in the custody (at least, in the company) of the marshal of the King's Bench. How, or why, Careless came to be a prisoner in the King's Bench at all, does not appear. That when he was there, he was a zealous, not to say fierce, polemic, is quite clear; but I do not see anything to show that he was originally imprisoned on account of religion. When Dr. Martin asked him where he dwelt, and was answered, "In Coventry," he rejoined, "At Coventry? what so far man? How camest thou hither? Who sent thee to the King's Bench to prison ?" All that Careless thought fit to answer was, "I was brought thither by a writ, I trow; what it was I cannot tell. I think Master Marshal can tell you." "In good faith,” said the Marshal, "I cannot tell what the matter is; but indeed my Lord Chief Justice sent him from the bar." The only other fact which I observe to be stated by Fox respecting his imprisonment, (which was begun before he was sent up to London,) is that, "being in Coventry jail, he was there in such credit with his keeper, that, upon 'his word, he was let out to play in the pageant about the 'city with his companions. And that done, keeping touch with his keeper, he returned into prison at his hour 'appointed." However, it is quite clear, and quite enough for our present purpose, that having been previously a weaver at Coventry, he was at this time a prisoner in the King's Bench; and that we have "The effect of the Examination of John Careless before Dr. Martin, briefly declared" by the prisoner himself, and recorded in Fox's Martyrology. The document begins thus:

"When I came into his chamber, Master D. called me to him, saying, 'Come you hither, sirrah; what is your name?' 'Forsooth,' quoth I, 'my name is John Careless.'

7 Since the above was published I have observed two notices of John Careless in Fox's Martyrology, by one of which we learn that he was the person by whom Bishop Latimer was "premonished about six hours before" of the poursuivant's approach to summon him to London (vol. vii. p. 464, 8vo. Ed.); and by the other we are told that on "the 20 day of Nov., the mayor of Coventry sent up unto the lords of the Council Baldwin Clarke, John Careless, Thomas Wilcocks, and Richard Estelin, 'for their behaviour upon Allhallows-day last before: whereupon Careless and Wilcocks were committed to the Gatehouse, and Clarke and 'Estelin to the Marshalsea."—Ibid. vi. 411.

Dr. Martin-'Careless! by my faith I think the same; and so 1 ween it will appear by thy conditions, by that time we have done with thee.'

Careless-Though my name be Careless, yet perchance you shall not find me so careless in my conditions, as your mastership doth presuppose.'

Martin No! that I shall prove anon. I pray thee of what church art thou, or of what faith? for I hear say that you have divers churches and faith in the King's Bench; and here I have two of your faiths which you sent to Newgate. Come hither; look upon them; and I pray thee tell me which is thy faith; for the one of them is thine, and thine own handwriting.'

John Careless, as he had told the doctor at the outset, was far enough from being the sort of person which his name would indicate. In fact, those who are acquainted with De Foe's inimitable and "most edifying discourse between the Justice and the Weaver," may be apt to think more than once of Edmund Pratt, in reading the examination of John Careless. He was not at all disposed to commit himself; so he tells us :

"With that I came near him, saying, 'If your mastership have any thing of my handwriting, show it me, and I will not deny it.' Martin-Nay, marry, thou canst not deny it. Lo! here is thy own name at it.' And so he began to read it, but suddenly he stayed, saying, 'How sayest thou to it? Canst thou deny that this is thy faith, fact, and deed, and this is thine own hand?""

Careless acknowledged that "the tenor" of the document was of his "first drawing," but absolutely denied that the copy shown to him was his handwriting, or that he knew whose handwriting it was. Whether this was true or false, how can we possibly know, when we find him going on thus:

"Then he turned the other side of the paper, where Henry Hart had wickedly written against my true articles, whose hand and name I knew as soon as I had seen it; for indeed my good brother Tyms had sent me a copy of the same before. Then he said, 'Lo! here is another of thy fellows faith, clean contrary to thine: whose faith is this? Dost thou know this hand?'

Careless-'No, forsooth, I do not know whose faith, nor yet whose hand it is, neither will I make me any thing to do with other men's faiths. I stand here to make answer to your mastership for mine own; and if any man have wrote against the same, I would I might come to talk with him face to face, to see how he were able to prove his party good.'

Martin Prove! A wise proof that you would make you will

8 Great Law of Subordination, p. 91.