(^mmW Wimvmxi^ Jilratg 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 On.YNf.§. "^Jvij^ 
 
 k.ZSZ^^2 '?|3irU 
 
 9724 
 
The date shows when this volume was token. 
 
 To renew this book copy the call No. and give to 
 the librarian 
 
 All Books subject to Recall 
 
 R RJAN 21 '^"^ All books must be re- 
 turned at end of college 
 FE6--^tm'^^ y^^r.for inspection and 
 
 Students must re- 
 turn all books before 
 leaving town. Officers 
 should arrange for the 
 return of books wanted 
 during their absence 
 from town. 
 
 Books needed by 
 more than one person 
 are held on the reserve 
 list. 
 
 Volumes of periodi- 
 cals and of vpamphlets 
 are held in the library 
 as rhuch as possible. 
 For special purposes 
 they are given out for 
 a limited cirae. 
 
 Borrowers should 
 not use their library 
 privileges for the bene- 
 fit of other persons. 
 
 Books of special 
 value and gift books, 
 when the giver wishes 
 it, are not allowed to 
 circulate. 
 
 Readers are asked to 
 • report all cases of books 
 marked or mutilated. 
 
 Do not deface books by marks and writing. 
 
 „„_ Cornell University Library 
 
 BX7260.B2 P88 
 
 "^"lll[|i™™fmiin^P^"''®' (15507-1593) an 
 
 ,. 3 1924 029 457 995 
 olin 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029457995 
 
Henry Barrow, Separatist 
 
HENRY BARROW 
 
 SBPARATISr 
 
 (1550?— 1593) 
 
 AND 
 
 THE EXILED CHURCH OF 
 
 AMSTERDAM 
 
 (1593— 1622) 
 
 BT 
 
 FRED. J. POWICKE, Ph.D. 
 
 Author of "John Norris 0/ Bemerton," iSfc. 
 
 JAMES CLARKE & CO., 13 & 14, FLEET STREET 
 
 1900 
 
TO 
 
 EEV. ALEXANDEK MACKENNAL, B.A., D.D., 
 
 OF BOWDON, 
 
 IN RECOGNITION OF 
 
 HIS INTIMATE ACQUAINTANCE 
 
 WITH THE 
 
 "origins" of ENGLISH CONGREGATIONALISM, 
 
 AND 
 
 IN GRATITUDE FOR 
 
 MUCH PERSONAL KINDNESS TO THE WRITER. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 This book has grown out of a series of twelve " Short 
 Lectures on the Origin of Congregationalism," delivered to my 
 own people during the winter months of 1896-7, in connection 
 with the " Ter-centenary Celebration." 
 
 Two of them dealt directly with Barrow and the 
 Amsterdam Chiirch, 
 
 In preparing the one on Barrow, it struck me that his 
 relative importance in the story of the Separatists had not 
 been fully appreciated; and I thought that the best way to 
 test the accuracy of this impression would be to undertake a 
 fresh study, first of all, of his own writings. I hoped, at the 
 same time, that investigation of the " sources " might throw 
 new light on the course of his life and his personal character. 
 
 So far as a discovery of new facts is concerned, I cannot 
 say that the result has quite answered expectation. Cor- 
 rection of some errors and clearer arrangement are, perhaps, 
 as much as can be claimed here. But, as to Barrow's own 
 position and influence, the result does seem to prove that he, 
 rather than Eobert Browne and John Eobinson, deserves to be 
 named emphatically the founder of English Congregationalism. 
 Possibly such a judgment may be questioned ; and whether it 
 be sound or no the reader will decide for himself. Of one 
 thing, however, I feel sure. No one will question the heroic 
 quality of the man, his passionate devotion to an ideal end, 
 his absolute single-heartedness. No one, moreover, will 
 question that the worth of his example in these respects 
 
viii PEEFACE. 
 
 cannot be too strongly commended to his descendants of these 
 later and laxer days. 
 
 When the lecture on the Amsterdam Church was due, Mr. 
 Arber's " Story of the Pilgrim Fathers " had just come out. 
 More than one paper of good standing praised it highly ; and 
 this, together with the writer's reputation for scholarly 
 research^ made me turn to it eagerly. I did not doubt his 
 rather bold assertion that every item and statement in the book 
 was of the nature of " solid rock " — " absolutely or morally 
 certain " : though it was rather startling to learn that the 
 actual truth about the poor exiled Church was worse than one 
 had imagined; that, under Francis Johnson and Ainsworth, 
 Barrow's goodly company of saints had lapsed so swiftly into 
 a mere " rebellious rout." StUl more startling was it to 
 behold Johnson himself " unmasked " as a " hypocrite," a 
 "thoroughly bad man." It was, indeed, the feeling that 
 perhaps Mr. Arber had imwittingly done injustice to Johnson 
 which induced me to examine some of his references. What 
 revealed itself was so surprising and disappointing as to shake 
 at once my confidence in his trustworthiness. With a view, 
 therefore, to getting at the facts I took pains to consult all the 
 authorities which underlie his accomit of the exiled Church. 
 The last chapter of the second part is the outcome. 
 
 Concerning the book as a whole, I will only venture to 
 add that at least it is not " second-hand." Of course, much 
 old ground has had to be traversed, and possibly there is little 
 or nothing in it that is new. The "aftermath" could 
 scarcely fail to- be somewhat slight when reapers like Wad- 
 dington. Dexter, Brown, and Mackennal have been in the field. 
 
 But even with regard to familiar facts and statements, it 
 has been my aim to verify them wherever possible ; while, in 
 the case of Barrow himself and his contemporaries, I have 
 
PREFACE. ix 
 
 striven to let nothing pass for whicli his own or their evidence 
 could not be cited. 
 
 I had hoped to give a more definite place to John Green- 
 wood, and had written a chapter on him, as well as another 
 on his and Barrow's protagonist, George Gifford, of Maldon; 
 but considerations of space ruled these out. The omission, 
 however, is no real loss. For — if one knows the mind of Barrow, 
 one may be said to know Greenwood's ; and if one writes of 
 Barrow one can hardly help including in the narrative the few 
 transmitted details which pertain to his friend. As to GifEord, 
 though he should be conspicuous — more so than he has been — 
 in a history of the Puritans, the special significance of his 
 relation to the Separatists may be easily gathered from the 
 chapter on the " Reformists." 
 
 Most of the quotations from Barrow and others have 
 been conformed to our present mode of spelling. There 
 are those who make a great point of printing an old author 
 exactly as he appeared at first; and sometimes this may 
 be of importance, but not when the spelling is so arbitrary 
 as it was 300 years ago. ''For," as Dean Church remarks, 
 ''spelling in Hooker's {i.e., Barrow's) time, and for long 
 afterwards, was not only anomalous, as ours also is, but 
 anomalous with an apparent unconsciousness of the possibility 
 of regularity. The spelling of the same word sometimes varies 
 within two lines . The use of double letters, or the interchange 
 of vowels and diphthongs in the same word, often seems a mere 
 matter of haphazard." 
 
 I ought to say that I am indebted to my son, Mr. F. M. 
 Powicke, B.A., of Balliol College, for the exhaustive index. 
 
 The Paesonage, 
 
 Hatheelow, neae Stockpoet. 
 August, 1900, 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PiGES 
 
 Introduction .,. ... ... ... ... ... xiii — xlvii 
 
 PART I. 
 
 Ohaptee I. — Heury Barrow ... ... ... ... 1—82 
 
 Note I. — Was Bari-ow Marprelate P ... ... ... 82 — 5 
 
 Note II. — Comparison of Lists of Separatist Prisoners 85 — 7 
 
 Ohapteb II. — Barrow's Doctrine of the Churcli ... ... 91 — 127 
 
 Note I.— Baxrow's Views as to the Ecclesiastical 
 
 Powers of the Prince ... ... ... 128 — 9 
 
 Note II. — Barrow's Argument for the Destruction of 
 
 Churches ... ... ... ... 129—131 
 
 Chaptbe III. — Barrow and the Reformists ... ... 135 — 157 
 
 Chapter IV. — The Bishops of Ban-ow's Day ... ... 161 — 181 
 
 Chapter V. — Archbishop Whitgift and his Ecclesiastical 
 
 Polity 185—197 
 
 Chapter VI. — Barrow and the Anabaptists ... ,,. 201 — 218 
 
 PART II. 
 
 Chapter I.— The Exiled Chui-ch ... ... 221—261 
 
 Chapter II. — The Question of the Eldership at Amsterdam 
 
 andLeyden ... ... ... ... 266—284 
 
 Chapter III.— Professor Arber and the Amsterdam Church 287 — 325 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 No. I.— The Scholar of Oxford ... 329 
 
 No. II.— The Earliest Separatist Manifesto ... ... 330 
 
 No. III. — The Chronology of Ban-ow's Writings (and Green- 
 wood's) ... ... ... ... 331—341 
 
 No. IV.— The Two Editions of " A True Description of the 
 
 Visible Church" 342—347 
 
 No. v.— The Separatists' Seven Questions ... ... ... 348—349 
 
 Index op References ... ... ... ... ... 351 — 353 
 
 General Index ... ... ... ... ... 355 — 363 
 
/Ai; elm] irepi tow /xey/crTwi' a-vixjBaKwfxtBa. 
 
 Motto op Heeaoleitus. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 I THINK it quite likely that anyone who may care to read thia 
 book will find himself wondering whether it was worth while 
 to spend so much pains on such a subject. Certainly, the 
 story is not, in itself, very attractive. We know too little of 
 Barrow to make possible a full-length portrait of him ; and 
 what we do know, drawn as it is from the last few years of his 
 life, presents him in connection with circumstances scarcely 
 fitted to elicit the finer and sweeter elements of character. 
 And as to the Amsterdam Church, when every effort has been 
 made to do it justice, it still brings before us a somewhat 
 sordid scene, nowise remarkable for loftiness of life, thought, 
 or aim. Moreover, the things for which Barrow and his 
 fellows contended and suffered may appear so trivial — not the 
 central questions which concern the "spirit's true endow- 
 ment," or its practical relations to life and godliness, nor yet 
 the universal problems which ennoble the quest of philosophy, 
 but the structure and government of a Church ! No doubt 
 Barrow evinced the courage of a martyr ; but martyrdom, it 
 may be said, becomes a vain self-sacrifice if it be not inspired 
 by some adequate motive ; and, seeing that he held the common 
 faith of Christians in all other respects, was he right to 
 " strive and cry " and throw away his life for the poor 
 remainder ? John Smyth said, as he neared the end of his 
 brief and stormy career, " My desire is to end controversies 
 among Christians rather than to make and maintain them — 
 especially in matters of the outward Church and ceremonies ; 
 and it is the grief of my heart that I have so long cimibered 
 myself and spent my time therein ; and I profess that differ- 
 
xiv INTEODUCTION. 
 
 ences of judgment for matters of circumstance, as are all 
 things of the outward Church, shall not cause me to refuse the 
 brotherhood of any penitent and faithful Christian whatsoever." 
 Not a few must read such words with keen sympathy. There 
 are some, indeed, who realise so vividly the evils that have 
 flowed from ecclesiastical controversy — its withering influence 
 on the springs of true Christian love and service — that they 
 are more than tempted to deplore the very existence of 
 Churches; and to believe that the purpose of Christ for 
 individuals and for the world would stand a better chance of 
 fulfilment if every form of "organised Christianity" were 
 dissolved. But experience soon steps in to correct any dream 
 of that sort. The social instinct, which operates as imperiously 
 among human souls as attraction among the molecules of a 
 crystal, renders an isolated life impossible. Men whose hearts 
 beat with devotion to the same object cannot long remain 
 apart. One in spiritual sympathies, they crave, and cannot but 
 seek, conscious fellowship ; and then the steps taken to ensure 
 and express such fellowship land them, almost before they 
 know it, into an organised society. Hence it is, in fact, that 
 stern protests against sectarianism have so often issued in the 
 creation of more sects. 
 
 We shall reach a wiser result if we reflect that con- 
 troversies about the Church have been a necessary out- 
 come of historic conditions; and that there is, perhaps, 
 within our reach " a conception of the Church which may be 
 recognised as in harmony with its essential principle." 
 
 I. At the time of the Eeformation the Church of Western 
 Europe had held possession of the field for a thousand years. 
 Its ideal was uniformity of doctrine and discipline under the 
 absolute rule of Pope and bishop. On the whole its ideal had 
 been achieved. But not entirely. Quite apart from heresies 
 like that of the Albigenses, which might obviously deserve the 
 name of Protestant, there was from early days a Protestant 
 force within the Church itself. This force was Monasticism. 
 
INTEODUCTION. xv 
 
 The common notion is that Monasticism embodied the inmost 
 temper and tendency of the Eomish Church; and it is true 
 that the monastic orders were the usual champions of 
 orthodoxy as well as unfailing supporters of the Papacy. But 
 the fundamental motive of Monasticism is what we are 
 concerned with — a motive which prevailed through all changes 
 and corruptions. And its fundamental motive was man's 
 unquenchable desire — a desire ignored or overridden by the 
 priestly system of the Church — " to secure the knowledge and 
 to cultivate the sense of immediate and personal relation to 
 God in order to the attainment of salvation. "^ Its keynote 
 was individualism — the plea that " the individual man " is 
 "greater than the institution," is "greater than any temple 
 which man can build or wherein he may worship."^ Jerome, 
 "the most distinguished and typical representative of early 
 Monasticism," sounded the note when he refused to serve 
 " under compulsion, beneath the shadow of Episcopal authority, 
 men whom we do not choose to obey " ; when he declared that 
 as an unordained presbyter he was the equal of a bishop; 
 that bishop and presbyter were originally the same; that 
 bishops might be necessary to the weUbeing of a Church, but 
 not to its existence ; and that the function of prophecy or 
 preaching of the Word was higher than the gift of adminis- 
 tration.^ A similar note had been sounded, in a shriller key, 
 by the Montanists. " Montanism had been subdued, but it was 
 not vrithout a succession of its own. ISTovatianism, as it was 
 called, was a schism of the third century which reasserted the 
 fundamental principles of Montanism — its theory of discipline, 
 its doctrine of the Church and of its relation to the world, its 
 antagonism to the Episcopal regime. If the Novatian schism 
 yielded under the vigorous policy of the Catholic Church, it 
 was only to be followed by another movement known as 
 Donatism, which set up in the towns and villages of North 
 
 ' Allen's Christian Institutions, - Ditto, p. 156. 
 
 p. 155. (International Theological ■' Ditto, pp. 139-141. 
 
 Library.) 
 
xvi INTEODUCTION. 
 
 Africa a rival Church to the Catholic Church, resembling it in 
 outward organisation, but with an inward motive which points 
 to an antagonism to Catholicity, which neither argument nor 
 persuasion, kindness, nor even the force of the State could 
 overcome. The Montanist, the Novatian, the Donatist were 
 all alike in this respect, that they did not believe that salvation 
 depended on adherence to the Catholic Church, that Church 
 out of which there was no salvation as Cyprian had maintained, 
 and as Augustine at a later time asserted with equal emphasis. 
 In this conviction Monasticism also shared, putting the con- 
 viction into practical form by fleeing to the desert or the cell, 
 in order to cultivate the religious life, and attain reconciliation 
 with God."i The point we wish to make is, that the impulse 
 which gave birth and strength to Monasticism was essentially one 
 with that which created the spiritual revolt of the sixteenth 
 centu.ry. " In a most direct and vital way it . . . prepared for the 
 Protestant Reformation as if it had been the end of all its 
 labours." WyclifPe, fierce " malleus monachorum " as he was, 
 foresaw and hailed the development. " I anticipate that some 
 of the friars whom God shall be pleased to enlighten will 
 return with aU devotion to the original religion of Christ, will 
 lay aside their mifaithfulness, and with the consent of Anti- 
 christ, offered or sohcited, will freely return to primitive truth, 
 and then build up the Church as Paul did before them."- In 
 Martin Luther, himself a monk, the forecast came almost 
 literally true. 
 
 In the sixteenth century individualism was the spirit 
 of the age. Beneath its influence, the fettering frost of 
 tradition was melting from the mind of Europe. Renaissance, 
 newness of life, with a corresponding temper of freedom and 
 adventure, was manifest on all sides. In literature and 
 philosophy, in science and art, in the sphere of morals and 
 politics, its animating breath was felt. It was felt also in the 
 Church. At first, as one might expect, its effects were 
 ' Allen's Christian Institutions, p. 142. ^ Ditto, p. 173. 
 
INTEODUCTION. xvii 
 
 negative. It nerved men to criticise. It inspired doubts. It 
 dissolved one after another the old creeds. It encouraged every 
 man to believe what was right in his own eyes. But the in- 
 dividualism thus claimed and exercised was, for the most part, 
 lawless. Men did not relate it to its true ground. They did 
 not discern the principle which at once dignifies, develops and 
 restrains it. How Luther found his way to that principle is 
 well known. We know how, in studying the experience and 
 teaching of Paul, it broke upon him as light from heaven that 
 the tie between God and himself was immediate and intimate ; 
 that the work of salvation was throughout a spiritual process, 
 based on God's unbought love to him and his own unforced 
 faith in God ; that the need, therefore, for any external agency 
 was done away. So the Church dropped from its unique place 
 and lost its unique fimctions. The individual soul became its 
 own temple, its own altar, its own sacrifice, its own priest. It 
 ceased to be a slave regulated in its service of God by dictation 
 from without; and regained the status of a son, responsive to 
 an inward light, capable of a free obedience, responsible for 
 its doing or misdoing to God alone. 
 
 Here is the kernel of that great modern movement 
 which we are accustomed to date from Luther. It was a 
 recovery by the individual of his lost spiritual rights. Its 
 purpose and effect was to bring the soul face to face with 
 God. It meant for every man not merely the right but 
 the duty to know God for himself ; to rest in His personal 
 love and lead ; to shape Hfe in harmony with His will. And, 
 obviously, such a right and duty, once realised, must stand 
 first. Every other claim, however ancient and august, 
 must be deemed inferior. Henceforth conscience was free. 
 As to the Church, for example, it was free to raise the general 
 question, whether Christ intended the construction of a 
 Church at all. It was free, and was bound, to ask what 
 He intended His Church to be. It was free to judge how 
 far any existing institution which called itself the Church 
 
 h 
 
xviii INTEODUCTION". 
 
 carried out Christ's thought. It was free to consider if its 
 defects and corruptions were such as to make it right for 
 him to retain communion with it or not. It was free, 
 finally, to dictate separation, if necessary. The consequence 
 might be external divisions and even confusions. But 
 if the principle of individual responsibility was sound the 
 price had to be paid. 
 
 Perhaps the gravest charge which can be laid against 
 the sons of the Reformation is that they have so generally 
 upheld the soundness of the principle in theory and denied 
 it in practice. In this respect their fault is greater than 
 that of the Romish Church. For the Romish Church has 
 never formally admitted the rights of individual conscience. It 
 has been consistent. Its seat of authority, the ultimate and 
 absolute criterion of all things to be done and believed, has 
 always been itself. It has boldly assumed the place and power 
 of Christ on earth, has claimed to know and interpret His 
 whole mind, and so has been able to represent revolt against 
 itself as identical with revolt against Christ. But the Pro- 
 testant Churches have shrunk before the consequences of 
 consistency. They have taught as a first principle that the 
 only infallible oracle is the living voice of God within the soul ; 
 that attention to this voice and obedience to its deliverances is 
 the soul's m^ost sacred privilege and obligation ; and then, in 
 view of the conflicting opinions and practices which were sure 
 to follow from the fact that conscience exhibits different 
 degrees of enlightenment and loyalty in different men, they 
 have gone on to contradict their own lesson by demanding 
 and enforcing uniformity. Luther, who broke away from 
 Rome in the strength of his own private conviction of right 
 which would suffer him to "do no other," could not endure 
 that men, following the same inward gleam, should break away 
 from himself, or from the Church which he persuaded the 
 State to establish and defend. Calvin, having refonned 
 the Chiu-ch after what seemed to his own interpreting 
 
INTRODUCTION". xix 
 
 reason the true Scriptural pattern, straightway made sub- 
 mission to it compulsory where he had the power ; and, 
 where his personal authority did not reach, made his 
 disciples no less eager than himself to employ the secular 
 arm in putting down Dissent. The framers of the BngUsh 
 Church, themselves schismatics from the rest of Christ- 
 endom on grounds which they defended as intrinsically 
 reasonable, so involved their Church with the State that 
 refusal to obey its ordinances could be construed as a political 
 crime and the recusant be punished as a felon or traitor. 
 And even Barrow, clamant though he was for the inviolable 
 rights of his own conscience, could not quite see that the 
 liberty to render unreserved obedience to what he took to 
 be the will of Christ was a liberty which must be granted 
 to every man ; that to require the Prince to " clear the 
 ground " of error and " compel " men to hear the truth, 
 however clear and certain the truth might be, was to call for 
 the infliction on others of the very wrongs under which he 
 himself was suffering. 
 
 Thus it is that the history of Protestantism has been 
 largely a history of intestine strife, flaming out often in 
 persecuting violence. We are told that such strife and 
 violence are a natural and inevitable product of the individual- 
 istic principle ; that when you commit men to the guidance of 
 their own conscience the difEerences thence arising cannot but 
 lead to angry contention. But, in fact, the proper issue of 
 the principle is tolerance, not contention. For as soon as you 
 name conscience you name a tribunal where God and God 
 alone can be judge. To God and God alone can the individual 
 be answerable for the opinions at which he arrives, and for 
 the process through which he reaches them. How far he is 
 honest and sincere God alone can say. If he is honest and 
 you compel him to speak or act otherwise than he beheves, you 
 bring him under the condemnation of Paul, that " Whatsoever 
 is not of faith is sin." If he is dishonest, to his own Master 
 
XX mTEODUCTION. 
 
 he standeth or falleth. His difPerence from you may be due, 
 as you plainly see, to his mistake ; and you may fairly use the 
 instruments of persuasion to bring him into your fuller light. 
 But you are bound to respect the sanctity of his plea that as 
 yet he "can do no other"; and so the selfsame appeal to 
 conscience which is the ground of difPerence is the ground 
 likewise of forbearance and charity. 
 
 It is, however, far easier to recognise the truth of a 
 principle than to comprehend its scope. Ages may be needed 
 to evolve in men generally the power to see, and the courage 
 to apply, all its implications. And as regards the principle 
 under consideration, the hindrances to courage and vision 
 have been specially great. Chief among them, perhaps, has 
 been the presumed necessity to confront the discredited 
 authority of a Church with an authority equally visible and 
 more obviously Divine. Hence the dogma of an infallible 
 Book and the war-cry — " the Bible and the Bible only is 
 the religion of Protestants." No doubt the results of the 
 change, in some directions, have been good, and certainly have 
 been effectual for controversy. But, in relation to the 
 individual conscience, it has worked disastrously. Had 
 Scriptvire and conscience been allowed to co-operate freely in 
 mutual and sympathetic alhance ; had Scripture been suffered 
 to speak for itself and conscience to judge for itself, the 
 former would have revealed its truth to the latter with 
 continually -in creasing clearness, and the latter would have been 
 trained to disciiminate with ever finer insight between the chaff 
 and the wheat, between the relative and essential in the former. 
 Then, too, the age-long antagonism between the natural and 
 the revealed, between the claims of reason and the claims of 
 faith, could scarcely have arisen. For who speaks of antagonism 
 between light and the eye, or between music and the ear ? 
 
 In particular, the Christian conscience would have come 
 to see that the doctrine of the Church, though important, is 
 a derivative of something more important still ; that the 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxi 
 
 Church cannot be an end in itself, but is subordinate to a 
 greater end ; that, therefore, the merits of a Church must lie 
 not in the degree of its conformity to all the details of a 
 fancied " pattern given in the Mount," but in the measure of 
 its adaptation to the purpose it was designed to serve. Thus 
 the Church as a subject of contention for its own sake would 
 have passed out of sight. But the dogma of an infallible Book, 
 by expunging distinctions of great and small, made this — inter 
 edia — impossible. Everything in Scripture, and therefore its 
 references to the Church, must be on the same plane of 
 importance ! An exact " description of the visible Church " 
 must be there ; and being there must be discovered ; and being 
 discovered must be copied; and being copied by the few to 
 whom its features have been unveiled must be substituted, if 
 necessary by force, for less perfect models ! Such an 
 assumption could not fail to entangle the mind with vain 
 scruples, as Barrow's case will show. 
 
 II. Thus it would appear that, in view of the historic con- 
 ditions, controversy about the Church has been inevitable. 
 And now it remains to give reasons for believing that Barrow 
 witnessed for " a conception of the Church " which is in closer 
 harmony than any other " with its essential principle." After 
 what has been said, we shall not be suspected of holding a brief 
 for Barrow. But we speak of the ideal which, more or less 
 clear to his own mind, began to take shape in his practical 
 directions, and has been winning its way to fuller expression 
 ever since. And ideals are far from worthless. " Human life 
 and conduct are affected by ideals in the same way that they 
 are affected by the example of eminent men. Neither the one 
 nor the other are immediately applicable to practice, but there 
 is a virtue flowing from them which tends to raise individuals 
 above the common routine of society or trade, and to elevate 
 States above the mere interests of commerce or the necessities 
 of self-defence." 1 So, too, the ideal of the Church as con- 
 1 Jowett's Introduction to the " Eepnblic," p. 229. 
 
TLJiii INTEODUCTION. 
 
 ceived by Barrow has not been found immediately applicable ; 
 iit has encountered many strong impediments from the dull 
 " actual " ; but, at the same time, there has been a virtue flow- 
 ing from it which has imparted to the majority of Congrega- 
 tional churches an elevated aim, has made them contributory 
 to the best life of city and State, has always quickened them to 
 newness of aspiration and endeavour when they have become 
 cold and dead. 
 
 What, then, was Barrow's ideal? Substantially it was 
 -the Apostle Paul's : " A glorious Church, not having spot 
 or wrinkle or any such thing "... a Church "built 
 upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus 
 Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone : in whom each 
 several building fitly framed together groweth into a holy 
 temple iii the Lord " ; a Church which is the "body of Christ," 
 ^' fitly framed together through that which every joint sup- 
 plieth, according to the working in due measure of each several 
 part," and so making " increase of the body unto the building 
 of itself in love." In a recent article it has been said that " he 
 who would know the mind of the ever-living glorified Redeemer, 
 our Lord and our King, our Priest and our Head, should use 
 all these terms " which are applied to the Church, such as the 
 Kingdom of God, the people of Grod, the vine of Grod, the flock 
 of God, the city of God, the house or temple of God, the house- 
 hold or family of God, the spouse and body of Christ ; and should 
 " endeavour to construct them into a harmonious and sym- 
 metrical whole. There is in such a method much fruit for the 
 future use of Christ's Church. "^ This is really what 
 Barrow aimed to do. " Most joyful, excellent, and glorious 
 things are everywhere in the Scriptures spoken of this 
 "Church. It is called the city, house, temple, and motmtain 
 of the eternal God, the chosen generation, the holy nation, 
 the peculiar people, the vineyard, the garden enclosed, the 
 
 ' Article on " The New Testament Brigge, D.D., in American Journal of 
 Doctrine of the Church," by Cbas. A. Theology, January, 1900. 
 
INTEODUCTION. xxiii 
 
 spring shut up, the sealed fountain, the orchard of pome- 
 granates with sweet fruits, the heritage, the Kingdom of 
 Christ, yea. His sister. His love, His spouse. His queen, 
 and His body ; the joy of the whole earth.''^ And it should be 
 noted that when he speaks of the Church he includes the 
 churches. For he had learned from Paul that " the churches 
 are the local embodiments of the Church ; the distribution of 
 the one into many is purely geographical. The unity remains 
 unaffected. There is no other Chvirch of God."^ Moreover, 
 this Church though ideal is not invisible — is not what is 
 known as "the Church mystical, the mystical body of Christ," 
 which " cannot be distinguished or reckoned up or circum- 
 scribed by man."5 He rightly held that the distinction 
 between visible and invisible has no New Testament support, 
 and did not emerge until the Church, having corrupted itself, 
 sought an excuse for its degraded state and for the continuance 
 of it. What is the visible Church ? asks Hooker. " Plain and 
 large," he answers : * " All who own Christ as Lord and 
 embrace the faith He published, and have been baptized, are 
 members of His visible Church. They may be impious, 
 idolatrous, heretical, wicked, excommunicate, and stiU, if they 
 have these three notes, if thus they are by external profession 
 Christians, they belong to the Chm-ch." What then of 
 the New Testament description? So far as it is allowed 
 any present force, it must belong to the Church invisible, 
 is the answer. Not so, says Barrow. 'On the contrary. 
 It is an ideal toward which the true visible Church is 
 incited, by its very constitution, perpetually to advance. 
 It is, therefore, the condemnation of the Chiirch as you 
 understand it that, by contentedly enfolding all sorts of the 
 unworthy, it surrenders the ideal and renders such advance 
 impossible.' 
 
 ' A True Description of tlie Visible ^ Dean Paget's Tntroduotiou to the 
 
 Churoh. See Appendix iv. Fifth Book of Hooker's "Eocleaiastioal 
 
 2 Article " Church " in Encyclo- Polity," p. 106. 
 
 p»dia Biblioa. •* Ditto, p. 107. 
 
xxiv INTEODUCTION. 
 
 "We will note two central elements of Barrow's doctrine 
 which make for the ideal. 
 
 i. It holds by what we have already indicated as a main- 
 spring of the Reformation. In other words, it secures his 
 indefeasible spiritual rights to the individual. Individualism 
 has been called an entirely disintegrating principle. And so it 
 is, if it be taken to stand for the tendency to separate from the 
 fellowship of others on the ground simply of private opinion or 
 taste or caprice. In this sense individualism is hostile not only 
 to the Church, but to any society whatever. Those who enter 
 into social relations must be prepared to accept some standard of 
 opinion, action, or life in common. Anarchy is the alternative. 
 But still a society becomes a tyranny if it seeks to cancel the 
 individual as such ; if it strips him of all personal worth ; if it 
 requires him to forget that he has a mind or soul of his own and 
 to live for itself alone. Nay, the nearer such a society comes 
 to success the nearer it comes to being an absolute curse. In 
 the very process of annulling the individual it annuls its own 
 power of doing any public good. In fact, the individual is prior 
 and superior to the society. He does not exist for it, but it for 
 him. In the family, for example, the means are social, the end 
 is individual. It best achieves its purpose when authority and 
 obedience are partners in service, when each member of the 
 household lives for aU, and all for each, so that their several 
 personalities may be not only conserved, but developed and 
 enriched. And the family is a type for other societies. It is a 
 type, we may say, to which humanity itself will conform when 
 the more mechanical bonds which unite men have done their 
 work and been transcended. 
 
 Why should the Church be an exception? Certainly 
 Christ did not depreciate the individual. Quite the con- 
 trary. He assumed and honoured in every man a power 
 of reason and conscience. He aimed to elicit its spon- 
 taneous activity. He encouraged private judgment. He called 
 for acts of faith which should be intelligent and free. He 
 
INTEODUCTION. 
 
 XXV 
 
 trained His disciples by methods and influences which were all 
 calculated to disengage and educate latent capacities. He even 
 based His summons to self-sacrifice on the fact that the self to- 
 be lost and won through sacrifice was of greater value than 
 the whole world. " The Gospel everywhere individualises men 
 as if one single human soul were valuable enough in the eye of 
 God to accoimt for Calvary, as if Christ would have died to' 
 save one solitary individual man.''^ And if at the very moment 
 of revealing and exalting the individual He claims his undivided 
 allegiance ; if He liberates him from other masters only to lay 
 upon him the yoke of His ovm authority, it is still in the name 
 of truth, and because He is conscious of Himself as " the 
 Light which lightens every man that cometh into the 
 world." 
 
 We can be sure, then, that if He founded a Church He 
 would not sacrifice the individual to the society. He would wish 
 it to consist of free men — men drawn together by a common 
 devotion to Himself, by a common purpose to learn and do His 
 will, by a common enthusiasm for Christian service. He would 
 wish the individual to be at one with the society in all things 
 possible ; to defer, as far as might be, to its control ; to rever& 
 the legitimate claims of those whom it might choose for rulers 
 and teachers ; to cast his special gift of nature or grace into- 
 the treasury of its life. But He would also wish the society to 
 remember that the individual must be treated as a being 
 related directly to Himself, called to live and think and act 
 in the Hght of his own conscience, accountable for the making 
 of his own character and the working out of his own salvation. 
 And this, we find, is what He actually did. He laid the first 
 stone of His Church in the voluntary faith of one man. In 
 virtue of a like faith He added to its foundation the other 
 apostles. It was the same formative principle which, under 
 their direction, governed the upbuilding of the earliest Chris- 
 tian communities. These all consisted of "living stones," free- 
 ' Allen's Christian Institutions, p. 157. 
 
xxvi INTEODUCTION. 
 
 *' slaves" of Christy self -dedicated personalities — men whose 
 union with the Church, whose respect for its ordinances, 
 whose participation in its labours were acts which expressed 
 a spontaueous submission to the one Lord. He alone was the 
 Master. To Him alone they stood or fell. To win resem- 
 blance to Him was their aim. As the Church helped 
 them to this and gave them scope for helping others to 
 this, it was good. If it grew into an institution which 
 hindered this, who can doubt that the first disciples would 
 have pronounced it bad? In other words, individual per- 
 fection, promoted through the influence of mutual edification, 
 was the Church's law. 
 
 Barrow, then, did but revert to the primitive type when 
 he defines the Church as " a faithful people gathered 
 by the Word unto Christ, and submitting themselves to 
 Him in all things " ; and goes on to say that " all the 
 members have a like interest in His Word and in the 
 faith. They altogether make one body unto Him. All the 
 affairs of the Church belong to that body together. All the 
 actions of the Church be the actions of them all jointly and of 
 every one of them severally. . . . All the members are 
 jointly bound unto edification and unto all other helps or 
 service they may do unto the whole. All are charged to watch, 
 exhort, admonish, stir up, reprove, &c., and hereunto have the 
 power of our Lord Jesus, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, 
 «ven the Word of the Most High." 
 
 And such a Chiu'ch, we say, makes for the ideal. For 
 what is contemplated is a community which shall really answer 
 to the apostle's figure of a living body where head and hand 
 and foot are alike honourable, alike necessary, alike subservient 
 to the health and growth of the whole organism. Indeed, the 
 result would be a community of the kind toward which aU who 
 understand man's nature and needs are directing thought and 
 ■effort, with whatever phase of associated human endeavour 
 they are concerned — a community combining the achievement 
 
INTEODUCTION. xxvii 
 
 of its own specific purpose with the production of a rich and 
 varied individual life. 
 
 We are stating what the idea of Congregationalism 
 demands — not, of course, what all its churches have attained. 
 Probably few have done more than follow it afar ofE. But with 
 full allowance for practical shortcoming, it might be easy to 
 show that a chief glory of the Congregational Church has been 
 its ability to develop full-grown men ; men disciplined both to 
 serve and rule ; men quick to read the signs of the time ; men 
 made wise, by constant use of the spiritual sense, to discern 
 what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. 
 Obviously such men could not live to themselves. They have 
 taken their place and fulfilled their calling in the circles of 
 business, society, and the State, as well as in their own little 
 brotherhood. What these departments of human activity have 
 owed to them can seldom, perhaps, be traced. But their con- 
 tribution to the streams of so-called secular life has never failed 
 to reinforce its elements of integrity, energy, enterprise, and 
 enlightenment. In a recent address Dr. Mackennal mentioned, 
 as one illustration of this, the large proportion of men trained 
 in Congregational churches who were found ready to take up 
 the burden and discharge the duties of municipal life when, in 
 the early decades of the present century, local self-government 
 was so rapidly extended. As our churches become more alive and 
 loyal to their ideal, it will be seen that the nation has reaped little 
 more, in this respect, than the first-fruits of a noble harvest. 
 
 ii, Barrow's doctrine demands the spirituality of the 
 Church. AVTiat makes the Church spiritual ? One answer is 
 given by the Sacerdotalists. They tell us that the notes of 
 spirituality are two, priesthood and the Sacraments — a priest- 
 hood rightly ordained, and the Sacraments rightly administered. 
 Here the organs of spiritual grace are a clerical order ; its 
 channels are narrowly defined ; its recipients are mere laymen. 
 Admit this, and the door is opened to all the evils with which 
 the name priest has become associated. 
 
xxviii INTEODUCTION. 
 
 We turn for an answer to Christ, and He tells us that 
 the Church is spiritual in a real sense through the- 
 possession of His own Spirit ; and that His Spirit is a 
 gift which aU its members may — nay, must receive, if the- 
 privileges promised to the Church are to be enjoyed, or- 
 the duties expected from it are to be discharged. He is thfr 
 Vine, they are the branches. Union between Him and them 
 is a personal relation mediated, not by priest or Sacrament, but 
 by a sustained exercise of faith. There is no corporate relation 
 which supersedes the personal. It is the personal which 
 precedes and conditions the corporate. The Church is dead, so 
 far as its branches are dead. Theii* several measures of life- 
 blend to form its fulness. 
 
 We turn to the earliest Christian societies, and we note at 
 once that of priest and Sacrament word there is none, but 
 that apostle, elder, deacon, and the whole company of believers, 
 were of one heart and mind, were of a new heart and mind,, 
 because all alike had been endowed with the one spirit of lov& 
 and truth. 
 
 We turn to Paul, and we find that for him all the members 
 of a Church are called to be saints ; that the Church as a whole 
 is a sanctuary of God ; that to each one is given the manifes- 
 tation of the Spirit to profit withal ; that he has all the 
 " saints " in mind when he prays that the Father " would grant 
 you, according to the riches of His glory, that ye may be 
 strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inward 
 man . . ." So we see that there is no room in the Church 
 for a priestly caste, and that it was not presumption on 
 Barrow's part, as Dr. Andrews thought, when he, a layman, 
 claimed to have " the same Spirit with the apostles," though 
 not in equal measure yet " in that measure that God hath im- 
 parted unto me " ; and that he was right to declare " the 
 people of Christ are all enlightened. To them and every one of 
 them God hath given His holy sanctifying Spirit to open unto 
 them, and to lead them into, all the truth ; to them He hath 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxix 
 
 .-given His Son to be their King, Priest, and Prophet, who hath 
 made them unto Him kings and priests." 
 
 Moreover it should be emphasized that this demand for the 
 true spirituahty of the Church is not a minor point. Much 
 depends upon it. In particular, the capacity of the Church to 
 ■accomplish its true work depends upon it. For its true work is 
 not, as the Sacerdotal theory would insist, to furnish a 
 formal guarantee to trusting soids of spiritual safety 
 here and hereafter. Its true work is twofold. It is, on the one 
 hand, to perfect holiness in the sight of God within itself. It is, 
 on the other, to be an agency for the salvation of the world. 
 " By the Christian Church," says Arnold of Rugby, " I mean 
 that provision for the communicating, maintaining, and 
 •enforcing of this knowledge {i.e., the knowledge of Grod in Christ), 
 by which it was to be made influential, not in individuals, 
 but in masses of men. This provision consisted in the forma- 
 tion of a society, which by its constitution should be capable 
 of acting both within itself and vdthout, having, so to speak, 
 a twofold movement, the one for its outward advance, the other 
 for its inward life and puriiication ; so that Christianity should 
 be at once spread widely and preserved the while in its proper 
 truth and vigour, till Christian knowledge should be not only 
 communicated to the whole world, but be embraced also in its 
 •original purity, and bring forth its practical fruit."^ Arnold 
 wrote as the advocate of a comprehensive National Church, but 
 his words might have come from a Congregationalist. And, 
 indeed, he would have agreed to the inference which they 
 suggest, that the efficiency of the Church for its twofold purpose 
 must be in direct proportion to its real spirituality. 
 
 Cromwell wished to beat the King's troops. But at his 
 *' first going out " he saw that the Parliamentary forces "were 
 beaten on every hand." He showed his friend John Hampden 
 the reason. " Your troops," said he, " are most of them 
 old decayed serving-men and tapsters, and such kind of fellows, 
 ' Fragment on the " Church," p. 4. 
 
XXX INTEODUCTION. 
 
 and their troops are gentlemen's sons. Do you think that the 
 spirits of such base and mean fellows will ever be able to 
 encounter gentlemen that have honour and courage and resolu- 
 tion in them ? You must have men of a spirit that will go on 
 as far as gentlemen will go." Hampden thought it " a good 
 notion, but an impracticable one." CromweU said he thought 
 he could do " somewhat," and before long he had " two thousand 
 brave men, well disciplined. No man swears, but he pays his 
 twelve pence ; if he is drunk he is set in the stocks, or worse ; 
 the countries where they come leap for joy of them, and come 
 in and join with them." Nor were they " ever beaten." 
 
 When we come to the passages in Barrow which burn with 
 what may seem an excessive zeal for discipline, it will help us 
 to do him justice if we remember that their inspiring motive 
 was a sentiment very similar to CromweU's, He beheld the 
 Church beaten on every hand. He realised that it could never 
 be otherwise, until the Church ceased to compromise with the 
 enemy, and became whole-hearted. He therefore urged that 
 the Church should be reformed on a new basis or model. The 
 principle of selection should be a passionate devotion to the 
 cause of Christ. Those who did not make conscience of this, 
 who were not heart and soul with Christ, should be excluded or 
 rejected. All care and watchfulness should be iisedto keep up 
 the first enthusiasm, to keep the sacred fire ever burning, to 
 increase faith and love and a good courage. To this end imited 
 prayer, mutual exhortation, preaching and teaching, the commun- 
 ion of the Lord's Supper, and every other " means of grace " com- 
 mended by the Word, or approved by experience, should be faith- 
 fully employed. Everybody in connection with the Church 
 should be bent on the supreme end of sustaining his own and 
 the Church's spiritual vigour. And thus would the Church 
 become an instrument in the Lord's hand, charged with 
 irresistible force for the "casting down of strongholds," and 
 the establishment of His kingdom throughout the earth. 
 
 We can afford to admit that this new model did not prove 
 
INTEODUCTION. xxxi 
 
 a success in its first embodiments. Anj one inclined to vote it 
 " impracticable " might well deem his opinion confirmed by the 
 story of the Church in London or Amsterdam. The failure 
 was a natural consequence, partly of the strange conditions 
 under which the venture was made, partly of the defective 
 spiritual intelligence which rendered it so difiicult for the 
 Separatists to distinguish at first the great from the small, the 
 weightier matters of the Gospel from its anise and cummin. It 
 has been said that the American constitution outlines a not far 
 from perfect political state, but that the American people have 
 even yet scarcely found out the way to make the best of it ; 
 and that the first years of their national history were largely a 
 record of mistakes and foUies such as might seem to put it to 
 an open shame. But a wise man does not say so. He considers 
 rather that what is true abides unshaken by human error and 
 folly — nay, that these may be even a stage through which 
 clearer views of the truth are gained and a plainer path to 
 it disclosed. 
 
 So the only question is whether Barrow's new model is the 
 true model ; and if what has been said as to the mission of 
 the Church be admitted there can be but one answer. For 
 as little might a church of unspiiitual persons be expected to 
 spiritualise the world as a diseased body to communicate health. 
 What else did Jesus teach when He said to the new society at 
 its birth, " Te are the light of the world, ye are the salt of the 
 earth " ? What else but a pure church was the subject of His 
 prayer, " I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the 
 world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil " ? 
 What else but a solemn warning against the persistent danger 
 of moral decay was conveyed in the words, " Salt is good, but if 
 the salt have lost its savour wherewith shall it be salted ? It is 
 thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden 
 under foot of men " ? The truth, then, lay with Barrow ; and 
 the failure of his immediate followers, or the repeated failure 
 of their descendants, can be no excuse for surrendering it. 
 
xxxii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Surrender is the worst of failures. No doubt it is a high, 
 «ven a heroic endeavour, to which Congregationalists are 
 dedicated. They are, one may dare to say, the Sir Galahad 
 of the " Table Round," and the " Holy Grail " is far to seek. 
 But what has to be laid to heart is that as soon as they unloose 
 their grasp on the fact that spirituality belongs to the essence 
 of a church and must at all cost be secured, their glory is 
 departed^ the maiii reason and justification of their existence 
 are gone. 
 
 iii. There are two sure consequences of the two principles 
 just stated. One is that Congregationalism, the truer it 
 becomes to its ideal, must be increasingly on the side of intel- 
 lectual progress ; the other is, that it must nourish a spirit of 
 iolerance. 
 
 (a) One of the names Christ gave to Himself was the Truth, 
 and one of the promises He gave to Christians was that through 
 Him a Spirit should come to them and be their guide into all 
 the Truth. No doubt His primary reference was to the truth 
 •enshrined in His own Person, words and life ; the truth about 
 ■God and His saving purpose, and man's spiritual relations to 
 Him ; truth theological and ethical. And in this respect 
 experience has confirmed the promise. The history of the 
 Church is, on the whole, a history of developing power to under- 
 stand and interpret the mind of the Master. " The old 
 analogy of the tree of existence, Ygdrasil, which was daily 
 watered by the Nornen from the fountain at its root, is a true 
 figure of the progressive life of Christianity." Its fulness has 
 never been reached at any one time. Age after age has had its 
 great teachers, its favourite dogmas, its special points of view, 
 and all have added something to the gradual advance ; but if 
 they have claimed finality the claim has been disowned by time. 
 Whole systems of faith which aimed, and were taken, to be 
 complete have been foxmd too small for expanding 
 knowledge, and have either ceased to be or have had 
 io be transformed. And still the light is breaking in 
 
INTEODUCTION. xxxiii 
 
 from all sides. " The progress of civilisation, the increase of 
 secular knowledge, the influence of art and industry, the spread- 
 ing of the people of the earth over its surface, the growth of 
 political and social institutions," all are found to have some part 
 to bear in the unfolding of Christian truth. They " give it 
 forms of thought, modes of application," or they " expand its 
 meaning." But the promise of a revealing Spirit cannot be 
 confined to truth specifically Christian. It is a promise related 
 to truth generally, however it may come to light, or whatever 
 may be its character. The guidance which widens and clears 
 the thoughts of men in their study of history and the physical 
 universe, of human life and its conditions, of the ultimate 
 realities that are the problem of philosophy, is always Divine. 
 Science in every form, so far as it means real knowledge, 
 depends for its progress on " the inspiration of the Almighty " 
 which " giveth man understanding." His success in discover- 
 ing the true origins of the earth, the actual constitution of the 
 heavens, the law of gravitation, the fact and scope of evolution, 
 is at bottom a process of revelation. It is the product of the 
 reason in man, co-operating with the Eternal Reason, the Word, 
 the X6yo<;, which is active alike in man and his world. Its 
 claim, therefore, to be welcomed — at least, by Christians — is 
 imperative. Contradiction between it and the mind of Christ 
 can never be more than seeming. 
 
 It is well when there is nothing in the constitution 
 of a church that need hinder the recognition of this 
 fact. And, ideally, such is the case with a Congregational 
 church. Given a church whose members are all free, and 
 pledged, to consult the will of Christ ; to study His mind ; to 
 keep an open door to the breath of His Spirit, and have 
 you not here a church which ofBers no internal obstacle 
 to the acceptance of truth ? Nay, have you not here a church 
 urged by the highest motives to seek and pursue it ? Of course, 
 it cannot be denied that many a church nominally Congrega- 
 tional has shown itself the home of stagnation and reaction. 
 
xxxiv INTEODUCTION. 
 
 Nor is the fact surprising when we bear in mind that if 
 once the consciousness of its ideal be lost^ it has no 
 defence. It may then fall under the sway of its own 
 narrowest prejudices. It may submit to be boiuid hand and 
 foot by the clauses of a creed outworn. It may follow the 
 dictation of the loudest voice or the strongest will. It may 
 thus become " a little republic " permeated with the worst 
 spirit of conservatism and intolerance. 
 
 There have been periods in the course of Congregational 
 history when such a calamity, the result of such a loss, has 
 ■seemed to overtake the churches generally. And other 
 causes more creditable have worked sometimes in the 
 same direction. Stagnation and reaction may be the 
 issue, for example, of a great emotional experience like 
 that of the Evangelical revival. EeHgion is spirit and 
 life; it makes its most direct appeal to the conscience 
 and heart; the appeal may be made in the name of a few 
 simple doctrines which attest their practical efficacy by the 
 turning of thousands to repentance and righteousness. Natur- 
 ally, therefore, these doctrines come to be accounted as at once 
 true in themselves and identical with the form through which 
 they have done their work. Moreover, they may come to be 
 accounted as "the sum of saving truth," and whatever lies 
 outside them — the hmidred and one questions which may be 
 raised by speculation, criticism, or science — are eyed askance, 
 are deprecated, are even labelled dangerous. Something like 
 this was the feeling created by that mighty wave of spiritual 
 •enthusiasm which sprang from the preaching of Wesley and 
 Whitefield. Succeeding as it did an age of theological free- 
 thinking combined with spiritual coldness — an age when 
 churches were " schools of philosophic discussion," and when 
 the preacher was almost " constantly employed upon the out- 
 works of religion, proving to people why they ought to believe, 
 and showmg them the legitimate way to arrive at faith, instead 
 •of producing the faith itself in their hearts by appeals to their 
 
INTEODUCTION. xxxv 
 
 inmost convictions and deepest sympathies/'^ we cannot 
 wonder that the moral of the Evangelical movement was 
 taken to be that intellectualism in religion was a snare, that 
 openness of mind was rationalism, that certitude on certain 
 points and a glowing heart were all in all. So it came to pass 
 that when the " glowing heart " had grown cold the " certain 
 points " remained, with a strong prejudice in their favour as the 
 test of orthodoxy. 
 
 The late Dr. Samuel Davidson stood in the wake of this 
 reaction when he was called to pass through his ordeal (1867) 
 at Lancashire College. A few years before (1862) he closed 
 his lectures on " The Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testa- 
 ment " with a chapter on the Congregational system, which is 
 stiU one of its best apologies. Believing its principles, he says, 
 " to b© of heaven and founded on the constitution of man, we 
 look on them as pregnant with the seeds of future success. As 
 reason prevails and the world becomes wiser, they wiU assuredly 
 be exalted in the estimation of thinking men. Every advance 
 in the state of society, every step it takes in enlightenment, is 
 conducive to their growth. In proportion as sovmd sense, free- 
 dom of thought, unfettered conscience, and the study of the 
 Bible prevail, so do we expect the essential advancement of 
 them among men." He does indeed note one lack — the lack of 
 an educated ministry and so of an educated people. " The eye 
 of learning has cast its beautiful, brightening glances but 
 niggardly through the ranks of our ministry." " Our minis- 
 try " is deficient in men who have that " large, sound, round- 
 about sense " which can take a full view of questions connected 
 with the high destinies of man, in lovers of truth wherever it is 
 found, in rational assertors of liberty." But he does not 
 think that this is a fatal objection to the system. It is only ■ 
 one of the many " oppressive influences " which warrant the 
 statement that " the system has never had full room for its 
 inherent strength to move in." His fiery trial, however, in- 
 1 Taylor's " Retrospect of the EeUgious Life of England," p. 258 (2nd Edit. 1876) 
 
ixxviii INTRODUCTIOlSr. 
 
 to this ? Many woiild at once say " Yes." But some may 
 be pardoned if they admit the suggestion of a doubt. It 
 is certainly the case that during recent years there has 
 been much intellectual advance — or, at least, much intellectual 
 moTement. No college committee now would wish to deprive 
 a professor of his Church for expounding and employing 
 the critical methods which, in Dr. Davidson's day, seemed 
 so dangerous. Not a few of his conclusions are now deemed 
 harmless or have even become current coin. Views which 
 fifty years since were supposed to be sapping the foundations 
 of faith are now exerting an unquestioned influence far and 
 wide through pulpit, Bible-class, and press. Nor is Dr. John 
 Hunter singular in his experience that at the present time 
 " intelligent and thoughtful people are generally not slow in 
 welcoming and supporting an honest and bold ministry ; and 
 that the most independent preaching of modern times is found, 
 as a rule, in churches that depend on voluntary support." The 
 signs, indeed, are manifold and manifest that the former frigid 
 orthodoxy is fast breaking up in our churches under the action 
 of a more liberal spirit. But perhaps just this phenomenon, 
 while a reason for thankfulness on the whole, is what may 
 occasion some concern. For the question arises. Whence has 
 come this new freedom and boldness of theological thought ? 
 Has it to any great extent flowed from the contagion of fashion, 
 or from intellectual shallowness, or from a decay of reverence ? 
 All these are possible causes of change, but they are not 
 of a kind to guarantee genuine progress. Genuine progress 
 takes place only when the cause of change is unalloyed love 
 of truth, whether truth new or old; whether truth residing 
 in a doctrine of the fathers, or first put forth in a 
 theory of yesterday. New and old together, fulfilment not 
 destruction, is the law of a true growth as it is the law of 
 Christ. Unintelligent preference for the new as new is no less 
 alien from His mind than blind attachment to the old. In 
 fact, the spring of progress is neither with a stubborn adherent 
 
INTEODUCTION". xxxix 
 
 of the old nor with an easy favourer of the new. It is much rather 
 with him whose convictions of truth, no matter to what 
 they may cleave, are deep and sincere. For in his case it is 
 the truth that is really loved, even though the present object of 
 his devotion should turn out to he false. And where truth 
 is loved the fuller inflow of light is only a matter of time. 
 
 We think of Barrow. He was, we admit, a dogmatist of 
 the dogmatists. But who would deny, remembering what h& 
 suffered and sacrificed, that he had a passion for truth ? With 
 great pains he sought it, with a great price he bought it, and 
 not for the whole world would he consent to sell it. He might, 
 and did to some extent, mistake its sources and signs. He 
 sought it where it could not be found and seemed to find it 
 where it did not exist, but it was for him the one pearl of 
 infinite value. " Grod knows," he cries, " at whose final 
 judgment I look hourly to stand, that I hold not anything in 
 these differences of any singularity or pride of spirit." His 
 most ardent desire is to make sure " whether as men and 
 simple souls we be deceived by any false light, or else as 
 His dear children (for so we hope) honoured and trusted with 
 the first view of, and faithful standing in a cause of holiness and 
 righteousness." Such a temper — earnest, devout, single-eyed — 
 will rise clear of all errors in the end. 
 
 May it not be said of Congregationalists that to such 
 a temper they are specially called ; is it not certain that 
 its result would be that best of blessings, a disciplined 
 reason and conscience, open to every approach of truth, and 
 yet quick to distinguish the gleam that is Divine from the 
 glamour that leads astray ? 
 
 {b) Further, the Congregational idea, so far as realised, 
 cannot but nourish the finest tolerance. There are two 
 stages in the history of tolerance. The first is achieved 
 when the pretensions of the State to control or check the 
 doctrine or life of the Church have been abandoned. The 
 second will be achieved as soon as there has disappeared within 
 
xl INTEODUCTION. 
 
 the Church itself the last trace of a disposition to persecute 
 men for differences of opinion. Congregationalism has borne a 
 conspicuous part in bringing about the former. It ought to be 
 foremost in promoting the latter. For the basis of its unity is 
 not agreement in a system of opinions. We are one with 
 Barrow. But the ground on which we stand side by side with. 
 him, and with those who have upheld the Congregational tradi- 
 tion from his day to our own, is in asserting the sufficiency of 
 personal devotion to Christ, as Prophet, Priest, and King, for 
 the maintenance of the Church, the unfolding of Christian 
 character, the development of faith. And this is more than a 
 mere opinion; it is a principle of life. A thousand defunct 
 trust-deeds tell us how imperfectly the principle has been 
 grasped ; how ready the fathers have been to bind themselves 
 and their children within a meshwork of " sound words." And 
 we may not have learnt even yet how futile as well as incon- 
 sistent are such attempts to lay a dead hand on the vital 
 energies of growth. But there the principle is — the root and 
 centre of all — pleading for full recognition and waiting to be a 
 means of harmony with all Christian souls. For where we 
 differ from other Churches is not in presuming to claim a 
 monopoly of devotion to the common Lord, but in being content 
 to entrust everything to the power and guidance of that 
 devotion. At present other Churches cannot quite agree with 
 us in this respect. They hold their various systems of polity 
 and doctrine to be necessary or at least expedient. It may be 
 a long time before they think otherwise. And, meanwhile, we 
 would not, even if we could, do what Barrow desired — make a 
 clean sweep of such systems that our own simpler and (to us) 
 more spiritual system might take their place. We may believe 
 that the free and natural expression of the Christian life is 
 hindered by them, and by some of them is hindered greatly. 
 But it is not for us to censure or condemn. So far as visible 
 unity is possible, the Spirit of truth, working through experi- 
 ence, will sooner or later bring it to pass. What we must do. 
 
INTEODUCTION". xli 
 
 however, is to withdraw the emphasis from the outward to the 
 inward ; is to insist on the paramount importance of the 
 spiritual relation which we all sustain to Christ compared with 
 the things which divide. 
 
 To declare the fact of this relation, to indicate and 
 welcome its signs, to foster whatever will tend to deepen the 
 sense of it, to exalt it as the central and unchanging basis of 
 communion — this is to make a home for true tolerance, and to 
 clo this belongs, in a special degree, to the calling of a Congre- 
 gational church. 
 
 " The irresistible conviction is winning its way into all 
 «andid and tolerant minds, that the essential spirit of religion 
 may exist under wide theological divergencies ; and that, 
 though good men may differ — and differ greatly — in doctrinal 
 forms of belief, there is something deeper which unites them. 
 The essence of religion is something more catholic than its 
 creeds. The theological schools to which they belong were very 
 far apart, but who can doubt that between the religion of St. 
 Bernard and Thomas a Kempis and Savonarola and Penelon and 
 Pascal, on the one hand, and the religion of Cranmer and 
 Latimer and Jeremy Taylor and Hooker and Leighton, on the 
 other, there was a deep and essential harmony ? In modern 
 times could dogmatic differences be wider than those which 
 separated Newman from Arnold, or the author of ' The Chris- 
 tian Tear ' from Frederick Robertson, or all of these from 
 Chalmers and McCheyne ; yet, can we hesitate to think that 
 there is a something profounder than ecclesiastical and dog- 
 matic differences in which, as religious, as Christian men, these 
 good men were really at one ? And could we say what that 
 something is — call it spiritual life, godliness, holiness, self- 
 abnegation, surrender of the soul to God, or, better still, love 
 and loyalty to Christ as the one only Redeemer and Lord of the 
 spirit — could we, I say, pierce deeper than the notions of 
 the understanding to that strange, sweet, aU-subduing temper 
 and habit of spirit, that climate and atmosphere of heaven in 
 
xlii ESTTEODUCTION. 
 
 a human breast, would not the essence of religion be in that, 
 and not in the superficial distinctions which kept these men 
 apart?"! 
 
 iv. It is plain that in proportion to the clearness with 
 which the essence of Congregationalism is discerned the easier 
 will it be to mark off from it the accidental and allow free play 
 to the latter. 
 
 Brethren among one another ; prophets, priests, and 
 kings toward God ; called to worship Him " with open 
 face," to experience the inspirations of His free Spirit, to 
 exercise self-rule in His fear and love — here is the pith of the 
 matter; and whatever threatens to destroy this must be 
 accounted evil. 
 
 Any encroachment, for example, of a sacerdotal or master- 
 ful spirit demands instant and incessant resistance. It may 
 be expedient that as a rule pubhc worship should be con- 
 ducted and the sacraments administered by one who has 
 been ordained ; but if the custom should lead to a feeling 
 on the part of people or pastor that there is a validity in 
 the spiritual acts of an ordained person which is absent 
 from those by a " layman," then the oftener a " layman " 
 is invited to officiate the better. Indeed, of all Churches 
 the Congregational might be expected to give freest scope 
 to lay agency ; and if it be true that to a great extent 
 the fact is otherwise, it is one of the signs which betray the 
 existence still of a lurking priestly leaven. 
 
 Expediency, then, cannot be made an excuse for customs or 
 changes which limit or lessen the spiritual rights of the people. 
 On the other hand, expediency may be justly pleaded in behalf 
 of whatever custom or change is fitted to preserve and expand 
 those rights, or to make the worship of the Church more 
 edifying, or to render its agencies more effective for realising 
 the will of Christ in relation to the exigencies of time 
 and place. 
 
 • See Caird'a University Sermons, pp. 20-23. 
 
INTEODUCTION. xliii 
 
 " True catholicity," we are told, '' is that Divine quality in 
 the Christian Church which enables it, and indeed forces it, to 
 adapt itself to the changes of time and environment in order 
 the better to fulfil its mission." 
 
 In this sense of catholicity a Congregational church can, 
 if it will, take the lead. Of course, if we were obliged to admit 
 with Barrow that the New Testament has prescribed to the 
 Church a particular copy of what it should be and do for all 
 time and under all circumstances, adaptation would be very 
 difficult. But Barrow was deceived. Christ laid down 
 principles, not rules. The Church as much as the individual 
 is left to deduce the latter from the former, face to face with 
 the pressures of actual need. " Some lay great stress on 
 extemporaneous prayer as though it were a part of Congrega- 
 tionalism, declaiming against liturgies and all prescribed forms, 
 as unscriptural or prelatic. But should a particular church 
 think it right to adopt occasionally written forms of prayer, 
 judging them most conducive to devotional feeling, nothing in 
 the system is opposed to that arrangement. The worshippers 
 may agree to do so or they may not, according to their ideas or 
 experience of subserviency to edification — since the Scriptures 
 determine nothing absolutely on the point."^ So with regard 
 to externals generally. These are very seldom "a part of Con- 
 gregationalism." Sentiment, more or less intelligent, may 
 have attached itself to them, and suggestions of change may 
 cause a shock ; but, if a chm-ch should resolve to modify, or 
 even, perhaps, remove them, it may safely do so, as a rule, 
 without infringing any vital principle ; and conceivably might 
 often do so with an appreciable gain to its spiritual life and 
 service. Even the institution of pastor and deacons, though 
 sanctioned by long usage as an almost exhaustive " formula "' 
 for the ministry, is not "a part of Congregationalism." 
 There is no reason, outside the domain of expediency, why a 
 church should not decide to revive the order of prophets,, 
 1 Davidson's Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament, p. 314. 
 
xliv INTEODUCTION. 
 
 as understood by Barrow; or to add other officials to the 
 traditional two, such as the deaconess, the teacher, or, in 
 some form, the diocesan bishop. 
 
 Still less reason is there, from the point of view of 
 principle, why a church should guard its independency to the 
 extent of lapsing into what has been called " an over- 
 driven individualism." Some time ago a correspondent of 
 The British Weekly declared that " Independency is a prin- 
 ciple of weakness and division, and is contrary to our true 
 relation of dependence on God and on one another." "All 
 our efforts to improve our organisation as Congregationalists 
 have been wrecked on the sandbank of independency." "Let 
 us, then, modify the principle of independency, whilst we 
 maintain the democratic and Christian principle of church 
 government by members." There is wisdom in these words. 
 Independency in the sense of isolation is a principle of 
 weakness. A church is certainly right to guard its own liberty 
 so far as to refuse external dictation and control. But a 
 church starves its best life when it practically builds a wall 
 around itself, and shuts out the free winds of the Spirit which 
 blow across the wide spaces of social life. Churches maintain 
 their vigour, widen their outlook, develop their resources 
 through mutual intercourse, consultation, co-operation for 
 common ends. They are free communities, and may, if they 
 like, manifest their freedom by declining to enter into fellowship 
 or to contribute their units of force to the current of organised 
 effort. But they are also free to do the reverse. There is a 
 limit to the complexity of organisation to which they may con- 
 sent, and it is reached when the tendency to organise begins to 
 be tyrannous. It is a mistake, however, to suppose that organ- 
 ised independency is a contradiction. As a society of free and 
 responsible personalities is the highest, so is an organisation of 
 free and responsible societies. And the promise holds good 
 for churches as for individuals : " Give, and it shall be given 
 unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and 
 
INTEODUCTION. xlv 
 
 running over, shall men give iato your bosom. For with the 
 same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you 
 again." 
 
 V. Barrow was a pioneer, and, as pioneers are apt to do, be 
 sometimes lost his way. But his feet took the right direction. 
 He made no false " discovery " when he set forth the true 
 nature of Christ's " visible Church." Then and now and for 
 ever it must be so, that a society which, by its very idea, 
 exists for the learning and doing of His will, the embodiment 
 of His life, the furtherance of His kingdom, was meant to con- 
 sist of spiritual persons, persons who have " sanctified 
 Him in their hearts as Lord." Barrow both saw this 
 distiactly and, what is more, had the heroic temper 
 which made him obedient to his vision. It may be that we lack 
 his heroic temper even if we have not lost his vision. It may 
 be, in other words, that we confess the truth and beauty of his 
 idea, but are disposed to admit that it is all " too high and good 
 for human nature's daily food." It may be, therefore, that we 
 are content to let go his enthusiasm for a pure Church ; his 
 jealous care to begin, continue, and end its worship and service, 
 its schemes and tasks, by sole reference to the holy wiU of Christ. 
 It may be that we are becoming reconciled to the " practical " 
 conditions of success which demand that members of the Church 
 need not be members of Christ; that the " narrow " distinction 
 between members and seat-holders shall be erased ; that the 
 latter equally with the former shall decide what old-fashioned 
 notions have hitherto reserved for the spiritual judgment of the 
 church-meeting alone ; and that in general the cash-nexus shall 
 be substituted for a communion of saints. It may be that, in 
 some such way as this, the Christocracy of our churches is in 
 danger of passing into a democracy whose votes are guided by 
 taste, or passion, or caprice. But if so, then the issue will 
 surely be that they will remain churches only in name. They 
 may continue to serve a useful purpose as benevolent or social 
 agencies, but they will have degenerated really into clubs with 
 
xlvi INTEODUCTION. 
 
 nothing more distinctive than the habit of keeping a flag 
 waving which, in spirit and truth, they have disowned. 
 
 No ; the call is for a heroic temper. Our churches are 
 summoned to great tasks. One of these is to lead the way in 
 effecting a severance of the legal chains which bind a particular 
 Church to the State. We are to do this on the high ground, and 
 on no other, that the intrusion of political power into the sphere 
 of spiritual life is a fruitfixl source of corruption to the latter. 
 But with what face can we address ourselves to so lofty an argu- 
 ment if, while urging the claims of spiritual religion in one 
 direction, we are ceasing from the effort to maintain them 
 within our own borders ? Can we, in such a case, escape the 
 rebuke : " Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine 
 own eye ; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote 
 out of thy brother's eye." Another task presented to us 
 is that of working toward a time when sectarianism, 
 masking under the name of Christianity, shall no longer 
 be favoured by the State in its treatment of elementary 
 and other day schools. But how can we dare to advocate 
 a scheme of universal secular education if at the same time we 
 are failing to conserve and increase the spiritual energy which 
 more than ever will be needed when the children have to 
 depend for their spiritual training almost exclusively on the 
 Churches ? 
 
 No doubt the heroic temper is hard to win or to keep. It 
 means a readiness on the part of a chui-ch, from the pastor 
 downwards, to forego not a few superficial attractions ; it 
 means concentration on the simplicities of faith and worship ; 
 it means severe self-discipline ; it means patient endeavour to 
 create enthusiasm for a spiritual ideal in all its members, 
 particularly in the young ; it means firm emphasis on Chris- 
 tian character as the requisite for Christian service ; it may 
 mean, consequently, a sacrifice of outward expansion for the 
 sake of inward enrichment. 
 
 But great would be the recompense of the reward. Pos- 
 
INTRODUCTION. xlvii 
 
 sessed of such a temper, our churches would suffer no check to 
 the reality, though they might to the apparent rate, of their 
 progress. 
 
 They would win in power more than they lost in popularity. 
 They would be athrill with a Divine life, and all around 
 would feel its magnetism. They would be, collectively, as 
 Barrow dreamt they might be : "A heavenly army of the 
 saints — marshalled here on earth . . . under the conduct of 
 their glorious Emperor Christ, that Victorious Michael , . . 
 peaceable in itself as Jerusalem, terrible to the enemy as an 
 army with banners, triumphing over their tyranny with 
 patience, (over) their cruelty with meekness, and over death 
 itself with dying." 
 
PART I. 
 Henry Barrow. 
 
What shall we say ? There hath seldom any truth come to light 
 but it hath cost some blood; and that should teach men to lore it 
 the better. Miles Mioklebound (1611). 
 
 Eine Jede Idee tritt als ein fremder Gast in Die Ersoheinnng, 
 und wie sie sioh zu realisiren begiaut, ist sie kaiim von Phantasie 
 nnd Phantasterei zu unteracheiden. 
 
 Goethe, Speuohe in Prosa, 568. 
 
HENRY BARROW. 
 
 Henet BakrowI was a native of Shipdam, Norfolk/ and was 
 born about the year 1550. His mother, Mary Bures, was 
 daughter and co-heiress of Henry Bures, of Acton, Suffolk. 
 His father's name was Thomas, and Henry was the third son. 
 It has been conjectured that Judith Bures, who became the 
 wife of Aylmer, Bishop of London, was a sister of BarroAv's 
 mother, and that so Aylmer was his uncle. This may have 
 been so, and I have found nothing to contradict it. But it is 
 at least strange that no mention of such a relationship occurs 
 in notices of the family. We hear^ of a sister, Anne Bures, 
 who married Edmund Butts, third son of Sir William Butts 
 (of Barrow), chief physician of King Henry VIII. ISTothing, 
 however, is said of the (socially) more important fact that there 
 was another sister, Judith, who married a famous bishop. 
 But if we cannot be quite certain about his relation to Aylmer, 
 there is no doubt that he was related, in a degree, to Lord 
 Bacon. For his cousia Agnes,* daughter of Anne Bures and 
 Edmund Butts, was wife of Sir Nicholas Bacon, of Eedgrave, 
 eldest son of the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, and brother 
 of the great Francis. He was thus, in a very remote degree, 
 related even to Lord Burghley, whose wife, Mildred, was a sister 
 of Anne Cooke (daughter of Sir Anthony Cooke), wife of the 
 Lord Keeper. Lord Bacon, then, may be supposed to have 
 spoken from personal knowledge when he once described 
 
 1 Often spelt Barrowe— and so 1,471 inhabitants. There is another 
 by himself, sometimes, but usually Shipdam in Somerset. 
 
 Barrow. ^ History and Antiquities of Sviffolk. 
 
 By John Gage, p. 26. 
 
 2 Near Thetford ; a village now of ■• Ditto. 
 
4 HENRY BAEEOW. 
 
 Barrow as " a gentleman of a good house." He was connected, 
 indeed, by birth "with many noble and eminent families."! 
 And having said this we have said all there is to say. Barrow 
 himself never refers to his kindred, except once to his father. 
 There is no reference to him in the county histories, though 
 there are references enough to the Barrows. There is no trace 
 of him in any local register or tradition. The " family " would 
 hardly care to keep his memory green as a gibbeted "separa- 
 tist," and other motives for doing so did not exist. Details, 
 therefore, of the kind that usually survive to throw light on the 
 early life of famous men are entirely lacking. We can ascer- 
 tain nothing of the years he spent as child and boy in his 
 father's house. We know that he was one of a large house- 
 hold,^ and we may imagine that its daily character corresponded 
 to that of any other country gentleman's household of the 
 period. But we get no answer when we ask what he was in 
 appearance, what schooling he received, what influence his 
 parents — especially his mother — had upon him, how he fared 
 among his brothers and sisters. The book of his history is a 
 blank till we turn the page at the year 1566 and find him at 
 Cambridge. Here he matriculated at Clare Hall as a fellow 
 commoner on November 22^ ; and here he graduated B.A. in 
 1569-70. The four years between are again a blank. Of his 
 conduct as man and student we can only guess. But Lord 
 Bacon's allusion to his " vain and libertine youth " suggests a 
 
 ' Strype's words (Aylmer's Life, " S, two swords in Saltare A, hilted 0, 
 
 p. 174), said in connection with Judith a bordure gobony, A and G." 
 
 Btires, wife of Aylmer. Strype ^ rpi^g gjji](jj.g„ ^gj.e_«(]^) rj^jj^j^jg^g^ 
 
 mentions Joan, a daughter of Robert (2) William, (3) Henry, (4) Edward, 
 
 Biires, who married (]) Thomas King, (5) John, (6) Ann, (7) Bridget, (8) 
 
 (2) Sir John Buck; "From which Elizabeth."— Harleian MSS., 5,189, 
 
 match or matches sprang many noble p. 31. 
 
 and eminent families of the Mordaunts, ^ Quijam Henricus Barrowe aulae 
 
 Barrows, Bacons, Bucks, &c." There clar conv j admissus est in Matriculam 
 
 was also a Henry Bures, who married Acad., Cant., Nov. 22-23, An. 1566. 
 
 Anne, daughter of Sir George Walde- Alter Hen. Barrowe Coll. C.C. (Corpus 
 
 grave, of Smalbridge. Judith may Ohristi) Conv. 2, admiss. in Matric. 
 
 have been a daughter of this Robert Acad., Cant , Mar. 15, 18, An. 1577.— 
 
 or Henry. Barrow's coat-of-arms was Harleian MSS., 7,042, 57 (34). 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 5 
 
 strong suspicion of misspent days whicli is confirmed by 
 Barrow's own words. His tone in speaking of the Universities 
 has a personal ring in it, and is always hostile or scornful. He 
 ridicules the notion that such places could possibly produce 
 good ministers, whether you take good to mean rightly 
 instructed or truly religious. You see, he exclaims, what kind 
 of men are actually ia possession of Church offices, and " if the 
 tree be knowen by the fruit," then " let the religion and 
 priestes of the land show what kind of seminaries and colledges 
 these Universities are." His own experience, indeed, had 
 revealed them to him as " a miscellaneous rout of very young 
 men, for the most part, and boys together, leading their lives 
 in vanity, folly, idleness ; living neither in the fear of God nor 
 in any well-established order of the Church, neither in any law- 
 ful calling in the commonwealth. "^ They are "the seminaries 
 of Anti-Christ, the bane of the Church, the corruption of all 
 youth in the land."^ There is exaggeration here, no doubt, as 
 there is in Travers's even stronger description of the different 
 colleges of Cambridge as " the haunts of drones, the abodes of 
 sloth and luxury, monasteries whose inmates yawn and snore 
 rather than colleges of students ; trees not merely sterile but 
 diffusing a deadly miasma aU around."' The case was not so 
 bad as this. Against so " gloomy " and " morose " a picture 
 one needs to weigh a contrasted statement like that of Eichard 
 Cox, Bishop of Ely,'* that there is an " abundant crop of pious 
 young men" ia the two Universities; and of Whitgift that 
 " Cambridge alone had turned out fully 450 competent 
 preachers since the beginning of Elizabeth's reign."^ But the 
 case was bad enough. When, e.g., Dr. Caius— founder of the 
 college which bears his name — visited Cambridge in 1558, he 
 
 1 Discovery of the False Cturoh, ■* In letter to MuUinger (1568), 
 p. 175-6. quoted by the latter's namesake as 
 
 2 Plain Refutation of Mr. Gifford, above. 
 
 p_ 224. ° In letter to Archbishop Parker a 
 
 ^ 1574, quoted by Mullinger in few months before the latter's death. 
 History of Cambridge, p. 263. 1574. 
 
6 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 deplored the disappearance of " the poor, modest, diligent 
 student of former times, with narrow means but lofty aims, 
 rising before dawn to commence his studies, living on scanty 
 fare, reverently dofiing his cap in the streets and courts to the 
 grey seniors, among whom he found his best friend and coim- 
 sellor." The undergraduates no longer "spent their pocket- 
 money on books " ; their minds were no longer given to study. 
 Money and mind alike were " devoted to dress and the adorn- 
 ment of their chambers. They wandered about the town, 
 frequenting taverns and wine-shops ; their nether garments 
 were of gaudy colours ; they gambled and ran into debt."^ 
 And Clare Hall is noted as a specially troublesome haunt of 
 misiTile. It was one of the three colleges which " took up 
 most time " when in 1649 governmental commissioners made a 
 visit of enquiry, and issued statiites forbidding students to 
 freqiient "fencing-schools " and " dicing-taverns," to "wander 
 about the town," or to play cards except at Christmas.^ We 
 get a ghmpse at what was popular in the colleges in the follow- 
 ing. The students wished to hold up a mirror to the magnates 
 of the town in which they might see their weaknesses duly 
 featured. So they were induced, under some flattering pre- 
 text, to attend the performance of a " merry (but abusive) " 
 comedy called " Club Law." The performance took place in 
 Clare Hall, and the students made a ring around the mayor, 
 his brethren, and their wives, riveting them in whilst " some 
 town privacies " were being " lively personated " before them.^ 
 Yet Clare HaU is described as " that ancient and rehgious 
 house." Its fellows were all theologians. It was founded 
 expressly for the study of God's Word. And a scheme, by 
 which it and Trinity were to be dissolved in order to form a 
 college for the study of civil law, met with indignant and 
 effectual resistance, particularly on the part of Bishop Eidley, 
 the martyr, because it was " a very sore thing " and " a great 
 
 ' Quoted by Mullinger, pp. 94-96. ■' Mullinger, p. 430. 
 
 ■ Mullinger, p. 113. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 7 
 
 scandal " to divert a college from the study of God's to the 
 study of man's laws ! ^ 
 
 Barrow, then, may have had no reason to think of Camhridge 
 gratefully .2 He may well have contracted there those tastes and 
 habits, which earned for him the reputation of being " licentious 
 and a gamester " in London. Was it in London that he spent 
 the six years between his leaving Cambridge and his entering at 
 Gray's Lm? We should like to know, but we can only suppose 
 it likely. He seems never to have been without money; his 
 temper and tendencies would natm-ally incline him to the 
 freedom and gaiety of city life; and the fact of there being 
 about the Queen one or more whom he might consider friends 
 or kinsmen would open his way to a footing at Court. 
 Anyhow, he did "follow the Court," and got no good. No 
 good was to be got at Ehzabeth's Court, so far as character was 
 concerned. The Queen herself, however serious in her state- 
 craft, was given over to vanity in social life. Her favours were 
 the guerdon, not of merit, but of flattery ; or, of a " fine personal 
 appearance and elegant manners." Christopher Hatton, e.g., 
 a young student of the Inns of Court, attracted the Queen's 
 attention by his elegant dancing at a masque. He left the 
 study of law, and became a courtier. In due time he was 
 rewarded by no less an office than that of Lord Chancellor." 
 Such examples of capricious advancement were food for the 
 hopes of many a brilliant youth. Perhaps Barrow was one of 
 them — neglecting study, pursuing pleasure, dreaming of some 
 happy time which should lift him to honom-. Perhaps, too, the 
 bitterness of disappointment which Spenser describes was his : — 
 
 To feed on hope, to pine with feare and sorrow, 
 To fret thy soul with crosses and with cares, 
 To eate thy heart through comfortlesse despaires ; 
 To f awne, to crouche, to waite, to ride, to roune, 
 To spend, to give, to want, to be undonne. 
 
 1 Mullinger, pp. 134-6. Divinity have brought it."— Mul- 
 
 2 Robert Browne also speaks of that linger, p. 300. 
 
 "woful state of Cambridge whereunto ■* Macaulay's Essay on Lord Bur- 
 
 those wicked prelates and Doctors of leigh. 
 
8 HENEY BARROW". 
 
 Barrow could do nothing by halves. His passions were strong, 
 and equally strong was the wiU which directed them. When 
 he turned to the right way he trod it with impetuous haste. So 
 long as he gave himself to the wrong he gave himself altogether. 
 But, in such cases, the pleasures of sin are apt to be short-lived. 
 The more eagerly they are devoured the sooner they begin to 
 turn into " apples of Sodom." Disgust and weariness lay hold 
 on the heart — driving it, at first, to worse excesses ; but leading 
 at length to deeper reactions of secret shame and remorse. 
 Thus the " way of the Lord " is prepared ; and His Spirit, 
 working through some seemingly accidental circumstance, may 
 win an easy victory. Is not this the right point of view from 
 which to read the story of Barrow's conversion ? " Walking in 
 London one Lord's day with one of his companions, he heard a 
 preacher very loud as they passed by the church. Upon which 
 Mr. Barrowe said unto his consort, 'Let us go in and hear 
 what this man saith that is thus earnest.' ' Tush,' saith the 
 other, ' What ! shall we go to hear a man talk ? ' But in he 
 went, and sat down. And the minister was vehement in 
 reproving sin, and sharply applied the judgments of God against 
 the same, and it should seem, touched him to the quick in such 
 things as he was guilty of, so as God set it home to his soul, 
 and began to work for his repentance and conviction thereby, 
 for he was so stricken as he could not be quiet, until, by 
 conference with godly men, and further hearing of the Word, 
 with diligent reading and meditation, God brought peace to his 
 soul and conscience, after much humiliation of heart and 
 reformation of life. So he left the Court and retired himself to 
 a private life, sometime in the country and sometime in the 
 wty, giving himself to study and reading of the Scriptures and 
 ether good works very diligently ; and being missed at Court by 
 his consorts and acquaintances, it was quickly hinted abroad 
 that Barrow was turned Puritan. "^ Friends and acquaintances 
 were astonished at the sudden change. " He made a leap from 
 
 ' Young's Chronicles, p. 434. 
 
HENEY BARROW. 9 
 
 a vain and libertine youth to a preciseness in the highest 
 degree, the strangeness of which alteration made him very much 
 spoken of."i 
 
 No man had seemed farther from virtue than he, or less 
 likely to turn Puritan. So Paul had seemed the last man 
 likely to turn Christian. But if the Balm of Gilead be 
 offered to a conscience already sore wounded by kicking 
 against the pricks, little wonder if it yield itself gladly to be 
 healed. 
 
 In his first examination before Whitgift, when Barrow 
 complained that his arrest by the Keeper of the Fleet had 
 been " without warrant by the law of the land," the Archbishop 
 asked him scornfully. Know you the law of the land? 
 
 B. Very little ; yet was I of Gray's Inn some years.- 
 
 If we may assume^ as almost certainly we may, that 
 Barrow withdrew from Gray's Inn at the same time that he 
 withdrew from his London life generally ; and if the expres- 
 sion " some years " may be taken to cover three or four years 
 at least, then 1580 or 1581 would be the date of his conversion. 
 
 In the same examination Whitgift asks : Of what occupa- 
 tion are you ? 
 
 Barrow : A Christian. 
 
 Archbishop : So are we all . 
 
 B. I deny that. 
 
 A. But are you a minister ? 
 
 B. No. 
 
 A. A schoolmaster? 
 
 B. No. 
 
 A. What, then, of no trade of life ? 
 
 Barrow refers him to a description of himself in some 
 letter of his which Whitgift had seen. 
 
 A. Ton are then a gentleman ? 
 
 B. After the manner of our country, a gentleman. 
 
 ' Bacon's Observations on a Libel. Inn in 1576 ; he was never called to 
 ^ He became a member of Gray's the Bar. — Harleian MSS., 6,848. 
 
10 HEISTEY BAEEOW. 
 
 A. Serve you any man? 
 
 B. No; I am God's free-man. 
 
 A. Have you lands? 
 
 B. No, nor fees. 
 
 A. How live you ? 
 
 B. By G-od's goodness and my friends. 
 
 A. Have you a father alive ? 
 
 B. Yea. 
 
 A. Where dwelleth he, in Norfolk? 
 
 B. Yea. 
 
 J. Where dwell you? In London? 
 
 B. No. 
 
 Whence it may be gathered that Barrow, after his con- 
 version, ceased to live permanently in London, although he 
 might return now and then on a visit; that his means of 
 living were derived mainly from his friends, i.e., his kindred 
 (particularly his father), and that these, therefore, had so far 
 not disowned him. We may think of him as retiring to the 
 old home at Shipdam, there to work out quietly the new 
 thoughts and purposes which so great a spiritual change 
 involved. Did he work his own way to Separatism ? Possibly. 
 But, on the other hand, we remember that he was now within 
 reach of John Greenwood. Greenwood's University course at 
 Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, had come later than 
 Barrow's at Clare Hall by more than ten years.^ He had then 
 been ordained both deacon and priest,- and had held a benefice. 
 But he was now a Puritan Chaplain,' and fast drifting into 
 Separatism. What influences had been acting upon him ? We 
 cannot be sure ; but the circumstances of his Cambridge life 
 
 • Sizar, March 18, 1577-8; B.A., troublesome business with a certain 
 
 1581. nobleman. Lord Rich, who, about the 
 
 2 " I was first made a deacon by years 1580 and 1581, had exercises of 
 
 London (Aylmer) ; after (was) made religion after their way (the Puritans) 
 
 full priest by the Bishop of Lincoln." in his house in Essex, one Wright being 
 
 — Conference with Cooper. the preaoher"(Strype'sLifeof Aylmer, 
 
 ■' To Lord Rich, at Eochford Hall, p. 83). Gl-reen wood is said to have been 
 
 Essex. " Aylmer had a long and employed by Robert Wright. 
 
HENEY BARROW. 11 
 
 strongly suggest first, the followers of Cartwright ; next, Robert 
 Browne. During Barrow's period of residence, the Puritan 
 movement was in its infancy — concerned mainly about clerical 
 attire or the " Yestiarian Controversy." Even then, Cam- 
 bridge was one of its strongholds — witness the scandal of 
 1565 in St. John's College, when " the students came to chapel 
 on a festival day without their hoods and surplices, to the 
 number of three hundred, and continued to do so for some 
 time " ^ ; vntness, too, the petition of the same year against 
 Archbishop Parker's injunctions — signed, among other Heads 
 of Houses, by John Whitgift.^ But after 1570— with Cart- 
 wright's repudiation of Episcopacy in his Lectures as Margaret 
 Professor of Divinity ; with the uproar occasioned by these ; 
 with the first and second Admonitions to Parliament, wherein 
 the whole existing Church-order was condemned; with Cart- 
 wright's defence of the same against Whitgift; with his 
 translation of Travers's " fxiU and plain declaration of ecclesi- 
 astical discipline," and its rapid circulation among the 
 students — Cambridge might truly be deemed the mainspring of 
 Puritan activity. And this it continued to be. Numerically, 
 we are assured, the Puritans were never in a majority ; but 
 what they lacked in numbers was made up in talent, character, 
 and earnestness. As Cartwright, Travers, Dering, Aldrich, 
 left the scene, their place was filled by others who avowed 
 their doctrines with equal boldness.' Emmanuel College arose, 
 " notoriously designed as a school of Puritan teaching." The 
 commonplaces of Musculus — an armoury for the Puritans — 
 supplanted the " Sentences " as theological text-book. " Calvin 
 and Beza were cited as of authority, inferior only to that of 
 Scripture itself, while the names of Ambrose, Jerome, 
 Augustine, often served but to raise a half-contemptuous 
 smile."* 
 
 ■' Mullinger's Camliridge, pp. 298- 
 
 1 STeal, Vol. I., 196. 300. 
 
 2 Strype's Whitgift, p. 9. ■* Bancroft's Survey of the Holy 
 
 Discipline, p. 64. 
 
12 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 Such was the atmosphere breathed by Greenwood in his 
 ■undergraduate days. And, if we may suppose that the divers 
 misdemeanours in manners and doctrines in his own college 
 (Corpus Christi) of which Archbishop Parker complained to 
 Burghley in 1565 were also significant of the Puritan spirit; 
 and that " the suspected books " for which he enjoined strict 
 search to be made there were of a Puritan character, then it is 
 clear that Greenwood's daily hfe was spent in a centre of 
 Puritan influence. But further: no doubt we are bound 
 to believe Greenwood and Barrow when they assert, em- 
 phatically and frequently : " We never had anything to do 
 with Browne." And, as regards Barrow, there is no reason to 
 think that Browne ever crossed his path. Browne, indeed, was 
 in London^ while Barrow was. He was living, however, in 
 quite a different place and sphere.^ And it would be near the 
 time of his leaving for Middelburg when Barrow reappeared in 
 his native county. But in the case of Greenwood some personal 
 knowledge of Browne can scarcely have been avoided. Of 
 course, he did not meet him at Corpus Christi, where Browne 
 finished his course (1570-72) four years before Greenwood's 
 began. But between 1578 and 1580 Browne was again in 
 Cambridge, and making a stir there. He held a " cure " in 
 the town (probably St. Benet's) ; here, and in the villages 
 round, he preached for months. As a rousing preacher of 
 strange doctrines he became famous. He attracted stUl more 
 attention by the eccentricity of his conduct — e.g., by sendiag 
 back the money his people (at St. Benet's) wished to give him 
 for his support, on the ground that they were not as yet so 
 rightly grounded in Church government as they should be ; by 
 refusing and flouting the bishop's licence to preach, and con- 
 tinuing to preach without it "wherever he had opportunity," 
 until publicly inhibited. Greenwood, therefore, must have 
 
 1 He was there between 1572 and ' At Islington, as schoolmaster and 
 
 1578, when he returned home by order " open-air ' recusant preacher, 
 of his father. 
 
HENEY BAREOW. IS 
 
 heard of him. Nay, it is hard to believe that he did not make 
 an effort to hear him, and learn for himself the drift of his 
 teaching — if, at least, the desire to know the truth about the 
 bm-ning question of Church government had already come to 
 life in him ; or even if he had an average share of curiosity. 
 The first impression may have been repellent ; and repulsion to 
 the teacher may never have been overcome. But sometimes 
 the mind receives seed unconsciously ; lets it grow more or less 
 insensibly ; and only fully awakes to its presence when it has 
 taken complete possession. Even so, seeds let fall by Browne — 
 especially his central doctrine that the kingdom of God was not 
 to be begun by " whole parishes, but rather by the worthiest, 
 were they never so few " — may have worked in the mind of 
 Greenwood, prepared as it was by Puritan influence to give 
 it room. Doubts and questions may have been set going which 
 determined resistance could not sUence ; which circumstances — 
 perhaps actual experience of ministerial work, above all — made 
 more and more importunate. They drove him from his cure. 
 They would not let him rest in the half-way house of a private 
 chaplaincy. They beckoned him outside the gate — outside the 
 Established Church for good and all ; and, with whatever slow- 
 yielding reluctance, he felt compelled to follow. In review the 
 whole process might seem to him Divine. The grace of God, 
 he would say, gave him " repentance of his sin in submitting to 
 episcopal ordination and led him to degrade himself from the 
 ' false ' ministry." But the grace of God is apt to work 
 through means, and what other means were available than the 
 teachings of Browne it is not easy to perceive. Certainly he 
 came within their range — directly at Cambridge; directly or 
 indirectly at Norwich, where Browne is found in 1580, with his 
 fellow-collegian, Eobert Harrison ; possibly also at Bury St. 
 Edmund's, where assemblies " of the vulgar sort of people " 
 " to the number of one hundred at a time " met in private 
 houses and conventicles, and " greatly depended on him.''^ In 
 ' Bishop Freake's Letter to Burghley, April 19, 1581. 
 
14 HEISTEY BAREOW. 
 
 the autumn of 1581 Browne migrated to Middelburg, and, some 
 time beforcj Greenwood withdrew to Eochford Hall.^ But be- 
 tween this year and 1586 he had thrown in his lot with the 
 London Congregation. Here, again, echoes of Browne's voice 
 would greet htm and traces of his fiery personality would come 
 before him — if the story may be received which tells how 
 Bi'owne " used to preach in the open air in defiance of the 
 rector of Islington, in whose parish it was that his auditors 
 assembled." For some of these auditors, at least, and the 
 separatists must have been the same people. We may agree, 
 then, that Greenwood was " deeply impressed by Browne," first 
 by what he had seen and heard ; and then, perhaps, by his 
 books," when these began to steal rapidly into circulation 
 after 1581. 
 
 But what of Barrow? We have seen that he does not 
 appear to have had equal chances of coming into contact with 
 Browne, though he, too, may have read his books. Two facts, 
 however, are clear. One is that he and Greenwood became 
 intimate friends some time previous to 1586; the other is that 
 Barrow, like his friend, knew the brethren of the separation in 
 London.' And we conjecture that the two men met first in the 
 neighbourhood of Shipdam, or possibly at Lord Rich's house in 
 Essex ; that Greenwood's was the hand which conducted Barrow 
 
 ' One would welcome precise dates, brethren amongst a great number of 
 
 but there is a clue. Lord Rich died in other attendants in the ante-room of 
 
 1581, so that Aylmer's trouble with the Lord Chancellor's Chamber at his 
 
 him must have occurred before then, examination, July, 1588. (2) In the 
 
 and Greenwood is not likely to have Conference (March 18, 1590) his words 
 
 remained at the Hall after then. to Andrews — " So sweete is the har- 
 
 „ _,, i. i- ■ i J mony of God's graces unto me in the 
 
 - Three treatises were printed congregation, aid the conversation of 
 
 durmg those two years (1582-3) from the saints at all times "-are evidently 
 
 the pen of Browne, and two from that ,eminiscent of former meetings with 
 
 of Harrison. They arrived at the ^^^ Church. (3) We read in the pre- 
 
 dignity of drawing a special proclama- f^^.^ ^o the Hrst series of Conferences 
 
 tion from the Queen, while "two <.;,„<. « j.t,„ „„■ ■, ., • 
 
 /n^^r.i„„ a„.l Tl,,.t».^ w»™ *.^^^. \^^^ prisoners under their own 
 
 men (Copping and Thacker) were 
 
 hands have made relation hereof unto 
 
 hanged for dispersmg, and another ^^^ (.^„„^„ ^^ j^ ^^^^^^^ them to do 
 
 (Gybson) nearly hanged for binding according to Acts iv. 23. This implies 
 
 the same (Dexter s Congregation- that the| were members and leaders 
 
 alism, p, 74). ^ Qf the Church, yet at the same time 
 
 (1) He recognised twelve of the subject to it. 
 
HENRY BAEROW. 16 
 
 across the torder of Puritanism into Separatism ; that he it 
 was who introduced Barrow to the secret assemblies in London, 
 where, as a " layman," the latter could take no part except by 
 way of prophesying, but where, by virtue of his natural force, 
 eloquence, and earnestness, he soon came to the front. Thus, 
 in this case, as in one more famous. Greenwood may be con- 
 ceived as being, to some extent, a Barnabas who first took the 
 lead and then gladly fell behind. 
 
 But in this case there was never the hint of a quarrel. 
 " Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his 
 life for his friend." And Barrow did this for his, as Greenwood 
 would have done for Barrow, nor do we ever hear the breathing 
 of a word to suggest that Barrow grudged the sacrifice. One 
 Lord's day — so runs the story — while reading the Scriptures in 
 a friend's house, in the parish of St. Andrew-in-the-Wardrobe, 
 St. Paul's Churchyard, Greenwood was surprised by the Bishop 
 of London's pursuivants, and hurried away to the Clink. The 
 date is given as " the autumn of 1586." But it is possible to be 
 more precise. For Barrow's fatal visit took place on November 
 19, 1586. Then — we are told — for the next twenty-four weeks 
 he lay in the Gatehouse. At the end of this time, however. 
 Greenwood had been in prison thirty weeks,' which (taken 
 literally) makes October 7 the date of his arrest. Barrow just 
 then was in the country, and hearing what had befallen his 
 friend came up to see him. His visit was an act of courageous 
 devotion. But apparently he was not aware of any reason to 
 fear extraordinary danger. He did not know that the Arch- 
 bishop had been informed of his coming, and was on the watch 
 for him. He learnt presently how the information had been 
 conveyed. For at the end of the account of his second examina- 
 tion he adds this note : — " There was an article against me in 
 the Bill for saying that I thought Elders were Bishops, and 
 
 1 See paper containing " The names his " Introductory Sketch to the 
 of sundry faithful Christians im- Marprelate ControverBy," p. 38. 
 prisoned, &c.," printed by Arber in 
 
16 
 
 HENRY BA.RROW. 
 
 First Ei- 
 
 amination, 
 
 Nov. 19, 
 
 1.586. 
 
 Lambeth 
 
 Palace, 
 
 Philip. 1. 1 was produced. Hereby f plainly discover mine 
 accuser to be Thorneby, of Norwich, with whom I had com- 
 munication at Ware, as 1 rode to London, and never talked 
 with any other about this matter." What happened is best 
 told in his own words :—" This 19th' being the Lord's day, 
 between nine and ten of the clock in the forenoon, Mr. Hull and 
 1 went into the Clink to visit Mr. Greenwood and the other 
 brethren there imprisoned ; where we had not been the space of 
 one quarter of an hour but Mr. Shepherd, the keeper of the 
 prison, came up, rebuked Mr. Greenwood and stayed me, saying 
 he had commandment from his lord's grace so to do. I 
 demanded a sight of his warrant. He answered that if 1 were 
 wronged 1 might bring an action. So he locked me up in prison, 
 and forthwith went to his lord's grace to Lambeth." He returned 
 with two pursuivants about four o'clock. Barrow was then 
 " put into a boat and carried to Lambeth." " By the way one of 
 the pursuivants, called Watson, drew out of his bosom a letter 
 from the Court of Lambeth unto me, saying how he had a long 
 time sought me. I told him his pains deserved thanks neither 
 at God's hands nor mine ; I refused his letter, and said that I 
 obeyed neither it nor him, neither would 1 read it, showdng how 
 I was under the arrest of the keeper of the Cbiik who sate 
 by me. Well, we arrived at Lambeth, where, after I had 
 perused the Bishop's state, I was brought into his presence- 
 chamber. Yet not until this Watson had prevented me and 
 showed his master what had passed in the boat."^ Then the 
 Archbishop addresses him : — 
 
 A. Barrow, is your name Barrow ? 
 
 B. Yea. 
 
 A. It is told me that you refuse to receive or obey our 
 letter. Know you what you do ? It is from the High Com- 
 missioners, and this man a pursuivant. 
 
 B. I refused to receive or obey that letter at that time. 
 
 November, 158(i. 
 
 Besides Whitgift the Archdeacon 
 
 of London (Mollins) 
 were present. 
 
 and Dr. Cosin 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 17 
 
 A. Why so? 
 
 B. Because I was under arrest and imprisoned without 
 warrant and against law ; and, therefore, now it was too late 
 to bring the letter. 
 
 A. Why, may not a councellor commit to prison by his 
 bare commandment (alledging how the Aldermen of London 
 do dayly). 
 
 B. That is not the question — what a councellor may do — 
 but whether this man may do it without warrant by the law of 
 the land ? (Pointing to the keeper of the Clink.) 
 
 A. Know you the law of the land ? 
 
 B. Very little ; yet was I of Gray's Inn some years. (Then 
 his two Doctors and he derided mine unskilEulness.) Let this 
 pass ; 1 look for little help by law against you ; I pray you, why 
 have you imprisoned me, and after this manner sent for me ? 
 
 A. That you shall know upon your oath ; will you swear ? 
 A book is held toward him and he is bidden to lay his 
 
 hand upon it. 
 
 B. To what purpose ? 
 
 A. To swear. 
 
 B. I use to swear by no books. 
 
 A. Why, man, the book is no part of the oath, it is but a 
 ceremony. 
 
 B. A needless and wicked ceremony. 
 
 A. Why, know you what you say ? Know you what book 
 it is ? It is the Bible. 
 
 B. I will swear by no Bible. . . . 
 
 A. Will you lay your hand in my hand and swear? 
 
 B. No. 
 
 A. Will you lay your hand on the table and swear ? 
 
 B. No. 
 
 A. WiUyou holdup your hands toward heaven and swear? 
 
 B. That is not amiss ; but I will use my liberty. 
 
 A. Why, you hold it lawful to lay your band on the table 
 and swear? 
 
 2 
 
18 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 B. Yea, so it be not commanded and made of necessity. 
 
 A. Why, the Book is the like ; it is nothing of the oath, 
 but a thing indifferent. . . . 
 
 B. If it be so, there is no power can bring me in bondage 
 to my liberty. 
 
 A. Where find you that ? 
 
 Barrow says, "In St. Paul, 1 Corinthians," and tried to 
 recall the exact place. He looks for it "in a little Testament 
 in Greek and Latin which was brought " him, but cannot find 
 it. " G-reat fault was in my memory, neither, indeed, could I 
 bethink me where to find it, they so interrupted me." 
 
 A. Your divinity is like your law. 
 
 B. The Word of God is not the worse for my ill memory .^ 
 
 A. I would like it well if you cited your place in Greek- or 
 Latin. 
 
 B. Why, you understand English. Is not the Word of 
 God in English ? 
 
 The talk glances oif on a remark of Dr. Cosin about 
 recognising him as a Cambridge man.* 
 
 A. Were you, then, of Cambridge ? 
 
 B. Yea ; I knew you there. 
 
 He said he was there before I was born.* I said it might be. 
 
 Thus many things being alleged to and fro by us, the Arch- 
 bishop commanded Cosin to record that I refused to swear 
 upon a book. 
 
 B. Yea, and set down also that I will not swear thus at 
 random, but first I will know and consider of the things I 
 swear unto whether they require an oath. 
 
 A. Well, when were you at church? 
 
 ' The place he wanted -was 1 Cor. vi. ' Eichard Cosin (1549P-1597) was 
 
 12, and no sooner wns he out of the of Trinity College, Cambridge. He 
 
 house than it came to him. But here, was a member of the High Commis- 
 
 in presence of the scoiEng Archbishop sion ; Dean of Arches and Vicar- 
 
 and his Doctors, he is at a loss. General of the ProTince of Canter- 
 bury ; a great authority in Canon 
 
 •" Note this with reference to "Whit- Law. 
 
 gilt's alleged ignorance of his Greek * Whitgift was at Cambridge from: 
 
 Testament. 1548 to 1576. 
 
HENET BAEEOW. 19' 
 
 B. That is nothing to you. , . . 
 
 A. Have you said (as reported) " That there is not a true- 
 Church in England " ? 
 
 B. When you produce your witness I will answer. 
 
 Then came the questions and answers already quoted j^ 
 and, finally, he is asked if he can find surety for his good 
 behaviour. He offers a gentleman of Gray's Inn, named 
 Lacy. But being told that his bond will include the obHgation to 
 attend church, he says, promptly, " I will enter no such bond." 
 
 A. "Will you enter bond to appear on Tuesday next at 
 our Court, or on Thursday if not on Tuesday ; and will you 
 be bound not to depart until you be dismissed by order of our 
 Court? 
 
 B. No. 
 
 A. Then I will send you to prison. 
 
 Accordingly he was committed to the Gatehouse. Eight 
 days later he is again at Lambeth " to make appearance geoond 
 before the High Commissioners, and "found a very great §on°"°*' 
 train without ;" "a goodly synod of Bishops, Deans, civihans l°^wj^ 
 within ;" and as many " well-fed, silken priests " as might be- Palace. 
 seem "the Vatican." The first thing he hears — to his "no 
 small grief " — is " a schoolmaster deny his Master Christ." 
 Then his own case comes on. " Canterbury, with a grim and 
 angry countenance," relates how Barrow, at their first meet- 
 ing, had refused to swear, and demands whether he will swear 
 now. Barrow answers that he must know at least to what he 
 is swearing. Thereupon a list of charges is read, Aylmer^ de- 
 claring that thus to acquaint him with his indictment is a 
 favour which the Archbishop " doth not show to many." But 
 Barrow will not take the oath after all. Canterbm-y then loses 
 patience, and exclaims, " Where is his keeper ? Tou shall not 
 prattle here. Away with him ; clap him up close, close ; let nO' 
 man come at him. I will make him tell another tale ere I 
 have done with him." 
 
 1 See pp. 9, 10. ^ Bishop of London. 
 
20 
 
 HBNEY BAEEOW. 
 
 Third Ex- 
 amination, 
 March 24, 
 1587. 
 Lambeth 
 Palace. 
 
 Five months elapse — spent in the Gratehouse. Then, on 
 March 24 (1587), he is summoned before the "High Com- 
 missioners again. "A great Bible in folio fair bound" 
 is brought, which the Archbishop would not have. They 
 bring him a smaller one, and he hands it to Barrow. The 
 latter begins to open the Book instead of swearing by it. His 
 intention is to ask " if the Apocrypha-Scripture and notes " 
 are the Word of God, and to argue the point. This Canter- 
 bury cuts short, and demands again if he will swear. No, he 
 win swear by none but God Himself : the Eternal Word who is 
 more than any books or Bibles. At the same time, says he, 
 " By God's grace I wiU answer nothing but the truth." Whit- 
 gift, weary of disputing the point, gives way. " A Christian 
 man's word ought to be as true as his oath. We will proceed 
 with you without your oath." He takes up from the table " a 
 paper of interrogatories." Barrow desires leave to write his 
 answers, and leave is granted. These questions and answers 
 need not now detain us. But we may note that there was a 
 marked difference between the temper of the bishops and the 
 civilians.^ When Barrow said, e.g., that" "no prince, neither 
 the whole world, neither the Church itself, may make any laws 
 for the Church other than Christ hath already left in His 
 Word," there was much interruption, and Aylmer, in particular, 
 was forward "in slanders, evil speeches, and blasphemies." 
 But the Chief Justice said he thought Barrow answered " very 
 directly and compendiously." When, again, he was asked 
 whether the prince might "alter the judicial law of Moses 
 according to the state of her country and policy " ; and when 
 he answered that he thought not, but that it was a question of 
 
 ' The civilians pi'esent were the two 
 Lord Chief Justices, the Master of 
 the Rolls, the Lord Chief Baron, 
 with a-nother Baron of Exchequer. 
 The bishops were Aylmer and Cooper 
 (of Winchester), besides Whitgift. 
 
 ^ CpPlaiuKefutationofMr.Gifford, 
 
 p. 206, where it is said: Mr. G. 
 hath picked out "a certain answer 
 made by me Henry Barrowe to three 
 great Bishops of the land (i.e., Whit- 
 gift, Aylmer, Cooper) to this effect (as 
 I remember), that " no Prince, &c." — a 
 proof that the Bishops did not keep 
 the examinations a secret. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 21 
 
 '' great doubt and controversy " ; that he wished to be " wise 
 in sobriety " ; and that he was always ready to change his 
 mind if any man could better instruct him out of the Word of 
 God, the Chief Justice, remarks Barrow, said " I spake well," 
 but "the bishops, because my answer fitted not their turns, 
 as I think, commanded the question and answer to be blotted 
 out." 
 
 At the close of the main examination he was " dismissed 
 for a time (while certain of my brethren were examined) then " 
 again called and asked by Whitgift : — 
 
 1. Will you "take an oath according to the Statute of 
 Supremacy " ? No, said Barrow ; but I am " ready to give and 
 perform as much unto my prince as any true subject ought to 
 do." 
 
 2. May the Church of Christ, if the prince "deny or 
 refuse " to rectify abuses, reform them " without staying for 
 the prince " ? Yes, may and ought though all the princes in 
 the world should prohibit the same upon pain of death. 
 
 3. May the Church of Christ excommunicate the Queen, 
 and, if so, who is to do it ? Yes, said Barrow, and it is to be 
 done by the pastor. 
 
 " The Eegister," adds Barrow, "not myself, wrote down my 
 answers to these three questions " ; and then " was I sent again 
 (to the Gatehouse) with more commandments yet to keep me 
 more straitly." About six weeks later (or early in May, 1687) indict- 
 Barrow from the Gatehouse and Greenwood from the Clink Newgate 
 were " indicted " at " Newgate Sessions for refusing to jlay °i587. 
 communicate with " a " false ministry and worship. . . . 
 And this upon the statute made for the Papists." Their 
 "judge and accuser" was the Bishop of London. They 
 were condenmed ; and " other trial or conviction than this, 
 either of error or crime, we never hitherto had or could obtain 
 by any means." ^ 
 
 The Statute referred to was the first of the Eecusancy laws 
 A Few Observations to the Eeader of Mr. Gifford's Last Reply. 
 
22 HENET BAREOW. 
 
 under Elizabeth. It came into force in 1581, when the Jesuits 
 had grown active and dangerous. Its title is " An Act to retain 
 the Queen's Majesty's subjects in their due obedience " ; and is 
 aimed at " all persons whatsoever which . . . shall by any 
 ways or means put in practice to . . . withdraw any of her 
 Majesty's subjects . . . from their natural obedience to her 
 Majesty, or to withdraw them, for that intent, from the religion 
 now by her Highness's authority established ... to the 
 Eomish religion." The prisoners protested that the Statute did 
 not apply to them, and undoubtedly the Puritan Parliament of 
 1581 had Papists chiefly in their thoughts. But there was one 
 section, the fourth, which might be extended to such a case, 
 viz. : — "Be it also further enacted that every person above the 
 age of sixteen years which shall not repair to some church, 
 chapel, or usual place of common prayer . . . and so for- 
 bearing by the space of twelve months . . . shall for his or 
 her obstinacy (after certificate thereof in writing made into the 
 King's Bench by the ordinary of the diocese, among others) 
 be bound in two sufficient sureties in the sum of £200, at the 
 least, to good behaviour ; and so continue bound imtil such time 
 as the persons so bound do conform themselves." Thus they 
 could be tried with an air of legality. With Aylmer on the 
 bench, their conviction and subjection to the extremest penalty 
 was a matter of course. He ordered them to find a surety of 
 £260 apiece, and to lie in the Fleet till the sureties were forth- 
 coming.! Tq ^i^e Fleet, then, they went, the one human con- 
 solation being that now for the first time they would be near 
 each other, and perhaps in the same room. 
 
 Old London prisons were aU bad enough, but the Fleet 
 seems to have been the worst. We get a good idea of its 
 miseries from a "true report of Master (Bishop) Hooper's enter- 
 tainment in the Fleet, written with his own hand January 7, 
 1555." He tells us that he was to have had "liberty of 
 
 ' See paper of "names" already they "lay upon execution" of the 
 cited (Arber, p. 38). ^6260, says Mr. surety, it is plain that the money 
 Arber = de2,000 of present money. As eould not be had. 
 
HENRY BAEEOW. 23 
 
 the prison " ; and, for this, " within six days paid £5 to 
 the warden for fees, but all the same was committed to 
 close prison one quarter of the year in the Tower Chamber," 
 and " used very extremely." For a time, " by means of a 
 good gentlewoman," he was " suffered to come down to 
 dinner and supper ; " but at the time of writing he had long 
 " been in the wards " — " having nothing appointed to me for 
 my bed but a little pad of straw and a cotton covering, with 
 a tick and a few feathers therein, the chamber being vile 
 and stinking. ... On the one side of the prison is the 
 stink and filth of all the house ; and on the other side, the town 
 ditch, so that the stench of the house hath infected me with 
 sundry diseases." . . . Whilst sick " the doors, bars, hasps, 
 and chains being all closed, I have mourned, called and cried 
 for help. But the warden — when he hath known me many 
 times ready to die, and when the poor men of the wards have 
 called (him) to help me — hath commanded the doors to be kept 
 fast, and charged that none of his men should come at me, 
 saying, 'Let him. alone; it were a good riddance of him.'"i 
 The experience of Barrow was similar. Again and again he 
 speaks of being shut up in a " miserable and close prison " — 
 " excluded from the air, from all exercise, from all company or 
 conversation with any person." Some nine or ten months after 
 his trial at the Session of ISTewgate, a " lamentable petition " — 
 which by internal evidence may well be assigned to Barrow's 
 pen — was presented to the Queen, and describes the sufferings 
 of the imprisoned in moving terms. Some (for Barrow and 
 Greenwood were only two of many) were lying in " cold and 
 noisome prisons," bound hand and foot "with bolts and fetters 
 of iron " ; some the bishops had " cast into the ' Little Ease ' ; 
 some they had put into the ' myll,' causing them to be beaten 
 with cudgels in their prisons " ; some had been done to death — 
 
 1 True Report of Master Hooper's Foxe's " Martyrs," Vol. VI., Part II., 
 Entertainment in the Fleet, written p. 647, 8. 
 with his own hand January 7, 1555. 
 
24 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 two aged widows, e.g., seized " for hearing " Greenwood, had 
 " died of the infection of the prison " ; so had Mcholas Crane, 
 a man of sixty-six, taken for the same offence ; so had John 
 Chandler, " having a wife and eight children." As to Barrow 
 and Greenwood their lot was little better. At first it would 
 seem they had enjoyed " benefit of the liberty of the houses," 
 i.e., were free to walk within its precincts; but at the date of the 
 petition (March 13, 1588) they had been " again shut up close 
 prisoners these thirteen weeks to the great empeachment of our 
 health and hazard of our lives, and so still remain — no cause as 
 yet showed thereof." Perhaps it was in consequence of this 
 petition — which brought these facts directly to the notice of the 
 Queen, and besought her to have " some Christian consideration 
 and speedy redress of the outrageous wrongs and most extreme 
 injuries wherewith sundry of your most faithful and true- 
 hearted subjects have been a long time, and are at this present 
 especially, oppressed by the bishops of this land, but principally 
 by the Bishops of Canterbury and London, . . ." — that less 
 than a week later (March 18) he was " sent for in all post haste 
 by one Eaglande, a gentleman of my Lord Chancellor's (Sir 
 Fourth Christopher Hatton) ." This time his examination took place 
 
 Examma- '■ ' -^ 
 
 tion, not at Lambeth before the Court of High Commission, but 
 
 March 18, , ^ ^ ^ « 
 
 1588. Be- before " the council " in Hatton's chamber "■ at the Court of 
 Privy Whitehall." "In a withdrawing " room he found "twelve of 
 Whitehall, the brethren amongst a great number of other attendants." 
 But without being able to have " any one word " with them, he 
 was " forthwith sent for into the chamber." At the upper end 
 seated about a table were Whitgift and Aylmer — both in their 
 " pontificalibus," or full episcopal dress — Hatton, Burghley, and 
 Lord Buckhurst, the Queen's cousin.^ At the lower end stood 
 Doctor Some and Eichard (Justice) Tonge, vnth others. 
 
 Barrow had now the opportunity he coveted. He ^\as, in 
 a manner, face to face with the Queen, for the Sovereign was 
 always supposed to be present in the Privy Council. The Lord 
 
 ' Froude, ix 368. 
 
HENRY BAREOW. 25 
 
 Chancellor was presiding. Lord Burghley, the man of all 
 Elizabeth's Councillors most esteemed for justice and modera- 
 tion, was his chief examiner. The Bishops were comparatively 
 in the background. It is a pity that Barrow did not use the 
 . occasion to the better advantage of his cause and himself. He 
 showed none of the wisdom of the serpent. A little of such 
 wisdom would have made him restrained in language and 
 circumspect. There was no need to say all he thought, still 
 less to deliver his views about the Church and its representa- 
 tives in a style so excited and extreme as to suggest 
 merely an arrogant and embittered state of mind. Never was 
 it more needful for him to subdue his spirit and bridle his 
 tongue ; but he did neither. He was particularly anxious to 
 conciliate the favour of Burghley. But whatever chance there 
 was of doing this, he lost at once. His answer to Burghley's 
 first question led the latter to say : " Thou art a fantastical 
 fellow, I perceive." His answer to Burghley's second provoked 
 the remark : " Indeed, I perceive you have a delight to be an 
 author of this new religion" : you are glad to find reasons for 
 putting away the old and setting up the new. The Treasurer's 
 impression was not changed by Barrow's dogmatic statement 
 that, "to keep a memorial of the Saints in the Church is 
 Idolatry, and that to say ' Sunday, Monday,' &c., is contrary 
 to ' the Book of God.' " " The Lord Treasurer said I had a 
 hot brain, and, taking in his hand a Book of Common Prayer 
 which lay on the board, read certain Collects of the Saints^ 
 and showed that the Epistles and Gospels were part of the 
 Scriptures, and asked what I could mislike therein." 
 
 B. I misliked all, for we ought not to use the Scriptures 
 or prayer so. . . . 
 
 Lord Treasurer : But what is here idolatrous ? 
 
 B. All, for we ought not to use the Scriptures so. 
 
 To a man of sober opinions like Burghley this was irritating. 
 Said he: — "You complain to us" (in the Petition, no doubt), 
 " of injustice ; wherein have you wrong ? " 
 
26 HEJSTEY BAREOW. 
 
 B. My lord, in that we are thus imprisoned without due 
 trial. 
 
 L. Treasurer. Why, you said you were condemned^ upon 
 the Statute (made for Eecusants). 
 
 B. Unjustly, my lord. That Statute was not made for us. 
 
 L. Treasurer. There must be straiter laws made for you. 
 
 This was an unexpectedly hard word, coming from such a 
 quarter; and Barrow's answer had a pleading sadness in it. 
 "My lord, speals: more comfortably. We have soitows 
 enough." 
 
 But the Lord Treasurer is untouched. " Indeed, thou 
 lookest as though thou hadst a troubled conscience." 
 
 B. No, I praise God. Bwt it is a woeful thing that our 
 prince's sword should be drawn out against her faithful 
 subjects. 
 
 The Lord Treasurer "answered that the Queen's sword 
 was not as yet drawn against us." 
 
 Dr. Some,- it will be remembered, was in the chamber, 
 standing near the entrance and listening. We know him best 
 as the author of two so-called " Godly Treatises," one meant to 
 be decisive of certain questions " moved of late by Anabap- 
 tistical Eecusants," with particular reference to Penry; the 
 other directed mainly against " the execrable fancies given out 
 and holden by Henry Barrow and John Greenwood." The 
 former bears date May 6, 1588,' and so was in hand at this very 
 time. The latter came out a year later, May 24, 1689. They 
 were means to an end — the end being the light of Whitgift's 
 countenance. For, till recently, he had figured as a rather 
 conspicuous defender of Cartwright ; and a sermon of his had 
 
 ' In the preceding May. tils Supplication to Parliament " on 
 2 -, r42_ J ana behalf of the country of Wales. There- 
 ^'^ ' ' upon Some added a defence " of such 
 ■' This is the date of tlie second points as Mr. Penry hath dealt against," 
 edition. In the first Some deals ivith and charged him with as many as six- 
 questions moved of late in London, teen " gross errors and Anabaptistical 
 and "touching the ministry. Sacra- fancies." The appendix is nearly five 
 ments, and Church." Penry answered times the length of the original 
 this in the second edition of his "Hum- Treatise. 36 + 164 pp. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 27 
 
 even drawn from Dr. William Chaderton,i president of his 
 college (Queen's), that it was " a specimen of the licentious tone 
 and dangerous doctriae " then prevailing at Cambridge — doc- 
 trine having for its purpose " to overthrow all ecclesiastical and 
 civil governance that now is, and to ordain and institute a new- 
 found policy." Dr. Some soon saw reason to seek a place of 
 repentance — and has found it. Next year (1589, May 11) he 
 will be appointed, through Whitgift's influence, Master of 
 Peterhouse. Then he will become, through the same influence, 
 Vice-ChanceUor of the University ; and then he will (in 
 the common belief) sting the hand which has exalted him 
 by assailing Whitgift from the University pulpit.^ Just now, 
 however, when we see him in the Comicil Chamber, his for- 
 tunes hang somewhat in the balance; and he is the Arch- 
 bishop's very humble servant. It appears that he was one of 
 several who had been sent to confer with Barrow in prison. 
 Their report was that he had " mocked them." Barrow denies 
 this, and says, " We mock no creature " ; and as to Master 
 Some, " he was with me indeed, but never would enter disputa- 
 tion. He said he came not therefore, but in questioning 
 manner — to know somewhat more perfectly."^ " Some was 
 then, by the Archbishop, called and demanded whether he had 
 conference with me or no." This point being settled in a sense 
 agreeable to Whitgift, Master (Justice) Yonge — one of those 
 who, at a later time, condemned Penry — " came uncalled and 
 accused me of arrogant and irreverent speeches against my 
 lord's grace (of Canterbury) at my first conference with Some 
 in my chamber." Barrow then " beseeched " the lords " to 
 grant a public conference." But the Archbishop "said 
 
 • Not Lawrence, first Master of pleasant story about him in Strype's 
 
 " Emmanuel," but William (1540 ?— Parker, Bk. IV., cap. 40. 
 
 1608) successively Bishop of Chester ^ gig text was Acts iv. 6—" John " 
 
 and Lincoln. He followed Whitgift being supposed to mean Whitgift. 
 
 as Lady Margaret Professor of This Some vehemently denied. 
 
 Divinity, 1567; became Eegius Pro- ^ It is plain where Some got the 
 
 fessor in 1569 ; and President of material for his " Treatise " against 
 
 Queen's College in 1568. See the un- B. and G. 
 
28 HENEY BAREOW. 
 
 in great choler we should have no public conference. We 
 had pubhshed enough already, and therefore I committed 
 you close prisoner."^ Up to this time, so far as we know, 
 Barrow had published nothing; but Whitgift treated him 
 as a representative of those who had — perhaps Browne 
 especially, whose writings had for years been in circulation. 
 Presently Barrow repeated his entreaty for " a conference and 
 that ifi writing." He felt so sure — poor impracticable 
 visionary ! — that he could prove his case from the Scriptures, 
 whose authority all alike confessed ; and that his case once 
 proved there would be no further resistance or even indiffer- 
 ence. He made no allowance for such stubborn facts as preju- 
 dice and selfish interests ! He believed, and went on believing, 
 that Canterbury — who again denied his request "very 
 princely " — alone stood in the way of a general peace ; and thus 
 came under the wrath of God. Meanwhile, Burghley has been 
 glancing through a paper which lay on the table " among the 
 Bishop's evidences against me " ; a paper compiled by Dr. 
 Some out of what Barrow had said to him in the prison. He 
 reads there that Barrow " held it unlawful for the Parhament 
 to make a law that the ministers should live by tithes or the 
 people pay them." Is this so ? Barrow answers that tithes 
 " are abrogate and unlawful ; " that ministers should live " ex 
 pura elemosina, of clean almsdeeds," as Christ and the apostles 
 did; that if the people wUl not give they prove themselves 
 " profane " ; and that to such people none ought to stand as 
 minister. Burghley asks eagerly for Scripture proof, and 
 Barrow quotes Heb. xii., Gal. vi. 6. But if the minister is not 
 to have a tithe of any goods, what then ? " Wouldst thou have 
 him to have all ? " Barrow : " No, my lord, but I would have 
 you to withhold none of your goods from helping him ; neither 
 rich nor poor are exempted from this duty." " Further," adds 
 Barrow, "I showed that if the minister had things necessary to 
 this life, as food and raiment, he ought to hold himself content, 
 
 ' In March, 1587. 
 
HENRY BARROW. 29 
 
 neither ought the Church to give him more." The passages 
 quoted brought up the word " priest/' and the Lord Chancellor 
 showed his ignorance of Greek by remarking that presbyter is 
 Latin for a priest. 
 
 Barrow corrected him. " It is no Latin word, but derived ; 
 and signifieth the same that the Greek word doth, which is an 
 elder." 
 
 Possibly to cover some confusion of face at this exposure, 
 "the Chancellor " asked me if I knew not these two men, point- 
 ing to Canterbury and London." 
 
 Barrow. Yes (my lord), I have cause to know them. 
 
 Lord C. But what ? Is not this the Bishop of London ? 
 
 B. I know him for no bishop, my lord. 
 
 Lord 0. What is he then ? 
 
 B. His name is Elmar, my lord. The Lord pardon my 
 fault that I laid him not open for a wolf, a bloody persecutor, 
 and an apostate. He was thinking, we may suppose, of that 
 "Harbour of faithful subjects," in which Ayhner had once 
 "prophesied saying, come down you bishops from your 
 thousands and content you with your hundreds; let your diet be 
 priestUke and not princelike."^ It was no tenderness for 
 Aylmer which restrained Barrow ; but by the time he was ready 
 to speak, "the warden's man was plucking him up" from his 
 knees ; and the Lord Chancellor was putting another question. 
 " What is this man ? " (Pointing to Canterbm-y.) 
 
 " The Lord gave me a spirit of boldness, so that I said : 
 He is a monster, a miserable compound ; I know not what to 
 call him. He is neither ecclesiastical nor civil — even the second 
 beast that is spoken of in the Revelation." 
 
 Lord Treasurer. Where is that place ? Show it. 
 
 " So I turned to the place, chap, xiii., and read verse 11. 
 Then I turned to 2 Thess. ii. — but the Beast arose for anger, 
 and gnashed his teeth, and said, ' Will ye suffer him, my lord ? ' " 
 
 " So I was plucked up from my knees by the warden's man " 
 ' Marprelate'a " Epistle," p. 5. 
 
30 HBNEY BAEEOW. 
 
 . . . "and led" back to prison "by another way than I 
 came in, that I might not see the brethren nor they me." As he 
 was leaving the chamber he made a last request — made 
 it to Burghley as to the one who had the power to help him if 
 he would — that he might not be confined again to a ceU, 
 but might have the " benefit of the air." 
 
 Burghley gave him no answer. Indeed, Barrow's un- 
 chastened tongue had undone him. He felt this himself. " The 
 Lord pardon mine unworthiness and unsanctified heart and 
 mouth, that can bring no glory to the Lord or benefit to His 
 Church." In the solitude of his prison he had regretful thoughts. 
 He recalled the Lord Treasurer's admonition that he " took the 
 Lord's name often in vain " ; and confessed its justice, and 
 prayed earnestly that he might learn to " set a more careful 
 watch before " his " lips." But though this discloses the spirit 
 of a humble and lovable man, the mischief was done. He had 
 made Whitgift, if he was not so before, an implacable foe ; and 
 he had alienated whatever degree of sympathy the civil lords 
 might have been disposed to cherish. He stiU put his 
 hope in the Lord Treasurer. He appealed to him more 
 than once afterwards — in the impressive dedication, e.g., to his 
 " Plain Eefutation of Mr. GrifEord's Treatise." But it is evident 
 he was leaning on a broken reed. Burghley, in fact, was 
 a man in whom the Separatists, and even the extremer 
 Puritans, were certain to be disappointed. "Like the old 
 Marquess of Winchester, who preceded him in the custody of 
 the white staff," he " was of the willow and not of the oak." 
 " He paid great attention to the interests of State, and great 
 attention also to the interest of his own family. He never 
 deserted his friends till it was very inconvenient to stand by 
 them, was an excellent Protestant when it was not very 
 advantageous to be a Papist, recommended a tolerant policy to his 
 mistress as strongly as he could recommend it without hazarding 
 her favour, never put to the rack any person from whom it did 
 not seem probable that useful information might be derived, 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 31 
 
 and was so moderate in his desires that he left only three 
 hundred distinct landed estates^ though he might, as his honest 
 servant assures us, have left much more "if he would have 
 taken money out of the exchequer for his own use, as many 
 treasurers have done."^ 
 
 Macaulay's sarcastic description may be too severe, though 
 the facts are not few which seem to bear it out. The 
 " worldly elements " were, indeed, stronger in Burghley than he 
 was aware." And if this also be thought too severe, we can, 
 at least, say that he was one who sedulously pursued the 
 middle way. All extremes were abhorrent to him, whether 
 illustrated by the conduct of Mary in relation to Protestants ; 
 or Whitgif t in relation to Puritans ; or Puritans in relation to 
 moderate Churchmen; or Separatists in relation to all alike. 
 The only exception, perhaps, may be found in his sympathy 
 with the treatment of Catholics ; and this rested not on 
 rehgious, but on pohtical grounds. He could not understand 
 the enthusiast, the ideahst, the devotee of a scrupulous con- 
 science. Why should a man commit money, position, success, 
 fame, life even, to the keeping of an " opinion " ? And if a 
 practical application of the " opinion " meant a shock, a 
 revolution in the existing order of things, what else could its 
 holder be than mad ? 
 
 Tradition says that Greenwood obtained his liberty for 
 some time in the course of 1588. And this seems to be 
 confirmed by what we read in the introduction to the first 
 Conference, when Greenwood speaks of himself as "prisoner 
 in the Fleet, having been kept close now a year and 
 a-half by the Bishops' sole commandment." This was on 
 
 ' Macaulay's Essay on BurgUey. yet respective ; towards thy inferiors 
 
 show much humility and some famili- 
 
 ^ Q/ His advice to his son — the very arity ; as to bow thy body, stretch 
 
 counterpart of Polonius's — Be sure forth thy hand, and uncover thy head, 
 
 to keep some great man thy friend, and such like popular compliments ; 
 
 but (1) Trouble him not for trifles. and (3) Serve God by serving of the 
 
 Compliment him often, and (2) To- Queen ; for all other service is, indeed, 
 
 wards thy superiors be humble, yet bondage to the devil. — Strype'a 
 
 generous ; with thy equals familiar. Annals, Vol. IV., pp. 478-80. 
 
52 HENET BAREOW. 
 
 March 9, 1690 ; and takes us back to September, 1588 ; and 
 implies that for awhile, at least, previous to that date, his 
 confinement had not been close. Tradition says, though less 
 ■confidently, that Barrow also obtained some liberty at the 
 same time. But here we can quote Barrow's own assertion to 
 the contrary. For on March 18, 1590, in his first conference 
 with Hutchinson and Andrews, he speaks of " having been two 
 years and well-nigh a-half kept by the Bishops in close 
 prison." Whatever liberty, then, Barrow may have had took 
 place in the autumn of 1587. Did such liberty amount to 
 freedom in the sense of being allowed to " live out of prison 
 on bail " ? I think not. I think the facts were these. On 
 ITovember 19, 1586, he was arrested. Early in May he had 
 his trial at Newgate. If we say May 6, this gives an interval 
 •of exactly twenty-four weeks — the period, definitely named, 
 during which Barrow was " close prisoner " in the Gatehouse 
 ■"at the Archbishop's commandment for not taking an oath 
 administered unto him ex-ofiicio." After " conviction " at 
 Newgate, he and Greenwood " lay in the Fleet upon an 
 •execution of £260 apiece." Here, however, Barrow (and pre- 
 sumably Greenwood also) " enjoyed that liberty of the house 
 which the law " allowed. But for thirteen weeks before the 
 delivery to the Queen of the petition of March 13, 1588, this 
 privilege was taken away, and they were " again shut up close 
 prisoners." As regards Greenwood, this privilege was restored 
 between March and September ; perhaps the " liberty " even 
 •extended to a brief deliverance " on bail." As regards Barrow, 
 ■on the other hand, the privilege was never restored. On 
 March 18, 1590, he had been " close prisoner," as we have 
 seen, "two years and well-nigh a-half," the "well-nigh 
 ■a-half " answering, in his " frail memory," to the odd 
 " thirteen weeks." Early in 1691, when he issued his "Plain 
 Eefutation of Mr. GifPord" he had been, " now more than three 
 years in miserable and close prisons," secluded " from the air, 
 from all exercise, from all company or conversation with any 
 
HENRY BAEROW. 33 
 
 person, from all means so mucli as to write. . . ." ^ And 
 in the spring of 1592, when the " Few Obsei-vations " (supple- 
 mentary to the Plain Refutation) were penned, he could say that 
 *' We are and have been four years and three months without 
 trial or relaxation kept by the Prelates in most miserable and 
 strait imprisonment." - Later in the year (1592), Greenwood 
 not merely regained the " liberty of the prison," but was at 
 large. This is certain. John Edwardes — e.g. (a witness in 
 Penry's case), deposed that " a little before Christmas, 1592, 
 lie was at a Garden-house at the Duke's place, near Aldgate, 
 when Penry did preach, and (as he doth remember) Greenwood 
 did preach there also."^ He appears, too, at Christopher 
 Bowman's wedding in " Penry's house," when " Settle did 
 pray " ; * and in September, at the house of Fox (in Nicholas 
 Lane), when the Church was officered with himself as teacher."' 
 His arrest, therefore, on December 5, came after some months 
 of freedom. But there was no freedom, or relaxation of his 
 rigorous treatment, for Barrow. Greenwood was reputed to be 
 only " a simple man ; " and the reputation turned to his 
 advantage. Barrow was reputed to be dangerous; he was 
 the man in the eyes of the ecclesiastics ; and he suffered 
 accordingly. He teUs how " all means so much as to write " 
 were denied; how "ink and paper were kept from " him, and 
 "a diligent watch kept" by his "keepers"; how, moreover, 
 *' continual searches " were made " upon one pretence or 
 another," when he was " rifled from time to time " of all his 
 " papers and writings " that could be f ound.^ Yet, somehow, 
 he learnt much of what was passing outside ; somehow, books 
 and pamphlets came to him ; and the amount he managed to 
 write is amazing. 
 
 But he did not write all he is said to have done. For 
 one thing, he did not write the Marprelate Tracts. These — 
 
 > In the Dedicatory Epistle to ' Harleian MSS., 1,0i2, t. 27 (19). 
 
 Burghley of the "Plain Befutation." " Harleian MSS., 7,042, f. 35. 
 
 ' A Few Observations to the Eeader * Harleian MSS., 7,042, f. 60, 61, 63. 
 
 of Mr. GifEord's Last Reply. ^ A Few Observations, p. 237. 
 
 3 
 
34 HENEY BAEROW. 
 
 six or seven altogether — flew through the country between 
 the end of 1588 and the autumn of 1589; the first, called 
 the " Epistle," appearing in November ; and the last, called 
 the "Protestation," in September. The story of them and 
 the secret migratory Press is well known. At the time, sus- 
 picion attached most strongly to John Penry as the writer; 
 and recently his authorship, jointly with that of his friend 
 and coadjutor Job Throckmorton, has been as good as proved.^ 
 There are still those,^ however, who assert Barrow's claim — 
 first seriously advanced by Dr. Dexter ; and so one or two of 
 the main arguments on which it is made to rest are considered 
 in a detached note.^ 
 
 After his recommittal in March, 1588, he remained in 
 
 prison till the end came, five years later. It appears that he 
 
 FifihEx- underwent a further examination about March, 1589, before 
 
 March, ' "a great Commission." He speaks of it very bitterly. Thus, 
 
 in his account of the first " Conference," a year later, we read : — 
 
 Hutchinson. I was at a great commission a year ago when 
 
 you did set down with your own hand your own answers. 
 
 Barroiv. Then did you see the bishops offer me the greatest 
 wrong that I suppose was ever offered to any Christian in any 
 age. I was brought out of my close prison, and compelled there 
 to answer of a sudden unto such articles as the bishops in their 
 secret council had contrived against us. I could not be admitted 
 any further respite or consideration, neither any present con- 
 ference with any of my brethren, neither yet so much as a copy 
 of mine own answers, though I most earnestly and humbly 
 besought the same ; but have ever since been kept in most strait 
 imprisonment without company, air, or comfort, never hearing 
 of any kind of conference until now ; but have, in the mean- 
 while, been grievously slandered, blasphemed, and accused by 
 
 ' By Professor Arber in his "Intro- Marprelate Tracts forced him into 
 auction to the Marprelate Contro- piblio notice " . . . " the proba- 
 versy," 1895. bility being that he was Martin 
 
 himself." — Tercentenary Tracts, No. 
 
 ^ Dr. Guinness Rogers, e.g., says, IV., p. 7. 
 " His intimate connection with the ^ ^e Note I., p. 82. 
 
HENEY BARROW. 85 
 
 s parsed articles, printed privileged books, in their pulpits, in 
 open session, and unto our honourable magistrates. 
 
 On this occasion the bishops again took the lead, and 
 behaved, it vrould seem, with less than their usual fairness. 
 Ban-ow had to answer, then and there, a series of privately 
 concocted articles. He was required to answer in writing. A 
 copy of his answers was refused him. He was put into solitary 
 confinement, separated even from Greenwood. He had heard 
 nothing since, except rumours that he was being held up to 
 obloquy in pulpit and Press. Thus he was an object of strict 
 attention during the year 1589. Some's Treatise, published in 
 May, would contribute to this. Still more would the " sparsed 
 articles," by which he had been grievously slandered, blasphemed 
 and accused.! These would furnish Puritan and Prelatist alike 
 with a good text for railing ; and were indeed of just the kind 
 to evoke disgust. Marprelate, too, was in full career, and 
 the wrath which could not be wreaked on him was not unlikely 
 to find its way to the prisoner in the Fleet. But, strange to 
 say, his intercourse with friends outside did not cease. A copy 
 of the " sparsed articles " was brought to him ; and he was able 
 to write an answer. Almost as soon as the " Brief of Positions 
 holden by the new Sectorie of Recusants " came to the hands 
 of the preachers whom it concerned, he was served with a copy 
 of this also. And probably, at the vei-y moment of hia 
 complaint to Mr. Hutchinson, Barrow had these documents 
 somewhere in his room with answers prepared to both. At 
 any rate, in the spring of 1590 the two sets of articles and the 
 two sets of answers, including a full narrative of the first four 
 conferences, were in the printer's house at Dort.^ It was an 
 astonishing achievement. But Barrow had trusty agents 
 — particularly Robert Stokes, so long as he remained a 
 Separatist. He visited Barrow and Greenwood "at the 
 prison." He took charge of the MS., carried it over to 
 
 ' See Appendix iii. - See "Egerton Papere" (in Camden 
 
 Society Publications), p. 171. 
 
36 HENEY BAEEOW, 
 
 Holland; had about five hundred copies of it printed at his 
 own charges by one Hanse of Dort ; conveyed them over into 
 England; and disposed of them "to the matter of about 
 200 or 300," according to the author's directions. Thus 
 side by side with the Marprelate Tracts, though in a far smaller 
 circle, they went their round. 
 
 The contents of the volume were — " A collection of certain 
 slanderous articles given out by the bishops, &c.," also "The 
 sum of certain conferences," &c., and, in addition, "A brief 
 answer to certain slanderous articles and ungodly calumniations 
 gparsed abroad by the bishops ... to bring them into 
 hatred both with prince and people."^ 
 
 This was not the first of the " prison " publications. Some 
 time before the same Eobert Stokes " caused a little thing of one 
 sheet of paper" to be printed " by their procurement . . . 
 called (mistakenly)^ the Destruction of the Visible Church." It 
 has the merit of being simply expository. It says little or 
 nothing against opponents, but states calmly and clearly 
 the marks of a true Church, with Scriptural proofs.'' Though 
 so brief, it is remarkably complete, and most of what the 
 authors wrote later is but an expansion of its main points. 
 Historically it is important for the proof it yields that Barrow's 
 views were truly " congregational," even prior to 1589.* 
 
 At the same time and place as the " Collection of certain 
 Slanderous Articles" was printed, also by Eobert Stokes, 
 Greenwood's " Answer to George GifPord's Pretended Defence 
 of Eead Prayers."' But the next publication which concerns 
 us here is " A collection of certain letters and conferences 
 lately passed between certain preachers and two prisoners in the 
 
 ' The two sets of "Articles" are Word of God of the Visible Church." 
 
 distinct. The one was for private use See Appendix iii. 
 
 on a definite occasion ; the other for ■* This calmness of tone suggests the 
 
 popular reading. The latter was out comparatively " free " time which suc- 
 
 and abroad weeks or months before ceeded the Newgate trial in March, 
 
 the former, if indeed this was ever 1588, as the most likely time for the 
 
 " abroad " at all. — Appendix iii. writing of it. 
 
 ^ The correct title appears to have * See Appendix iv. 
 
 been " A True Description oat of the ' See Appendix iii. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 37 
 
 Meet." This was printed " about midsvunmer," 1590. Eobert 
 Stotes was again the intermediary — he and one Eobert Bowie 
 (or Bull). Barrow and Greenwood — who at the time were 
 prisoners together in one chamber — collected " the letters and 
 conferences " ; sent them forth and had them " delivered " — to 
 whom they could not remember, their memory ''being so 
 decayed."! But Bull was the man ; and he acted under Stokes's 
 orders, who told him "whatsoever Barrow and Greenwood 
 shovdd direct him to do, the same Bull should do it at this 
 examinate's charges." Accordingly Bull had the printing done 
 at Dort, " by one Hanse " ; had two or three hundred copies 
 printed ;" had them put as they came from the press into 
 Stokes's "clock-bag"; and then the latter (meeting all costs) 
 "brought them into England and delivered sundry of them 
 to one Mychens, there to be sted." Women also played a part. 
 For Greenwood could not deny that perhaps his wife had 
 smuggled out the MS., and that his maidservant, Cycely, may 
 have smuggled in the printed book. 
 
 About Christmas, 1590, the MSS. of two other books 
 went through a like " eventful history." These were Barrow's 
 " Brief Discovery " and his " Plain Eefutation of Mr. Gififord's 
 Book." Here, too, Stokes " procures " them indirectly from 
 the author ; has them printed at Dort to the number of three 
 thousand; and defrays all expenses. But on this occasion 
 there was a mishap. For all the volumes "were taken at 
 Flushing and Brill." Fortunately, however, the original MS. 
 at least of the " Brief Discovery," was safe. In connection with 
 this Daniel Studley comes on the scene.' Examined on the 
 subject, he said that he received the original of the book, 
 " sheet by sheet at Mr. Henry Barrow's study in the Fleet, 
 when-as he and one Andrew Smyth had letters from the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury to have access unto him." He, in 
 turn, delivered it sheet by sheet to one James Forrester, who 
 
 1 See Appendix iii. ' " Egertcn PaperB," Marob 20, 
 
 2 Stokes says about 500. 1522-3. 
 
38 HENRY BAEROW. 
 
 copied it out ; and, " as one sheet was written, the same was 
 taken away, with the copy thereof, and new brought." Then, 
 apparently when the whole had been written out, the copy was 
 sent to Barrow ; and, after correction, returned by one " Padry " 
 for printing. Forrester became the copyist by arrangement 
 with Barrow personally, to whom he also found access; and 
 once more Stokes is the friend in need at whose " charges " 
 " Forrester did copy it out." Forrester, however, was not the 
 only copyist, for he saw " Studley to write one copy thereof for 
 himself." But Studley did not get his copy completed. Some- 
 thing interrupted him. He lost sight of the original, and 
 what became of it he did not know. 
 
 One circumstance in the story is rather remai-kable. 
 Studley and Forrester would seem to have had small diffi- 
 cidty in finding admission to Barrow's chamber. Are we 
 to think, then, that the " close " imprisonment of which 
 he speaks was not so close after all ? Scarcely : for it is 
 not implied that Barrow himself could leave his chamber, 
 it is only said that others now and then might come to him. 
 And when we remember that Studley, Forrester, and Andrew 
 Smyth belonged to the brotherhood and were fellow-prisoners 
 — the two former in Bridewell, '^ the last in the Clink — 
 the natural inference is that though they enjoyed some degree 
 of liberty, even to the extent of visiting comrades in another 
 prison, he had none at all ! Still it lightens the gloom a little 
 to find that close and miserable confinement did not mean an 
 absolute seclusion from the sight of friendly faces. 
 
 We must now retrace a few steps. So far as we know, 
 after his fifth examination in March, 1589, the bishops — 
 mainly Whitgift and Aylmer — dropped him out of their 
 thoughts for eleven or twelve months. Probably this was the 
 
 • James Forrester was in Newgate Saravia and Mr. Gravet were to con- 
 
 — in February, 1589-90; one of three fer. Andrew Smyth was one of two 
 
 to be conferred with by Dr. Bancroft. to be conferred with by a namesake — 
 
 Studley, at the same time, was in the Mr. Smyth. 
 Fleet, one of two with whom Dr. 
 
HENET BAEEOW. 39 
 
 darkest year of his lite — "kept," as we have heard, "in most 
 strait imprisonment, without company, air, or comfort." The 
 sure effect of such an experience on the temper of his mind 
 ought to be realised. Highly-strung, passionate, imaginative, 
 energetic, he was a man for whom nothing could be worse than 
 unrelieved confinement and solitude. Under similar circum- 
 stances men of similar temperament have gone mad. He was 
 saved from madness by his religious faith. But, in brooding 
 day after day on his own thoughts, on his wrongs, on his 
 swiftly passing life, on his helplessness, one of two restdts was 
 certain — if he was a weak man he would admit doubts, and 
 probably let them drive him to renounce his convictions ; if a 
 strong man his convictions would gradually fasten upon him 
 with fanatical intensity. What happened in Barrow's case — as 
 we might anticipate — was the latter ; and, with it, came that 
 ovei-powering sense of exasperation and bitterness which 
 fanaticism always tends to develop. And so, when the signs of 
 this unbalanced mental state meet us in many a virulent 
 passage or epithet of his later writings, we have not the heart 
 to blame him. Blame melts into pity; and pity into admiration, 
 when we picture him in his dark, squalid room, writing on with 
 indomitable perseverance as best he can. 
 
 At length the dreary monotony is broken. For one 
 thing. Greenwood and he are permitted to be together again. ^ 
 For another, the bishops have again turned their thoughts 
 to^ them, and Aylmer issues a mandate, signed February 25, 
 1589-90, to his " loving friends Mr. Archdeacon Mollins, 
 Mr. Dr. Andrews, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Hutchinson, and the 
 rest of the preachers in and about London within named." 
 His action was in consequence of an order "received from 
 my lord's grace of Canterbury, with the advice of both the 
 Chief Justices, that conference should presently be had with 
 these sectaries which do forsake our Church and be for the 
 same committed prisoners ; for that it is intended if by our 
 
 ' They were together f^hen the conferences began. 
 
40 HENEY BARROW. 
 
 good and learned persuasions they will not te reduced to 
 conform themselves to their dutiful obedience, then they shall 
 be proceeded withal according to the course of the common 
 law." A list is appended of the prisoners, and of the 
 prisons where they are confined. Two or three prisoners are 
 assigned to each preacher, and what he has to do is "to 
 repair" to these " twice every week (at the least) " and "by 
 all learned and discreet demeanour to reduce them from their 
 errors." Further, with a view to evidence of " conformity or 
 disobedience " at their trial, each preacher is " to set down in 
 writing the particular days " of his " going to confer with " 
 the prisoners ; and to set down likewise his " censure " or judg- 
 ment of them, so that, if " occasion " should demand, he will 
 swear to it. Aylmer anticipated that the preachers would not 
 be eager to undertake such work ; and, therefore (in the absence 
 from the city of his chancellor. Dr. Stanhope), he requires 
 Mr. Mollins to send for them and lay "the charge upon them";^ 
 and, in case any of them should refuse, to summon him or 
 them to Fulham, having previously sent an exact account of 
 his or their answers. Moreover, for his assistance each 
 preacher is to be supplied with " a brief of the positions holden 
 by the new sect of recusants." 
 
 There are 52 prisoners named — 10 in the Gatehouse, 5 in 
 the Counter (Poultry), 14 in the Counter (Wood Street), 8 in 
 Newgate, 10 in the Clink, 5 in the Fleet. All are men except 
 one — Edith Burroughe, in Newgate. The three in the Fleet 
 besides Barrow and Greenwood are Robert Badkin, Walter 
 Lane, Daniel Studley. In addition to Siudley there are other 
 well-known names. There is Thomas Settle, in the Gatehouse, 
 who " offered prayer " in Penry's house when Christopher 
 Bowman, more than two years later, was married there. There 
 is Roger Rippon, in the Counter, Wood Street, who died a 
 prisoner in 1692— "the last of sixteen or seventeen which that 
 great enemy of God, the Archbishop of Canterbury, with his 
 High Commissioners, have murdered in Newgate within these 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 41 
 
 five years/' according to tlie gruesome epitaph iiiscrited upon 
 his cofBn. There is Christopher Bowman, in the Counter, 
 Wood Street, who, after four years of imprisonment, was 
 released ; was married in Penry's house ; was chosen deacon of 
 the Church ; was again arrested ; but lived to fulfil his diaconal 
 of&ce in the exiled Church at Amsterdam. There is George 
 Kniveton, in the Counter (Poultry), who also regained his 
 freedom ; was made elder of the Church with Studley at the 
 same time as Bowman was made deacon ; renewed his acquaint- 
 ance with prison life ; and escaped with the " remnant " to 
 Holland, There are other names whose only record is, so to 
 speak, a streak of hlood. Thus we compare the list with 
 another of earlier date — May or June, 1588 — and we find that 
 some names are common to both. There is John Francis, in 
 Newgate, committed (says the earlier list) by the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury prisoner ten months (eighteen months at the 
 date of the second), having a wife and children. There is 
 Eobert Badkin, said by the earlier list to be in Newgate and 
 " bailed by Master Yonge," but at the date of the second still a 
 prisoner in the Fleet. There is George Collier, committed by 
 the Bishop of London for hearing a portion of Scripture in a 
 friend's house read by Greenwood on a Lord's day, and has 
 remained a prisoner, in the Clink, nineteen months — twenty- 
 seven at the date of the second list — "without being brought to 
 his answer." There is Christopher Eoper, "committed close 
 prisoner " to the Counter in the Poultry " by the Bishop of 
 London," but now, eight months later, in the Clink, There is 
 Quintin Smyth, " taken from his labours, cast into the dungeon 
 (at Newgate) in irons, his Bible taken from him by (Dr. 
 Eichard) Stanhoop (Stanhope)," now transferred to the Clink, 
 There is William Denford, " committed (to Newgate) upon the 
 Statute (of Eecusancy) close prisoner." There is George Smels 
 (or Smalles) still in the Counter, Wood Street, where " he hath 
 remained " (now twenty-seven months) " unbrought forth," for 
 hearing Greenwood. There is William Clarke, committed to 
 
42 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 the Counter, Wood Street, by the constable, " for saying they 
 did evil to enforce Master Legate " (out of his bed in the night- 
 time) " without a warrant." There are one or two more, also, 
 whose names emit a gleam of light. There is, e.g., Eoger 
 Waterer in Newgate, who, in April, 1593, deposed before his 
 judges that he had been a prisoner three years and three 
 months, never examined, " and confessed that he " was once at 
 an assembly in a Garden House near Bedlam, where James 
 Forrester did expound the Scriptures. There is Thomas 
 Canadine, in the Gatehouse, whom at a later time we meet in 
 Amsterdam as an occasion of scandal; and who, later still, 
 appears in the company of John Smyth's adherents. There is 
 James Forrester, a physician and Master of Arts, who shared 
 the examination of Barrow in March, 1592, and gave way 
 before the ordeal, saying he once " began to incline that way " 
 (the way of the Separatists), " but hath since seen, he thanketh 
 God, their great error." But, after all, the identity extends to 
 comparatively few of the names. Of the 25 in the earlier list 
 only 8 reappear in the later list of 62. In the intervening 
 eight months some have been released ; some have died ; 
 others have been recently taken. For spies were continually 
 on the watch, doing their best to track the little company as it 
 migrated from house to house, from place to place ; and there 
 were few of its members, I imagine, who did not, sooner or 
 later, come to know what it was to lie in a London gaol. 
 
 Eeturning to our list, it is remarkable that as many as 
 forty-two preachers were nominated to confer with the fifty- 
 two prisoners. Most of them, so far as one can judge, 
 belonged to the section of the clergy whose tendencies were 
 Puritan — a circumstance which gives point to what is said by 
 the Editor of the "Conferences," that "the Eeformed 
 Preachers are now become the Bishops' trusty actors in their 
 most cunning and cruel eiaterprises "... and that this 
 publication is designed to " give them to understand how they 
 have behaved themselves in this business." But there are excel)- 
 
HENEY BAEROW. 43 
 
 tions. Thei'e is, for example, Dr. Bancroft, Dean of St. Paul's, 
 future Bishop of London, and successor to Whitgift in the See 
 of Canterbury, known already as preacher of a famous 
 sermon at St. Paul's Cross.^ There is Sara^da, champion this 
 very year of the existing ecclesiastical order in his "de 
 diversis gradibus ministrorum Evangelii." ^ And there is Dr. 
 (Lawrence) Andrews : at this time incumbent of St. Giles's, 
 Cripplegate ; afterwards Bishop and saint of the Church.^ He 
 was one of three to whom Barrow and Greenwood were 
 assigned. The other two were Mr. MoUins'^ and Mr. Hutchin- 
 son. Li earlier days the former had been a " zealous man 
 for reformation ; " an '' exile " who settled at Zurich in Queen 
 Mary's time; and "Greek Eeader " among tbe exUes at 
 Frankfort. He is now Archdeacon of London and a Canon of 
 St. Paul's — " much reverenced for his great learning and 
 frequent preaching." The latter is Vicar of Charlbury, in 
 Oxfordshire; is about to be made President of St. John's 
 College, Oxford;^ and will die there before he can take his 
 part as one of King James's translators of the Bible. At 
 present he also is among the preachers in or about London. 
 The order given was that the Conferences should be held 
 twice a week at least. As to the other fifty prisoners, there is 
 no proof that the preachers visited them at all. Nor was the 
 order obeyed strictly in the case of Barrow and Greenwood. 
 Mr. Archdeacon Mollins, who was commissioned to supervise 
 the rest, and whom we look for along with Hutchinson and 
 Andrews, does not appear on the scene once. His colleagues 
 also were irregular. There were two sets of Conferences — ^pro- 
 ceeding side by side. The first was held on March 9th ; the 
 seventh and last on April 13th.^ Mr. Hutchinson figures in 
 
 ' February 9, 1333-9 ; famous for ^ 1311-1391 ; also spelt Molyns 
 
 asserting the Divine right of Bishops. (Molans, Mullins). 
 
 2 For which he reoeivedthe "D.D." * June 9, 1590; died January, 1603. 
 
 of Oxford on July 9, 1590. "What position he held in London I 
 
 ' Vicar of St. Giles's (1338), Doan cannot find, 
 
 of Westminster (1601), Bishop of '' Seven Conferences: (1) March 9, 
 
 Chichester, Ely, Winchester ; the last Hutchinson and Greenwood. (2) 
 
 from 1618 to 1623, when he died. March 17, Hutchinson and Green- 
 
44 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 four of them, Dr. Ajidrews in two. In the remaining three 
 Mr. Sperin is a leading actor, though he is not nominated 
 among the forty-two. In the second of these, Mr. Egerton — 
 to whom the list assigns George Collier and John Sparowe 
 in the Fleet — is with Sperin. In the third he is accom- 
 panied by Mr. Cooper, who was supposed to have in hand 
 Eobert Andrews and William Hutton, in the Counter, Wood 
 Street. 
 
 First Con- The first meeting took place on March 9, and to this Mr. 
 
 lerence. . 
 
 Hutchinson came alone. He introduced himself by saying that 
 
 he " came by virtue of Commission in Her Majesty's name, to 
 confer," &c. 
 
 Greenwood at once refused to " answer anything until he 
 might have indifferent witness by, and the matter to be written 
 down " ; whereupon he " obtained to have pen and ink, and 
 Mr. Calthorp, a gentleman and prisoner, to be witness." Mr. 
 Hutchinson then wrote down that he came " not to examine 
 or anyway to hurt Greenwood," but "to confer about his ' sepa- 
 rating,' " and the possibility of finding means " to reduce," or 
 lead him back. Greenwood wrote down that he did not desire 
 Mr. Hutchinson's coming, but was ready for " any Christian 
 Conference " on equal terms — " the matter on both sides to be 
 recorded in writing," because he had been slandered and mis- 
 represented by Dr. Some. Mr. Hutchinson then produced 
 the Bishops' Articles and Dr. Some's book,^ wishing Green- 
 wood to say whether he allowed or not what was therein 
 charged. Greenwood would not answer, except to say that the 
 articles were the Bishop's " owne," and that Dr. Some's book 
 was " full of lies and slanders." The argument into which 
 
 •wood. (3) March 18, Hutchinson ajid Sperin and Cooper; Barrow and Green- 
 Andrews ; Barrow and Greenwood. (4) wood. These, though held at the 
 April 13, Hutchinson, Andrews ; Bar- same time, did not reach the Press 
 row, and Greenwood. These four till later in the year, 
 •were printed immediately. (5) , _, . , „„ ,, „ .. „ „ 
 March 14, Sperin and Barrow. (6) J ^^'IJ^^^^h^ f^^l^' Treatise of 
 March 20, Sj^rin and Egerton; Bar- ^^y, 1589, dedicated to Hatton and 
 row and Greenwood. (7) April 3, Cecil. 
 
HEN"EY BAREOW. 45 
 
 they presently drifted may hare been new to Mr. Hutchinson ; 
 it is not to us. As was certain to be the case, it developed 
 heatj and ended in nothing. 
 
 A second conference occurred between the same parties Second 
 eight days later, March 17. Says Greenwood, "I was sent for ferenoo. 
 out of my chamber and brought into the porter's lodge in the 
 Fleet, where I found Mr. Hutchinson and one whose name I 
 after understood to be Dr. Bright. These two were closely 
 locked in that no man might hear our conference ; only one of 
 Mr. Warden's men besides my keeper came in. So soon as I 
 was come and willed (i.e., directed) to sit down with them, Mr. 
 Hutchinson began " on John's baptism, a thread dropped in the 
 first conference. The discussion of this topic took up all the 
 time and ended as it began. On the next day Mr. Hutchinson Third 
 came again, accompanied this time by Dr. Andrews; the ferenoe. 
 " other party " being, not Grreenwood but, Barrow. Barrow, 
 like Greenwood, reports what took place. " They being set down 
 in the parlor" (the parlour was to accommodate the visitors; 
 they had no mind to breathe the air of the prisoner's chamber ; 
 even the porter's lodge may have been too much for them), 
 "with one gentleman whom they brought with them and three 
 of their own servants, I being entered and come unto them, 
 they desired me to sit down with them, and that we might all 
 be covered." 
 
 Mr. Hutchinson presumes that his " chamber-fellow," Mr. 
 Greenwood, has told Barrow the "cause of our coming," and 
 Barrow admits that Greenwood had told him how " some had 
 been with him yesternight, but not the cause of your coming to 
 me this day." 
 
 Hutchinson. We come to the same end, to confer 
 brotherly with you concerning certain positions that you are 
 said to hold. 
 
 Barrow. I desire nothing more than Christian conference, 
 but having been two years and well-nigh a half kept by the 
 bishops in close prison, could never as yet obtain any such 
 
46 HENEY BAREOW. 
 
 conference ■where the Book of God might peaceably decide all 
 our controversy. 
 
 Andrews tates up the words "Book of God," and a con- 
 versation ensues which I quote elsewhere. 
 
 Hutchinson then refers to his having heen at the High 
 Commission which examined Barrow " a year ago," and Barrow 
 complains to the effect already stated. 
 
 Hutchinson. We will not hear your complaints because we 
 cannot redress them. 
 
 Andrews. For close imprisonment you are most happy. 
 The solitary and contemplative life I hold the most blessed life. 
 It is the life I would choose. 
 
 Was the speaker indulging himself in an unctuous sneer ? 
 Perhaps not. His Kfe shows that he set high value on contem- 
 plation and solitude. But on this occasion he — to say the least 
 — forgot the circumstances. 
 
 Barrow. You speak philosophically, but not Christianly. 
 So sweet is the harmony of God's graces unto me in the con- 
 gregation, and the conversation of the saints at all times, as I 
 think myself as a sparrow on the housetop when I am exiled 
 from them. But could you be content also, Mr. Andrews, to 
 be kept from exercise so long together? These aj-e also 
 necessary to a natural body. 
 
 Andrews answers (rather ashamed, it seems to me) : " I say 
 not that I would want air." Then, abruptly changing the 
 subject, " But who be those saints you speak of ? Where are 
 they?" 
 
 Barrow. They are even those poor Christians whom you so 
 blaspheme and persecute, and now most unjustly hold in your 
 prisons. 
 
 Andrews. But where is their congregation ? 
 
 Barrow. Though I knew I pm-pose not to tell you. 
 
 The question seems to bespeak cunning and a sinister pur- 
 pose, but I doubt if it really did. It is more charitable, and, 
 perhaps, as probable, to suppose that his curiosity was due to 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 47 
 
 simplicity and some lingering embarrassment. One shrinks 
 from the idea that he hoped to entrap Barrow into an admis- 
 sion which might open a way to the arrest of " more yictims." 
 All we know of his character pleads to the contrary. 
 
 Then Mr. Hutchinson's contemptuous description of the 
 so-caUed saints as a company of sectaries, sets going a long 
 dispute as to what is a sectary and what a schismatic. Here it 
 suddenly occurs to Barrow that he is one against two ; and that 
 their " testimony " " may the rather he taken " than his. 
 Andrews offers to " go and reason with Mr. Greenwood ; " but 
 Barrow would rather he "tarried still." It wiU suffice if he can 
 have " indifferent nota,ries and witnesses." Accordingly " ink 
 and paper" are brought, many enter into the parlor ; and it is 
 agreed to " set down " and discuss a formal proposition. 
 
 " Mr. Hutchinson set down this : The Parish Church of St. 
 Bride's is a true church, to which any Christian may join in 
 their public prayers and sacraments as they are by law now 
 established." To this Barrow, of course, opposes his definition 
 of a church; and then Mr. Andrews moved that "the question 
 being agreed upon and the time being now far spent we might 
 depart untU another time." But " I," says Barrow, " seeing 
 much company gotten in, and nothing more heard against me 
 than this proposition, desired them to say something unto it in 
 that time that remained." The people's freedom of access, their 
 keen interest in what is going on, and Barrow's eagerness to seize 
 an opportunity which comes nearer to his notion of a public 
 conference than anything he has known, are alike noteworthy. 
 
 Barrow is allowed to have his way ; and the game of battle- 
 dore went on with the said proposition for ball till not only the 
 time was far spent, but the combatants also. Then Mr. 
 Hutchinson rose, " putting up the paper wherein these argu- 
 ments and propositions were written into his bosom." To this 
 Barrow " condescended " (or consented), on the promise to let 
 him have a copy and to let him " keep the paper " " upon the 
 next conference." 
 
48 
 
 HJ!]NET BAEROW. 
 
 Ponrth 
 Confer- 
 ence, 
 April 13. 
 
 Fifth 
 Confer- 
 ence, 
 March 14. 
 
 Barrow's narrative closes with a good illustration of his 
 scrupulousness. Barrow rebuking Andrews is a picture ! 
 
 B. I reproved Mr. Andrews for swearing unlawfully (by 
 his honesty), and making his faith an idol. A. said I knew 
 not what an oath or an idol meant. Mr. Andrews also used 
 this word Luck. I said there was no Fortune or Luck. He 
 quoted Luke x, 31 : " By chance there went down a certain 
 priest that way." 
 
 After nearly a month the fourth conference was held— 
 April 13, 1590. Besides Hutchinson, Andrews, and Barrow, 
 Greenwood also was present. It was as little satisfactory as 
 the previous ones. Barrow reports as many as twenty-two 
 points which his opponents at this time asserted and maintained. 
 But he can only give a confused accoimt of what happened, he 
 says, because all was " so disorderly handled." 
 
 Here Hutchinson and Andrews disappear from the scene. 
 But, meanwhile, the two principals have been engaged in three 
 conferences with three other preachers. 
 
 Of these, too, we have the record. There is first "the 
 summe of a conference between Mr. Thomas Sperin and 
 me, Henry Barrow, upon the 14th of the third month, in 
 the Fleet, as near as my ill memory could carry away." Ink 
 and paper were laid on the table by the keeper. " There 
 were many in the windows." After a time, ''many being 
 gotten into the parlour and more into the windows, we 
 thought it meet to remove up to the chamber where I lie." 
 Aylmer (Bishop of London) is the first topic. Then bishops 
 generally; but Sperin, dreading to admit something which 
 wiU compromise him with the listeners, presently " declines 
 to say more of bishops' offices." Next, Sperin tries to 
 show that his congregation, though a "parish assembly," 
 is a true church ; and that he does his best to keep it pure. 
 Barrow's skilful cross-questioning (in which the lawyer is 
 very manifest) entangles him in more than one "dangerous 
 position." 
 
HENEY BARROW. 49 
 
 Six days later he returns with Mr, Egerton. On this Sixth 
 occasion Greenwood also was present. Barrow opens the debate ence, 
 by a reference " to that compelling of all the nation into the 
 Church," which took place at the beginning of the Queen's 
 reign. Sperin remarks that the point is not one he need 
 " meddle with," since he was only three years old at the time. 
 But Greenwood holds him to it. He deems it necessary, before 
 proceeding, that Mr. Sperin should distinctly say whether he 
 disavows or justifies that compulsory " gathering of the Church." 
 Sperin answers that he does not justify it. Greenwood replies , 
 yet " you have them (the people gathered) on your side." No, 
 says Sperin, for to my knowledge " once in twelve years the 
 most part of the parish changeth." " But," rejoins Greenwood, 
 " none come but such as then were received, or their seed. For 
 they go but from one parish to another, all the parishes being 
 one body and the Church one." At length they move on to 
 other topics — ^the maintenance of the ministry, and especially 
 excommunication. Egerton takes his full share of the speaking j 
 but is rather more cautious than Sperin. Both afiirm, e.g., that 
 the bishops' ex-communication is but a civil act. Then 
 under Barrow's questioning, Sperin distinguishes : — " The 
 bishops' power is civil, but their action ecclesiastical." 
 
 Barrow. And may a civil person execute any ecclesiastical 
 office or action ? 
 
 Greenwood. Do you hold the bishops, their commissaries 
 and substitutes merely civil, and not ecclesiastical ? 
 
 Sperin says " Yes." Then Barrow instantly, " "Write that 
 and set it down tmder your hand." 
 
 Sperin. So I will ; and took unto him pen and ink. 
 
 Egerton. Why so ? what need it to be written ? 
 
 Barrow said "that we may the better know whereof we 
 reason and hold to the point;" and Greenwood urged that 
 the concession was very material. But Barrow had to 
 write it down himself: "Sperin delaying because of Mr. 
 Egerton." 
 
50 HENEY BAEROW. 
 
 Most of what follows circles round the same point — ^viz., 
 the unlawfulness of uniting the civil and ecclesiastical in one 
 office. Exclaims Greenwood : " This mixture is the mystery of 
 iniquity and the power of the beast." If anything, Green- 
 wood's tone, on the whole, is sharper even than Barrow's. 
 Certainly, he is generally quite as acute in question and 
 answer; and by no means leaves on one's mind the impres- 
 sion of playing second to his companion. The notion that 
 he was but a " simple fellow " is a mistake. 
 
 Egerton's part began and ended with this one Conference. 
 
 But he had impressed the two prisoners more favourably and 
 
 Correspon- hopefully than their other visitors. So they wrote to him, 
 
 M?.° E^r- enclosing a copy of the Conference ; and seeking to " stir him 
 
 letters^^™ up not to leave the matter " as it was, " considering the 
 
 A *rif i" seriousness thereof, but " either to " yield," " or to procure 
 
 ^"^Mayii some free and large place and time to make our minds plain, 
 
 and faith open to one another." They subscribed themselves 
 
 "most desirous of your fellowship in the faith of Christ," 
 
 Henry Barrow, John Greenwood. 
 
 Mr. Egerton had no mind to reciprocate their friendli- 
 <2) April ness. In "girding against vain philosophy," in other words, 
 against logic, they " do but as Browne hath done in his 
 ' brainless reasons ' " ; and as to the copy of the Conference, 
 he finds it " wanting in some things that were spoken " ; he 
 finds " many things expressed that were never spoken " ; he 
 finds " most things that were spoken perverted " ; and 
 *' finally," he finds it " so full of partiality, so void of upright 
 and true dealing, and so far out of order, that " he has 
 ^' neither leisure, much less any lust, to deal with it." Eurther, 
 he tells them that "if they give out copies," he will "dis- 
 ■claim " them wheresoever he goes, not only for men void of 
 piety, but even of civil honesty also.^ 
 
 The prisoners were sadly disappointed. " We have read 
 
 ' Yet lie ia willing to write and have for refusing " to come to our 
 Bend an answer— at his leisure — to public assemblies " if they will put 
 any " or 7 chief reasons " they may them " briefly and plainly." 
 
 12, 1590. 
 
HENET BAEEOW. 51 
 
 your letter," they say in their reply, " with little comfort " ; and 
 our " small spark of hope " is " extinct." But on two things 
 {inter alia) they insist — first, that " as for the opinions and name (3) May a 
 of Browne," he is "a man with whom " they " had never any- 
 thing to do, neither may have in this estate of his apostasy " ; 
 next, that their report of the Conference is correct — taken down, 
 as it was, " from your mouths, even before your eyes, and read in 
 your presence, and in the hearing of sundry honest witnesses." 
 To ensure accuracy, they had actually sent the copy {" not 
 trusting much to our own memories ") to the witnesses for 
 correction before sending it to Mr. Egerton. And, instead of 
 applying general terms of denunciation, it would have been 
 " better for his credit if he had set down some particulars in 
 which the report was false." Signed, " with unfeigned desu'e 
 of your salvation," Henry Barrow and John Greenwood, " close 
 prisoners in the Fleet for the testimony of the truth of the 
 Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever." 
 This came to Egerton's hands on May the 2nd ; on the 4th he (4) May i 
 wrote a curt rejoinder, in which he simply states and denies 
 their three " arguments," that his ministry (1) as derived from 
 Antichrist, is unlawful ; (2) is held in " a false ofB.ce " ; (3) is 
 exercised among "a confused people." And, adds he, "my 
 affirmation is as good as yours. Valete et estote sani. He 
 that wisheth your conversion, J. Egerton." As we might 
 expect, the prisoners, in their next — written the following day 
 — go eagerly and lengthily into these points. Between the 
 date of Egerton's first letter (April 14) and the date on which 
 he received Barrow and Greenwood's second (May 2), there is 
 an interval of more than a fortnight. They refer to this in a (5) ^'"■y s 
 P.S. to their third. " In that you received our second letter 
 no sooner, you are to impute it to your own absence, that 
 could no sooner be spoken withal by our messenger who 
 was at your house to deliver it you upon April 18th, and 
 at sundry times since." In fact, it was Easter-time; and 
 Egerton, had he remained at home, would have been 
 
52 HENRY BARROW. 
 
 legally bound to "administer the Communion" in his 
 church according to the Prayer Book. They hint that thi» 
 was not agreeable to his conscience, and he had slipped out 
 of the way. Henry Barrow and John Greenwood, " prisoners 
 for the truth of the Gospel, and witnesses against all Anti- 
 christ's marked soldiers and proceedings." Egerton is now 
 thoroughly roused. 
 
 "To Mr. Barrow and Mr. Greenwood. More truth and 
 
 (6) May 6 love to you, &c. BecausB your letter received the 6 of the 5 
 ob^vrjus in- month hath in it as many lies as mine to you (to my remem- 
 an™G/s ' brance) hath lines, I think it the best coui-se to set them before 
 said to^ you, to move in you some remorse, except it be with you as the 
 reeelv^d^" prophet saith — nescit impius erubescere." The four last itema 
 andlsTer- ^^^ *^^^^ =~" (^2) '^^^^ ^ ^^^ myself at Easter; (13) that I am 
 ton dates touud to minister the Lord's Supper at Easter ; (14) that I 
 
 his answer -^ -^ . 
 
 on the have the mark of the Beast; (15) that I worship the Image. 
 
 Sth. ^.^.^ 
 
 ' What shall be thy reward, thou lying tongue ? ' ' Without 
 shall be dogs, enchanters, . . . and all that loveth and 
 maketh lies.' If Barrow and Greenwood be so void of grace, 
 what should we think of that pitiful band of seduced 
 schismatics ? 
 
 " The Lord give you repentance. Amen. 5 May, 1590. 
 
 "I. Egeeton." 
 
 (7) May 11 '^^® prisoners received this on the 10th, and found it so full 
 
 of "vanitie, vituperie, and blasphemie as it deserveth none answer 
 or speaking of." Nevertheless they answered it next day, 
 point by point, " for the satisfying of others to whom these our 
 controversies may come." But unless their correspondent can 
 " hereafter " season his letters " with more gravity and grace "■ 
 they will be unwilling to receive any more, or at the least will 
 forbear to answer them, Egerton^ did not write again. They 
 
 ' Egerton (1553 P-1621 ?) was of tinguished Bcholar ; a leader in th» 
 Peterhouse, Cambridge ; was a dis- formation of the Wandsworth Pres- 
 
HENRY BAREOW. 53 
 
 •went their several ways, and met no more until they came to 
 the " world of light," and saw that the things which save are 
 not the things about which they wrangled on earth. 
 
 In the meantime Mr. Sperin brought another champion on 
 ihe scene, and what Barrow truly calls " a confuse conference," 
 the last and perhaps the least edifying of the series, took place. Last Con- 
 This was on April 3, and the new-comer was Mr. Cooper. The AprTn.' 
 prisoners seem to have known him. Greenwood especially. 
 Thus the latter says, " You were made minister by the bishop 
 before you came to your (present) parish by Powles " {i.e., St. 
 Paul's) ; and again : " Before you had a ilock (here) Mrs. 
 Lawson got a licence for you from the Archbishop to preach in 
 the parish." ^ He reminds him — after Cooper has just denied 
 his belief in the article about Christ's descent into hell — that 
 he had " of late (as I hear) subscribed to this article " among 
 the rest. " Here Mr. C. was smitten with muteness ; " and a 
 gentleman who was standing by said, " Have you done so ? " 
 
 Cooper. He careth not what he saith of me. 
 
 Greenwood. Will you deny it? I will bring witness to 
 prove it unto you before to-morrow at eight of the clock if you 
 deny it. 
 
 The conference opened unpleasantly, for Sperin took upon 
 himself to use "certain speech openly in way of prayer." 
 Oreenwood resented this. It was " too Pharisaical " if done 
 for his own sake ; and " as for us you know we would not join 
 unto it." " Your prayers," indeed, "and all your actions are 
 accursed in this popish ministry you execute." The old charge 
 of Brownism is made, and is indignantly repelled. 
 
 bytery, 1572 ; one of those who pre- London do) with her man ? No, saith 
 
 sented the " Millenary " Petition to T. C, I doe not like this in women. 
 
 James I. in 1603— "a man of great Tusho, man! Thomas Lawson is not 
 
 learning and godliness." Thomas Cooper. He has no such 
 
 ' Has this anything to do with a cause to doubt of Dame Lawson's 
 
 passage in Martin Marprelate— " con- going without her husband, as the 
 
 cerning Mistresse Lawson— profane Bishop of Winchester hath had of 
 
 T. C. — is it not lawfull for her to go Dame Cooper's gadding. But more 
 
 ■to Lambeth by water to accompany a worke for Cooper. Will say more for 
 
 preacher's wife (Cooper?)? Going Mistresse Lawson." — Hay any worka 
 
 also (as, commonly, godly matrons in for Cooper, p. 37. 
 
54 HENEY BAEROW. 
 
 Barrow. We are no Brownists. We liold not our faith 
 in respect of any mortal man, neither were we instructed by 
 him, or baptized into his name until by such as you we were so 
 termed. 
 
 Greenwood. Browne is an apostate, now one of fyour 
 Church. You receive all such apostates from Christ. We 
 never had anything to do with Browne, neither are we members 
 of your Church. 
 
 Sperin, You were sometime a memher of our Church, were 
 you not ? And now are gone back ? 
 
 Greenivood. Yes ; but I by repentance left it, finding my 
 ministry wholly unlawful in the very of&ce, entrance, and 
 administration. ... I was first made a deacon by London 
 to no peculiar congregation, after made full priest by the 
 Bishop of Lincoln. 
 
 Several topics are debated — ^the ministiy, the right or 
 wrong of submitting to hear unlawful ministers, the propriety 
 of using the Lord's Prayer in worship. On the second topic 
 some of Greenwood's words, illustrating the bigotry duetto his 
 position, may be quoted. 
 
 Cooper. If one come into a congregation and hear one 
 preach, he ought not to make question of the minister's calling 
 or refuse his doctrine. 
 
 Greenwood. If one come so and hefore knew that that 
 preacher hath a false outward calling — yea, that he hath no 
 office in a true Church, but is a false prophet, he offendeth in 
 hearing of him, especially in a false church ; for there is no 
 false teacher but teacheth some truth. . . . 
 
 Bancroft and some other High Churchmen of the Estab- 
 lishment might have said the same • but, whereas they have 
 many modem descendants. Greenwood has none. We have 
 learnt how to combine respect for his principle with loyalty to 
 the spirit of love. 
 
 On the whole, these conferences serve to bi-ing Barrow and 
 his companion nearer to us, and to render them more life-like 
 
HENRY BARROW. 55 
 
 than anytMng else that has been handed down. For this reason 
 it may have been worth while to notice them in some detail. 
 But as to any good result, they were worse tban useless. On 
 the surface their intention was conciliatory. Their real purpose, 
 however, was inquisitorial — to provide definite evidence for a 
 civil trial. It might seem to indicate no small amount of 
 Christian forbearance and consideration on the part of the- 
 bishops to appoint forty-two preachers to " persuade " some 
 fifty poor prisoners ; but it was hardly an accident that th& 
 other prisoners, after all, were left alone, and attention concen- 
 trated on the two leaders — so much so that five of the preachers 
 had them in hand during the same few weeks, with orders, or, 
 at least, permission, to question them, write down their answers, 
 and report to headquarters. It was a subtle way of pursuing 
 judgment under a mask of mercy. And the prisoners knew 
 this weU enough. They spoke freely — much more freely than 
 was consistent with prudence — and they did so because, with 
 people " in the windows " and the room listening, they would 
 not even for dear life miss a chance of propagating the " truth." 
 But they were none the less conscious that it was a " contrived 
 new Spanish conference " in which they were taking part ; and 
 no shght degree of the bitterness of theii- tone was due to this 
 fact.^ Under such conditions nothing good could come out of 
 it ; nothing but vanity and vexation of spirit. A similar issue, 
 no doubt, would have waited on that public conference for 
 which the Separatists so longed, had it ever been held. The 
 very confidence, admitting of no possible mistake, with which 
 they would have entered upon it, must have defeated their end. 
 Two sides equally certain and dogmatic can never come within 
 sight of the truth, much less reason about it calmly and im- 
 partially. They can only choke themselves with the smoke and 
 
 ' They liave "contrived this new accuse them unto their holy fathers 
 
 Spanish Conference sending unto them the B.B.'s, who thereupon might de- 
 
 in their prisons certain of their select lirer them as convicts of heresy unto 
 
 souldiers ... to flsh from them the secular powers." — Preface (to first 
 
 some matter whereupon they might series). 
 
56 HENRY BAEEOW. 
 
 fire of their own passions. But still the demand of the 
 Separatists for " a free and open conference " constrains our 
 sympathy. For at bottom it was the struggling cry of men, 
 as it were, suffocated. They had a word of God in their heart, 
 urging, compelling them to speak ; and all means of utterance 
 was denied ! They were forbidden to preach, to print, to speak 
 together in private assemblies, while their opinions and 
 characters might be caricatured and blackened to any extent by 
 adversaries. They had no legal way to the public ear at all. 
 They were not suffered even to state their case. Their 
 suffocating sense of wrong had to find an outlet as best it 
 could through secret and obstructed channels. In such a case 
 their entreaty for a free public conference is felt to be a truly 
 modest and pathetic request. Not an unlicensed press, not an 
 unbridled pulpit, not an open platform — nothing of that sort 
 was in their mind ; but simply leave, once for all, to meet the 
 gainsayer in a fair field, and to set forth their true position in 
 the light of day. But no ; the utmost they could get was the 
 miserable subterfuge of a conference with two or three bishops' 
 messengers ! How the fact appeared to them is well seen in 
 the following extract from the editor's preface^ to the first part 
 of the conferences : — He says he expects " to be blamed at all 
 hands " for publishing them, " but I see not why any should 
 greatly be offended with this my doing, seeing thereby no wrong 
 is done to any man. ... As for these prisoners that are 
 named, and had to do in this business, there is no cause why 
 they should be offended, seeing they, under their own hands, 
 have made relation hereof unto the Church, and have (for so 
 doing) the practice of the Apostles (Acts iv. 23), as also of oui- 
 late martyrs in Queen Mary's days in the like cases. ... As 
 for the other side, if nothing should be published until their 
 consent were had, there should never any of these things come 
 to light. But if they think themselves injured, let them set 
 dovra the particulars wherein ; or, for the further satisfying of 
 
 ' First Series. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 57 
 
 all men, let them yet at length condescend to some Christian 
 and free Conference, where hoth sides may have liberty to 
 produce their reasons, a true record of them be kept by 
 faithful and indifferent notaries, each side be allowed to have a 
 copy thereof, and time to consider of what is passed accord- 
 ingly. Thus might the truth soon and peaceably be known, 
 where the Word of God may be judge betwixt them; from 
 which whoso departeth, and will not be reduced, let him to 
 his own peril vindergo such censures and judgments as are due 
 to his error and sin. Only this is sure — wisdom is justified by 
 all her children." 
 
 After the excitement of the Conferences, the days wore 
 on as before. There was little of external incident to 
 break the monotony. Barrow had a room " upstairs," with 
 light enough perhaps, but small ; and " wanting air," He 
 had a companion whose heart answered to his own. He had 
 his Bible for continual study, and also writing materials 
 for occasional use. We have heard him resent the diligent 
 watch held over him by his keepers, and of the frequent 
 incursions of those sent to rifle him of all his papers and 
 writings. But his keepers cannot have been always strict. 
 They must, indeed, have connived at a good deal, else how had 
 it been possible to find time and means to write anything? 
 We need not suppose that his keepers were careless or 
 unusually kind. Barrow had money ; and, vmder the hardest 
 conditions, money can buy indulgences. We know from other 
 examples that a prisoner's degree of comfort was regulated by 
 what he could buy or pay.^ We have no reason to doubt that 
 the same rule applied to Barrow. He would have just as 
 many privileges as he was in a position to purchase. And 
 these, it is evident, were considerable. He had permission to 
 receive friends from time to time; and the alert keeper 
 managed not to notice that they brought him books, and pens 
 and ink and paper, and desirable information ; nor did he 
 ' Cf the case of Biabop Hooper. 
 
58 HENRY BAltEOW. 
 
 detect the sheets of MS. which they bore away with them. 
 Sometimes quite a number of friends would come, including 
 one or more couples bent on matrimony; and something 
 like a religious service would take place with Barrow and 
 Greenwood among the witnesses. That this is no mere fancy 
 is certain. For, when answering the charge that the Sepa- 
 ratists " will not marry amongst us in our churches, but resort 
 to the Fleet to "be married by one Greenwood and Barrow," the 
 latter do not deny that " parties " had come to be married in 
 the Fleet, but only that the parties had been married by them. 
 They have not " taken upon them to marry any, or executed 
 that office otherwise than to gather with other faithful, to 
 witness the same, and to praise God for it." Of course, 
 such an event must have passed under the eyes of the keeper, 
 but he was discreetly blind. Nay, although it is doubtless 
 true that, as a rule, Barrow was confined to his room " from 
 the aire and from exercise," it seems as if he may have 
 been allowed once and again to steal even outside the 
 prison, and betake himself to a meeting of the Church. 
 At least — bearing in mind his declaration in the early part 
 of 1591, that he had been closely imprisoned for more than 
 three years — I find no other way of explaining John Gierke's 
 evidence in 1593, that three years before he was "taken in 
 an assembly with Barrow, and not examined till this time."^ 
 Neither statement can be open to question; and if both 
 be true, Gierke must have met Barrow on some occasion 
 when the keeper had connived at his release for a few hours, 
 perhaps, on his word of honour. Gierke's words imply that 
 when he was taken Ban-ow was re-taken ; and one probable 
 result would be a curtailment of '' indulgencies." But not, 
 apparently, indulgence of the pen. For the last months of 
 1 590 witnessed the finishing touches to his " Brief Discovery " 
 and his " Plain Refutation of Mr. Gifford." They witnessed, 
 also, the writing of his " Platform," ^ and of a " Supplication 
 " H^leian MS., 7,042, C9 (30). = gee Appendix iii. 
 
HENRY BAREOW. 59 
 
 to the Queen." NeaP says the latter was intercepted ; Strype 
 says it " was conveyed to the Queen's hands." ^ A letter to a 
 Mr. Fisher, which was intercepted, seems to bear out Strype ; 
 and to show that Whitgift had been busy counteracting its 
 possible efEect on the Queen's mind. The Archbishop, 
 says Barrow, "wants not his intelligences in all places ; 
 and belike, being stung in his guilty conscience, and fearing 
 his barbarous and lawless proceedings should now be 
 brought to light, seeks to suppress the same by all secret 
 and subtle means ; making and winning the gaolers — by 
 extraordinary favour and entertainment — to give a favour- 
 able, if not a partial, certificate of the prisoners living and 
 dead; and so thinking to disprove the said supplication 
 unto Her Majesty." To make good his charges he enclosed a 
 schedule of inqvdries and instructions issued to the gaolers, 
 presumably by the Archbishop. He goes on to say that the 
 Archbishop is " still in rage, and has set a day of Pur, if God 
 by their noble Hester prevent him not." He has — e.g., 
 "destined his brother Greenwood and himself to death against 
 the Holy Teast (meaning that of Christmas) ; and all the 
 others, both at Liberty, and elsewhere, to close prison — their 
 poor wives and children to be cast out of the city, and their 
 few goods to be confiscate." . . . "Is not this a Chris- 
 tian bishop ? Are these the virtues of him that taketh upon 
 him the care and government of aU the Churches of the land, 
 thus to tear and devour God's poor sheep, to rend ofE the 
 flesh, and to break their bones and chop them in pieces, as 
 flesh to the cauldron ? . . . Yet for our parts our lives 
 are not dear unto us, so we may finish up our testimony with 
 joy. We are always ready, through God's grace, to be offered 
 up upon the testimony of our faith." If they die, their 
 death will be found to "embrace the chief pillars of that 
 Church, and to carry them to their graves." 
 
 Things continued as they were. If Whitgift intended to 
 1 History of Puritans, Vol. i., 479. ^ Life of "Whitgift, Book iy. cap. xi. 
 
60 HENET BAEROW. 
 
 act the part of Hainan before Christmas, his hand was stayed. 
 Barrow had yet to endure more than two years of misery ere 
 his release came. 
 
 1591 was a cruel year for the Puritans generally. In 
 March, the stir about Udall came to a head when he was 
 condemned in death for " zeal " on behalf of the discipline, 
 and alleged connection with Marprelate. Cartwright, with 
 other leading Puritans, had been in the Fleet since the previous 
 September on a like charge, and vainly "petitioned for his 
 liberty" even "upon bond," although "afflicted with excessive 
 pains of the gout and sciatica, which were much increased by 
 lying in a cold prison. "^ Many commoners were interested on 
 his account, including Sir Francis KnoUys, a Privy Councillor, 
 who wrote strongly against the " superiority " to law unjustly 
 claimed by the Bishops.- Even King James of Scotland felt 
 moved to intercede ;' and in a letter to the Queen (June 12, 
 1591), "requests Her Majesty to show favour to Mr. Cartwright 
 and his brethren, because of their great learning and faithful 
 travails in the Gospel." But resistance had its usual result of 
 only hardening Whitgift. He did not need the mad enter- 
 prise of Hacket* (hung July 18) and his two prophets to 
 confirm him in his course, although, as Fuller says, " this 
 business of Hacket happened unseasonably for the Presby- 
 terians." He needed nothing more than the conviction, which 
 never failed him, that he was absolutely in the right. And the 
 Queen, as always, was there to back him up. At the opening 
 of the new Parliament, February 19, she told the Commons 
 that they " should leave all matters of State to herself and the 
 Council ; and all matters relating to the Chtu-ch to herself and 
 the Bishops." Mr. Attorney Morrice, who moved the House 
 
 ' Neal i., 457. In May, 1591, » Neal i., 457. 
 
 Aylmer charged Cartwright — before •• Neal i., 462. Hacket, "a blaa- 
 
 the High. Commission — " in abusing phemoua, ignorant wretch who could 
 
 the Privy Council by informing them not so much as read," " pretended to 
 
 of his diseases, wherewith, indeed, be King Jesus, and to set up his empire 
 
 he was never troubled." — Strype's in the room of the Queen's, &c." 
 
 Aylmer, p. 160. Arthington and Coppinger were his 
 
 2 Strype's Whitgift, pp. 350, &.O. two prophets. 
 
HENEY BAREOW. 61 
 
 " to inquire into tlie proceedings of the Bishops in their 
 spiritual courts, and how far they could justify their inquisi- 
 tion, their subscriptions, their binding the Queen's subjects to 
 their good behaviour, contrary to the laws of God and of the 
 realm; their compelling men to take oaths to accuse them- 
 selves ; and upon their refusal to degrade, deprive, and 
 imprison them at pleasure, and not to release them till they 
 had complied " — paid dearly for his temerity. " He was 
 discharged from his of&ce in the Court of the Duchy of 
 Lancaster, disabled from any practice in his profession as a 
 barrister-at-law, and kept for some years prisoner in Tutbury 
 Castle." 1 Morrice had influential seconders. Sir Francis 
 KnoUys among them ; but Parliament, as a whole, bowed to 
 the Queen, and crowned her policy with one of its severest 
 measures — viz., "an Act for the punishment of persons 
 obstinately refusing to come to Church, and persuading others 
 to impugn the Queen's authority in ecclesiastical causes." ^ 
 
 Whitgift, therefore, had it all his own way with the 
 Puritans. He might even congratulate himself on seeming to 
 enjoy the special favour of Heaven — if success be the test. For 
 his good fortune did not fail him when he turned to the 
 Separatists. As we know, his emissaries captured the 3,000 
 copies of Barrow's two last treatises as they were being " con- 
 veyed " over from Holland in the early part of the year. We 
 know, indeed, what he did not learn till too late, that some 
 copies of the Treatises came to the light this year all the same 
 — possibly through the persistency of Eobert Stokes. But he 
 had another stroke of success in the autumn, when Stokes 
 declared himself a convert to the Church ; and so deprived the 
 Separatist authors of the chief agent on whom they could 
 depend for publication. As a matter of fact, nothing else 
 of theirs was printed for years. Greenwood wrote a "few 
 observations" for "the further refutation of Mr. Gifford," 
 but it remained in MS. till 1605 ; so also did Barrow's 
 ' Neal i., 465. > Neal i., 465-6. 
 
62 HENRY BAEEOW. 
 
 '' Few observations of Mr. Gifford's last reply " ; and the 
 ''Platform," thougli written somewhat earlier, did not see 
 the light £till 1611.^ They managed to write petitions, 
 letters, &c., and faithful hands were ready to receive and 
 forward them, if skill and secrecy could do it, to their 
 destination. But, so far as the general ear was concerned, 
 they had fallen absolutely dumb — dumb and virtually dead. 
 There is a legend, started by Sir Walter Ealeigh in a Parlia- 
 mentary speech," that the Separatists grew rapidly during the 
 last years of Elizabeth until they numbered some 20,000. Of 
 course, such a statement could only be a guess ; and it was a 
 very bad guess. The fact, alas ! was far different. Probably 
 Lord Bacon came nearer the mark when he referred to the 
 Separatist sect as almost extinct.' Browne, no doubt, had dis- 
 ciples in the Eastern Counties. Individuals of Separatist 
 views may be traced in the West of England. Here and there 
 in other places " feeble lights," kindled by the new doctrine, 
 are dimly discernible. It is not unlikely, however, that 
 London held the only Separatist congregation of any size, and, 
 though able to hold its own, even this could do little more. It 
 had additions, but it also had defections ; and the two may have 
 balanced each other. 
 
 In fact, the Church went through a long and terrible 
 struggle for existence under Aylmer and Whitgift ; and nothing 
 so brings this home to one as a sympathetic reading of its 
 lamentable petitions. They sound like the desperate cry of 
 tortured helplessness. We have seen one of them " delivered 
 to the Queen's Majesty the 13th March, 1588." There were at 
 least three between the end of 1591 and Barrow's death, 
 
 ' See Appendix iv. will you send them ? I am sorry for 
 
 ^ Spoken April 4, 1593, post meri- it, I am afraid there is near 20,000 
 
 diem, on occasion of the second read- of them in England, and when they 
 
 iug of 35 Eliz. He said: "In my be gone who shall maintain their 
 
 conceit the Brownists are worthy to wives and children ? " — Dr. Ewes' 
 
 be rooted out of a commonwealth. Journals, p. 516. 
 
 . . . But if 2,000 or 3,000 Brown- ' Observations on a Libel.— Sped- 
 
 ista meet at the sea, at whose charges ding's Bacon, Vol. I., p. 165 (1861 
 
 shall they be transported, or whither edition). 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 63 
 
 The first belongs to the early spring of 1592, and is 
 addressed to the Lord Treasurer (Burghley).^ It pleads for 
 one or other of four things — a speedy trial, or a free Chris- 
 tian conference, bail " according to law," or removal to " some 
 other convenient place," say Bridewell, "where we may be 
 together for mutual help and comfort, . . . where, more- 
 over, we may provide such relief by our diligence and labours 
 as might preserve life, to the comfort of our souls and bodies." 
 As it is "we, her Majesty's loyal, dutiful, and true-hearted 
 subjects, to the number of threescore persons and upwards, 
 have, contrary to all law and equity, been imprisoned, separate 
 from our ti-ades, wives and children, and families ; ... we 
 are debarred from all lawful audience before om- honourable 
 governors and magistrates, and from all benefit and help of the 
 laws." Seeing it is "for conscience only" we are made to 
 suffer, why not at least admit us to " bail " until called upon to 
 stand legal trial; and meanwhile let us be free "to do her 
 Majesty service, and ' walk in ' our ' callings,' to provide things 
 needful for ourselves and those dependent on us ? " But even 
 this is denied. Tet we are " Christ's servants : members of 
 Christ : His anointed ones." Will not Burghley intercede for 
 us ? He can if he wiU. " You may open your mouth," they 
 cry to him, "and judge righteously, and judge the cause of 
 the aflicted." And if he is not willing to act alone, " yet we 
 most humbly entreat your honour will make the rest of her 
 Majesty's most honourable Privy Council acquainted with our 
 distressed estate, and together grant us some present redress." 
 The style, and especially the insistence on the legal rights of 
 the case, betray Barrow's hand. Very characteristic, too, is 
 the ascription of an ideal worth to these few " poor suppliants," 
 and the prediction that unless justice speedily be done " God's 
 wrath wiU be so kindled that though Noah, Daniel, and Job 
 should pray for this x)eople yet should they not deliver them " ! 
 The petition has 69 names attached to it: 59 the names of 
 ' Strype's Annals, Vol. IV., pp. VH\,ka. 
 
64 HENET BAREOW. 
 
 living prisoners, and 10 of prisoners who have " ended their 
 lives, never called to trial," 
 
 1 There is reason to think that during 1590 and 1591 fresh 
 arrests were comparatively few, and that during the last few 
 months the condition of prisoners had undergone some relief. 
 There is also reason to think that a number of the prisoners, 
 perhaps as a result of Burghley's influence in response to 
 their petition, were during the next few months liberated 
 on bail. But the bishops' pursuivants were not inactive. 
 Possibly the Treasurer's interference was the sign for a 
 secret order to be still more active. Anyhow, the places 
 where Separatists had been known to meet, or might be 
 expected to meet, were closely watched, with a speedy and 
 gratifying result to themselves. For ''on the third of the 
 fourth month, 1592," about some fifty-six persons, hearing the 
 Word of God truly taught, praying and praising God for 
 His favours showed unto us, unto Her Majesty, your honoui-s, 
 and this whole land ; and desiring our God to be merciful to 
 us, imto our gracious prince and country " — these fifty-six 
 persons " being employed in these holy exercises and no other 
 (as the parties who disturbed them can testify), were taken at 
 the very place where the persecuted Church and martyrs were 
 enforced to use the like exercises in Queen Mary's days." So 
 we learn from a petition drawn up for presentation ''to the 
 High Courts of Parliament within a few days of the Sunday 
 on which the sm-prise and capture took place." The petition 
 is expressly said to have been written by Barrow,^ and internal 
 evidence would of itself suggest this. It has aU his eloquent 
 redundance of word and phrase raised to a white-heat of passion. 
 Who but Barrow was capable of the opening sentences ? " The 
 
 ' The evidence is derived from a 
 
 comparison of the list of names at- ' See Barrow's Platform, by Miles 
 
 tached to the petition with the earlier Micklebound. Says Desiderius : '■ Was 
 
 list of 1589-90. (See Note II., p. 85.) this Petition of Mr. Barrowe's own 
 
 "This date is usually given as writing .'"— Miles : "The draught of 
 
 March 4, 1593. But the statement in it was, and some copies also." 
 the Petition is quite clear. 
 
HBNEY BAEEOW. 65 
 
 Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth, bringeth at this 
 present before your lordships and wisdoms (Eight Honourable) 
 His own cause. His own people, His own sworn and most 
 treacherous enemies, together with the most shameful usage of 
 His truth and servants, that ever hath been heard of in the 
 days of Zion's professed peace and tranquillity. His cause 
 and people He ofEereth unto your consideration and defence in 
 our profession and persons : His enemies and their outrages 
 against His truth and servants, in the persons and bloody 
 proceedings of the Prelates of this land and their complices." 
 The close, though not so audacious, is a rich specimen of his 
 invective. "These godless men have put the blood of war 
 about them in the day of the peace and trace which this whole 
 iand professeth to hold with Jesus Christ and His servants. 
 Bishop Bonner, Story, "Weston dealt not after this sort. For 
 those whom they committed close they would also either feed 
 or permit to be fed by others ; and they brought them in short 
 space openly unto Smithfield to end their misery, and to begin 
 their never-ending joy. Whereas Bishop Elmar, Dr. Stanhope, 
 and Mr. Justice Young, with the rest of that persecuting and 
 blood-thirsty faculty, will do neither of these. No felons, no 
 murderers, no traitor s^in this land are thus dealt with. There 
 are many of us, by the mercies of God, still out of their hands. 
 The former holy exercise and profession we purpose not to leave 
 by the assistance of God. We have as good warrant to reject 
 the ordinances of Antichrist and labour for the recovery of 
 Christ's holy institutions as our fathers and brethren in 
 Queen Mary's days had to do the like. And we doubt not 
 if our cause were truly known unto Her Majesty and your 
 wisdoms, but we should find greater favour than they did, 
 whereas our estate now is far more lamentable. And, there- 
 fore, we humbly and earnestly crave of Her Majesty and 
 your Lordships — both for ourselves abroade and for our 
 brethren now in miserable captivity — but just and equal 
 trial according unto Her Majesty's laws. If we prove not 
 
66 HENEY BAEROW. 
 
 our adversaries to he in a most ^pestilent and godless course, 
 both in regard of their offices and their proceedings in them, 
 and ourselves to be in the right way, we desire not to have 
 the benefit of Her Majesty's true and faithful subjects, ivhich 
 of all earthly favours we account to he one of the greatest.^ 
 Are we malefactors ? Are we anywise undutiful unto our 
 Prince? Maintain we any errors? Let us then be judicially 
 convicted thereof and delivered to the civil authority. But let 
 not these bloody men both accuse, condemn, and closely 
 murther after this sort, contrary to all law, equity, and con- 
 science, where they alone are the plaintiffs, the accusers, the 
 judges, and the executioners of their most fearful and barbarous 
 tyranny. They should not by the laws of this land go any 
 further in cases of religion than their own ecclesiastical 
 censure; and then refer us to the civil power. Their fore- 
 fathers, Gardiner, Bonner, Story, dealt thus equally. And we 
 crave hut this equity.^ Oh, let her excellent Majesty, our 
 sovereign, and your wisdoms consider and accord unto 
 this our just petition. For streams of innocent blood are 
 likely to be spilt in secret by these blood-thirsty men, 
 except Her Majesty and your Lordships do take order with 
 their most cruel and inhuman proceedings. We crave for 
 all of us but the liberty either to die openly or to live openly 
 in the land of our nativity. If we deserve death, it beseemeth 
 the majesty of Justice not to see us closely murdered, yea, 
 starved to death with hunger and cold ; and stifled in loath- 
 some dungeons. If we be guiltless, we crave but the benefit 
 of our imiocency, viz. : That we may have peace to serve 
 our God and our Prince in the place of the sepulchres of our 
 fathers. Thus protesting our innocency, complaining of 
 violence and wrong, and crying for justice on the behalf and 
 in the name of that Eighteous Judge, the God of equity and 
 justice, we continue our prayers unto Him for Her Majesty 
 and your Honours, whose hearts we beseech Him to incline 
 ' These words are italicised in the petition. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 67 
 
 towards this our most equal and just suit through Christ 
 Jesus our Lord." 
 
 It is said in this "Supplication" that the number of 
 persons "in the prisons about London" is "about three 
 score and twelve," including the lately arrested fifty-six. 
 The words are — "the fore-named enemies of God detain in 
 their hands within the prisons about London (not to speak 
 of other gaols throughout the land) about three score and 
 twelve persons, men, women, young and old, lying in cold, in 
 hunger, in dungeons and in irons, of which number they have 
 taken the Lord's day last, being the third of this fourth month 
 1692, about some fifty-six persons." This makes a difficulty. 
 There ought to be one hundred and fifteen — adding the 
 fifty-six to the fifty-nine specified in the earlier "petition" 
 of this year, already dealt with — so that either a number had 
 been quite recently discharged, or a majority of the fifty-six 
 had not been detained, or the number seventy-two is a very 
 rough estimate. Perhaps something may be said for each of 
 these hypotheses. But the first explains most. Thus in the 
 examination of Barrowists, which took place on April 5, 1693, 
 I find the names of at least six^ old offenders, whose names are 
 in the petition of 1592, who had been out on bail, and had been, 
 retaken since the previous December. This does not include 
 Greenwood, Sfcudley, and Thomas Settell, the last of whom had 
 been " out " much longer. Most likely there were others also 
 who escaped recapture, and the fact is proof that some in- 
 fluence, whether Burghley's or not, had been favourably at work. 
 Again, the " Supplication " says that " within these six 
 years " seventeen or eighteen have died in the noisome gaols. 
 The list of ten deaths, then, in the earlier petition was incom- 
 plete, or else — what is much more likely in such a case — that 
 during the last few weeks or months (perhaps a period of 
 wintry weather) death had been uncommonly busy. 
 
 ^ Viz,, Eoger Waterer, George liam Denford, Quintin Smith, Georg* 
 Kniveton, Christoplier Bowman, Wil- Collier.— Harleian MSS. 7,042, f. 85. 
 
68 HENET BAEHOW. 
 
 We have seen reason to infer that Burghley, who stood so 
 high in the petitioners' esteem, as the one " whom Almighty 
 Ood" had "preserved to these honourable years in so high 
 service to our sovereign prince and to the unspeakable comfort 
 of this whole land," did bring to them some degree of comfort. 
 As to the High Court of Parliament, whether Barrow's " Sup- 
 plication " reached its " honourable presence " we do not know, 
 but if it did the House had not yet developed that fine sense of 
 justice which would make it, in our own day, rush to the rescue 
 of the meanest subject in whom the rights of justice were 
 violated ; and so the petition went unnoticed. We must say 
 the same of a third petition,^ in which, at the end of this same 
 year, "the faithful servants of the Church of Christ" suppli- 
 cated the lords of the Privy Coimcil "on behalf of their 
 ministers and preachers imprisoned." The occasion of this 
 was another outrage. Pursuivants were wont to break into 
 suspected houses " at all hours of the night, there to break up, 
 ransack, rifle, and make havock at their pleasure under pre- 
 tence of searching for seditious and unlawful books." On 
 December 5, 1592, accordingly, "late in the night they entered 
 in the Queen's name into an honest citizen's house upon Lud- 
 gate Bmi, where, after they had at their pleasure searched and 
 ransacked all places, chests, &c., of the house, they there 
 apprehended two of our ministers, Francis Johnson (without 
 any warrant at all) and John Greenwood ; both whom, between 
 one and two of the clock after midnight, they with bills and 
 staves led to the Counter of Wood Street ; taking assurance of 
 Edward Boys, the owner of the house, to be true prisoner in his 
 own house until the next day that he were sent for ; at which 
 time the Archbishop, with certain Doctors his associates, com- 
 mitted them all three to close prison — two unto the Clink, the 
 third {i.e., Greenwood) again to the Fleet, where they remain in 
 great distress." We learn from Johnson's examination in the 
 following April (5th) ,^ that he was first " taken in an assembly 
 
 1 Strype's Annals.Vol. IV., pp. 131, &c. ^ Harleian MSS. 7,042, ff. 33, 34. 
 
HENET BAEEOW. 69 
 
 in St. Nicholas Lane " and " committed to the Counter " ; then 
 he was " taken " a second time " in Mr. Boys's house in Fleet 
 Street " (or Ludgate Hill) . This would imply that he was out 
 on bail in December, like Greenwood. We meet with both of 
 them in the previous September, when, at the house of Fox in 
 Nicholas Lane, the Church met and elected officers. Johnson 
 was made pastor, Greenwood teacher, Daniel Studley and 
 George Kniveton ruling elders, Christopher Bowman and 
 Nicholas Lee deacons. These were all "out" on bail at the 
 time. Nicholas Lee appears to have eluded the pursuivants. 
 Kniveton and Bowman^ were retaken, and were brought up for 
 examination on April 5, 1693. Studley was taken with 
 Thomas Settell a little later than Johnson and Greenwood. 
 The latter were arrested on December 4, and " since this," says 
 the petition, " they have cast into prison Thomas SettelP and 
 Daniel Studley, lately taken in Nicholas Lane upon a Lord's 
 day in our assembly by Mr. Eichard Young." At first they 
 were " bailed by the SherifP of London, but have ' now ' (at the 
 date of the petition) been again called for and committed close 
 prisoner to the Gatehouse." We note that Edward Boys has 
 gone to the Chnk, and not for the first tire e. He was a young 
 man — about thirty-three — but an old sufferer in the cause. 
 His name is in the list of 1588, and the entry is suggestive of 
 long fidelity — " Edward Boyes, in Bridewell nineteen months,^ 
 now close prisoner in the Clink." He disappears from the lists 
 
 ' Kniveton was an apothecary of Settell says he had been in prison 
 Newgate Market. In his examination, " fifteen weeks past." This would be 
 on April 5, he wavered, " was content since the date of his committal, i.e., 
 to have conference." He bad been in about December 21. His arrest would 
 "assemblies" at Barnes' house, Bil- be a little earlier. He and Studley 
 son's house, Lee's house, at the were taken in " an assembly at a 
 Woods, at Rippon's house, at Deptford schoolroom in St. Nicholas Lane." He 
 Woods. Bowman was a goldsmith of had been a minister of the Church of 
 West Smithfield, aged thirty-two J was England, but "renounced his minis- 
 imprisoned five years since " for put- try." — Harleian MSS. 7,042, f. 35. 
 ting up a petition to the Queen " — , _ i v ii. ^ 
 that of March 13, 1588. He had ' B°ye8 may have been therefore, 
 lately been married in Penry's house. °"« °^ *h°^« t^^«° '° j^.^« ^1?:'^ ^^^''^ 
 -Harleian MSS_ 7.042, f. 35. Greenwood was reading the Scrip- 
 
 2 In his examination on April^ 5, tures. 
 
70 HENEY BAREOW. 
 
 of 1690 and 1692, discharged on bail, perhaps; but he has 
 continued to be a true friend to the " saints," opening his 
 house for their assemblies, entertaining and sheltering their 
 ministers, giving freely to their wants. Now, at length, he is 
 in the Clink again — for the last time. He will not be able to 
 stand its noisomeness very long. A few months hence he will 
 be dead, and some twelve months later still Francis Johnson 
 will have married his young widow. 
 
 Another interesting fact which we must note is that Penry 
 has returned to London, and has realised at last that his 
 true " brothers of the spirit " are the Separatists. By the 
 light of what a certain John Edwardes has deposed, we can 
 follow some of his movements. Edwardes had been in Scotland. 
 He came thence with Penry the previous November.^ They 
 halted at Mr. Ireton's house " beside Darby six miles," and 
 dined there. Then they went to Northampton to the '' house 
 of Henry Godly, where Penry lodged." Next day they went 
 to St. Alban's, and "lodged at the sign of the Christopher." 
 The day following they journeyed to " Stratford-at-Bowe- to 
 the sign of the Cross Keys, where Penry's wife was, and had a 
 chamber." Here Edwardes left him, but they met again " a 
 httle before Christmas at a Garden-house at the Duke's Place, 
 near Aldgate, where Penry did preach, and (as he doth 
 remember) Greenwood did preach there also." Then Edwardes 
 "went down into the comitry." He retru-ned to London 
 "Saturday was seven night." It was a week or two before 
 the end. Edwardes heard that Penry had been " taken " ; 
 had been brought " to the constable's house " ; had " escaped 
 away on Monday night"; and had named himseK "John 
 Harries." "Upon Wednesday or Thursday morning" — 
 after his return— Penry came to Edwardes's "chamber 
 before he was up," and came " booted," ready for riding. 
 
 ' Penry himself says " September," ^ Penry Bays we "lighted (first?) 
 
 hut Edwardes is more circumstantial. at the Cock at Long Lane end " and 
 
 — Harleian MSS. 7,042, f. 19 (b. then to Stratford-at-Bowe. 
 60th). 
 
HENET BAREOW. 71 
 
 " On Saturday night," witness " walked with Penry along 
 Cheapside through Newgate; and they went to Nicholas 
 Lee's house, and there he left Penry and his wife about 
 eight of the clock." A service was to be held. But he 
 could not say "who should have exercised that day, nor did 
 he hear of any purpose that they had to go into the country." 
 He understood at the time that Penry " was lodged at Mr. 
 Settle's house." We may supplement from Penry's own 
 evidence.^ He was in or about London on March 19, and 
 went that night with Edward Grave to Hogsden, where they 
 lay at the Antelope. He may have gone thence, but is not 
 sure, " to one John Millet's house in Hertfordshire." On the 
 22nd, however, he was at Eatchffe, and, with Arthur Billot 
 and others, was taken. ^ 
 
 It is a bare recital, but is a recital which has all the 
 elements of a tragedy. It rends the veil. We see a hunted 
 man stealing disguised from place to place under the shadow 
 of night, or riding away in the cold grey of the early 
 morning. We see faithful comrades eager to shelter him and 
 alert to watch ; we see brief meetings of husband and wife, 
 father and young children ; we imagine the wasting anguish 
 of heart which filled the intervals ; we see informers never far 
 off, and pursuers never giving up the chase. We see him run 
 dovm at last. 
 
 Meanwhile, what of Barrow ? We find no hint of a meet- 
 ing between him and Penry. Penry did not, so far as appears, 
 visit the prison. Barrow could not, like Greenwood, be 
 present at any of the " assemblies " outside. His situation 
 remained as hard as ever. He was denied both bail and con- 
 ference. Failing the former he became, during the last weeks 
 of his life, increasingly urgent for the latter. First, he tried 
 to move Egerton,'' the Attorney-General ; and, then, when this 
 
 1 Harleian MSS. 7,042, f. 19. 3 Thomas Egerton, 1556-1616, na- 
 
 ^ Harleian MSS. f . 35, a " fortnigh tural son of Sir Richard Egerton, 
 
 paet," says Billot— i.«., March 22nd .^ Kidley, Cheshire. Made Attorney- 
 
72 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 came to notliing, turned once more to the Council. His appeal 
 to the Attorney-General is brief enough to quote. 
 
 " My most humble and submissive desire unto your 
 Worship was, and is, that forasmuch as there remain 
 simdry ecclesiastical differences of no small weight between 
 me, with sundry other Her Highness's faithful subjects, 
 now imprisoned for the same on the one side; and this 
 present ministry, now by authority established in the land, 
 on the other, undecided and as yet undiscussed, your 
 Worship would youchsafe to be a means to Her Most 
 Excellent Majesty, that a Christian and peaceable dispu- 
 tation by the Scriptures might be vouchsafed unto some 
 few of us, with whom, or how many of our adversaries herein 
 shall in wisdom be thought meet, for the ready and happy 
 deciding or composing the same : protesting to your Worship, in 
 the sight of God, at whose final judgment I look hourly to 
 stand, that I hold not anything in these differences of any 
 singularity or pride of spirit. Aad, as I am hitherto certainly 
 persuaded, by the undoubted grounds of God's Word, the 
 profession and practice of other reformed Churches, and 
 learned of other countries. Whereof if we. Her Majesty's 
 said few imprisoned subjects, shall fail to make evident and 
 assured proof, and that those learned shall show any other 
 thing by the Word of God, in the said Christian conference 
 desired, that then I, for my part, vow unto your Worship, 
 through God's grace (as also I am persuaded, my said im- 
 prisoned brethren, permitted this conference, will do the Kke), 
 that I will utterly forsake any error _I shall be so proved to 
 hold, and in all humbly consent to submit to our now dis- 
 senting adversaries in all these matters, wherein now we differ, 
 if they shall approve them unto us by the Word of God. 
 
 " By which charitable act your Worship may put an end to 
 
 General on June 2, 1592— hence date Great Seal and Lord Chancellor j died 
 of petition was at least later than aa Lord Elleamere. 
 this — afterwards Lord Keeper of the 
 
HBNEY BAREOW. 73 
 
 these present controversies, reduce all wherein we err, and 
 appease many Christian souls. 
 
 " Tour Worship's humble suppliant, 
 
 " Henet Baebowe."^ 
 
 Alas ! Egerton thought it a case for the bishops. He 
 handed the letter to Whitgift, who with other bishops, &c., 
 " considered of it," and decided as Egerton knew they would. 
 " It is not equally fit," said their lordships, " to grant a dispu- 
 tation to sectaries." For these among other reasons: — The- 
 erroneous opinions of these men have been already condemned 
 by just treatises of the most famous learned men that have- 
 lived since restitution of religion ; it is no reason that religion 
 and the controversies thereof, the same being already estab- 
 lished by Parliament, should be examined by any inferior 
 authority by way of disputation ; it hath ever been the manner 
 of heretics to require the same by great importunities and con- 
 tinual exclamations ; they that require disputation of the civil 
 magistrate will not stand to the judgment of the civil magis- 
 trate ; if the Church should satisfy every sect that ariseth there 
 were no end of disputations. Nothing could well be more 
 contemptuous or infallible ! He replied by an address to the 
 Council, entitled, " A Motion Tending to Unity." In this he 
 entreats that there may be a conference granted such as was 
 granted to Campion or Hart, the papists, " or else that there 
 may be some conference between two or three of each side,, 
 before a good number of your Honours and Worships in some 
 private chamber, the main questions agreed upon (with pre- 
 paration of fasting and prayer). And when the time comes, 
 omitting all taunts and by-matters, only searching the truth in 
 love : to the touchstone, to the law, and to testimony." He 
 assures the Council that they could produce three or four men 
 
 ' Strype's Annals, Vol. IV., pp. 239, &o. 
 
74 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 from London alone^ well qualified to take part in sucli an argu- 
 ment — men who have been "zealous preachers in the parish 
 assemblies, not ignorant of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew 
 tongues, nor otherwise unlearned, and generally confessed to be 
 of honest conversation." He reminds the Council that there 
 are right honourable and godly personages^ not by any means 
 of his own way of thinking, who, he believes, would welcome 
 such a conference — men like gentle and learned Mr. Eeynolds,'- 
 of Oxford, and Sir Francis Knollys. He then rises into a noble 
 strain. " If these motions take efPect we are verily persuaded 
 that the controversy will soon end (with all or most of us). 
 For by these means shall we poor wretches (which only make 
 this separation, as knoweth the Lord, for love we have to keep 
 His commandments, and for fear to disobey Him) perceive more 
 plainly whether as men and simple souls we be deceived by any false 
 light, or else, as His dear children (for so we hope), honoured 
 and trusted with the first view of, and faithful standing in, a 
 cause of holiness and righteousness. Where (fore), in most 
 humble and earnest manner, and even as you fear God and love 
 righteousness, and as you strive to resemble Him in liking 
 better of them that are hot than of those which are lukewarm, 
 we entreat your Honours and Worships to labour these, or some 
 better motions for procuring unity and mercy ; and for that the 
 blessings promised to faithful men and peacemakers may light 
 upon you and yours ; and that the curses threatened for the 
 contrary may be far from them. You reverend magistrates 
 and noble guides of this most flom-ishing commonwealth, we 
 beseech you again and again, in the Lord Jesus, search your- 
 selves narrowly when you seek Him whom your soul loveth, and 
 think how you would desire to be dealt with if you were in our 
 
 ' We know of at least four who had „ ' ?^- .,f ^" ,^|y'^°l^^^ (1549-1607), 
 
 ^)een "ministers" of the English '^l^e pillar oi Puritanism, and the 
 
 Church, viz., Greenwood, P. Johnson, ^\^^ ^^7,';"'^ °* Nonconformity "- 
 
 Thomas Settell, William Smith (of f J > ^^^^>^ Oxonienses-Presi- 
 
 Bradford, Wilts-ordained by Bishop ft±ji ^J'^^i^ i^^"f' 9^^°/^, 
 
 of Coventry and Lichfield). -See Hai^ J^ampion of the Puritans m the 
 
 leian JISS. 7,042 f 35 Hampton Court Conference. Declined 
 
 a bishopric. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 75 
 
 case, and so deal with us and our teachers. If you suppose 
 them and us to he in grievous error, for common humanity 
 sake (were there no further cause) let us not perish, either 
 secretly in prisons or openly by execution, for want of that 
 uttermost help which lies in your power to afford them that 
 are not ohstinate men. . . ."^ Of course, the appeal was 
 vain. Instead of a conference came a trial. For by this time 
 the case against him had been completed, and justified the hope 
 that his conviction and execution might be secured by means of 
 the civil court. It was drawn from his writings. One after 
 another these had fallen into the Archbishop's hands, and he 
 had no doubt that there was more than enough in them to con- 
 demn their author by virtue of the statute (23 Eliz., cap. 2) 
 against seditious books. On March 11, 1593, he was sum- Trial 
 moned before Judges Popham and Anderson.^ A copy of the 1593. 
 pamphlet, " Certain Letters and Conferences," was shown him. 
 Did he acknowledge it as his ? Yes, he and Greenwood had 
 compiled it. And " A Collection of Slanderous Articles " ? 
 Yes. Greenwood, questioned separately on the same day, 
 answered to the same effect. On the 20th Barrow was examined 
 with regard to " A Brief Discovery of the False Church " and 
 "A Plain Eefutation of Mr. Gifford," and owned to them. 
 The same day Greenwood owned, for his part, to what he had 
 written agamst Mr. Gifford. AU this was preliminary. Its 
 purpose was to establish the fact of authorship — as the 
 examination of Studley and Forester (on the 20th), Bowles' and 
 Stokes (on the 19th) was to establish connection with the 
 authors. The decisive day was March 23, Mr. Attorney 
 Egerton thus reports* the result to the Lord Keeper of the 
 Great Seal : — 
 
 " This day— 23rd March, 1592-93— the Court hath proceeded Conviotion 
 against Barrow and Greenwood for devising, and against ^92?93^^' 
 
 ' Strype's Annals, Vol. IV., pp. 241, ' Otherwise Bowie, Bull. 
 
 2 Egerton Papers, pp. 16&-179. ' Harleian >ISS. 7,042, f. 34, 
 
76 HENRY BAEEOW. 
 
 Scipio Bellotte/ Eobert Bowlle, and Daniel Studley for publish- 
 ing and dispersing seditious books." All have been " atteynted 
 by verdict and judgment, and direction (has been) given for 
 execution to be done to-morrow as in cases of like quality. 
 Bellott/ with tears, affirmed that he had been misled. The 
 others endeavour to draw all that they have most maliciously 
 written and published against Her Majesty's Government to 
 the bishops and ministers of the Church only." . . . He 
 adds that " if execution is to be deferred " let it " be known 
 this night." Execution was deferred; and on the 26th Egerton 
 writes again : •' I have spent this whole afternoon at a fruitless, 
 idle conference, and am but now returned both weary and 
 weak." On the 28th he writes, once more, to say that yesterday, 
 immediately after his return from the Parliament House he did 
 write to the Lord Treasurer " the manner and success of his 
 conference with Barrow." We will now turn the shield and 
 listen" to Barrow himself.'' He is writing to " an honourable 
 lady and countess of his kindred " . . , "^^ in the time 
 between his condemnation and execution." " For books," 
 he says, " written more than three years since (after well near 
 six years' imprisonment sustained at their hands) have these 
 Prelates by their vehement suggestions and accusations, caused 
 us to be indicted, arraigned, condemned . . . upon the 
 statute made the twenty-third year of Her Majesty's reign. 
 Their accusations were drawn up into these heads : — (1) That 
 I should write and publish the Queen's Majesty to be un- 
 baptized ; (2) that the State is wholly corrupted from the crown 
 of the head to the sole of the foot — in the laws, judgment, 
 judges, customs, &c., so that none that feared God could hve in 
 peace therein ; (3) that aU the people in the land are infidels. 
 
 ' There are two of this name men- - Bellot and Bowie " died awhile 
 
 tioned in the Egerton Papers : one, after in prison in Newgate." See " An 
 
 Arthur, who was examiner (reader) of Apologie or Defence of such true 
 
 the MS. of " A Collection of Certain Chriatians as are commonly (but un- 
 
 Letters, &c." ; another— to whom justly) called Brownisti " (1604), 
 
 Barrow gave drafts of two letters p. 95. 
 
 to write. Perhaps " Scipio " is the ■, . , . „„ „ . 
 
 latter. Apologie, pp. 89-94. 
 
HENRY BAREOW. 77 
 
 As to the first it is an utter mistake, " both contrary to my 
 meaning and to my express words ... I (have) purposely 
 ■defended Her Majesty's baptism against such as held the 
 baptism given in Popery to be no baptism at all." As to the 
 second, what I wrote " was drawn from Isaiah i. and Rev. xiii." 
 I had " no evil mind toward the State, laws, or judges ; but 
 only showed that when the ministry — the salt, the light — is 
 corrupt, the body and all the parts must needs be unsound." 
 As to the third, "I answered that I gladly embraced and 
 believed the common faith received and professed in this land 
 as most holy and sound; that I had reverend estimation of 
 sandry, and good hope of many hundred thousands in the land, 
 though I utterly disliked the present constitation of this Church 
 in the present communion, ministry, ministration, worship, 
 government, and ordinances ecclesiastical of these cathedral 
 and parishionial assemblies." " Some other few things such 
 as they thought might most make against me were called out 
 of my writings and urged : as, that 1 should hold Her Majesty 
 to be anti-Christian, and her Government anti-Christian." 
 "A great and manifest injury." But all I said in self-defence 
 was of no avail, " no doubt through the Prelates' former in- 
 stigations and malicious accusations." And so " I, vn.th my 
 four other brethren, were the 23rd of the third month con- 
 demned and adjudged to suffer death as felons upon these 
 indictments aforesaid. Upon the 24th, early in the morning, Exeontion 
 was preparation made for our execution. " We " — " brought Maroh^24. 
 out of the Limbo, our irons smitten off" — were "ready to be 
 bound to the cart, when Her Majesty's most gracious pardon 
 came for our reprieve. After that the bishops sent unto us 
 certain doctors and deans to exhort and confer with us." But 
 it was too late. " Our time was now too short in the world." 
 We had need to bestow it not " unto controversies so much as 
 unto more profitable and comfortable considerations." Yet we 
 said that if they woiild " get our lives respited " and join with 
 us two of our brethren . . . whom we named," then would 
 
78 
 
 HENEY BARROW. 
 
 second 
 time, 
 March 31. 
 
 we " gladlj condescend to any Christian and orderly conference 
 by the Scriptures." This offer was ignored. And " upon the 
 last day of the third month my brother Greenwood and I were 
 very early and secretly conveyed to the place of execution, 
 where being tied by the necks to the tree, we were permitted to 
 speak a few words . . . And having both of us almost 
 Execution finished our last words, behold ! one was even at that instant 
 come with a reprieve for our lives from Her Majesty, which 
 was not only very thankfully received by us, but with exceeding 
 rejoicing and applause by all the people — both at the place 
 of execution, and in the ways, streets, and houses as we 
 returned , . . And sure we have no doubt but the same 
 our gracious God that hath wrought this marvellous work in 
 Her Majesty's most princely heart — to cause her of her own 
 accord and singular wisdom, even before she knew our inno- 
 cency, twice to stay the execution of that rigorous sentence, 
 will now much more — after so assured and wonderful demon- 
 stration of our innocency — move her gracious Majesty freely and 
 fully to pardon the execution thereof, as she hath never desired, 
 and always loathly shed, the blood of her greatest enemies, 
 much less will she now of her loyal, Christian, and innocent 
 subjects, especially if Her Majesty might be truly informed 
 both of the things that are passed and of our lamentable estate 
 and great misery, wherein we now continue in a miserable place 
 and case, in the loathsome gaol of Newgate, under this heavy 
 judgment, every day expecting execution." Tour ladyship, 
 then, will do a right Christian and gracious act " to inform Her 
 Majesty of our entire faith unto God, unstained loyalty to Her 
 Majesty, innocency and good conscience toward all men ; and so 
 to procure our pardon," or else removal of " our poor worn 
 bodies out of this miserable gaol (the horror whereof is not to be 
 spoken to your Honour) to some more honest and meet place, if 
 she vouchsafe us longer to live. Let not . . . right dear 
 and elect lady, any worldly or politic impediments or unlikeli- 
 hoods, no fleshly fears, diflidence, or delays stop or hinder you 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 79 
 
 from speaking to Her Majesty on our behalf before she go out 
 of this city." The letter is dated the 4th or 5th day (the 
 writer does not quite know which) of the fourth month, 1593, 
 and is signed, 
 
 Tour Honour's humbly at commandment during life, con- 
 demned of men, but received of God, Heney Baeeow. 
 
 One can hardly doubt that the lady^ was moved by so 
 piteous an appeal to do her best. But if she did she failed. 
 " On the 6th day of the same month presently following was Eieoution 
 he and Mr. Greenwood conveyed again to the place of execu- ^^^^ 
 tion and there put to death. And this so early and secretly as ^p"1 ^• 
 well they could in such a case." Thomas Philippes, alias 
 Morice, in a letter to William Sterrell,* tells us that " there 
 was a Bill preferred against the Barrowists and Brownists, 
 making it felony to maintain any opinions against the 
 ecclesiastical Government. This BiU, truly described as the 
 murderous Act to retain the Queen's subjects in obedience, 
 passed the Upper House "by the Bishops' means," but when it 
 came to the Lower House (on April 5 ^), " it was found so 
 captious " that it ran great risk of being thrown out altogether. 
 Finally, however, "by the earnest labouring of those that 
 sought to satisfy the Bishops' humours," it passed. But, says 
 Philippes, "they have minced it as is thought, so as it will not 
 reach to any man that shall deserve favour." And " the day 
 after the Lower House had showed their disKke of this Bill," 
 Barrow and Greenwood "were, early in the morning, hanged." 
 He adds : " It is plainly said that their execution proceeded of 
 (the) malice of the Bishops, to spite the Nether House, which 
 
 ' Was she his cousin Agnes, wife Brownists. With reference to the 
 
 of the Lord Keeper's eldest son, Sir " Bill," he said : " It is to he feared 
 
 Nicholas Bacon ? that men not guilty will be included 
 
 - A '1 iw? S P T) FUr ™ ^^' -^"'1 that Law is hard that 
 
 17- 1 <E J Vt -low' i ' J u A ' 1, • ' takes life and sendeth into banish- 
 
 Is}- ^**'Z.°- i^-t (•i^°*''l.^y Af'^"" '^ ment where men's intentions shall be 
 Story of the PUgnm Fathers, p. 33). ^^^^^^ ^^ ^ .^^^_ ^^^ ^^^^ ^j^^^ ^^ 
 
 ^ This is Arbor's date. D'Ewes, in judges what another means. But 
 
 his " Journals " (p. 516), gives the 4th. that Law that is against the fact is 
 
 It was then that Sir Walter Kaleigh but just, and punish the fact as 
 
 expressed his opinion about the severely as you will." 
 
80 HENEY BAREOW. 
 
 'hath procured them much hatred of the common people 
 -affected that way." He also declares in the same letter that 
 "■' the (first ?) reprieyal proceeded of a supplication made to the 
 Lord Treasurer, complaining " That in a land where no Papist 
 Tvas touched for reUgion by death," the blood of men who 
 concurred " in opinion, touching faith, with that (which) was 
 ■professed in the country, should be first shed : desiring, there- 
 fore, conference to be removed from their errors by reason, or 
 ■else further satisfaction of the world touching their opinions." 
 This " supplication " came to the hands of Whitgift, " who, 
 nevertheless, was very peremptory, so as the Lord Treasurer 
 ■gave him and (Richard Tletcher) Bishop of Worcester some 
 sound taxing words." Burghley also " used some speech to the 
 •Queen, but was not seconded by any (of the Privy Council)," 
 and is supposed, consequently, to have become "more remiss," 
 which, from what we know of his character, is not unlikely. 
 
 We may add the following story which is told by G-ovenror 
 Bradford.! It sounds rather apocryphal, but the editor of 
 Barrow's "Platform," who calls himself Miles Micklebound, 
 ulso relates it as something told to himself by " a gentleman of 
 a good house." Micklebound, perhaps, was the first to set it 
 going in Separatist circles. The story is that " Queen 
 Elizabeth asked the learned Doctor Raynolds what he thought 
 of those two men — Master Barrow and Master Greenwood ? 
 And he answered Her Majesty that it could not avail any- 
 thing to show his judgment concerning them, seeing they were 
 ■put to death. And being loath to speak his mind further, Her 
 Majesty charged him, upon his allegiance, to speak. Where- 
 -upon he answered, That he was persuaded, if they had lived, 
 they would have been two as worthy instruments for the 
 Church of God as have been raised up in this age. Her 
 Majesty sighed and said no more. 
 
 ' In his " Dialogue, or the sum of a ancient men that came out of Hol- 
 . conference between some young men land and old England — 1648." — 
 born in New England and sundry Young's Chronicles (1844), pp. 431-2. 
 
HENEY BAREOW. 81 
 
 And afterwards riding to a park by the place where they 
 ■were executed, and being willing to take further information 
 concerning them, demanded of the Eight Honourable Earl of 
 Cumberland (that was present when they suffered), what end 
 they made ? He answered, " A very godly end, and prayed for 
 youi- Majesty and the State." 
 
 Bradford gives the story almost word for word as Mickle- 
 bound does, and doubtless got it from him.^ Micklebound adds 
 what Bradford also repeats, that "Mr. Philips,^ a preacher 
 famous, having heard and seen Master Barrow, his holy 
 speeches, and preparations for death, said, ' Barrow, Barrow, 
 my soul be with thine.' For thus have I been credibly 
 informed." Still less likely, perhaps, is the following, which 
 yet scarcely ought to be omitted : — " That the Queen demanded 
 of the Archbishop ' what he thought of them in his con- 
 science.' He answered, 'He thought they were servants of 
 God, but dangerous to the State.' ' Alas ! ' said she, ' shall we 
 put the servants of God to death ? ' And this was the true 
 cause why no more of them were put to death in her days."^ 
 We cannot do better than conclude with a further quotation 
 from Bradford : — 
 
 " Young Men. Did any of you know Mr. Barrow ? if we 
 may be so bold to ask ; for we would willingly know what (was) 
 his life and conversation ; because some, we perceive, have him 
 in precious esteem, and others can scarce name him without 
 some note of obloquy and dislike. 
 
 " Ancient Men. We have not seen his person, but some of 
 us have been well acquainted with those that knew him 
 
 ' Micklebound wrote in 1611 ; Brad- and attracted a large auditory, mostly 
 
 ford in 1648. Bradford quotes him of zealous Puritans. He was com- 
 
 repeatedly, but simply as something mitted to the Gatehouse by Whit- 
 
 " in print." I follow Miles. gift in 1596. We find him among 
 
 ^ Here Bradford has it: "First the preachers appointed to confer 
 
 from Mr. Philips, a famous and godly with the prisoners in 1590. Francis 
 
 preacher, &c.," making Philips re- Johnson often mentions him. 
 porter only. This, no doubt, was ^ Bradford is sole authority for this 
 
 Edward Philips, M.A. (of Pembroke " Dialogue," pp. 432-3. But he gives 
 
 College, Oxford), who became a it as " What some of us have heard 
 
 preacher at St. Saviour's, Southwark, by credible information." 
 
82 HENRY BAREOW. 
 
 familiarly both before and after his conversion ; and one of us 
 hath had conference with one that was his domestic servant 
 and tended upon him both before and some while after the 
 same. He was a gentleman of good worth, and a flourishing 
 courtier in his time, . . . and accomplished with strong 
 parts.i . . . And thus much we can further affirm, from 
 those that well knew him, that he was very comfortable to the 
 poor and those in distress in their sufferings ; and when he saw 
 he must die, he gave a stock for the relief of the poor of the 
 Ohurch, which was a good help to them in their banished con- 
 dition afterwards. Tea, and that which some will hardly 
 believe, he did much persuade them to peace, and composed 
 many differences that were grown amongst them whilst he 
 lived, and would have, it is like, prevented more that after fell 
 out if he had continued."- 
 
 NOTE I. 
 
 Was Baeeow Maepeelate? 
 
 De. Dexter, in claiming tlie Marprelate Tracts for Barrow,^ lays streas 
 -«n similarity of style, and especially the occurrence of legal phi'ases, which. 
 suggest a lawyer rather than a minister. Tests of style are largely 
 subjective. My own impression, e.g., quite differs from Dr. Dexter's on 
 this point ; and I should say that Barrow's style is, on the whole, very 
 unlike that of Marprelate. But this may go for little, though I have com- 
 pared the two with some care. As to the legal phrases, they may go for 
 even less. Such phrases as " mend your answer," a " soandalum magna- 
 tum," " called in Coram," "freeholder," " Court of Requests," a "suit," 
 ■the "cause," "without testimony," "by hearsay," "plain theft," &c., 
 •<3an hardly be said necessarily to presuppose a legal training. Some of 
 them are not legal at all, in the special sense ; and all are commonplace. 
 
 The points, however, to be emphasized are such as these : — 
 
 1. Barrow was a Separatist, whereas the " Tracts " are merely Puritan. 
 
 Of course the two terms are, to a great extent, identical. 
 Thus Barrow might well have written the following : — " The Puritans 
 (falsely so-called) show it to be unlawful for the magistrate to go about to 
 
 1 Then comes the story of his con- ^ " Congregationalism, as seen in 
 
 version. its Literature," pp. 196-202. 
 
 * Young's Chronicles, pp. 433-35. ' 
 
HENRY BAEEOW. 83 
 
 make any members for the body of Christ; they hold all officers of the 
 Church to be members of the body ; and, therefore, they hold the alter- 
 ing or the abolishing of the offices of Church government to be the alter- 
 ing and abolishing of the members of the Church ; the altex'ing and 
 abolishing of which members they hold to be unlawful because it must 
 needs be a maim unto the body. They hold Christ Jesus to have set down 
 as exact and as unchangeable a Church government as ever Moses did."' 
 
 But he could not possibly have written this : — " The minister's main- 
 tenance by tithe no Puritan denieth to be unlawful. Tor Martin (good 
 Mr. Parson), you must understand, doth account no Brownist to be a 
 Puritan."^ Martin is indignant that Bishop Cooper' should have con- 
 founded Brownists and Puritans by ascribing to the latter so many 
 " inventions of his own brain " : " as that, e.g., it is not lawful for Her 
 Majesty to allot any lands unto the maintenance of the minister, or the 
 minister to live upon lands for this purpose allotted unto him ; but is to 
 content himself with a final pension, and so small as he have nothing to 
 leave for his wife and children after him (for whom he is not to be careful, 
 but to rest on God's Providence), and is to require no more but food and 
 raiment that in poverty he might be answerable unto our Saviour and His 
 Apostles." This may be, says Martin, the doctrine of Brownists ; but the 
 Bishop is guilty of " a most notorious, wicked " slander " in fathering 
 these things upon those whom they caU Puritans, which never any, enjoy- 
 ing common sense, would affirm." Nay, " bring me him " . . . " who 
 holdeth " any such doctrine, and " I wiU prove him to be utterly bereaved 
 of his wits." But this was just what Barrow did hold. Witness, e.g., his 
 declarations before the Council already quoted, and witness especially his 
 " Platf oi-m " which has this entirely for its drift. So clear a contradiction 
 may be deemed decisive. 
 
 2. But we note a second point. 
 
 Dexter admits that Barrow must have worked, if at all, " in co- 
 operation with Penry " ; and that, if Ban-ow were Martin, Penry was 
 " nearly the only man then outside the Fleet Prison who was master 
 of the secret." This, of course, would mean mutual intimacy and 
 sympathy. And says Dexter, " it is clear'' that a close intimacy soon 
 afterwards existed between him and John Penry, with no evidence 
 that it did not date back far enough to cover all the needs of the 
 case." There is evidence, however, that at least so late as the date of 
 the "Brief Discovery of the False Church," 1.590-91, the intimacy did 
 
 ' Quoted from " Hay any Worke Scotland ; that he did not return till 
 
 for Cooper." the late autumn of 1592 ; that he 
 
 ^ " Hay any Worke for Cooper." spent the next few months of his life 
 
 ^ In his " Admonition to the People in evading "pursuivants"; and that 
 
 of England." there is nothing to indicate that ho 
 
 * How clear ? If " soon afterwards " saw Barrow again. It is questionable, 
 
 means subsequent to 1589, it is clear, indeed, whether they had any personal 
 
 on the contrary, that Penry went to acquaintance at all. See infra. 
 
84 HBNEY BAREOW. 
 
 not exist; or, if it did, was by no means sympathetic. Tor in that 
 book are several references to Penry which Dexter appears to have 
 overlooked. Before citing them let me explain their origin. We have 
 had occasion already to mention Dr. Some's " Godly Treatise " against 
 Ban-ow and Greenwood. It is dedicated to Hatton and Burghley, Chan- 
 cellors respectively of Oxford and Cambridge ; and, in reminding them that 
 these two men, " as yet very wilful and ignorant," are " the Masters " of the 
 Anabaptist " College," the author urges severe measui-es. " The way to 
 cure " such men, " if God will, is to teach and punish them." So were 
 heretics dealt with in the Primitive Church; so were the Arians in 
 Constantine's time ; so were the Donatists in Augustine's day. And 
 this is God's order. These men have given out that the Bishops and 
 clergy only are against them ; let the Chancellors, as heads of the civil 
 power, show that they are against them no less, and " are able to repress 
 them." But he assails Peniy as well as BaiTOw and Greenwood. He had 
 done so a year before in his first " Godly Treatise," adducing there a 
 " Table of (sixteen) gross eiTors and Anabaptistical fancies." In his 
 present treatise he brings forward two charges : — (1) That Penry comes 
 very "near " to the Anabaptistical Recusants, Barrow and Greenwood, in 
 their assertion that the " Discipline " is an essential part of the Church ; 
 (2) that " Mr. Penry jumps with them in. their argument that baptism 
 administei-ed and received in the Popish Church is not God's, but the 
 devil's Baptism." Penry prepared " An Answer," which (on January 29, 
 1590) was seized' in his study at Northampton. This led a " friend " to 
 take \ip the matter. The friend, it appears, was Job Throckmoi-ion," and 
 his defence of Penry took the title, "Master Some laid open in his 
 colours, wherein the indifferent reader may easily see how wretchedly and 
 loosely he hath handled the cause against Mr. Penry. Done by an Oxford 
 man to his friend in Cambridge." With respect to Some's two charges 
 particularly he denies any leaning on Penry's part to the Browniem of 
 Barrow and Greenwood, and represents him as holding Some's own view 
 of Romish baptism — viz., that it may be invalid, and yet that its sub- 
 jects need not be rebaptized. Her Majesty — e.g., though she had received 
 baptism at the hands of a Popish priest, need not " be brought back 
 again to the Sacrament of her entrance and engrafting into the Body." 
 Now BaiTow's view of baptism was peculiar. He thought that even if 
 "falsely administered," it had the character of an indelible seal, like 
 circumcision, and was incapable of repetition. ' He thus evidenced his own 
 deep reverence for the rite as such. BiTt Penry's Oxford friend, and 
 Penry, too, seemed to play fast and loose with baptism. It might be 
 worthless as done by a Popish priest, and yet need not be done again. 
 Especially must there be no question about the Queen's baptism ! So, 
 when the treatise came somehow under his eye at the time he was engaged 
 on the "Brief Discovery," we find him exclaiming; "If Mr. Peni-y pi'o- 
 
 ' Arber's Introductory Sketch to - Arber's Introductory Sketch to 
 
 the Marprelate Controversy, p. 173. the Marprelate Controversy, p. 179. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 85 
 
 vide not better stujffi for his own defence than his friend of Oxenford 
 (Oxford) hath as yet brought, I can tell him this — that both he and his 
 companion must become Bro^vnists (as they, to the dishonour of Christ, 
 term us), or else this Popish Doctor (Some) will prevail against them — for 
 that most odious and unChristian flattery of Her Majesty will neither 
 cover nor cure this sore." Such an outburst scarcely favours the notion 
 that BaiTOw and Penry were friends, or of one mind. But he is yet more 
 severe. He includes the scholar of Oxford, whom he calls " Mr. Penry's 
 Proctor," and even Penry himself apparently, in the class of " scoffing 
 divines," one of his names for the forward Preachers, Reformists, 
 Puritans, who (among other faults) place their reliance rather on 
 " Authentic Authors " like Dr. Fulke (with his " doughty Sir John of 
 Beverley ")' than on the simple Scriptures. In short, although he is one 
 of those " poor persecuted Christians " whom Penry's friend (in Penry's 
 name) " despises and blasphemes," " baptizing " them " into the name of 
 Browne," yet he can afford to pity them ; and does, indeed, " grieve and 
 blush for shame " at their evil handling of " so glorious a cause."- 
 
 Sm-ely the conclusion is unavoidable that, if BaiTOW could not have 
 been " Martin " unless he had the constant assistance of Penry, then 
 " Martin " he was not. To this may be added — as an oifset to Dr. 
 Dexter's assurance that when Barrow refers to Mai-tin in his " Brief Dis- 
 covery " he never does so " in such a manner as to imply hostility, or even 
 to intimate dislike" — the fact that once he calls him the "Libeller"''; and 
 the more decisive fact that, in his "Plain Refutation of Mr. Gilford,"^ he 
 speaks of the " preachers which make show as though they sought a 
 sincere reformation of all things according to the Gospel of Christ," add- 
 ing, " and these are hereupon called Precisians, or Puritans, and now lately 
 " Martinists."' Finally, whereas Dr. Dexter appeals to the "elaborate 
 defence of Martin " in a "-Petition directed to Her Majesty" (1590) — as 
 still " more to the point " — it is certain that the " Petition " is a Puritan 
 document, and so not of BaiTOw's writing." 
 
 NOTE II. 
 
 Comparing the list of names subjoined to Barrow's Petition (early 
 spring of 1592) with the earlier list of 1589-90 (February), it is interesting 
 to note : — 
 
 (1) That all the names reappear except thi-ee — those of Thomas 
 Settle, William Clark, and Richard Wheeler. The prisoners, therefore, 
 of February, 1590, are in prison still with these exceptions. 
 
 1 Referred to in the Treatise. ■■• Brief Discovery, p. 195. 
 
 ^ Barrow argues the case against ■* p. 136. 
 
 the Clerk (the great Clerk, the ' He says these resemble, or rather 
 
 scholar) of Oxford — whom evidently exceed, that ancient sect of the 
 
 he does not know — in a long paren- Pharisees "in preciseuess, outward 
 
 thesis (pp. 104-122) of his "Dis- show of holiness, hypocrisy, vain 
 
 covery." From these the quotations glory, covetousness." — Ditto, 
 
 are made. " Appendix iii. 
 
86 HENRY BAEROW. 
 
 (2) That twelve are common to the list of 1590 and the still earlier 
 list of 1588 (May or June), so that these have been prisoners at least from 
 this latter date, and some, of course, considerably longer — e.g., George 
 CoUier in 1588 had been imprisoned 19 months, John Frances 10 months, 
 William BromaU 12 months. 
 
 (3) That of the ten reported dead in the latest list, nine had been 
 breathing the " infected " air of the prisons since before May (or June) of 
 1588. They are Henry Tomson, a prisoner since the autumn of 1586 ; 
 Jerome Stndley (was he Daniel's brother?) committed since the early 
 months of 1587, "for not swearing before the Bishop of London . . . 
 ha^•ing a wife and six children, and nothing but his labours in his calling 
 to sustain them " ; John Chaundler, having a wife and eight children ; 
 George Biyghte {or Bmghtie), " committed from Newgate by the Recorder 
 of London for commending a faithful Christian which was there indicted " ; 
 Richard (or Roger) Jackson ; Widow Row ; Nicholas Crane, a man of 
 sixty-sis (at the date of his arrest), having a wife and children; Widow 
 Meynard (Mainard) ; John Purdy, committed to Bridewell " by Canter- 
 bury " — there " cast into ' Little Ease,' the ' Mill,' and beaten with cudgels 
 in that prison for refusing to hear the priest of that house." He is the 
 Purdy (or Padry) by whom Barrow "sent out" the sheets of his 
 " Discovery of the False Church " to Daniel Stndley. 
 
 (4) Most of these must have died before February, 1590. Otherwise 
 their names would be in the list then issued by those to be conferred with ; 
 but they are not. This, indeed, is not quite conclusive, as Purdy must 
 have been still alive towards the end of 1590, if he did for Barrow the 
 service just mentioned. It is clear, however, that the cases of death had 
 nearly all occurred long previous to 1591, and were not increasing. 
 
 (6) This would seem to indicate that the treatment of prisoners had 
 become more lenient to some extent ; an inference which another fact 
 may be taken to confirm, viz., the extensive removals from other prisons 
 to Bridewell. Two only of the twenty-five in the list of 1588 are assigned 
 to Bridewell. In the list of 1590 (containing fifty-two) there are none. 
 But between the latter date and the early months of 1592 no fewer than 
 seventeen have been transferred to Bridewell from Newgate and the 
 Counter in Wood Street — chiefly the latter. One, indeed — WilUam 
 Broomal — has been there for nearly five years, although unnamed in the 
 Bishop's list. Was he passed over (like John Purdy, perhaps, and 
 Thomas Legate, also unnamed) as a person too insignificant ? Bridewell 
 was bad enough as a residence, but that it was a more " convenient 
 place " than the other London prisons is proved by the prayer of the 
 prisoners to be all sent there, if they cannot obtain bail. We may consider 
 it, then, as implying some softening of rigour on the Archbishop's part 
 that so many had been sent there already. At any rate, there was no 
 increase of severity toward the rank and file of the prisoners. But 
 Barrow and Greenwood were not among the fortunate seventeen. There 
 was no relief for them. 
 
 (6) It is also noticeable that from February, 1590, to the beginning of 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 87 
 
 1592 (perhaps later) — a period of nearly two years — there seems to hare 
 been scarcely any new an-ests. For the list of 1591 (or 1592) is professedly 
 complete, and yet it shows but nine prisoners in addition to those of 1590. 
 One of these, Thomas Stephens, is among the deceased. A few weeks or 
 months of prison-life have been too much for him. The others are : John 
 Gualter and Thomas Reeve in the Gatehouse ; Luke Hayes and Richard 
 Umberfield in Bridewell; Edmund Marsh, Anthony Johnes, — Cook, 
 — Anger, in the White Lion. Many of the rest (some thu-ty-nine), as is 
 said in the petition, have endured the " great penury and noisomeness of 
 the prisons " for the " space of two years and a half." Twelve, we know, 
 have endured these miseries four years or five. Three only — all found in 
 the Bishop's list, and one of them, William Clark, in the earlier list — have 
 regained their liberty. Three out of sixty released in the course of several 
 years is not a large proportion. It illustrates, in a stinking way, the 
 tenacity with which the bishops gripped their prey. Death was more 
 merciful. 
 
Barrow'5 Doctrine of the Church. 
 
Desiderius : "Wherefore are the chief defenders of this cause called 
 Brownists ? 
 
 Miles : Because one Mr. Brown, minister of a church, heretofore 
 professed their cause, piiblished it in print, and for a time continued 
 the practice of it. . . . 
 
 Desiderius : Was there none that did write for this cause before 
 Brown ? 
 
 Miles : Yes, verily. The Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists have 
 in their authentic writings laid down the grounds thereof, and upon 
 that ground is all their building reared up, and surely settled. 
 Moreover, many of the martyrs, both former and latter, have main- 
 tained it, as is to be seen in the acts and monuments of the Church. 
 Also, in the days of Queen Elizabeth there was a separated Church, 
 whereof Mr. Fitz was pastor, that professed and practised that cause 
 before Mr. Brown wrote for it. 
 
 Bakkow's "Platfobm," 
 By Miles Micklebotjnd (1611). 
 
BARROW'S DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Baeeow gave a supreme authority to the Scriptures. He 
 would receive, and he aimed to teach, nothing which they did 
 not sanction. He wished his own words and those of others to 
 be tested only by this rule. Here, said he, is " the golden The Scrip- 
 reed " for measuring " our temple, our altar, and our worship." the golden 
 Here is the " light that shineth in dark places whilst we travel ^ed™""* 
 in the dangerous wilderness of this world." Here "the whole 
 wisdom and counsels of God for their direction and instruction 
 in all things are fully revealed unto us ; . . . neither hath 
 any angel in heaven, any mortal man, no, nor the whole 
 Church, power or prerogative to alter or neglect the least iota 
 or tittle thereof." And, therefore, " unto all the power, learn- 
 ing, deceit, rage of the false Church we oppose that little book 
 of Grod's Word which (as the light) shall reveal her, as the fire 
 shall consume her, as an heavy millstone shall press her and all 
 her children, lovers, partakers, and abettors down to hell ; 
 which book we willingly receive as the judge of all our contro- 
 versy, knowing that all men shall one day (and that ere long) 
 be judged by the same. By this book whoso is found in error 
 or transgression let them have sentence accordingly." ^ And, 
 indeed, the question as to what should be held finally decisive 
 of matters ecclesiastical was of critical importance. The whole 
 issue of the argument between Barrow and his opponents 
 turned upon it. Was reason to any extent an authority, or 
 the early fathers, or traditions of any sort ? Barrow said 
 " 'No," and said it with absolute assurance. He is not un- 
 
 ' See opening pages of the "Discovery of the False Church." 
 
92 HENRY BAEROW. 
 
 willing to profit by the " examples and practice of those faithful 
 (men) that first came out of the Popish Church and enterprised 
 the erection and practice of Christ's ministry and ordinances 
 amongst themselves, according to that measure of knowledge 
 God gave them." ^ He is willing to learn from the faithful of 
 every age in the same way. But all these may err ; all must 
 be confirmed or corrected by the written Word. This alone 
 is "our warrant of all those things we do or refuse to do." 
 By this alone we stand — " gladly submitting ourselves, all our 
 actions and whole faith" unto the ^' proof and trial thereof."^ 
 In this respect he was a Protestant of the Protestants. 
 
 Still, Barrow did not think he could rightly interpret the 
 
 Word by his own private judgment. He needed guidance, 
 
 and found it in the illuminating presence of Christ's Spirit. 
 
 This belief is finely expressed in one of the " Prison " Con- 
 
 The Word ferences. Barrow had just complained that he "could never 
 
 p'reteF by ^^ yet obtain any such conference where the Book of God 
 
 the Spint. jjjjg}^^ peaceably decide all our controversies." 
 
 Dr. Andrews (his opponent). Why, the Book of God cannot 
 speak ; which way should it decide our controversies ? 
 
 Barrow. But the Spirit of God can speak, and which way 
 is that Spirit tried or discerned but by the Word of God ? 
 
 Andrews. But the spirits of men must be subject unto 
 men. Will you not subject your spirit to the judgment of 
 men ? 
 
 B. The spirit of the prophets must be subject to the 
 prophets, yet must the prophets judge by the Word of God. 
 And for me I vnllingly submit my whole faith to be tried and 
 judged by the Word of God, of all men. 
 
 A. All men cannot judge ; who, then, shall judge of the 
 Word? 
 
 B. The Word — and let every one as judgeth take heed that 
 he judge aright thereby ; Wisdom is justified of her children. 
 
 ' Plain Eefutation of Mr. Gifford, - Plain Eefutation of Mr. Gifford, 
 
 p. 196. p. 196. 
 
HBNEY BAREOW. 9 a 
 
 .•1. This savoureth of a private spirit. 
 
 B. This is the Spirit of Christ and His Apostles, and most 
 publicly they submitted their doctrines to the trial of all men. 
 So do I. 
 
 A. What! Are you an Apostle ? 
 
 B. ISTo ; but I have the spirit of the Apostles. 
 
 A. "What ! the spirit of the Apostles ? 
 
 B. Yes ; the spirit of the Apostles. 
 
 A. What! in that measure ? 
 
 B. In that measure that Grod hath imparted unto me, 
 though not in that measure that the Apostles had, by any com- 
 parison. Yet the same spirit. There is but one Spirit.^ 
 
 Thus holding by the written Word as interpreted by the 
 Spirit, he deemed himself safe, neither striking against the 
 rocks of Popery, nor falling upon the shelves and quicksands of 
 Anabaptistry.- He did not, like the former, add tradition to 
 Scripture ; nor, like the latter (as he supposed), make Scripture 
 subordinate to the inner light. 
 
 Consulting, then, the New Testament alone, what is the 
 Church ? 
 
 I. "A faithful . . . people gathered by the Word DefinitioK 
 unto Christ, and submitting themselves " to Him " in all things churoh, 
 is a Church." ^ More particularly, " The true planted and 
 rightly established Church of Christ is a company of faithful 
 people — separated from the unbelievers and heathen of the 
 land — gathered in the name of Christ, whom they truly worship 
 and readily obey as their only King, Priest, and Prophet, and 
 joined together as members of one body, ordered and governed 
 by such officers and laws as Christ, in His last will and testa- 
 ment, hath thereunto ordained — all and each one of them 
 standing in and for their Christian liberty to practise whatso ^ 
 ever God hath commanded and revealed unto them in His holy 
 
 ' Compare Discovery of False ^ Compare Discovery of False 
 
 Church, p. 198. Church, p. 32. 
 
 ' Discovery, &o., p. 34. 
 
94 
 
 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 Each 
 Chnrch 
 complete 
 in iteelf . 
 
 It is 
 
 marked 
 
 by oom- 
 
 mnnion, 
 
 not 
 
 equality. 
 
 Word within the limits of their callings, executing the Lord's 
 judgments against all transgression and disobedience which 
 ariseth among them, and cutting it ofp accordingly by the 
 power which their Lord and King Christ Jesus hath committed 
 unto them." ^ 
 
 Such a congregation, though consisting but of two or 
 three, is complete in itself. It owns no Lord but Christ. In 
 Him " all the members . . . have a like interest — in His 
 Word, in the faith. They altogether make one body unto 
 Him. All the affairs of the Chui-ch belong to that body 
 together. All the actions of the Church ... be the 
 actions of them aU jointly and of every one of them severally 
 . . . as the members are jointly bound unto edification, 
 and unto all other helps or service they may do unto the 
 whole. All are charged to watch, exhort, admonish, stir up, 
 reprove, &c., and hereunto have the power of our Lord Jesus, 
 the keys of the kingdom of heaven, even the Word of the 
 Most High." 2 . . . 
 
 Thus the Church is a brotherhood : a communion of saints. 
 But " though there be a communion in the Church yet there is 
 no equality. The Church knoweth how to give honour and 
 reverence unto their elders, especially to them that labour in 
 the word and doctrine. The Church of Christ is taught to obey 
 and submit unto their leaders, to acknowledge them that labour 
 amongst them, and that are set over them in the Lord and 
 admonish them ; and to hold those in superabundant love for 
 their work's sake. The elders also amongst themselves know 
 how to give honour one unto another by going before ; yet all 
 this without prejudice to themselves that give, or detriment to' 
 him that receiveth it ; without the loss of the least jot of their 
 own liberty, or puffing him up or setting him in any unlawful 
 authority. They give it to his labour, diligence, virtue, and 
 desert, which ceasing, they straight withdraw their praise, and 
 
 1 Letter to Cartwright, Travers, &o. 
 (1588). 
 
 Discovery of False Church, p. 35. 
 
HENRY BAREOW. 95 
 
 in the stead thereof use exhortation, admonition, yea (if need 
 be) censure. . . . All the gifts Grod hath given any member 
 are to the service of the whole body : he that will be greatest 
 must be as the least ; he must wash the feet, and not have his 
 feet kissed, of the least; all superiority is here comprised 
 within the bounds of Christian order and modesty. Humility 
 goeth before and is the companion of honour ; honour is not 
 here conferred to lift up the hearts of the greatest above the 
 least, but rather for the counsel, care, love, service unto all ; it 
 is willingly given unto such by all ; ambition and vain glory are 
 here carefully avoided both by the givers and receivers. . . . 
 The greatest elder of the Church, the Pastor, is but a servant 
 and steward of the House, not Lord of the Heritage ; but {i.e., 
 only) a member, not lord, of the body — to be honoured for his 
 excellent place in the body and gifts of God ; to be reverenced 
 for his faithfulness, labour, and diligence. Yet this must ever 
 be remembered, his honour, consisteth in his service, his service 
 belongeth unto aU ; so that the least member of the body hath 
 like interest in him as he in the least member ; the least member 
 bath like liberty and freedom with him in Christ, though not 
 like gifts or function of Christ." ^ 
 
 So far, however, the description is general, and may 
 have left no very clear impression. To come, then, to some- 
 thing more definite. Barrow claims that the exact pattern of 
 a true Church is given us in the New Testament. For is it to 
 be supposed that 
 
 (1) God could be less careful " for the structure, instru- Eea8on» 
 ments, forms, order, and ordinances " of the Christian Church peotinV 
 than of the Jewish Temple ? ^ ^Xn*o£ 
 
 (2) " With what extreme desire have all the prophets longed ^ t^^^^^ 
 after and (with what) great delight written of the excellent Teata- 
 beauty, heavenly government, inviolable order of the Chm-ch ? " 
 
 . . • " Faithful Jews " had indeed " the inward government 
 
 ' Diaoovery of the False Church, ^ Discovery of the False Church, 
 
 pp. 224-5. p. 196. 
 
96 HENEY BAEROW. 
 
 and sanctification of the Spirit before Christ came in our flesh '^ 
 . . . but " because they wanted the heavenly practise and 
 ministry of the Gospel, the heavenly orders, exercises, and 
 communion of His Church, they were called from those ritual 
 types and figurative shadows, whereby in their infancy and 
 nonage they were trained and shut up, unto the open sight and 
 clear beholding of the glory of the Lord with open face — all 
 vails being taken away ; and unto the free and orderly practice 
 of the same G-ospel according to Christ's New Testament — all 
 trumpery traditions being abolished." 
 
 (3) There are " sundry places in the New Testament " 
 which indicate "that the ordinances left for the building,, 
 administration, and government of the Church are the com- 
 mandments of God perpetual, inviolable." 
 
 Such passages as 1 Tim. v. 21 ; vi. 13 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 37, 
 
 imply that in the Church " nothing " is to be " according to- 
 
 inclination, but all by commandment." And such a chapter as 
 
 1 Cor. iii. is meant to prove that " the Church of Christ ought to 
 
 be built in all things according to the will of Christ as He hath 
 
 set down in His Testament. Otherwise it cannot either be said 
 
 (to be) His house nor the builders thereof (or the builded 
 
 therein) His faithful servants." Similarly, the teaching of 
 
 Eomans xii. is to the effect that " as no mortal man can make, 
 
 Cp. also fashion, dispose, or knit together these human members of a 
 
 12 ; iv. 17 ; natural body, so much less can he make any other members- 
 
 2The8a.ui scrve in the places of the true natural members, or by any 
 
 is^ColoBs. mgans place, fasten, and knit those — as by joints and sinews — 
 
 unto and in a man's body." But it is objected, " If that 
 
 outward form of discipline were of the essence of the Church,. 
 
 then where that form of discipline either was or is not, there 
 
 was and is no Church— which is a gross absurdity." Barrow 
 
 rjjjg answers, " Our question here is not whether the Church may 
 
 Church j^ot sometime upon some necessities be without this order, or 
 
 may some- ^ ' 
 
 times coma some part thereof ; but whether the Church mav receive any 
 
 ahort of -^ . . *' •' 
 
 the true other form of government instead of this." There are, aa 
 
 order ; 
 
HENEY BAREOW. 97 
 
 matter of fact, times when " some necessities " enforce the 
 Church " to be without this holy order for a season — as in the 
 first gathering of the saints, especially now when we are not to 
 expect any such miraculous or extraordinary giving of God's 
 Spirit as was in the primitive times . . . also, in time of 
 persecution, when the Church cannot peaceably meet either to 
 choose or exercise any ministry, or that their chief and principal 
 members be held from them in prisons, or at such time as the 
 chief elders are taken away, either by death or otherwise fall 
 away. In these and such like times the Church may for a 
 season, upon necessity so enforcing, do without this established 
 order; but this is neither willingly to neglect it nor pre- 
 sumptuously to reject it. Here hence it foUoweth not that 
 this holy order is not always necessary, because it is not nor 
 cannot be always executed; so {i.e., else) they might conclude 
 all God's laws not always necessary, perpetual and expedient, 
 because they are not, or cannot be, always practised by us. 
 Should our infirmity, sin, or default take away the stability or 
 truth of God's ordinances ? " In fine, " nothing is more sure But may 
 than this, the true Church can be established into no other change the 
 order, it can receive none other officers or laws than are in °^ ^^' 
 Christ's Testament prescribed."^ 
 
 What is this order? First, as regards the ministry. The 
 It " consists of two sorts " : elders and deacons. Of the ™'^™y 
 elders, some " give attendance unto the public ministry of the 
 Word and Sacraments." These are the pastor and teacher. 
 Others " give attendance to the public order and government 
 of the Church." These are the " governing " elders. As to 
 deacons, they are "to attend the gathering and distributing 
 the goods of the Church."" Barrow also names the elders 
 iiTiaKoiTot, or overseers, and specifies their functions as 
 follows : — The pastor exhorts, and none but he can " deliver " 
 the sacraments ; the teacher expoimds " doctrine " ; the elder, 
 
 ■ Discovei^j' of the False Church, ' Discovery of the False Church, 
 
 pp. 197 to 215. p. 46. 
 
 7 
 
98 
 
 HENRY BARROW. 
 
 la derived 
 from the 
 whole 
 Church ; 
 
 so-called in the narrower sense, assists the pastor and teacher 
 to govern. Fui-ther, the deacons are divisible into deacons 
 proper, who collect and distribute the benevolence and contri- 
 butions of the saints ; the relievers, who attend to the sick 
 and impotent, &c.^ 
 
 These "permanent officers" — "so few in number, easily 
 recited," and sufficient — the Church, as a whole, must appoin 
 and control. This is its inalienable right and solemn obliga- 
 tion. Every minister of a true Church, says Barrow, is first 
 duly proved ... by rules of the New Testament, apparent 
 graces, manifestation of the Spirit, unreproveable conversation. 
 Next he is ^'chosen and ordained with prayer and fasting 
 in and by the congregation." Finally, he is always " respon- 
 sible to the Church, and liable to its censure if in anything " 
 he should " transgress or offend."^ 
 
 This being so, some points seem clear : — 
 
 (a) One is that the Church is prior and superior to its 
 theChnrch institutions. The Church is a company of faithful people. 
 
 prior and r j i. j. 
 
 superior ; This is its essential quality. If, therefore, by " no default or 
 negligence in them," tliey have "as yet attained to have 
 neither a ministry nor sacraments among them " they 
 are none the less a Church, for even sacraments "are 
 not a perpetual mark of the Church." And as to ministers, 
 Barrow puts the case clearly enough in his conversation with 
 Dr. Andrews : — 
 
 Barrow. There must be sheep before there be a flock, a 
 flock before there be a shepherd. 
 
 Andrews. A flock and a shepherd are relatives. 
 
 Barrow. There must be a flock before there can be a 
 shepherd, because the people must choose the pastor. 
 
 Andrews. That is a device of yours. 
 
 Barrow. Will you call the commandment of Christ my 
 device ?* 
 
 Hence 
 
 1 Plain Eefutation, &o., p. 106. 
 ^ Discovery of the False Church, 
 p. 46. 
 
 " Conference, March 17, 1590. 
 
HENRY BAEROW. 99 
 
 (&) Another plain inference is that there can be no quali- And all its 
 tative difference between the people and the ministers. They are 
 are only parts of a larger whole, and the " whole lump " is though not 
 holy. They receive grace as the humblest member of the equaL ^' 
 Church receives grace — from immediate relation to Christ. 
 Therefore " we hold all true believers ecclesiastical and 
 spiritual." " We know not what you mean by your old popish 
 terms of laymen."^ 
 
 (c) A third conclusion is that ministers always presup- a church 
 pose a Chiirch, and apart from the Church are an impossibility. ° offioera " 
 No Church, no ministers. No true Church, no true ministers. J,Ye'°^'^ 
 And so " if the Church, consisting of private men " (that is to 
 say, the true Church), "may not in this estate meet and ordain 
 Christ's true ministry amongst them, then is there no true 
 ministry upon earth, neither ever can be until God raise up 
 new apostles and evangelists, and buildeth a new Church upon 
 a new foundation, which shall be when we have a new Christ."^' 
 
 {d) Accordingly, no one whom the Church itself has not Ministers- 
 called has any right to be its minister. A ministry exercised "mpoeedou 
 merely by authorisation of bishop, patron, or prince is utterly or°beiaw- 
 unlawful. Not lawful even is a ministry grounded on the con- f^'iyaiied 
 sciousness of an inward call. About this Barrow is very ^*- 
 explicit. " Gifts do help to make men fit for a ministry, but 
 do not make them ministers, much less true ministers. For 
 every true minister must not only be quahfied with gifts fitting 
 for the same, but must also be lawfully called thereunto."^ 
 
 Barrow.* How can you approve your own ministry by the 
 Testament of Christ ? 
 
 Sperin. My ministry is from God, with the approbation of 
 the assembly of the Church where I am. . . . 
 
 Barrow. Tour entrance was by the patron and bishop, 
 your office to a town priest or parish parson, your administra- 
 
 1 Certain Slanderous Articles, No. ^ Miles Micklebound in Barrow's 
 IV. Platform. 
 
 2 Plain Refutation of Mr. GifEord, 4 Conference, March 14, 1590. 
 p. 197. 
 
100 HENRY BAREOW. 
 
 tion according to the prescription and limitation of your lord 
 the bishop, to whom you have sworn your canonical 
 obedience. 
 
 Sperin. The patron doth elect by consent of the people, 
 who have yielded their right unto him as unto the wisest and 
 worthiest among them. 
 
 Barrow. The patron got his power rather from the 
 Pope ; he exercises it without privitie and maugre the will of 
 the people ; he may be a child, woman, or a hundred miles off. 
 
 Sperin. I make less matter of my ordination than of my 
 ministry. 
 
 Barrow. Yet without a true calling you cannot exercise 
 any true office. 
 
 Sperin. The calling is not the substance of the ministry. 
 
 Barrow. He which wanteth the calling of Christ unto the 
 ministry cannot have or exercise any ministry in the Church ; 
 but you want the calling of Christ unto your ministry : there- 
 fore the ministry you exercise is not of Christ. 
 
 Sperin. I have the true calling of Christ unto my ministry 
 in my conscience. ... I stand more upon this and the 
 consent of the people than upon my outward calling by the 
 bishop. . . . 
 
 Barrow. But what, then, think you of the calling by these 
 bishops ? 
 
 Sperin. I confess it to be unlawful. 
 
 Barrow. Set down that under your hand. 
 
 Sperin. To what end ? That were to bring myself into 
 danger. 
 
 Barrow. Are you afraid to witness unto the truth ? Well, 
 but being unlawful, how chances you were not afraid to 
 receive it and still to retain it ? 
 
 Sperin. I did it in ignorance. 1 have since repented it. 
 
 Barrow. How can that be, seeing you still retain, still 
 administer by the same bishop's licence, and still stand under 
 his yoke and obedience ? 
 
HENEY BAEROW. 101 
 
 Sperin. I attribute much to the civil magistrate. I do it 
 because of the civil magistrate that authoriseth the bishop ; 
 . . . and when you ajBBrm that the Queen and the Parlia- 
 ment do wickedly in giving this power and authority unto the 
 bishops, will you write that ? 
 
 Barrow. Yes, that I will, by the grace of God, whilst T 
 have breath, and seal it with my blood also, if so God 
 will. . . . 
 
 Sperin (returning to his earlier plea). I thank God I have 
 His calling unto my ministry, which is the inward calling, 
 being approved by my gifts unto my flock ; so that though there 
 were error in my outward calling, which I have repented, yet 
 my ministry is not disannulled. 
 
 Barrow. With what conscience can you now call that an 
 error in a true calling, which even now you confessed to be a 
 false calling ? . . . make it either good or evil, lawful or 
 imlawful, by the Word of God . . . it is too anabaptis- 
 tical to justify open transgression by the inward conscience or 
 gifts. Might not any thus usurp the civil magistrate's 
 office also by their inward gifts, wisdom, knowledge, fitness, 
 &c. . . . ?i 
 
 Barrow is inexorably consistent. If, e.g., a true calling is 
 necessary to the making of a true minister, and a true calling 
 comes only through the voice of a true Church, then is it not 
 vain to quote the fruits of a ministry in proof of its validity ? 
 Cei-tainly, says Barrow ; even the Priesthood of Eome might 
 stand by this test; for not seldom its preaching may be a 
 means of salvation to individual souls. For such a fact 
 proves only how God may choose any man's lips "to beget 
 faith " in His elect. It can avaU nothing to establish what is 
 contrary to the Word of God. So he says to those who 
 remain in the Church of England (though disposed to admit 
 that its constitution is anti-Christian), because of the comfort 
 received from some of its ministers, "as for the comfort 
 ' Cf . Conference with Cooper, April 3, 1590. 
 
102 
 
 HENEY BAEROW. 
 
 stringent 
 logic. 
 
 Prophecy, 
 
 received by their preaching, it having no promise of blessing 
 in the Word of God (your Church and whole ministry 
 being accursed), is rather a fearful sign of the effectual work- 
 ing of their delusions, than any reason whereby you may 
 assure yourselves, or justify them, in their ungodly pro- 
 ceedings. . . ." ^ 
 
 We have here the logical outcome of a determination to 
 assert, at all costs, what was held to be the Divine order of 
 the Chiirch. A like logical stringency, combined with a quite 
 different conception of the Chiirch, has driven the High 
 Anglican of our own day to a like result. 
 
 This is not the place to attempt criticism. My purpose 
 jast now is simply to expound. And having seen how strict 
 Barrow could be, it is desirable to show something of his 
 breadth. This may be illustrated by his view of Prophecy. 
 Elders and Deacons represent the permanent, unchangeable 
 functions of the Church. But the Churchy besides these, has 
 in prophecy an abiding gift of the Spirit. Its presence is 
 significant of an inspired community. Its end is " the edifi- 
 cation, exhortation, and comfort of the whole body." Its 
 means is some spontaneous declaration of the Divine will 
 " according to the Scriptures." Its subject may be any true 
 believer. It is the Spirit's own voice, and therefore may by 
 no means be " quenched." But it is proved to be of the 
 Spirit by its moderation and self-control. 
 
 The Presbyterians regarded the gift with suspicion, and 
 tried to explain it away, so far as private members of the 
 Church were concerned. 
 
 (a) They said it was to be ''understood only of such 
 ministers as have the gift of preaching (as they call it), holding 
 it unlawful for any one else to speak of the Scriptures by way 
 of interpretation and prophecy, especially to expound them in 
 the church or congregation."^ 
 
 ' Discovery of the False Churcli, 
 p. 154. 
 
 ^ Discovery of the False Church 
 p. 169. 
 
HENEY BARROW. 103 
 
 (6) But although " the Pastor and Teacher are the only 
 offices that I now know appointed to the ministry of the 
 Word,"i yet this gift is not confined to them. It is dispensed 
 to others also, and may be freely exercised, so far as they 
 exercise it " according to the proportion of faith, speaking as 
 the words of God always, keeping themselves withm the bound 
 of sobriety and truth." ^ It is the " first ordinance that the 
 Lord commanded and commended in His Church, under the 
 Gospel, exhorting all His saints to the same, as the most special 
 and excellent gift, yea, and most needful at all times, but 
 especially when the pastor and teacher are either taken away 
 by death, imprisoned, or exiled." ^ 
 
 (c) And therefore, " it is pride, insolence, yea, cruelty to 
 assume unto themselves only this bountiful grace of God," 
 alleging, perhaps, that otherwise one might expect to see 
 "women" claiming "to speak"; " the offences of Corah and 
 Uzziah " repeated ; even the " council chamber " invaded.* 
 Again he says, " Prophets (I mean such as are known to have 
 the gift of interpretation of Scriptures) have all of them liberty 
 to speak what God revealeth unto them besides that which hath 
 been delivered, so that they neither hinder, disturb, or intermpt 
 the public ministry of the Church, but use their liberty oppor- 
 tunely and holily to edification. They have hberty also, yea, 
 their especial duty it is, to observe and publicly to reprove any 
 false interpretation, or false doctrine, delivered pubhcly in the 
 Church by whomsoever ; yea, this power hath the least member 
 of the Church, in due order and place, if the prophets and 
 elders should oversee, omit, neglect, or refuse. The whole 
 Church also, even every peculiar Christian congregation, hath 
 power in itself to censtu-e not only any doctrine dehvered, 
 but the person of any member or minister of the same con- 
 
 1 Discovery of the False Church, •* Discovery of the False Church, 
 p. 170. p. 173. Cf. Greenwood (conference 
 
 2 Discovery of the False Church, with Egerton), " Gifts of interpreta- 
 p. 170. tion are sufficient calling to speak of 
 
 ' True Description of the Visible the Word in the congregation in due 
 Congregation of the Saints, &c., p. 6. order and place." 
 
104 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 gregation."^ Hence to forbid prophesying would be "to 
 stop up the conduits and springs of the Church, or rather 
 of God's graces, whereby the Church should be watered and 
 refreshed. "- 
 Diaoipline. Some of the words last quoted — '•' the whole Church, even 
 
 every peculiar congregation, hath power in itself to censure " — 
 point to what Barrow eniphasizes as almost the clearest note of 
 a true Church, viz., its right and power to discipline itself. 
 His chief complaint against the Church of England, and main 
 argument for separation, is that it lacks and has even 
 deliberately renounced this high privilege. He is dissatisfied, 
 also, with the Presbyterian scheme, because it transfers such 
 privilege from the Church as a whole to some of its members, 
 or to some outside authority. 
 
 "The poor parish or congregation where these priests 
 serve may not meddle or have to do with the election, adminis- 
 tration, or deposing of these their ministers. For why ? They 
 are laymen and have no skiU, neither ought to intermeddle 
 with ecclesiastical affairs, or with the Word of God. Be their 
 minister never so blind, insufficient, or vile a wretch, detected 
 of never so horrible sins, yet may not they remove him. Their 
 only help is to complain to their lord. Tea, all the priests of 
 the law, both pontifical and reformists, agree in this point, and 
 conclude that the lay people (as they term them) ought not to 
 intermeddle either with the deposing their minister or reproof 
 of his doctrine." If they have ground of ofEence the one sort 
 (i.e., the pontifical) sendeth them to their lords the bishops ; 
 the other [i.e., the reformists) referreth them ... to a 
 provincial or classical synod or permanent council of priests, 
 &c., . . . whose " oracles " must be received " as most 
 holy and canonical." But in truth every true Church consists 
 of a Christian congregation, and "every Christian congregation 
 hath power in themselves, and of duty ought, presently and 
 
 ' Plain Kefutation, &o., p. 139. ^ Discovery of the False Church, 
 
 p. 174. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 105^ 
 
 publicly to censure any false or unsound doctrine that is 
 publicly delivered or maintained amongst them, if it be known 
 and discerned unto them ; yea, any one member in the Church 
 hath this power whatsoever Ae be, pastor or prophet, that 
 uttereth it ; as also to show how far this their pulpit preaching 
 difPereth from that heavenly, blessed exercise of expounding- 
 Scripture or prophecy in the Church of Christ."^ 
 
 Barrow, then, was not a Presbyterian. This should be 
 
 carefully noted. On the one hand, whUe granting to " Synods 
 
 or coimcils " some good uses, he says, " they can neither add to 
 
 nor diminish from the power of the Church, or execute and 
 
 alter any part of the Church's duty."^ He has no relish for 
 
 what he calls the " Geneva consistory." He considers that it 
 
 means " advancing and erecting one particular congregation as 
 
 a judge and a mother over other their sisters." The result of 
 
 this may be " the erecting in the same consistory one particular 
 
 pastor as judge, &c.," and thence to something like a Pope is an 
 
 easy step. But " every particular congregation hath the power 
 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ against all sin and transgression to 
 
 censure the sin, and excommunicate the obstinate offenders. "■' 
 
 On the other hand, he has just as little sympathy with the view 
 
 which would commit the government of a Church to its officers 
 
 only. We have seen that he divides the regular officers into 
 
 elders and deacons. Both these are ministers, not masters of 
 
 the Church. Deacons, he says, are no " governing officers " at 
 
 all. One who so described them seemed to him guUty of 
 
 " gross error and ignorance." " This he never learned in Christ's 
 
 Testament," although it may well be "the practice of the 
 
 Church of Eome and England, where are such jolly archdeacons 
 
 and rnffling deans. The deacon's office in the Church is tO' 
 
 gather and distribute, not to govern."* Elders, too, are 
 
 appointed " to see the government and order of Christ observed, 
 
 ' Discovery of the False Church, ^ Plain Eefutation, &o., pp. 79-80. 
 
 P- 165. „ , ^ , „, , '' Discovery of the False Church,. 
 
 - Discovery of the False Church, 223 
 
 p. 166. ^' 
 
106 HENRY BAEROW. 
 
 Elders not to take all into their hands." ^ On this point Barrow has 
 
 direct, but , , , 
 
 do not been misrepresented. It has been said that Barrow differed from 
 
 Browne in the fact that, " while Browne vested all the power of 
 discipline in the whole body of the members of each local 
 church, Barrow and Greenwood thought it would be wiser and 
 more Scriptural for this to be delegated to the elders."- But 
 Barrow's statements, and G-reenwood's no less, are quite explicit. 
 " I never," says Barrow, " thought that the practice of Christ's 
 government belonged only to those officers. I rather thought 
 it had been their duty and office to have seen this government 
 faithfully and orderly practised by all the members of the 
 Church ... so that if these officers or any of them 
 transgress, the Church reserveth power to every member freely 
 (according to the quality of the offence and the i-ules of the 
 Word) to admonish and reprove the whole, to censure and 
 excommunicate such officers so offending." Among the 
 doctrines held by Mr. Egerton^ was this : " The true Chui-ch 
 may be without the power of Christ to censure or redress." 
 To which Greenwood answered, "Christ has given to every 
 Church His power to censure and redress." Also this — we 
 abstain (in the English Church) to excommunicate, because 
 we have no elders as yet. To which Greenwood answered, 
 " The Church is never without the power to excommunicate." 
 And this — " Our pastors only now want some censurers." To 
 which Barrow answered, " The least member of the Church that 
 is a communicant hath as much interest in all the censui-es of 
 the Church as the pastor, and have equal power according to the 
 rules of the Word to censure the pastor for error or trans- 
 gression as the pastor hath to censure them." It was Barrow 
 and Greenwood together who said, " The true officers of Christ 
 usurp no tyrannical jurisdiction over the least member, neither 
 do any public thing without the consent of the whole con- 
 
 ' Discovery of the False Churcli, ^ Adeney: "The Church in the 
 
 p. 223. Prisons," p. 18. 
 
 ^ In Conference. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 107 
 
 gregation, much less may the presbytery (or eldership) ex- 
 communicate any person by their sole power, seeing Christ 
 hath given this power to the whole Church and not solely to 
 the presbytery. . . . The prince also, if he will be held a 
 member of Christ or of the Church, must be subject to Christ's 
 censure in the Church." 
 
 As no true Chm-ch can dispense with its right to self- The 
 control, so must it be ruled entirely by the Word. The whole diaoipline 
 process of discipline is laid down there, or clearly imphed.^ Scriptural. 
 Great stress is laid on Matt. x\dii. 15-20, as expressing the 
 spirit which should animate each member of a Church, and 
 the Church collectively, in dealing with an offending brother. 
 The same passage shows, too, what, and how solemn, an act is 
 excommunication, the last penalty which a Church may inflict. 
 But there are other passages having a like significance. Thus, 
 says Barrow : — 
 
 (a) We read in 1 Cor. v. ; Titus iii. 10 ; 1 Tim. i. 20 : 
 excommunication to be an utter disfranchising and public 
 cutting off of aU convinced obstinate offenders from all 
 interest in Christ, and aU communion with His Church in the 
 open congregation. 
 
 (b) We read in the said 1 Cor. v., as also in Matt, iviii. 17 ; 
 xxviii. 20; Eom. xvi. 17; 2 Thes. iii. 6, 14: the power and 
 execution of this censure to be committed to the whole 
 Church. 
 
 (c) We see also (from these places) the pastor and all the 
 teachers and other members of the Church (to be) subject 
 imto this censure — yea, and the Church where these members 
 make such offence is to proceed against them, to avoid them, 
 to excommunicate them. Eead for further proof — Gal. i. 8, 9 ; 
 1 Tim. vi. 3, 5; 2 Tim. ii. 17; iii. 5 ; 2 John 9, &c.; Col. 
 iv. 17 ; Philipp. iii. 2, 17, 18, 19. 
 
 (d) We see again, especially from 1 Cor. v., that excom- 
 munication must be public. This is the only legitunate 
 
 1 Discovery of the False Church, pp. 242-3. 
 
108 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 manner of it. It must be done in the " congregation where the' 
 whole Church is assembled." It must be done in "the usual 
 (not the Eoman) tongue." It must be done after, and 
 only after, "the fault is publicly known, either in the 
 first committing of it, or else by process of contemning 
 admonition." . . . 
 
 (e) Finally, the Church may not hesitate to excommunicate 
 the prince if necessary — in the same terms as any one else — he 
 still retaining his " civil estate and dig-nity wherein God hath 
 placed him," and still being " reverenced and obeyed of the 
 whole Church as such a magistrate whom God hath set over 
 them." 
 "Suspen. There was a practice of " suspension," called by Barrow 
 
 lawful. " a new-found censure brought by the Eeformists ^ — as it 
 were a shutting out of the holiest of all, out of the chancel, 
 where the priest by sole authority reigneth." In plain words, 
 persons guilty of certain milder offences were withheld from 
 the Sacrament of the Supper : " such, e.g., as were not in love 
 and charity with their neighbours." Barrow pronounces the 
 practice unlawful, not because he was averse to a compassionate 
 dealing with offenders, but because the practice was left to the 
 sole discretion and will of the priest ; because it had no sanc- 
 tion in the New Testament ; and because if a sin deserves sus- 
 pension from the Lord's Supper it deserves excommunication. 
 This last reason is explained by Barrow's conception of what 
 The Lord's the Lord's Sapper is and involves.^ It is somewhat mystical 
 and difficult to grasp. Certainly the Lord's table meant more 
 to Barrow than a table of remembrance. He is fond of the 
 words, " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a com- 
 munion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, 
 is it not a communion of the body of Christ ? " He says : — 
 
 1. The bread and wine are a " lively and most comfortable 
 symbol of our communion with Christ, as also each with other 
 
 ' Discovery of the False Church, ^ Discovery of the False Church, 
 
 p. 233. pp. 234-7. 
 
HENRY BARROW. 109 
 
 in Christ, . . . public, free, open, and alike common to all 
 ■saints." 
 
 2. The whole Church (much less any one of it, i.e., a 
 priest) cannot separate the least of His members from the 
 Lord's Table so long as " they remain members of Christ and 
 are not cut off from His Body." Here, as generally, "His 
 Body" means the visible Church. To belong to a true visible 
 Church was to be a member of Christ's Body, and carried with 
 it all the blessings of such a relation, particularly that of 
 fellowship in the Church's highest act. You cannot justly be 
 cut off from that unless for reasons which justify your expul- 
 sion from the Church altogether. If you are esteemed a 
 " withered branch " it is the Church's solemn duty to cast you 
 out entirely. If, notwithstanding some open sins, you are 
 judged to be still spiritually alive, then 
 
 3. To debar you from the Lord's Table is "to deprive " you 
 " of the communion of Christ and of the Church, and so of 
 life " ; for " except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink 
 His blood ye can have no life in you." He goes on : "I 
 acknowledge that many thousands that never attained the 
 symbol of the Supper, yet do feed of the body and blood of 
 Christ unto eternal life ; yet this I say, that such as by censure 
 are put back from the Table of the Lord are cut from the com- 
 munion of Christ and of His Church, and so from life ; for if 
 he have not communion with Christ and His Church he can 
 have no life ; he cannot be both thus separate from their com- 
 munion and have it together. They that pluck away the seal 
 cancel the deed." Here the high place assigned to the Lord's 
 Supper is obvious. It is far more than a commemorative act. 
 It is a special means of grace. Christ can impart His life to a 
 believing soul imder any circumstances, but the ordinary 
 channel of its communication is the bread and wine of the 
 Supper. It is, therefore, a very grave thing to exclude a person 
 from it. It is like destroying the seal by which the soul's deed 
 of covenant with Christ is made sure. Cnly those should be 
 
110 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 excluded who by open and obstinate sin have already given 
 strong ground for believing that they have no part in Christ. 
 Exclusion in this case vrould be merely declarative of an evident 
 fact. But any one who might deserve such a penalty deserves 
 not only to be suspended from Church-feUowship in one 
 respect and for a time. He deserves to be excluded in every 
 respect and for good. 
 
 4. "How," he asks, "can a member that is publicly 
 
 convicted of, and remaineth obstinate in, open sin be shut out 
 
 from the Table of the Lord, and yet be received and admitted 
 
 as a member unto the other ministry of the Church, e.g., the 
 
 prayers, contributions, &c. ? Behke, the other ministry and 
 
 prayers of the Church are not so holy as this Supper ? . . ." 
 
 But they are. One of Barrow's favourite positions is that 
 
 there is nothing " indifferent," nothing unsanctified so far as it 
 
 belongs to the Church. The Church is an organic unity. All 
 
 its parts have their own function, but all conduce to one end. 
 
 You can, then, enjoy the good of all, or of none. If you are 
 
 unworthy to partake of the Lord's Table you are ipso facto 
 
 unworthy to communicate with the Church's prayers or 
 
 ministry. You must be allowed neither to give nor receive. 
 
 You are to be as " a heathen man and a publican." 
 
 Baptism. Barrow's view of baptism may here be stated. He says, 
 
 " None can be a member of a planted Church but such as are 
 
 baptized." Baptism is like circumcision — the common seal to 
 
 all that are within the covenant, to the Church and their seed. 
 
 This appears from the practice of Christ and His apostles. "They 
 
 that were baptized were added and numbered to the Church, and 
 
 not until then received into the fellowship ; how friendly and 
 
 well affected soever they were unto the Church." ^ And more 
 
 emphatically still- — " one inch can we not stir in this building 
 
 and business of the Church until we be baptized." Of course 
 
 it follows that under no circumstances can a company of un 
 
 ' Diaoovery of the False Church, ^ Discovery of the Fake Church 
 
 p. 105. p. 105. 
 
HENRY BAEEOW. Ill 
 
 baptized persons make a Cliurch, or rightfully discharge any 
 Church function such as "to choose or execute any ministry, 
 deliver or receive the other Sacrament." According to Barrow 
 the congregations of the English Establishment were in this 
 case. Eor "we find in Christ's Testament three things re- 
 quired " unto every true Sacrament : (a) " A lawful minister of 
 the Grospel to deliver them " ; (6) " A faithful people, or their 
 seed, to receive them " ; (c) " The outward elements and form 
 of words which our Saviour Christ ordained " . . . " where 
 any of these wanteth " the Sacraments are " adulterate and 
 false." 1 But the Church of England fails under each of these 
 heads. Its ministry, as derived from Rome, is anti-Christian ; 
 its assemblies are " a profane and confuse people " ; its form 
 of administration is corrupted by "^'fond trifling ceremonies." 
 As to baptism in particular, the fact that the " baptism of the 
 Church of England is no true baptism," and that this was the 
 only baptism known " at the change of religion," in the first 
 days of Elizabeth, shows " all the people " then to have been 
 " unbaptized " : and the further fact that the English clergy 
 owes its ordination to Rome shows " all the people " since then 
 to have remained imbaptized. Eor " where there is no Church 
 there is no calling; but all the ministers of the Church of 
 England were made either in the Church of Rome or by virtue 
 of that ministry fetched from the Church of Rome, and that 
 within the memory, yea, within half the age of a man. There- 
 fore we may by his own (Dr. Some's) reason conclude all this 
 ministry, both bishops and priests, to be Romish, anti-Christian, 
 and false; and so the Sacraments by them dehvered are no 
 true Sacraments. . . ."^ In connection with this matter a 
 curious case is discussed. Some friend^ of Mr. Penry, 
 whom Barrow names the scholar of Oxenford — a Puritan — 
 had taken up much the same position. In his eyes, 
 
 1 Discovery of the False Cliiiroh, 
 pp. 99, 100. ' Job Throokmorton (see chap, i., 
 
 - Discovery of the False Church, Excursus I.) 
 p. 104. 
 
112 HENRY BAREOW. 
 
 therefore, baptism generally in tlie English Church was false. 
 But he had made, at least, one great exception. On some 
 occasion when the Queen had publicly received the com- 
 munion, the scholar, with Penry and other Puritans, had 
 approved her act. Barrow calls this approval a piece of 
 " most odious and un-Christian flattery." Why? Because Her 
 Majesty was an unbaptized person — so were the presiding 
 priests ; hence, according to the scholar's own principles, they 
 had no right to give, nor she to receive, the Sacrament. It 
 seems strangely narrow on Barrow's part — as narrow as what 
 we are wont to hear from the High Anglican nowadays. He 
 claimed, however, to be simply consistent, and charges the 
 scholar with implicitly " yielding the whole cause in open 
 field." 
 
 It is startling, after this, to find Barrow practically 
 stultifying himself. For so he does, it seems to me, when he 
 turns to consider his own baptism and that of the other Sepa- 
 ratists. He had said, " The baptism of the English Church is 
 false ; our own baptism, therefore, having been received in that 
 Church, is of no account " ; yet " not one inch can we stir in 
 the building and business of the Church until we be baptized." 
 This looks like a deadlock. Tou must be baptized ere you can 
 even begin to build the Church ; you cannot be baptized with- 
 out a true minister ; there cannot be a true minister unless 
 there is first a true Church to call and ordain him. What is to 
 be done? Re-baptism in some way would seem to be inevi- 
 table. But Barrow shrank from this. iJe-baptism was Ana- 
 baptism, the horrihile nomen of the time. His detestation of 
 the poor Anabaptists was as great as any man's. He seldom 
 mentions them without adding some abusive epithet. They are 
 the " wicked Anabaptists " — the damnable, execrable, blas- 
 phemous Anabaptists. They are an embodiment of the worst 
 heresies. They are representative of all schism in the Church 
 and sedition in the State. To be compared with them in any 
 point, as he and his fellows often were, was the least endurable 
 
HENRY BAREOW. 113 
 
 of insults. This inveterate prejudice hindered him from see- 
 ing, lover of truth as he was, that Anabaptism expressed the 
 logic of his position. He was forced into an untenable com- 
 promise. During his examination before the High Commission 
 —March 24, 1586-7— one of the questions which Wliitgift 
 commanded to be put was : « Whether he (Barrow) thinketh 
 that such as have been baptized in the Church of England since 
 Queen Elizabeth's reign have been rightly baptized or ought to 
 be baptized again?" Answer: "I think as before of your 
 sacraments, that they have not been rightly baptized according 
 to the institution of Christ ; yet that they need not, neither 
 ought to be, baptized again." In drawing up a report of the 
 examination Barrow adds here a parenthesis which clearly 
 betrays what was in his mind : — " I doubt lest the Archbishop, 
 hearing my answer of re-baptiziag, caused it to be left out of 
 the question ; and my answer, taking that which might best 
 serve their own turn, to bring us into suspicion of error and 
 hatred." What, then, is his compromise ? It turns on a dis- 
 tinction between false baptism and baptism adulterate. 
 Baptism is false when " it has been delivered by an infidel who 
 never had knowledge of God in Christ." In such a case it is 
 absolutely invalid. Adulterate baptism is that received in a 
 false Church which holds true Christian doctrine. In such a 
 case it is "never a cancelled record." Undoubtedly "such 
 baptism as is delivered in the false Church is no true seal of 
 God's covenant (commonly called a true sacrament)," and yet it 
 is the fact " that such outward washing or baptism delivered 
 after their superstitious manner in that idolatrous place ought 
 not unto such to be repeated as afterward forsake the false 
 Church and join unto the Church of God." "Thus is this 
 hard knot (even with a trise) undone." It looks as if the knot 
 were more tangled than ever. For if a false Church makes a 
 false ministry, and a false ministry makes a false sacrament, as 
 Barrow has said, what can make the Eomish baptism true ? 
 Can it be that Barrow, so loftily spiritual in the general strain 
 
114 HENEY BAREOW. 
 
 of his thought, means to attach a magical force to the mere 
 baptismal formula ? There seems no other explanation. But 
 he himself appeals to Scripture. He finds it written how in 
 HezeMah's days (2 Chron. xxx. 11, 18 ; xxxv. 17) and in Ezra's 
 days (Ezra vi. 21,22) certain " schismatical Israelites" were 
 permitted to " return to the true Temple and be received to the 
 Passover " at Jerusalem " without re-circumcision," although 
 their circumcision, undergone in a schismatic Church, was not 
 a true one. Even so, he argues, the Church of Rome (or 
 England) may be false, its ministry false, its baptism false ; yet 
 the latter may pass muster and open the door to the Lord's 
 Supper. The two cases are analogical ; the one intended, as it 
 were, to anticipate and illuminate the other. " We need not 
 say with Dr. Some that the baptism deKvered in the false 
 Church is a true seal of the covenant ; nor, with his adversary 
 (Mr. Penry's Proctor), that such as there received their 
 baptism are not (touching the outward action) baptized." This 
 may be light, but it has all the appearance of darkness, and 
 Barrow confesses that it is not the light of reason. Certainly 
 we cannot understand how something clean should thus come 
 'Out of something unclean ; but we must " with reverence rest in 
 tthe practice of the Holy Ghost, though neither they nor I be 
 able to arrive to the wisdom thereof."^ 
 
 It is a curious instance of the sophisms into which even a 
 true man may run when clear sense has for once yielded the 
 reins to blind fear. For, as we have seen, the fear of anabap- 
 tism was upon him. 
 
 Most of the chief features in Barrow's doctrine of 
 ■the Church have now been mentioned. It has in pastor, 
 elder, and deacon its permanent officers. It has in the prophets 
 its free pupils of the Spirit. It has in its unquestioning 
 loyalty to the law of Christ a sure guide to thorough self- 
 discipline. It has in the consciousness of His inmiediate 
 presence, power to exercise the same vrithout respect of persons. 
 
 ' Diacovery of the False Church, pp. 116, 117. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 115 
 
 It has in the two Sacraments the " seal " of entrance into His 
 covenant and fellowship. All the stones necessary to the 
 building of a true Church are here. 
 
 But, picturing the Church to ourselves as thus organised, a Minister 
 there are still some questions we naturally ask. for^nd by 
 
 As regards the ministry, e.g., did Barrow helieve in i^^'^^o'^'^- 
 men who should be ministers and nothing more, i.e., living 
 entirely for the work of the Church apart from secular busi- 
 ness 9 His answer is not clear. We may infer, however, its 
 affirmative character from the fact, inter alia, that he expects 
 ministers to need maintenance ; and is only singular in his 
 view of the means. State-pay in any form he repudiated. 
 "As for the true ministry , . . they depend upon the 
 providence and blessing of God, upon that flock unto which 
 they administer. They are content, in the greatest plenty, 
 with sufS-ciency of necessary food and raiment for them and 
 their families. . . . And of this also they are neither their 
 own carvers nor judges, but it is administered unto them from 
 time to time by the Church to which they serve and attend 
 as need requireth and their present ability afPordeth.''^ But 
 the maintenance, no less than the government of a Church, 
 should be in the hands of " members " only. 
 
 Sperin. Why is it not laTvful for a minister to be main- ^.^^ mug^ 
 tained with the goods of unbelievers? gUte^lthe 
 
 B. Unbelievers have nothing to do, neither are bound to P'^of'^'^e- 
 the maintenance of the ministry. This contribution is called 
 in the New Testament a duty and communication of the saints, 
 an offering and sweet odoure imto G-od. But unbelievers may 
 have no spiritual communion with the saints, neither may offer 
 with them in the Church, neither have interest or anything to 
 do with the ministry. Therefore may not be bound, nor 
 received, to contribute unto the maintenance of the ministry." - 
 Stronger still is the following : It is " odious and unmeet 
 
 1 Discovery of the False Church, ^ Conference, March 20, 1690. 
 
 pp. 139, 140. 
 
116 HBNEY BAEEOW. 
 
 for any Christian ministers, who are not to stand hired 
 (pastors) to such dogs and swine, to minister to them the 
 Gospel and Sacraments for their goods and hire. It was not 
 lawful for the priest under the law to receive the offering of 
 any stranger from the faith. Such might not enter into, or 
 offer in, the temple. Neither now under the Gospel may the 
 unbelieving have any fellowship with the Church, or commu- 
 nicate in, or intermeddle with, any action of the Church. But 
 this contribution is an action of the Church, a communion and 
 duty of the saints." How execrable, then, is the " sacrilege 
 and covetousness " of such as owe their " set stipends " to the 
 tithes and " goods of the profane " ! ^ 
 
 Of course the ministers here thought of are those who 
 give themselves continually to the Word; not deacons nor 
 ruKng elders, but pastors and teachers. Every Church has 
 need of such for its due edification, and such a minister needs 
 the use of all his time for due and effectual service. For 
 Barrow was not content with unprepared or rhapsodical utter- 
 ances in the Church. Eobinson's sober words on this point 
 might have been his own. 
 
 " In some works of the Spirit ... in which the 
 Eobiiiaon Lord useth our industry and care. He is infinitely more to 
 need of be magnified than in any whatsoever the immediate and 
 
 ministerial 
 
 'industry miraculous work of the same Spirit wherein he useth it 
 
 and care" -kt re j t 
 
 inprepara- not. . . . JNay, "Compare we even extraordinary gilts 
 with extraordinary, we see that God used the industry and 
 pains of the extraordinary prophets for the reading and 
 meditating in, and of, the law : and of the latter prophets of 
 the former prophets' writings. As also of the Apostles in the 
 reading, knowledge, and memory of them both ; yea, even of 
 the very heathen authors, whose sayings they sometimes quote 
 in their prophecies or sermons ; ^ the hke industry or care not 
 being required for the gift, or use, of strange tongues ; and 
 
 1 Plain Eefutation, p. 147. ^ Acta. xvii. 28, Eom. iv. 3-10, 1 Cor. 
 
 XV. 33, Tit. i. 12, 2 Tim. iv. 13. 
 
 John 
 
 tion. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 117 
 
 yet did the Holy Grhost much more excellently utter itself in 
 their prophesies and sermons than in their tongues." ^ Even 
 so, Barrow expected every preacher to be "painful " — i.e., to 
 use all care and thoroughness in his work. He did not, Barrow 
 accordingly, despise learning. He only demanded that it be of with him. 
 the right sort — such as properly belongs to the man of God. 
 BibHcal study should take the first place, but in due subordi- Gave first 
 nation to this he by no means disparaged other studies. On Biblical 
 the contrary, he would have them brought within everyone's ^ ^ ^' 
 reach. " As for schools to teach the tongues, or any laudable 
 or necessary art, I wish them in abundance ; that if it were 
 possible, not only the youth, but even the whole Church might 
 be trained therein ; I with my whole heart wish that all the 
 Lord's people were prophets. Such an enemy am I to true 
 knowledge and learning, that I would not have it any longer 
 kept secret in a mystery, but even proclaimed upon the house- 
 top in every city and in every street ; yet still and ever 
 with this caution that these schools be in an established 
 Church (I mean in such places where the saints live 
 together in the faith, order, obedience, and communion of 
 Christ).'"* He objected therefore to the Universities. They Depre- 
 seemed to him no fit place for young men, still less for univer- 
 
 . . . sities. 
 
 ministers. 
 
 "The Churches of Christ have no such colleges, societies, 
 fellowships ; they have no such profane arts, education, and 
 literature; they have no such degrees and ostentation of 
 learning ; neither are there found either Bachelors or Doctors 
 of Divinity. Their pastors and teachers are chosen for their 
 knowledge, gravity, godliness of life ; they have no such 
 fashions and blasphemous titles, but are called to a labour and 
 a charge; for the faithful performance whereof they rather 
 desire to be commended than to be greeted in the market-place. 
 As they are by the Church wherein they serve called to this 
 
 1 The People's Plea for the Exercise ^ Discovery of the False Church, 
 
 of Prophecy— Works, iii. pp. 296-7. p. 178. 
 
118 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 office, so are they orderly and reverently ordained by and in 
 the same congregation, with fasting and prayer, &c. ; and 
 not arrayed in scarlet, with the habit, hood, tippet, cornered 
 hat, with their maces and beadles proclaiming before them, and 
 such a train of the pope's clerks, young and old, following them 
 through the streets till they march to the place where they 
 play their prizes ; neither are they in this manner dubbed 
 Doctors by the delivering a book unto them — sworn upon a book 
 to their father's fidelity and their mother's mysteries — adopted 
 their son by a ring and a kiss, or enthronised in a chair with 
 many other ceremonies, and (so) made Doctors of Divinity : 
 Doctors in name and title only, without any certain office or 
 Church, wherein and wheremito to administer. For this title of 
 Divinity I know not how to give it unto any mortal man 
 without blasphemy, Christ only excepted . . . who is the 
 only imiversal Doctor of all His disciples and of all true 
 religion." 1 Barrow anticipated George Fox in some points, 
 e.g., in his refusal to take an oath on the Bible ; in his objection 
 to naming the days of the week Sunday, Monday, &c. ; and 
 here in his dislike of titles, at least, so far as the Christian 
 minister was concerned. He was, indeed, suspicious of any- 
 Butnota thing not distinctly sanctioned by Scripture, especially if 
 barian." sanctioned by the " false " Church. But where they railed at 
 him as utterly ignorant, and as labouring "to bring in 
 barbarism," they were in error. He was a scholar, and a lover 
 of scholars, and a minister could not be too well educated. 
 Only let him know his Bible thoroughly, and judge all other 
 seeming knowledge in its light. Though this might be narrow, 
 it was not barbarous. As a matter of fact the first leaders of 
 the Separation were aU scholars — mostly trained and distin- 
 guished in the Universities. Barrow, G-reenwood, Francis 
 Johnson, Clifton, Ainsworth, Penry, Eobinson are not names 
 suggestive of ignorance. It was, indeed, their richer mental 
 no less than spiritual culture which commended them as much 
 
 ' Discovery of the False Church, p. 176, 177. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 119 
 
 as anything else for leadership in a commiinity where all alike 
 were " saints " ; nor has the preference for an educated ministry 
 which is characteristic of Congregational Churches in our own 
 day any real reason to fear that it is departing from the tradition 
 of their earliest time. 
 
 The position of regular minister as conceived by Barrow Barrow 
 was one of singular dignity. He was had in all reverence for the 
 his work's sake. If a teacher, it was his to expound the office. 
 Scriptures ; if a pastor, it was his to exhort, to baptize, to 
 administer the Lord's Supper, to pronounce the " censures " of 
 the Church. 
 
 There was no confusion of office, and no interference. 
 Supposing, e.g., that the Church had not yet ordained a pastor,, 
 or had been temporarily bereft of him, no one else could be 
 allowed to usurp his special functions. The London Church 
 went without the Lord's Supper for months because it had no 
 pastor or because its pastor was in prison. Greenwood excused 
 himself for letting his boy — a year and a-half old — remain 
 unbaptized by saying, "I have been in prison and cannot 
 tell where to go to a reformed Church where I might have 
 him baptized according to God's ordinance." ^ 
 
 But, notwithstanding such high respect for the minister's But did 
 office, he was himself stiU a "layman." In other words, him other 
 ordination did not endue him with any peculiar grace which layman. 
 severed him from the rest of his brethren. It gave him a 
 higher office, but he continued one of themselves, accountable 
 to them^ imder Christ, for the way his office was discharged, 
 capable of being degraded from it in case of unworthiness. 
 Liable, thus, to lose entirely the ministerial character. He even 
 ceased to be a minister if he forsook the people by whom he 
 had been ordained, and went away to another Church, unless 
 the latter ordained him again for themselves. The point is not 
 quite clear, for there is no case in the earliest days of the Separa- 
 tion by which it can be tested. Johnson, e.g., was pastor of the 
 ' Examination before the High Commission. 
 
120 HENRY BAREOW. 
 
 same people in London and Amsterdam ; Robinson of the same 
 people in Scrooby and Leyden. But the general language of 
 Barrow entirely favours the statement that a true ordination 
 differed from false as well in scope as in origin and nature — 
 the false bestowing a right to seek and accept a " charge " 
 anywhere, the true bestowing the right to minister only to a 
 particular congregation. The distinction, therefore, between 
 " ordination " and " recognition " services has grown up later, 
 naturally enough in view of the confidence which one Church 
 would learn to put in the previous choice of another ; and also 
 harmlessly enough, save so far as it may have tended to 
 encourage the essentially sacerdotal notion of " once a minister 
 always a minister." There is no room for "indefectible" 
 grace in the Congregational idea. 
 iiarrjing Among the duties proper to a ministerial office it is strange 
 
 ing not to find that Barrow did not place marrying and burying. As to 
 
 inciilent . , 
 
 to the marriage he says, "I have always tound it the parents' office to 
 office. provide marriages for their children while they remain in their 
 
 charge and government ; and that the parties themselves 
 affianced and betrothed each other in the fear of God and in 
 the presence of such witnesses as were present, and that in 
 their parents' or other private houses, without running to 
 church to the priest. ... I ever took marriage for an 
 ordinance and action of the second table, and see not why they 
 might not as well set up the tables of the money-changers or 
 bring in any other civil business or chaffaire as this into the 
 Church."! 
 
 So, too, of burial he asks, " Where in all the Book of G-od 
 have they (the priests of the English Church) learned to say 
 prayers or preach over (I will not though I might truly say /or) 
 the dead? Where may I find in the Book of God that it 
 belonged to the minister's office to bury the dead ? Why (of 
 
 ' Discovery of the False Church, Miles Micklehound arguos the matter 
 p. 123. Cf. Certain Slanderous Articles at length. So Robinson, &c. 
 — No. 12 ; also " Platform," where 
 
HENEY BAEROW. 121 
 
 all other places) must men be buried in the church or church- 
 yard, else they have not Christian men's burial ? "^ 
 
 No play could be allowed to pious sentiment. The rule 
 or example of the Word must decide. So likewise in relation 
 to the public services of the Church. Everything done or Public 
 omitted had to ground itself on the plain authority of Scrip- must be 
 ture. Its commands extended to every detail, and its silence apostolic^ 
 was as much a command as its speech. " All God's outward Pi'<'°«<^®"* 
 worship and public or Divine service must, in every part and 
 ceremony or gesture thereof, be so pure and free from all kind 
 of mixture of any human invention as all things of the very 
 least moment whatsoever, being directly ordered according to 
 the pattern showed in the mount of God's holy Word, every 
 believing heart may rejoice at the most comely order and holy 
 beauty of God's own ordinances, and adjudge it high presump- 
 tion to tender any innovation by far-fetched devices and 
 novelties, or some old tradition or worm-eaten ceremony. . . ." 
 These are not the words of Barrow himself, but of a disciple- 
 true to his spirit.^ Could it be thought that God legislated 
 for the very pins and tassels of the Jewish sanctuary, 
 and did not do likewise for His spiritual house ? That 
 the question carried with it a strong a fortiori argu- 
 ment seemed to Barrow self-evident. It did not occur 
 to him that the Church, because spiritual, was free ; that 
 its freedom was positive as well as negative — freedom not only 
 from the Levitical law, but freedom also to shape the forms of 
 its own life. He called this " Anabaptistical." Hence he did 
 not consider it possible that to the Apostles externals of worship 
 
 1 Discovery of the False Church, ■' Cf. the close of Discovery of the 
 
 p. 126. Cf. Certain Slanderous Articles False Church— the whole Church and 
 
 — No. 12 ; also " Platform," where all its proceedings must be built upon 
 
 Miles Micklebound argues the matter Christ's Testament — every soul and 
 
 ai length. So Robinson, &c. every action uhall be judged by Christ's 
 
 = Certain reasons of a private Chris- Testament— nothing is pleasing to 
 
 tian against conformity to kneeling God, or will stand before the face of 
 
 in the act of receiving the Lord's Christ, that is found disagreeing to 
 
 Supper. By Thomas Dighton, Gent., Christ's Testament. Cf. especially pp. 
 
 1618. Preface, p. 4. 195-7 of the " Discovery." 
 
122 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 were something indifferent. No, the unalterable pattern is 
 there in the few externals which they practised or can be shown 
 to have countenanced. The many about which nothing is said 
 or hinted were done away.^ 
 Its An ordinary service of the Church, then, consisted of 
 
 Features, prayer, reading and exposition of the Scriptures, exhorta- 
 tion — with space reserved for prophesying, discipline, and 
 the Sacraments, if necessary. There was also singing, but 
 only of the Psalms. In one of Gifford's "defamatory articles," 
 he says, " ye speak so profanely of the singing of the Psalms." 
 " No," answers Barrow, " not against that most comfortable 
 and heavenly harmony of singing Psalms ; but against the 
 rhyming and paraphrasing of the Psalms as in your Church. 
 Nor yet so much against that as against the apocryphal 
 erroneous ballads in time-song (hymns ?) used commonly in 
 your Church instead of the Psalms and holy songs of the 
 canonical Scriptures."- The Psalms, then, as they stand — not 
 paraphrases, still less man-made hymns — were all that shovdd 
 be sung in the Church, no regard being had to " time " or 
 probably to tune ; but yet making " a most comfortable and 
 heavenly harmony," as doubtless they did for men whose 
 " harmony " was mainly the peace of God in their own souls. 
 For however dreary Barrow's type of " service " might seem to 
 us, with our modern passion for brevity, for variety, for choirs 
 and " organs and curious prick song," it was not dreary to him, 
 to Greenwood, to Eobinson, and those who gathered with them. 
 
 1 Yet he urges the principle of Word and Spirit, to administer wisdom 
 
 " spiritual " freedom with great force unto them, in all freedom to use the 
 
 in such a passage as the following, same. His Word, according to His 
 
 where his object was to expose the will, and their own occasions, unto His 
 
 e of a "stinted" liturgy : — glory and their comforts." — (Dia- 
 ls the Church of God still in ward- co very of False Church, pp. 67-8.) Thus 
 ship and such infancy ? Shut up as those who claim a reverent liberty in 
 \mder a garrison : that it must have modes of worship are only more true 
 such tutors and rudiments ? la not to Barrow's own principle than he 
 Christ now dead, risen, and ascended ? himself (fettered by the dogma of 
 And hath freed Hia Church from auch verbal inspiration) was able to be. 
 tutelship ? He Himself now becoming ^ Observations of Mr. UifEord'a last 
 their lawgiver and minister in person ; reply. Article XI. 
 and hath now given them His Holy 
 
HENRY BAEEOW. 123 
 
 "The glory of the Lord filled the house." Said Barrow in 
 prison, with a pathos which touches the heart, " So sweet is the 
 harmony of God's graces unto me in the congregation, and the 
 conversation of the saints at all times, as I think myself a 
 sparrow upon the house-top when I am exiled from them." 
 Vivid experience of spiritual things — the Lord's presence in the 
 midst, the power of the Word, the love of the brethren — 
 absorbed and satisfied him. He had little patience with " that 
 which draweth down the mind from meditation and heavenly 
 contemplation to sensual and carnal delight." He assumed too 
 readily that of this kind are all " church music and songs as 
 they be now used in cathedral (and other) churches." He did 
 not believe that such " music and songs " could ever be a means 
 of grace, a means of uplifting the affections toward Grod. We 
 do not wonder. But neither can we wonder if such severe 
 spirituality entailed the penalties of a reaction. For it meant 
 a strain on the average Christian — unsustained by Barrow's 
 enthusiasm — which became, and is, too hard to bear. 
 
 As a rule,^ the " Separatist " meetings were open to all. Eelation 
 No questions were asked, though the stranger might haply churohto' 
 turn out a traitor. This was courageous if not wise. Probably ® °'' ' 
 they had in mind the example of the Corinthian Church ; how 
 " it kept a place for him that is without," and how, sometimes, 
 the effect of the Word was to " convict " him and make mani- 
 fest the secrets of his heart, and constrain him " to fall down on 
 his face and worship God."^ The chief purpose, however, of the 
 Church in its gatherings was not conversion but edification. 
 Preaching was directed not to the tmsaved but to the saints. 
 There is not a word in Barrow, so far as I know, which indi- 
 cates that he thought of the Church as an evangelising agency. 
 There is much about the necessity of separating from the world, 
 but nothing about the necessity of saving it. Of course, this 
 was quite consistent with earnest desire and effort, on the part 
 
 ' The exception was in a time of ^ An illustration may be seen in the 
 
 active persecution. story of Barrow's own conversion. 
 
124 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 of individual memlDers of the Church, to win souls for Christ. 
 Such desire and efEort did exist, undoubtedly, and may often 
 have resulted from the Church's teaching and influence. But, 
 as a community, the Church was self-centred ; its aim being, on 
 the one hand, to put away out of its practice everything un- 
 clean, everything with the least taint of Antichrist, and, on the 
 other, to help one another " to walk in the way of the Lord," 
 to apprehend truly and apply faithfully His whole will. 
 
 As things were this was natural, not to say inevitable. In 
 the first place, the Church had no scope for preaching to men 
 at large, watched and persecuted as it was. 
 
 In the second, its root conviction, its raison d'etre, was 
 that the Church must be made pure if the Gospel was to have 
 its due, its saving effect. JPor of what use to turn men to 
 Christ if at the same time you joined them with a corrupt 
 Church wherein they could not possibly obey Him, and were 
 continually tempted to slight or break His commands. In fact, 
 a twofold conversion was needed — one from the world, another 
 from the Church. The Separatists found their peculiar calling 
 in the latter. 
 
 In the third place, one may trace a certain fatalism 
 in Barrow's way of regarding men's relation to saving faith. 
 His Calvinism, and that of the Separatists generally, was of a 
 high and unflinching type. The number of the elect was 
 ■eternally fixed ; the calling and justifying of them all was a 
 work of mere grace. 'No human act, done or undone, could 
 alter the fact. Preaching might " mediate " the call of God 
 to an elect soul ; but the call would assuredly reach it, whether 
 there was preaching or not. Hence, Barrow could feel certain 
 that God had " many thousands " in the world, in the Chui-ch 
 of England, " yea, even in the Popish Churches " of His 
 '' dear elect," whom He in " His due time by His appointed 
 means wiU call." Why, then, take any trouble concerning 
 men — why, in particular, make such a fuss about establishing 
 them in a true Church ? The logic of the position is hard to 
 
another. 
 
 HENEY BAEEOW. 125 
 
 defend, unless we say that the act of faith is necessarily so 
 hidden and mysterious as to lie plainly beyond man's province, 
 whereas human agency in the sphere of Church polity does 
 count for something. Anyhow, it was not till Calvinism had 
 been virtually abandoned that the Churches which followed in 
 the footsteps of Barrow came to an adequate sense of their 
 responsibility for " outsiders." 
 
 Lastly, there were few Separatist communities when 
 Barrow wrote, and what there were had little, if any, means of 
 intercourse with one another. Perhaps he had experience of Relation of 
 only one ; and so the question of their mutual relations scarcely to one ^^ 
 pressed for discussion. But how he would have dealt with the 
 matter it is not difficult to see. Each Church, of course, was to 
 be, as a rule, independent. Still, occasions might arise when 
 it would be fitting to accept or render help. He mentions one 
 in his account of ordination. When a congregation has 
 chosen its pastor the next step is to ordain him. If the con- 
 gregation have an eldership of its own then "the most meet 
 instruments " to ordain him are these. If not, then it should 
 have recourse " to the elders of some other faithful congrega- 
 tion, one Church being to help and assist another in these 
 afeairs."! 
 
 Under the Presbyterian discipline a large place was 
 given to synods and councils. There is a passage in his 
 "Plain Eefutation of Mr. Gifford" which shows that Barrow 
 did not think such bodies unlawful in themselves, or 
 without their use, if they could be had without prejudice 
 to the ultimate rights of the Church. " Synods and councils 
 were not instituted to pluck away the power, or to execute 
 the public duties of the Church, but to instruct, stir up, and 
 confirm them in their duties; to show them the rules of 
 God's Word, and not to break them or to make new. . . ." 
 Moreover, " in a Christian synod no Christian ought to be shut 
 out, but with equal power and freedom to speak in assent or 
 
 ' Plain Eefutation of Mr. Gifford, p. 130. 
 
126 HBNEY BAEEOW. 
 
 dissent of anything there handled as occasion requireth. Yet 
 ought every Christian to use this power and liberty aright, not 
 distui-bing the holy order of the Church, presuming to speak 
 before their ancients, or against anything by them said, 
 without showing just cause^ and always keeping themselves 
 within the compass of faith and sobriety."^ A synod which 
 has no right to make laws for the Churches, and only exists to 
 help them to perform their duties, in which, too, not elders 
 merely but every private Christian may equally claim to 
 •express his mind, might as well be called a Congregational 
 Union. Nor is there a hint that Barrow would have wished to 
 organise the Churches for other than deliberative and adminis- 
 trative ends. 
 
 As to one thing, viz., discipline, Barrow was specially 
 peremptory in his demand that there should be no external 
 interference. Cartwright's "Directory of Church Govern- 
 ment," which Barrow seems to have known, lays it down, 
 e.g., that "when there is question concerning a heretic" 
 complaint shall be made first to the consistory (now called 
 session), then that two or three neighbour ministers shall be 
 called — men godly and learned, and free from that suspicion, 
 by whose opinion he may be suspended till such time as the 
 Conference (Presbytery) may take knowledge of his cause — 
 then, if obstinate, the Conference (or in the last resort the 
 Synod) may excommunicate him. Barrow, as if with this 
 ordinance in mind, says : " The excommunication of a heretic 
 after he is duly convinced and found obstinate, belongeth not to 
 any bishops or elders of other Churches, but unto that congregation 
 whereof this heretic stood a joined member."- For "every 
 particular congregation hath the power of our Lord Jesus 
 against all sin and transgression to censure the sin and excom- 
 municate the obstinate offender." " Neither hath Christ given 
 unto any one Church more power or prerogative than unto all 
 
 ' Plain Refutation of Mr. Gifford, = pjain Refutation of Mr. Gifford, 
 
 p. 81. pp. 80, 81. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 127 
 
 other ; or set one Chvirch above and over another, otherwise 
 than to vrish and seek the good each of other and of all, to 
 admonish, exhort, stir up each other as occasion requireth. . . . 
 As to pastors and elders their ofiice extendeth but unto those 
 flocks Ysrhereof the Holy Ghost hath set them overseers. . . . 
 Again, excommunication is no part of their ministry, neither 
 hath God tied it unto the oifice of any, but left it a public 
 duty of the whole congregation to be done of all with one 
 consent. "1 
 
 Words more explicit could not be found wherein to assert 
 and accentuate the indefeasible rights of " each several 
 Church " and of each several member of the Church as the 
 kernel of all. 
 
 The upshot, said the scoffing objector, will be chaos. 
 And his amiable forecast has too often, as in the case of 
 Amsterdam, largely come true. But Barrow had ample faith. 
 He was an idealist always; and it was an ideal (likewise 
 often verified) which floated before his inward eye when he 
 said : — 
 
 " As for the order of their assembly it is not tumultuous or 
 contentious, but rather an heavenly school of all order, sobriety, 
 and modesty, which the angels with great delight behold — 
 every one there knowing his calling, place, and bounds, which 
 he without present blame may not break; as free, but not 
 having that liberty as a cloak of wickedness, but as the 
 servants of God, whose law is here purely and sincerely 
 taught, every estate and degree instructed how they ought 
 to walk and behave themselves towards God and men in all 
 manner of conversation ; nothing more, or more often, 
 inculcate, than to yield due honour, obedience, submission 
 unto aU magistrates, parents, superiors; and that not for 
 fashion sake or ignorantly, but as of knowledge, faith, and 
 conscience toward God."^ 
 
 1 Plain Eefutation of Mr. Gifford, ^ Discovery of tlie False Church, 
 
 p. 79. p. 219-220. 
 
128 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 NOTE 1. 
 
 Baeeow's Views as to the Ecclesiastical Powees of the 
 
 Peince. 
 
 Plausibly enougli Barrow was charged with advocating and fomenting 
 disloyalty. He resented the charge as tending to identify him with the 
 Anabaptists. " There is not a sentence in our writings," he says, which 
 hints at absolute independence of " the Superior Powers that God hath 
 set over us." 
 
 His views in this respect, briefly stated, are as follows : — 
 
 1. It is " the office and duty of Princes and Rulers. ... to sup- 
 press and root out of their dominions all religions, worship and ministries "' 
 other than the true. Hence the Church of England ought to be instantly 
 disestablished, and its clergy as the maintainers of " heinous abuses and 
 intolerable enormities " ought to go. It should, at the same time, be dis- 
 endowed ; and its revenues be confiscated to the use, not of so-called 
 Patrons but, of the Queen — who " may of her royal authority assume not 
 only them, but even what part of her subjects' goods it shall please her in 
 way of tribute." Nay, if the Queen did her duty thoroughly she would 
 have even the Ohurch-buildings destroyed — considering that they were 
 first foiinded by Pagans or Papists ; that their " first faith " was Popish, 
 and that " they are built altogether to the form of the old Temple of the 
 Jews." 
 
 2. It is the Prince's duty to enforce attendance on the services of the 
 true Church. " We acknowledge that the Prince ought to compel all 
 their subjects to the hearing of God's Word in the public exercises of the 
 Church."- 
 
 3. He is bound to suppress evils contrary to the law of God as well 
 within the Church as without. Here, by the law of God is meant what 
 Barrow calls the " judicial law of Moses " which has never been repealed. 
 " God hath in His book made most perfect and necessary laws both for 
 Church and commonwealth. He requireth of the king and magistrate 
 to see these laws executed and not to make new. He that maketh any 
 new Inws taketh unto himself the ofiice of God, who is the only law- 
 maker."-* . . . Were this law allowed its due place and force, such e^-ils 
 as incest and adultery would not be passed over or punished lightly j and 
 evils like blasphemy, open idolatry, disobedience to parents would be 
 punished by death.^ 
 
 ' See "Platform." » Discovery of the False Church, 
 
 ^ Plain Refutation of Mr. Gifford, pp. 218-9. 
 Preface. ■* Discovery of the False Church, 
 
 p. 220. 
 
HBNEY BAEEOW. 129 
 
 4. As to that part of the Divine law which relates exclusively to the 
 Church, its constitution, doctrine, and discipline, the Prince must see it 
 obeyed, but must do so indirectly. " It is not the Prince's office " to rule 
 the Church in person, but " to command the Church to do it by such instru- 
 ments as God hath thereunto ordained."' 
 
 6. If the Prince fails to do this, if he forbids the Church to reform 
 itself by the true pattern, or if he attempts to impress upon it his own 
 laws, resistance is not merely justified — it is obligatory. 
 
 It is " beastly and hellish doctrine " which declares that the Church, 
 in correcting its own " faults," " ref useth the peace of the Prince and pro- 
 voketh him to strike."'" 
 
 And " when the Prince shall in anything be found contrary to God, 
 God is then to be obeyed rather than man." 
 
 " The Prince demandeth my goods — I am readily and willingly to 
 depart with them all unto him without inquiry. But if the Prince com- 
 mand me " to do what is to me unlawful — e.g., " pay tithes " or a " pension 
 to an anti-Christian minister "- — I may not obey, but rather suffer, his 
 indignation, yea, death.'* 
 
 6. The Prince's personal standing in a Church is that of any other 
 individual. He cannot, e.g., " compel any to be a member of a Church, or 
 the Church to receive any without assurance by the public profession of 
 their own faith, or to retain any longer than they continue to walk 
 orderly in the faith."^ 
 
 He cannot enter the Church or exercise any office or discharge any 
 function whatever except by consent of the Church accorded in the usual 
 way. 
 
 "He entereth by the same door of faith" as others do. He is bound 
 " to the strict observation and defence of God's laws in his calling as wel 
 as any other ; and is for any transgression thereof liable and subject to 
 the censures and judgments of Christ in His Church — which are without 
 partiality or respect of persons."* 
 
 NOTE II. 
 
 BaEEOw's AEGtTMENT FOE THE DeSTETJCTION OF ChUECHES. 
 
 Reference is made in the preceding note (I.) to Barrow's belief that 
 the " church-buildings " ought to be destroyed. The passage in which he 
 maintains this is a literary curiosity : — 
 
 " These synagogues are built together to the form of the old Temple 
 
 ' Plain Refutation of Mr. Gifford, * Plain Eefutation of Mr. Qifford, 
 
 p. 202. Preface. 
 
 - Plain Eefutation of Mr. Gifford, 
 
 p. 204. * Discovery of the False Church, 
 
 '^ Discovery of the False Church, p. 14. 
 p. 90. 
 
130 HENET BAREOW. 
 
 of the Jews in a long square east and west, with their holy court walled 
 round about, commonly called the churchyard, which is holy ground and 
 serveth for Ohi-istian burial, being altogether exempt from civil use ; yet is 
 it lawful for the young men and maids to play there together upon their 
 Sundays and holy-days. But whoso smiteth any in that holy ground, by 
 statute is to have his hand cut off therefor. 
 
 " These synagogues have also their battlements ; another porch adjoin- 
 ing to their church — not here to speak of the solemn laying the founda- 
 tion, where the first stone must be laid by the hands of the Bishop or his 
 Buffi-agane, with certain magical prayers and holy water, and many other 
 idolatrous rites. 
 
 " They have . . . their folding-doors, and an especial Levite, the 
 parish clerk, to keep the key. 
 
 " They have, at the west end, their hallowed bells, which are also 
 baptized, sprinkled, &c. 
 
 " They have their aisles and their body of the chm'ch. 
 
 " They have also their cells to the sides of the walls ; their vestry to 
 keep the priest's ministerial garments, where they are to attire and dress 
 themselves before they go to their service. 
 
 " They have their treasury. 
 
 "All the cathedral or mother churches also have their cloisters for 
 their Dean, Prebendaries, Canons, petty Canons, singing men and singing 
 boys, &c., within their precincts and walls to abide and dwell, that they 
 may keep the watch of the Temple and their hours of orisons. 
 
 " Again, they have in the body of their church their hallowed font to 
 keep the holy water wherewith they baptize, all other vessels and waters 
 to the use of baptism being by express law forbidden. 
 
 " They have also their holiest of aU, or chancel, which peculiarly 
 belongeth to the priest and choir, which help the priest to pi'ay and sing 
 his service. 
 
 " They have their rood-loft as a pai'tition between their holy and 
 holiest of all. 
 
 " The priest also hath a peculiar door into his chancel, through which 
 none might pass but himself. 
 
 " Now the church thus reared up is also thoroughly hallowed with their 
 sprinkling water, and dedicate and baptized into the name of some especial 
 saint or angel, as to the patron and defender thereof against all enemies, 
 spirits, storms, tempests, &c. 
 
 " Tet hath it within also all the holy army of saints and angels in 
 their windows and walls to keep it. 
 
 " Thus, I think, can be no doubt made but that the very erections of 
 these synagogues (whether they were by the heathens or Papists) were 
 idolatrous."' 
 
 Consequently, " so far is it that God wiU be worshipped in them that 
 He wiU not have them so much as reserved lest they defile the land and 
 
 ' " Discovery of the False Church," pp. 130-131. 
 
HENRY BAEEOW. 131 
 
 di-aw us to idolatry, as by experience they lately have seen in Queen 
 Mary's time, and we now with grief behold amongst ourselves."' 
 
 It may be pleaded- that " the use of many things whose original is 
 impure may be pvire " ; and so that "these old places and temples may be 
 used to the worship of God." But this is " flat contrary to the laws of 
 God " — e.g., Deut. vii. 15, 16 ; xiii. 17. And " one of these laws of God and 
 places of Scripture " is more than " all the authority of Calvin, 
 Augustine," and the rest.-' 
 
 According to Paget of Amsterdam (" An Arrow Against the Separation 
 of the Brownists," p. 28), Barrow afterwards came to see somewhat 
 differently, and " recorded " his " doubting " " in that piece of paper which 
 is pasted upon the margin of his book over against the place (p. 133) where 
 he had maintained such a vehement detestation of them," i.e., the church 
 buildings. 
 
 Henry Ainsworth, against whom Paget wrote, seems never to have 
 doubted that Barrow's first view was right. But Francis Johnson, who, 
 at the time of his " Answer to Henry Jacob " (1600), p. 65, was of Barrow's 
 earlier mind, also came to see differently, and it is one of the " Retracta- 
 tions " which he announced in his " Christian Plea " of 1617 (pp. 25-6). 
 
 ' " Discovery of the False Church," tioal Polity, Book V., §§ xii.-xvii., 
 
 p. 133. written with express reference to 
 
 - Barrow mentions Dr. Some as Barrow, 
 
 pleading to this effect and citing Calvin ■' Page 134. 
 on his side. Cf. Hooljer's Ecolesias- 
 
Barrow and the Reformists. 
 
BARROW AND THE REFORMISTS. 
 
 The Elizabethan settlement of the Church was a compromise 
 ■which satisfied very few. All the old bishops, with one excep- 
 tion, scouted it ; and if all save some 200 of the clergy sub- 
 mitted to it they did so merely to keep their livings. Could 
 they have preserved the Church as it was they would have been 
 glad. They felt no need for change, nor did the people 
 generally. The ancient order was much more to their taste 
 than the new. Even its corruptions and superstitions had 
 become picturesque and venerable. 
 
 " The politicians were the only class of the community 
 heartily attached to the (new) Church system, and they were 
 attached to it, not for the religion which it taught but for the 
 social order which it maintained and the assistance which it 
 lent to the Government."^ 
 
 To the men who had come directly under the influence of 
 the Eef ormed Churches abroad, and under that of Calvin par- 
 ticularly, Elizabeth's " doubting and hesitating " policy was a 
 keen disappointment. These men were comparatively few in 
 number, but, by their learning, character, and earnestness, they 
 were the inevitable leaders of the Church. Its chief positions 
 came to them as a matter of necessity. They were the only 
 class from whom the bishops and other dignitaries, or from 
 whom professors at the Universities, could be selected. This 
 ascendancy of the Reformist element should be borne in mind. 
 Elizabeth's compromise was embodied in the Prayer-book ; but 
 it is doubtful if any one, including the Queen herself, felt about 
 ' Wakeman's " Church and the Pviritan," p, 15. 
 
136 HENEY BAREOW. 
 
 the Prayer-book as later Churchmen have done — felt that it 
 was a happy, almost an inspired, compendium of "old and 
 new " ; not too much of either ; enough of the old to retain the 
 Church in unbroken union with Catholic Christianity, enough 
 of the new to content every reasonable demand for adaptation 
 and progress.! Not at aU. When the Queen insisted on a 
 return to the use of the old clerical vestments and the blending 
 of Calvinian (or Zwinglian) and Catholic formulas in the Com- 
 munion service, she really obeyed no higher inspiration than 
 personal liking and political expediency ; while it would be 
 difficult to mention one among the bishops at the beginning of 
 her reign who thought the shape then given to the worsliip and 
 discipline of the Church something perfect and final. They 
 might agree with the politicians that it was desirable or 
 necessary, for the sake of social order, to promote general 
 uniformity ; but always with a margin of hberty in things in- 
 different, and with full reservation of the right to point out 
 defects, and bring to pass, if possible, changes for the better. 
 The Queen, however, took a firm stand. She was not prepared 
 for further change of any sort or degree. And the result of 
 her stubborn persistence was a natural one. It led an increas- 
 ing number of the clergy to persuade themselves that their 
 scruples were baseless ; that the prescribed rubrics were all 
 they should be ; that, at any rate, the legally established was 
 the morally binding and ought to be enforced on recalcitrants. 
 A conspicuous instance was Whitgift, who had " scruples " and 
 expressed them during his early Dniversity days, but (con- 
 scientiously, of course) found his way out of them when their 
 actual effect on the Queen's mind, and probable effect on his 
 career, became apparent. Most of the bishops and higher 
 clergy took the same line. Their predilection was for a system 
 more elastic and more distinctly Protestant. But their position 
 called for acquiescence. So they acquiesced ; and they went on 
 to defend the established order by verbal subtleties and legal 
 ' See Wakeman — The History of the English Church. 
 
HENEY BAREOW. 137 
 
 severities which cannot but have involved an ugly twist to 
 many a conscience. 
 
 Barrow had these before his eyes when, in his vehement and 
 rather intemperate way, he speaks of the "Pseudo-Martyrs" 
 and " runaway Professors " {i.e., those who had fled under 
 Mary and returned under Elizabeth), who, as soon as they 
 "were once warm in their nests, then forgot they all their 
 former peregrinations, and disowned the vows they then 
 made, seeking now to fortify and establish their own, and not 
 Christ's kingdom. And to this end they invented, obtained, 
 and erected their blasphemous High Commission, instead of 
 the Spanish Inquisition, where they got power over all causes 
 and persons ecclesiastical, to make or abrogate what laws they 
 list, and to impose them upon the whole Church, which is the 
 whole land." Of course the statement that the bishops 
 invented the Court of High Commission is incorrect; but 
 they were among its chief members and ministers, and, to be 
 this wQlingly, they had to undergo a mental process in which 
 circumstances certainly proved too strong for conviction. 
 
 There was another class which was both the occasion of 
 the name Puritan, and to which at first it was restricted, 
 though getting afterwards a much wider extension. We may 
 describe them in general terms as those who, " using a cere- 
 monial for the most part contrary to the law of the Church, 
 nevertheless claimed to be faithful members and true repre- 
 sentatives of the Church, not for what she was, but for what 
 they fully believed she was intended, and was going to be . . ." 
 and who "^were willing to tolerate an Episcopal and sacerdotal 
 system as long, and as long only, as it abstained from asserting 
 its principles, and was capable of being worked in their own 
 interests." They increased rapidly in the early years of 
 Elizabeth. They could claim many of the clergy and many 
 more of the laity, especially in London, Northampton, Lan- 
 cashire, and the Eastern Counties. They were strong in 
 Parliament, and were not absent from the Privy Council. 
 
138 HENRY BAREOW. 
 
 Men like Humphreys and Sampson, the Earl of Leicester,. 
 Sir Francis Knolljs, Burghley, and Spenser the poet, are 
 representative of the type. At a later time they are the 
 majority of those who signed the Millenary Petition. Reynolds, 
 and Knewstubbs spoke for them at the Hampton Court con- 
 ference. Pym and others acted for them when at last their 
 time came. They were as little in favour of full-blown 
 Presbyterianism as of an absolute Episcopacy. They did 
 not wish to overthrow the constitution of the Church, but to 
 uproot its abuses. A curtailment of clerical power, and a 
 removal of Popish ceremonies, such as kneeling at communion, 
 signing of the cross at baptism, the ring in marriage, the 
 wearing of certain vestments — this would have contented them. 
 For the rest they were conformists, and were resolved to 
 remain so. 
 
 There was, however, a third party, consisting of men " who 
 carried their Calvinistic principles a little farther, and added 
 to the negations of their Protestant creed either a belief in 
 Presbyterianism as the Divinely-ordered system of Church 
 government, or such a conscientious abhorrence of Episcopacy 
 and Church order as made them consider obedience to it a 
 positive sin." Illustrious examples of this class were Cart- 
 wright, Travers, Dering, Udall, and, till near the end of his 
 life, Penry. Their cause was set forth in the first and second 
 Remonstrance, in Cartwright's replies to Whitgift, in Travers's 
 " Holy Discipline of the Church," in TJdall's " Demonstration 
 of Discipline," &c. "Marprelate" was their popular advo- 
 cate, and his diatribes against the Church as it was show both 
 the bitterness and the utterness of their " nonconformity." 
 But they, too, had no thought of Separation. Their policy 
 was to remodel and take over the Church from within. " They 
 sought to establish a separate disciplinary machinery of their 
 own, which should supersede that of the Church." They 
 attempted " to revolutionise — or rather, as it would appear to 
 them — to develop the Reformation of the Church by a subtle 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 13& 
 
 and underhand policy, instead of attempting to do it through 
 the ordinary machinery of Convocation or Parliament. It was 
 all the more dangerous from the strong sympathy which the 
 attempt met with from the neighbouring Presbyterianism just 
 established in Scotland, and the dominant Calvinism of Pro- 
 testant Europe." "In 1572 . . . the first English Pres- 
 bytery was set up at Wandswoi-th, in Surrey, where elders were 
 chosen and a system of rules agreed upon. We find the same 
 efforts gradually spreading into other parts of the country. 
 Under Whitgift's primacy, in 1586, Presbyterian classes were 
 established in Warwick and Northampton, where the Geneva 
 Boot of Discipline was subscribed, and a mutual engagement 
 entered into to observe its Articles. Cartwright . . . was 
 the first subscriber to the Warwick classis. It seems probable 
 that similar associations were very early introduced into 
 Cheshire and the adjoining county of Lancaster." ^ " In 
 this way a complete Church system on a Presbyterial 
 model was formed, which was to work in obedience to the 
 Church system already established by treating it as a mere 
 legal appendage, until the time came when, undermined from 
 below, it might be successfully and entirely overthrown." 
 
 Eegular conformists, nonconformists of a mild type, Pres- 
 byterians, these then were the parties comprehended within the 
 Church. Naturally, resistance was drawn most to the Presby- 
 terians. As long as Grindal was Archbishop the treatment 
 of them was comparatively lenient. But when Whitgift 
 succeeded in 1583 the storm burst. He came to power 
 charged by the Queen " to restore the discipline of the 
 Church, and the uniformity established by law which " 
 (said she), " through the connivance of some prelates, the 
 obstinacy of the Puritans, and the power of some noble- 
 men, is run out of square." Matters had, indeed, reached 
 a crisis. The issue was clear. Should there be a rule of 
 the bishops or of the presbytery ? Neither Whitgift, on the 
 ' Tayler's Eeligious Life of Euofland, p. 102. 
 
140 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 •one hand, nor the " Disciplinarians," on the other, had any 
 mind to conciliation or a via media. Eead only, for example, 
 John Udall's address "To the supposed Grouvernours of the 
 Church of England, the Archbishops, Lord Byshops, Arch- 
 deacons, and the rest of that order." It is a challenge to 
 accept the discipline on pain of heU fire : — " Eepent, repent ! 
 Be not ashamed to amend, though others have found you out 
 the way. Judge yourselves while you have time, lest you be 
 made firebrands of hell beyond all time. • . . The Lord 
 open yom- eyes, that you may see the confusions whereof you 
 a.re the cause, and give you true repentance or confounde 
 you in all your purposes that be against Him and the regi- 
 ment" [i.e., discipline) "of His Son Jesus Christ."^ There is 
 no compromise here. Nor was there in Whitgift's action. He 
 ■struck right at the root of the tree when, a few days after his 
 elevation, he sent out to all bishops a strict injunction to admit 
 none to preach " unless he be ordained according to the manner 
 of the Church of England or unless he subscribe to the three 
 following articles : — 
 
 " 1st. To the Queen's supremacy over all persons and in 
 all causes ecclesiastical and civil within her Majesty's 
 dominions. 
 
 " 2nd. To the Book of Common Prayer and of the ordina- 
 tion of priests and deacons, as containing nothing contrary to 
 the Word of God ; and that they will use it in aU their public 
 ministrations and no other. 
 
 "3rd. To the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of 
 England, agreed upon in the Synod of 1562, and aftei-wards 
 Confirmed by Parliament." 
 
 Till now Presbyterian orders had been allowed — so late as 
 April 6, 1582, Wrindal had licensed one John Morrison, a 
 Scotch divine, who had been " admitted and ordained to sacred 
 orders and the holy ministry by the imposition of hands, 
 according to the laudable form and rite of the Eeformed 
 1 Introduction to the "Demonstration of Discipline" (1588). 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 141 
 
 Church of Scotland," to preach " in any convenient places in 
 and throughout the whole province of Canterbury." Till now, 
 too, submission to the Prayer-book and the Queen's supremacy 
 had been of a more or less general and indefinite character^ 
 with many degrees of tolerated dissent. But now Presbyterian 
 varieties (or vagaries) of worship were to be utterly excluded, 
 and the validity of Presbyterian orders utterly denied. 
 Nothing could be more drastic. One hears without surprise 
 that an immediate result was the suspension of several hundred 
 ministers — some of them "dignitaries in the Church" and 
 many of them " graduates in the University." Nor is one sur- 
 prised to find that " many good and pious men strained their 
 consciences on this occasion — some subscribing the articles 
 with protestation in open court, as far as they are agreeable to 
 the Word of God ; and others dempto secundo, i.e., taking away 
 the second. "1 But one is surprised to mark how few of the 
 advanced Presbyterians seemed to realise the situation. 
 Moderate Puritans, whose scruples went no farther than a few 
 ceremonies, who would have asked no more if certain rubrics in 
 the Prayer-book had been expunged or modified, might well be 
 tempted to debate the question whether, for the sake of such 
 things, they ought to disregard the needs of their "poor 
 families " and the " cries " of their "poor people," who without 
 them would have been " as sheep having no shepherd." Men, 
 however, who suddenly found themselves confronted with the 
 demand to declare the Church in all respects divine, while they 
 believed, and had proclaimed, it to be anti-Christian, could 
 surely not hesitate what course to take. Their position in the 
 Church was untenable — Whitgift meant to make it so legally, 
 conscience should have made it so morally. It looks like 
 solemn trifling when, on the one part, men such as Travers 
 and Sparkes — ardent defenders of the Holy Discipline — with 
 Whitgift and the Bishop of Winchester on the other part, hold 
 a conference at Lambeth,^ in the presence of the Earl of 
 > Neal's Puritans, Vol. I., p. 354,. ^ 1534 deal's Puritans, Vol. I., p. 374. 
 
142 HENEY BAREOW. 
 
 Leicester, Lord Gray, and Sir Francis Walsingham, " con- 
 cerning things needful to be reformed in the Book of Common 
 Prayer." They discourse about the Apocryphal writings, about 
 baptism, about the sign of the cross, about clerical " apparel." 
 "The noblemen request some favour for the ministers." " My 
 Lord of Leicester thinks it a pitiful thing that so many of the 
 best ministers, and painful in their preaching, should be 
 deprived for these things." But Travers and Sparkes knew 
 quite well that " these things " were the least of all in their 
 €yes. Whitgift knew the same. The difference between them 
 was fimdamental. Suppose they had yielded as to " these 
 things," would it have rendered the position of Travers and 
 Sparkes in the Church any the less anomalous? To remain 
 there, would they not still have had to swear that its whole 
 constitution and administration was Scriptural? The marvel 
 is how men so sincere, and above iive hundred more "who had 
 subscribed the Holy Discipline," ever " made a shift " to keep 
 their benefices. It is not a sufficient apology to say, with ISTeal, 
 that Whitgift's action in decreeing the three articles was 
 illegal. This fact may condemn Whitgift ; it cannot possibly 
 exculpate the five hundred. It rather increases one's wonder. 
 For it was surely worse to subscribe, as they must have done, 
 articles which seemed to them illegal as well as intrinsically 
 wrong than to subscribe articles which, however wrong in 
 themselves, might be confessedly legal. The Presbyterians, to 
 say the least, were inconsistent. We can sympathise with 
 them, remembering how passionately they clung to the hope of 
 a speedy turn in their favour, and how intensely repugnant to 
 them was the thought of separation. But their conduct was a 
 misfortune to themselves and their cause. For it undenmned 
 their own integrity, and greatly weakened their influence. 
 
 Barrow's attitude to these men, whom he calls Eeformists, 
 forward ministers, Martinists, &c., will now be more intelligible. 
 Speaking generally, it was one of unmitigated resentment and 
 contempt. For him they are " these Pharisees," " these 
 
HENRY BAREOW. 143 
 
 seetorie teachers," " these stipendarie roving predicantes," 
 " these wandering stars," " these sighers for reformation," 
 "these conscience botchers." Let us set down the main 
 heads of his indictment: — 
 
 I. For one thing, Barrow beheld in the Reformists men 
 who were bent on erecting a system no whit less tyrannical 
 than the Episcopal. 
 
 Its advocates said that once established everywhere all 
 •evils everywhere would cease. Barrow thought not. The 
 discipline would effect a change rather of names than 
 things. For the old "parsons and questmen" each parish 
 would have " its pastors and elders " ; for the " Com- 
 missaries' Courts " there would be the " Synods " ; for the 
 " High Commission " there would be the " High Councils." 
 It would, in fact, find itself very much at home, and the 
 people would not find it " half so strange as it seems." True 
 it would be " troublesome to the Lord Bishops, their courts 
 a,nd attendants, and to the dumb ministers." It would clear 
 them out of the way. But the people would arrive at no 
 larger spiritual freedom. The former despotism and exclu- 
 siveness would continue. " Their permanent Synods " — what 
 are they? Their "power is absolute over all churches," yet 
 they " consist only of priests or ministers." " The people of the 
 churches be shut out." " Their most holy decrees " are " without 
 controlment unless it be by the Prince or the High Court of 
 Parliament." Great importance is attached to degrees of rank, 
 to rules and orders. The office of President especially is one to 
 be coveted. It is the office about which " their predecessors 
 had no small stir " long ago, " until Holy Father the Pope put 
 an end to the strife by getting the chair." ^ As for these 
 ■" new officers " — these ruling elders who seem to share power 
 with the ministers — "they shall be but of the wealthiest; 
 honest, simple men of the parish shall sit for ciphers dumb 
 by their pastor and meddle with nothing ; neither — poor souls — 
 ' Discovery of the False Church, pp. 190-91. 
 
144 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 shall they know more than they say. As for the ordering' 
 of all things, it shall be in the pastor's hands only, especially in 
 some chief men who shall be their Presidents and rulers of 
 Synods and Councils, and so the people kept as far from the 
 knowledge and performance of their duties as ever they were." 
 
 II. Barrow, then, was no friend to the " discipline." To 
 him, as to Milton, Presbyter was but Old Priest " writ large." 
 He had no wish to see the one make way for the other. He is 
 glad to see that so far, " through the mercy of God," the 
 Pontificals {i.e., the Bishop's friends) have been able " to stop 
 and make head against " the Eeformists' " new devised 
 forgeries." He hopes the time will never come when the 
 Eeformists will have succeeded in bringing over the civil 
 power to their side. For this would simply mean a repetition, 
 ia the Presbyterian interest, of what took place in the begin- 
 ning of the Queen's reign — an attempt to convert the nation 
 "by virtue of one Parliament in one day." " The whole land " 
 would still be " the Church, and every parish therein " would 
 still be " a particular congregation of the same." ^ Moreover, 
 " the fat livings and lordly revenues of these Bishops, Deans, 
 &c.,"- would still be retained only with a change of hands. 
 For they have not the least intention to rely for their temporal 
 support on Christ's way — the " dutiful contributions of their 
 flock." No; it is not endowments they condemn, but the 
 present owners of them. Their " corrupt covetous mind " is no 
 less set upon them than is that of the Pontificals. Barrow 
 could discern nothing attractive in such a programme. He 
 says it merely " seeks to bring Christ in by the arm of flesh." 
 But have we not seen that Barrow himself invoked the aid of 
 civil power? What difference was there between his action 
 and that of the Eeformists ? This, at least, that Bari'ow did 
 not ask to have the Church established, but only the false dis- 
 established. The Eeformist asked both one and the other. 
 Barrow said, " Clear the ground, and let the Free Church 
 ' Disoovery of the False Church, pp. 189-90. - " Platform," no pagfing. 
 
HENRY BARROW. 145 
 
 establish and develop itself." The Reformist said, " Set up and 
 do for the true Church all that you have done for the false." 
 Barrow's conception of what the civil power might rightly do 
 was defective, but it was considerably nearer the truth than the 
 Puritan. 
 
 III. Meanwhile, the Reformists are in the Church, play- 
 ing, in Barrow's eyes, a pitiful part. He is hard enough — too 
 hard — on the Pontificals, but his wrath burns like a furnace 
 against the conforming Reformists, and the evident reason is 
 that he deems them faithless to " known truth." Thus, they 
 are as sure as himself that bishops, being anti-Christian, can- 
 not make true ministers. Further, they contend that right 
 ordination is essential to a right calling, and that " of necessity 
 ordination must always be done by a Christian presbytery or 
 eldership." This is their avowed doctrine (though the whole 
 of it is not his) . But how does their practice square with it ? 
 How have many of them been made ministers ? Whose hands 
 have ordained them? The bishops' and the bishops' only. 
 Whatever virtue, then, belongs to their " orders " is episcopal ; 
 and is, therefore, on their own showing, nothing at all. Yet 
 they go on officiating m the Church. Practically without 
 ministerial standing, they stand by their livings. Their own 
 theory makes their ministerial acts and claims nxill and void ; 
 yet they desist from neither. To Barrow such duplicity was 
 detestable. He had sacrificed everthing himself in order to be 
 true, and had no patience with those who played with 
 conscience, as he thought, for a piece of bread. 
 
 He was equally hard on the preachers,^ i.e., those who, 
 
 being without benefice, had received the bishop's licence to 
 
 preach. The number of these was considerable, though it grew 
 
 less towards the end of Elizabeth's reign. Their occasion lay 
 
 in the urgent needs of the Church, For, besides the fact that 
 
 many parishes had no minister at all, those which had were 
 
 very fortunate if he could preach. When Archbishop Parker 
 
 ' Their usual name is " Lecturers." 
 
 10 
 
146 HENRY BAEROW. 
 
 made a visitation of Ms diocese in 15901 j^g found many 
 churches shut up ; he f otmd others where there was no preach- 
 ing, not even a homily read, for many months together ; he 
 found counties in which there was no sermon within a compass 
 of twenty miles. In Cornwall- there were 140 clergymen, not 
 one of whom could preach a sermon ; and most of whom were 
 pluralists and non-residents. London — " accounted as the 
 morning star " — was also in evil case. " One-half at least " of 
 its parishes was said to be " utterly unfurnished of preaching 
 ministers and pestered with candlesticks not of gold but of 
 clay, im worthy to have the Lord's light set in them " ; while 
 of the other half, " scarcely the tenth man " made " conscience 
 to wait upon his charge."^ At first the dearth of preaching 
 could be accounted for by the simple incompetence of the 
 clergy. Most of the old mass-priests who retained their livings 
 were illiterate — so were the " sundry artificers and men of base 
 occupation" whom the bishops, for want of better men, 
 admitted to the ministry. Not a few of them could scarcely 
 read, much less preach ; and the lives of many made them unfit 
 to preach had they been able. Then, in 1560, an admonition, 
 issued by Archbishop Parker, forbad aU persons under the 
 degree of M.A. to preach or expound the Scriptm-es — which 
 was likely to render sermons still more scarce. And the fact 
 that the M.A.'s were apt to be '^suspended" for noncon- 
 formity — the younger men from Oxford and Cambridge being 
 much inclined that way — brought the number of churches 
 served with preaching ministers yet lower. To meet this great 
 deficiency, at least in part, was the purpose of the hcensed 
 preachers. " Under the character of curates or lecturers " they 
 engaged themselves to some " idle drone " of an incumbent, 
 and " for a small recompense from " him, together with " the 
 voluntary contributions of the parish," they did his work of 
 preaching ; and did it in so " warm and affectionate " a way as 
 generally to gain " the hearts of the people." Sometimes they 
 ' Neal, Vol. I., p. 157. - Neal, Vol. I., p. 320. » Eeferring to 1577. 
 
HBNEY BAEROW. 147 
 
 resided upon their curacies and went from house to house visit- 
 ing their parishioners and instructing the children. Some- 
 times they were itinerant. " They travelled up and down the 
 counties from church to church, preaching where they got 
 leave, as if they were apostles." There can be no doubt that 
 they were, for the most part, excellent men, that the people 
 heard them gladly, and that their labours were often " greatly 
 blessed." But, strange to say, they were offensive to the 
 bishops. The bishops " continually persecuted " them. One 
 after another they caused them to be made " close prisoners in 
 the Gatehouse," or "well laden with irons in the White Lion 
 or in the Chnke." They were resolved " never to cease . . . 
 until they had rooted them out of the Church." ^ This 
 hostility showed itself most vigorously under Whitgift; but 
 existed, more or less, from the days of Parker. And the reason 
 was, that these preachers were among the most aggressive and 
 influential of the nonconformists. They used the bishop's 
 licence to cry down the bishops. Becoming aware of this, the 
 bishops once and again cancelled all existing licences ; and 
 ordered new ones to be taken out, on terms, of course, which 
 made the oath of obedience to themselves more strict. But 
 either the preachers disregarded the order, and went on in 
 virtue of their old licence ; or took out a new one under a pro- 
 mise of obedience which they did not mean to keep. Their 
 motives, no doubt, seemed to themselves excellent ; the action 
 of the bishops, no doubt, was tyrannical and adverse to the 
 spiritual interests of the people. Nevertheless, it is diificult to 
 justify the preachers except on the principle of doing evil that 
 good might come. And it is easy to understand why the 
 bishops should be especially irate with them. But Barrow 
 outdid the bishops. Whenever he speaks of the "preachers," 
 his language is scathing. They seem to him alike dishonour- 
 able and dangerous. As men who expect payment for preach- 
 ing, they are " stipendary, mercenary men, making merchandise 
 1 The State of the Church of England— " Deotrophes," by John XJdall ( 1588), p. 5. 
 
148 HENRY BAREOW. 
 
 of the Word and open port sale of the Gospel ; " as men who 
 usually take up their abode in "some great or nobleman's 
 house," they are " sycophants," " trencher priests, knowing 
 well how to insinuate themselves," "^ where they are sure to be 
 well fed and safe from aU storms ; " as itinerants they are 
 *' stellse erraticse," "wandering stars," "roving predicantes," 
 " always ready upon the hearing of a better bargain to 
 remove;" as masters of "ambiguous and doubtful terms," in 
 order to reconcile their " reformist " tendencies with their 
 acceptance of the Prayer-book, they are pernicious deceivers, 
 hypocrites ; as railers, vdth the bishops, at " Christ's most 
 faithful servants — slanderously called Brownists," they are the 
 greatest " hinderers of Christ's Kingdom." 
 
 " These preachers," he says, "are bound hand and foot by 
 the oath of canonical obedience to the bishops, from whom 
 they have received their licence and authority to preach, with 
 condition not to preach against anything by public authority 
 established, how ungodly and enormous soever it be ; and also 
 have submitted their whole doctrines and persons to these 
 their ordinances not to teach any truth, or against any error 
 that they inhibite — to preach or cease to preach, to administer 
 or cease to administer, at their discretion and inhibition, and 
 for their private estate, by them (the bishops) to be enjoined 
 what kind of apparel to wear when they ride, walk abroad, or 
 administer; not to marry without their knowledge, consent, 
 and licence even, to this or that particular woman, &c. Must 
 not this needs be an excellent ministry and ministration of the 
 ■Gospel that is thus mancipate to, and by, these slaves, that 
 is thus bought and sold, limited, prescribed, restrained ? " ^ 
 This, according to Barrow, is what their oath of obedience 
 involved. If they do not so act they are disloyal to their 
 ■word ; if they do act so they are disloyal to their "reformist " 
 conscience. 
 
 One of his charges against them is that they are centres in 
 ' Plain Refutation, p. 136. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW, 149 
 
 a parish not of union and peace, but of disturbance and 
 schism. They settle there usually by invitation of some who 
 " dislike and loathe " the " ministry set over them." " To 
 such people being" (i.e., if they are) "rich and able to pay 
 them well these sectorie, precise preachers run for their hire 
 and wage, but chiefly for vainglory and worldly estimation." 
 They do not vnthdraw the people openly from their "dumb 
 and plurified pastor." That were too perilous a course, how- 
 ever clearly it may be God's will. No ; " yet for their own 
 estimation, advantage, and entertainment they will, by all 
 subtle means underhand, seek to alienate the hearts and minds 
 of this forward and best-inclined people " from him, " and 
 slily to draw them unto themselves. . . . Here hence 
 ariseth those schisms and sects in the Church of England, 
 some holding with these preachers which make show, as though 
 they sought a sincere reformation of all things according to 
 the Gospel of Christ . . . and these are hereupon called 
 Precisians or Puritans, and now lately Martinists. The other 
 side are the Pontificals, that in all things hold and jump with 
 the time, and are ready to justify whatsoever is, or shall be, by 
 public authority established." ^ 
 
 But their most glaring offence he takes to be men- 
 pleasing. The following is surely a reminiscence, however 
 exaggerated, of what had come before his own observation : — 
 "Well, now, if these noble or rich men be given to riot 
 and gluttony, with all manner of delicate fare pampering 
 up the flesh, &c., that in them (say these preachers) is but 
 good housekeeping. If they and their retinue exceed in 
 monstrous and vain apparel, that is but raiment fit to their 
 degree, age, or sex. If they keep and nourish troops of 
 idle serving-men and followers, this still belongeth unto- 
 their degree. If they and their whole household spend all 
 their lifetime in fleshly and vain sports and gaming, so 
 that numbers of men have no other trade, and be wholly 
 ' Plain Eefutation, p. 135-6. 
 
150 HENRY BAREOW. 
 
 employed to the keeping of hawks and dogs to serve the 
 lusts of these men, all this is covered under Christian recre- 
 ation and pastime, and is tolerable enough so he (the rich 
 man) will hear a sermon and call his family to a lecture — yea, 
 the priest will not then stick to stay and look on until the 
 games at tables or set at cards be done ; yea, or at some odd 
 times to make their exercise give place to an interlude. As 
 for their common table talk, they may there be as profane as 
 Esau, and use there what merriments, scofBs, jesting, and vain 
 speech they list ; all is in the way of mirth and good fellow- 
 ship, is wrapped up in the cloth, and sanctified with Mr. 
 Preacher's short grace. As for their (the rich man's) most 
 insatiable and greedy covetousness in purchasing and joining 
 not field unto field, but town unto town, until they be lords 
 of a whole country" (county), "that is but good husbandry, 
 wise foresight, and allowable providence for them and their 
 posterity." "Be the sin never so odious and apparent, if it be 
 in a man of authority these prophets, these preachers, dare not 
 reprove it, for that were both to transgress their commission 
 and forfeit their letters patent. But now, on the other hand, 
 for such sins as either these chief of their auditory are not 
 apparently (manifestly) affected with, or else can endm-e to be 
 weaned of . . . let their preachers alone. They will rouse 
 and handle them to the quick. If, e.g., they whom they seek 
 to please be rather given to prodigality, profusion, &c., 0, so 
 they will then be-bait the covetous, scraping drudge out of the 
 church. And so of the contrary, where the chief of their 
 auditory are more parsimonious and covetous, then vnll they as 
 much cry out of waste, excess, riot,, apparel, diet, &c. ; then 
 may not a great ruff look into the church lest they will do 
 penance that wear it." ^ 
 
 Moreover, the preachers are those of the Puritan party who 
 have and use most influence in arresting the reformation which 
 they ought to promote. For they are " the Church's chamber- 
 ' Discovery of the False Church, pp. 148-9. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 151 
 
 lains or tapsters that stand at the door of her house, . . . 
 of every high place in the land, and invite, and toll in their 
 guests which flow in unto them at the soimd of their bell." 
 Instead of carrying their revolt from the Church to the issue 
 demanded by its first principles, and seeking to carry the people 
 with them, they summon them to stay inside, and stay inside 
 themselves at any cost. All that pass on unheeding " hinder 
 the discipline," they cry ; " and, therefore, they assay by all 
 means to turn them out of their way ; which, if it will not be, 
 then they denounce them, and proclaim them as most bitter 
 enemies — Brovraists, schismatics, proud and ignorant persons, 
 disobedient to magistrates. Whom {i.e., the magistrates) they 
 stir up in theii' pulpits to send out their horsemen and chariots 
 after them to bring them by force back again into Egypt, and 
 to hold their bodies in most noisome, vile, and strait prisons, 
 except they will come to these fowlers' nets their high places " 
 {i.e., the churches). 
 
 Thus, " with all their preaching they have not led their 
 hearers one step toward perfection, but as they stood thirty 
 years ago in the self-same state are they still — in the self-same 
 confusion, idolatry, disorder." 
 
 In a word, his quarrel with men of the Cartwright and the 
 Gilford type is that they are afraid themselves to be consistent, 
 and are the bitterest foes of men like himself whose courage is 
 greater. He wants Christ to be an absolute King ; so do the 
 Reformists. He says — pointing to the Church of England — 
 Christ is not, and never can be. King in a Church derived, con- 
 stituted, and administered as this is ; they agree. He asks. 
 Ought we not then to obey Christ in any case ? They agree. 
 And if obedience, except of a most imperfect sort, has been 
 made impossible to us within the Church of England, may we 
 not, ought we not, to come outside ? They answer, " The logic 
 may be sound, but the course suggested is unlawful, is dan- 
 gerous, is, in short, out of the question ; and if you take it we 
 shall join against you." And they did. An example is ready 
 
152 HENEY BAEROW. 
 
 to hand.i Some time in 1586 Barrow and Greenwood 
 " delivered to Mr. CartwrigM, Mr. Travers, Mr. Charke, and 
 Mr. Floyde" a list of arguments for instant separation. 
 Beginning witli a definition of the true Churcli, they go over the 
 points in which the "Parish Assemblies" come short — e.g., 
 how they consist not of a company of faithful people but of the 
 multitude of the profane ; how they make no separation from 
 the heathen of the land ; how they are not gathered in the 
 name of Christ but of Antichrist ; how they worship God not 
 truly but after a false and idolatrous manner ; how they receive 
 not, nor obey, Christ as their Prophet, Priest, and King ; how 
 they are not ruled by the Old and New Testaments, but by the 
 canon law ; how they have not the power which Christ hath 
 given unto His Church unto the world's end to bind or loose, 
 to reform things that are amiss — and conclude : " Infinite were 
 the reasons which from these several heads, as, likewise, from 
 their particular transgressions and defaults, might be drawn. 
 But the best argument to confute and cut down this trumpery 
 at once is, according to the commandments of God, to preserve 
 our bodies and souls free from abominations by a speedy 
 separation and withdrawing ourselves from amongst them ; and 
 to confute their last and only argimient " {i.e., persecution), 
 "whereby they uphold their ruinous kingdom — namely, their 
 penal law — by Christian patience and an upright and godly 
 life." 
 
 The four Reformist leaders kept a disdainful silence. But 
 they were appalled. They and their followers were driven by 
 the spectre of " Separation " to side more and more vrith the 
 bishops. There is a great difference in their tone towards the 
 latter after the consequences of their earlier language and 
 attitude had been realised. If the story be true of Cart- 
 wright's friendliness with Whitgift in his last days, and of his 
 accepting a licence to preach from the Archbishop "upon 
 
 ' Another conspicuous example is the occasion of Barrow and Green- 
 George Gifford, of Maldon, died 1620, wood's chief controversy. 
 
HENEY BAREOW. 153; 
 
 promise not to meddle with controversies," ^ which promise he 
 kept during the rest of his life, it need not surprise us. 
 Thousands were virtually doing much the same. The editor of 
 the " Conferences " spoke the truth when he declared " to the 
 Eeader " that " the Reformist preachers are now become the 
 bishops' trusty actors in their most cunning and cruel enter- 
 prises. . . ." They have the popular ear in their pulpits,. 
 and it is "upon these men's words" that the people are 
 " svtfficiently satisfied " that the Bishops do well " to persecute 
 these poor afflicted prisoners, who love not their lives unto 
 death, that the truth may come to light to thy salvation." 
 Had not Barrow, then, some excuse for exclaiming: "How 
 great the perfidy and apostasy of these Eeformists, that knew 
 and pronounced in open Parliament that they (the bishops) 
 were not of God, and sought to have them utterly removed, 
 yet now, for filthy lucre^ and for fear of persecution, subscribe, 
 swear, and submit to their anti-Christian hierarchy." - 
 
 The question whether Nonconformist premisses issued logi- 
 cally in separation was much and hotly debated in the years 
 immediately following Barrow's death. The defenders of the 
 Establishment saw, and said from the first, that they did. 
 Whitgift urged this as a strong point against Cartwright. 
 Hooker, too, reminded the Presbyterians of those " who, con- 
 curring with you in judgment about the necessity of that 
 discipline, have adventured without more ado to separate them- 
 selves from the rest of the Church, and to put your speculations- 
 in execution. These men's hastiness the warier of you do not 
 commend ; ye wish they had held themselves longer in, and not 
 so dangerously flown abroad before the feathers of the cause- 
 had been grown ; their error with merciful terms ye reprove,. 
 naming them, in great commiseration of mind, your poor 
 brethren." " They, on the contrary aside, more bitterly accuse 
 you as their false brethren, and against you they plead, saying, 
 'Prom your breasts it is that we have sucked those things > 
 
 1 Walton's Life of Hooker, pp. 37-8. ^ pi^in Eefutation, p. 176. 
 
154 HBNEY BARROW. 
 
 which, when ye delivered unto us, ye termed that heavenly, 
 sincere, and wholesome milk of God's Word — howsoever ye 
 now abhor as poison that which the virtue thereof hath wrought 
 and brought forth in us.' " ^ Hooker had no doubt that the 
 " foolish Barrowists " were right in their inference. But it 
 became the main concern of the Presbyterians to prove them 
 wrong, and to do so by no means " with merciful terms." 
 ""Vile calumniations and bitter scoffs, proclaiming us to the 
 world to be Schismatics, Brownists, Donatists, &c., and 
 matching us many times with the most notorious heretics and 
 blasphemers that they can think upon, of purpose to make our 
 pui-pose and profession odious to all men " — these were the sort 
 of weapons employed. You could not frame a more stinging 
 insidt against a Puritan than to call him a Brownist. In " a 
 true, modest, and just defence of the "(Millenary) "petition 
 against the Oxford confutation of it," we read, for example, 
 " Our brethren needed not to have cast the Brownists in our nose, 
 seeing it is well known that the ministers which desire reforma- 
 tion have, most of all other, opposed themselves by writing to 
 that faction." More indignant still is the following : — " Now 
 it grieved me not at this time a little that Satan should be so 
 impudent as to fling the dung of that sect into my face, which 
 with all my power I had so vehemently resisted during the 
 whole course of my ministry in England. . . . Hannibal 
 said once, there was not so much as one in all the enemies' 
 •camp that was called Gisco ; so may it truly be said how not so 
 much as one of the godly ministers that suifer in England 
 about the discipline that may deservedly be called Brownist." ^ 
 But the fact could not be gainsaid that the Puritan logic both 
 fairly might and actually did lead to separation. " I know 
 what I say, and have good experience of this thing," declared 
 John Canne,-' " for there is not ten of a hundred which separate 
 
 ' Preface to Ecclesiastical Polity, 
 pp. 125-6. ^ Necessitie of Separation (1634). 
 
 " Robert Parker, quoted by Lawne To the Eeader. 
 in the " Profane Schism," p. 68. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW, 155 
 
 from the Church of England but are moved first thereto (I 
 speak of outward means) by the doctrine of the noncon- 
 formists, either in word or writing taught to the people." 
 Barrow himself is a case in point. Other cases abound. Thus, 
 in the " examination of Barrowists " which took place in April, 
 1593, we find the confession again and again that the impulse 
 to leave the Church came from Puritan preachers. " Edward 
 Grove " said he " was led this way (six months ago) by the 
 sermons of Mr. Gardiner and Mr. Philips." Christopher Bow- 
 man said that " the forward ministers caused him to fall into 
 these assemblies " — particxilarly Mr. Chadderton on Eomans 
 xii. Thomas Micklefield said " he was persuaded by hearing 
 the sermons of Mr. Sparkes, Mr. Cooper, and others." Again, 
 there appeared in 1606 the Eecantation of a Brownist, written 
 by Peter Fairlambe, who deplores that he should have been 
 enslaved for so " many years together " to such " erroneous 
 opinions," but pleads, by way of excuse for himself and warn- 
 ing for others, that he was "led into the schism of the 
 Brovraists or Donatists of England by following and believing 
 certain of our preachers who drew many into a course — under 
 pretence of extraordinary zeal — the grounds whereof drove us 
 into another far worse (God knows), namely, to that of separa- 
 tion from the Church of England ; being taught by the first 
 sort (commonly called Puritans) that the ministry and disci- 
 pline of our Church is anti-Christian, which whosoever 
 believeth (having a good conscience) cannot choose but 
 fall into that separation as I did." He quotes Cartwright 
 and others who have written that " the Discipline is a part 
 of the Gospel " — is an inseparable mark of the true 
 Church ; or, that " we stand not for trifles as for cap and 
 surplice, but for the true worship and the true sacraments 
 of Jesus Christ," inasmuch as "our public worship (as it 
 is now) was raked or culled out of the Pope's dunghiU," 
 and "our ministry is come as out of the Trojan horse's 
 belly " — and is sure that if this be true then " the Brownists 
 
156 HENEY BARROW. 
 
 were in the right, for then could not our Church be the 
 Church of God." 
 
 We must not judge too severely. It is not easy to be- 
 consistent. It takes a clear head to see all the consequences 
 which depend on one's cherished principles; and it needs a 
 moral hero to be guided by them practically, whithersoever 
 they may lead. We should not forget, moreover, that con- 
 sistency became more and more difi&cult to the Puritan. His 
 trust was in the civil power. He had some reason at first to 
 hope that the civil power could be won over to his side. He 
 did his utmost to bring this about, and was countenanced by 
 many in high place. But, as time went on, he beheld with 
 dismay the civil power subjected to men who were determined 
 to stamp him out. It was one thing to be bold and aggressive 
 while the Government was comparatively lax in opposing him ; 
 it was quite another thing to maintain the same attitude after 
 the reins of authority had passed into Whitgift's hands, or 
 after the passing (in 1593) of " the Act to retain the Queen's 
 subjects in obedience " ; or after the Canons of 1604 had made 
 even a questioning of the Church in any point " excommunica- 
 tion de facto." In fact, however numerous the Pviritan 
 ministers and their following mighb be, they had come nearly 
 to the end of their political influence before the death of 
 Elizabeth ; and, after the accession of James, they became for 
 a period mere cyphers. And so a choice was presented to them 
 which could not but sift the chaff from the wheat. They had 
 either virtually to retract their former denunciations of the 
 Church, to be silent, to conform, or else to separate and dare 
 all. For the most part they chose the first course, and avenged 
 an uneasy conscience by turning more fiercely than ever upon 
 the " Brownists." Says Henry Ainsworth at this time, 1608 % 
 "The Reformists' cause called Puritanism ... as all 
 men see . . . decreaseth daily. The Prelates are the 
 men that prevail, their Canons are confirmed, their ceremonies- 
 flourish, and their horns are exalted," and " worthy is it to be 
 
HBISTEY BAEEOW. 157 
 
 observed how the ministers of England are come to contradict 
 •and depart from their own grounds for to maintain their 
 •corrupt estate." As to the doctrine of Separation especially, 
 " the ministers will neither teach nor sufPer it to be taught, but 
 block up the Kingdom of Heaven as much as they can, that 
 men may not enter. They blame us for nothing so much as for 
 separation when nothing is so needful to be done, if we will 
 keep the covenant of our God." Perhaps we might have done 
 the same ourselves. It is well to realise the force of their trials 
 and to remember that martyrs are not found like pebbles in 
 ■every place. But the greater honour surely to those who 
 "followed the gleam" into exile and unto death; the greater 
 charity for the vehemence and bitterness of their speech against 
 such as halted and drew back ! 
 
The Bishops of Barrows Day. 
 
THE BISHOPS OF BARROW'S DAY. 
 
 In considering the treatment of Puritans and Separatists by 
 the bishops under Elizabeth, fairness demands that some facts 
 should be kept clearly in mind : — 
 
 (1) The bishops were in a state of dependence on the 
 Crown — a state which seemed to them natural and inevitable. 
 
 (2) They were, as Ministers of the Queen, pledged to 
 enforce uniformity. On this point the Act of 1559 is clear. 
 While the duty of executing its provisions is at the same time 
 laid upon " the judges and other lay officials," it is entrusted 
 especially to the bishops and their subordinates. 
 
 (3) The reluctance of the former to put forth the vigour AotiEiiz 
 of the law against Protestants led to the result that " the cam- |<=otion3 4, 
 paign against the Protestant JSTonconformists was left to be 
 carried on by the bishops, the ecclesiastical courts, and the 
 clerical officials. "^ 
 
 (4) The bishops, on the whole, were not very eager to play 
 the part assigned to them. Active persecution of Noncon- 
 formists was practically limited to a few dioceses. Even when 
 most severe it went on mainly under the auspices of two men — 
 Aylmer and Whitgift. Not seldom the bishops were of Park- 
 hurst's mind : " I find by good proof that the rough and 
 austere manner of ruling doth the least good; and, on the 
 other part, the contrary hath and doth daily reclaim and win 
 others."^ 
 
 (5) This attitude of the bishops (generally) is manifest 
 from the fact that the Queen was repeatedly urging them to 
 
 1 Prothero, " Select Statutes," p. 33, ^ Strype's Annala, Vol. IT. part i.. 
 
 Introduction. p. 510. 
 
 11 
 
162 HENEY BAREOW. 
 
 greater zeal. Thus, in her proclamation of 1573 (against Non- 
 conformists, i.e., "despisers" or "breakers" of the order 
 prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer), she ^'giveth a 
 most special and earnest charge to all archbishops, bishops, 
 archdeacons, and deans, and all such as have ordinary jurisdic- 
 tion in such cases, to have a vigilant eye and care to the 
 observance of the orders and rites in the said book prescribed, 
 throughout their cures and diocese, . . . upon pain of her 
 Majesty's high displeasure for their negligence, and depriva- 
 tion from their dignities and benefices, or other censures to 
 follow, according to their demerits." Again, in her speech to 
 Parliament at its prorogation (March 29) 1585, she was 
 peremptory in declaring herself " over-ruler " of the Church ; 
 and that her "negligence" could not "be excused if any 
 schisms or errors heretical were suffered." Then, turning to 
 the bishops, " all which (faults, &c.) if you, my lords of the 
 clergy, do not amend I mean to depose you." She would by 
 no means " tolerate new-fangledness." For some make " too 
 many subtle scarrings of God's blessed will as lawyers do with 
 human testaments " ; . . . a course " dangerous to a 
 kingly rule " ; ... nay, " according to then- own censure " 
 they " make a doom (judgment) of the validity and privity of 
 their Prince's government, with a common veil and cover of God's 
 Word." To this the bishops must endeavour to put an end. 
 
 Barrow (though not more so than some of the Puritan 
 writers, notably Marprelate) denounced bishops indiscrimi- 
 nately. His strong objection to their ofiice created a strong 
 prejudice against them personally. He seems almost to have 
 reached the point of believing that a bishop must needs be not 
 only a false minister of the Church, but a bad man. This, of 
 course, on the face of it, is unlikely ; and, as a matter of fact, 
 is untrue. There were estimable men among them. Thomas 
 Cooper— e.gr., whom Barrow calls " that old Pharisee, T. C." 
 — was such a man. He was Bishop of Lincoln from 1570 to 
 1584, and then Bishop of Winchester till his death, ten years 
 
HENRY BAEEOW. ]63 
 
 later. In the latter diocese, says Anthony Wood, "as in 
 most parts of the nation, he became much noted for his 
 learning and sanctity of life." Wood may be hardly an 
 impartial witness, but his testimony does not stand alone. An 
 intimate friend speaks of him as " A man from whose praises 
 I can hardly temper my pen." The tone of his " Admonition 
 to the People of England " — the authorised answer to Mar- 
 prelate — tends to confirm this judgment. It has sharp and 
 bitter passages, as might be expected, but, in the main, it is 
 restrained, dignified, and Christian. Martin makes some 
 scurrilous and unfeeling references to the great trouble of 
 Cooper's life. If, however, the following be true, his nobleness 
 needs no other proof. His wife was, we are told, "utterly 
 profligate." ^ But he condoned her unfaithfulness again and 
 again, refusing to be divorced when the heads of the University 
 offered to arrange it for him, and declaring that he would not 
 charge his conscience with so great a scandal. On one occasion 
 his wife, in a paroxysm of fury, tore up half his " Thesaurus," ^ 
 and threw it into the fire. He patiently set to work and 
 rewrote it. 
 
 Besides Cooper, one might mention Thomas Bickley^ 
 (Bishop of Chichester, 1585-96), of whom it is said that he 
 was " diligent in discharging the duties of his office, and was 
 much respected and beloved in his diocese " ; and John Piers, 
 or Peirse (successively Bishop of Eochester [1676-7], of Salis- 
 bury [1577-1589], and Archbishop of York [1589-94]). In his 
 early days he was Eector of Quainton, Bucks, and "in this 
 country cure, having only the companionship of rustics, he fell 
 into the habit of tippling with them in ale-houses, and was in 
 gi-eat hazard of losing all those excellent gifts that came after 
 to be well-esteemed and rewarded in him." He was weaned 
 
 ' This was " the great trouble of his cum," 2nd edition 1573, 3rd edition 
 
 Ufe." 1578, 4th edition 1589. 
 
 " Published 1565: " Thesaurus lin- ' The instances are mostly taken 
 
 gu8e Eomanae et BrittannioEe accessit from the years following 1580 — 
 
 Diotionarium Historicum et Poeti- Barrow's period. 
 
164 HENRY BAREOW. 
 
 from the habit by the exhortation of a clerical friend, and so 
 strictly abstemious did he become, that even in his last sickness 
 his physician was unable to persuade him to take a little wine. 
 In later years he is known among the Puritans as one of the 
 " relentless prelates," on account of his stern dealings with 
 Edward Gallebrand, a ringleader of the Presbyterian party in 
 Oxford. But, as we have just seen, he could be stern also with 
 himself ; and there can be no doubt that he was a good man. 
 " At York, as in all his previous episcopates. Piers left behind 
 him a high character as ' a primitive bishop,' ' one of the 
 most grave and reverend prelates of the age, winning the love 
 of all by his generosity, kindliness of disposition, and Christian 
 meekness.' " "■ Malice itself spared him," says the preacher ^ of 
 his funeral sermon, " even that mahce which blotted and 
 blemished the names of most of the lights of this land never 
 accused him. But I call this the least credit of a thousand. 
 Prom the first hour that he came into this province, you know 
 his behaviour among you at all seasons ; how he kept nothing 
 back that was profitable, but taught you openly, and through 
 every church; witnessing both to Jews and Gentiles, Protes- 
 tants and Papists, repentance towards G-od and faith towards 
 Jesus Christ." Such instances do not show, of course, and are 
 not meant even to suggest that the bishops were saints. 
 There were no saints among them, if the test be spiritual 
 enthusiasm. Perhaps the most characteristic description of an 
 Elizabethan bishop would be to the effect that (as in the case 
 
 1579-1609. of William Overton, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield) , he was 
 " genial, hospitable, and kind to the poor " ; or (as in the case 
 
 1534-90. of Thomas Godwin, Bishop of Bath and Wells), that he was 
 " hospitable, mild, and judicious " ; or (as in the case of Park- 
 
 1560-74. hurst. Bishop of Norwich), that he was " a genial, scholarly, 
 
 pliant, hospitable gentleman, but little more." This, however, 
 
 though far enough from saintliness, is also far from downright 
 
 wickedness. No doubt there were cases even of downright 
 
 1 Dr. King, his chaplain (Strype's Annals, Vol. IV., p. 288-9). 
 
HENEY BAJREOW. 165 
 
 wickedness. But, if so, they were very rare; and Martin's 
 alliterative denunciation of all the bishops as " proud. Popish, 
 presumptuous, profane, paultrie, pestilent, and pernicious pre- 
 lates " is absurd. Of the bishops living when Martin wrote, 
 there was perhaps only one whose character was really bad. I 
 do not mean Aylmer, for the charges hurled at him by Martin 
 — so far as they affect his personal character — can neither be 
 said to have been proved, nor to have been of much account, if 
 they were. I refer to Marmaduke Middleton (Bishop of St. 1582-90 
 David's), whose record was bad from first to last, and who was 
 at length degraded by the High Commission at Lambeth 
 Palace, and formally divested both of his " episcopal robes and 
 priestly vestments." ^ 
 
 It may further be admitted that, speaking generally, the 
 bishops were learned men. Martin had the audacity to 
 reproach Cooper with " want of learning." To which, with 
 the " Thesaurus " in his hands, he did not need to reply by 
 referring to his distinguished Oxford career, and to the fact 
 that since he was a young man in Magdalen College " he hath 
 been brought up in the love of the Gospel," and has made 
 himself familiar with "the writings of the ancient fathers 
 and the best authors of this age since the renewing of the 
 Gospel."- In fact, nearly all the men who became bishops 
 between 1580 and 1600 were more or less distinguished scholars. 
 Their career at Oxford or Cambridge is usually the same — 
 B.A., M.A., B.D., D.D. with a Fellowship of some college, or a 
 mastership, on the way. It is said of Bullingham (Bishop of 1581-98. 
 Gloucester and Bristol) that he was " conspicuous neither for 
 learning nor refinement." But we read even of him that he 
 was "admitted to the B.D. degree at Oxford after twelve 
 years' studying." And as to others, Thomas Godwin (Bishop 
 of Bath and Welh), e.g., was an " eminent scholar " ; Edmund 
 
 ' He was charged with having two ^ Admonition to the People of Eng- 
 
 wives, with contriving and publishing land (1589), pp. 59, 60 (Arber'e 
 
 a forged will, with simonical practices. Reprint in the English Scholars' 
 
 &c. Library). 
 
166 HEJSTET BAREOW. 
 
 Keake (Bishop of Eochester, Norwich, and Worcester) was— 
 according to Archbishop Parker — " a serious, pious, and learned 
 man " ; Piers had been Master of Balliol, then Dean of Christ 
 Church, where he was " a great instrument of the progress of 
 good learning," and is called by Camden " theologus magnus," 
 as well as " modertus." Aylmer, too — tutor in his early days 
 of Lady Jane G-rey, and co-worker with Poxe, at a later date, 
 in his Latin translation of the " Acts and Monuments of the 
 Martyrs " — had learning enough, whatever else he lacked. So 
 certainly had Whitgif t. He was Margaret Professor of Divinity 
 at Cambridge in 1566, Eegius Professor in 1567, and Master 
 of Trinity the same year, a post which, by admission of friends 
 and foes alike, he greatly adorned. He is said to have been 
 ignorant of Greek, so much so that he could not read his 
 Greek Testament, a statement which Mullinger, who ought to 
 know, says he "has seen nothing to contravene.'" ^ But in his 
 " Defence of the Answer to the Admonition " (especially in the 
 third portion) the quotations abound from Greek as well as 
 Latin writers, and are translated in the text; so that unless the 
 translating was done for him, he must have been able to read 
 the originals. There was a plentiful lack of learning among 
 the inferior clergy, though less and less towards the end of 
 Elizabeth's reign, as the universities became more efficient ; but 
 there was no great lack among the bishops, however " vain and 
 useless " it may have seemed to Martin, and also to Barrow. 
 
 Still there is another side to the picture. With due allow- 
 ance under the heads of character and. learning, we cannot be 
 surprised that the bishops, as a class, excited contempt and 
 indignation. 
 
 (1) In the first place, their subserviency was manifest to 
 aU. This, indeed, was their recommendation in the eyes of 
 Elizabeth. It was the condition, implied or expressed, on which 
 they received their appointment. Good looks might turn the 
 scale with her, other things being equal. She was attracted, 
 ' History of Cambridge University, p. 420. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 167 
 
 we are told, by the " handsome person, courtly manners, and 
 ability as a preacher" of Eichard Fletcher, Bishop of Wor- 
 cester and London. And she was " so pleased with the 
 ' good parts ' and ' goodly person ' of Thomas Grodwin 
 (Bishop of Bath and Wells), that she made him one of her 
 Lent Preachers." But nothing of this sort availed unless there 
 was, at the same time, a disposition to fall in absolutely 
 with her wishes. We know how she suspended Archbishop 
 Grindal, and embittered his last days, when he crossed her 
 decision in the matter of the prophesyings. We know that her 
 sustained regard for Whitgift had its ground in the fact that 
 the imperiousness of her "little black husband "^ never 
 thwarted her own, but took pleasure in carrying out its behests. 
 Men, therefore, by becoming bishops signed away their inde- 
 pendence for good and all. As a rule, no doubt, they did so 
 willingly ; they had no independence to begin with, but if they 
 had it met a speedy death. Eichard Cox, Bishop of Ely — one 
 of Elizabeth's oldest prelates — took up a stiff attitude at first. 
 He " refused to minister in the Queen's chapel because of the 
 crucifix and lights there, and justified himself in a letter to her 
 Majesty."" But when we read his letter' to her, years later, 
 expatiating on her benefits to the Church, we see that the old 
 spirit which once encountered John Knox at Frankfort has 
 succumbed. What he would fain have cured he has learned to 
 endure and excuse. Much more in the case of other prelates 
 whom we have mentioned. The Bishop of Peterborough — 
 Howland — in his earlier years was an adherent of Cartwright, 
 and signed the petition to Burghley in his behalf ; but he settles 
 down into " a man of gravity and moderation — of neither party 
 or faction." The Bishop of Chichester (Bickley) acquired con- 
 siderable reputation as a reformer and preacher of reformed 
 doctrines. He was one of Edward VI.'s chaplains, and there 
 is a story that he once "broke the Host in pieces in the 
 
 1 The Queen's name for him, accord- ^ July 28, 1559. 
 
 ing to Isaac "Walton, in his Life of '■' 1574. 
 
 Hooker. 
 
168 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 college chapel at Windsor and trampled it under his feet." 
 Here, surely, was the making of a fervent Puritan, but the 
 royal breath subdued him to a moderate heat. The Bishop of 
 Bath and Wells (Thos. Godwin) was, likewise, a " zealous 
 reformer" in Edward's days, and even so late as 1562 is said to 
 have signed a " petition for discipline of the Church " ; but 
 Elizabeth took him by the hand and his reforming zeal soon 
 died away. As for BuUingham (Bishop of Gloucester and 
 Bristol), his subserviency proceeded from the opposite direc- 
 tion. He began in the old faith, and was very slow in 
 embracing the tenets of the Eeformers. In Edward VI. 's 
 days he went into voluntary exile, taking refuge at Eouen. On 
 the accession of Mary he returned, and became domestic chap- 
 lain to Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, and rector of Boxwell 
 and Witherington in Gloucestershire (his native county). 
 Elizabeth arrived, and, at first, BuUingham was "quite and 
 clean despatched from all his livings for his obstinacy." But 
 not for long. In 1665 we find him a prebend of St. Paul's, and 
 well on the way to preferment. Archbishop Parker called him 
 " an honest, true-meaning man." Marprelate called him " a 
 Mass-monger, an old papist priest," one whom "beef and 
 brewis had made a priest." We may be content to say that he 
 honestly persuaded himself, as Burghley advised his son to do, 
 that he could best " serve God by serving the Queen." The 
 bishops wore the Queen's livery like the rest of her servants. 
 They were her creatures, made by, and for, obedience. The 
 result was bound to be a featureless, passionless uniformity. 
 Their one rule was to "keep in step." A striking example of 
 subserviency at its worst is presented in Fletcher, Bishop of 
 Bristol, Worcester, London. He was Dean of Peterborough at 
 the time of Mary Queen of Scots' trial.^ He preached before 
 the Commissioners for her trial in the chapel of Fotheringay 
 Castle; drew up a detailed report of their examination of 
 Mary ; officiated as chaplain at her execution.^ His was the 
 ' Oct. 12, 1586. 2 j'g^,^ 8, 1587. 
 
HBNEY BAREOW. 169 
 
 solitary voice which echoed with a stern and loud " Amen " 
 the Earl of Kent's imprecation, " So perish all the Queen's 
 enemies." The answer to this evident bid for preferment was 
 the Bishopric of Bristol. Three years later, he moved a step 
 higher into the See of Worcester. But he was in the habit of 
 " spending much more of his time at Court than in his 
 diocese ; " and in 1594 he managed to succeed Aylmer. In his 
 letter^ to Burghley — the usual mediator — " beseeching " him to 
 plead his cause with Her Majesty, he gives several reasons for 
 desiring a " remove " to London above all places in the realm, 
 except the real one, which was that there was a lady, widow of 
 Sir Richard Baker, " very fine and handsome," whom he had 
 a mind to take for his second wife ; and that the lady was bent 
 on remaining near the Court. As soon as he came to London 
 he married her ; and as soon as the Queen heard of it, she not 
 only forbade him the Court, but suspended him " from the 
 exercise of all episcopal functions." Then he wrote to the 
 Lord Treasurer, declaring that rather than have lost the 
 Queen's favour, " he could have wished to have been sequestered 
 from his life itself," and intreating his intercession. After 
 six months the suspension was taken off, and then he wrote 
 again that " to hear of the least her Highness gracious inclina- 
 tion towards him, in her princely clemency, he could not 
 sufficiently express to his good Lordship how greatly it had 
 comforted him — having these six months thought himself (as 
 the prophet spake) free among the dead, and hke unto him 
 that is in the grave, made unprofitable unto God and Her 
 Majesty's service." " A little later he vsrrote to try and enlist 
 Burghley among the " divers friends that have of late moved 
 Her Majesty, according to my most humble desire, that it 
 would please Her Highness to give me access unto her pre- 
 sence." For " 'tis now a year within a week or two since I have 
 seen Her Majesty " — time which " hath seemed longer " "than a 
 
 ' Strype's Annals, vol. iv., p. 288. ' Strype's Whitgift, Bk. iv., cap. 
 
 xiii., p. 429. 
 
170 HBNEY BAEROW. 
 
 whole age " (seculum).i Of course, Fletcher's extreme " courtli- 
 ness " may have been peculiar to himself ; but his case throws 
 vivid light on both sides of the relation between the bishops 
 and Elizabeth : her despotic rule and their abject dependence. 
 In truth, " no one of them was strong enough to rise superior 
 to the spirit of his time. The mastery of the Queen over 
 Church and State, and the energy of her Ministers, on whose 
 extraordinary ability and unscrupulous loyalty she could rely, 
 made her sujpremacy in ecclesiastical matters hardly less real or 
 less galling than that of her father. The ecclesiastics of her 
 time, and especially during the latter half of her reign " — when 
 her power had consolidated itself — "truckled and obeyed." 
 Remembering this, it is easy to understand the scorn of men 
 like Barrow who believed — and were ready to die for their 
 belief — that the of6.ce of a true bishop is purely spiritual ; that 
 he ought to subject himself to the will of Christ alone as 
 supreme Teacher and Euler of His own Church ; and that, if 
 need be, His will ought to be enforced as impartially and strictly 
 against the Queen as against the Church's meanest member. 
 
 (2) It must be admitted, too, that their scorn could find 
 ample fuel for itself in the bishops' unblushing worldliness. 
 For the Queen, of course, a bishopi-ic meant its emoluments.- 
 She had no scruple in keeping a see vacant so as to enjoy its 
 revenues. She kept Durham vacant for two years, Salisbury 
 for three, Colchester for four, Bath and Wells for five, Bristol 
 and Gloucester each for six, Ely for eighteen, &c. Neither did 
 she hesitate to move a bishop from one see to another merely 
 in order to secure for herself the " first-fruits " which a new 
 bishop always had to pay. The material aspect of the matter 
 was all she saw. And the same was true of courtiers and 
 nobles, who regarded a bishopric as an estate of which the 
 
 ' Strype, Life of Whitgift. Bk. iv., the Bishopric of Ely : a motion to fill 
 
 App. XX., p. 183. that vacant see," "showing how Her 
 
 ■ See this illustrated by Sir John Majesty might clear ^£2,000 odd by 
 
 Puctring's "petition to the Queen for the transaction" (Strype's Annals, 
 
 a lease of part of the possessions of Vol. IV., pp. 343-6). 
 
HENEY BARROW. 171 
 
 lands or palace might be leased to them on easy terms or 
 handed over to them altogether. But the bishops, so far as 
 one can see, were like-minded. For them also the material and 
 secular seemed to overshadow the spiritual. They were not 
 worse than others in this respect, but they were no better. 
 Martin said,^ with more truth than usual, "^'they be carnally 
 disposed and not evangelically, and this their affection and cor- 
 ruption they show to the world by hoarding of great sums of 
 money, by purchasing lands for their wives and children, by 
 marrying their sons and daughters with thousands, by increas- 
 ing their livings with flocks and herds of grazed cattle, by 
 furnishing their tables with plate and gilded cups, by filing 
 their purses with unreasonable fines and incomes." And 
 Bishop Cooper made a lame reply when he said :^ " That those 
 which now be, or of late have been, bishops in this Church, 
 should be so carnally and grossly given over to the world and 
 the cares thereof . . . my heart abhorreth to think; nor 
 will the fear of God suffer me to judge it to be true." It is 
 not a question of " thinking " but of fact ; and the fact that 
 the bishops, as Cooper declared, did " earnestly and zealously 
 teach and defend "^ true doctrine " in their preachings " and 
 did " carefully beat down the gross superstition of Antichrist 
 and his ministers " is irrelevant. Three facts especially have 
 impressed me : — First, how seldom a would-be bishop, or a 
 bishop desii'ous of some richer see, waited till he was called. 
 Whenever details relating to an appointment have been 
 recorded, we generally find that the successful candidate,, 
 among others, has employed " influence " ; and that the man 
 whose influence he has been most anxious to employ, either 
 directly or indirectly, is Burghley. Cooper said,* " The best 
 sort of ecclesiastical livings are in the disposition of the 
 Prince's authority. And those honourable that have to do 
 therein and are counsellors to Her Majesty, be not so unwise 
 
 2 (t 
 
 The " Epistle." ' Ditto. 
 
 Admonition," &c., p. 112. * " Admonition," pp. 100, 110. 
 
172 HENET BARROW, 
 
 tut they can espy ambition in him that sueth and laTboureth for 
 them. And if they do perceive it they are very greatly to 
 blame if they suffer it to escape without open shame or 
 other notable punishment, and thereby bring suspicion either 
 upon themselves or upon those that be about them." 
 In this he shows more innocence than knowledge. 
 Burghley could have enlightened him. He must have received 
 scores, probably hundreds, of letters, to say nothing of personal 
 applications, with reference to episcopal elections alone. He 
 did not mind, for he was a man of the time. But we may be 
 sure he was not deceived. He saw well enough what lay behind 
 the decorous veil of pious phrases, and was not the less 
 •disposed to speak for a man because he more than suspected 
 him of ambition. Let me cite one or two illustrations, 
 Howland was discontented with his see of Peterborough, 
 and wrote himself to Burghley, after the death of Piers, in 
 1594, earnestly begging " a removal to a better support." 
 Matthew Hutton, Bishop of Durham, succeeded Piers in the 
 Archbishopric of York, and might have done so in any case ; 
 but no sooner does he hear "that Her Majesty hath set down a 
 full resolution to remove me to York," than he is eager to 
 clinch the matter.^ He is " aged and decayed," as he says, 
 and it were " more fit for me to think of my grave than any 
 honours in this world." Yet he writes post-haste to Burghley, 
 and at the same time to his son, Sir Robert Cecil : " Because I 
 would be loath either to seem too forward in hasty sending, or, 
 in protracting the time, to be thought undutifuUy careless of 
 so gracious a resolution " ; and, when the promotion has been 
 assured to him, he writes again : ^ " I think myself most bound 
 to the Queen's most excellent Majesty , . . and I account 
 the blessing to be the greater because the same God, who of 
 His undeserved goodness inclined the royal heart of so 
 gracious a Sovereign to my good, hath also moved your lord- 
 ship from time to time to further me." Perhaps the ambition 
 1 Strype's Annals, Vol. IV., p. 276-7. - Bitto. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 173 
 
 here was rather for honour than wealth, hut it would be absurd 
 to deny the ambition. Again, BuUingham wanted a remove 
 from the Bishopric of Gloucester, and when the See of Oxford 
 fell vacant, in 1592, he got Aylmer to obtain it for him, if 
 possible ; ^ and Aylmer did his best, pleading that " it was very 
 fit for him, from the weariness of the place, and to make some 
 addition to his poor portion." Bulhngham was not a favourite 
 with the Queen, perhaps not with Burghley, and the suit 
 did not prosper. Probably Cooper never heard that it had been 
 made, as he may never have heard of a hundred similar ones. 
 Once more, Bilson, who wrote on " The Perpetixal Government 
 of Christ His Church " (1593) is better understood when we read 
 what he wrote to Burghley. The Lord Treasurer, at first of his 
 own accord, had, it seems, " set " him " down to the Deanery 
 of Windsor," which Bilson had " never refused," although 
 supposed to have done so. Now, with due gratitude for this 
 favour, he becomes " a humble suitor to " his lordship for " his 
 assistance to obtain Worcester." The rest of the letter gives 
 us a clear glimpse behind the scenes : " My Lord of Canter- 
 bury's favour by friends I have sought ; but he is besieged by 
 some about him, that he is not suffered to follow his own 
 inclination." Whitgift he is sure woiild prefer him, but 
 has been led to "move Her Majesty for Dr. James. If 
 my lord Archbishop were not overcarried by others, this court 
 would desire no better judge, whether of us twain hath taken 
 more pains in the Church " (Dr. James had not written " The 
 Perpetual Government") "and served Her Majesty with 
 greater charge. But my facility being surprised by others, I 
 am forced to appeal to your honourable and indifferent wisdom 
 and favour, since Her Majesty useth the advice of more than 
 one in these matters ; and am willing by your lordship's cen- 
 sure to stand or fall, as never meaning to molest friends for 
 anything that your grave and worthy judgment shall think 
 
 ' He asked that " it might be poor one " (Strype's " Aylmer," 
 joined in commendam to his own p. 168). 
 
174 HEISTEY BAEROW. 
 
 unfit." 1 He won his suit^ and soon afterwards was advanced to 
 Winchester. These cases, by no means the worst, are samples 
 of many. They do not prove what Marprelate and Barrow 
 asserted, and Cooper denied, that the Elizabethan bishops were 
 more " corrupt " than those of any previous age. But they do 
 show that " heaving and shoving," " canvassing and working 
 for bishoprics," to quote Copper's words,- did prevail.^ 
 
 Another fact pointing to the same conclusion is that 
 the bishops were in almost every case pluralists. Sometimes 
 they were so to an extent which shocked the conscience of the 
 authorities even in those lax days. Thus a commission of 
 inquiry was issued into the administration of Hughes, Bishop 
 of St. Asaph ; and the report,* endorsed by the Lord 
 Treasurer's own hand, described the bishop as holding in com- 
 mendam (besides the archdeaconry and the rectory of 
 Llysvaen) fifteen livings, thus having in his hands " nine livings 
 cum curd and seven sine curd " ; and though six had been 
 resigned by him, it was only "upon having of better." Of 
 course, this was an extreme case. But the case of Overton, 
 Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, reads almost as bad. Thus 
 I find the following : — 1553, rector of Balcombe, Sussex, and 
 vicar of Eccleshall, StafPordshire ; 1655, rector of Swinnerton, 
 Staffordshire ; 1559, prebendary of Winchester ; 1660, receives 
 *' livings of Upham and ISTurstling " ; 1561, is given " living of 
 Exton " ; 1562, adds that of Cotton ; 1569, also the living of 
 Buriton. In 1563 he was made canon of Chichester, in 1567 
 he is treasurer of Chichester Cathedral, in 1570 he obtains a 
 <3anonry at Salisbury, and, in the same year, the rectory of 
 Stoke-upon-Trent and of Hanbury. He may not have held all 
 
 ' October 31, 1595, Strype's Annals, over three years (1579-82) ; and 
 Vol. IV., p. 318. landed him in what he calls his "low 
 " "Admonition/' p. 107. lingering hope." He made interest 
 ^ Ayhner's example has not been for Ely before old Bishop Cox was 
 mentioned. But it was perhaps the dead ; and two days after bis death 
 worst of all. Eead the story of his ap- was instant with Burghley, to " pro- 
 peals to Burghley to get a " remove " mote " his interest. Strype's Life of 
 from London — first to Winchester, Aylmer, pp. 109-112. 
 then to Ely : appeals which extended ^ Dated February 21, 1587. 
 
HENEY BAEROW. 175 
 
 these together — probably did not ; but some of them at least — 
 perhaps most — must hare been held simultaneously, and we do 
 not hear of any remonstrance. Again, we read of Fletcher 
 (Bishop of Bi-istol, Worcester, and London) that in 1585-6 he 
 was prebendary of Lincoln Cathedral and rector of Barnack, 
 Northamptonshire, and, in addition, had " the rich living of 
 Algarkirk, in South Lincolnshire, which, together with his 
 stall, he was allowed to retain in commendam when he became 
 Bishop of Bristol." We read of Leake (Bishop of Rochester, 
 Norwich, and Worcester) that, at his elevation to the see of 
 Eochester he was empowered " to retain the Archdeaconry of 1571. 
 Canterbury (which he had held since 1564, with various other 
 livings and offices), and the receiving of Purleigh in com- 
 mendam." We read of Blethyn (Bishop of Llandaff, 1575-90), 
 that he held at the same time as his bishopric " several livings, 
 in order to add to the scanty endowments of the see." 
 Scambler was at once vicar of Eye, chaplain to Parker, Pre- 
 bendary of York, Canon of Westminster, before he became 
 Bishop of Peterborough. Howland, who succeeded Scambler, 
 "held the living of Sibson (Leicestershire) in commendam, 
 and laboured under imputations of having impoverished his 
 bishopric to gratify his patron Burghley." Young, Bishop of 
 Eochester, being taken to task by Burghley for his com- 1578-1605. 
 mendams, admitted that out of these he got — with the addition 
 of what he calls " casualties "^ — £120 annually ; and thought it 
 enough to answer that he could not live without them, as " the 
 clear yearly value " of his bishopric did " not amount to above 
 £220."- I set dowu these instances almost at random, and should 
 expect to find — though I have not had time to make sure — that 
 the evil they exhibit attached more or less to every bishop 
 on the bench. 
 
 Of course, an inevitable result of pluralism was non- 
 residence. Neither a bishop, nor any of the lower clergy, 
 who held several livings, could live in all the parishes for which 
 ' Perquisites ? 2 strype's Annals, Vol. IV., p. 315. 
 
176 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 he was responsible, and often he did not live iii any of them^ 
 and did not even provide, as according to the Queen's injunc- 
 tions 1 he was bound to do, that there should be a curate able 
 not merely to " read," but "to teach the principles of religion." 
 What is described as something fairly typical of the general 
 state throughout the country at the end of Elizabeth's reign 
 may here be quoted. The writer- is a Church historian, and 
 the reference is to a diocese which Barrow may be presumed to 
 have had before his eye in more than one place of his writings. 
 Dr. Montgomery was a Dean of Norwich. In 1604 he came 
 into possession of three Irish bishoprics, and " forthwith took 
 up his residence in Ireland, though still retaining his deanery, 
 and rarely, if ever, showed himself in Norwich, except upon 
 audit days to receive his dividends. This went on for ten 
 years, until at last — having in the meantime resigned Derry 
 and Eaphoe, and taken to himself the Bishopric of Meath in 
 their stead — he was induced to resign his Deanery of Norwich 
 on being indemnified for his loss of income." The writer adds 
 — speaking still of Norwich — that " Dr. Suckling seems actually 
 to have been the only member of the chapter who ever pre- 
 tended to reside, and the cathedral-close was a vast heap of 
 ruins." This surely was "a means to keep the country in 
 ignorance, at a time when there were only 3,000 preachers to 
 supply 9,000 parishes,"^ even had all been resident, the rest 
 being quite neglected, or given over to the ignorant and incom- 
 petent. Yet when the House of Commons petitioned* the Lords 
 spiritual and temporal, to redress this evil — among others — arch- 
 bishop, bishops, and clergy all took fire. They presented " a very 
 pathetical " address to the Queen ' . . . intituled "a petition . . . 
 that the Bill against Pluralities pass not." " In most humble 
 
 1 Issued 1559, see Nos. 3, 4, 5, denoe. But the Puritans replied : (1) 
 
 33, 44. ^ You eject or reject many of the best 
 
 ^ Dr. Jessopp in Diocesan Histories, preachers ; (2) you allow a few to 
 
 " Norwich," pp. 179-180. monopolise the best livings, and so 
 
 ^ Sir Francis KnoUys' words — discourage candidates forthe ministry. 
 Strype's Whitgift, p. 194. This fact ■* December, 1584. 
 
 was urged as an excuse for non-resi- ^ Strype's Whitgift, p. 194-5. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 177 
 
 wise," as " poor, distressed supplicants," they coiDplained of it, 
 in that it " impeacheth your Majesty's prerogative royal ; im- 
 paireth the revenue of the Crown ; overthroweth the study of 
 DiAdnity in both Universities ; depriveth men of the livings 
 they do lawfully possess ; beggareth the clergy ; bringeth in a 
 base, unlearned ministry ; taketh away all hope of a succession 
 in learning ; will breed great discontent in the younger sort of 
 students, and make them fly to other seminaries where they 
 may hope for more encouragement, &c. ... all which we 
 are ready with your Highness's favour and licence to justify 
 before any competent judge, if we be permitted an indifferent 
 hearing. In the meantime and always, most humbly com- 
 mitting our poor state to your Majesty's most gracious and 
 princely clemency — on which, next under the goodness of 
 Almighty God, it doth wholly depend — we do in all submission, 
 both in respect of ourselves, and especially in regard of our 
 successors, most instantly pray such speedy remedy in this 
 behalf, as to your most excellent Majesty, and wonted godly 
 care of religion, shall seem fit." Whitgift's hand is visible here, 
 the reasons adduced for the petition being much the same as 
 the nine which he is expressly said to have drawn up.^ It 
 was a melancholy display. Bishops and clergy often had 
 need of the spur where matters spiritual were concerned, 
 but touch their "temporalities," or threaten to do so, and 
 they were instantly alert, anxious, angry. With the bishops 
 thus proving themselves by speech and example men 
 who — in Sir Francis Knollys' words ^ — seemed less desirous 
 " to feede theyre flocke than to regarde the woUe, or the 
 milke of their flocke," it is easy to excuse the vehemence of 
 men like Barrow. 
 
 Equally significant of the same worldly temper were 
 
 the disputes which so often occurred about Church estates and 
 
 revenues. Years of Cox's life (Bishop of Ely) were worried 
 
 and wasted by a dispute of this kind, in which he and his wife 
 
 1 Strype's WMtgift, p. 193. » Strype's Whitgift, p. 193. 
 
 12 
 
178 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 were accused oE covetous and corrupt practices.^ Here, cer- 
 tainly, the covetousness, at least, was rather on the side of his 
 accuser Lord North. ^ But it is pitiful to observe the eager 
 clutch of the old bishop on what he holds to be his own, and 
 the passion he exjDends on a cause so alien to the spirit of his 
 calling. It may be said that Cox was not animated by selfish 
 motives, but simply by a desire to guard his bishopric from the 
 "voracious maw" of greedy nobles — as it may be said of 
 Sandys that the impassioned letter^ he wrote to the Queen about 
 her wish to lease two great manors, Southwell and Scrooby, 
 with all their members and appurtenances, was the dictate of a 
 conscience which did " not seek " himself, " but the good of 
 the " Church. Eead, however, the letter written by Sandys to 
 Burghley four years later.* What a sordid picture it suggests ! 
 The Dean of York has accused him of giving " divers leases 
 unto his children in reversion, and no fine reserved thereof 
 unto the use of the Church " ; and, further, of granting 
 "the patent of the chancellorship to a boy (of his own) of 
 nine years of age. The Archbishop retorts that the dean's 
 complaints " smell of mere malice " ; that the dean is a man 
 "that hath no great regard what he saith nor what he 
 sweareth " ; that the dean '"' will not remember how that my 
 predecessor," within two months that he was translated to Can- 
 terbury, gave unto his kinsmen and servants, and for romid 
 smns of money to himself, sixscore leases and patents ; and 
 even then when they were thought not to be good in law ; and 
 the dean and chapter confirmed fourscore of them, and that 
 without stop or dislike ; and that, I suppose, gratis." He 
 might do anything. , . I may do nothing. . . Yet he had 
 but given to his " six sons every one two leases in reversion," 
 being "bound in conscience to take care of his family," and 
 
 1 Strype's Annals, Book I., chap. North v.'anted the manor and lands of 
 
 sxxiv. Somersham. 
 
 = And also Sir Christopher Hatton, ] November 24, 1582. 
 
 the vice-Chamberlain, who wanted the V^^y ^2, 1586. Strype's Annals, 
 
 bishop's house in Holboru by lease. ? ' ■'-^^•' ^^^-S. 
 
 ■^ * Grindall. 
 
HENET BAEEOW. 179 
 
 paying dean and chapter " for the confirmation thereof £4 for 
 every lease ; in the whole £48." He had, too, hestowed the 
 chancellorship upon his son — not a boy of nine, but a man of 
 twenty-five, a Master of Ai-ts of three or four years' standing, 
 and " a great deal elder in discretion, sobriety, and learning." 
 He had, besides, conjoined in a registership two younger sons 
 — " the one, being at Cambridge, of nineteen years of age, a 
 good student ; the other, a scholar in the grammar-school at 
 York, of thirteen years of age." This is all ! And for this 
 " the dean spitteth out his venom still, and hath used means to 
 infect the very courts."^ Similar in spirit was the quarrel 
 between Sandys and Aylmer, who succeeded him in the see of 
 London.^ Similar, again, were the complaints of Scambler, 
 Bishop of Norwich, against his predecessor (Freake), although, 
 as Strype remarks, '^the same complaints might be made of 
 his own conduct at Peterborough " ; a statement confirmed by 
 another witness, who says that Scambler was notorious as a 
 shameless spoiler in a generation of shameless spoilers ; that 
 his pillage of Peterborough was outrageous ; and that his com- 
 plaint of the wrongs done him by the greed of Freake was 
 ' impudent." This case, as connected with Norwich, can 
 hardly have failed to attract the special notice of Barrow no 
 less than that of Aylmer, and the earher case of Parkhurst.* 
 If, indeed, Barrow took his impression of the episcopal cha- 
 racter mainly from the three bishops of his native diocese who- 
 belonged to his time (always with the addition of Ayhner), its 
 unfavourableness needs no other explanation. Of Scambler we 
 have just spoken. The disorders of Freake's household were a 
 notorious scandal, and it became a common saying that " if 
 any one came to the bishop without a present his shrew of a 
 
 ' Strype's Annals, Vol. IV., 595-ff. with ingratitude, envy, "coloured 
 
 " Aylmer got the see at Sandys' re- covetousness," " dissimulation." Ayl- 
 
 commendation 1576. Aylmer required mer persisted, and brought on "a 
 
 as his due the whole incomes and greater and longer diiJerence " by 
 
 benefits of the bishopric for the last claiming for "dilapidations." — Strype's 
 
 half-year. Both appealed to the Lord Aylmer, pp. 25-28. 
 
 Treasurer. Sandys charged Aylmer ■' Bishop of Norwich, 1560-1574. 
 
180 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 wife will look upon him as the Devil looks over Lincoln." 
 And even Parkhurst^ certainly the best of the three — whom 
 NeaP (following Strype) describes as " a zealous Protestant, 
 . . . a learned divine^ a faithful pastor, a diligent and con- 
 stant preacher, and an example to his flock in righteousness, in 
 faith, in love, in j)eace, and in purity " — even he presented a 
 worldly side which must greatly have lowered his spiritual 
 influence. Strype says- " he was exceeding hospitable, and 
 kept a table for the poor." Another less partial accomit 
 says : — " He was a popular and amusing person, clearly a man 
 of expensive habits, and not too high-minded. Money he must 
 have, and while the hideous venality of the times needed to be 
 resisted by a prelate at once frugal and austere, Bishoj) Park- 
 hurst showed a bad example in making merchandise of the 
 Church of God." " The condition of his diocese when he 
 came to it was deplorable beyond description." This was due 
 partly to the prevalence of a " vile system, whereby lay patrons 
 not only sold their patronage openly, but as openly exacted 
 from the incumbents an annual pension from the benefice, 
 which was a first charge upon the income, and, in many 
 instances, the bargain was a ruinous one to the wretched 
 parson. The result was that in 1562 more than half the j^arish 
 churches in the diocese were found to be vacant, and every- 
 where a serious decline in the number of candidates for Holy 
 Orders was observable." This evU Parkhurst, it would seem, 
 did httle or nothing to remedy. But while " clergy and laity 
 weie left to do almost as they pleased, the bishop kept open 
 house in a lavish way, sometimes at the palace of Norwich, 
 and, latterly, at his house at Ludham." Of course he was 
 popular. One who keeps open house, be he bishop or not, 
 is sure to be popular, while the careful man will be 
 accounted mean. Young, Bishop of Eochester, for example, 
 was reported' to be "extremely covetous," the reason being 
 
 1 History of Puritans, Vol. I., p. 289. ^ See his letter to Burghley, Strype's 
 
 - Annals, Vol. II., p. 343. Annals, Vol. IV., pp. 315-17. 
 
HENRY BAEROW. 181 
 
 that lie "appeared "to keep "a near and miserable house." 
 His defence was that his " whole income reached but to £340 
 a year," and that of this £250 went, on the average, " in meat 
 and drink only." He submitted that such a sum was as much 
 as, or more than, he ought to spend for " mere maintenance," 
 considering that with the remainder he had to provide for 
 " reparations of houses and farms, and chancels, removing of 
 house-stufE and furniture, apparelling" himself and ''wife," 
 maintaining his " son at London at school, and liveries, stable 
 charges, expenses in law and physic, gifts, rewards, and toward the 
 serving of the realm when it is required." But then he is not one 
 of those " prodigal clergymen," who, " to spoil of Christ's patri- 
 mony or their own, in epicurism and belly-cheer, and other 
 vaunting and bravery, do pour out they care not what, and would 
 absume Croesus' and Solomon's treasury if they had it," and, 
 therefore, he is called covetous ! 
 
 In conclusion, we have admitted that the bishops were not 
 bad men on the whole. But they were creatures of their time. 
 Current opinion, as well as tradition, tended to inspire them 
 with secular views of their office. It raised them to the 
 rank of nobles; it called upon them to live like nobles. 
 Some of them did so ; many tried to do so ; all regarded 
 their lordly estate as essential to the credit of their 
 spiritual functions. As Whitgift declared — "Religion is the 
 foundation and cement of human society, and when they 
 that serve at God's altar shall be exposed to poverty, then 
 religion itself will be exposed to scorn and become con- 
 temptible." 1 Barrow, with his eye turned on Christ and the 
 apostles, thought this strange doctrine; and he would fain have 
 done what, according to Whitgift, Julianus the Apostate did 
 " in derision " — he would fain have made bishops and clergy 
 poor as bringing them to a state " which was most meet and 
 profitable for Christians," and that they " might sooner come 
 to the kingdom of heaven."^ 
 
 ' Strype's "Whitgift, p. 87. ^ strype's Whitgift, p. 215. 
 
Archbishop Whitgift and his 
 " ecclesiastial polity." 
 
ARCHBISHOP WHITGIFT AND HIS 
 " ECCLESI ASTI AL POLITY. " 
 
 "John Whitgift was bom (at Grimsby, 1530 or 1533) in the 
 county of Lincoln, of a family that was ancient, and noted to 
 be both prudent and afEable and gentle by nature ; he was 
 educated in Cambridge (first at Queen's College, 1548-9) ; much 
 of his learning was acquired in Pembroke Hall (where Mr. 
 Bradford the martyr was his tutor) ; from thence he was 
 removed to Peterhouse (made Fellow 1555) ; from thence to be 
 Master of Pembroke Hall ; from thence to the Mastership of 
 Trinity College (July, 1567) ; about which time the Queen made' 
 him her chaplain, and not long after Prebend of Ely 
 (December, 1568) and the Dean of Lincoln (1572) ; and, having 
 for many years past looked upon him with much reverence and 
 f avour, gave him a fair testimony of both by giving him the 
 bishopric of Worcester (1577), and — which was not with her a 
 usual favour — forgiving him his firstfruits ; then by consti- 
 tuting him Vice-President of the Principality of Wales (1578). 
 And, having experienced his wisdom, his justice and modera- 
 tion in the menage of her affairs in both these places, she, in 
 the twenty-sixth of her reign, made him Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury (1583), and trusted him to manage all her ecclesiastical 
 affairs and preferments." Such, in Isaac Walton's words,^ is 
 the outline of Whitgift' s life. He owed to an uncle, it is said, 
 his first insight into " the rottenness of the popish system."' 
 During the perilous times of Mary he had " resolved to retire 
 to the continent," but was induced by the master of his coUege- 
 ' Life of Hooker, p. 30. But the particulars within brackets are added. 
 
186 HENRY BAEROW. 
 
 (Dr. Peme) to remain and, apparently, to trim his sail to the 
 wind. In after days the master figured among Puritans as the 
 type of a turncoat (" the old turner " is Martin Marprelate's 
 name for him) ; and the pupil was made to share in his dis- 
 credit. Towards the end of 1565 Whifcgift joined with others of 
 the University " in an urgent letter to Cecil, their chancellor, 
 deprecating the orders made for the stricter use of the apparel." 
 The letter was ill taken, and the severe rebuke it drew forth 
 had the efPect on Whitgift of routing his Puritan sciniples for 
 ever. When Thomas Cartwright, as Lady Margaret's Professor 
 of Divinity, " ventured in some of his lectures to show the 
 defects of the discipline of the Church," Whitgift was his fore- 
 most assailant. Mainly at his instance, Cartwright was 
 " refused the degree of D.D., suspended from lecturing, and 
 finally — having appeared, December 11, 1570, before Whitgift 
 (now vice-chancellor) and other heads — he was, as he would 
 make no concession, deprived of his professorship and inhibited 
 from preaching vsdthin the jurisdiction of the University." 
 Whitgift weni; further. On the alleged ground that at the 
 time of his election to a fellowship of Trinity Cartwright was 
 only a deacon, although the statutes required him to swear that 
 he was " in priest's orders," Whitgift accused him of " flat 
 perjury " and got him expelled from the college in September, 
 1572. In the same year appeared the two famous admonitions 
 to Parliament ; the first written probably by John Field and 
 Thomas WiUeocks, the second certainly by Cartwright. This 
 Puritan manifesto became so popular, and was held to be so 
 injurious to the Church, that an answer seemed necessary. 
 Whitgift was chosen to make it. He had it ready before 
 January, 1573. Cartwright immediately produced a "Eeply." 
 Whitgift met the "Reply" by a "Defence of his Answer" in 
 
 1574. To this Cartwright rejoined in his " Second Reply " in 
 
 1575, with a sequel in 1577. Of these Whitgift took no notice — 
 because he was silenced, said his opponents. Cartwright was 
 a Puritan idol ; and Whitgift's prominence as his persecutor, 
 
HENRY BAREOW. 187 
 
 and then as champion of the Church, drew upon him intense 
 hatred. The effect was to exasperate a naturally " choleric " 
 temper. He took it for his mission in life to suppress the 
 Puritans. His means were comparatively limited until he rose 
 to the highest office of the Church. Then he had a free 
 hand. The "three articles" of 1583; a revived and ex- 
 tended High Commission ; the " twenty-four articles " of 
 1584, made up a terrible instrument of attack. Having 
 constructed it carefully, he employed it relentlessly. Suspen- 
 sions, ejectments, fines, imprisonments were the order of 
 the day. So far as these went, Puritans of every shade 
 were sufferers. The extreme penalty, marking the extreme 
 outcome of the Archbishop's policy, was reserved for the 
 " Separatists." 
 
 He could not fail to arouse fierce enmity. By the more 
 violent of the Puritans he came to be styled " Beelzebub of 
 Canterbury, the chief of the devils," an " ambitious wretch," 
 " sitting upon his cogging stool, which may truly be called the 
 chair of pestilence." To Barrow, as we have seen, he was " a 
 monster, a miserable compound . . . the second Beast 
 that is spoken of in the Revelation." Many others less coarse 
 in their language were not less severe in their judgment. He 
 still stands beside Laud as an incarnation of ecclesiastical 
 narrowness and vindictiveness. But he was not this entirely. 
 He was more and better than he seemed to the Puritan, as the 
 Puritan was more and better than he seemed to Whitgift. In 
 such cases men seldom seek, or care to see, the good points in 
 each other. It is certain, however, that Whitgift had his good 
 points. He was widely esteemed at Cambridge. His depar- 
 ture, we are told, drew forth an extraordinary display of 
 " goodwill and regard." For not only had his career, parti- 
 cularly his mastership of Trinity, been conspicuously suc- 
 cessful, but " even among the Puritan party, severely as he had 
 dealt with Cartwright, there were not a few whom Whitgift 
 had won over, by his conciliatory demeanov/r and persuasion, 
 
188 HENET BAREOW. 
 
 to more moderate views." ^ Again, Sir Henry Wotton, who 
 "knew him well in his youth, and had studied him in his age,"' 
 cannot have been altogether mistaken when he gave him this 
 character — " That he was a man of reverend and sacred memory, 
 and of the primitive temper ; a man of such a temper, as when 
 by lowliness of spirit did flourish in highest examples of 
 virtue." Hooker, too, the " judicious," though a friend of 
 Whitgift, was never a flatterer ; and must have had some 
 warrant for speaking of his " accustomed clemency," and for 
 the statement that " the errors which we seek to reform in this 
 kind of men {i.e., the Puritans) are such as both received at 
 your hands their first wound, and from that time to this 
 present have been proceeded in with that moderation which 
 useth by patience to suppress boldness, and to make them 
 conquer that sufPer." - 
 
 In fine, Whitgift turned his worst side to the Puritans — a 
 consequence of the fact that they so often turned their worst 
 side to him; and also of the fact that his ecclesiastical 
 views, held with a tenacity equal to their own, appeared so 
 immeasurably more reasonable and safe. 
 
 We cannot, then, expect to be in a position to do him 
 
 justice unless we try to understand what his views were. 
 
 There is the more call to do this as his views were not a merely 
 
 private interpretation of the Episcopal case, but expressive 
 
 of the general miad, and in close agreement with those of 
 
 Hooker. Perhaps the best way will be to let him state 
 
 them briefly in his own words. The main points are the 
 
 following : — 
 
 The (1) There are "only two essential notes of the Church." 
 
 Churcn. 
 
 These are, " the true preaching of the Word of God, and the 
 
 right administration of the sacraments."^ 
 
 1*3 (2) There is " no one certain and perfect kind of govern- 
 
 ment. 
 
 1 Mullinger's Cambridge, p. 274. "Posy or Motto," was vincit qui 
 
 = Dedication of Book V. of the !'«*'■*«'•■ 
 Ecclesiastical Polity. Whitgift's '.Works, Vol. I., p. 185 (Parker 
 
 Society 3 edition). 
 
HENRY BARROW. 189 
 
 ment prescribed and commanded in the Scriptures to the 
 Church of Christ."i " It is true that nothing in ceremonies, 
 order, discipline, or government in the Church is to be suffered, 
 being against the Word of God.^ . . . But that no 
 ceremony, order, discipline, or kind of government may be in 
 -fche Church, except the same be expressed in the Word of Grod, 
 is a great absurdity, and breedeth many inconveniences." ^ For 
 example, " The Scripture hath not prescribed any place or time 
 wherein, or when, the Lord's Supper should be celebrated, 
 neither yet in what manner. The Scriptui-e hath not appointed 
 what time or where the congregation shall meet for common 
 prayer, and for the hearing of the Word of God, neither yet 
 any discipline for the correcting of such as shall contemn the 
 same. The Scripture hath not appointed what day in the week 
 should be most meet for the Sabbath-day, whether Saturday, 
 which is the Jews' Sabbath, or the day now observed, which 
 was appointed by the Church. The Scripture hath not deter- 
 mined what form is to be used in matrimony, what words, what 
 prayers, what exhortations. The Scripture speaketh not one 
 word of standing, sitting, or kneeling at the communion ; of 
 meeting in churches, fields, or houses to hear the Word of God ; 
 of preaching in pulpits, chairs, or otherwise ; of baptizing in 
 fonts, in basons, or rivers, openly or privately, at home, qr in 
 the church, every day in the week, or on the Sabbath-day only. 
 And yet no man (as I suppose) is so simple to think that the 
 Church hath no authority to take order in these matters."* 
 Similarly there is no unchangeable rule as to ofiicers of the 
 church and their appointment. Here also considerations of 
 " time, place, person, and other circumstances " must decide. 
 When Paul said to Timothy, " Lay thy hands rashly on no 
 man," the apostle approves the " ordering and electing of 
 ministers " by a bishop. But not by a bishop only. " For 
 sometime one alone did choose and ordain, sometimes many, 
 sometimes ministers only, and sometime the people also." It 
 1 Page 184. 2 Page 180. 3 Page 190. ■> Pages 200-1. 
 
190 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 is a question of expediency. " The election of the minister by 
 the Church is fittest for the time of persecution . . . 
 when there was no Christian magistrate." But another mode 
 may be meet " for the time of prosperity and under a Christian 
 magistrate. "1 The one general rule by which the Church is to 
 guide itself is that of Paul — " Let all things be done decently 
 and in order."- 
 The (3) In this respect the Church of England is for England 
 
 England, the best possible. For " the state of this Church of England 
 at this day, God be thanked, is not heathenish, Turkish, or 
 Papistical, in which condition many things might be done that 
 otherwise are not to be attempted ; but it is the state of a 
 Church reformed, and by authority and consent settled, not 
 only in truth of doctrine, but also in order of things external, 
 touching the government of the Church and administration of 
 the sacraments. Wherefore the controversy is not, whether 
 many of the things mentioned by the Platformers were fitly 
 used in the apostles' time, or may now be well used in some 
 places, yea, or be conveniently used in sundry reformed 
 churches at this day ; for none of these branches are denied, 
 neither do we take upon us (as we are slandered) either to 
 blame or to condemn other churches, for such orders as they 
 have received most fit for their estates ; but this is the whole 
 state of our controversy, when we of this Church, ia these 
 perilous days, do see that we have a great number of hollow 
 hearts within this realm that daily gape for alteration of 
 religion, and many mightj^ and great enemies abroad, busily 
 devising and working to bring the same to pass, and to over- 
 throw the state both of religion and of the realm — whether 
 seeing we have a settled order in doctrine and government 
 received and confirmed by law, it may stand with godly and 
 Christian wisdom, with disobedience to the Prince and law, and 
 with the unquietness of the Church and offence of many 
 consciences to attempt so great alteration as this platform must 
 1 Pages 425-429. ^ pa,ge 212. 
 
HENRY BAEROW. 191 
 
 needs bring, and that for matters external only, and with such 
 eagerness and bitterness, that they deface and discredit the 
 whole state of this Church, with all the preachers and 
 ecclesiastical governors of the same, as remaining in horrible 
 corruptions and antichristian deformities, and thereby fill 
 the mouths of the adversaries with greater matter of 
 obloquy to deface the Gospel than ever of themselves they had 
 been able to devise. "^ 
 
 (41 The keystone of the fabric is the Prince. "The con- Position of 
 tinual practice of Christian Churches (in the time of Christian 
 magistrates), before the usurpation of the Bishop of Eome, hath 
 been to give to Christian princes supreme authority in making 
 ecclesiastical orders and laws, yea, and that which is more, in 
 deciding of matters of religion, even in the chief and principal 
 points."- Christ, indeed, is the only Head of the Church, if 
 by the Head you understand " that which giveth the body life, 
 sense, and motion ; for Christ only by His Spirit doth give life 
 and nutrition to His body ; He only doth pour spiritual bless- 
 ings into it and doth inwardly direct and govern it. Likewise 
 He is only the Head of the whole Church, for that title cannot 
 agree to any other. But if by the head you understand an 
 " external ruler and governor of any particular nation or church 
 (in which signification head is usually taken) then I do not per- 
 ceive why the magistrate may not as well be called the head of 
 the Church, i.e., the chief governor of it in the extei-nal pohcy, 
 as he is called the head of the people and of the common- 
 wealth." 3 
 
 (5) The unique position and powers of the Prince are due Church 
 to the fact that Church and commonwealth are virtually Common- 
 identical. " Por I perceive no such distinction of the common- are 
 wealth and the Church that they should be counted, as it were, ^^^^^^ ■ 
 two several bodies, governed with divers laws and divers magis- 
 trates, except the Church be linked with an heathenish and 
 idolatrous commonwealth. The civil magistrate may not take 
 
 1 Vol. I., pp. 4, 5. 2 Works, III., p. 306. 3 VqI. h., p. 85. 
 
192 HENRY BAEROW. 
 
 upon him such ecclesiastical functions as are only proper to the 
 minister of the Church, as preaching of the Word, administer- 
 ing of the sacraments, excommunicating, and such like ; but 
 that he hath no authority in the Church to make and execute 
 laws for the Church, and in things pertaining to the Church, 
 as discipline, ceremonies, &c. (so that he do nothing against 
 the Word of G-od), though the papists affirm it never so stoutly, 
 yet is the contrary most true.''^ Again, " your distinction," he 
 says to Cartwright, "betwixt the Church and the common- 
 wealth, if it were in Nero's or Diocletian's time, might be 
 admitted without exception ; but in my opinion it is not so fit 
 in this time, and especially in this kingdom." Nay, "it can- 
 not yet sink into my head that he should be a member of a 
 Christian commonwealth that is not also a member of the 
 Church of Christ, concerning the outward society."^ Whitgift 
 was thus a pure Erastian, and this fact explains several things. 
 Hule of the Thus, first, the character of the (visible) Church and its re- 
 
 lation to the Sovereign yields the strongest reason against a rule 
 of the people. For the Church now includes men Avho are 
 drunkards, superstitious, or infected with errors in doctrine, 
 &c., and, therefore, is unfit to govern itself, especially in '' the 
 election of ministers."^ Moreover, "if such elections should be 
 committed to the people the civil magistrate (who hath the 
 chief government of the Church, and to whom the especial care 
 of religion doth appertain) should not be able to procure such 
 reformation, nor such consent and agreement in matters of 
 religion as he is when he hath himself the placing of bishops 
 and such as be the chief of the clergy ; for the people . . . 
 would usually elect such as would feed their humours, so that 
 the Prince neither should have quiet government, neither could 
 be able to preserve the Church, nor yet to plant that religion 
 that he in conscience is persuaded to be sincere."* In short, 
 the Prince only has the right to ordain laws for the Church. No 
 doubt " he may if he will depart from his right and abridge 
 1 Vol. I., p. 22. ^ Vol. I., p. 388. » Vol. T., p. 384. ■• Vol. I., p. 466. 
 
HENET BAEEOW. 193 
 
 himself of the authority committed unto him by God." In some 
 realms he does so. " But he need not so do except he list . . . 
 and this lam well assured of, that in a monarchy and in a king- 
 dom such as this realm of England is, it cannot be practised " 
 (not even to the extent of letting elders rule in the Church) 
 " without intolerable contention and extreme confusion." ^ 
 
 Secondly, it was in consequence of this doctrine that 
 Whitgift regarded himself as acting quite legally when the 
 things he did were done with the authority or consent of the 
 Queen. As in things civil the Queen was above Parliament, Law— the 
 
 Ou66n. 
 
 " because the judgment, confirmation, and determination " of 
 all laws rested in her, so in things spiritual. It was enough 
 for him if he had, or could win, her acquiescence in his 
 proceedings. Thus : " In the month of September (1583) 
 divers good articles were drawn up and agreed upon by 
 himself and the rest of the bishops of his province, and 
 signed by them. Which the Queen also allowed of, and gave 
 her Eoyal assent unto, to give them the greater authority." 
 Consent of Parliament did not seem at all necessary — although 
 these " good articles " exposed every nonconforming Puritan 
 preacher to deposition. So with the famous (or infamous) 
 twenty-four articles which Burghley found " so curiously 
 penned, so full of branches and circumstances, as I think 
 the inquisitors of Spain use not so many questions to com- 
 prehend and to trap their preys." It is a mistake to suppose 
 that the Archbishop was to any extent conscious of acting^ 
 illegally. The articles were agreed upon in the Court of High 
 Commission,^ and accordingly lacked nothing to make them 
 good law. The Queen was the fount of law. Attempts on 
 the part of Parliament to regulate the Church (his secret 
 thought may have been — even to regulate the State) were an 
 impertinence. 
 
 ' Vol. III., p. 165. literas Patentis magno SigiUo Anglise 
 
 - Coram . . . delegatis Eegi» rite et legitime fultis. 
 Majestatis ad canaas ecclesiasticas per 
 
 13 
 
194 
 
 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 Heresy 
 and 
 
 SohiBm — 
 Treason. 
 
 Influence 
 of Ana- 
 baptism 
 on 
 Whitgift. 
 
 Thirdly, dissent from the " Establishment " involved not 
 merely heresy and schism, but treason. 
 
 " If you will have the Queen of England rule as monarch 
 over all her dominions, then must you also give her leave to 
 use one kind and form of government in all and every part of 
 the same, and so to govern the Church in ecclesiastical affairs 
 as she doth the commonwealth in civil." But the efPect of 
 Nonconformity is " to divide one realm into two, and to spoil 
 the Prince of the one half of her jurisdiction and authority." 
 It can, therefore, as little be tolerated as a felony. It is a 
 crime of the same nature. And if the civil judge is bound in 
 the Queen's name to punish the one, so must a bishop the 
 other. To bear this in mind is very necessary. It was the 
 prevalent view. Whitgift spoke truth when he said, "There 
 is no reformed church that I can hear tell of but it hath a 
 certain prescript and determinate order, as well touching 
 ceremonies and discipline as doctrine, to the which all those 
 are constrained to give their consent that will live under the 
 protection of it; and why then may not this Church of 
 England have so in like manner ? Is it meet that every man 
 should have his own fancy, or live as him list ? " Scarcely 
 any one would have been found to say "yes," least of all the 
 Puritans. The idea of a Church-State was universal — outside 
 the small circle of Separatists, and carried with it as a self- 
 evident corollary the idea that the Church like the State must 
 be imiform; that its laws must be uniformly enforced; and 
 that the State is the authority which must enforce them. 
 Where Whitgift differed from men like Cartwright was not in 
 regarding heresy and schism as a form of treason, but in 
 identifying the State with the Queen, and the law of the Church 
 (practically) with her declared will. 
 
 (6) A circumstance not so commonly and clearly recognised 
 as it needs to be if Whitgift's increasingly severe treatment, 
 first of the Puritans and then of the Separatists, is to be 
 understood, is this — his horror of Anabaptism and his con- 
 
HENEY BAREOW. 195 
 
 viction that their novel proposals and unruly behaviour were 
 hurrying Church and commonwealth into calamities similar to 
 those for which he held Anabaptism accountable on the 
 Continent. This is put in the forefront of his " Answer . . . 
 to Thomas Cartwright," and he was haunted by it all his life. 
 He prints " certain notes and properties of Anabaptists and 
 other perturbers of the Church collected out of Zuinglius and 
 others," ^ in order that he may lay them before " such as be in 
 authority, and have the government of the Church committed 
 unto them," with an " exhortation " to beware. 
 
 " Considering the strangeness of the time, the variety of 
 men's minds, and the marvellous inclinations in the common 
 sort of persons (especially where the Gospel is most preached) 
 to embrace new-invented doctrines and opinions, though they 
 tend to the disturbing of the quiet state of the Church, 
 the discrediting and defacing of such as be in authority, 
 and the maintaining of licentiousness and lewd liberty; I 
 thought it good to set before your eyes the practices of the 
 Anabaptists, their conditions and qualities, the kind and 
 manner of their beginnings and proceedings, before the 
 broaching of their manifold and horrible heresies, to the intent, 
 that you, understanding the same, may the rather in time take 
 heed to such as proceed in like manner, lest they, being 
 suffered too long, burst out to work the same effect."- 
 
 Cartwright bitterly resented the imputation. " It is more 
 than I thought could have happened unto you, once to admit 
 into your mind this opinion of Anabaptism of your brethren, 
 which have always had it in as great detestation as yourself, 
 preached against it as much as yourself, hated of the followers 
 and favourers of it as much as yourself." 
 
 But Whitgif t held his ground. He would not accuse any- 
 one. He was looking to principles and tendencies. Those 
 which he saw in the " admonition " to Parhament, those which 
 he saw also in the writings of Cartwright and his sympathisers, 
 • Vol. I., pp. 125-139. 2 Whitgift, Vol. I., p. 77. 
 
196 HENRY BAREOW. 
 
 were of just such a sort as would lead, unless instantly 
 checked, to all Anabaptist excesses. Cartwright might protest 
 as he liked ; the event would show. And, doubtless, when the 
 stir arose first about Browne, and then about Barrow, Whitgift 
 felt that he had been a true prophet. Whitgift's logic or 
 instiact was sound. The principles of Anabaptism were revo- 
 lutionary. They could not but work against the existing state 
 of things in the Church, though the first intention was to let 
 them work in a peaceful way. There was, too, a much closer 
 kinship between them and English Nonconformity, especially in 
 its developed form of Separatism, than the latter dared to 
 confess even to itself. It could not possibly go on growing 
 without detriment to what in Whitgift's eyes was a Divinely 
 constituted order. This was to become manifest to the world 
 ere many years were past. His intolerance, then, was directed 
 by a true insight. Believing as he did, the spirit embodied in 
 Cartwright and Barrow was indeed a spirit of evil which, at any 
 cost, must be cast out. We may deplore the fact that one with 
 an ecclesiastical creed so essentially wrong should have had so 
 much power, but we cannot deny him the credit of sincerity 
 and consistency. 
 
 (7) Our quotations have been taken from the work he 
 wrote whUe still master of Trinity College — ten years before 
 his elevation to the archbishopric. They enable us to see that 
 he had already, in 1573, matured the views on which, after 
 1583, he so resolutely acted. 
 
 He knew his own mind. He had a poUcy of which he was 
 sure. " Convenient discipline, joined with doctrine, being duly 
 executed, will soon remedy aU." He longed to see it en- 
 forced by those in authority. He would fain be in authority 
 himself, because he was conscious of a vrill to enforce it which 
 could not be shaken. 
 
 Such is our impression of the man as derived from his 
 own words. He is not amiable. But is he simply a narrow- 
 minded, mean, and tyrannical priest, ^who gained power by 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 197 
 
 servility and adulation ? I think not. I think justice, no less 
 than charity, may incline us to believe what he says in self- 
 defence. "I neither esteem the honour of the place (which 
 is to me gravissimum onus) nor the largeness of the revenues 
 (for the which I am not as yet one penny the richer) nor 
 any other worldly thing, I thank God, in the respect of 
 doing my duty." ^ "I have taken upon me the defence of 
 the rehgion and rites of this Church, the execution of the laws 
 concerning the same, the appeasing of the sects and schisms 
 therein, the reducing of the ministers thereof to uniformity and 
 due obedience. Herein I intend to be constant ; which also my 
 place, my person, my duty, the laws, her Majesty, and the 
 goodness of the cause, requireth of me . . . vincit qui 
 patitur. And, if my friends herein forsake me, I trust Grod 
 will not, nor her Majesty, who have laid the charge on me, and 
 are able to protect me ; upon whom only I will depend." - 
 
 He did cruel wrong to our ecclesiastical forefathers, and it 
 is hard to think of him without indignation. But he is to be 
 respected for that which may redeem from moral blame- 
 worthiness even one who does the most injurious things. He 
 was sincere. He thought " he was offering service unto Grod." 
 
 1 To Burghley, July 3, 1584 (Whit- = To Burghley, July 15, 1584 (Whit- 
 
 gift's Works, Vol. III., pp. 602-7). gift's Works, Vol. III., pp. 607-9). 
 
Barrow and the Anabaptists. 
 
BAEROW AND THE ANABAPTISTS. 
 
 We have seen that Barrow cherished all the prevalent feelings 
 of horror with which, in his day, the Anabaptists were regarded. 
 Nothing worse was conceivable than to be an Anabaptist. He 
 was a being, not to reason with, but to revile and repudiate. 
 The charge, or even hint, of agreeing and sympathising with 
 him in any point was a bit of the vilest mud one could fling at 
 an opponent, and evoked on his part a feverish anxiety to clear 
 himself. We have seen this anxiety in the case of Barrow 
 during one of his examinations when the question of baptism 
 was mooted. He felt it always. 
 
 Nor was the feeling unnatural. The facts about Ana- 
 baptism, so far as known, were of a character to alarm and 
 offend ; and they were made to appear at their worst through 
 being reported by enemies. Perhaps the general impression, 
 even yet, is that Anabaptism was a simply monstrous phe- 
 nomenon ; a blood-red spectre which swept across Germany, 
 inspiring riot and rebellion. If we consult an authority 
 like Herzog, for example, we read that " Anabaptists " is 
 the name of a violent, mystical sect which, representing 
 the deepest-going radicalism, broke away from the general 
 reformatory movement of the sixteenth century, and soon 
 became lost in fanaticism and excess. . . . Starting with 
 " the rejection of infant baptism "... it became the 
 watchword of "one of the wildest and fiercest sects ever 
 bred within the pale of the Christian Church." 
 
 But we must distinguish. Thus, it is not correct to 
 speak of the Peasants' War, as is generally done, which cul- 
 minated in the Massacre of Frankenhausen (1525), as due to 
 
202 HENET BAEEOW. 
 
 Anabaptism. Eather, that war was the outcome of a general 
 social revolt on the part of the " common man," though this 
 revolt drew a " very decisive impetus " from a renewed popular 
 acquaintance with the Bible. For^ " here in what the re- 
 formers called God's Word " he " found the bearers of it 
 at all times animating the courage of the down-trodden and 
 the oppressed; and even God Himself was there revealed 
 as suffering with man and bent on his deliverance. 'I have 
 seen, I have surely seen the affliction of My people, and 
 have heard their cry by reason of their task-masters, for 
 I Itnow their sorrows.' " Little else is needed to explain 
 the enthusiasm, the intoxication of hope with which the 
 peasants armed themselves to cast down the "mighty from 
 their seats," and so prepare the way for a better time. 
 Their leader, Thomas Miinzer (1490-1525), was not an Ana- 
 baptist. He had some correspondence with the Anabaptists, 
 and this fact may have occasioned the mistake which identifies 
 them with his cause. He was not, however, one of them, nor 
 did they approve of him, so far, at least, as his methods were 
 concerned. " The Gospel must not be protected by the sword, 
 as they understand he thinks and holds. True Christian 
 believers are sheep for the slaughter, and must, in anguish and 
 need and trouble, suffer persecution, and be baptized into 
 death. Thus are they proved and arrive at eternal peace, not 
 through the slaughter of their earthly, but through the 
 destruction of their spiritual foes." Nor was he sound on the 
 particular question of baptism. For they need to tell him that 
 "baptism signifies that through faith, and by the blood of 
 Christ our sins are washed away, that we should die to sin, and 
 walk in newness of life and spirit." He needed to be told also 
 that children can do without baptism, since they " know not the 
 difference between good and evil," and " will be saved through 
 the sufferings of Christ, the new Adam." 
 
 1 All the quotations in what follows of Anabaptism " ; perhaps the only 
 are from Mr. Eichard Heath's "Rise safe English authority on the subj ect 
 
HENEY BAEROW. 203^ 
 
 No doubt the " cause " of the common man was that of 
 the Anabaptist too. He abhorred the evils of the time he 
 longed and expected to behold the " reiga of righteousness " 
 established ; but his spirit was predominantly religious, and the 
 weapons of his warfare were not carnal. 
 
 Hence it follows that the true temper of Anabaptism 
 is not to be judged by the state of things in the city of 
 Miinster (1534), which more than anything else have made the- 
 name odious. When the new movement organised itself in 
 Ziirich, its first centre, it took the form of an unworldly 
 brotherhood. One thought alone was its animating motive, — to- 
 restore the spirit of apostolic days. " The New Testament 
 knew nothing, the Brothers said, of interest and usury, tithes, 
 livings, and prebends ; but the Christians it spoke of con- 
 sidered their earthly goods as belonging to the whole body.. 
 Nor did they read of any among them assuming offices of 
 authority in the world, or using the sword ; their only weapon 
 was suffering, their only means of reforming offenders brotherly 
 admonition, and, as a final resort, excommunication." To this 
 was added a denial of infant baptism, and a demand that thfr 
 baptized should consist alone of those who could "exercise 
 faith or understanding." Certainly such a movement had a 
 revolutionary tendency. For " if the brothers were right, the 
 Christendom then existing must cease to be." But, left to- 
 itself, it would have found its true level, and dropped its merely 
 visionary elements amid the hard facts of experience. To- 
 leave the new movement alone, however, was not the way of 
 the time. Zwingli, who himself so needed tolerance, took the 
 lead in devising measures of resistance. Ere long " inhibitions^ 
 arrests, examinations, imprisonments, penalties" — and finally 
 death, were in full swing. The Brothers were scattered, and,, 
 like the first Christians, kindled their light wherever they went. 
 Switzerland and the Tyrol became strongholds for them. " On 
 one side of the Bremin alone" (a river in the Tyrol) "fifty 
 places are mentioned where, in the course of 1529, Baptists 
 
204 HENRY BAREOW. 
 
 were known to be." At the same time persecution waxed 
 hotter. " The burning piles everywhere darkened the sky. 
 The gaols were filled with miserable prisoners, the country was 
 full of forsaken houses, and hungry, weeping children, and 
 there was not a ray of hope that the trouble would come to an 
 end." Many found an asylum in Moravia, where for a time 
 the ideal of a " common life " was successfully carried out. 
 But persecution made an end here also. Said King Ferdinand, 
 in an edict of 1535, ''neither Lutherans nor Zwinglians, nor, 
 in fact, any sect will suffer among them these heretics, it is, 
 therefore, the will and intention of His Majesty not to suffer 
 them any more in Moravia." Soon, therefore, the quiet 
 community was broken up into bands of wanderers, not knowing 
 whither to go. Their miseries may be imagined. In other 
 parts of Germany the case of the Anabaptists was even worse. 
 Thus, in Southern Germany "some two thousand or more 
 Baptists are estimated to have been put to death in a few years. 
 In some places the slaughter amounted to wholesale massacre. 
 Up to the year 1531 there were killed in Ensisheim 600 
 Baptists ; in Linz 73 ; in the Palatinate 350. It was much the 
 same in the Netherlands. Here aU persons suspected of 
 Anabaptism, or of sympathy with it, were liable to forfeit their 
 lives and goods. " Prophets, apostles, bishops, baptizers were 
 — said the Emperor's decree — ' to be burnt to death.' " Others, 
 even if they renounced their evil opinions, and sincerely 
 repented, were to suffer — the men with the sword, the women 
 in a sunken pit, i.e., they were to be buried alive. There were 
 during 1635, executions for Anabaptism in twenty-three towns 
 in Holland, " and Httle trouble was taken as to whether those 
 who suffered were insurrectionists or not." 
 
 For by this time, 1535, the spirit of insurrection had 
 become strong and widespread. Persecution had driven wild 
 ^'a people outwardly calm, but of intense inward feeling." 
 When the movement began its motto may be said to have been, 
 the meek shall inherit the earth. If they renounced the ways 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 205 
 
 of the world, if they gave themselves up to follow the Lamb 
 whithersoever He might lead, if they were content to obey and- 
 suffer in all quietness and patience, the " Brothers " were sare 
 that the kingdom would be theirs. One of the grievances 
 against them was that they refused to bear arms, to pay the 
 war-tax, or to acknowledge, except passively, any king other 
 than King Jesus. In 1629, however, Melchior HofPmanni — 
 already famous as a preacher and leader of the people — threw 
 in his lot with the Baptists ; and with him a new leaven was 
 introduced which began to work mightily. To him was due the 
 strange notion — so often cited as the distinctive theological 
 heresy of the Anabaptists — that Christ did not take His flesh 
 from Mary, but that the Word itself without any human inter- 
 vention became flesh. " The Saviour," he said, " passed through 
 the Virgin Mary as sunshine through a pane of glass." He 
 too, was responsible for that doctrine of the last things which 
 so rapidly infected the movement, " and rendered it more and 
 more visionary." It was Hofiimann, especially, who taught the 
 Anabaptists to believe that a saint might justly wield the sword 
 against his enemies, might serve and defend the kingdom of 
 Christ by force. There were those who strongly opposed him. 
 But the natural man in the Anabaptist made it sweet doctrine. 
 The Melchiorites — the name given to HofEmann's followers — 
 became dominant, and all the excesses into which the Ana- 
 baptists plunged were the result. 
 
 The fall of Miinster, however, had a sifting efPect. 
 Such utter failure of the fleshly arm to bring in the king- 
 dom proclaimed Grod's judgment against the upholders of 
 it, and recalled the Baptists to their earlier principles. 
 In August, 1536, a great gathering took place near Buckholt,. 
 in Westphalia, to consider their position. The violent 
 party had its representatives, but found little support — "the 
 power of the unruly Anabaptists was completely destroyed." 
 On the other hand, the great idea of the entire distinction 
 ' He died in prison, 1542, and wa8 in favour with Luther for a time. 
 
206 HBNEY BAREOW. 
 
 between the province of the Church and that of the State 
 came clearly to light, and was enthusiastically welcomed. 
 The man who gave it prominence and brought it home with 
 convincing power, Menno Simons, rose henceforth to a place of 
 commanding influence.^ Nevermore had the doctrine of force a 
 chance among the Anabaptists. They settled down into com- 
 munities, often called Mennonites, of pure-living, spiritual- 
 minded Christians. But they could not escape from the past. 
 An evil name clung to them. It was still believed that they 
 were secret traitors as well as scandalous heretics. Wherever 
 the secular arm could reach them they were hmied to prison 
 and the flames. Alva made the furnace seven times hotter for 
 them than for any other sect in the Netherlands. Thousands 
 went to deaths of every imaginable cruelty. Their "mar- 
 tyrology " ^ is a more affecting monument of triumphant 
 patience and faith than even that of the Protestants whom 
 Foxe has extolled. There was no eye to pity, no arm to save, 
 not even in England. Many fled for refuge to London and the 
 Eastern counties, wishing only to live and die in peace. But as 
 soon as their presence was known steps were taken to root 
 them out. On May 25, 1535, for example, nineteen men and six 
 women, born in Holland, were examined in St. Paul's Church, 
 London. Fourteen of them were condemned ; a man and a 
 woman were burnt at Smithfield ; the remaining twelve were 
 distributed among other towns, there to be burnt. Latimer, 
 for whom the same fate was in store, refers to this occurrence 
 simply to show how Anabaptists, like "another kind of 
 poisoned heretics that were called Donatists," " went to their 
 death intrepide," " cheerfully." ^ Under 1538, "I read," 
 says Puller,* "that four Anabaptists (who for the main are 
 
 ' Barclay's " Inner Life of the Ee- ■" Froude's England, II., 257. 
 
 ligious Societies of the Commonwealth, ■" Church History, lib. iv., 229. Nov. 
 
 pp. 76, 77. 6, 1539, has an " injunction " against 
 
 = A Martyrology of the Churches of the Anabaptists. In the same year 
 
 Christ commonly called Baptists (by sixteen men and fifteen women were 
 
 Van Braght), Hanserd KnoUys banished for Anabaptism. See Crosby's 
 
 Society's PubUoations, 2 vols. History of the Baptists, I., 38-42. 
 
HENEY BAREOW. 207 
 
 but Donatists new dipt), tkree men and one woman, all 
 Dutch, bare faggots at Paul's Cross, and three days after a 
 man and a woman of their sect were burnt in Smithfield." 
 Under Elizabeth, again — in May, 1675 — " twenty-seven Ana- 
 baptists were arrested in Aldgate and brought to trial. 
 . . . Four of them carried faggots at St. Paul's Cross, 
 recanted, and were pardoned. Eleven who were obstinate were 
 condemned in the Bishop of London's court and delivered over 
 to the secular arm. One yielded, the rest were banished, 
 €xcept two. These were burnt on the 22nd of July, "in great 
 horror, crying and roaring," although John Poxe had written 
 to Elizabeth to remonstrate, and actually obtained a month's 
 reprieve. 
 
 In the case of such Anabaptists as came before the 
 English authorities there is this excuse for severity that, 
 besides being supposed to favoTir the overthrow of all govern- 
 ments, they held what were deemed damnable theological 
 €rrors. Thus the opinions of the persons examined in 1635 
 were : — 
 
 (1) That in Christ is not two natures — God and man. 
 
 (2) That Christ took neither flesh nor blood of the Virgin 
 Mary. 
 
 (3) That children born of infidels may be saved, 
 
 (4) That baptism of children is of none effect. 
 
 (5) That the sacrament of Christ's body is but bread only. 
 
 (6) That he who after baptism sinneth wittingly, sinneth 
 deadly, and cannot be saved. 
 
 The fifth opinion was, of course, a " heresy " common to 
 all the more extreme Protestants. The second — and also the 
 first which is its corollary — prove that the Eefugees agreed so 
 far with Melchior Hoffmann. The third resulted from the 
 Anabaptist belief that children could not be punished for 
 Adam's sin, and were embraced within the saving grace of 
 Christ's atonement. The fourth was what attached to the 
 Baptists their distinctive name. The last was a perversion of 
 
208 HENEY BAEROW. 
 
 their view, based on 1 John iii. 9, that the new birth issues 
 necessarily in " a new hfe and a walking in true repentance, 
 and are the Christian virtues, according to the example of our 
 Lord." All this was unspeakably dreadful to the orthodoxy of 
 the time. Indeed, every element of their teaching was dreadful 
 to someone. Nevertheless, the spirit of the Anabaptists was 
 prefoundly Christian, and the most essential elements of their 
 teaching reveal a depth of insight far greater than that 
 attained by many of the Reformers, not excluding Luther. 
 Let me mention two : — 
 
 (J) Their doctrine of the Word. One of the men whose 
 influence penetrated far and wide among them was Hans 
 Denck,^ " a remarkable young man " of " gentle, unassuming 
 character." His brief life soon came to a violent end, after 
 years of continual flight from city to city. He was a mystic in 
 the strain of his thought. For " the human conscience," said 
 he, " contains a spark of the Divine nature, so that God Himself 
 may be said to be present in every man." To the urgings of this 
 inner Word, Denck affirmed, a man could be obedient; and that 
 such an act of obedience was an act of faith. For to Denck this 
 Inner Voice, prompting to righteousness, was no other than 
 the Word of God, which in Christ became man, and which will 
 to all eternity, as the spirit of love, work in man. Thus to him 
 Christ had always lived in man, and ever will live in man, not 
 merely figuratively, but in reality." As to Holy Scripture, it con- 
 tains the " written Word of God," it is the " standard of faith ; 
 but the ground of faith must lie in the truths taught by experi- 
 ence." Faith thus arising found in Holy Scripture an educa- 
 tive and formative influence of the highest value. But " Holy 
 Scripture was not to be understood except by the help of the 
 Holy Spirit, and faithful obedience to the commands of Christ." 
 This doctrine, involving a conception of human nature so 
 alien from the ordinary, yet so accordant with the thought of 
 John and Paul, became general among the Anabaptists. It is. 
 ' Died of the plague at Basle, 1527. 
 
HENRY BAEROW. 209 
 
 asserted strongly by Menno Simons, and reappears in the " Inner 
 Light " of George Foxe. Barrow, as we have seen, considered 
 the doctrine dangerous, and so it was if it meant what he 
 fancied — an opposing " of the inward spirit against the 
 revealed Word of God." In some cases, no doubt, it did come 
 to mean this. Every doctrine is open to abuse. But as 
 understood by Denck and Menno Simons it expressed a truth 
 with which Barrow himself agreed. The difference between 
 them lay rather in the fact that he grasped it less clearly, and 
 was less consistently true to it than they. 
 
 (2) Their doctrine of spiritual freedom flowed directly 
 from their doctrine of the Word within. Men who had 
 received an unction from the Holy One, and might come to 
 know all things pertaining to life and godliness if they but 
 followed faithfully His interpretation of the written Word, 
 felt it to be a sacrilege to admit interference on the part of 
 the secular power in matters of conscience. Hence it was that 
 the Baptists arrived at a clearer and broader idea of toleration 
 than any of their contemporaries. Let the State keep to its 
 own sphere. Its sphere was the relations of men in civil 
 society. Its function was to order these relations with a view 
 to safety and quietness of life. Christians, therefore, were to 
 obey all laws of the State so far as such laws did not con- 
 travene what they knew to be the laws of Christ. But the 
 relations of the soul to God were outside its province. Here 
 every man must stand alone ; must realise his own respon- 
 sibihty ; must bear his own burden. Here the only Master 
 is Christ. Those who heard and obeyed His voice — His true 
 sheep — might, and indeed were under obligation to, proclaim 
 the fact by submitting to the seal of Baptism, and by forming 
 themselves into visible communities. Thus they became known 
 to one another as brethren, and as brethren it became their 
 duty and privilege to edify and admonish one another. But, 
 even so, the unity was spiritual and free. There should be no 
 compulsion — not so much as that which lay in the imposition 
 
 14 
 
210 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 of a common creed. " The agreement of their membership," 
 says Barclay,! with reference to the Waterlander Mennonites, 
 " did not rest upon a purely doctrinal basis in the shape of 
 any creed, but on the general sense of the Church or Churches 
 of the plain meaning of the New Testament Scripture. The 
 Mennonite confessions of faith were, as in the case of the early 
 Baptist churches in this country, generally used for the purpose 
 of avoiding misapprehension, and to prevent the ignorant abuse 
 with which they were loaded from misleading the public.^ So 
 far it may be said that Barrow and the Baptists occupied much 
 the same ground, for there is no reason to think that he or his 
 followers regarded a creed as anything more than a free and 
 spontaneous declai-ation of faith. But a firmer hold on the 
 spiritual principle which necessitates freedom made the Baptist 
 quicker to see that freedom and the prescriptive claim of the 
 State to rule the Church in any manner or degree, could not 
 hold together. 
 
 Barrow esteemed it a proof of their ignorance and barbarism 
 to deny that it belongs to " the ofiice and dutie of the Prince to 
 see abuses reformed as well in the Church as in the common- 
 wealth." In this point, at least, he had everybody with him. 
 The Baptist stood alone. It has been said that Barrow's 
 forerunner in the Separatist campaign, Eobert Browne, went as 
 far as the Baptist. But he did not. To say that Browne 
 denied the right of the Prince to step inside the Church and 
 reform or direct it is quite to misapprehend his position. 
 
 Thus his ''treatise of Eeformation vsdthout tarrying for 
 any, and of the wickedness of those which wiU not reform till 
 the magistrate command or compel them," suggests by its very 
 title what Browne really taught, viz., that the magistrate ought 
 to see that the Church is well " builded " and reformed ; that 
 if the magistrate fails to do his duty in this respect the Church 
 need not " tarry for him, but ought to reform itself according 
 to the will of its Master, Christ ; moreover, that the magistrate 
 ' Inner Life of the Eeligious Societies of the Commonwealth, p. 83. - Page 83. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 211 
 
 may only enforce Christ's will on the Church, nerer his own ; 
 and that the Church is required to obey at all times and at all 
 risks, the former in preference to the latter." Certainly a limit 
 is here put to the magistrate's authority, and one which implied 
 a claim to act without it in some cases, or against it in others. 
 But the right of interference is not denied — the complaint 
 rather is that its exercise may be wrongly applied or too long 
 delayed. Far more radical was the position of the Anabaptist. 
 He shut the Prince out of the holy place of conscience 
 altogether. His right to enter, if he entered at all, was neither 
 greater nor less than that of a private person. As a Christian 
 brother, if he had previously joined himself to a Christian 
 hrotherhood, he might share in its discipline. But otherwise 
 he might not do even that. For "the magistrate is not by 
 virtue of his office to meddle with rehgion or matters of con- 
 science, to force and compel men to this or that form of 
 religion or doctrine; but to leave Christian rehgion free to 
 every man's conscience, and to handle only civil transgressions 
 (Eom. xiii.), injuries and wrongs of man, in murder, adultery,, 
 theft, &c., for Christ only is the Kiag and Lawgiver of the- 
 Church and conscience (James iv. 12)." These are John 
 Smyth's words, and were written after 1600. But J ohn Smyth 
 drew his inspiration from the Mennonites, and did no more 
 than express their view — a view which finds as clear utterance 
 in the earhest Baptists as in the latest. In fine, the true spirit 
 of Anabaptism was one of tender regard for the conscience as 
 the dwelling-place of God. . . . "Without in the least 
 derogating from the honour due to the noble army of martyrs 
 who, in all lands and ages, and of all creeds and rehgions, have- 
 practically died for this holy cause, we may claim a leading and 
 definite place for the Anabaptists, since it was they who first of 
 all Christian people claimed hberty of conscience as a Divine 
 right which no power on earth may deny. And when we think 
 that from liberty of conscience naturally flowed liberty of 
 thought and hberty of worship, free speech and a free Press, 
 
212 HENRY BAEKOW, 
 
 we may form some faint idea of the debt of gratitude mankind 
 owes the Anabaptists." 
 
 Perhaps, however, their distinction lies not so much in a 
 clear recognition of the principle as in the wish to see it 
 broadly and practically applied. 
 
 It is a fact that Luther, for example, at one time asserted 
 the principle in words which leave scarcely anything to be 
 desired on the score of comprehensiveness. 
 
 " It is," said he, " at a man's own risk what he believes, 
 and he must see for himself that he believes rightly. Belief is 
 a free work ; thereto can no man be compelled. . . . 
 Thoughts are toll-free. . . . Heresy can never be kept off 
 by force. Heresy is a spiritual thing, which no iron can hew 
 down, no fire burn, no water drown." ^ 
 
 Such expressions " cover almost the whole theoretical 
 ground of religious liberty," and seem to promise tolerance for 
 aU opinions avowed in the name of conscience. Nor was Luther 
 by any means the most intolerant of the Reformers. He had 
 no desire to put any man to death for heresy ; and in this 
 showed himself superior to Zwingli or Melanchthon. He did 
 not think it right — yea, he thought it a great pity 
 that " such wretched people (as the Anabaptists) should 
 be so miserably slain, burned, cruelly put to death." 
 "Every one should be allowed to believe what he will." 
 But questions arose in his mind — largely suggested 
 by the views and doings of these same Anabaptists — 
 which made him pause, doubtful and afraid. He feU, along 
 with the Reformers generally, " into the trap which lies in 
 wait for all earnestly believing men, in the distinction set up 
 between heresy and blasphemy. Is there not a point at 
 which the expression of unbelief becomes an insult to the 
 majesty of God, and so an offence against the laws of man ? 
 . . . Then, again, granting that difference of belief is to 
 be tolerated, to what lengths ought toleration to go ? Does it 
 1 Beard's Hibbeit Lecture, pp. 171-2. 
 
HENEY BAEEOW. 213 
 
 include ftdl right of citizenship, with liberty to preach and 
 print? Or are heretics to be allowed to live side by side 
 with orthodox believers only on condition that they hold 
 their tongues? Is it, in any case, right to co-operate with 
 them for political or religio\is purposes? "^ Luther's answer 
 to such questions led to Kmitations of his principle, which 
 made it practically of little effect. Eeligious communion 
 must be refused to Zwingli because his conception of the 
 Eucharist was akin to blasphemy as well as heresy. Toler- 
 ance must be denied to any who avowed dissent from the " con- 
 fession of faith " adopted by the political State to which he 
 belonged, because such dissent was incipient political treason. 
 The opinions of Anabaptists must be rigorously put down, 
 because the free expression of them would prompt to action 
 subversive of the grounds of all existing institutions. Timidity 
 of this kind was natural enough under the circumstances. 
 Nothing is rarer than a courage thoroughly inspired by the 
 conviction that what is true is safe. Most of us think so in 
 the abstract, but are continually coming across reasons which 
 induce us to think otherwise in the concrete. In this par- 
 ticular case, indeed, it is the foresight or experience of 
 consequences which has again and again raised the doubt 
 whether what claims to be a true principle is really true ; is 
 not rather a pestilent error. How can that be a true principle 
 which would forbid you to restrain even the man who, in the 
 name of conscience, might break, or advocate the breach 
 of, every commandment of the decalogue ? And of course the 
 objection is sound if conscience is to mean the mere persuasion 
 of being right, however it may have originated. Then certainly 
 excesses bom of whim, prejudice, passion, but pleading the 
 sanction of conscience, will often need to be checked, and 
 checked forcibly — at least when they reach the point of 
 action — if social order is not to relapse into social chaos. 
 But conscience is not whim, prejudice, passion ; it is 
 ' Beard's Hibbert Lecture, p. 173. 
 
214 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 the power latent in man's spiritual nature of discerning the 
 genuine character of right and wrong. This is true, and 
 may be accepted even by those who differ among them- 
 selves as to how man's nature has become possessed of such 
 a power. And, since right and wrong — or moral truth — 
 is that which underlies our whole life as social beings ; is that 
 which yields to all human relations their stability ; is that 
 which determines all the real duties growing out of them; is 
 that which secures all human progress — it is plain that loyalty 
 to conscience can never conflict with any really human interest. 
 One might as weU say that the power to calculate numbers, 
 motions, and distances can conflict with the interests of 
 astronomy. What, however, one may say is that conscience, 
 like other human powers, attains its full development 
 gradually ; that its insight cannot be perfect all at once ; that 
 its judgments, therefore, may sometimes be wrong, or only par- 
 tially right ; that it needs discipline ; that the surest means of 
 discipline are furnished by experience ; that on this account it 
 ought to be free even to make mistakes, as the very condition 
 of learning how to correct them. History confirms this view. 
 The upward march has taken place most surely, not in 
 the case of those people that have had right and wrong 
 dictated to them by some extraneous authority, but in the case 
 of those that have beheved in conscience, have asserted for 
 themselves the right to interpret its voice; have gone far 
 wrong sometimes in the desire to go right ; have wrestled their 
 own slow and painful way out of the evils into which moral 
 error has led them. It is thus that they have become taught 
 of God, and have learnt to perceive what is the good and 
 acceptable and perfect wUl of God. There is no other way. 
 Men must be free to err if they are ever to reach an intelligent 
 and widening grasp of the truth. And the deepest motive for 
 claiming and granting such freedom is the old Anabaptist 
 faith that conscience is the organ of an inner light which 
 <;omes from G-od, which is ever battling with the darkness 
 
HENRY BAEEOW. 215 
 
 of man's sin and ignorance, which will triumph over both in 
 the end. 
 
 How far the Anabaptists would have remained faithful to 
 their own principle had they chanced to come to supreme power, 
 it is hard to say. Quite possibly they, like so many more, 
 might have become persecutors in their turn, and found good 
 excuses for it. But fortunately they were not put to the test — 
 they were always a " miserable minority " — and so the glory of 
 their witness has come down undimmed: this, namely, that 
 they were among the first to see, the boldest to preach, and 
 the foremost to suffer for, the duty of a human soul to guide 
 itself freely by the light of God. 
 
 On the whole, it may be said that Barrow was far nearer 
 to the Anabaptists than he knew. Had he by any chance taken 
 a place without knoTving it in one of their ordinary assemblies, 
 he would have felt very much at home. The plain walls of the 
 meeting-house, the absence of a pulpit, the conduct of worship 
 by " elders," the simple appeal to the authority of Scripture, 
 the prominence given to "exposition," the ^'liberty of 
 prophesying," the collection by deacons for the necessities of 
 the poor, would all have been to his mind. And when cases of 
 discipline came on at the close, perhaps, of the service, stiU 
 there would be nothing to excite a suspicion that he was not 
 among his own people. 
 
 He had said, as we know, that he did not, like the 
 Anabaptists, expect an absolutely pure Church on earth, and 
 that it was a libel on the part of Gifford and others to say he 
 did. But he would have foimd that the Anabaptists were just 
 as little or as much open to the charge as himself. They held 
 the same idea of the Church ; they took the same way to keep 
 it pure. They did not, however, any more than he, conceive it 
 possible to exclude all false brethren, nor were they specially 
 severe in their judgment or treatment of those whose falseness 
 was made clear. 
 
 Indeed, apart from a number of comparatively superficial 
 
216 HENEY BAEEOW. 
 
 differences — due partly to circumstances and partly to a more 
 scrupulous fidelity to their common principle of reverence for 
 Scripture, there was nothing in the sphere of church-practice 
 which need have held Barrow and the Baptists apart, except 
 the doctrine of baptism. This certainly seemed to be a difference 
 of vital import. And, so far as Barrow is concerned, we have 
 abeady seen the reason why. No doubt he maintained infant 
 baptism conscientiously, no doubt he maintained it on what he 
 thought strong Scriptural grounds ; but his real reason for 
 maintaining it was the fact that he loathed the people whose 
 name identified them with its denial. On the contrary, to the 
 Baptist the difference was vital, because here, again. Scripture 
 seemed to be with him, and reverence for Scripture was a 
 primary duty. And one cannot help feeling that in this 
 respect the Baptist had the best of the argument. Infant bap- 
 tism may be, and, I think, is defensible as a thoroughly Chris- 
 tian ordinance ; but not on the ground of strict adherence to 
 the letter and precedent of the New Testament. Barrow 
 virtually admitted as much by not attempting to occupy this 
 ground, and by appealing to the extremely precarious analogies 
 of the old covenant. In other words. Scripture taken literally, 
 as he and the Baptist believed it ought to be taken, gave him 
 little or no positive support, and had he been free from the fear 
 which made it so difficult to see this, his logical bent would 
 have led him into the Baptist camp. The Baptist — from the 
 point of view, be it remembered, of unflinching literalism — was 
 the Separatist fully developed. 
 
 But this refers only to his ecclesiastical position. As to 
 theological difference the case is not the same. Here what 
 meets us is diametrical opposition rather than development. 
 Barrow was a Calvinist, and accepted all the implications of his 
 creed with fixll consent. We turn to John Smyth, for example, 
 vrhose creed came to him mainly from Menno, even as his had its 
 roots for the most part in the teaching of men like Denck, and 
 we find ourselves in another world. " God created man with 
 
HENET BAEEOW. 217 
 
 freedom of will, so that he had ability to choose the good and 
 eschew the evil, or to choose the evil and refuse the good ; and 
 this freedom of will was a natural faculty or power, created by 
 Grod in the soul of man." 
 
 " Original sin is an idle term, and there is no such thing as 
 men intend by the word, because God threatened death only to 
 Adam, not to his posterity, and because God created the soul." 
 
 " Infants are conceived and bom in innocency without sin,, 
 and so dying are undoubtedly saved ; and this is to be under- 
 stood of all infants under heaven, for where there is no law 
 there is no transgression ; sin is not imputed while there is no 
 law, but the law was not given to infants, but to them that 
 could tmderstand." 
 
 " Adam being fallen, God did not hate him, but loved him 
 stiU, and sought his good, neither doth he hate any man that 
 f alleth with Adam ; but He loveth mankind, and from His love 
 sent His only begotten Son into the world, to save that which 
 was lost, and to seek the sheep that went astray." 
 
 " God never forsaketh the creature till there be no remedy,, 
 neither doth He cast away His innocent creature from all 
 eternity ; but casteth away men irrecoverable in sin." 
 
 "As no man begetteth his child to the gallows, nor no 
 potter maketh a pot to break it; so God doth not create or 
 predestinate any man to destruction." 
 
 " Although the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood offered 
 up unto God His Father upon the Cross be a sacrifice of a 
 sweet-smelling savour, and God in Him is well pleased, yet it 
 doth not reconcile God unto us, which did never hate us, nor 
 was our enemy, but reconcileth us unto God and slayeth the 
 enmity and hatred which is in us against God." 
 
 "The efficacy of Christ's death is only derived to them 
 which do mortify their sins, which are grafted with Him to the 
 similitude of His death, which are circumcised with circum- 
 cision made without hands, by putting off the sinful body of 
 the flesh, through the circumcision which Christ worketh 
 
218 HBNEY BAEEOW. 
 
 who is the minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, 
 to confirm the promises made to the fathers." At the 
 time of their utterance there was no welcome for the 
 warm evangelical spirit which breathes through these state- 
 ments. On the contrary, remembering the detestation with 
 which what came to be called Arminianism was regarded, 
 we understand that the fact of the Anabaptist being an 
 Arminian as well, and something worse, would render him 
 doubly offensive. But the Anabaptist's theology was not an 
 accident, or an arbitrary product. It was, I think, a result of 
 his two first principles working in combination : his faith in the 
 Inner Light and his reverence for the written Word. For, faith 
 in the Inner Light, at least, in the case of the more deeply 
 thoughtful and devout of its disciples, really laeajit faith in the 
 highest intuitions of the spiritual reason ; and this, when brought 
 to a study of the written Word, could not fail to operate 
 selectively, fastening on what was agreeable to the most worthy 
 conception of God and man, and tacitly ignoring aU else. And 
 thus the Anabaptist may be said to have anticipated long ago 
 the method which theologians have come frankly to adopt as a 
 gidding light in all their best constructive efforts. 
 
PART II. 
 
 The Amsterdam Church. 
 
THE EXILED CHURCH. 
 
 The " little flock " that made up the London Church is an 
 object of pathetic interest to one who cares to trace its 
 fortunes after the Spring of 1593. Its natural leaders — 
 Barrow, Greenwood, and Penry — are dead. Some of its 
 members are still at large; many are in prison. No more 
 public executions take place — these are found to excite too 
 much attention and sympathy ; but the work of death goes on. 
 Three years later, it is recorded that "twenty-four souls (in- 
 cluding aged men and women) have perished in the prisons 
 within the City of London only (besides other places of the 
 land), and that of late years." ^ No wonder, when we read how 
 the prisons are "most vile and noisome," how many of the 
 prisoners lie there " laden with irons," and have been " de- 
 tained many years." ^ No wonder, too, that the effect of such 
 " inhumanity " has been to cause not a few " to blaspheme and 
 forsake the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ." ^ The 
 year, however, which witnessed the death of Barrow, Green- 
 wood, and Penry brought a change of policy. Those who stood 
 firm were offered an alternative. Instead of death they might 
 choose exUe. On April 10, 1593, "heavy decrees," say the 
 exiles, " came forth that we should foreswear our country and 
 depart, or else be slain therein." 
 
 ' Preface to tlie Confession of Faith wood, and Penry) exhaust what claims 
 
 of certain English people living in to be a complete list of those who 
 
 exile, &c., 1596. Norwich, Gloucester, " witnessed unto death " — according 
 
 Bury (St. Edmunds) are mentioned. to Miles Micklebound in Barrow's 
 
 Coppin and Thacker were executed at " Platform." 
 
 Bury. William Denya at Thetford in ^ Ditto. 
 
 Norfolk. These (with Barrow, (Jreen- ''' Ditto. 
 
J 2- THE AMSTERDAM CHURCH. 
 
 Of course, the reference is to " an act to retain the- 
 Queen's subjects in obedience," which passed its second 
 reading on April 4, and became law before ParUament was 
 dissolved on the 12th. It purported to be a " Bill for 
 explanation" of 23 Elizabeth 2, but was much more 
 " captious ; " and, on this account, met with warm resistance 
 and some amendment in the Lower House. For though it 
 aimed directly at Brownists or Barrowists, there were those 
 who feared that it might enmesh others as well, or even 
 instead. 1 
 
 Its main clauses were as follows : — " If any person above 
 the age of sixteen years shall obstinately refuse" to go to 
 some authorised church, or shall " by printing, writing, express 
 words, &c., go about to persuade " anyone to deny Her 
 Majesty's authority in ecclesiastical matters, and to abstain 
 from coming to church, and to be present at unlawful assem- 
 blies, he, " being lawfully " " convicted," shall be committed to 
 prison " without bail or mainprize." If he repent within 
 three months, he shall "repair to some parish church on some 
 Sunday or other festival day, and then and there hear Divine 
 Service ; and at service-time, before the sermon, or reading of 
 the Gospel," shall read a prescribed form, solemnly confessing 
 his grievous sin, and his resolve never again to offend. If, on 
 the contrary, he still be found obstinate, he shall then " upon 
 his corporal oath " abjure the realm and all the Queen's 
 dominions " for ever." And if, having so sworn, he " shaU not 
 go to such haven and within such time as is appointed," or 
 shall "return into any of Her Majesty's dominions with- 
 out Her Majesty's special license," he shall "be adjudged 
 a felon," and die a felon's death. Moreover, "all his goods 
 and chattels" shall be "forfeit to Her Majesty for ever," 
 
 ' 0/ the speech (on April 4th) of law against Barrowists and Brownists 
 
 Mr. Finch : — The Bill " pretendeth a let us set down a note of them who 
 
 punishment only to the Brownists and they are." — D'Ewe's Journals, p. 516. 
 
 Sectaries, but throughout the whole Note how "Barrowist " has become 
 
 BiU there is not one thing that con- a familiar appellation, 
 cerneth a Brownist, and if we make a 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 223: 
 
 and " all his lands " during his own life. Finally, to 
 leave no loophole for escape or pity, a fine of £10 a 
 month is threatened to any one who shall, after due notice, 
 " relieve " the ofEender,^ or shall " maintain, retain, or keep 
 him " in his house or otherwise. This Act was " to continue 
 no longer than to the end of the next Session of Parliament."^ 
 But in reality, by successive renewals, it continued operative 
 into the reign of Charles I.- Penry was hung on May 29, and 
 doubtless it was with the thought of this Act in his mind that 
 he wrote the last words of tender counsel to his brethren, which 
 have been so often quoted : " Seeing banishment, with loss of 
 goods, is likely to betide you all, prepare yourselves for this 
 hard entreaty . . . and I beseech you . . . that none 
 of you in this case look upon his particular estate, but regard 
 the general estate of the Church of God ; that the same may 
 go and be kept together whithersoever it shall please God to 
 send you. . . . Let not the poor and friendless be forced 
 to stay behind here, and to break a good conscience for want 
 of your support and kindness unto them. . . . And . . . 
 1 humbly beseech you . . . that you would take my poor 
 and desolate widow, and my mess of fatherless and friendless 
 orphans with you into exile withersoever you go . . . let 
 them not continue after you in this land, where they must be 
 forced to go again into Egypt; and my God wiU bless you 
 with a joyful return into your own country for it." Further : 
 " I would wish you earnestly to write, yea, to send, if you 
 may, to comfort the brethren in the West and North countries, 
 that they faint not in these troubles ; and that also you may 
 have of their advice, and they of yours, what to do in these 
 desolate times. And if you think it anything for their further 
 comfort and direction, send them, conveniently, a copy of this 
 
 1 Except the person so relieved, &o., ^ It was continued by 39 Eliz. 18 j 
 
 " be wife, father, mother, child, ward, 43 Eliz. 9 ; 1 Jas. i. 25 ; 21 Jas. i. 28. 
 
 brother, or sister, or wife's father or Prothero's " Select Statute3,"pp. 89-92. 
 
 mother, or the husbands or wives of It was to come into force forty days 
 
 any of them — not having any certain after the end of the Session, i.e., after 
 
 place of habitation of their own." April 12th=after May 22nd. 
 
224 THE AMSTERDAM CHUECH. 
 
 my letter, and of the declaration of my faith and allegiance, 
 wishing them, before whomsoever they be called, that their own 
 mouths be not had in witness against them in anything. Tea, 
 I would wish you and them to be together, if you may, whither- 
 soever you shall be banished ; and to this purpose, to bethink 
 you beforehand where to be, yea, to send some one who may 
 be meet to prepare you some resting-place. "^ As occasion 
 served, the advice was acted upon. Some of the " distressed 
 congregation left for Holland^ in the summer or autumn of 
 the year." We hear of them at Campen, " a little Dutch town, 
 situated on the Yssel, near its entrance into the Zuider Zee, and 
 some fifty miles along the curve of the shore of that sea, a little 
 north-east of Amsterdam ; and at Naarden, a small village on 
 the same shore, perhaps thirty-eight miles nearer that city." 
 We are told that they were supported partly by a legacy of 
 Barrow's,^ partly by contributions from London and Middle- 
 burg,* partly by the gifts of a church of English merchants 
 at Barbary,^ and partly, of course, by their own labour, so 
 far as possible. There is reason to believe that once, at any 
 rate, if not oftener, they were aided by the magistrates during 
 their stay at Naarden ; and similar aid may have been extended 
 to them at Amsterdam.* This was in the earlier years of 
 ■exile, when they were "embarrassed by general obloquy, 
 
 ' Quoted from volume (in Dr. reformed religion into the Low 
 
 Williams's Library) which contains Countries in 1573, the utmost reli- 
 
 also Penry's examination and declara- gious freedom was allowed, all sects 
 
 tion of faith, and the examinations of were tolerated, and an asylum was 
 
 Barrow and G-reenwood. Penry's opened for fugitives from persecution 
 
 letter is addressed to the distressed from every land." 
 
 congregation in London . . . whether ■* Bradford's Dialogue, Young's 
 
 in bonds or at liberty ; and its mem- Chronicles : — " When he saw he must 
 
 bers (or the chief of them) are indi- die he gave a stock for the relief of 
 
 cated by letters, except the pastor's. the poor of the church, which was a 
 
 ■" My beloved brethren — Mr. F. John- good help to them in their banished 
 
 son, Mr. D. M. S., Mr. S., Mr. G. J., condition afterwards," p. 434. 
 
 Mr. J., Mr. H., Mr. B., Mr. S. E. B., ■• Eobert Harrison's church still 
 
 Mr. E., Mr. K. N. B., Mr. B. J., Mr. survived. 
 
 N. P., Mr. W. C, Mr. P. A. j My ^ " The Eecantation of a Brownist," 
 
 brethren— Mr. J. C, Mr. W. B., Mr. by Peter Fairlambe (1606), implies 
 
 A. P., Mr. M. M., Mr. E. C.,Mr. CD., the existence of " Brownists " in 
 
 Mr. G. M., Mr. A. B. = 22. Barbary. 
 
 - "After the introduction of the " Dexter. 
 
THE AMSTERDAM CHUECH. 225 
 
 almost consumed by deep poverty. . . ." It was a hard 
 lot for all, but especially for such as had been gently 
 brought up. " Some who had been students were content 
 to card, and spin, or to learn trades, thereby to maintain 
 themselves." George Johnson says of himself that " many 
 weeks he had not above sixpence, or eightpence the week 
 to live upon." And the story told of Ainsworth is familiar 
 — how on " his first coming to Amsterdam he lived on nine- 
 pence a week . . , with roots boiled." ^ Moreover, " the 
 frowns and sharp invectives" which they had to endure in 
 England surrounded them also in their place of exile. The 
 ministers of Amsterdam, at least, were not friendly. As 
 Bradford reports,- and Ainsworth shows,^ " they did look awry 
 at them when they would give help and countenance to " the 
 mere Puritan. 
 
 But let us return to London. On April 5, the day before 
 Barrow and Greenwood's execution, " the Dean of Westminster 
 (Dr. Goodman) and others " spent some hours examining thirty- 
 two Separatists.* Penry and F. Johnson were among them. 
 Eight others were old prisoners retaken. Arthur Billot, "a 
 scholar and a soldier," whose connection with the printing of 
 Barrow's books is evidently known to his judges, was taken at 
 the same time and place as Penry. Katherine Onyon is a 
 prisoner for the first time, but is doubtless the widow Onyon, 
 who is described (in 1588)^ as "one of their chief conventiclers," 
 and who ran away for fear of punishment because her child, 
 then twelve years old, had not been baptized. Now alas ! 
 she gives way and " is willing to go to Church." John Gierke, 
 too, is under examination for the first time, though he has been 
 
 ' Bradford's Dialognie, p. 440. preferment. He was Burghley's ohap- 
 
 - Dialogue, p. 440. lain and very intimate with him. He 
 
 •^ See " Paget'3 Arrow Against the is often found on the Commission for 
 
 Separation of the Brownists," 1618. Eoolesiagtioal Causes. Even Arch- 
 
 " Harleian MSS., 7,042, f . 35. Good- bishop Parker thought him " too 
 
 man (Gabriel), 1529( ?)-1601, had been severe." 
 
 Dean of Westminster since 1561, hold- * Harleian MSS., 7,042, f . 16, 
 
 ing at the same time much other " Certain wicked sects and opinions." 
 
 IS 
 
226 THE AMSTBEDAM CHUECH. 
 
 in prison three years. The rest are new names — mostly young 
 
 men of the artisan or labouring class^ who have been " taken " 
 
 at assemblies during the last six weeks. Several of them 
 
 " submitted " outright or consented to have conference, and 
 
 were probably enlarged upon bond. We are near the mark if 
 
 we say that of the thirty-two some twenty-four were found 
 
 obstinate and remitted to prison. John Gierke is noted as 
 
 particularly stiff-necked, and "it was thought good that he 
 
 should be sent to Bridewell to grind the mill." Perhaps at this 
 
 time sixty at the utmost were in the several London prisons. 
 
 Two years later the number was much less. This is made clear 
 
 by a hst^ of "Prisoners for Eeligion" . . . which was 
 
 " sent up from the ecclesiastical commission." It enumerates 
 
 •eighty-nine altogether (inclusive of ten " enlarged upon bond "), 
 
 of whom three only are said to be " Brownists " — one in the 
 
 Clink (Johnson ?), another in Newgate (Studley ?), a third in the 
 
 Fleet (George Johnson?). There may have been a few more; 
 
 for in the case of five prisons the class is not specified. One 
 
 more, at any rate, there was — John Gierke, in Bridewell. But 
 
 the great majority were Popish recusants. In the course, 
 
 "therefore, of these two years most of the Separatists had been 
 
 -discharged ; and, if the terms of the Act were enforced, they 
 
 had no choice but to go abroad, unless they had made promise 
 
 to conform. In the meantime, doubtless, others came and 
 
 went, that is to say, were arrested, imprisoned for three 
 
 months, then compelled to forswear themselves or their native 
 
 land. And in this way, as well as by the secret migration of 
 
 *' imcaptured " brethren, the London church would gradually 
 
 transfer its main body to Amsterdam. But it did not dissolve 
 
 away. As late as 1624 it was holding together. For in that 
 
 year John Eobinson wi-ote^ to it as "the Congregational 
 
 ' The age of the majority is be- two, a feltmaker, two or three tailors 
 
 tween twenty and thirty. One is a &c. 
 
 fishmonger, another a weaver, a third 2 strype's Annals, Vol. IV., p. 808. 
 
 a pursemaker, five or six are ship- » Ashtou's edition of his work's 
 
 ■Wrights. There is a joiner, a copper- Vol. III., pp. 381-5. ' 
 smith, a clothworker, a shoemaker or 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 227 
 
 Church in London," and answered (in the affirmative) one of 
 its questions — viz., whether a neighbouring congregation which 
 had recently been gathered at Southwark by Henry Jacob, " be 
 a true church or no." Of its history in the meantime we 
 have only hints. Slanderer Lawne's^ statement that "^the 
 Brownists' company remaining in London have oft laid upon 
 one another, one half devouring another at once," tells us 
 that the London company did not enjoy unbroken peace. 
 Lawne's own letter ^ to the same " company," retailing 
 " divers slanders of the (Amsterdam) elders and brethren," 
 tells us that he once hoped to further his ends in Amster- 
 dam by enlisting support in London. Daniel Studley's 
 letter^ to one of the London brethren, which brought 
 the recipient over to Amsterdam post haste in order to 
 expose the writer before the whole congregation, reminds us 
 that local severance was not supposed to touch the integral 
 unity of the Church. 
 
 Its two sections, indeed, were still one body though land 
 and water came between. Pastor, elders, and deacons were 
 the same for both.* When Johnson, Studley, Kniveton, 
 Bowman reached Amsterdam there was no thought of re- 
 electing them to their several ofiices. They had been elected 
 in September, 1592, once for all.^ The only vacant office 
 was that of teacher — by Greenwood's death; and this was 
 the only vacancy needing to be filled. Both sides looked 
 to Johnson and the elders for guidance. Cases of discipline, 
 as far as practicable, were, by both sides, submitted to them 
 for judgment, if not for decision. In the absence of the pastor 
 neither side had the ordinances of baptism or the Lord's 
 
 1 " Profane Schism," p. 63. ° The church at Amsterdam for five 
 
 2 "Profane Schism," p. 7. or six years practised as the pastor, 
 
 3 Richard Clyf ton's "Advertise- elders, and brethren in prison at London 
 ment," pp. 115-125. wrote unto them, and refused to 
 
 * Roger Waterer (a long-sufferer in choose officers on the spot. — " A Dis- 
 
 the " cause," whose name, as a pri- course of Some Troubles ... at 
 
 soner, appears in 1590, 1592, 1593) Amsterdam," by George Johnson 
 
 was the "chosen and appointed" (1603), p. 10. 
 messenger between them. 
 
228 THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 
 
 Supper. Eacli was content simply to meet for exhortation and 
 prayer. After Johnson and Studley had settled permanently 
 at Amsterdam, it lay within the right of the London branch to 
 organise itself independently of the other. But we do not find 
 that it did. We hear nothing of a new pastor or new elders.^ 
 Probably its recognition, at least of Johnson as pastor," lasted 
 till his death ; and this, perhaps, may explain why afterwards it 
 turned for counsel rather to Eobinson than to Ainsworth. 
 Significant of the same fact is what we notice in Eobinson's 
 letter that he mentions the " teacher "' of the Church, but is 
 silent about pastor and elders. Our conclusion is that there 
 were none. At the time (1624) the congregation was practi- 
 cally destitute even of a teacher, for he and some brethren had 
 lately seceded. Without pastor, elders, and teacher it might 
 seem not to be a church at all. It feared this itself. But 
 Eobinson says it is a church stiU, since the " visible and minis- 
 terial church is the whole body and every member thereof."* 
 And a church it remained until, one by one, its members were 
 drawn (most likely) into Mr. Jacob's congregation, and there 
 had experience of the first real pastoral care' they had ever 
 enjoyed. 
 
 We may now give our attention to the exiles. The pastor 
 joined them at Amsterdam in September, 1597. He had been 
 a prisoner for nearly five years." He had been in great danger 
 and his sufferings had been great." For a time, at any rate, he 
 wus confined to " a noisome chamber " in the Clink. He was 
 not granted any " liberty of the prison." His books and 
 
 ' Georf;e Johnson (p. 44 of the rop, "a man of earnest but humble 
 
 above) says the pastor, &o., at Am- spirit." 
 
 sterdam "like not to hear that a ^ Since December 5, 1592. 
 
 church should be established at ' See his letter, &c., to Burghley, 
 
 London, and discouraged the appoint- Strype's Annals," Vol. IV., pp. 187-194. 
 
 ment of Mr. C — r as teacher there." F. Johnson (1562-1618), Fellow of 
 
 - So the " Pilgrim Church " recog- Christ's College, Cambridge. 1588 — 
 
 nised Eobinson till his death. imprisoned for an ultra - Puritan 
 
 ^ Works, Vol. III., p. 384. sermon in St. Mary's. 1589 (De- 
 
 " Works, Vol. III., p. 385. oember)— pastor of a Puritan church 
 
 ° Jacob went to America in 1624, at Middelburg. 1592— becomes Sepa- 
 
 and was succeeded by John Lath- ratist. 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 229 
 
 writings were taken away. He expected to be arraigned under 
 the Act 35 Eliz., and wrote to Burghley ably maintaining that 
 this statute — much less 23 Eliz. 2 — did not fairly touch his 
 case. After this — January 8, 1593-4 — we lose sight of him. 
 He does not appear to have been brought up again for trial. 
 But on April 4, 1597, he, his brother George^ (whose imprison- 
 ment in the Fleet had been almost as long as his own), Daniel 
 Studley (who had been sentenced to death with Barrow), and 
 John Gierke (of whom we have heard) were handed over, by 
 order of the Privy Council, to some merchant adventurers who 
 were fitting out an expedition to Eainea.^ Francis and Studley 
 were together on the Hopeivell ; George and Gierke were put on 
 board the Chanceivell. The venture came to grief. " The 
 Chancewell was wrecked on July 3 ; the Hopewell was back in 
 the Bristol Ghannel on September 11." All four Separatists 
 then escaped to Holland. 
 
 Before we follow them, one interesting episode in the 
 pastor's prison life invites notice. I mean his acquaintance 
 and encounter with Henry Jacob. It began about 1596, 
 and its occasion has been found in certain attempts made 
 by Puritan Ghurchmen — using Jacob as their agent — to 
 win Johnson back to the National Ghurch.^ But Johnson's 
 own account suggests something more accidental. About 
 three years since, says he, writing late in 1599,* "Master 
 Jacob having some speech vnth certain of the Separation 
 . . . concerning their peremptory and utter separation from 
 the churches of England, was requested by them briefly to set 
 
 ' 1564-1605. At Christ's College, ^'f'^ticle on Johnson m National 
 
 Cambridge, from 1580-88. "Then Dictionary of Biography. 
 
 taught in a school at the house of Fox. „! t^"„ A"^^«/ *° ^f^^l ^^°°\ 
 
 ■ -KT- 1, 1 i„ „" icno /T?„v,«„„™\ His Defence of the Churches and 
 
 in Nicholas-lane. 1593 (February)- ^^-^^^^ „f England," by Francis 
 
 ™= TheMagdalen Isles, in the Gulf J°^^°°' f'^ ®^'^t-°^ ^T' ^^'^A~ 
 
 of St. Lawrence. Arber's Story of 1600. Preface This controversy dis- 
 
 Pilgrim Fathers, p. 107. For W ?:°?den'i^edSeH wHh '^ Sepl- 
 
 rjVZtl^^t'^sL^'oX:^:^:. -tists th.. he shared their baJh- 
 
 ratists," pp. 110-112. rL^SepSi^s/'tr^^ '*"' 
 
230 THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 
 
 down in writing his reasons for a defence of the said churches, 
 and they would either yield unto him his proofs or procure 
 an answer unto the same." " Whereupon," Mr. Jacob set down 
 his argument, "which the said parties did send to Master 
 Er. Johnson, being then prisoner in the Clink in Southwark, 
 who made an answer imto the same, containing three excep- 
 tions and nine reasons in denial of the assumption, whereunto 
 Master Jacob replied. Afterward Master Johnson defended 
 his said exceptions and reasons. And, finally, Master Jacob 
 replied again," which brings us to Johnson's "answer to 
 Master H. Jacob, his defence of the churches and ministry in 
 England . . . printed in 1600." They encountered each 
 other face to face as well as by writing. Thus, in answer to 
 Jacob's denial that " when and where the Word is preached 
 among " them — in the Church of England — " it is done by 
 virtue of a false office and calling . . ." Johnson says,i 
 " Often have I heard you say so, but never could I hear you 
 prove it." Again, he refers to what passed at a conference 
 between them " in the presence of others that can witness it." ^ 
 It took place on April 3, 1597, the very day before Johnson 
 sailed from Gravesend. On this occasion Jacob wrote down the 
 following, " word for word " : — " A power borrowed from Anti- 
 christ to excommunicate may externally be committed unto a 
 people, and used by them who have power to excommunicate 
 from Christ." " When you had set it down," adds Johnson, 
 "I desired your proof of it from the Scriptures. But none 
 could be had ; I could not obtain that at your hand. There- 
 upon I took the paper and wrote underneath your assertion 
 thus : — This is against the Scriptures : 1 Cor. v. 4, 5, com- 
 pared with 2 Cor. vi. 14, 15, 16, 17; Ezek. xliii. 8; Matt, 
 xviii. 7, 18, 19, 20 ; and 1 Kings xviii. 21. Eran. Johnson." 
 
 It is a flash of light on the two men. Not less so, as 
 illustrating Jacob's then state of mind, is the following •' : — " Of 
 yourself, among other things, once I asked this, whether you 
 ' Answer, &o., p. 23. - Answer, &c., p. 1Y2. ^ Answer, &o., p. 182. 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 231 
 
 were so minded, for the ministry which Christ had appointed 
 in His Church, as (that) you thought you ought and would 
 die for it, God assisting you. To which you answered yea. 
 Whereupon presently I asked again, Whether you were so 
 minded for the ministry of the Church of England, as you 
 thought you ought and would also die for it? To which 
 you answered, No." Johnson was hardly the man to deal 
 successfully with Jacob. He could not understand one who 
 was feeling his way; who shrank from the falsehood of 
 extremes ; who longed to reconcile the claims of love and 
 truth. The main point in dispute, says Jacob, is "that 
 our public book of Articles of Eeligion (so far forth as it 
 erreth not fundamentally, as it doth not) containeth sufficient 
 to make a true Christian." ^ He says it does, and that, there- 
 fore, " you ought not wholly to separate from us, neither to 
 condemn us wholly as abolished from Christ." Johnson holds, 
 on the contrary, that the differences between them are 
 irreconcilable ; and that so long as Jacob, or anyone else, 
 abides where he is, he cannot belong to the household 
 of faith, cannot even look to be saved. And it is in 
 defence of this position that he and others have submitted to 
 " bonds, exile, and death." Jacob's rejoinder is that if such be 
 the witness for which they suffer he knows of none who can 
 pity them. " You suffer more than you need if that you would 
 but acknowledge the grace of God with us so far as it is. It is, 
 therefore, not Christ's cross in that regard but your own that 
 ye bear." ^ " Touching which bloody mind and speech of 
 yours," says Johnson, " I leave you and it unto God, who seeth 
 and wiU judge. Only let the reader note here again that not 
 the prelates alone, but you also (the forward preachers and 
 professors) have wittingly and willingly your hand in our 
 blood." 2 Both were right. The points of difference were 
 radical, as Johnson said, and as Jacob himself came afterwards 
 to see. But they were radical only in respect of the constitu- 
 1 Answer, &o., p. 166. ^ Answer, &c., p. 112. ' Answer, &o., p. 177. 
 
232 THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 
 
 tion of a church. They were not of a kind, as Johnson also at 
 a later time confessed, to prevent necessarily that personal 
 loyalty to Christ which alone saves. At this stage, however — 
 owing largely to Johnson's narrowness — the two men recoiled 
 from each other. It needed the influence of John Eobinson's 
 gentler hand and broader mind to di-aw Jacob into the right 
 way.i 
 
 As already said, the next day after the conference vnith 
 Jacob, Johnson started on the voyage which, for him and his 
 companions, ended not at Eainea but at Amsterdam. A some- 
 what earlier - arrival was Henry Ainsworth. " He was newly 
 come out of Ireland with others poor " as himself — a single 
 young man, very studious, and content with little. If he lived 
 some time on ninepence a week it was not the fault of the 
 people, " for he was a modest and bashful man, and concealed 
 his wants from others, until some suspected how it was with 
 him, and pressed him to see how it was ; and after it was 
 known, such as were able mended his condition, and when he 
 was married afterwards (1607) he and his family were comfort- 
 ably provided for." We may as well add at once what else 
 Governor Bradford has said of him. " A very learned man he 
 was, and a close student, which much impaired his health. 
 We have heard some, eminent in the knowledge of the tongues, 
 of the University of Leyden, say that they thought he had not 
 his better for the Hebrew tongue in the University nor scarce 
 in Europe. He was a man very modest, amiable, and sociable 
 in his ordinary course and carriage, of an innocent and un- 
 blameable life and conversation, of a meek spirit and a calm 
 
 ' Some time after 1604 he sojourned more than twenty years as a neigh- 
 
 for a time in Leyden, and boarded bour, &c.," p. 119. H. Ainsworth 
 
 with Mr. Parkes and Dr. Ames. Here (1570-1622), born at Swauton Morley, 
 
 he came under Eobinson's influence. Norfolk ; studied at St. John's . at Gron- 
 
 Tliis, of course, was later than 1609 ville and Caius Colleges, Cambridge ; 
 
 (Young's Chronicles, p. 439). about 1593 entered service of a book- 
 
 ^ Paget, in his " Arrow Against seller at Amsterdam as a porter. See 
 
 the Separation of the Brownists " Axon's " Henry Ainaworth, the 
 
 (written 1617), says to Ainsworth, Puritan Commentator." But 1593 ia 
 
 " How comes it that you have lived too early. 
 
THE AMSTERDAM CHtlRCH. 233 
 
 temper, void of passion and not easily provoked. And yet he 
 would be something smart in his style to his opposers in his 
 public writings ; at which we that have seen his constant 
 carriage, both in public disputes and the managing of all 
 church affairs, and such-like occurrences, have sometimes mar- 
 velled. He had an excellent gift of teaching and opening the 
 Scriptures, and things did flow from him with that facility, 
 plainness, and sweetness as did much affect the hearers. He 
 was powerful and profound in doctrine, although his voice was 
 not strong ; and had this excellency above many, that he was 
 ready and pregnant in the Scriptures, as if the Book of God 
 had been written in his heart : being as ready in his quotations, 
 without tossing and turning his book, as if they had laid open 
 before his eyes, and seldom missing a word in the citing of any 
 place, teaching not only the word and doctrine of God, but in 
 the words of God, and for the most part in a continued phrase 
 and words of Scripture. He used great dexterity, and was 
 ready in comparing Scripture with Scripture, one with another. 
 In a word, the times and place in which he lived were not 
 worthy of such a man.''^ 
 
 With Ainsworth's election to the vacant office of teacher 
 the constitution of the Church was complete. For the 
 first time since 1592 (September) — and then only for a month 
 or two — the Church could enjoy all its privileges, all its 
 " means of grace." What these were in the ordinary service a 
 few years later — and doubtless from the beginning — is told us 
 by Richard Clyfton.^ 
 
 First, there was prayer and giving thanks by the pastor or 
 teacher, next the Scriptures were read, two or three chapters, 
 as time served, with a brief explanation of their meaning. 
 
 ' Bradford's Dialogue in Young's had a hand in this — and very likely 
 
 Chronicles, p. 448-9. In Axon's Life had. It was republished with the 
 
 a list of twenty-seven writings by "Apology" in 1604 (with a quite 
 
 Ainsworth is given. The first is "A different preface). 
 
 True Confession of Faith of Certayne ^ ' An " advertisement " concerning a 
 
 English people living in Exile," &c , boot, &c., 1612. 
 1596. Johnson is usually said to have 
 
234 THE AMSTERDAM CHUECH. 
 
 Then the pastor or teacher took some passage of Scripture 
 and expounded and enforced it. 
 
 After this the sacraments were administered (by the 
 pastor) . Lastly, a collection was made/ as each one was able, 
 for the support of the officers and the poor. 
 
 In Clyfton's time, moreover, " some of the Psalms of David 
 were sung by the whole congregation both before and after the 
 exercise of the Word." Perhaps this was the established 
 custom. But, after a time, the practice was introduced of sing- 
 ing the Psalms " done up " in rhyme and metre, an innovation 
 which gave ofPenee to some. Thus one of Christopher Lawne's 
 complaints was against "their corrupt manner of worship in 
 singing their new . . . rhymes " ; " their naughty order 
 in singing Psalms in such a metre and such a rhyme — of so 
 harsh and hard a phrase — that they knew not what they 
 meant, neither could they sing with understanding." He says, 
 further, that " copies " of the new Psalms "^ were kept from the 
 people," that each Psalm was " read after a broken manner in 
 public" (line by line ?), and that by "the uncouth and strange 
 translation " they made the congregation " a laughing-stock to 
 strangers." ^ Possibly the innovation was due to Ainsworth, 
 At least, in his annotations on Exodus xv., he gives a rhymed 
 version of the Song of Moses, and also a tune to which it may 
 be sung. The first verse runs : — 
 
 Unto Jehovah sing will I, 
 
 Tor He excelletli gloriously ; 
 
 The horse, and him that rode thereon, 
 
 Into the sea thrown down hath He. 
 
 Jah is my strength and melody. 
 
 And hath been my salvation. 
 
 He says, " this (meaning his version and time) may be sung 
 also as Psalm cxiii." Moreover,' his "Book of Psalms, 
 Englished both in prose and metre," was printed by 1612, and 
 
 1 William Mason, shipwright, aged 6d, then equalled much more than 6d. 
 
 21 . . . deposed, in 1593, that "he now. 
 
 gave 6d. a week which the deacons re- '' Profane Schism, p. 9. 
 ceived" (Harleian MSS., 7,042. f. 35.) 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 
 
 235- 
 
 This may he sung also as the 113th Psalm.'] 
 
 ^ 
 
 -j-r^-P-'^ 
 
 i 
 
 rssi 
 
 S^ 
 
 32Z 
 
 3i 
 
 •« '' rj 
 
 _ ' f ^~ 
 
 Du -to Je - ho - vah sing will I, for lie ex - cel-leth 
 
 s 
 
 s=^= 
 
 ^p r? ::^ 
 
 3^- 
 
 it 
 
 * 
 
 "?•:;'./ 
 
 glo - rious - ly ; 
 
 the 
 
 horse and him that rode 
 
 4^=4= 
 
 m 
 
 ■ilz 
 
 -TJ rJ rJ- 
 
 :^- 
 
 ~rj- 
 
 122; 
 
 there - on, 
 
 to the sea thrown down hath hee, 
 
 «= 
 
 - r> r - > 
 
 =22= 
 
 =r=-^\/= 
 
 rci; 
 
 =22= 
 
 Jah, is my strength and me 
 
 dee ; and 
 
 I 
 
 ¥=^ 
 
 z^ 
 
 -rzi- 
 
 hath been my sal - va 
 
 tion. 
 
 TUNE ADAPTED TO THE SONa OF MOSES (eX. XV.) AWD SUN& (fBOBAELT) IN THE- 
 AMETEBDAM MEETING HOUSE. 
 
236 THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 
 
 if specimens of these — as yet unpublished — were " lined out " 
 
 from time to time for the congregation to sing, this would 
 
 account for what Lawne says about the absence of " copies." 
 
 It must be owned that Ainsworth did not excel in rhyme, 
 
 and that Lawne might well speak of "imcouth and strange 
 
 translation." Take this, e.g. : — 
 
 Thou doest wonders ! Hast outspread 
 Thy right-hand ; them, the earth swallowed. 
 Thou in Thy mercy leadest-on 
 This people which Thou didst redeem : 
 And in Thy strength Thou guidest them 
 Unto Thine holy mansion. 
 
 Who would not sooner hear or sing the smooth, unrhymed 
 
 verses ? — 
 
 Thou stretchedst out Thy right hand ; the earth swallowed them. 
 
 Thou leadest forth in Thy mercy, this people which Thou hadst 
 redeemed: Thou guidest them in Thy strength, unto the habitation of 
 Thy holiness. 
 
 For the rest, we observe that no place in the service 
 is formally assigned to prophecy. We know the Church 
 had its prophets. Jacob Johnson and Thomas Cocky are 
 mentioned as figuring in that capacity. We hear of occasions 
 when they exhorted the congregation ; when, alas ! they 
 «ven openly contradicted and quarrelled with each other.^ 
 But this was when they felt specially " moved." Prophecy was 
 not a regular office. It was not limited to any particular 
 person or time. It might break out at any point of the 
 service. Hence the possibility of confusion ; and hence the 
 ordinance which Eobinson made, doubtless profiting by expe- 
 rience," "that it be performed after the public ministry by the 
 teachers, and mader their direction and moderation, whose 
 duty it is, if anything be obscure, to open it ; if doubtful, to 
 €lear it ; if unsound, to refute it ; if unprofitable, to supply 
 what is wanting, as they are able." 
 
 ' Profane Schism, p. 83. But 
 Johnson and Cocky were not the only ^ Robinson's " Cathechism," Q. 32 — 
 
 prophets. On p. 59— e.g., " another " Works, Vol. III., p. 433. 
 is mentioned. 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 237 
 
 With regard to the sacraments, as the pastor was the 
 same we may be certain that the manner of their admin- 
 istration was the same as when Daniel Buck^ saw Johnson 
 administer them in London. In baptism " he took water 
 and washed the faces of them that were baptized, . . . 
 saying only," as he did so, " I do baptize thee in the 
 name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 
 without using any other ceremony therein." In the Lord's 
 Supper ''five white loaves, or more, were set upon the 
 table." Then "the pastor did take the bread and delivered 
 it to some of them, and the deacons delivered to the rest ; some 
 of the . . . congregation sitting and some standing about 
 the table." Next, "the pastor delivered the cup unto one, 
 and he to another, till they had all drunken ; using the words 
 at the delivery thereof according as it is set down in the 
 eleventh of the (1) Corinthians, the 24th verse." And " a very 
 grave man he was " — we learn from Bradford — " and an able 
 teacher, and was the most solemn in all his administrations 
 that we have seen any, and especially in dispensing the seals of 
 the covenant, both baptism and the Lord's Supper." ^ 
 
 " Truly," adds Bradford, " there were " in the Church at 
 Amsterdam " many worthy men, and if you had seen them in 
 their beauty and order, as we have done, you would have been 
 much affected therewith, we dare say." . . . "Before their 
 division and breach they were about 300 communicants, and," 
 besides pastor, teacher, elders, and deacons, they had "one 
 ancient widow^ for a deaconess, who did them service many 
 years, though she was sixty years of age when she was chosen. 
 
 ' In his examination, March 9, was " cast out from " the Church " and 
 
 1592-3 — see Strype's Annals, Vol. IV.. deliTered unto Satan " (Answer to 
 
 p. 245. Of Buck Francis Johnson says Master Jacob, Preface), 
 
 he was a manthat hath turned his coat ^ Dialogue, Young's Chronicles, p. 
 
 ... as often as D. P. (Dr. Perne), 445. 
 
 the old turncoat, did, if not oftener." ^ Was this widow (Edith) Bur- 
 
 "He it was that by divers letters de- rough, mentioned as a prisoner in 
 
 sired of me to answer Mr. Jacob's argu- 1588, 1590, 1592? There were two 
 
 ment" (1596). Later, "for his revolting other widows, prisoners, but they died 
 
 from the truth and so persisting" he before 1588. 
 
238 THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 
 
 She honoured her place, and was an ornament to the congrega- 
 tion. She usually sat in a convenient place in the congregation, 
 with a little birchen rod in her hand, and kept little children in 
 great awe from disturbing the congregation. She did fre- 
 quently visit the sick and weak, especially women, and, as 
 there was need, called out maids and young women to watch 
 and do them other helps as their necessity did require ; and if 
 they were very poor, she would gather relief for them of those 
 that were able, or acquaint the deacons ; and she was obeyed as 
 a mother in Israel and an officer of Christ." ^ 
 
 The story so far is suggestive mainly of trials patiently 
 borne and of progressive life ;" but troubles sprang up which 
 cast dark shadows on the scene. Though we fain would, we 
 cannot pass these by, for this, if for no other reason, that they 
 have recently been lifted into such prominence, and so pre- 
 sented, as to leave the impression that their efEect was to 
 extinguish the light altogether. 
 
 I. There was among the members a strict and a com- 
 paratively liberal party. Thus Daniel Buck said, " Some of you 
 hold it utterly and simply unlawful to swear by a book, to 
 prove a will, take an admiiiistration, or sue in the ecclesiastical 
 courts ; to shut up your shops on holy days and festival days, 
 &c. And (you say) that these are the inventions of Antichrist. 
 Others of you hold these things altogether lawful, and have, 
 and do, put them in practice, with many such like things which 
 I could name, but these shall suffice." ^ 
 
 One of the very strict was G-eorge Johnson, the pastor's 
 brother. He was shocked at the apparel of the latter's wife — 
 the widow Boyes whom Francis married in the Clink (1594). 
 
 1 Dialogue, Young's Chronicles, pp. Bowman liad been deposed for alleged 
 455-6. peculation (1595). Slade (the elder) 
 
 2 But not entirely — e.ji., Ainsworth'e had been excommunicated for "apos- 
 appointment had caused some disturb- tasy" — i.e., going to service at a 
 ance and led even to the excommuni- Dutch Church (ditto, p. 53). 
 
 cation of some malcontents (Q-. John- ^ Quoted by F. Johnson — without 
 
 son's Discourse, p. 10). There had denial — in his "Answer to Master 
 
 been troubles about a certain Mr. M., Jacob," preface. 
 Mr. G., and Mr. S. M. (ditto, p. 25). 
 
THE AMSTBEDAM CHUECH. 239 
 
 Not only himself but " all sorts of people " were shocked, 
 said George, and he felt it his duty to write to her, voicing 
 their displeasure. She did not amend. " Then he tried to get 
 others to interfere, hut they were loath, and would not." 
 Next, he wrote to his brother, telling him that Mrs. Francis 
 and the Bishop of London's wife " for pride and vain apparel 
 were joined together " ; and what scandal was abroad, 
 *' because Francis Johnson being in prison, and the brethren 
 in great necessity beyond the seas," she "wore three, four or 
 five gold rings at once." Moreover, "her busks and her whale- 
 bones in her breast" were "so manifest" that "many of the 
 saints were grieved." Let her "pull off her excessive deal of 
 lace " ; discontinue the whalebones ; exchange " the showish 
 (showy) hat for a sober taffety or felt "... quit the 
 " great starched ruffs, the musk and rings " ; and " let sobriety 
 and modesty be used." After much ado, in which Daniel 
 Studley is said to have been active on the side of strictness, 
 the " Httle rift " was healed, and the music of peace returned. 
 The brothers drew together again — George confessing ^ that 
 Francis became very kind and loving to him. This was in 
 London. 
 
 But ere three months were passed after arrival at Amster- 
 dam, the quarrel broke out again.^ Nothing more likely than 
 that the impoverished brethren, struggling in a strange 
 city for bare subsistence, should (apart from the spiritual 
 aspect of the matter) regard anything like luxury in living or 
 dress as rather heartless. George, who might have preserved 
 the peace, was provoked to break it by the fact, which he took 
 for a slight, that his brother did not (with good reason surely) 
 ask him to occupy rooms in his own house. There were stormy 
 church meetings. There was an assiduous kindling of that 
 
 ' " Tokens and dutiea of love passed Studley, says George J., used " most 
 between us from one prison to fair words" to him — yea, "they were 
 another." Studley, and "a letter, bedfellows and in consultation to- 
 broke the peace " (Q-. Johnson's " Dis- gether." But as he " waxed stronger " 
 course," p. 28. he " began to blow the bellows " 
 
 '^ Again, through Studley. At first (Discourse, p. 28). 
 
240 THE AMSTERDAM CHUECH. 
 
 zeal which in Grod's name does the devil's work. There was 
 much occasion for scoffing and blaspheming given to unsym- 
 pathetic outsiders. And at length it came to this — the pastor 
 took a firm stand. He said the contentious ones " contributed 
 nothing to his support ; that his wife bought her own clothes ; 
 and that, if she could not wear what she had, he would be 
 gone." But sooner than let him go the majority of the Church 
 were of opinion that George deserved to go.^ So they cast 
 him out, about the year 1599. 
 
 Robinson having learnt the facts a few years later, and 
 with Johnson's defence in his hands, approved the step; 
 for George had become " a disgraceful libeller." - Ains- 
 worth also approved it, declaring that he was cast out " for 
 lying and slandering, false accusation and contention." * 
 Considering that Ainsworth was on the spot ; that he was 
 thoroughly acquainted with both sides of the case; and 
 that he was confessedly " a moderate man," his words ought 
 to be decisive as to where most of the blame lay. 
 
 The case of John Johnson, the father, is not so clear. 
 Ainsworth does not mention it ; and his silence may be sig- 
 nificant. If we had only the evidence of the father's letter 
 Francis would stand without excuse. The letter,* in its main 
 heads, is this : — 
 
 ^ 1. Coming in my old age so far, so hard and dangerous a 
 journey to seek and make peace between you, the Church and 
 
 > He admits that he received "a ™^ ^^ ^'^^ ^^^^ proceedings" (Dis- 
 
 small weekly allowance" from the course, p. 184). 
 
 Church for a time (Discourse, p. 37), Prmted by Lawne in Profane 
 
 but that in the end " the whole con- Schism, &c., pp. 64-66. 
 gregation" sided with his brother— ° ^^"'^^ says— Story of the Pilgrim 
 
 persuaded that George had "a cracked Fathers, p. 110— " It was probably 
 
 brain" (Discourse, p. 184). from," Eiohmondshire— i.e., the North 
 
 2 A Justification of Separation Biding of Yorkshire, his birthplace, 
 
 (Works, Vol. II., p. 59). ^^^^ the old man came to Amsterdam. 
 
 ■i Coiinterpoyson, p. 50. This book ^^^ ^°'^^ probably it was from London 
 
 should be carefully distinguished (see Johnson's letter to Burghley, Jan. 
 
 from "A Counter-poyson," by Dudley ^' 1593^). " Yea, when our poor old 
 
 Fenner (1584?). The date of A.'s father, Hiis bearer "—i.e., of the letter, 
 
 book is 1608. It was he, says George, -"^'^ excommunication impHes that he 
 
 who " pronoimced the sentence against '"'^^ ^ member of the London branch 
 
 of the Church. 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 241 
 
 your brother, I could never see the least inclination in you to 
 peace. . . . 
 
 2. Lodging in your house the first week, you were so far 
 from peace and so unkindly used me that you made me weary 
 before the week was ended ; so was I forced to shift to my 
 other son's lodging [i.e., to his son Jacob's) . 
 
 3. Tou sought to catch and ensnare me in my words ; and 
 afterward, as I perceived, also seduced the elders and the people 
 to like dealing. 
 
 4. You " let me stand two hours on my feet before you and 
 the people ; and yourself sat all the time ; and not once bid 
 me sit down yourself, neither spake to the people to bid me. 
 
 5. Not once in the space of six weeks did you come to 
 visit me, or ask how I did ; being in the same city with you. 
 
 6. You did not write to me, " in the space of five years or 
 more," to say " that you were desirous to see my face, or that 
 I should be welcome to you, when I wrote to you of my purpose 
 in coming." 
 
 7. You heard me scoffed and gibed by divers in the 
 congregation, and not once rebuked them. 
 
 8. You became so hardened that you sat as principal and 
 heard your father excommunicated. 
 
 9. Coming afterward to you, and talking to you, you said 
 you might not keep company with me. 
 
 This is black enough, nor are we in a position to challenge 
 any of the father's statements. But it is not all the truth. 
 Every statement may be literally accurate, and yet with fuller 
 light from the circumstances it might look very different. If 
 we knew, for example, what had passed in London, we might 
 not wonder in the least that Francis expressed no desire to see 
 his father in Amsterdam. The father says he came " to seek 
 a,nd make peace," but Robinson says^ he came to "take the 
 part " of George, and speaks as if his " excommunication " at 
 least was justified. Jacob Johnson appears Hke one of the 
 
 1 Works, Vol. II., p. 59. 
 
 16 
 
242 THE AMSTERDAM CHURCH. 
 
 father's supporters, but he really adhered to his brother, and 
 years later (after December, 1610) is met with as an elder in 
 the "Franciscan" Church. And the silence of Ainsworth 
 may mean nothing after all ; for Bernard, whom he is refuting, 
 does not mention the father, so that there was no reason why 
 Ainsworth should. Finally, on the whole matter let us hear 
 Governor Bradford, who is "perfectly trustworthy," although 
 he happens to be charitable ! In the dialogue so often cited 
 between " some young men and sundry ancient men that came 
 out of Holland and old England," say the former : " But he 
 (F. Johnson) is much spoken against for excommunicating his 
 brother, and his own father, and maintaining his wife's cause, 
 who was by his brother and others reproved for her pride in 
 apparel." Ancient men: "Himself hath often made his own 
 defence, and others for him. The Church did, after long 
 patience towards them, and much pains taken with them, 
 excommunicate them for their unreasonable and endless opposi- 
 tion, and such things as did accompany the same, and such 
 was the justice thereof, as he could not not but consent thereto. 
 In our time his wife was a grave matron, and very modest both 
 in her apparel and all her demeanour, ready to do any good 
 works in her place, and helpful to many, especially the poor, 
 and an ornament to his calling. She was a young widow 
 when he married her, and had been a merchant's wife, by 
 whom he had a good estate, and was a godly woman ; and 
 because she wore such apparel as she had been formerly used 
 to, which were neither expensive nor immodest, for their 
 chiefest exceptions were against her wearing of some whale- 
 bone in the bodice and sleeves of her gown, corked shoes, and 
 other such-like things as the citizens of her rank then used to 
 wear. And although, for offence sake, she and he were willing 
 to reform the fashions of them so far as might be without 
 spoiling of their garments, yet it would not content them 
 except they came full up to their size. Such was the strictness 
 or rigidness (as now the term goes) of some in those times, as 
 
THE AMSTERDAM CHUECH. 243 
 
 we can by experience, and of our own knowledge, show in 
 other instances."! 
 
 II. Fresh exiles swelled the Church from time to time- 
 Some of them — perhaps most — came from London. We read 
 of four who came in 1604, "enforced to abjure the land for 
 the Gospel's sake . . . after they suffered three months' 
 imprisonment." - But not all. Some came from the " West," 
 in consequence, very probably, of those communications which 
 followed on Penry's letter. Among these were Thomas White 
 and twelve or thirteen others. They joined the Amsterdam 
 congregation about 1603, and White, at least, had left within two 
 years. George Johnson gives us to understand that White and 
 Powell — one of his band — were ambitious of " ofELce," and took 
 offence at being neglected. If so, one motive is clear for 
 White's speedy revolt, and for his immediate publication of 
 what professed to be a " Discovery of Brownism ; or, a brief 
 declaration of some of the errors and abominations daily 
 practised and increased amongst the English company of the 
 separation remaining for the present at Amsterdam in 
 Holland." ^ Thus arose the Church's second grievous trouble. 
 
 The pastor soon had a reply out, entitled, ^^An Inquiry 
 
 and answer of Thomas White, his Discovery," &c. * ; and, before 
 
 this, two of the persons most implicated, Daniel Studley and 
 
 Judith Holder, had taken steps to prosecute White "before 
 
 the magistrates of the city." ^ They had better have left the 
 
 ' Young's Cbronioles, 446-7. ^ London, 1605, November, printed 
 
 ^ See " A Memorandum, Anno by E. A. (Edward Aldee) for Natha- 
 
 Domini 1604," in Miles Mioklebound, niel Fosbrooke, &o. (26 pp.)- (Arber's 
 
 quoted in appendix. We learn from Story of the Pilgrim Fathers, p. 
 
 George Johnson's "Discourse" (pp. 119.) 
 
 44, 205-6) that there were accessions '' 1606. Here (in the Preface) Johu- 
 
 f rom a church at Norwich ; that this son says that White " was heretofore 
 
 was " the elder sister " ; that Mr. separated from the Church of Eng- 
 
 Hunt was its pastor ; that Studley land, and a joined member of a church 
 
 had had some connection with it. in the West of England, professing 
 
 There was a letter (dated March 6, same faith with us ; then he came to 
 
 1600) from Hunt to F. Johnson accus- Amsterdam and joined the Church 
 
 ing Studley of an arbitrary act of there. He has now revolted, setting 
 
 interference while Hunt, two of the himself tooth and nail against 
 
 elders, and the deacon were in prison us." 
 
 at Norwich. ° Ditto, pp. 28-9. 
 
244 THE AMSTERDAM CHURCH. 
 
 nasty little book alone, for nasty it is both in spirit and 
 details. What its spirit is like may be judged by the follow- 
 ing : — " Master Ainsworth, whom " F. Johnson " terms a man 
 approved in Christ," is one that hath turned his coat as 
 oft as ever D, B., ^ if not oftener . . . he is a teacher 
 stained with hypocrisy . . . spotted again and again 
 with apostasy ... a means to bring in false doctrine." 
 Assertions such as these which are known to be utterly false, 
 cast discredit on all the accuser may say of anyone or 
 anything else. 
 
 Still we are not concerned to deny, or refute, his charges 
 generally. No doubt there were facts soHd and unsavoury 
 enough to serve well the purpose of a venomous heart. 
 But suppose we grant this — suppose we grant- that the 
 ■Church contained five or six persons accused or strongly 
 suspected of sins more or less criminal; suppose the Church 
 — perhaps, because the proof of guilt was not convincingly 
 strong, perhaps for some less worthy reason — refused, or 
 was slow, to eject them; suppose the pastor and elders, in 
 one case calculated to create needless scandal, came to a 
 decision without consulting the Church ; suppose the elders, or 
 the Church, in another case, contrary to one of their avowed 
 principles, had recourse to "the censure of suspension for 
 months " before proceeding to the act of excommunication ; 
 suppose, finally, the Church sometimes and the pastor some- 
 times (as he himself admits) expelled members too hghtly, too 
 rashly, too violently, and in too wholesale a fashion — what 
 then? Well, we reach the conclusion, of course, that the 
 character and discipHne of the Church were by no means 
 
 ^ Daniel Buck. The reference is to godly friends, went once or twice to 
 
 Johnson's words about Buck and hear a godly minister preach." George 
 
 Aiusworth in his Answer to Jacob Johnson had set the charge going " in 
 
 (1600). Bradford says, "For his a book" which he "writ." (His 
 
 (Aiusworth's) apostasy this was all "Discourse, &o.," 1603.) Dialogue, p. 
 
 the matter. When he was a young 449. 
 
 man, before he came out of England, ^ What foUowe covers the whole 
 
 he, at the persuasion of some of his ground of White's indictment. 
 
THE AMSTERDAM CHXJECH. 245 
 
 thoroughly consistent and perfect ; far less so, we may even say, 
 than itself deemed them to be. But the important point to 
 observe is that if we go on to conclude that the whole congre- 
 gation was, or was fast becoming, " a bad lot " we go far 
 beyond the evidence — nay, we go in the teeth of evidence 
 compared with which the word of Thomas White is a mere 
 nothing. For what Governor Bradford thought of the Church 
 we have heard ; and yet Bradford made the acquaintance of the 
 Church two years after White had disappeared, and lived in 
 full view of it for a year, and (by the hypothesis) must have 
 witnessed it at a stiU lower stage in its downward career ! Either, 
 then, "errors and abominations were not daily practised and 
 increased," as White gave out ; or, Bradford was not merely 
 " good natured and optimistic,"^ but morally blind and insensi- 
 tive. It should not be difficult to decide between the alter- 
 natives — especially when we find that Christopher Lawne, 
 several years^ later, can do little more than vamp up White's 
 old stories in his own more elaborate endeavour to make the 
 Church odious ! 
 
 III. The next trouble arose in connection with John Smyth 
 — a remarkable man who merits more than a bare refer- 
 ence. The place and date of his birth are not known. For 
 the latter, probably 1572 is near the mark. He went up to 
 Christ's College, Cambridge, about 1586, and had Francis John- 
 son as his tutor.^ He took his M.A. 1593.* He was ordained 
 by William Wickham, Bishop of Lincoln. He held no benefice, 
 so far as we know ; but is heard of as a preacher or lecturer in 
 the city of Lincoln. " A few years ago. Professor Whitsitt, of 
 Amsterdam, found in the library of Emmanuel College, Cam- 
 bridge, a little book of his, entitled " The bright morning starre, 
 or the resolution and exposition of the 22 Psahne. Preached 
 
 1 So Arber, " Story," &c.. Preface, ■* The date of his graduation has 
 
 p. 3. been given as 1575-6, but Franoia 
 
 ^ 1612-1613. See next chapter. Johnson did not " matriculate " till 
 
 => Bradford ia the authority for this April 1, 1579. See Arbor's " Story," 
 
 statement. Dialogue, p. 450. &c., p. 132. 
 
246 THE AMSTEEDAM CHURCH. 
 
 publicly ill foiire sermons at Lincoln by John Smith, preacher 
 of the city, 1603."i This does not prove that the preacher and 
 our John Smyth were the same. But proof is supplied by the 
 following — "a booke called a Paterne of true Prayer or Ex- 
 posicon uppon the Lord's Prayer, done by John Smythe, &c., of 
 Lincoln," was entered at Stationers' HaU March 22, 1605 ; 
 and Eichard Bernard, his neighbour, friend, and futm-e oppo- 
 nent, expressly tells us that its writer was John Smyth, the 
 se-Baptist.~ Moreover, he is spoken of as once " preacher to 
 the city of Lincoln " by John Cotton, the eminent New Eng- 
 land Puritan, who had been a vicar in Lincolnshire, at St. 
 Botolph's, Boston, for twenty^ years. 
 
 It has been usual to say that Smyth was pastor of the 
 Gainsborough Church from 1602 to 1606. The facts just 
 mentioned show that the earlier of these dates, at least, 
 must be wi'ong. We are not bound, indeed, to believe 
 that Smyth was stUl in Lincoln on March 22, 1605. 
 Not even, the words of the Epistle Dedicatory, which say 
 that the wi-iter, " being (then ?) the lecturer in the city of 
 Lincoln," " delivered " the treatise " to the ears of a few, 
 not long since."* compel us to this. There is nothing to 
 show that the epistle was not written, and the book printed, 
 some little time after he had left the city. But the end of 
 1604, at any rate, seems to be the earliest possible date of his 
 settling at Gainsborough. And if he removed to Amsterdam in 
 1606 his English pastorate was very short indeed, or, rather, 
 had no existence. 
 
 What is needed, in order to clear away some confusion, is 
 to state the true sequence of events. 
 
 1. The common origin of the Separatist Churches at 
 Gainsborough and Scrooby is described by Governor Bradford.^ 
 " So many, therefore, of these professors " [i.e., those of the 
 
 1 B^o^v^l's " Pilgrim Fathers," p. 86 ■• Arber, p. 134. 
 
 (Popular Edition) . <• Chronicles of the Pilgrim 
 
 2 Arber, pp. 133-4. Fathers (Young), pp. 19-21. 
 ' 1618-1633. 
 
THE AMSTERDAM CHUECH. 247 
 
 " north parts " who had become " enlightened by the Word of 
 God " on the subject of the Church, through the " travail and 
 diligence of some godly and zealous preachers ") " as saw the 
 evil of these things" (i.e., "base, beggarly ceremonies," 
 "lordly, tyrannous power of the prelates," &c.) "in these 
 parts, and whose hearts the Lord had touched with heavenly 
 zeal for His truth, they shook off this yoke of Antichristian 
 bondage, and, as the Lord's free people, joined themselves (by 
 a covenant of the Lord) into a church estate, in the fellowship 
 of the Gospel, to walk in all His ways, made known, or to be 
 made known unto them, according to their best endeavours, 
 whatsoever it should cost them." Bradford himself " takes 
 no notice of the year of this federal incorporation " ^ ; 
 the date 1602 is given by his nephew, Mr. Secretary Morton. 
 And it is to be particularly observed that 1602 dates the 
 beginning of " a church estate." It has nothing to do with 
 John, Smyth. 
 
 2. Then, "These people became two distinct bodies or 
 churches, in regard of distance of place, and did congregate 
 severally, for they were of several towns and villages, some in 
 Nottinghamshire, some in Lincolnshire, and some of Yorkshire, 
 where they bordered nearest together." ^ According to date in 
 the margin, which may be Morton's or Bradford's, this local 
 division took place in 1606. This date also has nothing to do 
 with Smyth. 
 
 3. But " in one of these churches, besides others of note, 
 was Mr. John Smith, a man of able gifts and a good preacher, 
 who afterwards was chosen their pastor." ^ Consequently, it 
 would appear that Smyth became pastor at Gainsborough some 
 time later than 1606, when the church was constituted. But 
 still he may have been on the spot some time earlier ; and the 
 way I read the situation is this. John Cotton tells us that " the 
 tyranny of the Ecclesiastical Courts was harsh towards him [i.e., 
 Smyth), and the yokes put upon him in the ministry too grievous 
 
 1 Ibid, p. 22, note. ^ n^ij^ p 22. 3 jiji^^ p, 22. 
 
248 THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 
 
 to be borne." ^ Here we have a reference to his experience as 
 a (Puritan) preacher in Lincoln, and the external cause of his 
 being moved toward Separatism. Hearing of the "people" 
 about Gainsborough, eighteen miles away, he came among 
 them near the close of 1604. Then befell a period of mental 
 distress. For nine months he doubted what course to take. 
 He had much intercourse with other "forward" ministers, 
 especially with Eichard Bernard, who seemed to be in a similar 
 state of mind. ^ At length the shadows fled away, and so far 
 as the "necessity of Separation" was concerned, he never 
 doubted again — a fact to which "the town of Gainsborough 
 and those there that knew " his " footsteps " could bear testi- 
 mony.^ He now joined the Church as a private member, and 
 for awhile so remained. Then — perhaps early in 1607 — his 
 gifts and character raised him inevitably to the pastorate. But 
 what is said of the Scrooby Church was true, doubtless, of the 
 Gainsborough — " they could not long continue in any peaceable 
 manner, but were hunted and persecuted on every side, so as 
 their former afflictions were but as mole-hills to mountains in 
 comparison to these which now came upon them," . . . 
 And " seeing themselves thus molested, and that there was no 
 hope of their continuance there, by a joint consent they 
 resolved to go into the Low Countries."* None worked harder to 
 bring about this resolve than Thomas Helwys — a man of 
 " note " in Smyth's church.^ John Eobinson, glancing back 
 
 ' Bradford's Dialogue (Young), sick in England, at Bashfortli's, and 
 p. 451, note. when he was " troublesome and charge- 
 2 He speaks of this time in his able to " Helwys. See his " Eetrac- 
 " Parallels, Censures, Observations" tion." (6) He was of Smyth's company 
 (1609) pp. 4, 5, 128. He mentions a at Amsterdam, and seceded with him 
 Conference at Coventry; a walk with (1608). (c) Smyth says, "It is well 
 Barnard from W (orksop), when "all known to all the company that I have 
 the journey" B. was casting about to spent as much in helping the poor as 
 despatch his " estate and get away Mr. Helwys hath done " (Retraction, 
 with safety"; a proposal of B.'s to p. vi.). — Barclay's " Inner Life of the 
 " call out 100 persons " from different Keligious Societies of the Common- 
 parishes " to enter into covenant to- wealth." When he distinguishes 
 gether not to hear the dumb ministers," Helwys's company from his own — in a 
 &c., p. 4. •" Ibid, p. 128. preceding sentence — he is thinking of 
 * Bradford's Chronicles, p. 23. those who remained with Helwys after 
 ' I take this to be fairly certain ; for he himself had made the second separ- 
 (a) Smyth refers to a time when he was ation of 1609. 
 
THE AMSTERDAM CHURCH. 24* 
 
 at what first led him as well as Smyth to think seriously of 
 emigration, says, " it was Mr. Helwisse, who above all, either 
 guides or others, furthered this passage into strange countries ; 
 and if any brought oars, he brought sails."^ His zeal is 
 explicable when we read that "on July 26, 1607, his wife Joan 
 was brought from York Castle to appear before the Ecclesias- 
 tical Court, and sent back thither, along with John Drewe and 
 Thomas Jessop, for refusing to take an oath according to 
 law."- But if this gave occasion to Helwys's zeal, its object 
 could scarcely be achieved all at once. Inquiries would need to 
 be set on foot and practical measures concerted, which woiild 
 take up time. And so it does not surprise us to find Smyth 
 stUl signing himself, or still addressed, as " Pastor of the Church 
 at Gainsborough," as late as November or December, 1607.* 
 "We thus seem driven to the conclusion that there was no long 
 interval between the departure of Smyth's company and that of 
 Robinson's — a few months at the most. For " all " the latter 
 had " got over " to Amsterdam by the early summer of 1608. 
 
 rV. Assuming, then, that Smyth, Helwys, and the rest 
 reached Amsterdam during the last weeks of 1607, or the 
 early spring of 1608, we see that the special trouble they 
 caused must have begun almost forthwith. Eor before the 
 year was out — which, on the old style, commonly used by the 
 Pilgrims, might mean before March 25, 1609 — Smyth had both 
 joined and left Johnson's church, and had published a 
 pamphlet declaring why — entitled, "The Differences of the 
 Churches of the Separation." * 
 
 There are two phrases in this writing which have been 
 taken to prove that " the Gainsborough Church on its 
 arrival at Amsterdam " did not join " the ancient exiled 
 Church there." These are the phrases in which Smyth 
 
 ' Eobinson's Works, iii., p. 159. Church, annexed a3 a correction and 
 
 2 Brown's Pilgrim Fathers, p. 97. Supplement to a little treatise lately 
 
 ' Arber, p. 136. published bearing title. Principles 
 
 * " Containing a description of the and Inferences respecting the Visible 
 
 Liturgy and ministry of the visible Church," 1608 (early). 
 
250 THE AMSTERDAM CHDECH. 
 
 speaks of Johnson's chm-ch as the "Ancient Brethren of the 
 Separation," and of his own community as "the brethren of 
 the separation of the second English Church at Amsterdam." 
 Happily, there is clear light on the point. For in the next 
 year Henry Ainsworth wrote what he called a "Defence of 
 Holy Scripture, worship, and ministry used in the Christian 
 Churches separated from Antichrist against the challenges, 
 cavils, and contradictions of Mr. Smyth in his book, entitled 
 ' The Differences of the Churches of the Separation.' " Here 
 Ainsworth expounds^ the stages of difference with Johnson's 
 church through which Smyth had passed. So far, they were 
 three : — First, Smyth objected to the use of the translated 
 written Scriptures in public worship. He thought that the 
 teachers should bring the originals, the Hebrew and Greek, 
 and out of them translate by voice. Next, he objected to 
 something in the "ministry and treasm-y of the Church." 
 Ainsworth does not distinctly say what. But Smyth's position 
 was this : " We hold, that in contributing to the Church- 
 treasury there ought to be both a separation from them that 
 are without, and a sanctification of the whole action by 
 prayer and thanksgiving."^ The former was not different 
 from the theory and practice of Johnson's church. Perhaps 
 it omitted the latter. Thirdly, he objected to infant baptism.^ 
 The first was the only " difference between Mr. Smyth and 
 us (says Ainsworth) when first he began to quarrel " ; then, 
 ^' after much time spent about this controversy," he passed on 
 to the second, while still confessing that we, "the ancient 
 brethren of the Separation (as he calleth us), are to be 
 honoiu-ed," as having "reduced the Church to the true primi- 
 tive and apostohc constitution " ; " and now,* as a man 
 benumbed in mmd," he has come to the third, and protests 
 
 ' In the Introduction. though Mr. Arber has assumed that 
 
 - The Differences of the Church, he " threw off his Calvinism at once 
 
 •6th position. and so made a bottomless ^If be- 
 
 ' Ainsworth makes no reference to tween the two Churches " from the 
 
 Smyth's Arminianism, which appears first. " Story," &c., p. 136. 
 
 to have been a yet later development, ■* In 1609. 
 
THE AMSTERDAM CHURCH. 251 
 
 that we are "a false Church, falsely constituted in the bap- 
 tizing of infants" and in our "own baptized estate." ^ 
 
 Moreover, Ainsworth uses words which are unintelligible 
 save on the supposition that Smyth had been associated with 
 himself in one and the same Church. Such as these : — 
 
 " If we would have laid aside our translated Bibles com- 
 munion would have been kept with us." " The Church out of 
 which he (Smyth) was gone by schism." " We desired " — 
 quoting Smyth — that the practice of using translations " might 
 he refrained for our sokes that we might keep communion." 
 
 But, of course, having seceded and set up for himself, it 
 was natural that he should describe the new Church as he did 
 — "the brethren of the separation of the second English 
 •Church," Dr. Dexter thinks " as many as seventy-five or 
 eighty must have gone out with Smyth." 
 
 (a) " These," says John Robinson, ^ " having utterly 
 dissolved and disclaimed their former church state and 
 ministry, came together to erect a new Church by baptism; 
 unto which they also ascribed so great virtue as that they 
 would aot so much as pray together before they had it. 
 And after much straining of courtesy who should begin . . . 
 Mr. Smyth baptized first himself and next Mr. Helwisse, and 
 so the rest, making their particular confessions." 
 
 (b) But before March 12, 1609-10, he repented, and with 
 thirty-one others made a further separation. Smyth's explana- 
 tion was that when he baptized himself " he then thought that 
 there was no Church with whom he could join with a good 
 conscience ; " but, since then, he had been led to see that the 
 Mennonite Churches were "true Churches," and had true 
 ministers " from whom baptism may orderly be had " ; and, this 
 being so, it was not "proper" for private persons to baptize 
 and set up churches without first joining themselves to " true 
 
 ' Hence it is evident that Smyth's 
 change of view with respect to bap- ^ Works III., p. 168. 
 
 tism also came comparatively late. 
 
252 THE AMSTERDAM CHTJECH. 
 
 Churches " already existing. He was not, indeed, a believer in 
 "apostolic succession." "I deny," he says, "all succession 
 except in the truth." But " I hold that we are not to violate 
 the order of the Primitive Church except necessity urge a dis- 
 pensation." ^ If the Mennonite Church was a true Church 
 and the only true Church in Amsterdam, Smyth did but 
 act logically when he sought union with it. A document 
 containing his application has been preserved, and has the 
 names of the thirty-one others who applied with him.** Owing 
 to some doctrinal differences the wished-for union did not 
 take place till 1615, three years after Smyth's death. During 
 the "brief remainder" of his life, Smyth gathered his little 
 band in the hinder part of a great cake-house or bakery, 
 belonging to Jan Munter, a friendly Mennonite. Here he held 
 services, "unconnected with any Christian organisation," till 
 the summer of 1612, "when he fell sick with consumption." 
 "After seven weeks of increasing debility, on 1st September 
 of that year he was borne from the cake-house to his burial 
 in the Niewe Kirk." ^ 
 
 It may be added that his old comrade, Thomas Helwys, 
 was not among the thirty-one. He continued stoutly to defend 
 the right of self-baptism and of baptism by others than an 
 " elder." " Whosoever," said he, " shall be stirred up by the 
 same Spirit, to preach the same Word ; and men thereby " are 
 " converted, may . . . wash them with water, and who can 
 forbid ? " * He contended sharply with Smyth for coming to 
 doubt this, and charged him with sin against the Holy Grhost. 
 He manifested a bitterness which pained Smyth deeply. * 
 Helwys returned to England before his friend's death, and they 
 
 ' Barclay's "Inner Life," &c., pp. majority cast owt Smyth and the rest ? 
 
 70, 11. I can find no authority for this sfcate- 
 
 ^ Arber, p. 138. ment at all. Besides, the majority 
 
 3 Ditto, p. 140. seem to have been with Smyth. For 
 
 ^ See letter (to Smyth?) quoted by when he signed the Mennonite Confes- 
 
 Barolay, p, 71. sion of Faith forty-one signed with 
 
 * But why does Mr. Arber say him. See Barclay, p. 72. 
 
 (Story, &c., p. 137) that he and the 
 
THE AMSTERDAM CHUECH, 253 
 
 never met again. With some followers from Amsterdam for a 
 nucleus, he founded the first " General Arminian Baptist 
 Church in London." 
 
 John Smyth, take him all in all, is a beautiful character. 
 Ainsworth, Cljrfton, even Robinson, were very hard upon him — 
 not unnaturally, considering the rapidity with which he advanced 
 and the variety of his "heresies." In fact, "his Arminian and 
 Baptist opinions were regarded by every branch of the 
 Separatists as calculated to bring the separation into still 
 greater contempt. . . . They cannot speak of him with 
 calmness. His happy and triumphant assurance of salvation, 
 on his death-bed, is characterised as ' sad and woeful ' ; and he is 
 treated as a brother who is lost." ^ But we see the heart of the 
 man in his last book, called "The Retraction of His Errors." 
 It is a noble utterance ; and one feels sure that if any of his 
 old acquaintance — Robinson, for example — ever chanced to read 
 it, they would realise, with some contrition, how unduly harsh 
 and shallow their judgment of the writer had been. One 
 who could write such words as these, whatever else he had 
 missed in his short life, had won at length the mind of Christ : 
 *' Howsoever, in the days of my blind zeal and preposterous 
 imitation of Christ, I was somewhat lavish in censuring and 
 judging others ; and namely, in the way of separation called 
 Brownism, yet since having been instructed in the way of the 
 Lord more perfectly, and finding my error therein, I protest 
 against that my former course of censuring other persons, 
 and especially for all those hard phrases wherewith I 
 have in any of my writings inveighed against England or the 
 separation" — i.e., (a) against the English Church so far as its 
 errors are due to mere ignorance of the tnith ; for "if a sin of 
 ignorance make a man an Antichristian then I demand where 
 shall we find a Christian?" or (b) against such of the "separation" 
 as Mr. Bernard, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Clyfton; "for I should 
 
 ' Barclay, p. 108; who also quotes set as a seal to his gross and damn- 
 John Cotton's words — his death " is able Arminianism." 
 
254 THE AMSTEEDAM CHFEGH. 
 
 have, with the spirit of meekness, instructed them that are 
 contrary minded, but my words have been stout and mingled 
 with gall." ..." My desire is to end controversies among 
 Christians rather than to make and maintain them, especially 
 in matters of the outward Church and ceremonies ; and it is the 
 grief of my heart that I have so long cumbered myself and 
 spent my time therein, and I profess that differences of 
 judgment for matter of circumstance, as are all things of the 
 outward Church, shall not cause me to refuse the brotherhood 
 of any penitent and faithful Christian whatsoever. And now 
 from this day forward do I put an end to all controversies and 
 questions about the outward Church and ceremonies with aU 
 men, and resolve to spend my time in the main matters wherein 
 consisteth salvation. Without repentance, faith, remission of 
 sin, and the new creature, there is no salvation — but there is 
 salvation without the truth of all the outward ceremonies of the 
 outward Church."^ 
 
 V. The last and most disastrous trouble of all reached its 
 climax in 1610. It had been growing for a year at least. 
 Ainsworth seceded in December, 1610; and says, "we had, by 
 a twelvemonth's dispute, tried if we could have come to accord ; 
 but we are further off it at the end than at the beginning." 
 Before 1609 there is no sign that the relations between pastor 
 and teacher were strained. In 1600 Ainsworth is, for Johnson, 
 "my work-fellow to the Elngdom of Christ, approved in 
 Christ." He probably came with Erancis Johnson, and " other 
 his assistants, to make humble suit to the king in 1603,"^ 
 when they presented (by means of an unnamed "honourable 
 personage") three petitions on behaK of certain his "loving 
 and faithful subjects, some Living in foreign lands abroad, 
 some here at home in our native country, imprisoned, and 
 otherwise subject to many great calamities for the truth of 
 the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." He was joint author 
 
 ' Barclay, app. to chap. VI. ii.-iv. ^ Miles Mickleboundin "Platform"; 
 
 ■' ^^ ^ and "Apology" (1604). 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 255 
 
 with Johnson — in 1604 — of " An apology or defence of such 
 true Christians as are commonly but unjustly called Brownists." 
 He had stood by Johnson during the trouble with his brother, 
 with his father, with Thomas White. He had written for 
 Johnson and the whole Church in his controversy with John 
 Smyth. He and Johnson were still working together amicably 
 when John Eobinson came on the scene, and for some time after — 
 though Eobinson perceived already the smouldering fire which 
 was " Kke to break out " in " flames of contention." ^ The 
 outbreak was due to Johnson. Bradford tells us tliat the 
 pastor was weary of the " many dissensions " which were 
 traceable, as he thought, to popular government. But pro- 
 bably he had never wholly abandoned his earlier Presby- 
 terianism. If George Johnson can be credited, this had 
 influenced the government of the Church long before 1609, 
 Eeferring to so early a date as 1598, he says: "The elders 
 end and determine matters, yet they will pretend that the 
 Church doeth it ; whereas, in truth, they give the Church the 
 title and name, but they usurp the power." The tendency 
 thus to usurp powers which belonged to the whole congregation 
 might easily have been checked by the pastor, but was rather 
 encouraged. And Daniel Studley, we are told, was his "standard- 
 bearer."^ Indeed Studley — a " subtle man,"' whom the pastor 
 too much regarded — may have been more responsible for the 
 crisis than Johnson. He had reason to fear the people. For, on 
 one occasion " fifteen" members of the Church "joined to propose 
 and request that Studley vacate his of&ce as elder." And if he 
 then declared, as report says : " Here is a beginning to tread the 
 pathway to popular government ; the very bane to all good order 
 in Church and commonweal," he would not be slow to work for its 
 suppression ; and, at the same time, would be sure to provoke 
 
 ' Bradford's Chronicles, p. 33. of the same, came after many years to 
 
 ^ Christopher Lawne's epithet. alter his judgment about the govern- 
 
 ^ Johnson, " by reason of many ment of the Church and his practice 
 
 dissensions that fell out in the church thereupon." — Bradford's Dialogue, p. 
 
 and the subtilty of one of the elders 445. 
 
256 THE AMSTEEDAM CHURCH. 
 
 the more active resistance of those who realised that he was 
 assailing a vital principle. The months immediately pre- 
 ceding the breach were a miserable time. The Chiu'ch was 
 openly divided into two parties — the Franciscans and the 
 Ainsworthians. Ainsworth, for one, suffered keenly. He 
 felt bound in conscience to take a firm stand, but he did it 
 with a heavy heart. He loved peace, and favoured ''modera- 
 tion." He tried hard to find some middle path, some satis- 
 factory compromise. He met the usual fate. At last things 
 became intolerable. Johnson and his party had the upper 
 hand in the meetings of the Church, and disturbed them with 
 perpetual " retvirns " to the one controverted subject. " Daily," 
 says Ainsworth,^ "in their public doctrines and prayers they 
 inveighed against the truth they formerly professed ; wounded 
 the conscience of the brethren ; and sought occasions to draw 
 men from the right way and practice of the Gospel." Under 
 such circumstances " peace and goodwill " were out of the 
 question, and Ainsworth, with a large proportion — perhaps a 
 majority — of the congregation withdrew. Johnson treated 
 the secession as a " schism and rending " of the Church. 
 Accordingly, he caused Ainsworth to be deposed "from the 
 office of a teacher," and, with " his company," to be cast 
 out.*^ Ainsworth, on his part, was content simply to sepai-ate. 
 " He and his company," we are told, " did not excommunicate 
 Johnson and his party, but only withdrew from them when 
 they could live no longer peaceably." 
 
 At first Ainsworth used a Jews' synagogue^ for the 
 place of worship — in the same street as the old meeting- 
 house, next door but one. Of course this led to frequent 
 collisions, and did not tend to allay irritation. Before long 
 steps were taken with a view to deciding to whom the 
 old meeting-house belonged. Ainsworth is emphatic in his 
 
 1 His Animadversion to Master Separation of the Brownlsts," p. 94 
 Eiohard Clyfton, &c. (1613), p. 134. (1617). 
 
 2 Paget's " Arrow Against the ' Ditto, p. 304, of. Profane Schism, 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 257 
 
 assertion that he and his congregation did not move first.^ 
 "It was publicly agreed," he says, "in our Church that we 
 would rather bear the wrong (of losing the meeting-house) 
 than trouble the magistrate with our controversy; neither 
 have we ever commenced such a suit." But the " chief 
 owners " of the house were " two brethren and a widow " of 
 the congregation. "The estate" of these "was such as they 
 could not bear the loss and damage." They sought to gain 
 their right, first, through "friendly agreement," then through 
 the arbitration of "indifferent citizens." This failing, they 
 " had to seek help of the magistrates." In the process " the 
 Church's right was called in question," and " some certain " 
 were appointed to " answer for the same." At the outset the 
 case was laid before the Burgomasters 'privately, " who laboured 
 by persuasion with our opposites to put the matter to the arbitra- 
 ment of good men chosen by both sides, but they stUl 
 peremptorily refused." Consequently, it went to the judges, 
 who " nominated two indifferent men to hear the case." They 
 did this twice, " under penalty the second time " ; but " our 
 opposites held out," and " pleaded that they which build on 
 another man's ground are by law to lose their building." The 
 plea could have no force because the so-called owner of the 
 ground was simply "one man (now among them, i.e., the 
 Franciscans), whose name was used but in trust " at the time 
 of purchase. At length, therefore, Johnson with his flock 
 found themselves homeless. 
 
 Nor did the troubles of the " ancient Church " end here. 
 There was, for example, the revolt of Christopher Lawne, and 
 his set, who were ejected during the last six months of 1611. 
 There was also the " deposition " ^ of Studley, when his 
 unworthiness could no longer be doubted even by a too 
 considerate pastor. Not unnaturally the scene of so much 
 disaster became hateful, and in 1613 Johnson led his dimin- 
 ished and discouraged people to Emden. How he fared 
 
 ' Animadvereion, pp. 2-3. ' 1612. 
 
 17 
 
258 THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 
 
 there we cannot say. But he did not stay long. For in 1617 
 Johnson describes himself ^ as " Pastor of the ancient English 
 Church now sojourning at Amsterdam." This was his last 
 stage. He was only fifty-five^ but, worn and weary, he 
 died in the January following. Of the people some re- 
 joined Ainsworth.2 The greater number "prepared for to 
 go to Virginia." They put themselves under the care of 
 their elder, Francis Blackwell, who played them false. Our 
 last glimpse of him and them^ is in the mid- Atlantic, on 
 a ship, "packed like herrings," with 180 persons. North- 
 west winds drive the ship out of its course. Dearth and 
 dysentery are on board. The " master of the ship " dies, " some 
 six of the mariners " die, 130 of the passengers also die. 
 Blackwell is among them and most of his company. So ended 
 one remnant of the " ancient " and once flourishing Church. 
 
 As to Ainsworth he had yet some five more years in which 
 to go on "teaching" his people in the recovered "old meeting- 
 house." These last years were comparatively free from the 
 disputes which he loathed, and could be devoted to the Biblical 
 study which he loved. The "Book of Psalms — Bnghshed both 
 in prose and metre " — with annotations * ; annotations on the 
 Five Books of Moses ^ ; an edition of " Solomon's Song of 
 Songs in English metre," were all the product of his last ten 
 years. In such " profitable labours " he immersed himself ; 
 and, as a consequence, suffered from " continued infirmity " of 
 body. He died at the end of 1622, or the beginning of 1623. 
 The traditional story of his violent end by poison at the hand 
 of Jews has been exploded." The real cause of death was a 
 "fit of gravel," "a disease brought on or aggravated by 
 sedentary work." 
 
 1 Title-page of his last book, "A » In five vols., 1616, 1617, 1618, 1619. 
 
 Christian Plea," 1617. '^ In Mr. Ernest Axon's " H. Ains- 
 
 '^ It may be noted that Richard worth : His Birthplace and His 
 
 Clyfton, their own teacher, died in Death," — reprinted, with additions, 
 
 1616. from the National Dictionar.y of Bio- 
 
 ■' Bradford's Chronicles (Young, graphy in a small volume entitled, 
 
 pp. 70-73). " Henry Ainsworth, the Pui-itan com- 
 
 •■ 1612. mentator" (Manchester, 1889). 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 259 
 
 John Canne — who became the third pastor of the church 
 founded by Henry Jacob at Southwark, and, subsequently, 
 pastor of the Broadmead Baptist Church at Bristol — succeeded 
 him, and was pastor still in 1634, when he printed his 
 " Necessity of Separation." What befell the Church after he 
 left is not clear. But it kept up some sort of distinct orga- 
 nisation till 1701, and then what remained of it became 
 merged in the Scotch Presbyterian Church, which originated 
 in 1607 and has continued in the city to this day. 
 
 John Eobinson's stern letter of September, 1624,^ to 
 the Church at Amsterdam, entitled "An. Appeal on Truth's 
 Behalf," was meant for Ainsworth's congregation, and proves 
 that a bad spirit developed itself swiftly as soon as he 
 was gone. The bad spirit must still have held possession, to 
 some extent, in 1630, when there came out " Certain Notes of 
 Mr. Henry Aynsworth his last sermon. Taken by pen in the 
 publique deUvery by one of his flock,- a little before his death. 
 Anno 1622. Published now at last by the said writer as a 
 love-token of remembrance to his brethren, to inkindle their 
 affections to prayer, that scandalls (of manie years' con- 
 tinuance) may be removed, that are barrs to keep back manie 
 godly, wise, and judicious from us, whereby we might grow to 
 further perfection again." The text is 1 Peter ii. 4 — " Unto 
 ■ whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with 
 God elect, precious." 
 
 Altogether this record of the first sustained experiment in 
 the application of " Free Church principles " leaves a melan- 
 
 ' Works III., p. 387/. next we come across him he is in the 
 2 The Preface is si^ed Sabin Counter Prison, Wood Street, Sep- 
 Starsmore. He and his wife had been tember, 1618, through the treachery- 
 members of Mr. Jacob's church at of Blaokwell. Then we learn that he 
 Southwark. They were transferred to and his wife bad been received into 
 Eobinson's church, somewhat to the Ainsworth's church, and as this aer- 
 surprise of the old London church. mou shows he was alive in 1630 and 
 Sabin, the husband, figures as the still in Amsterdam. See Eobinson, 
 bearer of letters from Robinson and Works III., p. 384 ; Arber, pp. 292-5 ; 
 Brewster to Sir John Wolstenhobne, Bradford, p. 73. 
 January and February, 1618. When 
 
260 THE AMSTBEDAM CHURCH. 
 
 choly impression. Well might Ainsworth exclaim, " We desire 
 the Christian reader not to be offended at the truth because of 
 our infirmities who cannot walk in it as we ought; nor to 
 stimible for the troubles and dissensions which Satan raiseth 
 among God's people." 
 
 But let us gather the lessons of it from the wise words of 
 Robinson : — 
 
 "As Paul complaineth that sin, taking occasion by the 
 law, wrought in him all manner of concupiscence, so, indeed, 
 hath the malice of Satan and man's corruption taken 
 occasion to work much evil of this kind, by sundry good things 
 specially found in the professors of this truth {i.e., the truth of 
 the Separation) ; as, by their knowledge, zeal, and liberty of 
 the Gospel. 
 
 "KJaowledge, saith the apostle, puffeth up, . . . and 
 hence was it that the same church to which he so writes, 
 exceeding other churches in knowledge, are the more in 
 danger of contentions without special knowledge and watch- 
 fulness. Ignorant persons and peoples are for the most 
 part easOy ruled, as being content to trust other men with 
 their faith and religion ; neither was there ever so great peace 
 ill the Christian world, as it is called, as in the deepest darkness 
 of popery. 
 
 Again, " as the greatest zeal for God is rightly found amongst 
 God's people, so is peace and agreement greatly endangered 
 thereby, if it be not tempered with much wisdom, moderation, 
 and brotherly forbearance ; and that they consider not aright 
 that both themselves and others are frail men, and compassed 
 about with much ignorance, and infirmity otherwise ; who are 
 therefore to study, not only how to have that which they like, but 
 also how to bear that in other men (if not intolerable) which 
 they like not ; otherwise, whilst men think by their zeal to warm 
 the house, they will burn it over their own, and other men's 
 heads. 
 
 " And lastly, they only, who enjoy liberty, know how hard 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHPECH. 261 
 
 a thing it is to use aright. And when I see them in England 
 wondering at the dissensions in this way, methinks I see two 
 prisoners, being themselyes fast chained and manacled together 
 by feet and hands, wondering to see that other men, at liberty, 
 walk not closer together than they do. Their thraldom makes 
 them unequal censurers of the abuse of our liberty. How many 
 thousands are there, whose very hearts are fretted with the 
 chains of th^r spiritual bondage ! Yea, how many several 
 factions of ministers are there, whose differences, if by servile 
 fear they were not nipped in the bud, would bring forth no 
 small both dissensions and divisions; as at this day woeful 
 experience teacheth in the reformed churches, whose dissensions 
 do infinitely exceed all that ever have been amongst us ! As 
 ignorance begot, so tyranny maintained the greatest peace and 
 imity when popish iniquity moat prevailed." ^ 
 
 A way of looking at things which is not out of date even 
 yet! 
 
 ' 'Worka, Vol. III., Preface to Eeligioiis Communion, pp. 99-100. 
 
The Question of the Eldership at 
 Amsterdam and Leyden. 
 
THE QUESTION OF THE ELDERSHIP AT 
 AMSTERDAM AND LEYDEN. 
 
 The Amsterdam Church — humanly speaking — was built on. 
 Barrow. In the main it faithfully accepted and practised his 
 views. Its leaders quoted him largely, and always with the defer- 
 ence due to an authoritatire teacher. When, for example, Henry 
 Jacob tried ^ to make a point by adducing Barrow (and also 
 Penry) as more charitable than Johnson in his judgment of the 
 English Church, the latter simply declares that Jacob is either 
 ignorant or disingenuous. For Johnson's principle is that the 
 maintenance and teaching of some " excellent truths " is not 
 enough to make members of the English Church true Christians 
 so long as they hold and teach them in a false church estate. 
 This was Barrow's principle, - " He testified unto death and 
 sealed with his blood that you all stand in anti-Christian 
 estate " ; so too did " Penry in the same year." 
 
 It might, indeed, easily be shown that for some years the 
 Amsterdam Church heard little or nothing from their pastor 
 and teacher which Barrow would have repudiated. A clear proof 
 of this is furnished by their Articles and Confessions of Faith, 
 first published in 1596. In 1604, the date of their Apology, 
 the case remained the same — though a certain modification )f 
 opinion with regard to the Lord's Prayer is noticeable.' 
 
 As time went on, however, Johnson drew ofB from his 
 former strict adherence to Barrow and from some of his own 
 earlier positions. 
 
 A list of his aberrations, oi', as they are called, 
 
 ' A Defence of the Churches and ' See Article nine, " that the Lord's 
 
 Ministry of England (1599). Prayer and the liturgy of His own Tea ta- 
 
 " Johnson's "Answer," pp. 177-8. ment might be used, but no other." 
 
266 THE AMSTERDAM CHURCH. 
 
 " articles of his creed forsaken by Mr. Johnson," is given 
 by Ainsworth.i 
 
 The standard to which the latter refers is the Confession of 
 Paith, compared with " Our Apology." 
 
 From this it appears that Johnson now^ denies that (1) 
 " Every church or congregation hath power to elect and ordain 
 "their own ministry, and upon desert again to depose — yea, and 
 ■excommunicate them " ; or (2) " that the power to receive in or 
 cut ofP any member is given to the whole body together of 
 every Christian congregation "; or (3) "that the hierarchy of 
 archbishops, lord bishops, priests, &c., are a strange and anti- 
 Christian ministry and oificers — not instituted by Christ's Testa- 
 ment nor placed in or over His Church " ; or (4) that the 
 " ecclesiastical assemblies " of the English Church " cannot be 
 esteemed true visible churches " ; or (5) that " all such as have 
 received any of those false offices (of lord bishops, priests, &c.) 
 are to give over and leave them " when they come " to our 
 faith and Church " ; or (6) that a church consists of those who 
 " willingly join together in Christian communion and orderly 
 covenant"; or (7) "that a people so joined together may pro- 
 ceed to choose and ordain their officers " ; or (8) that the 
 Popish Church being a false Church, its sacraments are like- 
 wise false, and so it is necessary for those who leave it to be 
 Tebaptized. We might hence be inclined to say that Johnson 
 has " recanted " altogether. But this would be hasty. John- 
 son himseE still claimed to be a consistent Separatist. On the 
 four cardinal points of worship, ministry, discipline, and 
 membership, he still maintained that the English Chm-ch was 
 anti-Christian. He did so to the end, as his last book, a 
 " Christian Plea," ^ clearly proves. He has, however, become 
 decidedly more Presbyterian. It was Presbyterian to say 
 [according to (1) and (7) ] that " a congregation without 
 
 ' In his " Animadversion," quoted ^ igio. 
 
 (in full) by Lawne, " Profane SoMsm," ^ iqi^ j^ jg ^gji ^^ ^^(.3 j-jj^j. ^j^g 
 
 pp. 78-9, from a private document, bo " Plea " therefore marks no sudden or 
 
 Ainsworth complains. even quite recent change. 
 
THE AMSTBEDAM CHURCH. 267 
 
 ministers cannot elect and ordain officers " ; or, that one pre- 
 viously ordained by a bishop need not be re-ordained [the 
 ground of (5) and (3) ] ; or, that the Eomish baptism was a 
 true sacrament, and so the Eomish Church, in this respect, as 
 well as its daughter the English Church, was not " apostate " 
 [which accounts for (4) and (8) ] ; or that baptism, rather than 
 conversion and voluntary covenant, was a sufficient condition 
 of chm-ch fellowship [which explains (6) ] . His change, how- 
 ever, in the direction of Presbyterianism is most marked in 
 the matter of the eldership. 
 
 Curiously enough, Johnson himself was unconscious, or 
 professed to be unconscious, of change. But Ainsworth could 
 refer him to his own words in a former writing,^ viz. : — 
 
 " A company of faithful people (though considered apart 
 by themselves they be private men, yet) being gathered 
 together in the name of Christ and joined together in fellow- 
 ship of His Gospel, they are a public body, a church, a city and 
 kingdom, and that of Jesus Christ, who is present among 
 them to guide, bless, and confirm what they do on earth in 
 His name and by His power. So that like as in a city the 
 citizens — considered apart are private members — yet jointly 
 together are the corporation and public body of that town : so 
 is it also in the Chm-ch of Christ, whether it consist of more 
 or of fewer, yea, though they be but two or three, so as they 
 be joined together in the communion of the Gospel, and 
 gathered together in the name of Jesus Christ, as before is 
 said." Ainsworth quotes this in answer to what he considers the 
 amazing statement that a Church cannot he without its officers, 
 and that it is impossible to find in Scripture any witness to the 
 contrary. Truly, thinks Ainsworth, Johnson and his followers 
 have " lost that which they (once) had found, and let them 
 take heed lest for not keeping it God deprive them of finding 
 it any more." - 
 
 ' His commentary (1595) on Arthur 
 Hildersham's " Treatise of the Minis- ^ His " Animadversion," pp. 47-8. 
 
 try," pp. 63-4. 
 
268 THE AMSTEEDAM CHURCH. 
 
 Ainsworth's own view of what he deems the right 
 "ancient" faith is this: — i"Men come unto Christ by 
 belief; are joined unto Him and one to another by mutual 
 covenant. The ministers of Christ are as builders of the 
 House — by preaching the Gospel (and) laying first the 
 foundation, Christ. Then upon Him, Christian people (are) 
 God's building. But if (as often cometh to pass) the builders 
 do refuse, yet the Lord without them putteth Christ for Head 
 of the comer, and causeth the faithful to come unto Him, 
 and maketh them His spiritual House to dwell in them, whose 
 House they continue to be, not (by) having officers alway among 
 them, but by holding fast their confidence and rejoicing of hope 
 imto the end." Does he, then, depreciate the officers or 
 elders ? By no means. " The elders," he says,^ " by directing 
 the Church in the right way are as eyes to the body; by 
 administering the sacraments and censures they are as hands ; 
 when they are sent on the Church's messages they are as feet ; 
 when they reprove sins they are as the mouth ; when they are 
 reproved for their sins they should be as ears ; and so other 
 Christians in their places and employments. And as God hath 
 bestowed His graces upon any, so is He to be regarded of all 
 without respect of persons. Neither should the elders be 
 minded hke Achitophel, and take it ill if at any time their 
 counsel be not followed." 
 
 We have not space to state Johnson's position in detail. 
 Suffice it to say that he took his stand, with the Presbyterians 
 generally, on Matthew xviii. 17. As Ainsworth says : " For the 
 Church's power now in controversy only Matthew xviii. 17 is 
 dealt with by our opponents." And we can judge of Johnson's 
 divergence from the Separatist standpoint, as well as of that 
 standpoint itself, by his list of " Divers errors, abuses, and 
 erroneous courses that by divers (viz., Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. 
 Robinson, Mr. Jacob, Mr. Smith) have been gathered, received, 
 pleaded for, and urged earnestly " about this matter.^ 
 
 ' His " Animadveraion," pp. 47-8. the Reformed Churches with whom 
 
 " Ditto, p. 41. myself agree in the Faith of the 
 
 ^ " A Christian Plea . . . touching Gospel, &c.," pp. 306-16. 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHURCH. 269 
 
 He enumerates thirty-six, of which the most relevant to 
 our purpose are these : — 
 
 2. That "an elder cannot with good conscience govern 
 and perform his duty in a Church that is persuaded so to walk " 
 — i.e., persuaded that the Church of Matt, xviii. 17 may be 
 understood of the eldership. (His conscience will suffer from 
 ihe temptation to tyrannise ?) 
 
 5. That " the people are to have voices in excommunica- 
 tions, and in judging of causes and persons " — as in election ot 
 their officers. 
 
 6. That "in a controversy the sentence is to go out 
 according to the number of the voices of the greater part of 
 the people, though all the elders and other brethren be against 
 them." 
 
 7. That ^'the greater pai-t is the Church" in such a case, 
 " although they be in error and though all the elders and other 
 brethren be against them herein." 
 
 8. That the members of any one Church are to have voices 
 in every Church where they come, in the elections and ex- 
 communications, &c. 
 
 9. That the government is popular by the multitude. 
 
 10. That the elders may not admonish a sinner, though 
 obstinate in transgression (whereupon to proceed against him), 
 without first taking the people's consent so to admonish and 
 proceed with him. 
 
 14. That the people now are answerable to the elders of 
 Israel then. (This can only mean, as Barrow and Ainsworth 
 said, that as the ultimate power lay once with the elders, now it 
 lies with the people themselves.) 
 
 15. That cases of sin and controversy between man and 
 man are to be heard and judged by the Church on the Lord's 
 Day, and as a part of Grod's worship. . . . 
 
 16. That the Church's government is not aristocratical. 
 
 17. That the elders may not hear and determine the cases 
 aforesaid unless the people be present, although the parties and 
 
270 THE AMSTEEDAM CHCJECH. 
 
 witnesses be there ready to have their matters heard and 
 judged. 
 
 21. That the people are the rulers properly and the 
 governors of the elders. 
 
 26. That the order of saints or saintship in the Church is 
 an order superior unto and above the order of officers,, or of 
 bishopric or eldership. 
 
 27. That the order of saints is an order of kings (which is 
 the highest order in the Church) sitting upon the throne of 
 David for judgment. 
 
 28. That suspension is a corruption and device of man. 
 '31. That no good writers use the word "ecclesia " for the 
 
 congregation of elders. 
 
 35. That seeing the elders are not called "Archontes" 
 (rulers) in all the New Testament, therefore they are not to 
 rule the Church of G-od. 
 
 36. That if the elders be stewards only over the servants, 
 and not lords over the wise [i.e., the Church), then is not the 
 Church to obey or submit unto them. 
 
 " These and other like errors, false doctrines, and sinful 
 courses have been conceived and urged (says Johnson) . . . not 
 all by any one, but some by one, some by others, their tongues 
 being exceedingly divided among themselves about these things. 
 By which also may appear how needful it is to search out 
 the meaning of this Scripture, and carefully observe it, still 
 looking unto Israel and the right understanding thereof what 
 we can. And this the more, considering that some^ are so very 
 peremptory and stiffly conceited in their opinions concerning 
 these things as (that) they fear not to make schismatical 
 divisions and notorious scandals thereabout, contrary to the 
 doctrine which we have learned of the prophets and apostles. 
 Eor which cause they are to be marked and avoided of all that 
 love the truth and seek their conversion and amendment." 
 
 Meanwhile Ainsworth, on his side, looked upon Johnson 
 ' A marginal note indicates " some " to mean " Mr. Ainsworth and his followers." 
 
THE AMSTERDAM CHURCH. 271 
 
 and his abettors as making " common cause with our adver- 
 saries " (Mr. Some, Mr. GifPord, Mr. Bernard). And would that 
 he could " reduce them again into the right way " ! For " their 
 straying from it is a reproach to the world, a scandal to the 
 weak, dangerous to their own soul, and to me most dolorous. 
 And my soul shall weep in secret for them, remembering our 
 former amity and concord in the truth."^ One cannot but sym- 
 pathise with Ainsworth. For the issue was not a slight one. 
 It involved, and still involves, the very being of a Congre- 
 gational Church. 
 
 While, however, anxiously guarding, Ainsworth is careful 
 to limit, the power of the people. This is a point to be noted. 
 Bernard had imputed it as an " error " to the " Brownists " 
 that they say " the power of Christ — i.e., authority to preach, 
 to administer the sacraments, and to exercise the censures of 
 the Church — belongeth to the whole Church, yea, to every one 
 of them, and not to the principal members thereof." He calls 
 this "the A B C of Brownism." Ainsworth thinks it may be 
 put rather " in the cress-cross row of Bernardism."^ For 
 Bernard himself is " the first that I ever heard to utter such a 
 position." But he has mistaken the matter. " Christ's ruling 
 power, which the Papists say is in the Pope, we say not (as this 
 man calumniateth us) that it is in the body of the congrega- 
 tion, . . . nor that it is in the prelates, . . . nor (as the 
 Puritans) that it is in the presbytery, . . . but that it is 
 in Christ Himself." " The Word of God," indeed, " is given to 
 all and every member of the Church to read and exercise 
 privately ; but publicly — in the Church — there is a double use 
 (of it) in prophesy and in of&ce (as the apostle distinguisheth, 
 Rom. xii. 6, 7). The office of teaching is laid upon some few, 
 
 1 " Animadversion to Mr. Eichard intituled ' The Separatist Schisme ' " 
 
 Clyfton's advertisement," 1613 — — 1608. Bernard's reply — " directed 
 
 Preface. against Mr. Ainsworth, the Separatist, 
 
 ^ Ainsworth's " Counterpoyson," pp. and Mr. Smyth, the se-Baptist " — 
 
 1*74-5. This consists of three parts, drew forth John Robinson's largest 
 
 of which part ii, (153-200 pp.) is "a work, " A Justification of Separation," 
 
 brief answer to Mr. Bernard's book 1610. 
 
272 THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 
 
 chosen and ordained thereunto. In this office may no man 
 intrude, or usurp it, without a lawful calling."^ " Teaching in 
 ihe way of prophecy (1 Cor. xiv.) is absolutely unlawful for all 
 women in the Church ; but men, so many as have the gift and 
 ability from God, may all prophesy one by one."^ Again, "that 
 authority to administer the sacraments should belong to every 
 one of the Church we utterly deny. ... In our confes- 
 sion' he could not but see (unless he winked) this plainly 
 expressed : no sacraments to be administered until the pastor, 
 or teachers, be chosen and ordained unto their office." So, 
 once more, " that everyone hath authority to exercise the cen- 
 sures of the Church we also deny ; but hold that every member 
 hath authority to rebuke his brother for sin ; and if he repent 
 to forgive him ; if not, to take witnesses ; if yet he repent 
 not, to tell it to the Church, which Church hath Christ's 
 power to judge all within the Church, and cast out from among 
 them all wicked men. Now that everyone hath not this 
 power, nor yet any member or members apart, we have 
 plainly signified in our confession." . . . "So then for 
 popular government (which Mr. Bernard would traduce us by), 
 we hold it not, we approve it not; for if the multitude 
 govern, who shall be governed ? Christian liberty (which all 
 have, 1 Cor. vii. 23 ; Gal v. 1), is one thing, the reins of 
 government (which some have, 1 Cor xii. 28), is another 
 thing." In fine, the Church elects its officers and controls 
 their conduct by its free vote ; but, once elected, it acts 
 through them, yielding at the same time to their judgment all 
 due observance. But the mainspring of power for people and 
 officers alike is in the living presence of Christ. This is 
 exactly the teaching of Barrow.* 
 
 If Ainsworth reflects that teaching most clearly and 
 
 ' See "Confession of Faith," Articles worth refers here to Barrow's "Dis- 
 
 19,20,21. covery, &c." He mentions also Henry 
 
 ^ "Confession," Article 34. Jacob, one of Mr. Bernard's "fellow 
 
 ' „ „ 24. ministers," as writing "much more 
 
 •• "Counterpoyson," p. 178. Ains- soundly " on this point. 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHURCH. 273 
 
 fully, the man, perhaps, who comes next to him in this respect 
 is Eobinson. It does not fall within my scope to do so, else 
 it were interesting to trace with what entire consent Eobinson 
 takes up and reaffirms Barrow's positions one after another. 
 Even in tone he often echoes him. Like Barrow, he does not 
 mince his words when there seems occasion for plain speaking. 
 He cares nothing that he may he called a " railer and 
 scoifer." Nay, he defends Barrow himself, on this score, 
 with as much heartiness as does Ainsworth. When Mr. 
 Bernard, full of pious horror, produces a list of Mr. 
 Barrow's blasphemies,^ Eobinson passes the Hst in review, 
 and justifies every item of it. Like Mr. Ainsworth, he " will 
 not- justify all the words of another man, nor yet mine 
 own " ; but like Mr. Smyth, " because he knew not by what 
 particular motion of the Spirit Barrow was guided to write 
 those phrases he dare not censure him." And is not the 
 following quite in Barrow's manner ? — " For your very divine 
 exercises of prayer, preaching, sacraments, and singing of 
 Psalms, howsoever they be good and holy in themselves or, 
 at least, have much good in them, yet in respect of the un- 
 hallowed communion, forged ministry, and superstitious order 
 wherein these and all other things with you are ministered 
 and exercised, they are liable to the heaviest censure Mr, 
 Barrow hath put upon them. And for the most forward 
 preachers in the kingdom — considering their luisound and 
 broken courses in denying that in deed and practice which 
 in word and writing they profess to be the revealed will 
 of God and inviolable Testament of Christ binding His 
 Church for ever, yea, and practising the contrary in the 
 face of the sun (hindering them that would, persecuting 
 them that do, defending themselves imconscionably) — " they 
 do deserve a sharper medicine than haply they are willing to 
 endure."^ 
 
 ' Quoted in Robinson's Works, Vol. ^ Quoted in Robinson's Works, Vol. 
 
 II., p. 90 ft. II., p. 93. 
 
 18 
 
274 THE AMSTEEDAM CHURCH, 
 
 Robinson, then, no less than Ainsworth was, if not 
 a disciple, yet an admirer and adherent of Barrow. I cannot 
 recall anything in which he differed from him down to the year 
 1610; and, least of all, did he differ from him or Ainsworth in 
 his view of the eldership. Mr. Bernard in the " Separatists 
 schism " laid down the Puritan exposition of Matthew 
 xviii. 16 — that the church there means the elders — with the 
 utmost assurance; and Robinson in his reply (1610) felt the 
 point to be so important that he dealt with it exhaustively 
 under twelve heads. Robinson's work came into the hands of 
 Johnson, and made him angry. Especially did he resent what 
 Robinson emphasized as most important — namely, " that the 
 order of officers in the Church is an order of servants, and 
 the order of saints an order of kings," and that the latter, 
 therefore, is superior to the f ormer.i In his " Answer touching 
 the Division" (1611) between him and Ainsworth — Johnson 
 drew special attention to this as something new and 
 ^monstrous. For, says he,- "whereas we had learned and 
 ;professed that Christ was the only King and Lord of His 
 ■Church, and had left unto it among men but a ministerial 
 government, and that all the multitude of the members, the 
 saints, ought to obey and submit to the eldership in 
 ■ every Church: now we have lately been taught, that the 
 people as kings have power one over another, and that 
 the saints, being kings, are superior to their officers, 
 tbecause the order of kings is the highest order in the 
 ■Church, &c." Robinson's reply — elicited, and afterwards 
 published, by Ainsworth ^ — was to the effect, briefly, that 
 -Johnson had shifted the point, and perverted his meaning. The 
 question was " about the power," not " about the government 
 and guidance of the Church in the use of this power." The 
 latter Robinson acknowledges is "peculiar to the officers," 
 but the former is " common to all." The distinction is a very 
 
 ' Works, Vol. II., p. 228 ff. ^ jn jj^g "Animadversion, &o.," pp. 
 
 2 Page 27. 111-117. 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 275 
 
 important one — is, indeed, " the main ground of om* con- 
 troversy." It may be illustrated, for example, from the pro- 
 cedure of the " civil government of our own land." "When a 
 malefactor comes to be arraigned at the assizes or sessions 
 he is to be tried by his country . . . which they call 
 the jury, whose power and sentence is of such force as 
 that the Lord Chief Justice himself, and all the Bench 
 with him, cannot proceed against it, either for the quitting or 
 condemning of the person ; and yet the Bench governeth the 
 whole action, and the jury is by them, according to law, to be 
 governed." The Bench here stands for the elders, the jury for 
 the Chiu-ch. And, adds Eobinson, " I wish the elders with 
 whom we have to do would allow the body of the Church 
 the like liberty at their sitting, as they call it, that is, at 
 their spiritual sessions ; or, rather, that they would better 
 consider that they are as ministers to stand and serve, 
 and not as lords to sit and judge." Further, he would have 
 it understood that nowhere does he affirm — as Johnson 
 " chargeth " him — " that the people are kings, or as kings, 
 one over another." What he has said is that "the saints 
 are not kings for themselves alone, but for their brethren 
 also ; as they are not priests only for themselves, but for 
 their brethren . . . much less " are they kings " over the 
 officers, for government, in the external policy of the Church." 
 " The plain and simple truth, then," is " that we call the saints 
 kings " merely " as they are partakers of Christ's kingly 
 anointing, by His Spirit, common to the head and the 
 members, and so kings by participation, and endowed with 
 kingly power for the conquering and subduing of the power 
 of sin and Satan, not only in themselves, but in their 
 brethren also, by the sword of the Spirit, the Word of 
 God, which they are to minister unto them, as all other 
 srraces in their order." 
 
 This was the last interference on Eobinson's part in the 
 controversy. It was a most reluctant interference. But he 
 
276 THE AMSTERDAM CHUECH. 
 
 could not well help himself.^ At an early stage in the 
 " uncomfortable business " some thirty members of the 
 Amsterdam Church who differed from Johnson wrote re- 
 questing help from the Church at Ley den. They gave as 
 a reason that "Mr. Ainsworth was so sparing in opposing 
 Mr. Johnson's new doctrine (though always disliking it) 
 . . ." and " so loath to come to any professed and public 
 opposition with him," partly because "he rather hoped to 
 pacify " him " by moderation " ; partly, too, because he feared 
 "to give any encouragement to the too violent oppositions 
 of some " on his own side. The help requested was that 
 the Leyden Church should send delegates to consider the 
 matter and give counsel. This they were not unwilling to 
 do, but first thought it well that the whole Church at Amster- 
 dam should know the substance of what had been written to 
 them, and that the whole Church should invite them. No, 
 said the Church, ' we do not approve your coming though we 
 may permit it, and meanwhile we wish to see an exact copy of 
 the letter you have received from the thirty.' There was a 
 phrase, however, in the letter — Judges v. 23^ — " which, applied 
 as it was, might give offence." So an exact copy was refused 
 until — refusal only leading to " oft and earnest " demands — it 
 seemed better " for their importunity " and for the ends in 
 view to grant it. In the end delegates came' — permitted " as 
 men use to permit that which is evil and which, indeed, they 
 could not hinder." After hearing the case, delivering their 
 Church's message, and reproving ("with some vehemency") 
 what they judged evil on both sides, but specially on the side 
 of those " with whom we agreed in the things " controverted, the 
 result reached was (" on the motion of Mr. Johnson ") that such 
 members as could not walk with them " in peace of conscience — 
 
 ' See "The Testimony of the they came not to the help of the 
 
 Elders of the Church at Leyden." Lord, to the help of the Lord against 
 
 Robinson's Works, Vol. III., pp. 470-5, the mighty." 
 
 quoted also by Ainsworth in his ^ Mr. Eobinson being the chief of 
 
 " AnimadTersion," pp. 133-6. the messengers sent. — Bradford's 
 
 - " Curse ye Meroz . . . because Dialogue, p. 416. 
 
THEJAMSTEEDAM CHUEOH. 277 
 
 there lying no otlier^ cause against them " — should be freely 
 demitted (or transferred) to the Leyden Church, and vice versa. 
 This motion, it would seem, embodied the message of the 
 Leyden Church. The members of the Amsterdam Church 
 " received it with general assent " ; on the return of its dele- 
 gates the Leyden Church ratified it ; and, news of this being 
 sent to Amsterdam, the Chui-ch there confii-med it " a second 
 time." Thus Eobinson hoped that a way of peace, if not an 
 ideal way, had been found. 
 
 But it soon turned out otherwise. The Amsterdam 
 Church amiounced a change of mind, and that a new motion 
 had come to the front, a motion "to permit of a double 
 practice among us, that those that are minded either way 
 should keep a like course together, as we would do if we 
 were asunder, according as the persons shall be that have the 
 causes."^ The Leyden Church resented such action as a breach 
 of the agreement, "which we did and do repute as full and 
 absolute." And as for the new motion, "we do not see how 
 it can stand either with our peace or itself ; but that it will not 
 only nourish, but even necessarily beget, endless contentions 
 when men diversely minded shall have business in the Church." 
 There is, however, a middle way which might be held, " namely, 
 that the matter of offence might first be brought for order, 
 preparation, and prevention of unnecessary trouble unto the 
 elders, as the Church governors . . . ; and after, if things 
 be not there ended, to the Church of elders and brethren, there 
 to be judged on some ordinary known day ordinarily, the 
 admonition being carried according to the alteration practised 
 and agreed upon by all parts. . . ."^ It is interesting to 
 find that this was the course actually taken at Leyden. Eor — 
 Eobinson and Brewster say — " so far as we remember, there 
 never came complaint of sin to the Church since we were officers 
 
 1 Letter of Church at Amsterdam'^to ' Letter of Church at Leyden to 
 
 Levden Nov 5, 1610. Amsterdam, Nov. 14, 1610. — Eobin- 
 
 son's Works, Vol. III., pp. 467-8. 
 
278 THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 
 
 but we took knowledge of it before, either by mutual consent 
 on both sides, or, at least, by the party accused."^ 
 But in so doing they appear to have acted on their own 
 discretion. " We do not bind our brethren." If the Church 
 objected they would not persist, and as a matter of fact when 
 it came up before the " brethren " (doubtless at Eobinson and 
 Brewster's instance) as a middle and reasonable way which 
 might be suggested to the Amsterdam Church, and formally 
 adopted by themselves, there was some demur. " It is like," 
 says their letter, " we for our parts shall not so practise in this 
 particular." A iiash of light surely on the jealous care with 
 which the members generally guarded their "rights" even 
 against leaders so trusted and loved as Brewster and Eobinson. 
 The suggestion came to nothing. In their reply the 
 Amsterdam Church say, "the brethren differing from us 
 {i.e., Ainsworth's party) . . . will not yield to that 
 middle course propounded in your letter." Nor will they 
 " admit of " the proposed " double practice." La fact, they 
 suspected (with good reason) that compliance would risk a 
 surrender of the principle whose purity they felt bound to 
 maintain." 
 
 Eobinson said no more. He lost all hope of doing good. 
 His sympathies went entirely with Ainsworth — especially 
 when the Johnsonians spoke of ceasing from "spiritual 
 communion with him and his " — i.e., of excommunication ; 
 spoke also of objecting to any of them who might be 
 "demitted" to the Leyden Church being allowed to return 
 and settle beside their former brethren even in the same 
 city. He lamented the want of charity more than he deplored 
 the absence of sound judgment on Johnson's part. For it made 
 a return to kindly relations almost impossible : as he had " put 
 them in mind," a "peaceable parting" leaves the door open to 
 reunion, but " extreme straitness " now may bring abiding 
 
 Eobinson's Works, pp. 473-4. = "vporks, Vol. III., pp. 469. The 
 
 "Animadversion," pp. 126-128. 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 279 
 
 alienation, besides making "themselves, yea, and us all, a 
 byword to the whole world." 
 
 Eobinson sought and pursued peace more and more as the 
 years went by. He never came to question whether he had 
 done right to separate from the Church of England. His 
 "just and necessary apology, &c.," published so late as 1619, is 
 proof enough of that ; for here all the main points of his 
 earlier plea are distinctly restated and upheld. But he 
 grew weary of negation, of contending about the things 
 he did not believe. He longed to discover points of 
 commimion rather than points of repulsion. He would fain 
 draw far away from those who "make their dififerences as 
 great, and the adverse opinion or practice as odious as they can, 
 thereby to further their desired victory over them, and to harden 
 their side against them." He had known too many of this 
 type in Amsterdam. He felt, on the other hand, an increasing 
 joy in being among those who " seek how and where they may 
 find any lawfiol door of entry into accord and agreement with 
 others." 
 
 He was always in favour of private communion with 
 godly members of the Church of England, herein difEering 
 from A in s worth. One of his correspondents, the Puritan 
 Dr. Ames,! " learned Amesius," charged him with the 
 contrary, and he admits that he had not always been 
 consistent. He tells us that all the while he abode in 
 England he himself and the people with him — generally — 
 understood their separation to be only " from communion in 
 the public worship, and administrations there," and "in 
 this persuasion " never gave up " private communion." ^ 
 He gave it up for a time afterwards, "finding them of 
 other Churches with whom he was most nearly joined otherwise 
 
 ' See Letters in Eobinson's Works, or opening the Scriptures, and hearing 
 
 Vol. III., pp. 85-89. them so read or opened, either in a 
 
 ^ i.e., "Private prayer, thanksgiv- family or elsewhere, without any 
 
 ing, and singing of psalms, profession Church power or ministry coming 
 
 of faith, and confession of sins, reading between."— "Works III., p. 104. 
 
280 THE AMSTERDAM CHUECH. 
 
 minded for the most part. He gave it up through his vehement 
 desire of peace, and weakness withal." He went so far even 
 as to persuade himself, and argue against it. But he was 
 therein "far from that certainty of persuasion which he had 
 and has of the common grounds of the separation." Hence it 
 came to pass that three years after Dr. Ames's letter — which 
 may very likely have occasioned him more earnest thought than 
 ever on the subject — we find him with mind and heart, where 
 his heart has always been, on the side of charity. He is 
 convinced, and says so, "that we who profess a separation 
 from the English national, provincial, diocesan, and parochial 
 Church and Churches, in the whole formal state and order 
 thereof, may, notwithstanding, lawfully communicate in 
 private prayer, and other the like holy exercises (not per- 
 formed in their Church communion nor by their Church 
 power and ministry), with the godly amongst them, though 
 remaining, of infirmity, members of the same Church, or 
 Churches, except some other extraordinary bar come in 
 the way between them and us."^ He is sure, moreover, 
 that in favouring such communion neither does he " oppose " 
 any " article of our confession," nor does he act contrary 
 to the spirit of Barrow, and others. Thus " Mr. H. Barrow 
 in the letter written a little before his death ... to an 
 honourable lady yet living, as he acknowledgeth her in her 
 own person to have been educated and exercised in the faith 
 and fear of God, so professeth he further, that he gladly 
 embraceth and believeth the common faith received and 
 professed in the land as good and sound ; that he had 
 reverend estimation of sundry, and good hope of many hundred 
 thousands in the land, though he utterly disliked the present 
 constitution of the Church." To the like effect is the 
 "testimony" of the authors of the "Apology"; and so 
 Penry in the " Confession " sent forth " a little before his 
 execution." This is not to say, of course, that these leaders 
 1 Works, Vol. III., p. 105. 
 
THE AMSTERDAM CHURCH. 281 
 
 of the separation did what Robinson commends, but only that 
 their words may be taken to warrant it.^ For, though " out- 
 ward ordinances" are much. Christian character is more; 
 and we must not so " please ourselves in " the former as 
 to suppose that "in them piety and religion" do "chiefly 
 consist." "The grace of faith in Christ, and the fear of 
 God, the continual renewing of our repentance, with love, 
 mercy, humility, together with fervent prayer and hearty 
 thanksgiving unto God, for His unspeakable goodness, are 
 the things wherein especially we must serve God." "And 
 if God will be known, and honoured in all His creatures, 
 yea, even, in the silliest worm that crawleth upon the 
 earth, how much more in the holy graces of His Spirit 
 vouchsafed to His elect, notwithstanding their failings of 
 infirmity, especially in outward ordinances." We must 
 beware, then, of over-valuing these, " howsoever great in them- 
 selves " — a danger to which we are the more liable, *"' consider- 
 ing our persecutions and sufferings for them." - 
 
 Robinson went another step under the lead of charity when 
 he declared for the "lawfulness of hearing ministers of the 
 Church of England." Paget in 1618 says-' that he had 
 "tolerated" his fellow-elder, Mr. Brewster, "for this long time" 
 in that practice. His people agreed with him ; for it had ever 
 been his way to repress in them, so far as he could, " all sour 
 zeal against, and peremptory rejection of, such as whose holy 
 graces challenged better use and respect from all Christians." ^ 
 When, therefore, the Church in London wrote to ask if they 
 had " done well in retaining " a young woman whom some 
 fierce spirits would have excommunicated because she had 
 heard sermons in a parish church, although she had done so 
 " without neglect of the Church whereof she was a member," 
 
 ^ Barrow, Penry, Johnson, and Ains- ^ Works, Vol. III., pp. 109, 110. 
 
 worth certainly did not mean to ^ Arrow Against the Separation 
 
 sanction "private communion," even of the Brownists, p. 28. 
 
 with "saints," so long as they re- ■■ Worts, Vol. III., p. 3.53. 
 mained in a false Church. 
 
282 THE AMSTERDAM CHUECH. 
 
 and had at once ceased to do so when forbidden, Robinson 
 carried his whole Church with him in commending their 
 action. 1 
 
 The same letter of inquiry had been received previously 
 by the Amsterdam Church — the result being lively " con- 
 tentions." In fact that Church was concerned, or about to 
 be concerned, with a similar case of its own. Someone, once 
 a member of the London Church, was transferred first to 
 Leyden, and then from there to Amsterdam. While in London 
 the preaching of a parish minister had occasionally attracted 
 him. This becoming known at Amsterdam, immediately led to 
 trouble. What took place may be gathered from Robinson's 
 letter addressed to the Amsterdam Church six months later 
 than the one to the London Church.^ The ofBender was cited 
 before the Church and complaint made against him by the 
 elders. They brought forward no witnesses — though both law 
 and Gospel required the presence of two or three. They 
 proceeded with him rather " by questions and interrogatories, 
 tending to his prejudice." Finally, they cast him out. A 
 minority, however, openly took his side and denounced so 
 " inordinate and lawless " a course, with the result that 
 they also were cast out. Efforts were made to obtain a 
 reversal of the sentence, but were withstood on the ground 
 that as " civil judgments once passed by the judge " are 
 final, so should this be. The majority boasted, in a letter to 
 the Leyden Church, that " they were able to make good then- 
 proceedings before God and men." 
 
 But Robinson was deeply shocked and grieved. He 
 could not find a word to say for them. He lamented 
 especially their ruthless abuse of the Church's last solemn 
 instrument of discipline. In comparing excommunication 
 with the sentence of a civil judge, they have forgotten, 
 he said, "how grievous it was unto the body of you, 
 
 1 Works, Vol. III., p. 382. 2 September 18, 1624. Works, Vol. 
 
 III., pp. 389-93. 
 
THE AMSTERDAM CHURCH. 28? 
 
 and dangerous in itself, when some of place among you, 
 a few years since, would pattern the government of the 
 Church now by the government of the elders of Israel " ; they 
 have forgotten that " in spiritual judgments there is a further 
 thing which the magistrate meddles not with — the repentance 
 of the censured to follow in time, by God's blessing." For 
 " the end of excommunication is not that the person might be 
 excommunicated, but that repentance might follow." And 
 surely in the present case, " considering the ground and 
 carriage of the thing, the number of the persons opposite, and 
 . . . the interest of all other churches in the business " — 
 they might, at least, have been willing to revise their decision. 
 But they are a people who reject all advice " in confidence " of 
 their " own unerring judgment " ; " since the death " of their 
 " wise and modest governors " they have " laden the ordinances 
 of God and the professors of the same " with " scandal and 
 opprobry" in the eyes of all. In this disgrace, the Leyden 
 Church has shared — has, in fact, as the Church "nearliest 
 united unto " them shared iu it very largely. But for the last 
 time ! Henceforth Robinson and his people will cease to 
 trouble them ; they will attempt no further persuasion of those 
 " whose ears prejudice hath stopped " ; they will merely 
 " bewail their state," " which is indeed to be bewailed." 
 
 Robinson died in 1625, but while still full of the distress- 
 caused by this sad story, he penned the Treatise — "found in his 
 study after his decease " — on " the Lawfulness of Hearing of the- 
 ministers in the Church of England." He thinks of three sorts 
 of "opposites" who may read it. First are those "who truly 
 desire and carefully endeavour to have their whole course, both 
 in religion and otherwise, framed by the holy and right seal of 
 the Word of God " ; next are those " whose tender and scrupulous 
 conscience makes them fearful and jealous of everj^thing which 
 hath in it the least appearance or show of evil, lest coming too near 
 it they be defiled by it one way or other." Both these he hopes 
 to persuade, but not the third. For this sort consists of 
 
284 THE AMSTERDAM CHURCH. 
 
 those whom he has " found carried with so excessive admira- 
 tion of some former guides in their course as they think it half 
 heresy to call into question any of their determinations or 
 practices," and of those who . . . "think to cover and 
 palliate their own both grosser and more proper and personal 
 corruptions imder a furious march not only against the failings, 
 but the persons also failing — of infirmity — in matters of church 
 order and oi'dinances." 
 
 The reference is obvious, and may partly explain (together 
 with the avowed reason that "some, though not many," 
 even of the author's own Church, were "contrary-minded 
 to his judgment ") why the finders of the Treatise held it 
 back for nine years. When, however, the same root of 
 bitterness which had poisoned the Amsterdam Church sprang 
 up in Leyden — " four or five " of its members rending the 
 •Church because the rest would not consent to expel " two " 
 brethren who " upon some occasion heard some of the 
 ministers in England preach — it was deemed " high time " for 
 the Treatise to be published.^ And surely such " unused 
 example from the grave " must have been effectual for its 
 purpose ! His beloved people, to so many of whom the memory 
 of his life and words was a sweet and sacred possession, cannot 
 have refused to hear the voice which sounded from " the low, 
 last verge of life " and called them to remember that the " one 
 mystical body of Christ scattered far and wide throughout the 
 world " is more deeply united in " the same faith, hope, spirit, 
 baptism, and Lord " than it is divided by differences of " order 
 and ordinance " ; and that " He who would have us receive the 
 weak in faith, whom God hath received, would not have us 
 refuse the fellowship of Churches in that which is good for any 
 weakness in them of one sort or other." 
 
 ' 1634. Works, Vol. III., pp. 345-378. 
 
Professor Arber and the 
 Amsterdam Church. 
 
PEOFESSOR ARBER AND THE AMSTERDAM 
 
 CHURCH. 
 
 Me. Arbee is a diligent man and a skilful editor. He has 
 edited " 20,000 pages of letterpress," and has done so 
 generally with a sure eye to the points most essential or 
 picturesque. I am only one of many students who feel grate- 
 ful to him for much valuable assistance in threading the 
 maze of our earlier and less known writers. This book,i how- 
 ever, shows that he has attempted too much. He would have 
 his work accepted as "accurate" and "adequate;" as "im- 
 partial yet sympathetic ; " ^ as original, to some extent ; as 
 explosive of " myths ; " and as " a cool-headed rectification of 
 opinions." ^ It is a large claim, and one's instant desire is to 
 find it well foxinded. It would be so delightful to possess a 
 volume with " nothing " in it which one wiU be " hereafter 
 compelled to unlearn," and to " feel sure that, in respect to all 
 its contents," one " is standing on the solid rock of truth." * 
 But, alas ! infallible books are very rare, and Mr. Arber's is 
 not one of them. The very preface gives the reader pause, if 
 he happens to have something more than a "general" knowledge 
 of the subject. On page 3, for example, there is a list of "not 
 a few notable facts " which will be found " in this volume." 
 Perhaps the author does not mean to suggest that these facts 
 are new, in the sense that he is the first to discover them. But 
 if he does he is much deceived. Some of his facts do, indeed, 
 turn out to be discoveries of his own — baseless enough as the 
 
 1 story of the Pilgrim Fathers : as ^ Preface, p. 1. 
 
 Told by Themselves, Their Friends, ^ Preface, p. 3. 
 
 and Their Enemies. 1897. '' Preface, p. 2. 
 
288 THE AMSTERDAM CHURCH. 
 
 sequel will show. As to the rest, " the first three are among- 
 the commonplaces of history ; the payments to "William 
 Brewster as post on the great North road, and the entries in 
 Zachary Clifton's Bible were published by Mr. Hunter in his 
 ' Collections ' as far back as 1854 ; the identification of John 
 Smith, the se-Baptist, with John Smith, of Lincoln, was made 
 many years ago by Professor Scheffer, of Amsterdam," while 
 " the story of the Pilgrim Press at Leyden, and of the hunt 
 after Brewster and Brewer, was given in fullest detail in Sir 
 Dudley Carleton's Letters (1615-1620), and in the State Papers 
 Dom. James I., vol. ex., 1619." These are the words of Dr. 
 John Brown,^ of Bedford, of whose existence Mr. Arber does not 
 seem to be aware — to his own loss. To me, however, the first 
 arresting sentence of the Preface ^ was this : " Especially must 
 Governor Bradford's good-natured and optimistic estimates of 
 the leaders of the English separation in Holland — Johnson, 
 Cljrfton, and Smyth — be considered as incomplete and mislead- 
 ins: for reasons which will be found later on in this book." 
 Turning to these reasons with great expectation, they seemed 
 at first sight rather overwhelming, though even then one felt 
 the absence of that " tabula rasa " ^ state of mind of which 
 Mr. Arber makes his boast. But when these reasons were 
 examined, with the authorities on which they restj their 
 weight began to lessen and ere long to " approach the 
 point of zero." In fact, just here where the author is 
 most confident that he has restored to us a true, however 
 disenchanting, picture, has he succeeded in producing what 
 I do not hesitate to call a caricature. In other words, 
 it is a picture which has a certain resemblance to" the 
 truth, but is hardly less misleading than if it were utterly 
 rmlike. Persons who read his " Story " will gather an idea 
 
 ' In a private letter to the writer. written but popular in form," which 
 
 Dr. Brown's book on the Pilgrim Mr. Arber says " does not exist." 
 
 Fathers was out eighteen months ^ Preface, p. 3. 
 
 before Mr. Arber's, and is just that ■* Preface, p. 5. 
 " adequate " " account, scientifically 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHTJECH. 289 
 
 of the earliest Congregational church about as near the truth 
 as one might get of the early Christians from a perusal 
 of Celsus. It is not that the author consciously distorts the 
 facts. But there are facts which he misses; there are facts 
 which he fails to apprehend ; there are facts which he 
 exaggerates ; there is, above all, a lack of insight and imagina- 
 tion. Hence the efPect of the narrative is stiU further to dai-ken 
 and discolour what was none too clear as it stood. Such, at least, 
 is my conclusion. How far it is correct remains to be seen. 
 
 Meanwhile, before entering on this, the main purpose of 
 the chapter, there are some other matters which call for a 
 word of notice. 
 
 They occur mostly in the Introduction, and may serve as 
 a preliminary test of Mr. Arber's competency for the task he 
 has undertaken. 
 
 Thus : (1) More than once Mr. Arber mentions the " Holy 
 Discipline." It is called a " craze," ^ and the date of its 
 birth is given as November 20, 1572, when the first English 
 Presbytery met at Wandsworth, in Surrey. It insisted, we are 
 told, on the permanent necessity for the Church of "pastors, 
 doctors or teachers, ruling elders, prophets, deacons, and widows 
 or helpers, or deaconesses." ^ So far good. But Mr. Arber is 
 aware that equally necessary to the discipline were ^'^Pres- 
 bytery, Classis, Synod, General Assembly, and Moderator." 
 
 It was a scheme of government applying not merely to 
 each particular church, but to all the churches collectively — 
 a scheme by which " independent " action was systematically 
 controlled. The distinction of a Congregational church was 
 that it rejected such control. It might adopt the govern- 
 ment by pastors, teachers, elders, deacons, and widows, but 
 it would have nothing to do with the external rule of 
 Presbyteries, Synods, and Assemblies. In this way it became 
 not " a kind of exaggerated Presbyterianism," ■* but its mutila- 
 tion. Johnson, for example, was a believer in the Holy Discipline 
 
 1 Introduction, p. 25. " Page 27. '^ Page 28. ■• Page 27. 
 
 19 
 
290 THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 
 
 imtil he read oue of John Greenwood's books. This converted 
 him to Independency. His Church, too, was independent, 
 acknowledging no earthly authority higher than its own will. 
 A follower of Cartwright or Travers would have said that 
 here lay a chief cause of its troubles. But Mr. Arber ignores 
 this distinction. He speaks of Whitgift being "fully deter- 
 mined to stamp out " "Separatism or the Holy Discipline." i 
 He describes Johnson's church as - " the most notable English 
 Christian community on the Continent, that was completely 
 [italics his own] organised on the lines of the "Holy Dis- 
 cipine." His first comment on his story of that Chui'ch is : 
 " Here, then, the ' Holy Discipline ' in actual practice utterly 
 broke down." ^ Thus he has fallen into the vulgar error of 
 confounding Presbyterian and Separatist. 
 
 (2) He says the Holy Discipline was * " so pivoted upon the 
 eldership that if an elder went wrong . . . the system had 
 no remedy." " Who was to watch the watchers ? " The 
 answer is that the "Holy Discipline" might be, and was, 
 " pivoted upon the eldership " ; but not a Congregational 
 church — not even the Amsterdam Chm-ch, which he has in 
 mind. The remedy lay in its own hands. Johnson and Studley 
 tried to make the eldership the pivot ; and in doing so, split the 
 Church. For, as Ainsworth said — and Johnson also at one 
 time — the very life of the Church was bound up with the con- 
 tention that the "true matter of a church " — to quote John 
 Smyth's words — are " the people." 
 
 (3) Again, one cannot but wonder at the following. Says 
 Mr. Arber : " The question that any practical man of the world 
 would put was. How could it [i.e., Holy Discipline) possibly be 
 financed ? Each isolated, voluntary association, fluctuating 
 from month to month in numbers, was to pay three of&cers — 
 the pastor, the teacher, and the ruling elder; all of whom, 
 being family men, must have enough to keep them and their 
 families in decent respectability."' If this is meant to express the 
 
 ' Page 3. 2 p^gg ^Q2. ^ pj^gg 12O. ^ Page 29. ' Page 129. 
 
THE AMSTERDAM CHURCH. 291 
 
 ''theory" of a Separatist churcli it is absurd. If it is meant 
 to describe the practice of the Amsterdam or Leyden Churches 
 Mr. Arber should produce his evidence. There were, for example, 
 in 1597, three ruling elders in the "ancient church" (later on 
 there were four) . Were these, with " their families," dependent 
 on the church for maintenance? Or, if Mr. Arber, when he 
 speaks of " the ruling elder," refers to one of them only, who 
 was it? As to the Leyden Church, Robinson (like Johnson 
 and Ainsworth) may have lived by the voluntary offerings of the 
 people, but the only "elder " was Brewster, and did he do the 
 same ? Governor Bradford's words, quoted ^ by Mr. Arber him- 
 self, are decisive to the contrary. " After he (Brewster) came 
 into Holland he suffered much hardship ; after he had spent 
 the most of his means, having a great charge and many chil- 
 dren ; and, in regard of his former breeding and course of life, 
 not so fit for many employments as others were, especially such 
 as were toilsome and laborious. But yet he ever bore his 
 condition with much cheerfulness and contentation. 
 
 "Towards the latter part of those twelve years (1608-20) 
 spent in Holland his outward condition was mended, and he 
 lived well and plentifully. For he fell into a way, by reason he 
 had the Latin tongue, to teach many students who had a desire 
 to learn the English tongue, to teach them EngHsh. . . . 
 And many gentlemen, both Danes and Germans, resorted to 
 him, as they had time from other studies ; some of them being 
 great men's sons. He also had means to set up printing by 
 the help of some friends ; and so had employment enough." 
 So writes Bradford, not even hinting that in thus working for 
 his ovra support Brewster assumed a burden which rightly 
 belonged to the Church.^ We know, indeed, that the Separatist 
 
 ' Pages 191-2. themselves to study or teaching . . . 
 
 2 Cf. (1) " Pastors or leading elders have no need of maintenance." 
 
 ... as being chiefly to give them- ^Prince, describing the theory and 
 
 selves to studying, teaching, and the practice of the Separatist Churches, 
 
 spiritual care of the flock, are there- quoted by Young, " Chronicles," p. 
 
 fore to be maintained." (2) Mere 455 (Note). 
 ruling elders . . . being not to give 
 
292 THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 
 
 leaders laid great stress on the duty of giving; and Johnson 
 seems to have done so to excess. Thus the slanderous Lawne 
 reports that Johnson taught that " every man who brings not 
 up one-tenth of that which he getteth by his labour for 
 maintenance of the Church is a thief." ^ And Johnson himself 
 says in his last book, that " it is the duty of all churches and 
 of the members thereof, every one according to his ability, to 
 give maintenance unto their ministers of and (as there is 
 occasion) to the elders also that rule the Church.- But, besides 
 the fact that the duty of maintaining the elders is limited by 
 the words — " as there is occasion," i.e., when they are not able 
 to maintain themselves — there is nothing to show that this was 
 not one of Johnson's later private " heresies " — as what he goes 
 on to say, about the obligation of kings and magistrates to aid 
 in the maintenance of ministers and churches, certainly was. 
 
 3. Further evidence that Mr. Arber is not quite at home 
 in his subject is given by statements like the following : — " The 
 ancient exiled Church and the Gainsborough Church " — though 
 " constantly called Brownists " — " had little or nothing in 
 common with Browne " : ^ the fact being that they had nearly 
 everything, of real moment, in common with Browne. 
 
 Again, Johnson in holding " that the word church " in 
 Matt, xviii. 17 "meant only the eldership" was "maintaining 
 what is known as the Barrowist view of ecclesiastical polity, 
 from Henry Barrow." Ainsworth, on the other hand, " held 
 that it meant aU the members of the society ; maintaining what 
 is known as the Brownist view of ecclesiastical polity, from 
 Robert Browne " ; * the fact being that Browne's view was 
 likewise Barrow's, and passed from Barrow to A ins worth, 
 who expressly claimed to be keeping in the " old way," while 
 Johnson's was the common Presbyterian view. 
 
 Then (5) lastly, Mr. Arber prints" the "seven articles," "in 
 
 ' Profane Schism, p. 13. ■* Page 31. 
 
 = A Christian Plea, &(3., p. 316. * Pages 280-282. 
 
 ■^ Page 38. 
 
THE AMSTERDAM CHURCH. 293 
 
 ■which/' as he truly says, " the Pilgrim Fathers strove, in order 
 to conciliate the King and his Government, to minimise to the 
 uttermost their differences from the Church of England as it 
 then existed." They were subscribed by Robinson and 
 Brewster, and sent to the Privy Council of England, whence 
 they found their way to the Public Record Office, London. It 
 was not a public, but essentially a private document ; not " an 
 exposition of faith," but " rather conditions of agreement." 
 Hence, there was no occasion, one would think, to let it pass 
 into the hands of outsiders ; and one is surprised to read what 
 Mr. Arber says, that " the above extremely able paper gave 
 rise to a short controversy in print at the time." But the 
 truth is, Mr. Arber has fallen into a curious and even m- 
 excusahle mistake. His account is, that the Rev. Thomas 
 Drakes, Vicar of Harwich and Dovercourt, who died before 
 March 18, 1618, very soon after the presentation of the above 
 seven articles, published a reply to them, entitled, " Ten 
 Counter Demands propoimded to the Separatists against then- 
 Seven Demands," which work is now apparently totally lost. 
 To it — adds Mr. Arber — appeared from the PUgrim Press at 
 Leyden the following reply : — " William Euring, an answer to 
 the Ten Counter Demands propounded by T. Drakes, preacher 
 of the Word at H. and D., in the county of Essex. Printed 
 in the year 1619." Ifc seems a suspicious circumstance that 
 Drakes, in the title to his book, should call the seven Articles 
 seven Demands ; the spirit of " demand " is so completely absent 
 from them. This alone might have suggested to Mr. Arber 
 that he was possibly on a wrong tack ; and a due examination 
 of Euring's "Answer" would have convinced him that he was. 
 We say a "due examination" because, as he refers to the 
 only known copy — the one in Dr. Williams's Library — it may be 
 assumed that this has passed through his hands, and yet he 
 has overlooked the fact that the " seven demands " against 
 which Drakes propounded his " ten " are given ivord for ivord 
 in the Preface, and have absolutely no connection vnth the seven 
 
294 THE AMSTEEDAM CHURCH. 
 
 Articles. In fact, they are a summary of the Separatist posi- 
 tion under seven heads, issued "some good space since." 
 Drakes says Euring has seen them, no doubt ; but he does not 
 answer them. He " had rather ask than answer ... (as 
 what bungler camiot better strike than fence ?) ; and so his 
 meaning is to set these his "Ten counter-demands against 
 their seven demands, that so they might knock heads together 
 to see whose is hardest." It appears, then, that Mr. Arber 
 cannot have read the Preface in which these words and the 
 seven demands occur, not to speak of the book itself. 
 
 Mistakes of this kind scarcely prepare one to accept his 
 guidance, when he undertakes to hft the veil from the church 
 at Amsterdam. 
 
 1. Mr. Arber applies strong language to the Amsterdam 
 Church, and still stronger to its pastor (Francis Johnson, 
 1562-1618). 
 
 It is a "scandalous " church — a "community" that 
 " consisted of knaves and dupes," ^ — its history is " one of the 
 saddest chapters in the annals of Protestantism," " nothing but 
 a tissue of folly, wrong-headedness, and violence ; of hypo- 
 crisy, wrangling, and immorality : so that its members became 
 quite odious to the inhabitants of Amsterdam." - 
 
 When Robinson led his people away to Leyden, he did so 
 not only in pursuit of peace, but also of purity, for moral 
 pollution was " rampant " ^ ; and it was Robinson himself who 
 called the Ancient Chiu'ch a " rebellious rout." * As to its 
 pastor. Governor Bradford's estimate of his character is 
 " charitable," but "perfectly untrustworthy."^ Bradford gives 
 us the " general impression that Johnson was a saint," 
 whereas Mr. Arber is able to give abundant proof that he was 
 " a most remarkable sinner." ^ He had " some good points, 
 but many more bad ones."'' "He was an arrogant, wrong- 
 
 101. ' Page 105. 
 
 2 Page 102. « Page 105. 
 
 ■' Page 102. ' Page 105. 
 ^ Page 123. 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 295 
 
 headed, irascible man ; an unnatural son, &c. : anything, in fact, 
 but a Christian gentleman." ^ In the interval between the ex- 
 communication of his brother (1599) and that of his father 
 (1602), he was "steadily going from bad to worse." ^ By 
 October of the latter year ^'he was a dead Christian," an 
 "utter disgrace to our sacred faith, and what he afterwards 
 said, preached, or wrote is not deserving of serious attention, 
 from a spiritual point of view."^ He is, in short, by this 
 time, " a thoroughly bad man." * White- washing is said to be 
 a fashionable process just now. We have here a reversal of it, 
 with a vengeance. And we can only call such language reck- 
 less, unless Mr. Arber has ground for it which is clear and 
 strong. He thinks he has. He finds it in Christopher Lawne's 
 books (1612-13), which he considers "worthy of an implicit 
 behef."° Of these there were two. Both came out in London 
 under the licence of the Eev. Doctor Nidd, a chaplain to the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury (Abbot) ; the one in July, 1612, the 
 other in May, 1613. The title of the first was : — 
 
 " The Prophane Schisme of the Brownists or Separatists ; 
 with the impietie, dissensions, lewd and abhominable vices of 
 that impui'e sect : 
 
 Christopher Lawne, 
 John Fowler, 
 Clement Sanders, 
 Eobert Bui ward; 
 lately returned from the companie of Master Johnson, that 
 wicked brother, into the bosom of the Church of England, 
 their true mother. 1612. Psalm Ixxxiii. 16 ; Eom. xvi. 17." 
 
 The authors complained that the book was "corruptly 
 printed " — with additions, omissions and alterations : the 
 probability being that it contained things too libellous even for 
 the Archbishop's chaplain to let pass. 
 
 1 Page 105. ■* Page 110. 
 
 2 Page 110. ^ Page 112. 
 
 3 Page 112. 
 
 Discovered by < 
 
296 THE AMSTEEDAM CHFECH. 
 
 The second bore the title : — 
 
 " Brownism turned the inside outward. Being a Parallel 
 between the Profession and Practice of the Brownists' reli- 
 gion. By Christopher Lawne, lately returned from that wicked 
 Separation. Matt, xxiii. 27 ; G-en. xlix. 6." 
 
 Mr. Arber says " this work adds no new facts." ^ Perhaps 
 so ; but it shows up convincingly the spirit of the writer, as we 
 shall see. 
 
 Is Christopher Lawne a trustworthy witness ? He claims 
 to be. "I have not written anything . . . but that 
 which I can of my own knowledge, with good conscience, 
 afEu-m." 2 He is a penitent man, devoutly thankful for his 
 escape from so foul a " ditch," and eager " to stretch out a 
 hand of help and comfort to those that yet lie " therein, and 
 " especially to stay and strengthen some weak Christians that 
 are inclining and looking " ^ toward it. 
 
 But (a) one is bound to say that it took him a long time 
 to repent. Writing in 1612, for example, he weeps tears of com- 
 passion over the fate of Johnson the elder, and shudders at the 
 base ingratitude of his son — a son who " drew his whole company 
 to consent and approve " of the father's excommunication — an 
 excommunication " given out upon so slight a cause ; yea, so 
 unjust a cause, while the father sought peace between his 
 children " ; done, moreover, against " such a father as had 
 been at so great cost in bringing up his son to learning; 
 . . . who also with so much labour, cost, and grief had sued 
 to sundry judges and nobles in England for releasing of that 
 son." But this had taken place ten years before. Lawne had 
 seen it; had been among those drawn "to consent and 
 approve " of it ; had raised no protest apparently and felt no 
 distress. Had he done so, and withdrawn at once, it would 
 have been possible to believe in his sincerity. But to plead an 
 
 1 Page 118. 
 
 2 Preface to his Browniam Turned ' Preface to Profane Schism. 
 Inside Outward. 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHrECH. 297 
 
 aroused conscience after so long a period of connivance is 
 rather too much. 
 
 (6) The same may be said in another respect. White ^ 
 accuses specifically seven or eight persons : " one Castle," 
 Eobert Bayly, J. Nicolas, Christopher Bowman, Thomas 
 Cannady, Francis Johnson, Studley, and ''their teacher," 
 Ainsworth. Against Castle is placed a charge of " cozenage " -^ 
 against Mcolas a charge of borrowing and not paying ; against 
 Bowman a charge of " purloining half that which the magis- 
 strates of Naarden had given them weekly " ; against 
 Ainsworth a charge of being " stained with hypocrisy . . .. 
 spotted again and again with apostasy ... a means to 
 bring in false doctrines " ; against Johnson the charge of 
 unfilial behaviour toward his father. Only in the case of 
 Bayly, Cannady and Studley are the charges of a kind strictly 
 immoral. As to Cannady, White adds a postscript, in which 
 he mentions, ''on hearsay," a further charge so palpably 
 slanderous and absurd as to render the first charge much 
 more than doubtful; and, indeed, to suggest malice for the 
 root of all. Certainly nothing else can explain what is said 
 of Ainsworth. And admitting that Bowman, the deacon, was 
 guilty of theft, it is one thing to steal half of what was given 
 weekly (according to White), and another to steal half of a 
 sum which (according to Johnson) was given once, and once- 
 only.- It is the difference between habitual crime and the 
 committal (possibly under strong temptation) of a single 
 offence. But this is by the way. The point to notice is that 
 Lawne, so far as the period before his expulsion is concerned, cites 
 no netv cases. ^ Castle, Bayly, Nicolas, Cannady are dropped^ 
 Francis Johnson is still the unnatural son. Ainsworth is 
 
 ' A Discovery of Browniam (1605). •' Eiohard Clifton, in his "Adver- 
 
 Johu Eobinson speaks of White as tisement " (1612) concerning Lawne 's 
 
 "an ungodly apostate, whose accusa- boot, says, "^is -if is Ziie W?iite's, it may 
 
 tions have been answered one by one." be thought less needful to refute it 
 
 — Justification of Separation, p. 78 point by point." Johnson had an- 
 
 (edition 1610). swered White in 1606. 
 
 = In 1595. 
 
^98 THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 
 
 mentioned in terms of comparative respect. Poor Bowman is 
 still pilloried, as Judas, for his one ofPence — a sure sign that 
 he is otherwise without open fault. Studley, indeed, is made 
 to appear worse than ever. But here, again, the more definite 
 and reiterated charges are White's — couched in White's own 
 words. What is the inference as regards Lawne himself ? 
 Plainly that the vexation of his righteous soul in 1612 was due 
 not to things happening before his eyes, but mainly to things 
 which had happened (if at all) previous to 1605 — things which 
 either he did not believe when White wrote them, or chose 
 hypocritically to wink at. 
 
 (c) We are inclined, then, to suspect the genuineness of 
 so belated a repentance, especially in view of a further fact, 
 the fact mentioned by Ainsworth, that Lawne and company 
 "first declined to these our opposites." ^ Consider what that 
 means. The controversy about the eldership began late in 1609, 
 and reached its climax late in 1610. There was, one would 
 have thought, every reason why Lawne should side with Ains- 
 woi-th. He professes to be indignant, for example, at Johnson's 
 tyranny in his government of the Church, but the vindication 
 of the Church's authority was the object for which the 
 Ainsworthians were contending. Again, he professes to be 
 overwhelmed with horror of Studley, his character, his 
 conduct as elder, his being retained in office; but Studley 
 and Johnson stood together, and by the simple expedient of 
 leaving with Ainsworth he would have escaped both. In 
 spite, however, of his professed detestation of the men and 
 their methods, he stands by them, and remains with them for 
 more than six months after the Ainsworthians have seceded. 
 
 Then, at length, we hear of his conferring about his 
 " doubts " with Master Paget, minister of the English 
 (Episcopal) Chui'ch, sworn foe of the "Brownists." 
 
 Then we get sight (on July 9, 1611") of a stormy encounter 
 
 ' That is, the Johnsonian party of - Profane Schism, pp. 4, 5. 
 
 the Amsterdam Church. 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 299 
 
 l)etween Lawne and company "with divers strangers and 
 members of the English Church" on the one hand, and Johnson's 
 Church on the other, whose meeting house they have invaded 
 at the close of evening service. Lawne maintains a charge 
 of " schism " against the Church generally, and "nominates one 
 woman to he profane." Johnson replies ("flew in upon us," is 
 Lawne's phrase), calling him and his "hypocrites," "Eab- 
 shakites," &c. 
 
 Then, finally, on July 28, 1611, Christopher Lawne is cast 
 out '^for railing, slandering, abusing, and despising the 
 governors and the whole Church " ; for charging them with 
 schism ; for leaving our communion and disclaiming our pro- 
 fession ; for a letter sent to England, in which he wrote divers 
 slanders of the elders and brethren. ^ 
 
 The sequel came as a matter of course. 
 
 Nothing more easy than to sweep up into a book whatever 
 odds and ends of scandal he has read, heard or seen ; nothing 
 more to his taste than to garnish it with Studleyan " flowers 
 of eloquence."^ 
 
 He can re-edit White, so far as it may serve his purpose, 
 which is principally to damage Studley and Johnson. 
 
 He can quote the pastor's brother (whose " testimonie " 
 now seems incontestable), and produce (by the obliging assist- 
 ance of Master Paget, who is now at his elbow) the Latin 
 letter of the Amsterdam Churches to show up Francis in his 
 true colours. 
 
 He can bring forth the articles "exhibited" against Studley 
 at the time of the split in order to secure his deposition — a 
 rich dish whether its ingredients be true or false. 
 
 He can recall how it has been said of "the ancient 
 companie of the Brownists that were under the feeding (in 
 Middelburg) of Browne himself " that " not one of them 
 . . . continued faithfuU, but became apostates. Not to 
 speak of manifold curses that flew abroad in the time of 
 1 Profane Schism, pp. 6, 7. ^ Arber, p. 124. 
 
300 THE AMSTEEDAM CHURCH. 
 
 Barrow, nor yet of the manifold curses which the companie of 
 the Brownists — remayning in London have oft layed upon one 
 another, one half devouring another at once." ^ 
 
 He can, thus, point the moral that the Brownist Church is,, 
 and always has been, " a patcherie of a few schismatics."- And 
 very opportune in this connection is what he can instance from 
 personal experience : how within the Church the brethren " do 
 oft except one against another for their doctrine, whereby 
 much heart-burning and strife is kindled betwixt them "^ — how 
 Thomas Cocky and Jacob Johnson, " falling into variance one 
 with another, one of them brings in before the Church a list of 
 fifteen lies, wherewith he charged the other (Lawne is quite 
 sure about the "number," although the time was some years 
 ago). The other again, to requite his pains, brings in, at the 
 next turn, against him, a list of sixteen lies. Betwixt them 
 both they make up the sum of thirty-one lies."* Still more 
 opportune is the scene of disruption and dissension now 
 transacting itself before the general eye. He can make the 
 most of this — adding touches here and there to heighten the 
 effect : he can tell how " Fi\ Johnson and his company are now 
 accursed and avoided by Mr. Ainsworth and his company — how 
 Mr. Ainsworth and his company are again rejected and avoided 
 by Mr. Johnson and his "^ — how "the two houses where the 
 several factions of these two seditious captains do meet, being 
 in the same street, and within one house of another, are much 
 like imto those two wells Eseck and Silnah (Sedition and 
 Dissension), or strife and hatred "'■ — how having an "ecclesias- 
 tical siiit about the kernel, which should be the people of God 
 and the true Church, so have they another civil contention 
 about the shell and the husk, who shall have the meeting- 
 house "'' — how " Mr. Smith and his company are rejected " both 
 
 1 Profane Schism, p. 63. ^ Ditto, p. 62. 
 
 2 Ditto, p. 8. « Ditto, p. 26. 
 ■* Ditto, p. 58. ' Ditto, p. 26. 
 < Ditto, p. 83. 
 
THE AMSTERDAM CHURCH. 301 
 
 "by Mr. Johnson and Mr. Ainsworth — how " Mr. Robinson and 
 his company holding Mr. Johnson and his to be in Apostasie, 
 by their own grounds must avoid them ; and Mr. Johnson him 
 again, for taking part with Mr. Ainsworth in his schism 
 against " himself .^ 
 
 All this is easy enough, especially with a Mr, Paget, or 
 some one else, at hand to trim the style and arrange the 
 matter — easy and very agreeable to a malicious mind. Nor 
 need he fear that his story will be discredited : there are too 
 many ears eager to welcome it^ and too many grains of truth to 
 make it plausible. 
 
 But even he might overreach himself. And he did. He 
 did, for example, in his " Brownism Turned Inside Outward," of 
 which Mr. Arber says it "adds no new facts." It certainly 
 does not, except the fact which must be patent to any sober- 
 minded reader, that it answers well to Ainsworth's description 
 of a " lewd pamphlet," aiming " to disgrace the truth " and 
 " sundry men's persons,"^ but disgraceful mainly to himself. 
 
 Here are one or two extracts : " A most f railful and 
 viUanous pastor, a most simple and piteous teacher (Richard 
 Clifton is meant), most careless and unright governors, most 
 negligent and untrusty deacons ; there were no lelievers while I 
 lived among them, but a most haughty, proud, disobedient, 
 dissembling and spiteful people."^ 
 
 "Their pastor ... is a man that loveth vice; he is 
 fooKsh, unrighteous, vinholy, mtemperate; he is of life 
 reproveable, as all the Churches of God do testify and so 
 generally wUl be reported of ; one that ruleth his own house 
 dishonestly ; he is immodest, haughty, proud, cruel, and xm- 
 natural; he is always careless and negligent over the flock, 
 whereof he pretends to be overseer ; with all unwillingness 
 grudgingly, for maintenance ; holding his oifice in respect of 
 lucre, but doing his duty to never a soul." * 
 
 ' Profane Schism, p. 62. ^ Brownism Turned Inside Out- 
 
 ^ Animadversion, &c.. Preface. ward, p. 6. ■* Ditto, p, 11. 
 
302 THE AMSTERDAM CHURCH. 
 
 Again, " their doctor or teacher (Clifton) is a man unapt 
 to teach (and unable to divide) the Word of God aright ; and 
 he delivers unsound and unwholesome doctrine (of schism) 
 from the same. He is weak in the Scriptures, unable to con- 
 vince his gainsayers, and careless to deliver his doctrine pure, 
 sound, and plain, but with curiosity or affectation. 
 Those that have left their schism — to wit, C. L. (Christopher 
 Lavrae) and R. B. (Robert Bulward) — have sundry times gone 
 unto him desiring conference but never could obtain it of him. 
 [So we will lay upon him our lash of slander with the rest !] 
 Many good Christians do lament his fall in the place (Bab- 
 worth) where he lived in England, commending his innocent 
 life, praying for his enlargement from his miserable schism, 
 which God grant, if it be His will." ^ 
 
 {d) Tet this is the man whom Mr. Arber avers to be 
 " worthy of an implicit belief " ! Nay, Mr. Arber not only 
 accounts Lawne a safe guide, but even draws conclusions for 
 which even Lawne gives no sufficient warrant. I will mention 
 three examples. 1. Lawne undoubtedly wished his readers to 
 conceive of the Church imder Johnson as utterly corrupt. But 
 it is not his bare assertion to that effect, it is the facts he can 
 produce which must decide our judgment. His bare assertion, 
 however vehement and repeated, ought to count for nothing in 
 view of his known animus. His facts may be incontestable. 
 We have seen, however, that even his " muck-rake," diligently 
 plied in every direction, could bring to light no proof whatever 
 that the Church, as a whole, had grown worse during the years 
 between 1605-10 ; nay, no proof that any new cases of im- 
 morality had sprtmg up at all. How gladly he would have 
 described such if he had known of them ! Arid when he had 
 that last encounter with the Church, to which reference has 
 been made, and when Johnson declared in the course of the 
 
 ' Brownism Turned Inside Out, ful and painful ministry . . . sound 
 
 p. 13. Contrast, " he was . . . and orthodox he always was, and so 
 
 a reverend old man" . . . who continued to his end." — Governor 
 
 "converted many to God by his faith- Bradford. 
 
THE AMSTERDAM CHURCH. 303 
 
 proceedings that " they were, by the mercy of God, the purest 
 Church and the freest from corruptions . . . that he knew 
 this day in the world/' ^ what more certain than that Lawne 
 would have tried at least to prove the statement audaciously 
 shameless had he been acquainted with numerous facts to the 
 contrary? But, himself being witness, the only charges he 
 then affirmed were a charge of " schism " and a charge which 
 " nominated one woman to be profane " ! " 
 
 Surely it is a fair inference from such an argument 
 " e silentio " that there was no " rampant " vice, and that Mr. 
 Arber lacks even Lawne's support in saying that the Church 
 was " cori-upt and dead" ^ and that "matters went on for some 
 years to come " * just as White had alleged. 
 
 Indeed, Mr. Arber seems to me to exaggerate even in 
 what he says of Daniel Studley. I am far from exculpating 
 him ; the evidence, after the most charitable sifting, leaves him 
 under a cloud. But I do say, bearing in mind, e.g., the count- 
 less "incredibilities" so dihgently circulated against Ana- 
 baptists, that the evidence may stand in great need of sifting; 
 I say that some of the charges are so absurd as to be self- 
 refuting, such as this : " Teaching his schoUers (the little 
 children which learned of him) not the songs of Sion, not the 
 Psalms of David, but filthy, unsavourie, and rotten rimes ; " " 
 I say, further, that more than one of the (eight) articles ^ which 
 take away Mr. Arber's breath, and drive him into mere ejacula- 
 
 1 Profane Schism, pp. 4-6. seemly," but by no means what was 
 ^ Ditto. supposed ; (6) he admits as regards 
 ^ Story, &o., p. 120. (2) " unsavoury words and unprofit- 
 ■• Ditto, p. 120. able speeches"; (c) charges (3), (4), 
 * Profane Schism, cap. vi. (5) he says are false ; (d) charge (6) 
 " See Studley's answer in Kichard is " due to faction " ; (e) charge (8) is 
 Clifton's " Advertisement," pp. 115- " false and malicious." Moreover, as 
 125. Arber considers this "answer" to charges (1) and (8), the worst of 
 "perfectly amazing," and Clifton a the series, Johnson (in 1606) says 
 "fool" for printing it, because in it that (1) had been traced to White's 
 Studley " simply throws away his wife, who had confessed herself the 
 defence." But what he does is this : author ; and that for (8) Studley 
 (a.) He admits that as to two of the had called White before the mag- 
 charges— (1) and (5) — his behaviour istrates. 
 had been " bad " or " sinful " and " un- 
 
304 THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH, 
 
 tions at " that unspeakable Studley," are of the vague, wild sort 
 that arouse instant suspicion. 
 
 But Mr. Arber will entertain no suspicions. It is Lawne 
 who speaks ; and what Lawne has said is worthy of " implicit 
 belief." 
 
 2. It is only as we remember this primary assumption 
 that we can at all understand the section of his book which 
 Mr. Arber heads " The fiendish cruelty of Eichard Mansfield."^ 
 
 [a) The reference is to what Lawne calls " a comparison 
 between two notable Separatists, Daniel Studley, a Franciscan, 
 and Eichard Mansfield, an Ainsworthian." 
 
 (6) Lawne's object seems to be plain, viz., to convince the 
 credulous reader that each branch of the " Separation " con- 
 cealed and sheltered a " monster " ; that Ainsworth retained 
 among his prominent members a man who, in a somewhat 
 different line, was as much a genius of iniquity as Studley. 
 
 (c) " The iniquitie of E. M. appeareth notable," as foUows : 
 by " cruel tasking, oppressing, and exacting the task imposed " 
 on his servant-girl; " by hanging weights of lead upon" her 
 ^' arms while she spinned, as though otherwise the work had been 
 too light and easy ; by " the inflicting a cruel punishment when 
 the work was not accomplished " ; " by shameful and vile 
 manner of whipping her naked " ; " by cruel nipping and 
 pinching of her arms, hanging her up naked by her hands 
 with cords, while he spent divers rods upon her ... ; by 
 making her spin " bombasine wool " so rigorously that she 
 " hath often for fear eaten up the wool " . . . ; by compelling 
 her to " sing songs of mirth immediately after " a " cruel 
 whipping," alleging Scriptures in defence Exodus xxi. 20, 21 
 , . . and then (for anti-climax) by "falling asleep when Mr. 
 Johnson and Mr. Ainsworth preached, and even at home in 
 the midst of his prayer." Yet is he "stricter in the Separa- 
 tion, and makes greater show of holiness and piety than any." ^ 
 
 ' Story, &o., p. 127. ^ Profane Schism, cap. vi., pp 
 
 32-41. 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 305 
 
 That there was some slight kernel of fact to all this slanderous 
 rubbish we may take for granted. There generally is in such 
 cases. But how any unprejudiced critic can hesitate for a 
 moment to conclude that here is a choice specimen of slander 
 gone mad is well-nigh incomprehensible, especially taking into 
 account one or two items which (though not of the technically 
 immoral sort) are too bad to be quoted. Mr. Arber, however, 
 is unappalled. 
 
 [d] Nay, he puts a worse face still on the case by speaking 
 of the "unfortunate maidens " whom "this brute subjected to 
 his atrocious indignities and unheard barbarities," whereas 
 Lawne himself mentions but one maiden, and gives her name 
 and age : D. HanweU, 18 years of age — Eichard Mansfield's 
 household servant. 
 
 (e) Consider, too, the implied reflection, not merely on the 
 Church, but especially on its pastor Ainsworth, with regard to 
 whom no hint of moral laxness was ever breathed, in Mr. 
 Arber's comment : " Had this monster been living now, his life 
 would not have been worth five minutes' purchase outside a 
 prison " ! Shall we not rather say that Ainsworth's silent 
 tolerance of the man points rebuke alike at Lawne's mendacity 
 and the too-easy faith of his apologist ? 
 
 3. Again, let us examine the section entitled, " The 
 Ancient Church is an abomination to the citizens of Amster- 
 dam." 1 Lawne is said to prove this by — 
 
 (1) The testimony of the Dutch Church concerning the 
 
 Brownists. " When as they sent their messengers, with some 
 
 questions, unto the Dutch eldership : they received this answer 
 
 from them. That they did not acknowledge their assembly to 
 
 be an ecclesiastical assembly, or a lawful church. And when 
 
 Master Johnson and others of them were instant (urgent) to 
 
 hear reasons of this answer from them : it was further 
 
 answered. They would do it, if they saw it needful, or if they 
 
 found anything that was worthy of answer." - 
 
 1 Profane Schism, p. 128. ^ Page 21, 
 
 20 
 
S06 THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH, 
 
 Now certainly repulsion, and repulsion in a tone of con- 
 tempt, is manifest here. 
 
 But (a) those who repulsed can scarcely be described as 
 "the citizens of Amsterdam" generally. They are the few 
 men who made up the " eldership " of the Dutch Church. 
 
 (b) There is nothing in their answer to show that they 
 declined dealuigs with the Ancient Church on the ground of its 
 *' immoral life," as Mr. Ai-ber says. It is quite conceivable that 
 the ground may have been doctrinal, or ecclesiastical, or 
 personal even, in the form of some supposed grievance. 
 
 And that it was so we have the means of knowing. 
 Ainsworth refers to the matter in his correspondence with 
 Paget, pastor of the English Church. He complains of the 
 "treatment meted out by the Dutch eldership to the church 
 -of which he was teacher, as illustrating that exclusiveness 
 was not confined to the latter; that if the latter (as 
 Paget affirms, and Ainsworth denies) ^ did " disclaim and 
 renounce " the " communion of all the churches of Christ," 
 and " so gave offence to the godly in our country (England), as 
 also to the godly magistrates, ministers, and people in this 
 ■city," the spirit of the former was not, and never had been, a 
 ■whit more charitable. In fact, says Ainsworth, the " Ancient 
 'Church " had always been scouted and scorned as in England 
 so here — its character maligned, its principles misrepresented, 
 its efforts to create a better understanding haughtily put down. 
 Witness, for example, the chilling reception given to " our con- 
 fession of faith dedicated " to the Universities of the Eeformed 
 'Churches — although we on our part " had acknowledged" these 
 to be " true churches " " upon the sight of their confessions." ^ 
 Witness particularly the answer given hy the Dutch eldership to 
 the questions mentioned by Lawne in his " infamous book,"^ 
 Neither Ainsworth nor Paget says what the questions were ; 
 
 ' An Arrow against the Separation - Ditto, p. 45. 
 
 of the Brownists, by John Paget ^ Ainsworth's expression. (Italics 
 
 .<1618), p. 43. mine.) 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHURCH. 307 
 
 but there can be little doubt, I think, that they were " feelers " 
 after some common ground between the two churches. To' 
 which came the answer, first, "we do not acknowledge you to 
 be a lawful church " at all ; and then, to inquiries " Why ? " a 
 disdainful silence. 
 
 Paget, of covu-se, justifies the Dutch Church, and would 
 have done so most crushingly, had he been able, by a 
 description of the Brownists' " immoral life." This, how- 
 ever, is what he says : — ^ " Might they (the Dutch Church) 
 not have their reasons so to answer ? Did they not discern 
 your contentious disposition in other dealings before as well as 
 afterward, when the deputies both of the Dutch and French 
 Churches^ — dealing with your eldership about the cause of Mr, 
 John Johnson, to have stayed your pastor from the excommu- 
 nication of his father, if it might have been — do yet testify 
 that they could not get a plain or direct answer from you ? " 
 The situation is clear. John Johnson, the father, failing 
 otherwise to control Francis, sought the interference of the 
 elders of the Dutch and French Churches. He submitted the 
 whole controversy to their decision. They wrote'^ to Francis 
 and some elders of his congregation inquiring if they were pre- 
 pared to do the same. They expected, but did not get, a 
 " categorical " yes or no — Francis, perhaps, trying to make 
 them understand that it was utterly against the first principles 
 of his church to entrust the decision of its own private affairs 
 to any outside authority. So they drew off, offended. And if 
 
 ' An Arrow, &e., p. 55. Gallobelgica, Minister Evangelii ; 
 
 ^ G. Johnson says that he himself Petrus Planoius, administer Evangelii ; 
 appealed to the " Eef ormed Churches," J aoobus Arminius, administer E van- 
 and that the " Dutch and French gelii in ecclesia Belgica ; Simon 
 Churches were content to hear, try, Goulartius, administer Verbi in 
 judge and end the matter between us." ecclesia, Gallobelgica. It is simply 
 He mentions also an interview between a "testimonium," given to John 
 "Arminius and the Pastor" (P. Johnson, at his request, stating that 
 Johnson), in which the former took he had solicited their " counsel and 
 the part of the Father and " talked in help " ; that they had offered to ad- 
 Latin" (Discourse, pp. 205, 31, 38). judicateinthematter;thatP. Johnson 
 
 '■' See their (Latin) letter printed and his elders would give them 
 
 by La wne in " Profane Schism." It is no "reponsum categorioum"; and 
 
 signed by Joannes a Vinea, in ecclesia that they had then ceased to interfere. 
 
308 THE AMSTERDAM CHUECH. 
 
 at any future time " the Ancient Church " shall, in its sim- 
 plicity, make friendly overtures, the "answer" may be 
 anticipated ! It will he a snub, delivered with keen relish. 
 " "We do not acknowledge your assembly to be a church. We 
 are an ' ecclesia,' you are a mere ' coetus.' " ^ This is the whole 
 story so far as the "testimony" goes which Mr. Arber quotes. 
 There is " scorn," something like that of the High Churchman 
 now for the Dissenting conventicle ; but there is not a trace of 
 outraged decency, nor does even Paget hint that there was. 
 His strongest word is " contentious disposition." 
 
 (2) As to "the testimony of the magistracy of Amster- 
 dam,"- it is amazing how its true character and drift can be 
 mistaken. Read in connection with Lawne's account of the 
 suit entered against White in 1606,^ what comes out clearly 
 is this : — 
 
 (a) The magistrates were the burgomasters, and were 
 (apparently) the same in 1606 and 1611. 
 
 (6) They were "members of the Dutch Church"*; probably, 
 therefore, elders as well as magistrates, and certainly not 
 predisposed to regard too favourably the suit of people whom 
 their own Church (perhaps in their own person) had already 
 disowned. 
 
 (c) The suit both against Master White, and about their 
 meeting-house, is said to have been brought " in the name of 
 the Church." ^ 
 
 {d) It was on this account, because " they sought to lay in 
 their action in the name of the Church," ^ that the magistrates 
 repelled them. " They would not receive complaint from them 
 in the quaKty or name of a Church, or (in) the name of any elder 
 or deacon, hut as from private men. The magistrates told them 
 that they held them not as a Church but as a sect." ^ The 
 ground taken up is precisely that of the Dutch eldership ; and, 
 
 ' The terms employed in the Latin ^ So says the " Testimony," p. 128. 
 
 letter. * Ditto. 
 
 2 Story, &o., p. 128. « Ditto. 
 
 ■' Quoted by Arber, p. 120. ' Ditto. 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 309 
 
 so far as it goes, is significant not of the suitors' bad character, 
 but of the magistrates' intolerant arrogance. 
 
 (e) Owing to this attitude, on the part of the magistrates, 
 the plaintifEs against White, never had a chance of presenting 
 THEiE CASE. The result was a thoroughly one-sided trial. 
 Lawne implicitly confesses this. He says, "When Master 
 White had once taken order by his attorney to answer the 
 matter " and . . . had ..." brought sundry wit- 
 nesses before the burgomasters, which there did testify and by 
 their oaths and depositions confirm the things which Master 
 White had written," then the magistrates closed the case. Mr. 
 White was " discharged, and had liberty from the magistrates 
 to go for England, as his occasions or business should require."^ 
 What then ? Had the suitors let judgment go against them by 
 default ? Had they, when brought to the point, been afraid or 
 unable to proceed ? By no means. Lawne admits that it was 
 only " at length," after repeated attempts to get a hearing 
 (attempts which he, of course, calls "troublesome and con- 
 tentious "), that they " were content to let their suit fall, and 
 ceased to proceed any further therein." ^ It was, in fact, a 
 glaring case of injustice — done under the influence of eccle- 
 siastical prejudice against people of whom (as of the Ana- 
 baptists) anything was credible. But Mr. Arber sides with the 
 magistrates. He fiLnds in the fact that they acted as they did, 
 both in 1606 and 1611, corroboration of White's assertion that 
 "there is no sect in Amsterdam, though many, in such con- 
 tempt for immoral life as the Brownists are." ^ He fiuids, also, 
 a proof that Lawne's charges "were perfectly crushing"* in 
 the fact that the men who had failed to get justice, or a hearing, 
 in 1606, did not endeavour " either individually or collectively " 
 "to vindicate themselves ... in a Court of Justice in 
 1612 and 1613." ^ He thinks they "dared" not do so. Such 
 
 1 Story, &c., p. 120. " Ditto, p. 115. 
 
 2 Ditto, p. 120. "■ Ditto, p. 115. 
 
 3 Ditto, p. 128. 
 
310 THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 
 
 perverseness in one who claims to be nothing, if not impartial, 
 is rather hard to bear. 
 
 4. There remains the case of Francis Johnson. Mr. Arber, 
 we have seen, sums him up — at least from the end of 1602 — 
 " a thoroughly bad man." 
 
 When one reflects that he had still fifteen years of 
 life before him, and that he went on writing, praying, 
 preaching to the end, never seeming to be afraid or ashamed, 
 although a hypocrite incarnate, this sentence of Mr. Arber's 
 is very terrible. One remembers the early days, yet only 
 ten years before, when for love of the truth which came 
 to him at Middelburg through one of Barrow and Greenwood's 
 writings, he gave up a " great and certain maintenance " (£200), 
 and went to London, "to confer with the authors," "then 
 in prison," and adjoined himself to the poor Separatists, and 
 was soon afterwards committed to prison himself, and lay there 
 for five years, and was then banished. Surely he was sincere 
 so far — sincere and brave under cu'cumstances the most trying. 
 For long the fate of Barrow, Greenwood, and Penry stared 
 him in the face, but he did not falter. Like them, he was 
 ready to lay down his life. 
 
 Nevertheless, five years later, we must pronounce him 
 " a thoroughly bad man," " a most remarkable sinner," 
 " a dead Christian," " an utter disgrace to our sacred 
 faith." It is a hard blow to one's belief in human nature 
 — or rather in the saving and preserving grace of God ! 
 Governor Bradford thought he knew him. He had some 
 reason for thinking so. He lived within sight and sound 
 of him for a year. And in after days, when he set dovni his 
 clear and calm impressions of bygone events and persons, this 
 was what he said of Johnson : " A very grave man he was, and 
 an able teacher ; and was the most solemn in all his adminis- 
 trations that we have seen any ; and especially in dispensing 
 the seals of the covenant, both baptism and the Lord's 
 Supper." One pictures the scene: the plain meeting-house; 
 
THE AMSTERDAM CHURCH. 311 
 
 the silent congregation, gathered about the Lord's Table ; the 
 pastor, always "very grave," seeming so to enter into the 
 spirit of the service that his voice as he reads or prays, and 
 his manner as he dispenses the " seals of the covenant," awe 
 the soul by their solemnity. This, at least, was the experience 
 of Bradford ; and he did not see or suspect that the man who 
 thus impressed him had been for years past " a dead Chris- 
 tian," an " utter disgrace to our sacred faith " ! Of course, it 
 may have been so. In the sphere of character semblance and 
 fact are, alas ! sometimes the poles asunder. It is not only in 
 fiction that the like of ISTathaniel Hawthorne's Arthur Dimmes- 
 dale exist. But before saying of any particular individual 
 that lie is such a man — a mere mask of goodness — we ought to 
 be quite sui-e of our ground, if indeed we ever can be. 
 
 What, then, is Mr. Arber's ground in respect of Johnson ? It 
 is Lawne again. Lawne declares that " of all the Separation it is 
 Mr. Johnson that hath the haughty eyes above them aU." ^ 
 This means, being interpreted, that Johnson was naturally 
 masterful and inclined to be autocratic, a fault which others ■ 
 who had to do with him have recorded ; and one which might 
 drive him, on occasion, into very unchristian actions. But it is 
 not a fault which proves its subject to be "thoroughly bad " — 
 in some circumstances it might as easily prove him virtuous. 
 Nor does Mr. Arber style Johnson "thoroughly bad" on this 
 account. 
 
 What other ground is there ? Well, there is the charge 
 of conniving at the iniquities of Daniel Studley. This,, 
 however, assumes two things which have not been proved — that 
 Studley was guilty to the extent alleged ; and that Johnson 
 was fully aware or convinced of his guilt. The utmost it is safe 
 to say is that the pastor manifested toward his elder more and 
 longer tolerance than was right, or than he would have shown, 
 perhaps, toward a man less influential. And this implies, no 
 doubt, that Johnson was not altogether the strong man he 
 ' Profane Schism, p. 63. 
 
312 THE AMSTERDAM CHUECH. 
 
 seemed ; that there was a flaw in his courage if not a twist in 
 his conscience ; but it fails to make him out " a thoroughly 
 bad man." Indeed, if it be true as is reported, that what kept 
 Studley in ofiice during his last year (1611-12) was the popular 
 vote ; and that what cast him out in 1612 was Johnson's 
 " free " hand^^ he may not have been even weak. He may, 
 that is to say, have begun to work for his removal as soon as 
 his unworthiness became clear to him. 
 
 Where, then, lies the one clinching proof which will 
 warrant Mr. Arber's sweeping denunciation? Simply here — 
 the way " he treated his father and suffered him to be 
 treated by his church." ^ Other accusation than this, of 
 any definiteness, he brings none. Before 1597 Johnson, 
 on the whole, had lived blameless. Even the expulsion of 
 G-eorge Johnson in 1599 was, it seems to Mr. Arber, "richly 
 deserved," and he will only say that " Francis committed 
 an error in policy, in going so far as publicly to ex- 
 communicate his own brother. Some other way should have 
 been found." ' (Does Mr. Arber, by the way, suppose that 
 the excommunication could have been private, or that, if 
 piivately done, it would not soon have been publicly known, 
 and the pastor have been an object of keen resentment for 
 usurping, or letting the elders usurp, an essential function 
 of the Church?) But then he went ^'steadily from bad to 
 worse." And the proof is that he excommunicated his father, 
 or, as Mr. Arber prefers to put it, " delivered " his father 
 "over to Satan." This was the "perfectly unpardonable" 
 act. It was an act, too, of "amazing impudence";* 
 for the father "did not belong to his own community." 
 Here, at any rate, Mr. Arber is wrong — absurdly so. For 
 excommunication could, and did, only apply to those actually 
 
 ' " That which the Popular Govern- Shield of Defence, p. 37 (quoted by 
 ment could not then effect is now Arber, p. 123). 
 effected since that government was Story, &o., p. 110. 
 
 changed by Master Johnson."— A ^^**°> P- ^^■ 
 
 * Ditto, p. 108. 
 
THE AMSTERDAM CHUECH. 313 
 
 members of the Church. The Separatists never dreamt of 
 passing formal censures on outsiders. These "God would 
 judge." And that Johnson, senior, could be "cast out," is 
 completely demonstrative of the fact that he was " within." 
 But still the act was "unpardonable." How do we know? 
 Mr. Arber points us to the father's letter, and Lawne's com- 
 ments, and the vain interposition of the Dutch elders. But 
 was there nothing on the other side ; were there no extenuating 
 circumstances ? I think there were. I think the act may be 
 defensible, to say the least, if the father came over from 
 England, three years after George had heen dealt ivith, not 
 merely, as he says himself, " to seek and make peace between " 
 the two brothers and the Church, but mainly, as John Robin- 
 son declares, to " take the part " ^ of George, to rake up dying 
 fires, and so render quiet life and work impossible. But, 
 grant that the act was unpardonable, shall we for a single 
 "unpardonable" offence confidently write down a man as 
 " thoroughly bad " ? It wiU go hard with most of us if such is 
 to be the rule of judgment. 
 
 But there is no mercy for Francis Johnson ! 
 
 Being a bad man, bad motives must be ascribed to all 
 he does. Mr. Arber reads in Lawne, for example, how 
 " Master Johnson brought Master Robinson's book (A Justifi- 
 cation of Separation) against Master Bernard into their 
 meeting-house (at Amsterdam), and there, before the congre- 
 gation, made a solemn testification against the manifold errors ^ 
 contained in it. . . ." And, at once, it occurs to him that 
 here there is no genuine concern for what Johnson deemed the 
 truth ; but spite at " the exodus of the Pilgrim Church to 
 Leyden, which would have greatly reduced his importance, if 
 not his income." ^ 
 
 Again, the result of his quarrel with Ainsworth about 
 
 1 Justificationof Separation, pp. 55-6 - His views about the superiority 
 
 (Edition 16101. of the Church to the offices, &c. 
 
 ■' Stoiy, &c., p. 123. 
 
314 THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 
 
 the eldership was to wreck his church, to make it homeless, 
 and to drive it iuto exile. Surely a situation fraught with 
 the anguish of despair to a man who was (as I read him) 
 too ambitious of power, too confident of possessing the 
 truth, too lacking in sympathy with other men and their 
 views ; but not insincere, nor consciously untrue to his ideals. 
 It is an issue to all his suffering and striving which comes 
 home to one as something very pathetic ; as it did to Dr. 
 William Ames when he wrote, " Think not evil ! if thou 
 meanest well. We intend not to insult over him that is down, 
 or to pursue a man that is flying of himself ; but to lend him a 
 hand that knoweth not well which way to take. Master John- 
 son, indeed, is rather to be pitied than much opposed. We 
 need but stand still as lookers on. He falleth wiUingly on his 
 own sword." ^ An erring and defeated man he seemed to 
 Dr. Ames, as did John Smyth to Ainsworth, and the 
 Separatists generally to most onlookers. 
 
 But to Mr. Arber, Johnson's flight to Emden, and his 
 misery, is the last act but one in a spiritual tragedy; is 
 a vision of Nemesis dogging the steps of a hypocrite ; is the 
 prelude to a final tearing-off of the mash. 
 
 For,^ says he, " now we come to the death-bed ac- 
 knowledgment of Rev. Francis Johnson, that his whole life 
 had been one long mistake." 
 
 At last, then, we are to have something ''perfectly 
 crushing." What is it? It is the following letter from 
 " Matthew Slade to Sir Dudley Carleton. Amsterdam, Satur- 
 day, 10-20 January, 1617-18. 
 
 " This day we have buried Master Francis Johnson, a man 
 that hath many years been pastor of the Brownists ; and 
 (having cast himself, and drawn others, into great troubles and 
 miseries, for their opinions and schism) did, a few days before 
 his death, publish a book, wherein he disclaimed most of 
 his former singularities and refuted them. To which work 
 ' story, &o., pp. 125-6. " Ditto, p. 129. 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 315 
 
 he hath also annexed a brief refutation of the Five- 
 Articles." 1 
 
 ISTowj is it not very remarkable that this published " death- 
 bed recantation " — so certain to arouse feeling and comment 
 — quite escaped general notice ? Is it not strange that Matthew 
 Slade should be the only one to hear about and report sO' 
 sensational an occurrence ? For certainly other reference than 
 his there seems to be iione. But what if Mr. Arber, in 
 this case as in some others, has been the dupe of his own 
 impulsiveness ? 
 
 He says, in a note,- that the book containing the re- 
 cantation " was probably published in the previous December,, 
 and therefore would bear the date 1617. It is certainly not 
 ' A Christian Plea, &c.,' which Johnson published in that year. 
 Even the title of this recantation is not known, so utterly 
 has the book perished." And, in his preface,^ he names it as 
 one of the two books concerned with the history of the 
 " Separation " which should " be sought for, without 
 wearying." 
 
 But the searcher, I think, may spare his pains. The book 
 wiU never be found ; or, rather, it has never been lost, but 
 has probably been in Mr. Arber's own hands. For almost as 
 certain as he is that the book is not " A Christian Plea, &c.," so 
 certain am I that it is. 
 
 My suspicion was aroused by the fact already stated 
 (viz., complete absence of allusion to such a phenomenon) ; 
 it was strengthened by the fact that Ainsworth should (in 
 1618) write "A Eeply to the Pretended Christian Plea for 
 the Antichristian Church of Eome, published by Francis 
 Johnson, a.d. 1617," but betray not the faintest acquaintance- 
 with a production, by the same pen, still more recent and 
 
 1 Mr. Arber adds to the last words. ^ynod of Dort was not convened till 
 Kfle.4r<icZes, a query (? Synod of Dort), November 1618. 
 as if he did not know that the - Story, &c p. 129. 
 
 ' Ditto, p. 9. 
 
316 THE AMSTERDAM CHUECH. 
 
 alarming; it was confirmed by a slight examination of the 
 " Christian Plea " itself. 
 
 The full title of this book is : — 
 
 " A Christian Plea conteyning three Treatises — 
 
 " (1) Touching the Anabaptists, and others mainteyning 
 •some like errours with them (pp. 1-220) ; 
 
 '' (2) Touching such Christians as now are here commonly 
 called Remonstrants or Arminians (pp. 221-244) ; 
 
 " (3) Touching the Reformed Churches with whom myself 
 agree in the faith of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (pp, 
 244-323) : made by Francis Johnson, pastor of the Ancient 
 Enghsh Church now. sojourning at Amsterdam, in the Low 
 Countreyes. 
 
 "Printed in the yeere of our Lord 1617." 
 
 Now what calls for notice, and appears to me decisive of 
 "the question, is (1) this — that the second teatise " concerns 
 some points which touch not only the Anabaptists, but 
 such other Christians, also, as are called Remonstrants," or 
 Arminians, these, namely : — 
 
 God's decree of Election. 
 
 God's decree of Reprobation. 
 
 General Redemption. 
 
 Free Will or Power in ourselves unto good since 
 the Fall. 
 
 The Perseverance of the Saints. 
 On these (the famous Five Points) the Arminians contested 
 "the regnant Calvinism, and Johnson entered the lists to defend 
 the latter, as he had always done. But the treatise numbers 
 only twenty-three pages, and might fitly be described by 
 Matthew Slade as a " brief Refutation " " annexed " to the 
 main work. 
 
 (2) In the other two treatises — particularly in the third — 
 Johnson does make concessions which might well give rise to 
 the rumour (and rumour, or a casual glance, may be all Slade 
 had to go by) that he had retracted or " disclaimed most 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 317 
 
 of his former singxilarities "— i.e., the characteristics of his- 
 Separatism. Thus, for example : 
 
 (a) He calls it^ "a great error ... to think that 
 baptism had in the Church of Eome, or other apostate 
 Churches, is not to be regarded." On the contrary, he 
 holds that the Church of Eome, since it "baptizes with 
 water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Ghost," and, at the same time, " professes all the articles of the 
 Christian Faith contained in the Apostles' Creed, the ISTicene, 
 the Athanasian," is, so far, a true Church. 
 
 (6) He gives a wide extension to the term Teacher,^ 
 making it include not only those who teach in "particular 
 Churches," but also "such as do either in the schools and 
 Universities interpret the Scriptures and train up students 
 in theology," and, indeed, any one anywhere "who instructs 
 the people in religion and aU duties of godliness, common 
 or special, as there is just occasion." 
 
 (c) He leaves it to be discussed " by the Word of God " 
 whether Teachers are to be raised up extraordinarily ; or, 
 having an ordinary calling, should be sent out by princes ; or- 
 should be " allowed by the Universities and governors thereof," 
 or should be " designed by particular Churches," or should be 
 "approved by the pastors and presbyteries of one or more 
 Churches." A far cry this from Henry Barrow. 
 
 (d) He argues (again contrary to Barrow) for suspension ' 
 (as preliminary to excommunication), considering it to be- 
 "like that keeping of persons in ward, whereof we read in 
 Lev. xxiv. 12 ; Numb. xv. 24, tUl it manifestly appear that 
 the parties suspended are to be cut off and cast out of the 
 congregation." 
 
 (e) He thinks it* "doth lie upon kings and all other 
 magistrates (within their dominions, cities, and jurisdictions) to 
 have special care — in the matter of maintenance — of the estate 
 
 1 Christian Plea, p. 27. ^ p. 303. 
 
 2 Ditto, p. 279. ■• P. 316. 
 
318 THE AMSTERDAM CHURCH. 
 
 of the ministers and Churches under them, after the example 
 of HezeHah and Nehemiah." 
 
 (/) He inclines to the opinion that^ "the remnants and 
 monuments of idolatry (altars, images, garments, temples, &c.) " 
 need not be " all done away," as Ainsworth, &c., maintained, and 
 that such things are not to be made a reason for separation or 
 even condemnation. Let there be a common endeavour " to 
 grow up in the truth and to nourish mutual love and peace one 
 with another, and (what they can) to have communion in the 
 things whereof both are persuaded, or wherein they shall not 
 themselves personally offend and partake with other men's 
 sins." 
 
 Then, finally and specially, there is the exposition - (quite 
 in a Presbyterian sense) of Matt, xviii. 17, and in connection 
 with this a narration of divers (thirty-six) errors, abuses, and 
 erroneous courses " which Messrs. Ainsworth, Robinson, Jacob, 
 Smith, &c., have gathered, received, pleaded for, and urged 
 earnestly "— a list of differences with old colleagues which 
 would be certain to give a superficial reader the impression that 
 he had turned his back alike on them and on his earlier self. 
 
 On the whole, however, he had not. He stiU sees good 
 cause to separate from the Church of England ; he still resents 
 " any other strange ecclesiastical power and authority " being 
 " interposed between " " a particular church " with its 
 ^' pastors " and " the Arch-Pastor Jesus Christ "^ — which is 
 the kernel of the matter. 
 
 But he has changed, and in some respects broadened. He 
 has become representative of those Brownists "who separate 
 from the Church for corruptions and yet confess both it and 
 Rome to be a true Church."* He has resumed certain of the 
 views which he used to hold at Middelburg. He is, therefore, 
 nearer than he was to the " Reformed Churches," and vsrites his 
 
 ' P. 318. •• Paget's " Arrow apfainst the Separ- 
 
 ^ Pp. 306-16. atioa of the Brownists," preface. 
 
 •5 P. 251. 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHURCH. 319 
 
 "Plea" — as the wording of the title would suggest — in the 
 hope of opening a way to communion with them of a closer 
 kind than formerly seemed to him possible or desirable. It is, 
 accordingly, rather of the character of an eirenicon than a 
 recantation — at least, it is such a recantation as Mr. Arber 
 applauds^ in John Robinson. 
 
 We conclude, then, that Mr. Arber crowns his unfair 
 censures of Johnson with the cruellest cut of all. We say 
 that Johnson was never a bad man — unless to be sometimes 
 arrogant and passionate and harsh and narrow is to be 
 bad. We say that the signs, so far as they go, poiat 
 not to his having grown worse but rather better as the years 
 went by — more calm and self-restrained and tolerant. We 
 say, lastly, that we are prepared to rest this judgment on the 
 style, drift, and spirit o£ the book- which he wrote when the 
 subduing sense of the end may have been already upon him, 
 and which is the only " recantation " he ever made. 
 
 5. In general support of Lawne, Mr. Arber cites Rev. John 
 Paget and John Robinson. 
 
 Paget was a Puritan, one of the Forward preachers. He 
 settled in Amsterdam ten years later than the Ancient Church 
 (1607). As Ainsworth says, "Our Church is before yours, 
 being through Grod's mercy scattered and established first, and 
 you coming after, gathered a people and erected a ministry in 
 this city by us. . . ." ^ 
 
 In doing so, Paget "communicated with many learned 
 English, Scottish, Dutch, and French, who," says he, " gave us 
 counsel and help in our endeavours " ; '' but he ignored the 
 existence of the Ancient Church. When Ainsworth com- 
 plained of thi^ slight, he said in defence, that he did right to 
 ignore so exclusive a body. 
 
 ' story, &o., chap, xxiii., pp. the Present Ministerie of the Church 
 
 174-188. of England," 1608. 
 
 '' Compare it, e.g., with his " Cer- ^ Quoted at p. 37 of " Arrow against 
 
 tayne Reasons and Arguments Prov- the Separation of the Brownists," by 
 
 ing that it is not Lawful to Heare or Paget, 
 
 have any Spirituall Communion with ■■ Ditto, p. 43. 
 
320 THE AMSTERDAM CHUECH. 
 
 Paget's church flourished to his own satisfaction. " The 
 hand of God was with us, the reformed churches gave us 
 the right hand of fellowship, the hand of the Christian 
 magistrates furthered our enterprise ; divers who left your 
 church and went to the Dutch did come to us; many 
 more have come since. "^ On the other hand, he took it 
 for a clear sign of God's anger against " the Brownists " 
 that " three or four hundi-ed " of them " have brought forth 
 more apostate Anabaptists and Arians sometimes in one year 
 than 10,000 members of the Reformed Dutch Churches in this 
 city have done in ten years or more." ^ In fact, the spirit 
 which persecuted the Separatists in the home-land embodied 
 tself in the English Church of Amsterdam. As Ainsworth 
 says in effect — like mother like daughter. 
 
 Among those whom Paget welcomed into his fold were 
 " C. Lawne, Fowler, and others," ^ concerned in what Ains- 
 worth calls " that charitable libel," which appeared under their 
 name. Ainsworth speaks of them as "your proselytes"*: 
 not merely welcomed, then, but also enticed. "Some of 
 them," he adds, " have stood in election to bear office 
 among you." ^ Unable to give literary form to their Hbels, 
 they have not lacked a " penman." ^ Someone in the 
 English Church — the manner of reference pointing to Paget 
 himself — has been all too ready to do this office for them. 
 Moreover, Lawne's book is not the only one which has 
 appeared. Others of hke character, " disguised " but not so 
 far as to conceal authorship, have issued from the same source. 
 In short, Paget has made a " dead set " at the Ancient 
 Church from the first. To cherish into a flame the embers 
 of discontent, and allure the discontented to the refuge of 
 his own congregation, has been a ple^sawt, and has seemed 
 to him a pious work. Could he have scattered the nest of 
 
 ' An Arrow, &c., p. 43. ^ Ditto, p. 3. 
 
 2 Ditto, preface. f' Ditto, p. 3. Cf. p. 36, Lawne, 
 
 •' Ditto, p. 3. " the first pretended author of that 
 
 * Ditto, p. 36. book." 
 
THE AMSTEEDAM CHUECH. 321 
 
 schismatics by the arm of the law, he would have done it 
 gladly. But, failing this, he has used such means as came 
 nearest to hand. Any foul weapon was clean enough for his 
 purpose. Nay, it was easy to persuade himself that the foulest 
 story about people so detested was true, and that " great 
 fruit " might come " from publishing the personal sins of them 
 that continue in error." 
 
 About Ainsworth nothing could be gathered to his moral 
 detriment. Even he, however, had evinced his frailty, and 
 although Thomas White has long ago drawn attention to 
 the fact, it is well to refresh the public memory. So he 
 writes ^ : — " You are noted to have turned your coat and 
 changed your religion five several times : — 
 
 (1) Being of our religion, and a member of the Church of 
 England, you forsook that Church and separated. 
 
 (2) Being separated you did again in London — being in the 
 hands of authority — yield to join with the worship and ministry 
 of the Church of England. 
 
 (3) After this you did again slide back into the separation, 
 and renounce the Church of England. 
 
 (4) After this, when you were in Ireland and in some 
 danger of punishment for your scandal, you did again return 
 into the communion renounced by you (whether feignedly or 
 unfeignedly I leave unto yourself to consider). 
 
 (5) After this you change your profession again, and fall 
 back into separation and stick now presently in this schism. 
 
 This (if true) was rather ancient history, seeing that 
 Ainsworth had been (as Paget tells us") twenty years in 
 Amsterdam, and had during that period been only too con- 
 sistent in " sticking " to his principles. But it is a slight 
 contribution to " the dunghill of slander," ^ in which the 
 Separatists might, perhaps, be buried ; and that is enough. 
 
 ' An Arrow against the Separation more than twenty years as a neigh- 
 of the Brownists, p. 91. hour unto the Eeformed Churches." 
 
 ^ Ditto, p. 119: "You have lived ' John Eobinson's phrase. 
 
 21 
 
322 THE AMSTBEDAM CHUEOH. 
 
 Paget, then, does mot seem a likely witness to keep Lawne's 
 credit in countenance. 
 
 But instead of adding further comment of my own, let 
 me quote Ainsworth's calm and surely "perfectly crushing" 
 rebuke. 
 
 "And upon this occasion I shall put you in mind (Mr. 
 Paget) of that which in part appeareth in this your writing 
 (An Arrow against the Separation of the Brownists), and 
 more fully in the disguised pamphlets that come out of 
 your congregation : how you take a special delight, and 
 t;hink it for your (ad) vantage, to upbraid men's difEerences; 
 to rake into particular men's sins and infirmities, yea, though 
 they be repented of; and to blazon them abroad to the 
 world, for the discredit of the cause which they profess 
 or have professed. If the arrows of the Almighty did stick 
 fast in you, and you felt your own misery, you woidd not write 
 after this manner. ... If the contentions and particular 
 sins, I say not of all Christendon, but of England and the 
 churches in the J!^etherland, or the like — which you acknowledge 
 irue churches — were thus blazoned, what a sink of ill-savour 
 would be smelt ? And are there no personal sins amongst 
 yourselves may we think, that you take snch a course ? If God 
 herein should reward you according to your works, where 
 should you appear ? I counsel you, therefore, to take a better 
 course. Error may be refuted by the Word of God, vrithout 
 any such leaven of maliciousness ; and the truth needeth no such 
 fleshly means to maintain it. If you like not of this counsel 
 you may walk on in the light of your fire, and in the sparks 
 that you have kindled, but my soul shall not come into your 
 secret, though I shall not cease to wish your welfare, so long 
 and so far as I may.^ November 9, 1617." 
 
 We turn, lastly, to John Eobinson's witness. 
 
 In a certain passage ^ of his " Justification of Separation," 
 
 ' An Arrow against the Separation ^ Vol. II., pp. 259-60 (Ashton's 
 
 of the Brownists, p. 331. edition). 
 
THE A3ISTEEDAM CHURCH. 323 
 
 Robinson says "that if iniquity be committed in the 
 Church, and complaint and proof accorduigly made, and that 
 the Church will not reform or reject the party offending, 
 but will, on the contrary, maintain presumptuously and abet 
 such impiety — that then, by abetting that pdrty and his 
 sin, she makes it her own by imputation, and enwraps 
 herself in the same guilt with the sinner. And, remaining 
 irreformable (either by such members of the same church 
 as are faithful, if there be any, or by other sister churches), 
 wipeth herself out of the Lord's church-roll, and now 
 ceaseth to be any longer the true Church of Christ. And 
 whatsoever truths or ordinances of Christ this rebellious rout 
 still retains, it but usurps the same, without right unto them 
 or promise of blessing upon them ; both the persons and sacri- 
 fices are abominable unto the Lord." 
 
 Here Mr. Arber {suo modo) rushes to the conclusion 
 that Robinson had a picture before his mind of Studley 
 and the Ancient Church, so that by 1610 " he had come 
 to regard" that church "as a rebellious rout."^ Of course 
 this may have been the case if Eobiason really thought of 
 the Amsterdam Church as Mr. Arber does. But then that 
 is the question at issue. And Mr. Arber has overlooked two 
 facts : 
 
 (1) That such a church, a mere "rebellious rout," was 
 one with which another church could only have retained 
 communion on pain of " enwrapping herself " " in the same 
 guilt." Yet in this same year Robinson let his church be 
 consulted on the differences about the eldership, and let 
 a deputation be sent as well as letters with a view to pre- 
 serving peace.^ Indeed, he never severed fraternal relations 
 — not even in the extremely severe letter of 1624, where 
 mention is made of " differences and troubles " which, " siace 
 the death of your vdse and modest governors," " have laden 
 
 ^ story, &0., p. 123. ^ Robinson's Works, "Vol. III., pp. 
 
 466-475 (Ashton's edition). 
 
324 THE AMSTEEDAM CHURCH. 
 
 the ordinances of God and professors of the same " " with 
 scandal and opprobry." For this, too, is addressed " to our 
 beloved, the elders and Church at Amsterdam," and is signed, 
 " your loving brethren, the pastor and Church at Leyden." ^ 
 
 (2) But possibly more conclusive still, both as to this par- 
 ticular question and as to the merits of the case generally, is 
 the fact that Robinson wrote thus in 1614: — -"There passed 
 out, some time since, a defamatory libel under the names of 
 Charles Lawne and three other, his brethren in evil, but cer- 
 tainly penned hy some other persons,^ whose greater knowledge 
 did arm their cruel hatred the more to hurt, . . . against 
 whom and whose friends, durst I use the same liberty in pub- 
 lishing to the world their personal corruptions which I Tcnow, and 
 could soon learn by the testimony of honester men than these 
 informers,^ they who have written of others what hath pleased 
 them, should read that which would not please them, of their 
 own, if not of themselves. But God forbid! My desire 
 is rather to pacify than to alienate affections. . . . 
 Besides, in following their course I should, for the 
 faults of a few corrrupter persons, wrong the credit 
 of many honest and innocent men, for whose sakes, 
 I would rather cover the others' failings, than for them blemish 
 the credit of the rest." 
 
 Then, of the " accusations " in the libel he says : 
 "Though they were all true, as I know some of them to he 
 wholly false, and others impudently published by such as were 
 themselves chief agents in them^ yet did no more concern me, 
 and the Church with me, than did the abuses in the Church 
 at Corinth, the Church at Eome." 
 
 Finally, of " the publishers of those accusations " he says, 
 they "cannot be unsuspected of any reasonable man; being 
 such generally as are both enemies to our profession, and 
 have either for their unfaithful apostasy, or other scandalous 
 
 1 Robinson's Works, Vol. III., p. 393. 
 
 2 Ditto, pp. 95-99 (preface to " Of ^ italics mine. 
 Religious Communion)." 
 
THE AMSTERDAM CHUECH. 325 
 
 sins, or both, 136611 cast out of the Church, and excommu- 
 nicated. Now, as for the former, it is truly and commonly 
 said that no person, running away from his master, will 
 easily speak well of him; so doth experience confirm it, for 
 the latter, that scarce any condemned in any court, how 
 justly soever, but will complain either of the mahce of the 
 evidence, or ignorance of the jury, or injustice of the judge. 
 Condemned persons must repair their own, by ruinating the 
 credits of their judges." 
 
 With which judgment, based on personal knowledge of 
 the facts and persons involved, as also on the dictates of common 
 sense, it is hard to see how a " cool-headed " man can fail to 
 agree. And so we leave the matter. 
 
Appendices 
 
APPENDIX I. 
 
 [see note I. AT END OF CHAPTER I.] 
 
 The Scholar of Oxford. 
 
 Op com-se, since the wi-iter of "Master Some laid open in his true 
 colours, &c.," was the "clerk of Oxford" against whom BaiTow girds so 
 strongly, it is plain that Dr. Dexter cannot be right in (conjeoturally) 
 assigning the book to Greenwood.' Since, moreover, the wi-iter was Job 
 Throckmorton, an exti-act or two may serve to show how extremely 
 probable is the conjecture that he — Peni'y's friend — had a share in the 
 wi-iting of the Ti'acts. If the following does not " smack " of Mai-prelate 
 it would surely be very hard to say what does. 
 
 . . . " That clothead of Sarum [i.e., Dr. Bx-idges, Martin's butt] 
 to go away with a whole fardle of errors and absurdities, and not to say 
 black was his eye." ^ 
 
 " This John of Beverley told the young man that doubtless he was 
 not baptized, if that dull-headed, dogbolt priest baptized him." ^ 
 
 " And methink I should see some reverent bishop, or other, on his 
 knees before Her Majesty as one loath to speak, good man, but only that 
 the heinousness of the case doth thereunto force him, as it were, against 
 his will; and therefore he begins, I warrant you, with a sigh or two 
 fetched fi-om the very depth of his bowels, in this sort : ' O madam, you 
 may see now what your Pui-itans are come to . . . that your Majesty 
 is not chi-istened ! ' " ■* 
 
 " And so peradventure father John Elmar should kiss Kate no more 
 in the pulpit while he lived — and what a shrewd loss were that ? " * 
 
 Dr. Some's " foul, gi-oss, and more palpable absurdity than ever the 
 ignoi-ant Welshman perpetrated. Will you see how unresistibly I can 
 bring this gear about ? Then lay down your books awhile. Give ear — 
 Uhi non ecclesia, ibi non vocatio, 
 Ubi non »st vocatio, ibi non est ministerium, 
 Vbi non est ministerium, ihi non sacramentum. 
 
 ergo subjoined. 
 
 WiU you have it in English now ? For I'U never dissemble you. I do by 
 
 my Latin as that sweet babe of Sai-um doth by his Greek and Hebrew — 
 
 beg and borrow here a patch and there a patch, as the dictionaries that 
 
 come in my way do yield me sustenance. And if anything happen to be 
 
 false, then it was either Chard," my printer's, fault, or else my dictionary 
 
 was not the last edition, or else my candle wants snuffing." ' 
 
 1 TT- i. c r^ i.-. T friend and Barrow's opponent, the 
 
 1 History of Congregationalism, ^^ ^^^^^ t^^ns against Dexter. 
 
 Bibliography. " In wntmg which (eo f Z, ^ 
 
 decidedly does it, in parts, seem to 3 ii' 
 
 differ in style from other books bear- ^ P' _„' 
 
 ing Greenwood's name) I am per- ^ P" „ ' 
 
 suaded Barrow had a considerable 6 ghard «ras one of Bridge's printers. 
 
 hand." But J. G., being Penry s 7 86 o «- 
 
APPENDIX II. 
 
 The Earliest Separatist Manifesto. 
 
 Reason is shown [in ckronology of BaiTOw's writings, Appendix III., 
 p. 338, § (6)] for believing that "A Brief Summe, &c.," wHch finds place in 
 the 1605 edition of the " Plain Refutation," was first published in 1588 ; 
 and it may be taken as, perhaps, their earliest " manifesto " on the part of 
 the Separatists. It is very short, and is here given in full :— 
 
 " A Brief Summe of the causes of our separation, and of our purposes 
 in practice [withstood by G. G., defended by H. B., as followeth— 
 this was added when Ban-ow added his reply] : — 
 
 "We seeke above all thinges the peace and protection of the Most High, 
 and the kingdome of Christ Jesus oui- Lord. 2. We seeke and fully pur- 
 pose to worship God aright, according as He hath commanded in His most 
 holy Word. 3. We seeke the fellowship of His faithfull and obedient 
 servants, and together with them to enter Covenant with the Lord, and by 
 the dii-ection of His Holy Spirit, to proceed to a godly, free, and right 
 choise of ministers and other officers by Him ordeyned to the service of 
 His Chm'ch. 4. We seeke to establish and obey the ordinances and lawes 
 of our Saviour Christ left by His last will and Testament to the goveniiag 
 and guyding of His Church, without altering, changing, innovating, 
 wi-esting, or leaving out any of them that the Lord shall give us sight of. 
 5. We purpose (by the assistance of the Holy Ghost) in this faith and 
 order to leade our lives, and for this faith and order to leave our lives, if 
 such be the good will of our Heavenly Father, to whom be honor and 
 glorye. Amen. 
 
 " 6. And now that our forsaking and utter abandoning of these dis- 
 ordered assemblies as they generally stand in England, may not seeme 
 strange nor offensive to any man that will judge or be judged by the Word 
 of God, we aUedge and affirme them heinously guiltie in these four princi- 
 pall Transgressions. 
 
 " 1. They worship the true God after a false manner, their worship 
 being made of the invention of man, even of that man of sinne, erronioua 
 and imposed upon them. 
 
 " 2. Foe that the prophane, ungodly multitudes, without exception of 
 any one person, are with them received into, and reteined in the bozome of 
 the Church. 
 
 " 3. Foe that they have a false Antichristian ministerie imposed upon 
 them, reteined with them, and mainteined by them. 
 
 " 4. Foe that these Churches are ruled by, and remaine in subjection 
 unto an Antichristian and ungodly government, cleane contiarie to the 
 institution of our Saviour Christ. 
 
 " When these things stand thus, let him that i-eadeth consider." 
 
APPENDIX III. 
 
 Chronology of Barrow's writings (and Greenwood's). 
 
 So far as it goes the evidence of Robert Stokes and Robert Bowie con- 
 tained in the Egerton Papers' gives the most exact information. They 
 were two of the group examined in March, 1593. They appeared before 
 Justices Popham, Ajiderson, Egerton, and Stanley on the 19th. 
 Certain facts disclosed by their evidence are these : — 
 
 (1) Stokes found the money. " The several impressions " of the 
 hooks he got printed " cost him about £40." 
 
 (2) The place of printing was Dort (in Holland), and the printer 
 " one Hanse." 
 
 (3) Bowie and Stokes woi-ked hand-in-hand. At one time both are 
 at Dort together negotiating with Hanse ; at another they are in London 
 intriguing with the prisoners, supervising MSS., furtively distributing 
 copies of the printed books ; now Stokes alone is the " instrument " at 
 Dort, now Bowie alone ; now Bowie brings them over into England, now 
 Stokes ; and the latter's " clock {i.e., cloke) bag," seems to have been in 
 active use with each. 
 
 (4) There were only three of the " books " which came into anything 
 like a wide circulation during the writers' lifetime, or even before the end 
 of the century. These were — (a) " A Collection of Sclanderous Articles," 
 and (6) Greenwood's " Answer to George Gifford's Pretended Defence of 
 Read Prayers," both printed about April, 1590.^ Five hundred copies of 
 each, says Stokes, were brought into England, and " 200 or 300 given" to 
 Barrow and Greenwood for distribution ; (c) " A Collection of Certain 
 Letters, &c.," printed about midsummer, 1590 — 500 copies in aU — and 200 or 
 300 brought into England.^ The later " books " — and the more important 
 — were intercepted, or did not emerge from the MS. state. Just a few 
 copies were aU that found their way among the " brethren." It is of 
 consequence to bear this in mind. 
 
 (5) Stokes' connection with the printing ceased after the seizure of the 
 " Brief Discovery, &c.," in the spring of 1591 — except possibly as secret 
 " informer " to the Prelates. He " fell away " in the autumn, and— to 
 have done with him — it may be added that when the Church became 
 formally constituted under Johnson it publicly cast him out. This 
 
 ' Printed for the Camden Society, 1590, they cannot have been in the 
 
 1840. Pp. 167-179. printer's hands before the end of April. 
 
 ' Greenwood says (March 11, 1593), 
 
 - Stokes (March 19, 1593) says he that he has heard that the price of 
 
 caused these to be printed about this these three was 8d. each, and that 
 
 time three years. But as the former 1,000 of them were printed. Perhaps 
 
 includes a conference held on April 13, he n>eans 1,000 of them altogether. 
 
332 APPENDIX III. 
 
 appears from Thomas Settell's evidence (April 5, 1593) — " He also saith 
 that he was at the excommimication of Robert Stokes, and the words 
 were pronounced by Francis Johnson, their pastor." ' 
 
 1589. I. — 1589. " A True Descbiption of the Visible Oongbegation of 
 
 THE Saints under the Gospel, according to the Word of 
 Truth." 
 
 This was the " little thing of one sheet " which Stokes printed before 
 anything else, i.e., before March, 1590. 
 
 It was reprinted (at least it is bound up) with " an apology or defence 
 of such true Christians as ai-e commonly, but unjustly, called Brownists " 
 . . . 1604. (British Museum.) 
 
 It was reprinted again in 1641 — " in the time of this hopefuU Parlia- 
 ment, for the good of God's people, which desire that Christ may raigne in 
 His own ordinances." (Memorial Hall Library.) Prom this edition I 
 have quoted the title, but the title as given in the edition of 1604 is more 
 correct, viz., " A True Description out of the Word of God of the Visible 
 Church."2 
 
 In some notices of the " little thing " Johnson, Penry, and others are 
 mentioned as writers of it with Barrow.^ But the date disposes of 
 Penry and Johnson at any rate. For neither was a " Separatist " before 
 1592 ; and the " tract " is " Separatist " unmistakably. 
 
 II. — "A Collection of Certain Sclandbrous Articles given out by 
 THE Bishops against such faithfull Christians as they 
 NOW unjustly deteynb in their Prisons, together with 
 
 THE ANSWBARE OF THE SAIDE PRISONERS THEREUNTO. ALSO 
 THE SOME [sum] OF CBRTAINE CONFERENCES HAD IN THE 
 FlEETE ACCORDING TO THE BiSHOPS BLOUDIE MANDATE WITH 
 
 TWO Prisoners there." [Dr. Williams's Library.] 
 
 1590, eirc. 1590 [about April]. Printed at Dort [500 copies] at the charge of 
 
 April. Robert Stokes, and conveyed by him into England. 
 
 The contents : — (a) Preface by the Editor [Stokes ?] 3 pp. 
 
 (b) Letter " to owre loving friends, Mr. Archdeacon MuUins, Mr. Doctor 
 Andros [Andrews], Mr. Cotton, Mr. Hutchinson, and the rest of the 
 Preachers in and about London within named." Dated 25 February, 
 1589-90; signed John Lond [Aylmer], John Herbert, Bdw. Stanhope 
 Rich. Cosen. 
 
 (c) " A brief e of the positions holden by the new sectorie of recusants " 
 — twelve in number. 
 
 (d) List of the prisoners and of the preachers appointedto visit them. 
 
 (e) " Brief answeare to such articles as the Bishops have given out in 
 our name " — an inti-oduction and answer to the " positions " seriatim. 7 pp. 
 
 (/) " The brief summe of a conference had the 9 day of the 3 moneth 
 
 1 HarleianMSS. 7,042, p. 35. visible Church, written by Barrow, 
 
 = See Appendix IV. Johnson, Penry, and others." This 
 
 3 Thus, Dexter's title for it in his need not mean that he himself would 
 
 Bibliography is " A description of the include Penry and Barrow. 
 
APPENDIX III. 833 
 
 between Mr. Hiitchinson Ai-chdeacon, and me, Joliu Greenwood, prisoner 
 in the Fleet, having been kept close now a year and an half by the Bishops' 
 sole commandment. ..." 5 pp. 
 
 (g) " The summe of the second conference had betweene Mr. Hutchin- 
 son and me, John Greenwood, the 17 day of the third moneth." 5 pp. 
 
 (h) " The summe of the conference had in the Fleet the 18 of the 3 
 moneth betwixt Mr. Hutchinson and Dr. Androes of the one partye, 
 and Henry Barrow close priysoner' there on the other. . . ." 13 pp. 
 
 (i) "A summe of such cheif poynts as were handled in the second con- 
 ference betwixt Mr. Hutchinson, Dr. Androes on the one parte, and John 
 Greenwood and Henry Barrow prisoners in the Fleet, on the other partie, 
 upon the 13 of the 4 moneth." 5 pp. 
 
 (k) "A breif answeare to certayne sclaunderous articles and un- 
 godly calumniations sparsed abrode by the BBs and theire adherents 
 against diverse faithfull and true Christians her Majesties loyall and 
 loringe subjectes to colour theire owns ungodly and tyrannicall dealing 
 with them and to bring them into hatred both with Prince and people.'' 
 (These articles are different from the " Positions " already answered — 
 though the same in number and not unlike in general character. Those 
 were a private " schedule " for the Preachers' guidance, these had been 
 " sparsed abrode " ; and are so expressed as to evoke the greatest amount 
 of prejudice.) 9 pp. 
 
 At the end : " Expect theyr other conferences with all possible speed." 
 
 III. — " An answer to George Giefoed's Pbetended Defence of , _„„ . 
 
 -,.. T. T 1590, nrc. 
 
 Read Praibrs and devised Litourgies, with his tjngodlib AprH. 
 
 CAVILS AND WICKED SCLANDEES, COMPRISED IN THE FIRST PARTE 
 OF HIS LAST ITnChRISTIAN AND RBPROCHPIJLL BOOKE, EN- 
 
 TiTrLED A Short Treatise against the Donatists of 
 England." " Bt John Greenwood, Christ's poore afflicted 
 prisoner in the Fleet for the Truth of the Gospbll." 
 
 [Dr. Williams's Library.] 
 Printed^ at same time and place as (2) ; 500 copies, conveyed into 
 England by Stokes ; 200 or 300 given to Barrow and Greenwood " for 
 dysposytion." 
 
 In his preface Greenwood gives the outline of an earlier writing by 
 himself on the same subject, which, being " canied abroade by such as de- 
 sired true instruction," was intercepted, and " fell into Mr. Gilford's hands." 
 When the treatise was republished, in 1603, the editor [F. Johnson?] 
 refers to this, and says : " if by any means that first of his come into 
 thy handes, be thou entreated, for the truth's sake, eyther thyself to pub- 
 lish it, or to deliver it to such as will; that so the whole matter and 
 carriage of it may better appeare to all men, for the further manifesta- 
 tion of the truth in this behalf." I am not aware that the lost MS. has 
 ever been recovered. 
 
 ' " Two yeares and well nye an - Stokes's Evidence, March 19, 1593. 
 
 half," says Barrow, later 
 
334 
 
 APPENDIX III. 
 
 1590, 
 Summer. 
 
 1590, 
 
 September 
 
 13? 
 
 The 1603 edition suggests Francis Jolinson as editor by tlie fact tliat 
 the Introduction is in the style of Johnson, and that both this and the body 
 of the treatise are apparently in the same type [old English] as " Master 
 Francis Johnson's answer to Master H. Jacob's defence of the Church 
 and ministry of England " (1600), interspersed, in like manner also, with 
 sentences in Roman type. Another circumstance points the same way. The 
 1603 edition has an appendix entitled, a " Fewe observations of Mr. Oiffm-d's 
 last cavills about stinted read prayers and devised Leitowrgies." This appendix 
 is wanting in the 1690 edition — naturally, as it was written later. But it 
 appears to have been printed together with [Barrow's] Plain Refutation, 
 &c., and [Greenwood's] Brief Refutation, in 1591 — the volume which 
 brought about Johnson's conversion to Separatism. Hence in retaining 
 that volume he retained the " observations," and might be expected to 
 add them to the " treatise " [of 1590] which dealt with the same subject. 
 
 rV. — OONPEEBNCES AND LbTTBES, &C. 
 
 [The full title-page is missing in the copy I have consulted — in Dr. 
 Williams's Library.] Preface 2 pp. 
 
 (a) " The summe of the conference betwixt Mr. Thomas Sperin and 
 me, Henry Barrow, upon the 14th of the third moneth in the Fleet. . . ." 
 15 pp. 
 
 (6) " The summe of a conference had betwene Mr. Sperin and Mr. 
 Egerton of the one side, and Henry BaiTOw and John Greenwood of the 
 other side, in their chamber ... in the Fleet, upon the 20 of the 
 third moneth, 1590." 15 pp. 
 
 (c) Correspondence of Ban-ow and Greenwood with Mr. Egerton. 
 Seven letters, April 12 to May 11, 1590. 
 
 (d) " The summe of a confuse conference had the 3 of the 4 moneth, 
 betvrixt Mr. Sperin and Mr. Cooper, John Greenwood and Hem-y Barrow 
 in the Fleet." 18 pp. 
 
 (e) Eleven " arguments " which " were more than a yeare and an halfe 
 since delivered to Mr. Cartwi-ight, Mr. Travers, Mr. Charke and Mr. 
 Floyde," and " which still remaine upon them unanswered." 4 pp. 
 
 These five pieces — which give the other conferences that were to be 
 expected " with all possible speed "—were printed in the summer of 1590. 
 Stokes says they were printed at his charge, but Bowie was the agent, and 
 brought them from Dort into England. He " delivered sundry copies to 
 one Myohens." " 500 in all." 
 Y, "The fiest pabt of the Platfokmb, penned bt that woetht 
 
 SEEVANT OF JbSUS ChEIST, AND BLESSED WITNBS OF HiS 
 MOST HOLY OEDINANCBS TO THE LOSSB OF LIFE, Me. HENEY 
 
 Baeeowb." [Dr. Williams's Library.] 
 
 The Platform is included in a longer writing with this title-page :— 
 "Me. Heney Baeeowe's Platfoem, 
 Which may serve as a Preparative to purge away Prelatisme : with some 
 other parts of Poperie. 
 Made ready to be sent from Miles Micklebound to much-beloved Eng- 
 
APPENDIX III. 335 
 
 land. Together with some other memorable things. And, a familiar 
 Dialogue, in and with the which, all the several! matters conteyned in this 
 booke, are set forth and interlaced. After the untimely death of the 
 penman of the foresaid Platforme, and his fellow-prisoner; who being 
 constant witnesses in points apperteyning to the true worship of God, and 
 right government of His Church, sealed up their testimony with their 
 bloud ; and paciently suffred the stopping of their breath, for their love 
 to the Lord — Anno 1593. 
 
 Printed for the yeare of tetter hope — [1611 at end]. 
 
 Micklebound [otherwise quite unknown] says truly that the Plat 
 form " sheweth principally two things. The first, that " all false and anti- 
 Christian ministeries [yet reteyned in the land] ought by the Prinoe's- 
 authority to be rooted out." The second, that " [by like authority] their 
 anti-Christian and idolatrous livings ought to be converted to 
 [charitable] civil uses ; and are not to be given or appropriated to God's 
 true ministerie for the maintenance thereof : neither ought it to receive the 
 same." 
 
 Desiderius [Micklebound' s imaginary interlocutor] says : " You call 
 the writing the first part, &c., which implieth a second likewise. But is 
 there so ? " 
 
 Miles : " I never saw it ; but I hope ere my return I shall see Amster- 
 dam and Leyden, where I shall make diligent inquiry among the people 
 there." Farther on he speaks more positively : " I know not where to have 
 it, neyther doe I think that ever it was finished. For the adversary 
 Prelats thought better to finish the authors' lives." What the second 
 part was to treat of is stated by the authors themselves [for Greenwood is 
 coupled with Barrow, though the latter alone did the writing] — it was to 
 show how the changes advocated in the first part " should be effected, what 
 the true ministry of Christ is, how it should be created and brought in." 
 
 Desiderius asks : " To whom was this work presented P " 
 
 Miles : " As I have heard, to the Right Honourable Sir William CeciU, 
 Knight, Baron of Burleigh, Lord High Treasurer of England, &c." 
 
 Desiderius : " They in their writing have praised his wisdome, but had 
 he preserved their lives from the violence and cruelty of the Prelates, that 
 would have praised his virtue." 
 
 As to the date of " Platform," a sure clue is found La a letter addressed 
 to Burghley by Barrow and Greenwood which is printed with it. The 
 letter is dated " from the Fleet this 13 of this 9 moneth." But what year ? 
 Well, the writers say we have " had no exercise to our bodies, ayi'e, or 
 other things needfull, even for the preserving of life this three yeares in 
 effect." Thus the date would be September 13, 1590. 
 
 Desiderius says : " I pray you teU me the reason why they printed not 
 this Platform heretofore, and that especially against the King's Majestie's 
 First Parliament in England ; for that was the time, then was the hope." 
 
 Miles : " Had his Majestie any Arch or Lord Bishop in all his kingdome 
 of Scotland ? Were not all put downe ? And who would not then have 
 
336 APPENDIX III. 
 
 thought but the like woi-thy woi-k should have been done in England, after 
 his Highnes coming thither, to have brought those kingdomes and countries 
 into Christian uniformitie ? This was their hope . . . ." 
 
 Desiderius : " But how know you they stayed the pi-inting of the Plot 
 (i.e., Platform) against the Prelates, upon any such desire, hope, or con- 
 sideration as you mentioned ? " 
 
 Miles : " I had speech with Mr. Francis Johnson, one of the pastors of 
 that people, who came with other his assistants to make their humble sute 
 to the King, and wei-e readie to enterteyne conference with the Prelates, 
 that His Majestie might the more perfectly have understood the inno- 
 cency of their cause, and the evilnes of their advers aries ; andthat same 
 party [viz., P. Johnson] told me, if they should print the aforesaid Plat- 
 forme, he thought it would give offence, and bee very ill-taken, inasmuch 
 as it was thought that the King and Councill would doe something of 
 themselves for the abolishing of Bishops, &c. And so they patiently 
 waited to see what would be done." 
 
 Not paged, but there are 46 pp. of the Platform. 
 9 pp. of the Letter. 
 Large print, duodec. 
 
 ^ „^ VI. — " A Bbiepe Discoyeeie op the False Chxtech. 
 
 Early 'As the mother such the daughter is.' — Ezeh. xvi. 44. 
 
 montlis of 1590 " 
 
 Three thousand copies were printed at Dort in the early months of 1591 
 [1590, we must remember, would extend to March 25, 1591] and seized at 
 Flushing and Brill. Stokes bore the charge. Arthui- Byllett was 
 " examiner," or reader of the proof.' All the copies were not confiscated 
 as the one we quote is a 1590 edition, and we hear of others — thus Daniel 
 Studley deposed that he had two copies " after they were printed from 
 Arthur Byllet," and that he gave one (perhaps the two) to John Gwalter 
 263 pp., 4 introduction. [Dr. Williams's Library.] 
 
 The book was repubhshed in 1707 [London] under the title " A Brief 
 Discovery of the False Churches, wherein the rights of the Christian 
 Church are further asserted by the Holy Scriptures. Done from an. 
 authentic MS. written in the reign of Queen Elizabeth by Henry Ban-ow, 
 a member of the Honourable Society of Gray's Inn, who suffered death 
 for his nonconformity to the Church of England." The changes from 
 the original are abundant, and, as Dexter says, "unwarranted." The 
 following, taken from the last pages of the book, will suffice to 
 show this : 
 
 1707 [reprint]. 1590 [original]. 
 
 Seeing also that the Re- . . . Seing also eve- by this little search 
 foi-mation of most of the and supei'ficiall view we have take- of the 
 Protestant Chiu-ches, in present estate, and pretended reformation of 
 the state they are now in, this their Chui-ch of England, all things 
 
 ' " Print " is Stokes's word. - e = en. 
 
APPENDIX III. 
 
 337 
 
 1707 [reprint]. 
 is far from being com- 
 pleted, being [at the best] 
 but enolining to the 
 primitive and ancient de- 
 fections from Chi-ist's 
 first institution, it be- 
 Lovetb 
 
 the chosen people of God 
 ■who wait for the appear- 
 ing of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ to preserve then- 
 bodies and souls in 
 purity . . . 
 
 1590 [origmaFj. 
 appeare to be out of fi-ame, stil in the olde 
 corruption, and (at the best) but enclining to 
 the primitive and ancient defections from 
 Christ's Testament, nothing being aright or 
 according to the will of God amongst them : 
 seLng we find all those Scriptures that have 
 foreshowed of Antichrist and his proceedings, 
 truely fulfilled amongst them, al the markes 
 of that painted deceitful harlot, the false and 
 malignant Church, to be fownde upon them ; as 
 also all the vials of God's wrathfull judgments 
 to be poured forth upon them, and al their 
 doings. Finally, seing God vouohsafeth both 
 to discover, and to call al men forth out of 
 Bahilon, by proclaiming of his glorious Gospel, 
 and yet ofEi-eth more grace before he let fal 
 the heavy milstone of his finall indignation 
 upon them al to grind them to dust, and to 
 presse them to the bottome of hel, being ready 
 to receave all that come forth unto him, to 
 esteeme, guide, and defend them as his deare 
 children. It behoveth 
 
 al such, in whome is any care of their owne 
 salvation, any feare of God, or love of that 
 appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ to pre- 
 serve their soules and bodies pure fi'om the 
 idolatrie and abhominations of the false 
 Church . . . 
 
 VII. — " A Plainb Refutation op Mr. Giffabd's Booke, intituled, 
 A Short Treatise Gainst the Donatistes of England. 
 
 The forgery of the whole ministerie, 
 The confusion 
 Wherein is discovered-^ 3 False worship 
 
 Anti-Christian disorder, of these Parish 
 
 assemblies, called the Church of England. 
 
 Here also is prefixed a swmme of the causes of our separation and of 
 
 our purposes in practise, which Mr. Giffard hath twise sought to confute, 
 
 and hath now twise received answer, by Henry Barrowe. 
 
 Here is furder inserted a brief refutation of Mr. Gift, supposed con- 
 simUitude betwixt the Donatistes and us. Wherein is shewed how his 
 arguments have been, and may be by the Papists more justly retorted 
 against himself and the present estate of their Church. By Jo. Greenwood. 
 Here are also annexed a few observations of Mr. Gifil. his last reply, 
 not printed heretofore : as the other aforesaid were in the yeare 1591." 
 
 [Dr. Williams's Library.] 
 22 
 
 (i.)1590-91. 
 
 (ii.)1588? 
 
 (iii.) 
 1590-91. 
 
 (iv.) Jan., 
 1592? 
 
338 APPENDIX III. 
 
 "An advertisement to the reader" at the end of Barrow and Green- 
 
 1605. wood's epistle dedicatory [to Sir Wm. Cecil] tells us that these Ti-eatises 
 
 [with the exception of the " Few Observations "] were intercepted " some 
 
 while since" and are "now [1605] republished" — by whom is not 
 
 said. 
 
 (a) In his examination March 20, 1593, Greenwood was required to 
 identify a " book " containing (i.), (iii.), and also " A few observations of Mr. 
 Gifiord's last cavils about stinted read prayers and devised Leitourgies," 
 which last must be carefully distinguished from (iv.). Hence it appears that 
 these three were printed together in one volume 1590-91. 
 
 (6) No. (ii.). — viz., " A Briefe Summe of the causes of our separation 
 and of our purposes in practice withstood by G. G., defended by H. B. 
 as foUoweth" [a booklet of 20 pp.], if not printed earlier than 1591 was 
 written earlier, as early even as 1588. For [on p. 3] Barrow says it is 
 twenty-nine years since the existing Church order, which he caUs the 
 yoke of Antichrist, was set up, i.e., since the early summer of 1659, when 
 the Act of Uniformity came into force. But this booTclet is later than the 
 " Briefe Summe " itself : it is Barrow's " defence " of it against GifEord's 
 answer to it. The " Briefe Summe " is quoted verbatim as introductory 
 to the rest, and was a " leaflet " intended probably for general distribu- 
 tion. Perhaps it was the earliest thiag which Barrow [and Greenwood ?] 
 wi-ote. We quote it in the Appendix. [See Appendix ii.] 
 
 A better idea of the 1605 volume is given by the volume itself than 
 by the editorial title-page. 
 
 1. " The Epistle to the Bight Honom-able Pere and grave Counsellor 
 Sir William Cecill, Knight of the most noble order. Baron of Burleigh, 
 Lord High Treasurer of England, &c." 5 pp. 
 
 2. Preface. " Wisdome to the Reader from the Father of lights to 
 discerne of these times, and to judge of themselves what is right. . . ." 
 12 pp. 
 
 3. " A Briefe summe of the causes of our separation, and of our purposes 
 in practise, withstood by G. G., defended by H. B. as foUoweth." 20 pp. 
 
 4. " A Plaine Refutation of Mr. GifEard his reprochful Booke, intituled, 
 A short treatise against the Donatistes of Englande, &c." 188 pp. 
 
 5. "A Briefe Refutation of Mr. George Giffard, his supposed con- 
 similitude betwene the Donatists and us, &c." 28 pp. Jo. Greenwood 
 signed at the end. 
 
 6. " A few observations to the reader of Mr. GifEard his last replie " — 23 
 pp. — a reply, it appears, " to certaine intercepted books of ours," meaning, 
 no doubt, the "Plain " Refutation and the "Brief" Refutation which, on 
 their publication in 1591, had fallen into the hands of the authorities. 
 The opening sentences disclose the writer and the date : — " The Prelates 
 of these tymes, not having such power as their predecessors to murrther 
 the faithfuU servants of Christ openly, have together with the learned of 
 their clergie taken a more secret coui-se, to make them away in their prisons 
 and there to burie them as it were alive. . . . Among others Mr. 
 Greenwood and myself have thus been entreated by them. Now albeit we 
 
APPENDIX ni. 339 
 
 are and have been four years and three months without tryal or re- 
 laxation, kept by the Prelates in most miserable and streight imprison- 
 ment. . . ." 
 
 BaiTOW, therefore, was the wi-iter,' and the date would be early in 1592. 
 For on March 15, 1590, he had been close prisoner for two years and 
 well-nigh a half. When he wrote the " Epistle Dedicatory " to the inter- 
 cepted volume, he had been close prisoner for " more than three years," 
 which brings us, say, to January, 1591 ; and then if we take " more than " 
 as equal to the " three months " we reach January, 1592, for the 
 " Observations." This does not mean that they were printed then. The 
 1605 editor says distinctly that " they were not printed heretofore." He 
 found them in manuscript. 
 
 These Treatises — a "Plain" and a "Brief" Refutation minus 
 Barrow's " few observations of Mr. GifEard's last reply," but plus Green- 
 wood's " few observations of Mr. Giffard's last cavills " — formed one of the 
 two volumes taken at Flushing and Brill in the spring of 1591. But 
 [perhaps] a year later a second printing of the volume was attempted — 
 this time at Middelburg, in Zealand. And here comes in the well-known 
 story of Francis Johnson : how he was at the time " a preacher to the 
 Company of the English [Merchants] of the Staple at Middelburg " ; how 
 " he was so zealous against this [Separatist] way as that [when] Master 
 Barrow and Master Greenwood's Refutation of Master Gifford was 
 privately in printing in this city, he not only was a means to discover it, 
 but was made the [English] Ambassador's instrument to intercept them at 
 the press, and see them burnt " ; how he " surprised the whole impression, 
 not suffering any to escape, and then . . caused them all to be openly burnt, 
 himseH standing by until they were all consumed to ashes " ; how " he 
 took up two of them — one to keep in his own study, that he might see 
 their errors ; and the other to bestow on a special friend, for the like 
 use"; how he was "so taken, and his conscience was troubled so as he 
 could have no rest in himself until he crossed the seas, and came to 
 London to confer with the authors." " If Johnson was the editor in 1603 
 of Greenwood's answer [with his " Few Observations "] it is likely that he 
 was also the editor in 1605 of these Treatises [with Barrow's "Few 
 Observations"]. Who, indeed, more likely, seeing that he had them in 
 his possession, and had studied them to such advantage himself P In this 
 light his counsel to the " Good Reader" ^ to " read and ponder them with 
 judgment and indifEerence " ; and to " receive them " so far and " no 
 furder " than they agree with the Word of God gains a special interest. 
 
 VIII. The only other authentic writings of Barrow, so far as I know, 
 are : — (a) The private Letter,'' in December, 1590, to one Mr. Fisher, which, 
 as it seems, was intercepted. [Strype quotes ^ from it, but does not say 
 
 ^ Hisnameis printed on thelastpage. 
 
 ^ Bradford's Dialogue in Young's ■• Printed in the Separatists'^ 
 
 Chronioles, pp. 424-5. " Apology " (1604), B. M._ 
 
 3 The phrase occurs again in the ^ Whitgift, Bk. iv., c. xi.,p. 414-5. 
 
 advertisement to the 1603 vol. 
 
340 APPENDIX HI. 
 
 where he has seen it.] Bavrow owned to two other letters which were 
 produced at his examination [March 20, 1592-3], the one beginning 
 " Brother R., your letter of the 12th" ; the other beginning, " So honour 
 hath been." These, too, had miscarried. 
 
 (b) The Petition to the House of Commons, occasioned by the arrest 
 of Separatists on April 3, 1592 [preserved by Miles Micklebound]. 
 
 (c) Probably [judging from the style] the Petition to the Lord 
 Treasurer presented some time earlier than the last in the same year.' 
 
 {d) His petition to the Attorney-General Egerton for a conference . . . 
 and his address [for the same] to the Council, entitled " A motion tending 
 to unity." Strype' puts these at the beginning of 1593 ["soon after 
 executed," he says of the writer]. 
 
 IX. The following has been attributed to Barrow — by Dexter among 
 others, who draws from its defence of " Martin " a part of his argument 
 for Barrow's authorship of the Tracts : — 
 
 " A Petition directed to Her Most Excellent Majestie, wherein is 
 delivered : 
 
 1. A mean how to compound the civil dissension in the Church of 
 England. 
 
 2. A proofe that those who write for Reformation do not offend 
 against the statute of 23 Eliz. c. 2 ; and, therefore, tUl matters be 
 compounded deserve more favour, &c." 
 
 There is no author's or printer's name, and no date; but 1590, as 
 Dexter conjectures, must be near the mark. 
 
 The writer says : — " I do not now write either to pull down bishoprics 
 or erect presbyteries." But he says as means to that end " a free national 
 or provincial Council at home were much to be wished, so that the bishops 
 and their followers did not overrule the rest. . . ." 
 
 His reasons for advocating such a Council are these : — 
 
 1. The laws expect a further Reformation of the Chui-ch. 
 
 2. The defenders of our common cause expect it. 
 
 3. The defenders of the State of Bishops expect it. 
 
 4 The suspicious and doubtful handling of the controverted matters 
 imply some need of reformation and conference. 
 
 5. So do the testimonies of learned men. 
 
 6. On the other side, all these "pursuers of reformation have had 
 great inducements to enforce the eldership." 
 
 It is " further reformation " and the " eldership " that he wants. He 
 is a Puritan, therefore, and cannot be Barrow. 
 
 We come to the same conclusion from his sympathetic references to 
 Martin Marprelate. For example,^ " When Martin, senr., speaks of 100,000 
 hands " [and " saith that these so many together would strike a great 
 stroke" (p. 16)], here he merely "exhorts lords, gentlemen, and people 
 of England to become joint suitors to Her Majesty that in every parish 
 there may be a preacher so near as may be ; that there may be quiet 
 
 ' Strype's Annals, vol iv., pp. 127-130. ^ Annals, vol. iv., p. 239, ff. ' p. 44. 
 
APPENDIX III. 341 
 
 meeting for debating controversies, and power to sue a bishop at King's 
 Bench when they act unlawfully. . . ." 
 
 Dexter would identify the writer with Martin himself, and some of 
 his words are intimate enough to waiTant the inference, or, at least, to 
 make it probable that he knew him well. Thus, " In saying that Dr. 
 Bridges [for wi-iting against Reformation] would shortly have twenty 
 fists about his ears more than his own," he meant that they would 
 " exercise hands in writing " against Bridges. 
 
 But if the writer was Martin, what we have found to be his ecclesias- 
 tical position shows that Martin coidd not have been BaiTow, though he 
 might well have been Penry, or, what is perhaps more likely, Penry is the 
 writer, and is here defending his friend Throckmorton. 
 
APPEifTDIX IV. 
 
 The tivo editions of " a True Description 
 
 Church." 
 
 of the visible 
 
 1589 
 Edition. 
 
 ' out of the Word 
 of God of the 
 visible Church. 
 
 2 Church. 
 
 3 Church. 
 
 •• Christ Jesus. 
 ' only. 
 
 ^ Adds^"and." 
 ' aright. 
 •* Adds— "and 
 quietly." 
 ' Most joyful, ex- 
 cellent and glori- 
 ous things are 
 everywhere in the 
 Scriptures spoken 
 of this Church. 
 
 ID To this Society 
 
 is the Covenant, 
 
 &c. 
 
 " Adds — " made 
 
 of." 
 
 12 And surely if 
 this Church. 
 
 13 Adds— "most." 
 ^* Lord himself of 
 all glory. 
 
 15 governors. 
 
 " Adds — "and a 
 most." 
 
 We give here the 1641 reprint of "A True Description," collated with 
 the first edition of 1589. The former is in the Memorial HaU Library. 
 The latter is in the British Museum, 4103 2. 
 
 Additions to the original text are marked by square brackets. 
 
 Omissions and alterations are noted in the margin. 
 
 The Scriptui-e references are omitted and the spelling modernised. 
 
 A True Description of the Visible Congregation of the Saints under the 
 Gospel, according to the Word of Truth} 
 
 As there is but one God and Father of all, one Lord over all, and one 
 Spirit, so there is btit one Truth, one Faith, one Salvation, one Congrega- 
 tion ;^ called in one hope, joined in one profession, guided by one i-ule, even 
 the word of the Most High. 
 
 This congregation^ as it is universally understood, containeth in it all 
 the elect of God that have been, are, or shall be ; but being considered 
 more particularly, as it is seen in this present world, it consisteth of a 
 company and fellowship of faithful and holy people, gathered in the name 
 of Jesus Christ* their one' King, Priest, " Prophet ; worshipping Him 
 according to His Word/ being peaceably ^ governed by His officers and 
 laws ; keeping the unity of faith in the bond of peace and love unfeigned. 
 
 Most excellent and glorious things are spoken throughout all the Scrip- 
 tures of this congregation.^ 
 
 It is called the City, House, Temple, and Mountain of the Eternal 
 God, the chosen Generation, the holy Nation, the peculiar people, the 
 Vineyard, the Garden enclosed, the Spring shut up, the sealed Fountain, 
 the Orchard of Pomegranates with sweet fniits, the Heritage, the King- 
 dom of Christ, yea, His Sister, His Love, His Spouse, His Queen, and His 
 Body ; the Joy of the whole earth. To this holy society and blessed 
 fraternity is the covenant^" and all the promises " peace, of love, and 
 of salvation, of the presence of God, of His graces, of His power, and of 
 His protection. 
 
 If this congregation^^ be considered in her parts, it shall appear most 
 beautiful, yea, '^ wonderful, and even ravishing the senses to con- 
 ceive, much more to behold, what then to enjoy so blessed a communion ! 
 For behold ! her King and Lord is the King of Peace and Lord of Olory ;" 
 she enjoyeth " holy and heavenly laws ; '^ faithful and vigilant 
 pastors; " sincere and pure teachers ; '■* careful and upright eZiers ;'* 
 '^ diligent and trusty deacons ; '^ loving and sober relievers ; '* 
 
APPENDIX IV. 
 
 343 
 
 hiimble, meek, olDedieat, faitMul, and loving people ; every stone living, elect 
 and precious, having his beauty,'^ his burden, and his order ; all bound to 
 edify one another, exhort [admonish], reprove [encourage], and comfort 
 one another ; loving,'' as to the members of their own natural body, faithful 
 as in the sight and presence of God? 
 
 No office here must be* ambitiously affected, no law wrongfully 
 ■wrested or wHfuUy neglected ; no truth hid or perverted. Every one here 
 hath freedom and power (not disturbing the [peaceable] order of the con- 
 gregationY to utter his complaints and griefs, and freely to reprove the 
 transgression and errors of any without exception of persons. 
 
 Here is no intrusion or climbing up another way into the sheepfold 
 than by the holy and free election of the Lord's holy and free people, and 
 that according to the Lord's ordinance, humbling themselves by fasting 
 and prayer before the Lord, craving the direction of His Holy Spirit, for 
 the trial and approving of [their] gifts, &c. 
 
 Thus they '• proceed to ordination, by fasting and prayer, in which 
 action the Apostles [or first messengers of Jesus Christ], using'' laying on 
 of hands, thu^ hath every one of the people interest in the election and 
 ordination of their officers, as also in the administration of their offices, 
 upon transgression, offence, abuse, &c., having a speciaP care unto [the] 
 unviolable order of the congregatimi,^" as is aforesaid. 
 
 In this congregation^^ they have holy laws as limits and bonds, which 
 are to be put in execution that they may be precisely Tcept and at no hand 
 transgressed. These Laws are so com,plete that they direct them in all 
 things, especially in the choice^^ of every officer, what kind of men, they'^^ will 
 have [and how they must be qualified]. 
 
 Their pastor must be apt to teach, no young scholar, able to divide 
 the Word [of God] aright, holding fast that faithful Word [of truth] » 
 that he may be ahle to inform, exhort, admonish, and rebuhe witV' whole- 
 some doctrine, and to convince those^^ that oppose ity^ He must be a man 
 that loveth goodness, of good report, who [undecipherable] unreprovable as 
 Ood's steward, one that ruleth his own household well, lest he be unfit to rule 
 in the congregation of God ;^^ he must be modest, humble, meek, gentle, and 
 loving ; [he must be a man] of great patience, compassion, labour, and 
 diligence ; he must always be careful and watchful over the flock whereof 
 the Lord hath made him [an] overseer, with all willingness and cheer- 
 iulness, not holding his office in respect of persons, but doing his duty to 
 every soul [committed to his charge] as he will answer to" the chief Pastor'" 
 of our souls in the great day of his accounts. 
 
 (1) Their teachers also must 6e^' apt to teach, able to divide the Word of 
 God aright,^ He must be mighty in the Scriptures, able to convince the 
 gainsayers, and careful to deliver his doctrine pure, sound, and plain, not 
 with curiosity or affectation, but so that it may edify the most simple, 
 approving it to every man's conscience. He must be holy in his conver- 
 sation,^ one that can govern his own household. He must be sober, ^* 
 humble, temperate, modest, gentle, [and] loving, &c. 
 
 1589 
 Edition. 
 
 1 every stone has 
 his beauty. 
 
 2 lovingly. 
 
 3 their own mem- 
 bers faithfully as 
 iu the eyes of God. 
 
 Ms. 
 
 5 Church. 
 
 6 Adds— 
 
 " orderly." 
 
 7 used. 
 
 8 Thus. 
 
 ' an especial. 
 
 1° Church. 
 
 ^' Likewise in this 
 
 Church. 
 
 12 which it is 
 lawful at no hand 
 to transgress. 
 They have laws to 
 direct them in the 
 choice. 
 
 13 the Lord. 
 " Adds— 
 
 ' ' according to 
 doctrine." 
 1* able also to 
 exhort, rebuke, 
 improve with. 
 " them. 
 
 1'' say against it. 
 1' he must be wise, 
 righteous, holy, 
 temperate ; he 
 must be of life un- 
 reprovable as 
 God's steward ; he 
 must be generally 
 well reported of, 
 and one that 
 ruleth his own 
 household under 
 obedience with all 
 honesty, &e. 
 1^ before. 
 2" Shepherd. 
 21 Theii Doctor or 
 Teacher must be 
 a man , . . 
 " Adds— 
 "and to deliver 
 sound and whole- 
 some doctrine 
 from the same, 
 still building upon 
 that same ground- 
 work." 
 -'■' of life unre- 
 provable. 
 -J of manner 
 sober 
 
344 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 1589 
 Edition. 
 
 1 Adda— "be- 
 tween plea and 
 plea." 
 ' intending. 
 
 ^ by the people in 
 obedience, bnt to 
 Bee the officers do 
 their dntiea. 
 "•Men. 
 
 > Adda—" the." 
 
 ^ harberous. 
 
 ' 13. 
 
 8 Ghoat. 
 ' divera. 
 
 I" gives. 
 UAdda- "hia."^ 
 
 12 The Dootor'a 
 office ia already 
 aet down in bis 
 description. 
 
 13 may increase 
 with the increase 
 of God. 
 
 14 Ancients ia. 
 
 Their elders must be ot wisdom and judgment, indued with the 
 Spirit of God, able to discern between cause and cause i and accordingly 
 to prevent and redress evils, always vigUant, and endeavouring^ to see 
 the statutes, ordinances, and laws of God, kept [and executed] in the 
 Church, and that not only hy all the particular members for their part of 
 obedience, but that they also see the officers do their duties? 
 
 These officers^ must be likewise unreprovable [in their conversation], 
 governing their own families orderly; they must also be sober, gentle, 
 modest, loving, temperate [&c.]. 
 
 (2) Their deacons must be men of honest report, having the mystery 
 of ' faith in a pure conscience [and], indued with the Holy Spirit ; they 
 must be grave, temperate, not given to excess, nor to filthy lucre. 
 
 Their widows or relievers must be women of sixty years of age at the 
 least, for avoiding of inconveniences ; they must be well reported of for 
 good works, such as have nourished their children, sach as have been 
 harborours^ to strangers; diligent and serviceable to the saints, com- 
 passionate and helpful to them in adversity, given to every good work, 
 continuing in supplications and prayers, day and night. 
 
 These officers must first be duly proved, then if they be found 
 blameless, [let them] administer, &c. 
 
 Now as the persons, gifts, conditions, manners, life and proof of these 
 officers are' set down by the Holy Spirit,^ so are their offices limited, severed 
 and diverse.^ 
 
 The pastor's office is to feed the sheep of Christ in [the] gi'een and 
 wholesome pastures of his [blessed] Word, and lead them to the stiU waters 
 even to the pure fountain and river of life ; He must guide and keep those 
 sheep, by that heavenly sheep-hook and pastoral stafB of the word [of truth], 
 thereby drawing them to him, thereby looking into their souls, even into 
 their most secret thoughts, thereby discerning their diseases, and thereby 
 curing them ; applying to every disease a fit and convenient medicine, and 
 according to the quality and danger of the disease, giving^" warning to the 
 Church, that they may orderly proceed [in all the censures] to excom- 
 munication. Further, he must by this " sheep-hook watch over and 
 defend his flock from ravenous beasts, and the wolf, and take the little 
 foxes. 
 
 The teacher's office being already described,^^ his special care must be to 
 build upon the only true ground-work, gold, silver, and precious stones, 
 that his work may endure the trial of the fire, and by the light of the 
 same fire, reveal the timber, hay, and stubble of false [and corrupt] 
 teachers ; he must take diligent heed to keep the Church from eiTors ; and 
 further he must deliver his doctrine so plainly, simply and purely that the 
 Church may be edified," and grow up unto Him which is the Head, Christ 
 Jesus. 
 
 The office of the elders being" expressed in their description, their 
 special care must be [as well] to see the ordinances of God truly taught and 
 administered,^' as well by the preaching elders, according to their duty, as that 
 the remnant tnembers of the Church perform their parts of obedience 
 
APPENDIX IV. 345 
 
 1589 
 willingly and readily.^ It is their duty to see the congregation holily and Edition. 
 quietly ordered, and no way disturbed by the contentious, disobedient, domg'their^duty^ 
 froward, and obstinate, [yet] not taking away the liberty of the least [who uprightly as to see 
 stand for the maintenance of the truth once given to the saints], but that the people 
 upholding the right of all, [and] wisely judging of times and circumstances, readily. 
 They must be ready assistants to the pastor and teachers, helping to bear 
 their burden, but net intruding into their oifiee. 
 
 The deacons' office is faithfully to gather and collect by the (ordinance 
 of the congregation^) the good and benevolence of the faithful ; and, by the ^ Church, 
 same direction, diligently and trustily to distribute them according to the 
 necessity of the saints ; further,^ they must enquire and consider of the 3 . Further, 
 proportion of the wants, both of the officers, and other poor [saints], and 
 accordingly relate unto the Church, that provision and relief may he made 
 in due time, according to the Church's power and their necessity.'' m b "^"ad'"" 
 
 The widow's office^ is to minister to the sick, lame, weary, and diseased s xhe relievers' 
 such helpful comforts and refreshments as he most needfuV by watching, and widows' office 
 attending J and helping them [at all times, especially when they can least 7 tending. 
 
 help themselves : likewise] ^ they must show good example to the s Adds 
 
 younger women in sober, modest, and godly conversation, avoiding idleness, " further." 
 vain talk, and light behaviour. 
 
 These officers, though they be diverse^ and several, yet are they not 'divers, 
 severed, lest there should be a division in the body but . . . [undecipher- 
 able]'" same care one of another, jointly doing their several duties, [in 10 tjigy ^re as 
 their places] to the service of the saints, and to the edification of the members of the 
 [mystical] body of [Jesus] Christ, untiV^ we all meet together in unity of u°(.j^ avmg the 
 faith unto a perfect measure of the fulness of Christ, '^'^ by whom all the body 1° in the perfect 
 being thus coupled and knit together every joint for the furniture measure of *li? 
 thereof, according to the effectual power, which is in the measure of every 
 part, receiveth increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in love, 
 neither can any of these offices be wanting without grievous lameness and 
 apparent deformity of the body, yea, violent injury to the head, Christ 
 Jesus. [In this Church is the heavenly harmony of the exercise of Prophecy, 
 where the variety and diversity of God's gifts and graces in His saints are 
 manifested, according to the gifts and abilities, that God hath given unto 
 them, to the murall edification, exhortation, and comfort one of another 
 and the rest of the body . . . and the whole. Which exercise of 
 Prophecy is the first ordinance that the Lord commanded, and commended 
 in His Church, under the Gospel, exhorting all His saints to the same, as 
 the most special and excellent gift, yea, and most needful at all times, but 
 especially when the pastor and teacher are either taken away by death, 
 imprisoned, or exiled.] 
 
 Thus this Heavenly army of the militant saints^' is marshalled here on la Holy army of 
 earth by these officers, under the conduct of their most glorious and grea,t saints. 
 General, Jesus Christ,^* that victorious Michael : thus^' it marcheth in this h Glorious 
 most heavenly order and gracious array against all enemies, both corporal ^""P^^"^ Christ. 
 and spiritual ;'* peaceable in itself as Jerusalem, terrible to the enemy as k Ghostly! 
 an army with banners, triumphing over their tyranny with patience, [over] 
 
346 
 
 APPEOT)IX IV. 
 
 1589 
 Edition. 
 
 ' Vfith dying. 
 
 2 scorpions : to 
 out down strong- 
 holds and every- 
 thing. 
 
 3 of. 
 
 ■• Further. 
 
 6 Adds— "of 
 
 heaven." 
 
 " in earth by his 
 
 word. 
 
 ' trnto. 
 
 8 of his Church. 
 
 ' inward. 
 1" earnest. 
 " . But 
 
 ' may. 
 i. And 
 
 " Adds— 
 
 " severally and.' 
 
 15 Adds— " to ad- 
 monish him and. 
 
 IS If this prevail 
 not to draw him 
 to repentance, 
 then are they in 
 the name and . . 
 
 1? such. 
 18 Further. 
 
 1' such as. 
 2«Adds— "his.'^ 
 
 their cruelty with meekness, and over death itself by rejoicing in suffering, 
 with joy unspeakable and glorious} 
 
 Thus through the blood of that spotless Lamb, and that word of their 
 testimony, they are more than conquerors, bi-uising the head of the 
 serpent ; yea, through the power of His word they have power to cast down 
 Satan like lightning, to tread upon serpents, and . . .^ [undecipherable] 
 thing that exalteth itself against God [and His blessed Son Jesus Christ], 
 The gates of HeU and all the principalities and powers m^ the world, 
 shall not prevail against it. Moi-eover* he hath given [to] them the keys 
 of the Kingdom ° that whatsoever they bind on earth, according to His 
 Word,^ shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever they loose on earth 
 shall be loosed in heaven. Now this power which Christ hath given to^ 
 His Church, and to every member thereof,^ to keep it in order, He hath not 
 left it to their discretions and lusts, to be used or neglected [nor yet 
 made more, less, or otherwise] as they wUl; but in His last will and 
 testament he hath set down both an order of proceeding and an end to 
 which it is used. 
 
 If the fault be private, holy and loving admonition and reproof is 
 to be used, with an earnesf desire and inward^" care to win their brother ; 
 ftwi" if he wiU not hear, yet to take two or three other brethren with him, 
 whom he knoweth [to be] most meet for that purpose, that by the mouth 
 of two or three witnesses every word inighP^ be confirmed; and^^ if he 
 refuse to hear them, then to declare the matter to the Church, which ought, 
 [in love to God and the party and hatred to the sin], " shai-ply to 
 reprehend, gravely to admonish, and lovingly to persuade the party 
 offending, showing him the heinousness of his offence and the danger of 
 his obstinacy, and the fearful judgments of the Lord. 
 
 Notwithstanding all this, the Church is not to hold him as an enemy, 
 but 1* pray for him as a brother [and exhort him with the spirit of 
 ' meekness], proving if at any time the Lord will give him repentance, 
 [and bring him out of the snare of the devil] for this power is not given 
 them to the destruction of any, but to the edification of aU. . . . 
 [Undecipherable]!'' power of the Lord Jesus, with the whole congregation, 
 reverently in prayer to proceed to excommunication, that is, to the casting 
 [of] him out of their congregation and fellowship, covenant and protection 
 of the Lord, for his disobedience and obstinacy, and committing him to 
 Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the 
 day of the Lord Jesus, if ii'' be His good will and pleasure. 
 
 Then^" they are to warn the whole congregation and all other faithful 
 [people] to hold him as a heathen and publican, and to abstain themselves 
 from his society, as not to eat or drink with him, &c., unless it be thoie 
 which^^ of necessity must needs, as his wife, -" children, and family ; yet 
 these, ([as well as others] if they be members of the Church) are not to 
 join with him in any spiritual exercise. 
 
 If the offence be public, the party is publicly to be reproved and 
 admonished; if he then repent not, to proceed to excommunication as 
 aforesaid. 
 
APPENDIX IV. 347 
 
 1589 
 Edition. 
 
 Tte repentance of the party must be propoi-tionable to the offence ; 
 ihai is,i if the offence be public, [the repentance must be] public ; if private, i Viz. : 
 [the repentance must be] private, humble,^ submissive, sorrowful, unfeigned, 2 humbled, 
 giving glory to the Lord. 
 
 There must he great care had? of admonitions [and reprehensions] that 3 great oare be 
 they be not captious, or curious, finding fault where none is ; neither yet in 'i^'^- 
 bitterness or reproach, [nor deridingly to insult, as if themselves were 
 without fault] for that were to destroy rather than save* our brother ; but 4 ^^^ ^^^ j.^ &s.ye, 
 they must be carefully done with pi-ayer going before ; they must be 
 seasoned with truth, gravity, love, and peace. 
 
 Moreover, in this Church is a special^ care to be had * of offences ; * an especial. 
 the strong ought not to offend the weak, nor the weak to judge the strong, ■"■a'ls ^^ 
 but all graces here are given to the service and edification of each other thereof." 
 in love and long suffering. 
 
 In this congregation,^ [though it consist but of two or three] is the 7 Church, 
 [word of] truth purely taught, and surely kept ; here is the Covenant, the 
 seals^ and promises, the graces, the glory, the presence, the worship of g gacraments 
 God, &c. 
 
 [So] into this blessed Church which is heaven wpon earth, there ought 
 not to enter any^ unclean thing, [and if any creep in and be discovered, to 9 i^^q t^ja Temple 
 be speedily removed,] neither whatsoever worketh abominations or lies, entereth no . . . 
 ought to enter, but only such as be of holy conversation, and whose names 
 are written^" in the Lamb's book of life. But without this congregation,^^ 10 _ But they 
 [and heavenly society] shall be dogs and enchanterers, and whoremongers which are writ . . . 
 and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh lies. ™° 
 
 Finis. 
 
 Printed in the time of this hopeful Parliament, for the good of God's 
 people, which desire that Christ may reign in His own ordinances. 1641. 1589. 
 
APPENDIX V. 
 
 The Separatists' Seven Questions. 
 
 The following are the " seven questions " whioh Mr. Arber [pp. 280-2 
 of his "Story of the Pilgrim Fathers"] has mistaken for the "seven 
 articles " sent by the Church of Leyden to the Council of England. They 
 are quoted verbatim by WOI Euiing in the preface of his answer to Mr. 
 Thomas Drakes's " Ten Counter Demands." 
 
 Euring [1619] saya they were " propounded " by the Separatists 
 " some good space since." 
 
 Question I. — Whether the Lord Jesus Christ have in His last will 
 and testament given unto and set in His Church sufficient ordinary offices, 
 with their callings, works, and maintenance, for the administration of His 
 holy things, and for the ordinary instruction, guidance, and service of His 
 Church to the end of the world, or no ? 
 
 Question II. — Whether the offices of Pastors, Teachers, Elders, 
 Deacons, and Helpers be those offices appointed in the testament of 
 Christ ? or whether the present ecclesiasticall offices of Arch-Bishops, 
 Lord Bishops, Suffragans, Deanes, Priests, Yicars, Arch-Deacons, Pre- 
 bendaries, Canons, Gospellers, Petty-Canons, Epistlers, Virgerers, 
 Queristers, Organ-Players, Parsons, Curates, Chancelors, Commissaries, 
 Proctors, Registers, Appariters or Sumners, Churchwardens, Doctors of 
 Divinity, Questmen or Sidemen, Deacons or Half -Priests, ChapHns or 
 House-Priests, Clarkes, Sextons, and the rest now had and retained in the 
 Cathedrall and Parishionall Assemblies of the land, be those offices 
 appointed in Christ's last will and testament, or no P 
 
 Question III. — Whether the calling and entrance into the eccle- 
 siasticall offices last before named, with their administrations and main- 
 tenance, now had and retained in England, be the manner of calling, 
 administration, and maintenance which Christ hath appoynted for the 
 offices of His Church, or no ? 
 
 Question IV. — Whether every tme Church of Christ be not a company 
 of people called and separated out from the world and false worship and 
 waies thereof by the word of God and joyned together in the fellowship of 
 the Gospel by voluntary profession of the faith and obedience of Christ. 
 
 Question V. — Whether the Sacraments, being sealles of the righteous- 
 nes which is by faith, maybe administered unto any other but to the faith- 
 full and their seed, or in any other ministry or manner than is prescribed 
 and appointed by Jesus Christ the Apostle and high priest of our pro- 
 fession ? And whether they be not otherwise administered in the parish 
 assemblies of England this day or no ? 
 
APPENDIX V. 349 
 
 Question VI. — Wlietliei' the booke of Common Prayer, with the feasts, 
 fasts, stinted prayers, holly dayes, and leiturgy prescribed therein and used 
 in the assemblies, be the true worship of God commanded in His word, or 
 the devise and invention of man for God's worship and service. 
 
 Question VII. — Whether all people and churches without exception be 
 not bound in religion only to receive and submit unto that ministry 
 worship and order which Christ, as Lord and King, hath given unto and 
 appointed in his Church : or whether any may receive and joyne into 
 another devised by man for the worship and service of God, and conse- 
 quently whether they that joyne to the present ecclesiasticall ministry wor- 
 ship and order of the Cathedrall and Pai-ishionall Assemblies can be assured 
 by the word of God, that they joyne to the former, orda3Tied by Christ, 
 and not to the latter, devised by man for the worship and service of 
 God? 
 
INDEX OF REFERENCES. 
 
 A CONTEMPOEABT. 
 
 Ainsvvorth (Henry), Cnunterpoyson 
 (1608), 240, 272 
 
 Defence of Holy Scripture, 
 
 Sfc. . . . against , , . John Smyth 
 (1609), 250-251 
 . Animadversion to Master 
 
 Richard Glyfton (1613), 256, 257, 
 
 266-268, 271, 274, 301 
 Certain Notes of his Last 
 
 Sermon (1630), 259 
 Apologie or Defence of such true Chris- 
 tians as are commonly called 
 
 Brownists (1604), 76-79, 254, 339 
 Bacon (Francis, Lord), Observations 
 
 on a Libel (1591), 9, 62 
 Bancroft (Eichard), Survey of the Holy 
 
 Discipline (1593), 11 
 Barrow (Henry). See Appendix III. 
 
 for full list 
 ^^^— Letter to Cartwright Travers, 
 
 &c. (1588), 93-94 
 A True Description out of the 
 
 Word of God of the Visible Church 
 
 (1589), 36, 103 
 
 • A Collection of, and Answers 
 
 to Certain Slanderous Articles (1590), 
 99, 121 
 
 • Plain Refutation of Mr. 
 
 Gifford (1590), 5, 20 note, 85,92, 99, 
 103, 105, 125-129, 148-149, 153 
 
 ■ A Brief Discovery of the False 
 
 Church (1590), 5, 85, 91, 93-95, 97- 
 98, 102-105, 108, 110-111, 114-115, 
 117-118, 120-122, 127-130, 143-144, 
 149-150 
 
 Platform (1590, pub. 1611), 
 
 144 
 
 Supplication to the Queen 
 
 (1590), 58-59 
 
 • A Few Observations to the 
 
 Canue (John), Necessitie of Separa- 
 tion (1634), 154 
 
 Conferences with Barrow and Green- 
 wood (1590), 10, 14, 34, 42, 43-57, 
 92-93, 98-101, 103 note, 106, 115, 
 153 
 
 Confession of Faith of certain English 
 People living in Exile (1596), 221 
 
 Clyfton (Richard), Advertisement 
 (1612), 227, 233, 297, 303 note 
 
 Cooper (Thomas), Admonition to the 
 People of England (1589), 165, 171, 
 174 
 
 D' Ewes' Journals (1593), 62, 79, 224 
 
 Dighton (Thomas), Certain Reasons of 
 a Private Christian against Con- 
 formity to Kneeling, &c. (1618), 121 
 
 Egerton Papers, the (1593) (Camden 
 Society's Publications), 35, 37, 75, 
 76, 331, 333 
 
 Euring (William), Answer to Mr. 
 Thomas Drakes (1619), 293-294, 348- 
 349 
 
 Examinations of Barrow and Green- 
 wood (1586), 16-21, 24 seqq. 119 
 
 Fairlambe (Peter), Recantation of a 
 Brownist (1606), 224 
 
 Foxe, Booh of Martyrs, 23 
 
 Harleian MSS., 4, 9, 33, 58, 67-71, 74, 
 75, 225, 234. 332 
 
 Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, 131, 153- 
 154, 188 
 
 Johnson (Francis), Answer to Master 
 Henry Jacob (1600), 131, 229-231, 
 237, 238, 265 
 
 An Inquiry and Answer of 
 
 Thomas White, his Discovery (1606), 
 243 
 
 Certain Reasons and Argu- 
 
 Read:er of Mr. Gifford's Last Reply 
 (1592, pub. 1605), 21, 33 
 
 ments, &c. (1608), 319 note 
 
 ■ Answer touching the Division, 
 
 &c. (1611), 274 
 
352 
 
 INDEX OF REFERENCES. 
 
 Johnson (Francis), Christian Plea 
 (1617), 131, 258, 268, 292, 315-318 
 
 Johnson (George), A Discourse of 
 Some Troubles at Amsterdam (1603), 
 227, 228, 238-240, 243, 244, 307 
 
 Lawne (Chrisix)pher), Profane Schism 
 (16121, 154, 227, 234, 236, 240, 256, 
 292, 296, 298-301, 303-305, 307 note, 
 311 
 
 Brownism Turned Inside out 
 
 (1613), 296, 301, 302 
 
 Marprelate Tracts, the (1588), 53 note, 
 83-85, 165, 171 
 
 Miles M icklebound in Barrow's Plat- 
 form (1611), 64, 80-81, 120-121, 128, 
 144, 221, 243, 254, 335-336 
 
 Paget (John), An Arrow against the 
 Separation of the Brownists (1618), 
 131, 225, 232, 256, 281, 306-308, 319- 
 322 
 
 Eobineon (John), Justification of 
 Reparation (ed. 1610), 297, 313. See 
 Works ii. 
 
 Eobinson (John), Works (Ed. ishton), 
 117, 120-121, 226, 228, 236, 240. 241, 
 249, 251, 259-261, 271 ,273-284,322-324 
 
 Smyth (John), The Differences of the 
 Churches of the Separation (1608), 
 211, 216-217, 250 
 
 -^-^— — Parallels, Censures, Observa- 
 tions (1605), 248 
 
 Retraction of his Errors (c. 
 
 1613), 248 note, 253-254 
 
 Some fEobert) Godly Treatises (1588- 
 1589), 26, 85 
 
 Throckmorton (Job), Master Some 
 Laid Open in his Colours (1590), 84, 
 329 
 
 Udall (John) Demonstration of Disci- 
 pline (1588), 140 
 
 Deotrophes (1588), 147 
 
 White (Thomas), Discovery of Brown- 
 ism (1605), 243-245, 297 
 
 Whitgift (John), WorTcs (Parker 
 Society's Publications), 188-197, 
 339 
 
 B — Latee. 
 
 Adeney (Professor), The Church in the 
 
 Prisons (Tercentenary Tracts, I.), 
 
 106 
 Allen, Christian Institutions, Intro- 
 duction 
 Arber (Professor), Introductory Sketch 
 
 to the Marprelate Controversy, 15, 22, 
 
 35, 84 
 Story of the Pilgrim Fathers, 
 
 79, 229, 240, 243, 245, 246, 249, 250, 
 
 252, 259 note, 289-296, 302-305, 308- 
 
 309, 312-315, 319, 323 
 Arnold (Dr.), Fragment on the Church, 
 
 Introduction 
 Axon, Henry Ainsworth, the Puritan 
 
 Commentator, 232-233, 258 
 Barclay, Inner Life of the Religious 
 
 Societies of the Commonwealth, 206, 
 
 210, 248 note, 252-254 
 Beard, Hibiert Lectures (1883), 212, 
 
 213 
 Briggs (Dr. C. A.), The New Testament 
 
 Doctrine of the Church (American 
 
 Journal of Theology, Jan. 1900.), 
 
 Introduction 
 Brown (Dr. John), The Pilgrim 
 
 Fathers, 246, 249 
 
 Caird (Principal), University Sermons, 
 
 Introduction 
 Davidson (Dr. Samuel), The Ecclesi- 
 astical Polity of the New Testament, 
 
 Introduction 
 
 Autobiography, Introduction 
 
 Dexter, Congregationalism as seen in 
 
 its Literature, 14, 82, 85, 251, 329, 
 
 332 
 Dictionary of National Biography : art. 
 
 " Francis Johnson," 229 
 Encyclopaedia Biblica : art. " Church," 
 
 Introduction 
 Froude, History of England, 24, 
 
 206 
 FuUer, Church History, 206 
 Gage, History and Antiquities of 
 
 Suffolk, 3 
 Heath, Rise of Anabaptism, 202 
 
 passim. 
 Jessopp (Dr. Augustus), Norwich {Dio- 
 cesan Histories), 176 
 Macaulay, Essay on, Burghley, 7, 31 
 Mackennal, Story of the Separatists, 
 
 229 
 Mullinger, History of the University of 
 
 Cambridge, 5-7, 11, 166, 188 
 
INDEX OF EEFBRENCES. 
 
 353 
 
 Neal, History of the Puritans, 11, 59, 
 
 61, 141, 146, 180 
 Paget (Dean), Introduction to the Fifth 
 
 Book of Hooker's Ecclesiastical 
 
 Polity, Introduction 
 Prothero, Select Statutes, 161, 223 
 Rogers (Dr. Guinness), John Robinson 
 
 (Tercentenary Tracts, IVO, 34 
 Strype, Annals, 31 note, 72-73, 161, 
 
 164, 170 note, 172, 173, 178-179, 180, 
 
 226, 340 
 Life of Aylmer, 4 note, 10 
 
 note, 60 note 
 
 ■ Life of Whitgift, 59, 169, 177- 
 
 178, 181 
 
 Tayler, Retrospect of the Religious Life 
 in England, 139, Introduction 
 
 Van Braght, Martyrology of the 
 Churches of Christians commonly 
 called Baptists (Hanserd-Kaollys 
 Society's Publications'), 206 
 
 Wakeman (H. 0.), The Church and the 
 Puritans, 135 
 
 History nf the English Church, 
 
 136 
 
 Walton, Life of Hooker, 153, 167, 185 
 
 Wood (Anthony), Athenie Oxonienses, 
 74 
 
 Toung, Chronicles of the Pilgrim 
 Fathers (for Bradford's Dialogues), 
 8, 80-82, 224, 225, 232, 233, 237, 238, 
 241-242, 244, 245, 246-248, 255, 258, 
 259 note, 291, 302, 339 
 
 23 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Act to retain the Queen's Subjects in 
 Obedience, the (1593) .- enjoins ban- 
 ishment to the Separatists', 222 
 
 Acton, 3 
 
 Admonition to the People of England, 
 Cooper's, 163 
 
 Ainsworth, Henry : life of, and arrival 
 in Amsterdam, 232 and note; cha- 
 racter of, and election as teacher, 
 233 ; versifies the Psalms, 234-236 ; 
 approves the excommunication of 
 George Johnson, 240; attacked by 
 White, 244 ; writes an answer to 
 Smyth, 250-251 ; quarrel of, with 
 Johnson, and separation, 254-257, 
 c/. 300 ; gains possession of old 
 meetiBg-house, 257 ; last years of, 
 258; Biblical stiidies of, ib. ; after 
 history of his Church, 259 ; his last 
 sermon, ih. ; his account of Johnson's 
 doctrinal changes, 266-268 ; his 
 theory of the eldership and agree- 
 ment with Barrow, 268, 271-272, 278 
 his " old " view of the Church, 292 
 controversy of, with Paget, 306 
 answers Johnson's Christian Plea, 
 315 ; answers Paget, 322 
 
 , other references to, 131, 225, 
 
 228, 238 note, 242, 253, 297. See also 
 Index of Eeferences 
 
 Aldgate, palace near, 33, 70 
 
 Aldricb, 11 
 
 Ames, Dr. William, 279-280; quoted, 
 314 
 
 Amsterdam, the Ancient Church at, 
 41, 42, 120 ; its origin, 226 ; connec- 
 tion of, with the London Church, 
 227-228 ; organisation of, completed, 
 233 ; details of services of, 234-236 ; 
 troubles begin in, 238 and note; 
 Johnsonian quarrels in, 239-242 ; 
 troubles of, with new-comers, 243- 
 245 ; troubles of, with John Smyth 
 and his followers, 249-253 ; Ains- 
 worth's secession from, 254-257 ; 
 petition of, to James I., 254 ; has to 
 give up old meeting-house, 257 ; 
 
 removes to Emden, ib. ; return of, and 
 death of Johnson, 258 ; dissolution 
 of, ih. ; doctrines of, primarily based 
 on Barrow's, 265 ; Confession of 
 Faith and Apology of, ib. ; question 
 of the Eldership in, 276-278 ; inter- 
 course of, with Leyden, ib. ; intoler- 
 ance of, 282 ; maintenance of elders 
 in, 291 ; statements of Arber con- 
 cerning, see Arber ; repulsed by 
 Dutch Church, 305-308 ; and by the 
 magistrates, 308-309, cf. 2.j7 ; hos- 
 tility of John Paget to, 319-321 
 
 Amsterdam, the Dutch Church at : 
 refuses to acknowledge the Ancient 
 Church, 305-308; appealed to by 
 John Johnson, 307 and note 
 
 , the Scotch Presbyterian 
 
 Church at, joined by Ainsworth's 
 Church (1701), 259 
 
 Anabaptists, the, and Barrow, 112- 
 113, 128, 209-210, 215-216; Whit- 
 gift and, 195-196 ; and the Peasants' 
 War, 201-203 ; early principles and 
 hardships of, 203-205; power of, 
 nearly destroyed, 205 ; later perse- 
 cution of, 206 ; treatment and 
 opinions of, in England, 206-208 ; 
 valuable doctrines of, 208-209 ; their 
 theory of the Prince vmique, 210- 
 212 ; insist on principle of tolera- 
 tion, 212-215 ; baptismal theory of, 
 217. See Mennonites, and Smyth, 
 John 
 
 Anderson, Justice, 75, 331 
 
 Andrews, Dr. Lawrence : conference 
 of, with Separatists, 45-48 ; see also 
 32, 39, 43, 92-93, 98 
 
 Andrews, Eobert, 44 
 
 Answer to George Gifford's Pretended 
 Defence of Bead Prayers, 36, 333- 
 334 
 
 Answer to Master Jacob, Johnson's, 
 230, 334 
 
 Answer to Cartwright, Whitgift's, 195 
 
 Apologie or Defence of such true Chris- 
 tians as are called Brownists, An, 265 
 
 Apostolic Church, the, Barrow on, 121 
 
356 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Arber, Dr. : confuses the Holy Dis- 
 cipline with Separatism, 289-291 ; 
 the assertion of, concerning main- 
 tenance of elders discussed, 290-292 ; 
 mistakes the Seven Demands (q.v.) 
 for the Seven Articles, 293-294 ; on 
 Johnson and the Amsterdam Church, 
 294-295, 309, 311-314; relies on 
 Lawne, 295, 302 passim; on the 
 character of Studley, 303 ; on 
 Lawne's account of Richard Mans- 
 field, 305 ; on Johnson's last work, 
 315 ; on Eobinson's testimonies, 323 
 Articles, the twenty-four, 193 ; the 
 Seven, sent from Leyden to the 
 English Council, 293; the Five, of 
 the Arminians against Calvinism, 
 316 
 Aylmer, Bishop of London, 3, 19, 20, 
 174 note, 179 and note ; condemns 
 Barrow, 22, 24 ; Barrow's opinion of, 
 29, 38 ; issues mandate for con- 
 ference with sectaries, 39; other 
 references to, 48, 65, 165, 166, 173, 
 329 
 
 B 
 Babworth, 302 
 Bacon, Francis Lord, 3 ; remarks of, on 
 
 Barrow, 4 ; on the Separatists, 62 
 Bacon, Sir Nicholas, son of the Lord 
 
 Keeper, 3 
 Badkin, 40, 41 
 
 Baker, Sir Eichard, widow of, 169 
 Bancroft, Bishop, 43, 54 
 Baptism, Barrow's views concerning, 
 110-114; difference with Penry on, 
 84, 112, 114 ; among the London 
 Separatists, 237 ; Francis Johnson 
 on, 317 
 Barbary, 224 
 Barrow, 3 
 
 Barrow, Henry : his birth, family, 
 connections, 3 ; at Cambridge, 4 ; at 
 court, 7 ; conversion of, 8 ; member 
 of G-ray's Inn, 9 ; and Greenwood, 
 14-15 ; his knowledge of the London 
 Separatists, 14 note; visit to 
 Greenwood, and arrest of, 15 ; first 
 examination of, 16-19 ; second ex- 
 amination of, 19 ; third examination 
 of, 20-21 ; indicted at Newgate Ses- 
 sions, 21 ; charged under statute 
 made against Papists, ib. ; sent to 
 the Fleet, 22 ; " lamentable peti- 
 tion " of, 23-24 ; fourth examination 
 of, before Council, 24-30 ; imprudent 
 conduct of, 25 ; asks for a confer- 
 ence, 28; account of his imprison- 
 
 ments, 32-33 ; reputed to be danger- 
 ous, 33 ; did not write the Marpre- 
 late Tracts, ih., 82-85 ; fifth examina- 
 tion of, 34; obtains copy of the 
 " sparsed articles," 35 ; writings of, 
 in prison, ib.; their publication, 
 35-38, cf. 331 ; permitted to be with 
 Greenwood, 39 ; party in third coa- 
 ference with Hutchinson and 
 Andrews, 45-47 ; in fourth confer- 
 ence with same, 48 ; in fifth confer- 
 ence with Sperin, ib. ; in sixth with 
 Sperin and Egerton, 49 ; correspond- 
 ence of, with Egerton, 50-52 ; last 
 conference of, with Sperin and 
 Cooper, 53-54 ; life of, in prison, 
 57-58 ; supplication of, to the Queen, 
 and letter to Mr. Fisher, 59, cf. 
 339; petitions of, 62-63; probable 
 author of the Supplication to Par- 
 liament (1592), 64; appeals to 
 Attorney-General Egerton, 72-73 ; 
 address of, to Council, 73-75, cf. 
 340 ; trial of, 75 ; writes his Apologie 
 to a kinswoman, 76 ; execution of, 
 79 ; stories concerning, 80-82 ; legacy 
 of, 224 ; other references to, 265, 272 
 , his doctrine of the Church, 
 
 91-133, cf. Introduction. See Scrip- 
 ture, Spirit, Ministry, Prophecy, Dis- 
 cipline, Supper, Baptism, Worship 
 and the Reformists, 135-157. 
 
 See Presbyterians, Lecturers 
 and the Bishops, 161 
 
 and the Anabaptists, see 
 Anabaptists 
 
 Barrow, Thomas, 3 ; family of, 4 note 
 
 Barrowist, the term, 222 and note 
 
 Bayly, Eoberfc, 297 
 
 Bedlam, Garden House near, 42 
 
 Bellot, Arthur, 71, 76 note, 225 
 
 , Scipio, 76 
 
 Bernard, Richard, 246, 248 and note ; 
 his Separatist Schism referred to, 
 271-274 passim 
 
 Bickley , Thomas, Bishop of Chichester, 
 163, 167 
 
 Bill against Barrowists and Brownists, 
 a, 79 
 
 Billot, see Bellot 
 
 Bilson, Bishop, letter of, to Burghley, 
 173 
 
 Bishops, Barrow on, 100; the Eliza- 
 bethan, 161-181 ; position of, in the 
 State, 161-162 ; character and learn- 
 ing of, 164-166 ; subservience and 
 worldliness of, 166-181 
 
 Blaokwell, Francis, 258 
 
INDEX. 
 
 357 
 
 Blethyn, Bishop of Llandaff, 1Y5 
 
 Bowie, see Bull 
 
 Bowman, Christoplier, wedding of, 
 33 ; career of, 41, 69 note. See also 
 155, 227, 238 note, 297 
 
 Boyes, Widow, 238. See Johnson, Mrs. 
 
 Boys, Edward, 69-70 
 
 Bradford, Mr., the martyr, 185 
 
 Bradford, Governor, story of Barrow 
 told by, 80 ; his character of Ains- 
 worth, 232-233 ; on the deaoonfiss of 
 the Amsterdam Church, 237-238 ; 
 trustworthy in his account of 
 Johnson, 242; at Amsterdam, 245, 
 294. See Index of References 
 
 Brewster, 281 ; life of, in Holland, 
 291 ; subscribes Seven Articles, 293 
 
 Bridges, Dr., 329, 341 
 
 Brief of Positions holden by the New 
 Sectorie of Recusants, the, 35 
 
 Bright, Dr., 45 
 
 Broomal, William, 86 
 
 Brown, Dr., letter of, quoted, 288 
 
 Browne, Robert : career and influence 
 of, 12-14 ; treatises of, 14 note ; re- 
 pudiated by Barrow and Greenwood, 
 51, 54, cf. 154 ; his theory of the 
 word church, 292. See also 11, 106, 
 210, 299 
 
 BrydweU, 38, 86-87 
 
 Bryghte, George, 86 
 
 Buck, Daniel, 237 and note, 244 ; his 
 description of Separatist Sacra- 
 ments, 237 ; quoted, 238 
 
 Bnckholt, assembly of Anabaptists at, 
 205 
 
 Buokhurst, Lord, 24 
 
 BuU, Robert, 37, 75-76, 331 
 
 BulHngham, Bishop of Gloucester 
 and Bristol, 365, 168, 173 
 
 Bures, Anne, wife of Edmund Butts, 3 
 
 , Henry, 8 
 
 -, Judith, wife of Aylmer, 3, 4 
 
 note 
 
 -, Mary, 3 
 
 Burghley, Lord : 3, 138, 193 j examines 
 Barrow, 25-30 ; Macaulay on, 30 ; 
 character of, 31 ; and the Puritans, 
 63-64, 67 ; desires the reprieve of 
 Barrow and Greenwood, 80 ; in- 
 fluence of, 171 
 
 Burroughe, Edith, 40, 237 note 
 
 Burying, Barrow's view of, 120 
 
 Bury St. Edmunds, 13 
 
 Butts, Edmund, son of Sir William, 3 
 , Agnes, daughter of Edmund, 
 wife of Sir Nicholas Bacon, 3, 79 
 note 
 
 Caius, Dr., see Cambridge 
 
 Calthorpe, Mr., 44 
 
 Cambridge, Barrow's opinion of, 5 ; 
 description of, by Travers, Cox, 
 Whitgift, ib. ; account of, by Dr. 
 Caius, 5-6 ; Puritanism in, 11-12 
 
 Campen, 224 
 
 Campion, 73 
 
 Canadine, Thomas, 42, 297 
 
 Cannady, see Canadine 
 
 Canne, John, 259 ; his Necessiiie of 
 Separation, ib. 
 
 Cartwright, Thomas, 11, 26, 60, 138, 
 153, 290 ; his Directory of Church 
 Government, 126 ; and Whitgift, 
 152, 186, 195 
 
 Chaderton, Dr. WilUam, 27 and note 
 
 Chancewell, the, 229 
 
 Chandler, John, 24 
 
 Chard, a printer, 329 
 
 Charke, Mr., 152 
 
 Charlbury, 43 
 
 Chief Justice, the Lord, 20 
 
 Church, the Amsterdam ; see Amster- 
 dam. So Gainsborough, Leyden, &o. 
 
 Church, the, definition of, by Hutchin- 
 son, 47; by Sperin, 48-49 ; Barrow's 
 doctrine of, 91-127, 292, 342-349; 
 Whitgift's theory of, 188-196 
 
 Church Buildings, Barrow on, 129-131 
 
 Churches, the Separatist, relations of 
 to the world and to each other, 
 123-127 
 
 Civil, the, union of, and the ecclesi- 
 astical, 49 
 
 Civilians, disagreement between, and 
 the Bishops, 20 ; at Barrow's third 
 examination, 20 note 
 
 Classes, Presbyterian, 139 
 
 Clare Hall, Cambridge, 4, 6 
 
 Clarke, WUliam, 41, 85, 87 
 
 Gierke, John, 58, 225, 226 ; escapes to 
 Holland, 229 
 
 Clink, the, 16, 40, 41, 68, 69, 230 
 
 " Clock-bag," Stokes's, 37 
 
 Clyfton, Richard, 233, 253 ; his account 
 of Divine Service in Amsterdam, 233 
 leqq. ; character of, given by Lawne, 
 101-102; death of, 258 note. See 
 Index of References 
 
 Cocky, Thomas, 236, 300 
 
 Collection of Certain Letters, d(c., A, 
 36, 75 
 
 Collection of Certain Slanderous Arti- 
 cles, A, 13, 35-36, 75 
 
 Collier, George, 41, 44, 86 
 
 Conference at Lambeth, 141-142 
 
358 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Conferences, the seven Puritan, 43-50, 
 
 53-54 ; character of, 04-57. See 
 
 Hutchinson, Andrews, Egerton, 
 
 Sperin, &c. 
 Cooper, Bishop, 162-163; Admonition 
 
 of, 163 ; learning of, 165 
 Cooper, Mr., 44 ; dispute of, with 
 
 Greenwood at tlie last Conference, 53 
 Corpvis Christi College, Cambridge, 10 
 Coain, Dr. Richard, 18 note ; at 
 
 Barrow's first examination, 18 
 Cotton, John, reference of, to John 
 
 Smyth, 246-247 
 Cotton, Mr., 39 
 Council, the Privy, address to, 73-75 ; 
 
 the Seven Articles sent to, 293 
 Counter, the (Poultry), 40-41 ; (Wood 
 
 Street), 40-41, 68, 86 
 Cox, Eichard, Bishop of Ely, 167; 
 
 dispute of, with Lord North, 177- 
 
 178; quoted, 5. 
 Crane, Nicholas, 24, 86 
 Cycely, Barrow's maidservant, 37 
 
 D 
 
 Deaconess of the Amsterdam Church, 
 the, 237-238 
 
 Ve diversis (jradibus viinistrorvm 
 Evangelii, Saravia's. 43 
 
 Demands, the Seven, see Questions, 
 the Seven 
 
 Demonstrotion of Discipline, Udall's, 
 138 
 
 Denck, Hans, 208 
 
 Denford, William, 41 
 
 Dering, 11, 138 
 
 Description of the Visible Church, the 
 True, 36 and notes, 332, 342-347 
 
 Dexter, Dr., and Barrow's authorship 
 of the Marprelate Tracts, 34, 82-85 
 
 Directory of Church Government, Cart- 
 wright's, 125 
 
 Discipline, Barrow on, 104-108 ; Pres- 
 byterian theory of, diiierent, 105 
 
 Discovery of the False Church, a Brief, 
 37-38, 58, 75, 336-337 
 
 Discourse of Some Trouhles at Amster- 
 dam, George Johnson's, 227 note 
 
 Drakes, Thomas, and his Ten Counter- 
 Demands, 293 
 
 Dort, printer's house at, 35, 37, 331 
 
 E 
 
 Edwards, John, 33, 70 
 
 Egerton, Mr., 44, 52 note ; conference 
 of, with Barrow and Greenwood, 49, 
 106 ; correspondence of, with Bar- 
 row, 50-52 
 
 Egerton, Thomas, Lord Ellesmere, and 
 Barrow, 71-73; reports result of 
 trial to Lord Keeper, 75-76 
 
 Eldership, the, question of, 267-278; 
 Ainsworth on, 268, 270-272 ; opposed 
 by Johnson upon, 269-270 ; at Ley- 
 den, 277-278 
 
 Elizabeth, Qu.een, Court of, 7 ; " la- 
 mentable petition" to, 23-24 ; suppli- 
 cation to, 59 ; letter of King James 
 to, 60 J supports Wliitgift before 
 Parliament, ib.; stays Barrow's exe- 
 cution, 77-78 ; Burghley speaks to, on 
 behalf of Barrow and Greenwood, 
 80; inquires after Barrow, 80-81; 
 Barrow on the baptism of, 112, cf. 
 76-77 ; ecclesiastical position of, 135- 
 136 ; her charge to Whitgift, 139 ; 
 urges on the iDishops, 162 ; subser- 
 viency of bishops to, 166-170 ; keeps 
 bishoprics open, 170; address to, on 
 behalf of pluralities, 176-177 ; re- 
 garded as the fount of law, 193 ; 
 Whitgift regards heresy as treason 
 against, 194 
 
 Emden, 257, 314 
 
 Emmanuel College, Cambridge, Puri- 
 tan origin of, 11 
 
 Euring, William, his answer to Drakes, 
 293, 348 
 
 Excommunication, discussion on, 49 ; 
 Barrow on, 105-108 
 
 F 
 
 Fairlambe, Peter, recantation of, 155 
 Ferdinand, King of Moravia, edict of, 
 
 204 
 Few Observations to the Reader of Mr. 
 
 Gifford's Last Reply, A, 33, 62, 338- 
 
 339 
 Field, John, 186 
 Pinch, Mr., speech of, 222 note 
 Fisher, Mr., Barrow's letter to, 59 
 Fleet, the, description of, by Bishop 
 
 Hooper, 22-23 ; Barrow sent to, 22 ; 
 
 his account of, 23-24 ; prisoners in, 
 
 40-41 ; marriages in, 58 
 Fletcher, Eichard, Bishop of Wor- 
 cester, 80, 167, 168-170; pluralist, 
 
 175 
 Floyde, Mr., 152 
 Forrester, James, copyist for Barrow, 
 
 37-38 and note, 42 ; examination of, 
 
 75 
 Fox, George, anticipated by Barrow, 
 
 118; Inner Lt/e of , 209 
 Fox's house in Nicholas Lane, see 
 
 N icholas Lane 
 
INDEX. 
 
 359 
 
 Francis, John, 41, 86 
 Frankenhausen, Massacre of, 201 
 Frankfort, 43 
 
 Freake, Bishop of Norwich, disorder- 
 liness of, 179 
 
 G 
 
 Gainsborough, Church at, 246; John 
 Smyth at, 248-249 ; removal of, to 
 Amsterdam, 249 
 
 Gallebrand, Edward, 164 
 
 Gardiner, Mr., 15.5 
 
 Gatehouse, the, 40, 87 
 
 Gifford, George, 151 note; writings 
 against, see Appendix III. ; see also 
 Plain Refutation of, &o. 
 
 Godly, Henry, house of, 70 
 
 Godwin, Thomas, Bishop of Bath 
 and Wells, 164, 167, 168 
 
 Goodman, Dr., Dean of Westminster 
 225 
 
 Grave, Edward, 71 
 
 Gravet, Mr., 38 note 
 
 Gray, Lord, 142 
 
 Greenwood, John, 10, 69, 152; at 
 Cambridge, 12 ; and Browne, ib. ; 
 and Barrow, 14-15 ; indicted at 
 Newgate Sessions, 21 ; sent to the 
 Fleet, 22; imprisonments of, 31-32 
 at large and rearrested (1592), 33 
 collects letters with Barrow, 37 
 permitted to be with Barrow, 39 
 first conference of, with Hutchin 
 sou, 44; second conference of, 45; 
 party in fourth conference, 48 ; in 
 sixth conference, 49-50 ; conference 
 of, with Egerton, 50-52 ; last con- 
 ference of, 53-54 ; his refutation of 
 Gifford, 61, 333-334 ; apprehension 
 of, 68 ; trial of, 75 ; execution of, 79 
 
 Grindal, Archbishop, 139, 167 
 
 Grove, Edward, 155 
 
 Gualter, John, 87 
 
 H 
 
 Hacket, 60 and, note 
 
 Hause, printer at Dort, 36, 37, 331 
 
 Harrison, Robert, 13 
 
 Hart, 73 
 
 Hatton, Sir Christopher, 24, 178 note; 
 shows ignorance of Greek at exa- 
 mination of Barrow, 29 
 
 Hayes, Luke, 87 
 
 Helwys, Thomas, 248 and note ; goes 
 to Amsterdam with Smyth, 249 ; 
 forms a church with him, 251 ; re- 
 fuses to join the Mennonites, 252; 
 forms Arminian Church in London, 
 253 
 
 Helwys, Ivan, 249 
 
 Heresy, Whitgift'a view of, 194 
 
 High Commission, the Court of, 137, 
 
 193 
 Hoffmann, Melchior, teaching of, 205, 
 
 207 
 Hogsden. the Antelope at, 71 
 Holder, Judith, 243 
 Holland, emigrants to, 224 
 Holy Discipline, the, 141, 289-290 
 Holy Discipline of the Church, 
 
 Travers's, 138 
 Hooker, 131 note 
 Hopewell, the, 229 
 Howland, Bishop of Peterborough, 167, 
 
 172; apluraHst, 175 
 Hughes, Bishop of St. Asaph, a 
 
 pluralist, 174 
 Hull, Mr., goes with Barrow to the 
 
 Clink, 16 
 Humphreys, 138 
 Hutchinson, Mr., 43 ; conference of, 
 
 with Separatists, 32, 34, 39, 44-48 
 Hutton, Matthew, and the Archbishop 
 
 of York. 172 
 Hutton, William, 44 
 
 Ireton, Mr., house of, 70 
 Islington, rector of, and Browne, 14 
 
 Jackson, Eiohard, 86 
 
 .Jacob, Henry, intercourse of, with 
 Francis Jolinson, 229-232 ; influ- 
 enced by Robinson, 232 ; his con- 
 gregation in Southwark, 227, 22.S, 
 259' 
 
 James, King of Scotland : intercedes 
 on behalf of Cartwright, 60 ; King 
 of England : petition to from 
 Amsterdam, 251 
 
 James, Dr., 173 
 
 Johnes, Anthony, 87 
 
 Johnson, Francis : his view of church 
 buildings, 131 ; examined by the 
 Dean of Westminster, 22 J ; ar- 
 rives in Amsterdam, 227 ; still 
 recognised as pastor by the London 
 Church, 228 ; details of liis experi- 
 ences in England, 228-229 ; con- 
 troversy of, with Henry Jacob, 229- 
 232 ; quarrels with his brother and 
 father, 238-241 ; answers White, 
 243 ; relations of and quarrel with 
 Aiusworth, 254-257 ; leads remnant 
 to Emden,257 ; return of, and death, 
 2.'58, 314 ; Presbyterian tendencies 
 
360 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 of, 266-270, 276 passim ; and Eobin- 
 son's reply to Bernard, 274 ; Ms 
 want of charity, 278; and the 
 maintenance of minister?, 292 ; his 
 view of the Church, ih. ; Bradford's 
 character of, 310; Arber's charges 
 against, 311-315 ; his Christian Flea, 
 316-319, cf. 266 
 
 -, other references to, 68-69, 
 
 245, 289-290, 297, 310-311, 331, 339 
 Johnson, George, 225, 239 and note ; 
 escapes to Amsterdam, ib. ; quarrels 
 with Francis in London, 238-239 ; 
 renews quarrel in Amsterdam, and 
 is cast out, 239-240 
 
 , Jacob, 236, 241, 300 
 
 , John, letter of, against his 
 
 sou Francis, 240-241 ; excommuni- 
 cation of, it. ,312-313; appeals to the 
 Dutch Church, 307 
 
 , Mrs. Francis, her dress 
 
 irritates George, 239; Bradfoid's 
 account of her and it, 242 
 
 K 
 Keake, Edmund, Bishop of Rochester, 
 
 166 
 Knewstubbs, 138 
 
 Kniveton, George, 41, 69 and note, 227 
 Knollys, Sir Francis, attacks legal 
 
 " superiority " of bishops, 60. See 
 
 also 61, 74, 138, 177 
 
 Lacy, of Gray's Inn, 19 
 
 Lane, AValter, 40 
 
 Lathrop, John, 228 note 
 
 Latimer and the Anabaptists, 206 
 
 Lawne, Christopher, 227, 245, 320, 324 ; 
 complains of rhymed Psalms, 234; 
 his writings, 295-296 ; his slow recan- 
 tation, 296, 298 ; his intercourse with 
 Paget and expulsion from the Am- 
 sterdam Church, 257, 299 ; his slan- 
 ders, 299-302 ; silent concerning the 
 years 1605-1610, 302-303; his attacks 
 on Studley and Mansfield, 303-305 ; 
 his account of the proceedings 
 against White, 309 
 
 Lawson, Mrs., 53 and note 
 
 Leake, Bishop, a pluialist, 175 
 
 Lecturers, the rise of, 146-147; Bishops' 
 treatment of, 147; Barrow's hostility 
 to, 147-151 
 
 Lee, Nicholas, 69 ; Penry at the house 
 of, 71 
 
 Legate, Thomas, 42, 86 
 
 Leicester, Earl of, 138, 142 
 
 Leyden, the Church at, 120, 291, 324 ; 
 
 its conference with the Amsterdam 
 
 Church on the question of the 
 
 Eldership, 276-278 
 " Luck," Barrow reproves Andrew for 
 
 using the word, 48 
 Luther and Toleration, 212-213 
 
 M 
 Magistrates, the Amsterdam, 257, 308- 
 
 309 
 MansSeld, Richard, 304-305 
 Marprelate Tracts, the, authorship of, 
 
 34, 35, 82-85, 138 
 Marriage, civil, Barrow's view of, 120 
 Marsh, Edmund, 87 
 Mason, William, 234 note 
 Menno, 206, 209 
 Mennonites : the Waterlauder, 210 ; 
 
 in Amsterdam, 252 
 Meynard, Widow, 86 
 Micklebound, Miles, 81, 335 
 Micklefield, Thomas, 155 
 Middelburg, 12, 14, 224 
 Middletou, Marmaduke, Bishop of St. 
 
 David's, 165 
 Millenary Petition, the, 138, 154 
 Millet, John, house of, in Hertford- 
 shire, 71 
 Ministers : unlawful, 54, cf. 100 ; 
 maintenance of, 115-116, ef. 270, 
 preparation of, 116-117 
 Ministry, the, Barrow's divisions of, 
 97 ; and theory concerning, 98-101, 
 119-120; cf. Eldership, the question 
 of 
 Mollins, Archdeacon, 39, 40, 43 
 Montgomery, Dr., and the Deanery of 
 
 Norwich, 176 
 Morrioe, Mr. Attorney, motion of, in 
 
 Parliament, 61 
 Morrison, John, 140 
 Morton, Mr. Secretary, 247 
 Motion Tenditig to Unity, A, 73 
 Miinster, 203, 205 
 Munter, Ian, 252 
 Miinzer, Thomas, not an Anabaptist, 
 
 202 
 Musoulus, 11 
 Mychens, 37 
 
 N 
 Naarden, 224 
 Newgate, 39, 40, 41, 86 
 Nicholas Lane, 33 ; election of church 
 ofiicers in, 69 ; school at the house 
 of Fox in, 229 note 
 Nicholas, J., 297 
 Nidd, Dr., 295 
 
INDEX. 
 
 36] 
 
 North, Lord, and the Bishop of Ely, 
 
 178 
 Norwich, 13 
 
 
 Oaths, Barrow on, 48 
 Onyon, Katherine, 225 
 Ordination and Eeoognition, growth 
 
 of, in the Congregational Church, 120 
 Overton, William, Bishop of Coventry 
 
 and Lichfield, 164 ; a pluralist, 174 
 
 Padry, 38, 86 
 
 Paget, John : on Barrow's view of 
 church buildings, 131 ; his inter- 
 course with Lawne, 298-299 ; his 
 career in Amsterdam and hostility 
 to the Ancient Church, 319-321 ; 
 attacks Ainsworth, 321-322 
 
 Parker, Eobert, on the Brownists, 154 
 
 Parker, Archbishop, petition against 
 the injunctions of, 11 ; and Corpus 
 Christi College, 12 ; admonition of, 
 concerning preachers, 146 
 
 Parkhurst, Bishop of Norwich, 161, 
 164, 179-180 
 
 Parliament and the Puritans, 60-61 
 
 Peasants' War, the, 201 
 
 Penry, John, 26, 33, 138, 225, 280, 
 341 ; his journey to London and 
 capture, 70-71 ; no relations between, 
 and Barrow, 83-85; his answer to 
 Dr. Some, ib. ; last letter of, 223-224 
 
 Perne, Dr., 186 
 
 Peterhouse, Cambridge, 27 
 
 Petition directed to Her Majesty, a 
 Puritan, 85, 340-341 
 
 Petitions, see Separatists, Pluralism 
 
 Philippes, Thomas, alias Morice, 
 letter of, quoted, 79-80 
 
 PhUips, Edward, 81 and note, 155 
 
 Piers, John, Archbishop of York, 163- 
 164. 166, 172 
 
 Plain Refutation of Mr. Gifford, 30, 
 32, 58, 75, 337-339 
 
 Platform, Barrow's, 58, 62, 334-336 
 
 Pluralism : of Elizabethan bishops, 
 174-177 ; Parliamentary petition 
 against, 176 ; address of clergy con- 
 cerning, 176-177 
 
 Popham, Justice, 75, 331 
 
 Prayer-Book, the, 136 
 
 Presbyterian church government, 
 Barrow and, 125-126, 143-144 
 
 Presbyterians, the, 138-142; called 
 Eef ormists by Barrow, 142 ; Barrow's 
 indictment of and argument for 
 their separation, 143-153 ; position 
 
 of, after Barrow's death, 153 ; logical 
 outcome of their teaching, 154-156 ; 
 confused by Mr. Arber with 
 Separatists, 289-290. See Holy 
 Discipline, the 
 
 Prince, the, Barrow's view of eccle- 
 siastical powers of, 128-129 ; of the 
 personal standing of, 129 ; Whit- 
 gift's view of position of, in the 
 Church, 191 ; Anabaptist theory 
 concerning, 210-212 
 
 Proctor, Mr. Penry 's, 85, 114, See 
 Throckmorton, Job 
 
 Profane Schism, Lawne's, 295 
 
 Prophecy, Barrow on, 102-104 ; at 
 Amsterdam, 236 
 
 Psalms, metrical, sung in Amster- 
 dam, 234-236 
 
 Puckring, Sir John, petition of, 170 
 note 
 
 Puritan preachers, aid the bishops 
 against the Separatists, 42, 153 
 
 Puritans, the, divisions of, in the 
 Church, 137, 139. See Presbyterian, 
 Separatist 
 
 Pym, 138 
 
 Q 
 
 Questions, the Seven, 293-294, 348-349 
 
 E 
 
 Eaglande, 24 
 
 Eainea, 229 
 
 Ealeigh, Sir Walter, speech of, on the 
 Separatists, 62, 79 note 
 
 Batoliffe, Penry at, 71 
 
 Eedgrave, 3 
 
 Eeeve, Thomas, 87 
 
 Eeformists, the, see Presbyterians 
 
 Eemonstranoe, the, 138 
 
 Eeynolds, Dr. John, 74 and note, 138 ; 
 reported opinion of, concerning 
 Barrow and Greenwood, 80 
 
 Eich, Lord, 10 note, 14 
 
 Eippon, Eoger, his epitaph, 40 
 
 Eobinson, John, 118, 120, 249 ; writes 
 to the London Church, 226, 228, 
 282 ; approves excommunication of 
 George and John Johnson, 240-241 ; 
 his letter to Ainsworth's congrega- 
 tion, 259; follows and defends 
 Barrow, 273 ; his reply to Bernard, 
 274, 313 ; and to Johnson, 274-275 ; 
 and the question of the Eldership 
 at Leyden, 277-278; in favour of 
 private communion with members 
 of the English Church, 279-281 ; 
 declares it lawful to hear ministers 
 of the Church of England, 281-284 ; 
 24 
 
362 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 liis grief at the intolerance of the 
 Amsterdam Church, 282-283 ; main- 
 tenance of, in Leyden, 291 ; sub- 
 scribes the Seven Articles , 293 ; keeps 
 up a connection with Amsterdam, 
 323-324 ; opinion of, on the Profane 
 Schism, 324-325. See Index to 
 Kefereuoes 
 
 Rochford Hall, 14 
 
 Koper, Christopher, 41 
 
 Row, Widow, 86 
 
 Sacraments, Separatist, 237 
 
 St. Alban's, sign of Christopher at, 70 
 
 St. Andrew-in-the-Wardrobe, parish 
 
 of, 15 
 St. Benet's, Cambridge, and Browne, 12 
 St. Botolph's, Boston, 246 
 St. Bride's, parish church of, 47 
 St. John's College, Cambridge, scandal 
 
 of, 11 
 Sampson, 138 
 Sandys, Bishop, his quarrels with 
 
 Whitgift and Aylmer, 178-179 
 Saravia, Dr., 38 note, 43 
 Scambler, Bishop of Peterborough, a 
 
 pluralist, 175, 179 
 Scriptures, the, Barrow's absolute 
 
 reliance upon, 91-93 
 Scrooby, the Church at, 120, 247, 248 
 Sectary, discussion upon the definition 
 
 of, 47 
 Separatists, the : their number, 62 ; 
 petition of, 62-63 ; Supplication of, 
 64-67 ; arrest of, il. ; attack upon 
 and third petition of, 68 ; scholar- 
 ship of early, 118 ; influence of, 154- 
 155; condition of London Sepa- 
 ratists (1593), 221; main body of 
 them go to Amsterdam, 226; Lon- 
 don congregation of, lasts until 1624, 
 227-228. See Jacob, Henry; Am- 
 sterdam, Ancient Cliurch at ; Ains- 
 worth, &o. 
 Settle, Thomas, 33, 40, 67, 69, 71, 8.'), 
 
 332 
 Shepherd, Keeper of the Clink, arrests 
 
 Barrow, 16 
 Shipdam, Barrow's birthplace, 3, 10, 14 
 Slade, excommunication of, 238 note 
 Slade, Matthew, letter of, on Johnson's 
 
 death, 314 
 Smels, George, 41 
 Smith, William, 74 note 
 Smyth, Andrew, 37-38 
 
 , John, 42, 211 ; liis early life, 
 
 245 ; preacher in Lincoln, 245-246 ; 
 
 at Gainsborough, 248-249; goes to 
 Amsterdam, 249 ; secedes from the 
 Ancient Church and writes the 
 Differences of the Churches, 249-251 ; 
 forms a new church, 251 ; seeks to 
 join the Mennonites, 251-252 ; 
 quarrels with Helwys, 252 ; his cha^ 
 racter, 253-254 ; his Retraction, ib. 
 See Index of References. 
 
 Smyth, Quintin, 41 
 
 Some, Dr. Robert, his career and inter- 
 course with Barrow, 26-27 ; his 
 Godly Treatises, 26 and note, 35, 44, 
 84-85 
 
 Southwark, congregation at, 227, 228, 
 289 
 
 Sparkes, 141 
 
 Sparc we, John, 44 
 
 Spenser, 138 
 
 Sperin, Thomas, 44; conferences of, 
 with Barrow, 48-49, 53, 99-101, 115 
 
 Spirit, the, accepted by Barrow as 
 interpreter of Scripture, 92-93 
 
 Stanhope, Dr., 40, 41, 65 
 
 Stanley, Justice, 331 
 
 Starsmore, Sabin, 259 note 
 
 Statute, against Recusants (1581), 
 21-22 ; against seditious books, 75 
 
 Stephens, Thomas, 87 
 
 Sterrell, William, letter to, 79 
 
 Stokes, Robert, agent of Barrow, 35- 
 38 ; recants, 61 ; examination of, 75, 
 331 ; cast out by Johnson, 331 
 
 Stratford-at-Bowe, 70 
 
 Studley, Daniel, 37-38 ; helps Barrow 
 to print the Brief Discovery, ii.; see 
 also 40, 67, 69; elected elder, 69; 
 examination of, 75 ; escapes to 
 Holland, 229 ; active in disputes, 
 239 ; interferes in the Norwich 
 Church, 243 note ; attacked by 
 White, 243, 297 ; supports Johnson 
 against Ainsworth, 255; attacked 
 by Lawne, 303 ; his answers, 303 
 note ; deposition of, 257 
 
 Suckling, Dr., 176 
 
 Supper, the Lord's, Barrow on, 108- 
 110 ; among the London Separatists, 
 237 
 
 Supplication to the Queen, A, 58 
 
 Suspension, Barrow's view of, 108 
 
 T 
 Thesaurus, Cooper's, 163 
 Thorneby, 16 
 Throckmorton, Job: his defence of 
 
 Penry, 84-85, 329, 341 ; his baptism, 
 
 111-112, 114 
 
INDEX. 
 
 363 
 
 Tomson, Henry, 86 
 
 Travers, 6, 11, 138, 141, 152, 290 
 
 TJ 
 TJdall, John, 60, 138 
 TJmberfield, Eiohard, 87 
 Universities, the, deprecated by Bar- 
 row, 117-118 
 
 V 
 Vestianau Controversy, the, 11 
 Visible Church, the, see Description, 
 the True of 
 
 W 
 
 Walsingham, Sir Francis, 142 
 
 Wandsworth, first English Presbytery 
 at, 139, 289 
 
 Ware, 16 
 
 Waterer, Roger, 42 ; messenger be- 
 tween London and Holland, 227 
 note 
 
 Watson, a pursuivant, 16 
 
 Wheeler, Richard, 85 
 
 White, Thomas, arrives in Amsterdam, 
 243 J his Discovery of Brownisni, 
 243-245 ; his accusations renewed by 
 Lawne, 297 ; account of the pro- 
 ceedings against, 308-309 
 
 White Lion, the, 87 
 
 Whitgift, Archbishop : examines Bar- 
 row, 16-21, 24 ; Barrow's opinion of, 
 29 ; issues order for conference with 
 sectaries, 39 ; Barrow's description 
 of, 59 ; independence of, 61 ; gains 
 possession of Barrow's books, 75 ; 
 insists on the execution of Barrow, 
 79-80 ; reported words of, ccnoerning 
 Barrow and Greenwood, 81 ; and the 
 
 Presbyterians, 139-142 ; learning of, 
 166 ; his quarrel with Sandys, 178- 
 179 ; his life, 185-186 ; his hatred of 
 the Puritans increased by his con- 
 troversy with Cartwright, 186-187 ; 
 his attack on Puritanism, 187 ; hated 
 by the Puritans, ib. ; the good points 
 in his character, ib. ; moderation of, 
 attested by Wottou and Hooker, 
 188 ; liis ecclesiastical polity, 188- 
 197 ; his definition of the Church, 
 188 ; and theory of Church govern- 
 ment, 188-190 ; his apology for the 
 Church of England, 190-191; con- 
 siders the Prince as keystone, 191 ; 
 an Erastian, 191-192 ; regards the 
 will of the Queen supreme, 193 ; and 
 heresy as treason, 194 ; his hatred 
 of the Anabaptists, 195-196 
 
 • other references to, 5, 9, 11, 
 
 38, 113, 136, 142, 167 
 Wickham, William, Bishop of Lincoln, 
 
 245 
 Willcocks, Thomas, 186 
 Worship, Public, Barrow's apostolic 
 
 view of, fetters his spiritual view, 
 
 121-122 -with, note ; Separatist 
 
 features of, 122-123 
 
 Yonge, Justice Richard, 24, 65 ; charges 
 
 Barrow, 27, 65 
 Young, Bishop of Rochester, a 
 
 pluralist, 175 ; his domestic expenses, 
 
 181 
 
 Z 
 Zurich, 43 
 Zwingli and the Anabaptists, 203 
 
LONDON : 
 W. fiPTCAIGHT AND SONS, PRINTERB, 
 PRTTRB LANE, E.G.