Part 1

Old South Leaflets.

TWELFTH SERIES, 1894. No. 2.

Governor Bradford’s First Dialogue.

A DIALOGUE, OR THE SUM OF A CONFERENCE BETWEEN SOME YOUNG MEN BORN IN NEW ENGLAND AND SUNDRY ANCIENT MEN THAT CAME OUT OF HOLLAND AND OLD ENGLAND, ANNO DOMINI 1648.[1]

_Young men._--Gentlemen, you were pleased to appoint us this time to confer with you, and to propound such questions as might give us satisfaction in some things wherein we are ignorant, or at least further light to some things that are more obscure unto us. Our first request therefore is, to know your minds concerning the true and simple meaning of those of _The Separation_, as they are termed, when they say the Church of England is no Church, or no true Church.

_Ancient men._--For answer hereunto, first, you must know that they speak of it as it then was under the hierarchical prelacy, which since have been put down by the State, and not as it is now unsettled.

2. They nowhere say, that we remember, that they are no Church. At least, they are not so to be understood; for they often say the contrary.

3. When they say it is no true Church of Christ, they do not at all mean as they are the elect of God, or a part of the Catholic Church, or of the mystical body of Christ, or visible Christians professing faith and holiness (as most men understand the church); for which purpose hear what Mr. Robinson in his Apology, page 53. “If by the Church,” saith he, “be understood the Catholic Church, dispersed upon the face of the whole earth, we do willingly acknowledge that a singular part thereof, and the same visible and conspicuous, is to be found in the land, and with it do profess and practise, what in us lies, communion in all things in themselves lawful, and done in right order.”

4. Therefore they mean it is not a true church as it is a National Church, combined together of all in the land promiscuously under the hierarchical government of archbishops, their courts and canons, so far differing from the primitive pattern in the Gospel.

_Young men._--Wherein do they differ then from the judgment or practice of our churches here in New England?

_Ancient men._--Truly, for matter of practice, nothing at all that is in any thing material; these being rather more strict and rigid in some proceedings about admission of members, and things of such nature, than the other; and for matter of judgment, it is more, as we conceive, in words and terms, than matter of any great substance; for the churches and chief of the ministers here hold that the National Church, so constituted and governed as before is said, is not allowable according to the primitive order of the Gospel; but that there are some parish assemblies that are true churches by virtue of an implicit covenant amongst themselves, in which regard the Church of England may be held and called a true church.

Where any such are evident, we suppose the other will not disagree about an implicit covenant, if they mean by an implicit covenant that which hath the substance of a covenant in it some way discernible, though it be not so formal or orderly as it should be. But such an implicit [covenant] as is no way explicit is no better than a Popish implicit faith (as some of us conceive) and a mere fiction, or as that which should be a marriage covenant which is no way explicit.

_Young men._--Wherein standeth the difference between the rigid Brownists and Separatists and others, as we observe our ministers in their writings and sermons to distinguish them?

_Ancient men._--The name of Brownists is but a nickname, as Puritan and Huguenot, &c., and therefore they do not amiss to decline the odium of it in what they may. But by the rigidness of Separation they do not so much mean the difference, for our churches here in New England do the same thing under the name of _secession_ from the corruptions found amongst them, as the other did under the name or term of _separation_ from them. Only this declines the odium the better. See Reverend Mr. Cotton’s Answer to Mr. Baylie, page the 14th.

That some which were termed Separatists, out of some mistake and heat of zeal, forbore communion in lawful things with other godly persons, as prayer and hearing of the word, may be seen in what that worthy man, Mr. Robinson, hath published in dislike thereof.

_Young men._--We are well satisfied in what you have said. But they differ also about synods.

_Ancient men._--It is true we do not know that ever they had any solemn Synodical Assembly. And the reason may be, that those in England living dispersed and[2] could not meet in their ordinary meetings without danger, much less in synods. Neither in Holland, where they might have more liberty, were they of any considerable number, being but those two churches, that of Amsterdam and that of Leyden. Yet some of us know that the church [of Leyden] sent messengers to those of Amsterdam, at the request of some of the chief of them, both elders and brethren, when in their dissensions they had deposed Mr. Ainsworth and some other both of their elders and brethren, Mr. Robinson being the chief of the messengers sent; which had that good effect, as that they revoked the said deposition, and confessed their rashness and error, and lived together in peace some good time after. But when the churches want neither peace nor light to exercise the power which the Lord hath given them, Christ doth not direct them to gather into synods or classical meetings, for removing of known offences either in doctrine or manners; but only sendeth to the pastors or presbyters of each church to reform within themselves what is amongst them. “A plain pattern,” saith Mr. Cotton in his Answer to Mr. Baylie, page 95, “in case of public offences tolerated in neighbour churches, not forthwith to gather into a synod or classical meeting, for redress thereof, but by letters and messengers to admonish one another of what is behooveful; unless upon such admonition they refuse to hearken to the wholesome counsel of their brethren.” And of this matter Mr. Robinson thus writeth in his book, _Just._ page 200, “The officers of one or many churches may meet together to discuss and consider of matters for the good of the church or churches, and so be called a Church Synod, or the like, so they infringe no order of Christ or liberty of the brethren;” not differing herein from Mr. Davenport and the principal of our ministers.

_Young men._--But they seem to differ about the exercise of prophecy, that is, that men out of office, having gifts, may upon occasion edify the church publicly and openly, and applying the Scriptures; which seems to be a new practice.

_Ancient men._--It doth but seem so; as many things else do that have by usurpation grown out of use. But that it hath been an ancient practice of the people of God, besides the grounds of Scripture, we will give an instance or two. We find in the ancient Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, lib. vi. cap. 19, how Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, being pricked with envy against Origen, complaineth in his letters that there was never such a practice heard of, nor no precedent to be found, that laymen in presence of bishops have taught in the church; but is thus answered by the bishop of Jerusalem and the bishop of Cesarea: “We know not,” say they, “why he reporteth a manifest untruth, whenas there may be found such as in open assemblies have taught the people; yea, whenas there were present learned men that could profit the people, and moreover holy bishops, who at that time exhorted them to preach. For example, at Laranda Euelpis was requested of Neon, at Iconium Paulinus was requested by Celsus, at Synada Theodorus was requested by Atticus, who were godly brethren, &c.”

The second instance is out of Speed’s Cloud of Witnesses, page 71. Saith he, “Rambam or Maymon records, that in the synagogues, first, only a Levite must offer sacrifice; secondly, but any in Israel might expound the law; thirdly, the expounder must be an eminent man, and must have leave from the master of the synagogue; and so contends that Christ, Luke iv. 16, taught as any of Israel might have done as well as the Levites; and the like did Paul and Barnabas, Acts xiii. 15.”

If any out of weakness have abused at any time their liberty, it is their personal faulting, as sometimes weak ministers may their office, and yet the ordinance good and lawful.

And the chief of our ministers in New England agree therein. See Mr. Cotton’s Answer to Baylie, page the 27th, 2d part. “Though neither all,” saith he, “nor most of the brethren of a church have ordinarily received a gift of public prophesying, or preaching, yet in defect of public ministry, it is not an unheard of novelty that God should enlarge private men with public gifts, and[3] to dispense them to edification; for we read that when the church at Jerusalem were all scattered abroad, except the Apostles, yet they that were scattered went every where preaching the word.”

Mr. Robinson also, in his Apology, page 45, chapter 8, to take off the aspersion charged on them, as if all the members of a church were to prophesy publicly, answers, “It comes within the compass but of a few of the multitude, haply two or three in a church, so to do; and touching prophecy,” saith he, “we think the very same that the Synod held at Embden, 1571, hath decreed in these words: ‘First, in all churches, whether but springing up, or grown to some ripeness, let the order of prophecy be observed, according to Paul’s institution. Secondly, into the fellowship of this work are to be admitted not only the ministers, but the teachers too, as also of the elders and deacons, yea, even of the multitude, which are willing to confer their gift received of God to the common utility of the church; but so as they first be allowed by the judgment of the ministers and others.’ So we believe and practise with the Belgic churches, &c.” See more in the immediate following page.

_Young men._--We cannot but marvel that in so few years there should be so great a change, that they who were so hotly persecuted by the prelates, and also opposed by the better sort of ministers, not only Mr. Gifford, Mr. Bernard, and other such like, but many of the most eminent both for learning and godliness, and yet now not only these famous men and churches in New England so fully to close with them in practice, but all the godly party in the land to stand for the same way, under the new name of Independents, put upon them.

_Ancient men._--It is the Lord’s doing, and it ought to be marvellous in our eyes; and the rather, because Mr. Bernard, in his book, made their small increase in a few years one and the chief argument against the way itself. To which Mr. Robinson answered, that “Religion is not always sown and reaped in one age; and that John Huss and Jerome of Prague finished their testimony a hundred years before Luther, and Wickliff well nigh as long before them, and yet neither the one nor the other with the like success as Luther. And yet,” saith he, “many are already gathered into the kingdom of Christ; and the nearness of many more throughout the whole land (for the regions are white unto the harvest) doth promise within less than a hundred years, if our sins and theirs make not us and them unworthy of this mercy, a very plenteous harvest” (_Justif._ folio 62); as if he had prophesied of these times. Yea, some of us have often heard him say that “even those ministers and other godly persons that did then most sharply oppose them, if they might come to be from under the bishops, and live in a place of rest and peace, where they might comfortably subsist, they would practise the same things which they now did.” And truly, many of us have seen this abundantly verified, not only in these latter times, but formerly.

Doctor Ames was estranged from and opposed Mr. Robinson; and yet afterwards there was loving compliance and near agreement between them; and, which is more strange, Mr. Johnson himself, who was afterwards pastor of the church of God at Amsterdam, was a preacher to the company of English of the Staple at Middleburg, in Zealand, and had great and certain maintenance allowed him by them, and was highly respected of them, and so zealous against this way as that [when] Mr. Barrow’s and Mr. Greenwood’s Refutation of Gifford was privately in printing in this city, he not only was a means to discover it, but was made the ambassador’s instrument to intercept them at the press, and see them burnt; the which charge he did so well perform, as he let them go on until they were wholly finished, and then surprised the whole impression, not suffering any to escape; and then, by the magistrates’ authority, caused them all to be openly burnt, himself standing by until they were all consumed to ashes. Only 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. But mark the sequel. When he had done this work, he went home, and being set down in his study, he began to turn over some pages of this book, and superficially to read some things here and there, as his fancy led him. At length he met with something that began to work upon his spirit, which so wrought with him as drew him to this resolution, seriously to read over the whole book: the which he did once and again. In the end 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, who were then in prison, and shortly after executed. After which conference he was so satisfied and confirmed in the truth, as he never returned to his place any more at Middleburg, but adjoined himself to their society at London, and was afterwards committed to prison, and then banished; and in conclusion coming to live at Amsterdam, he caused the same books, which he had been an instrument to burn, to be new printed and set out at his own charge. And some of us here present testify this to be a true relation, which we heard from his own mouth before many witnesses.

_Young men._--We have seen a book of Mr. Robert Baylie’s, a Scotchman, wherein he seemeth to take notice of the spreading of the truth under the notion of error, and casts all the disgraces he can on it, and ranks it with others the foulest errors of the time, and endeavours to show how like a small spark it revived out of the ashes, and was brought from Leyden over the seas into New England, and there nourished with much silence until it spread to other places in the country, and by eminent hands from thence into Old England.

_Ancient men._--As we dare say Mr. Baylie intends no honor to the persons by what he says, either to those here or from whence they came, so are they far from seeking any to themselves, but rather are ashamed that their weak working hath brought no more glory to God; and if in any thing God hath made any of them instruments for the good of his people in any measure, they desire he only may have the glory. And whereas Mr. Baylie affirmeth that, however it was, in a few years the most who settled in the land did agree to model themselves after Mr. Robinson’s pattern, we agree with reverend Mr. Cotton, that “there was no agreement by any solemn or common consultation; but that it is true they did, as if they had agreed, by the same spirit of truth and unity, set up, by the help of Christ, the same model of churches, one like to another; and if they of Plymouth have helped any of the first comers in their theory, by hearing and discerning their practices, therein the Scripture is fulfilled that the kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until all was leavened.” Answer to Mr. Baylie, page 17.

_Young men._--We desire to know how many have been put to death for this cause, and what manner of persons they were, and what occasions were taken against them by bringing them to their end.

_Ancient men._--We know certainly of six that were publicly executed, besides such as died in prisons; Mr. Henry Barrow, Mr. Greenwood (these suffered at Tyburn); Mr. Penry at St. Thomas Waterings, by London; Mr. William Dennis, at Thetford, in Norfolk; two others at St. Edmund’s, in Suffolk, whose names were Copping and Elias [Thacker]. These two last mentioned were condemned by cruel Judge Popham, whose countenance and carriage was very rough and severe toward them, with many sharp menaces. But God gave them courage to bear it, and to make this answer:

“My Lord, your face we fear not, And for your threats we care not, And to come to your read service, we dare not.”

These two last named were put to death for dispersing of books.

For Mr. Dennis, he was a godly man, and faithful in his place; but what occasion was taken against him, we know not, more than the common cause.

For Mr. Penry, how unjustly he was charged, himself hath made manifest to the world in his books, and that Declaration which he made a little before his suffering; all which are extant in print, with some of his godly letters.

As for Mr. Barrow and Mr. Greenwood, it also appears by their own writings how those statutes formerly made against the Papists were wrested against them, and they condemned thereupon; as may be seen by their Examinations.

_Young men._--But these were rigid Brownists, and lie under much aspersion, and their names much blemished and beclouded, not only by enemies, but even by godly and very reverend men.

_Ancient men._--They can no more justly be called Brownists, than the disciples might have been called Judasites; for they did as much abhor Brown’s apostasy, and profane course, and his defection, as the disciples and other Christians did Judas’s treachery.

And for their rigid and roughness of spirit, as some of them, especially Mr. Barrow, is taxed, it may be considered they were very rigidly and roughly dealt with, not only by the Lord’s enemies and their enemies, but by some godly persons of those times, differing in opinions from them; which makes some of us call to mind what one Doctor Taylor hath written in a late book in these stirring times. “Such an eminent man,” saith he, “hath had the good hap to be reputed orthodox by posterity, and did condemn such a man of such an opinion, and yet himself erred in as considerable matters; but meeting with better neighbours in his life-time, and a more charitable posterity after his death, hath his memory preserved in honor; and the other’s name suffers without cause.” Of which he gives instances in his book entitled The Liberty of Prophesying, page 33 and following.

We refer you to Mr. Robinson’s Answer to Mr. Bernard, where he charges him with blasphemy, railing, scoffing, &c. “For Mr. Barrow,” saith Mr. Robinson, “as I say with Mr. Ainsworth, that I will not justify all the words of another man, nor yet mine own, so say I also with Mr. Smith, that because I know not by what particular motion of the Spirit he was guided to write in those phrases, I dare not censure him as you do; especially considering with what fiery zeal the Lord hath furnished such his servants at all times, as he hath stirred up for special reformation. Let the example of Luther alone suffice, whom into what terms his zeal carried, his writings testify; and yet both in him and in Mr. Barrow there might be with true spiritual zeal fleshly indignation mingled.” Answer to Mr. Bernard, folio 84.

And further in page 86 he saith, that “such harsh terms wherewith he entertains such persons and things in the church as carry with them most appearance of holiness, they are to be interpreted according to his meaning, with this distinction, that Mr. Barrow speaks not of these persons and things simply, but in a respect, and so and so considered; and so no one term given by Mr. Barrow but may, at the least, be tolerated.”

_Young men._--But divers reverend men have expressed concerning this matter that God is not wont to make choice of men infamous for gross sins and vices before their calling, to make them any instruments of reformation after their calling, and proceed to declare that Mr. Barrow was a great gamester and a dicer when he lived in court, and getting much by play, would boast of loose spending it with courtesans, &c.

_Ancient men._--Truly, with due respect to such reverend men be it spoken, those things might well have been spared from putting in print, especially so long after his death, when not only he, but all his friends are taken out of the world, that might vindicate his name. That he was tainted with vices at the court before his conversion and calling, it is not very strange; and if he had lived and died in that condition, it is like he might have gone out of the world without any public brand on his name, and have passed for a tolerable Christian and member of the church. He had hurt enough done him, whilst he lived, by evil and cruel enemies; why should godly men be prejudicated to him after his death in his name? Was not the Apostle Paul a persecutor of God’s saints unto death? And doth not the same Apostle, speaking of scandalous and lascivious persons, say, “And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the spirit of our God.”

And if histories deceive us not, was not Cyprian a magician before his conversion, and Augustine a Manichæan? And when it was said unto him in the voice he heard, _Tolle et lege_, he was directed to that place of Scripture, “Not in gluttony and drunkenness, nor in chambering and wantonness, nor in strife and envying; but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and take no thought for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts of it.” By which it may seem that if God do not make choice of such men as have been infamous for gross vices before their calling, yet sometimes he is wont to do it, and is free to choose whom he pleaseth for notable instruments for his own work. As for other things that have been spoken of him and Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Penry, we leave them as they are. But some of us have reason to think there are some mistakes in the relations of those things. Only we shall add other public testimonies concerning them from witnesses of very worthy credit, which are also in print.

First, from Mr. Phillips. A famous and godly preacher, having heard and seen Mr. Barrow’s holy speeches and preparations for death, said, “Barrow, Barrow, my soul be with thine!” The same author also reports, that Queen Elizabeth asked learned Doctor Reynolds what he thought of those two men, Mr. Barrow and Mr. 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. Whereupon 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. But after that, riding to a park by the place where they were executed, and being willing to take further information concerning them, demanded of the right honorable the Earl of Cumberland, that was present when they suffered, what end they made. He answered, “a very godly end, and prayed for your Majesty, and the State,” &c. We may also add what some of us have heard by credible information, that the Queen demanded of the Archbishop what he thought of them in his conscience. He answered “he thought they were the 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.