^{page 27 note 1} ‘ and ’ struck out.

^{page 27 note 2} Here follow the autograph signatures. Those written below the line were admitted at a later date.

^{page 27 note 3} The dates and sentences placed as headings before the various meetings are in the manuscript written at the side of the sheet. The parts heavily bracketed are in a different ink and larger characters than the rest.

^{page 27 note 4} For some of their arguments on this question see pp. 75, 76.

^{page 28 note 1} This and the continual discussion of other matters of discipline makes it clear that, although this ‘ conference ’ was legally and perhaps, in the minds of the men concerned, nothing but a ‘ prophecy,’ it really possessed a decidedly different character. Still it cannot be called a ‘ classis,’ and by no means a ‘ presbytery.’ No better illustration could be found of the essentially unconscious growth of the ‘ presbytery ’ of 1585 out of the ‘ prophecy ’ of 1577 by means of these ‘ conferences.’

^{page 28 note 2} ‘ a ’ crossed out.

^{page 28 note 3} ‘ for ’ crossed out.

^{page 29 note 1} ‘ a man ’ crossed out.

^{page 29 note 2} Meeting, Fifth (?), and the letters written are infra, pp. 77, 78. See notes to the latter.

^{page 29 note 3} ‘ Maytree,’ i.e. May pole.

^{page 29 note 4} ‘ verie ’ struck out.

^{page 29 note 5} ‘ for diuerse causes ’ struck out.

^{page 30 note 1} Here follows, crossed out, [‘ It was thoughte good that for the handlinge of the Scriptures euery man shuld be lefte to the measure of his giftea geuen him of God, and not to be tied to any precise order therin:] (attempt to correct it, “ tutching the manner of enterpreting of the Scriptures to be observed emongst ourselues in this exercise that …”’)

^{page 30 note 2} ‘ the ’ crossed out.

^{page 30 note 3} George Northey; see Introduction.

^{page 31 note 1} See Introduction.

^{page 31 note 2} Whitgift, nominated August 14, 1583, though not consecrated till October 23.

^{page 31 note 3} These were carried out. See infra, letters : Chapman to Field, p. 95 ; Field to Chapman, p. 96; Chapman to Withers, p. 87; the brethren to Withers, p. 89. On Withers see notes to the letters.

^{page 32 note 1} Not the minister who appears in some of the following papers.

^{page 32 note 2} This is the corrected version; it originally stood, ‘ It was thoughte most convenient that a pastor by Catechising shuld aeeke to wyne those that will not come to the word and Sacramentes.’

^{page 32 note 3} Here follow, struck out, ‘ As tutchinge the order to be used by the pastor in Catechisinge of the youthe.’

^{page 32 note 4} ‘ Rogues,’ the ‘ stuydy beggars’ common at that time.

^{page 33 note 1} Thomas Wilcox; see Introduction. His present trouble was this : ‘ Wilcoxe for lacke of his former maintenance, which was witheld from him by the brethren's procurement and upon perswasion that after a time he should be restored to his ministerie againe and in the meane space be relieved (i.e. by contributions).’ (Bancroft, Dangerous Positions, p. 119).

^{page 33 note 2} For examples of Puritan prayers see Strype, Annals, iii. i. 66–7, and Waddington, Congregationalism, ii. 739, showing how closely these early ‘ extemporaneous ’ prayers were modelled on the Common Prayer Book. The significance of these frequent fasts (5th, 10th, 15th, 23rd meetings, &c.) lies in the fact that after the forbidding of the prophecies in 1577 the Puritan clergy held together private fasts (Heylin, Aerius Redivivus, p. 286; Neal, Puritans, i. 372), out of which grew these ‘ conferences ’ in which were united the prophesy, the fast, and slowly the new ideas which made it later a Presbytery.

^{page 34 note 1} To subscribe to the Three Articles of Archbishop Whitgift—(1) the Queen's Supremacy; (2) the lawfulness of the Book of Common Prayer and the form of ordering the bishops, priests, and deacons; (3) the agreeing to all of the Thirty-nine Articles. See Cardwell, Annals, i. 468, and various other books. The details of efforts to secure conformity by subscription are recounted at great length in Davids, Nonconformity in Essex; in Strype, Whitgift, Aylmer, and Annals; and repeated in Neal's Puritans and most of the Church histories since written. But there is in this ‘ Minute Book ’ scant confirmation of the censures usually passed upon the severity, harshness, and injustice of the bishop's proceedings. The following statements of Whitgift's were probably literally true : ‘ The recusants for the most part were men of no account either for learning or otherwise but very troublesome and contentious. … And yet that the third part of these wilful persons were not suspended but only admonished’ (Strype, Whitgift, i. 307). ‘ These had had now almost half a year's space to resolve themselves in …. Some of the persons who now were petitioners (to the Privy Council) had greatly abused his lenity in that behalf’ (ibid. p. 303, May 26,1584)

^{page 35 note 1} This confirms Bancroft's surmise. See supra, p. 9.

^{page 36 note 1} This and like details elsewhere in this book tend to rob the numerous petitions in favour of the Puritan clergy of much of that importance given them by Strype, Neal, Davis, &c. It is indeed significant that any of the gentry should have signed the papers at all, but it will now be difficult to contend that these documents represent a spontaneous or widespread feeling in the ministers' favour among their congregations.

^{page 36 note 2} This was probably done, and may be the document printed in Davids's Nonconformity in Essex, p. 88. Out of 335 there were only 110 ‘ decent ’ ministers, and only 43 mentioned as ‘ painful ministers,’ the latter being those men who drew up the survey. This reveals how greatly outnumbered these Puritans were, even on their own computation. See also the 21st meeting.

^{page 37 note 1} Lowe had signed the Agreement, but had not attended many meetings. He eventually dropped out entirely.

^{page 37 note 2} This is the last entry in the larger hand and the black ink. All that follows is in Parker's small writing and a reddish-hued ink.

^{page 37 note 3} This was the attitude which provoked the wrath of the Bishops and was termed the ‘ Presumption which is everywhere to be found in these days.’ Bancroft, Sermon at Paul's Cross, February 1588, and passim.

^{page 38 note 1} See ante, 14th and 17th meetings.

^{page 38 note 2} Contrary to what is usually said, these men appear individually quite ready to conform. The Bishops were aware of it, and complained ‘ they were animated by some which might have been better occupied ’—that is, the gentry and some few leaders. Strype, Whitgift, i. 307. Many similar items follow in this book, e.g. meetings 25 and 37, &c.

^{page 40 note 1} Probably George Gifford. See D. N. B.

^{page 40 note 2} Confirmed by and confirming Bancroft, supra, p. 40.

^{page 40 note 3} Andrew Oxenbridge. He subscribed the Oath of Supremacy, May 14, 1583, after a long refusal. Strype, Annals, iii. pt. I. 276. A long account of their debates with him is in the MS. among the ‘ papers,’ but is not worth printing (f. 255 ff.)

^{page 41 note 1} ‘ a couple ’ struck out.

^{page 41 note 2} Yet the Puritans denied, in 1592, that any had exercised any ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Neal, , Puritans (1816), v. 293Google Scholar.

^{page 42 note 1} Oxenbridge. See 26th meeting.

^{page 42 note 2} John Knewstubbs; see Introduction.

^{page 42 note 3} George Gifford; see Introduction.

^{page 42 note 4} Robert Wright; see Introduction.

^{page 43 note 1} ‘ gre ’ struck out.

^{page 43 note 2} It is difficult to see why he thus complained, unless he was very unreasonable. The living of Wenham was worth 25l. The value of Puritan livings ranks very high indeed. Boxted was worth 26l.; Coggeshall, 70l.; Dedham, 30l.; Leigh, 30l.; all held by members of this conference. [View of the State of the Clergy of Essex, cir. 1610 (tract).] In many cases Puritans drew far more than this, 100l. even. Neal, Puritans, i. 323 (1816). On the other hand the vast majority of the clergy had less than 15l. a year. In the diocese of Lichfield (1600) 51 had less than 5l.; 124 between 5l. and 10l.; 50 between 10l. and 15l.; and only 24 were paid more than 15l. ‘ Clergy List of Lichfield, temp. Eliz.,’ Journal of Derbyshire Archaological and Natural Hist. Society, vi. 157 (1884)Google Scholar. See Strype, Grindal, p. 565, and Whitgift, passim.

^{page 44 note 1} ‘ not ’ struck out.

^{page 44 note 2} ‘ therefore ’ struck out.

^{page 44 note 3} ‘ first ’ struck out.

^{page 45 note 1} ‘ told ’ struck out.

^{page 45 note 2} ‘ his ’ struck out.

^{page 46 note 1} Harmony did not prevail between the Puritan pastor and his congregation in nine oases out of ten. Browne complained that ‘ the parishes were in such bondage to the bishops that they required whoever would minister to them to come unto the same bondage’ (quoted in Dexter, Congregationalism, p. 67). See also an article by the present editor in the Church Quarterly Review for April 1904 on ‘ The People and the Puritan Movement,’ where the question is considered at some length. This ‘ Minute Book ’ abounds in illustrations of the argument there set forth. See meetings 29, 51, 60, 61, and 72.

^{page 46 note 2} Usually written ‘ Leigh.’

^{page 46 note 3} ‘ his ’ crossed out.

^{page 47 note 1} And yet these and others who had done the same wrote in 1592, ‘ Concerning our conferences, we have been charged to have given orders and made ministers and to have administered the censures of the Church and finally to have exercised all ecclesiastical jurisdiction ‥ ‥ we protest before God and the holy Angels, that we have never exercised any part of such jurisdiction nor had any purpose agreed among us to exercise the same, before we should by public law be authorized thereunto.’ Neal, , Puritans, v. 293 (1816)Google Scholar. Letter of Puritan Ministers to the Queen, 1592, April. Yet only casuistry can show that their actions in the cases of Mr. Andrews, Mr. Negus, and Mr. Bird were not the giving of orders and making of ministers; and in this book elsewhere are abundant examples of exercising church discipline or of seeing that it was exercised, e.g. meetings 35 and 39.

^{page 50 note 1} ‘ Farrar ’ struck out.

^{page 50 note 2} ‘ Newman ’ struck out.

^{page 51 note 1} See Introduction.

^{page 51 note 2} ‘ oppose ’ strupk out.

^{page 51 note 3} ‘Layer’ and ‘Laier’ = Laingdon (?). Davids, p. 100, and Newcourt. But see Teye to Parker, infra, p. 83.

^{page 52 note 1} ‘ by ’ struck out.

^{page 52 note 2} This meeting cannot be definitely identified.

^{page 52 note 3} A High Commission to the Lancashire clergy against papists. The Puritatis objected to the High Commission only when it was directed against themselves.

^{page 53 note 1} ‘ to ’ struck out.

^{page 53 note 2} ‘ of ’ struck out.

^{page 54 note 1} This is truly remarkable evidence: (1) that the conference considered that it had given a distinct authorisation; (2) that their own member considered it of no value and that it committed him to something illegal. The Puritans declared on oath in 1592 that they had done nothing not allowable by law.

^{page 54 note 2} Edward Glover, a minister in Essex inclined to Brownism. S. Bredwell wrote, 1586, A Detection of Edward Glover's Heretical Confection, &c, with an Admonition to the Following of Glover and Browne. He was brought before the Archbishop, probably by the efforts of these ministers, was twice imprisoned, and set free in April 1586 at the intercession of Burghley. Strype, Annals, iii. i. 634.

^{page 54 note 3} See 37th meeting.

^{page 55 note 1} ‘ of ’ crossed out.

^{page 55 note 2} This and other examples in this book show how many of the petitions and intercessory letters came to be written. See also next meeting.

^{page 56 note 1} ‘ nothing ’ crossed out.

^{page 56 note 2} ‘ Barfold at M^r Tilneys house ’ struck out.

^{page 57 note 1} See note to the 27th meeting.

^{page 57 note 2} In London, or all the Huguenots in France, or the Church of La Rochelle, often called in England ‘ the ffrench church ’ ?

^{page 57 note 3} Glover had been released in April 1586 the second time. See note to the 88th meeting.

^{page 57 note 4} Bishop of London, Aylmer.

^{page 58 note 1} Does this mean that these ministers with their vestries levied taxes on their parishes, or does it refer to the State taxes ?

^{page 59 note 1} ‘ by ’ struck out.

^{page 59 note 2} ‘ to ’ struck out.

^{page 59 note 3} No better evidence is possible that the Puritan party did not agree within itself, and that the assertions of the leaders are little more than their personal opinions or what they thought men would support.

^{page 59 note 4} See letters, pp. 77–80, and the notes to them.

^{page 59 note 5} November 17, the day of Elizabeth's accession. Strype, Aylmer, p. 68.

^{page 60 note 1} By Canon Law he was admonished to do his duty, often specifically stated; then after a time, if he did it not, admonished again, and a third time, and then suspended or deprived.

^{page 60 note 2} This is important. The bishops said that all they asked was that men should conform in a certain few essentials; probably they had no further designs, but clearly many men believed they had.

^{page 61 note 1} See letters, p. 98.

^{page 61 note 2} The chief favourer of the Puritans, owning presentations and advowsons in Warwickshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and elsewhere, and the patron of most of these men; he was in trouble with the Government on account of Robert Wright; he was later the famous Puritan Earl of Warwick. Strype, Aylmer, p. 54; ibid. Annalst iii. pt. i. 177–79; pt. ii. 228–236.

^{page 61 note 3} Sir Robert Jermin, one of the influential justices of Suffolk, suspected in 1581 of being a favourer of Robert Browne, the sectary. Strype, Annals, iii. pt. ii. 172 ibid. iii. pt. i. 25–30. He Was one of Leicester's dependents. The petitions mentioned are probably those printed by Davids, Nonconformity in Essex, pp. 81–83.

^{page 61 note 4} I.e. in a private gentleman's house.

^{page 61 note 5} The complete failure of the movement waa due chiefly to this inability to agree, not merely to the interference of the State.

^{page 62 note 1} This was the second great cause of the failure of the movement, the inability Of enforcing any of their orders. In the last analysis it meant that the people refused to support it. See meetings 65 and 73.

^{page 62 note 2} Here the close connection, almost parallelism, in Congregationalism and Presbyterlanism becomes apparent. Note has been made already of the close personal connection of Barrow, Greenwood, and Browne with these Puritans, while Penry and Udal, usually claimed by the Congregationalists, signed the ‘ Discipline.’ See the 65th meeting.

^{page 62 note 3} See supra, note to the 8th meeting.

^{page 63 note 1} I.e. caliver, a small hand firearm of the sixteenth century, fired without a rest.

^{page 63 note 2} I.e. Morris pike.

^{page 63 note 3} Compare Bancroft, p. 18.

^{page 64 note 1} ‘ defend ’ struck out.

^{page 64 note 2} I.e. Parker's, of the 63rd meeting, one of the few personal touches in the long MS.

^{page 64 note 3} Forty days before the writ Excommunicato Capiendo could issue out of Chancery to apprehend him. Articles of 1583 in Strype, Whitgift, i. 234; also Burn, , Ecclesiastical Law, under ‘ Excommunication ’ (1763), p. 548Google Scholar.

^{page 65 note 1} Apparently he had to subscribe things he did not believe.

^{page 65 note 2} I.e. answer by a lawyer instead of in person. The proctor at civil law is the same as the attorney at common law.

^{page 66 note 1} ‘ he ’ struck out.

^{page 66 note 2} ‘ Chap ’ struck out.

^{page 67 note 1} ‘ did ’ struck out.

^{page 67 note 2} ‘ at ’ struck out.

^{page 67 note 3} The letter, dated June 7,1587, from Richard Rogers and others asking that Newman become a member of their classis, is at p. 98. December 5, 1587, a joint letter, refusing to allow him to go, was sent, signed by Chapman, Crick, Teye, Farrar, Lewis, and Parker. This is long and of no especial value, and is not here given.

^{page 68 note 1} Usually Thursday.

^{page 68 note 2} In general the people refused, from economic and not religious reasons, further to observe the holy days or fasts (Consistory Court Books in Diocesan Registries MSS.) The objection here meant that unless paid for the time lost from their work, the people would not come to the fast.

^{page 69 note 1} This is Congregationalism, proving again the very close relation of it to Presbyterianism at this early stage.

^{page 69 note 2} The like produced from the Churchmen this comment: ‘ In respect of their conversation they are said to be humble and lowly in outward show… Thier mouths do speak proud things and swelling words of vanity… They are bold and stand in their own conceit' (Bancroft's Sermon at Paul's Cross).

^{page 70 note 1} That is, had a simple minister power to admit members of the Church ? This was the logical conclusion of the ‘ calling and ordering ’ of ministers by the Classis, but no Puritan ever admitted he took it. (See the examinations 1591–93 in Strype, Annals and Whitgift.) Here again is Congregationalism. See the 75th meeting.

^{page 72 note 1} Note how late this was. The Armada was defeated in the end of the July preceding.

^{page 72 note 2} ‘ whether ’ struck out.

^{page 72 note 1} ‘ I think ’ crossed out.

^{page 73 note 1} See Bancroft, p. 16.