compound: I know not what to make him. He is neither ecclesiastical nor civil: even that second beast spoken of in the Revelation.

Lord Treas. Where is that place? Show it."

"So," says Barrowe, "I turned to the thirteenth chapter, and began at the eleventh verse, and read a little. Then I turned to 2 Thessalonians, second chapter. But the beast arose for anger, gnashing his teeth, and said: Will you suffer him, my lords!' So I was plucked up by the warden's man from my knees, and carried away."

This examination appears to have been the last, of an inquisitorial character, to which Mr. Barrowe was subjected. It shows most clearly the unbroken spirit of the man, notwithstanding nearly fourteen months close and cruel confinement; at the same time it furnishes a fair specimen of his promptness and aptness in confessing and defending his faith, under the most trying circumstances. And as Barrowe was an acknowledged leader among the Congregationalists of his day-after whom they were sometimes called Barrowists these examinations no doubt give us essentially the ecclesiastical views of those good people.

It is noticeable how Barrowe always discriminated between a nobleman and a bishop. To the former he was respectful and courtly; while he utterly scouted the hierarchal titles of "lord bishops," and never gave any title to Whitgift or Ayl

*Harleian Miscellany, 11. 22-27.

mer, in addressing them. And when his attention was directed to this omission, he denounced the archbishop as "a monster; a miserable compound; neither ecclesiastical nor civil, but that second beast spoken of in Revelation," which came out of the earth, having two horns like a lamb, and speaking like a dragon. Rev. xiii. 11.

After this examination Barrowe and his friend Greenwood were left to the tender mercies of their jailors until March 21, 1592-3.*

*Strype's Whitgift, 11. 186.

They were then

Mr. Greenwood was probably out of prison, on parole, sometime in the autumn of 1592: for in a 66 Supplication" of the Separatists, to the lords of the council, preserved by Strype (Ann. IV. No. 62) we read: "About a month since their pursuivants [the bishops], late in the night, entered, in the queen's name, into an honest citizen's house, upon Ludgate hill, where, after they had at their pleasure searched and ransacked all places, chests, etc., of the house, they there apprehended two of our ministers, Francis Johnson, without any warrant at all, and John Greenwood; both of 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, until the next day, that he were sent for; at which time the archbishop, with certain doctors his associates, committed them all three to close prison; two unto the Clink [Boys and Johnson], the third [Greenwood] again to the Fleet, where they remain in great distress."

Mr. Waddington says, that this arrest took place on the night of Dec. 5, 1592. — Life of Penry, 105. See further particulars of this supplication, in a subsequent chapter of this work.

How Mr. Greenwood came to be in Mr. Boys' house that night, we are not informed. There is no other intimation in all his history that he was at large after his second confinement in the Fleet. The probability is, that his keeper released him for a few days, or a single night, on his parole of honor, having confidence

brought out and tried at the Old Bailey, on an indictment "for writing and publishing sundry seditious books and pamphlets, tending to the slander of the queen and government, contrary to the statute of 23 of Elizabeth."*

The distinct counts in the indictment for sedition, were: First, That he had written and published, that the queen's majesty was unbaptized. Secondly, That the state was wholly corrupt, from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, in the laws, judgments, judges, customs, etc.; so that none that feared God could live in peace therein. Thirdly, That all the people in the land were infidels.

To this indictment, Barrowe answered, for himself and his associate Greenwood: First, generally, that his words were either mistaken or misconstrued. That neither in meaning, matter, nor words, could any sedition against the queen or her government be justly found; for from the heart he honored the queen. That the matter of his books was merely controversial between himself and the clergy; and that what he had said was either in answer to the slanders of the clergy, or

in his integrity. We have examples of this kind in puritan history. Thus the celebrated Robert Wright, the friend and associate of Mr. Greenwood in the family of Lord Rich, was allowed to go into the country, to see his sick wife, on his promise to return into custody again at a given time. See Wright's Letter in Waddington's Penry, p. 254; Neal, 11. 384. * See ante, vol. 11. pp. 505-7.

in assertion of what they, the prisoners, held. That, if he had offended any one, it was rather casual, and through haste, than of any evil intent.

More particularly, he answered, to the first count of the indictment, respecting the baptism of the queen, that it was an utter mistake, contrary to his meaning, and his express words in the part of his book quoted; as would be apparent to any impartial reader. To the second count he plead, that he was merely quoting the words of Isaiah, 1st chap., and Revelations 13th, to show that when the ministry the salt, the light-was corrupt, the body, and all the parts must needs be unsound. To the third count he answered, that he gladly embraced and believed the common faith received and professed in this land, as holy and sound; and had reverend estimation of sundry, and good hope of many hundred thousands in the land; though he utterly disliked the whole hierarchal constitution, and government, and worship of the church of England.

In reply to the charge founded on sundry passages culled from his writings, designed to show that he regarded the queen and her government antichristian, he declared, that the passages were wrested from their true meaning; since everywhere in his writings he had protested his exceeding good opinion and reverend estimation of her majesty's royal person and government, above all other princes in the world, for her most rare and singular virtues and endowments; and had acknowledged

all duty and obedience to her majesty's government, in all causes and persons, whether ecclesiastical or civil.*.

But, as this was in reality only an ecclesiastical trial before a court of law-in order to screen the bishops from the odium of murdering men who accepted all the doctrinal articles of the church and only dissented from its hierarchal and unscriptural government-these protests of the prisoners availed nothing, and the jury found them guilty of treason. Sentence of death was immediately passed upon them both, March 23d, 1592-3, and they were ordered to execution on the next day.

At the same time Mr. Scipio, or Saxio, Bellot, gentleman; Robert Bowle, or Bowley, fishmonger, of London; and Daniel Studley, girdler, were condemned to death, for publishing and dispensing Greenwood and Barrowe's "seditious books." †

* Letter to a Countess in Ainsworth's Apology and Defence of the Brownists, 1604. See also Waddington's Hidden Church, pp. 7891, published by the Congregational Board of Publication.

Strype's Whitgift, 11. 187. Bellot is reported to have repented and sought favor; the others, "not one of them, made any countenance of submission, but rather persisted in that they were convicted of."- Egerton's letter to Lord Burleigh, in the Egerton Papers, in Camden Soc. Publications, pp. 166-79, and in Waddington's Penry, pp. 116, 117; Strype's Whitgift, 11. 187. Brook (11. 41) says, "Saxio Bellot, gent., Daniel Studley, girdler, and Robert Bowle, fishmonger. Bellot, with tears, desired a conference, and confessed with sorrow what he had done; and Studley and Bowle being looked upon as accessories only, though they continued firm, declaring their unshaken loyalty to the queen, and refusing to ask for mercy, were reprieved, and sent back to prison.