opinions. His life at this time is a continued repetition of his connection with officer, judge, and prison, ending usually with his liberation by Elizabeth's powerful minister. To this period his boast applies that he had been committed to thirty-two prisons, in some of which he could not, as he said, see his hand at noon-day. His assistant, Richard Harrison, who, though "a petty pedagogue," had more stability of character than his master, was his companion; and he too passed through many hardships. At length Brown endeavoured to form a separate church, and he was thereupon forced by the Queen's advisers to quit the country. Several of his followers went with him. Settling at Middleburg, in Holland, he became pastor of the exiles. He wrote in defence of their principles, and remained abroad some years. Brown's followers were termed "Separatists." Unlike the Puritans, they denied that the Church of England was a true church, maintaining that it was Popish in its ordinances and its ceremonies, and that its ministers were not properly ordained. Every church, they said, moreover, should be a single congregation under democratic government, and the civil magistrate ought not to interfere with them. Fuller was referring to the Brownists, when, speaking in a sermon in 1642 of the Schismatics hindering peace, he said: "I have heard (when a child) of a lawless church: sure these, if they might have their will, would have a lawless church and a gospelless church too!" The Brownists at length became a numerous body, and their principles were extending. Many adherents were obtained in Northamptonshire; at the county town of which shire Brown had personally advocated his opinions. In 1593, when a bill was introduced into Parliament for their suppression, we find Ralegh stating that the Brownists were at least in number twenty thousand persons, and were scattered all over England. But the name "Brownists" covered others besides the Separatists. The Puritans were often saddled with the name: a common phrase in their petitions during James' and Charles' reigns is "Brownists falsely so called." This rapid rise of dissent is alluded to by Fuller, when he says that it was conceived in the reign of Edward VI., born in the reign of Mary at Frankfort, nursed and weaned in the reign of Elizabeth, growing up a youth or tall stripling under James; "but towards the end of King Charles his reign shot up to the full strength and stature of a man, able not only to cope with, but conquer the hierarchy its adversary." (Ch. Hist. vii. 401.) Brown returned to England in 1589 (Neal), in consequence of dissensions in his church; and now, to the great regret of his most earnest followers, his zeal waxed cold. A few months of suspicious inactivity now occur. He gradually separated himself from his old associates, until finally he received absolution, and was, in 1590, re-admitted into the Church from which he had been formerly excommunicated. He probably renounced his principles at the instigation of the Lord Treasurer, whose brother Thomas, Earl of Exeter (the patron of the elder Fuller), owning the rich living of Achurch, bestowed it in 1591 on his troublesome relation. Thus, notwithstanding the persecution and sufferings Brown had passed through," he came off at last," as Fuller says, "with saving his life and keeping his living (and that none of the meanest, Achurch, in Northamptonshire), until the day of his death." On becoming pastor here, "he used to say," says A Wood, "that there was no church in England but his, and that was A church.” The village of Achurch is picturesquely situated on the east side of the river Nene, the views along which are exceedingly pleasant. The village, which adjoins the dense woods of Lilford Park, is now comparatively insignificant : it is adjacent, we have been reminded, to Fuller's native village. The Early English church and spire possess much architectural beauty. It is dedi cated to St. John Baptist, and contains monuments of the Elmes, Powys, and other local families. This living Brown held about forty years, as the parish register, a very old one, testifies. The latter is written up by him with care, each page being certified by himself and his churchwardens. To the baptisms and deaths he occasionally makes comments of his own, and even thoughtfully notes when any of the parish are baptized or are buried in other parishes. The entries begin in 1591 and extend to 1617. In 1602 another unusual way of authenticating the entries is adopted. We now begin to read: "The register since the 25th March past [i.e. the beginning of the year] is true and perfect, read in the church, and kept according to law and order, by me Robert Brown." After 1617 there occurs a break of some years, during which "curats" attended to the ministrations. Among these it is curious to notice the name of Fuller's schoolmaster, the Rev. Arthur Smith. (See a paper by the Rev. H. Ward, in Notes and Queries, 2nd Ser. ix. Feb. 25, 1860.) Brown was tempted to occupy this living, "the rather," says Heylyn, "in regard that he was excused as well from preaching, and from performing any other part of the public ministry; which offices he discharged by an honest curate, and allowed him such a competent maintenance for it as gave content unto the bishop [Dove] who had named the man." Fuller also says: “His parsonage he freely possessed, allowing a sufficient salary for one to discharge the cure; and (though against them in his judgment) was contented (and perchance pleased) to take the tithes of his own parish." In 1626 Brown's handwriting again appears in the register, and it continues until 1631, making an entry on " 21 Maie" in that year. Hence he did not die in 1630, as has hitherto been stated on the authority of Fuller, Neal, and others. Among the last entries is the following: "Nov. 7, 1630. The child of my ungracious godson, Robert Greene, baptized els were in schisme." As to his domestic relations, Fuller says that he had " in my time a wife, with whom for many years he never lived, parted from her on some distaste; and a church wherein he never preached, though he received the profits thereof." This wife seems to have been his second wife, and the mother of his children—Francis, Thomas, and John; Bridget, Grace, and Alice; all born between 1592 and 1603. "I have heard it from reverend ministers," says Baillie, "that he was a common beater of his poor old wife, and would not stick to defend publicly this his wicked practice." Notwithstanding Brown's defection, the principles which he had advocated in his early life were independent of the man: they took deep root under Harrison and other leaders; and from the churches they formed, the "Independents" take their origin. Fuller alone gives the particulars attending Brown's death, the elder Fuller, who did not die till 1632, being probably the authority 66 Being by the Constable of the parish (who chanced also to be his godson) somewhat roughly and rudely required the payment of a rate, he happened in passion to strike him. The Constable (not taking it patiently as a castigation from a godfather, but in anger as an affront to his office), complained to Sir Rowland St. John, a neighbouring Justice of the Peace, and Brown is brought before him. The knight of himself was prone rather to pity and pardon than punish his passion; but Brown's behaviour was so stubborn that he appeared obstinately ambitious of a prison, as desirous (after long absence) to renew his familiarity with his ancient acquaintance. His Mittimus is made, and a cart with a feather-bed provided to carry him, he himself being so infirm (above eighty) to go, too unwieldy to ride, and no friend so favourable as to purchase for him a more comely conveyance. To Northampton jail he is sent, where soon after he sickened, died, and was buried in a neighbouring churchyard; and it is no hurt to wish that his bad opinions had been interred with him." In reference to the debt, Baillie adds that it was a small pittance which Brown "owed to him whom laziness in his calling made him keep for the supply of the cure of his parsonage." His friendless position at this time illustrates the bitter hatred with which the local squires regarded the Brownists. Many of them were of Sir Andrew Ague-Cheek's opinion: "An't be any way, it must be with valour, for policy I hate ; I had as lief be a Brownist as a politician." (Twelfth Night, Act iii. Sc. ii.) Fuller explains Brown's early escapes and his enjoyment of this preferment, while his accomplices were arraigned and executed, by his general promise of compliance, and the countenance of Thomas Cecil. He adds that he will "never believe that he ever formally recanted his opinions, either by word or writing, as to the main of what he maintained." Fuller's "observation on him" is, in fine: "He was of an imperious nature, offended if what he affirmed, but in common discourse, were not instantly received as an oracle. He was then so far from the Sabbatarian strictness to which some preciser Brownists did afterwards pretend, that both in judgment and practice, he seemed rather libertine therein." Baillie, too, had heard that he was an open profaner of the Sabbath. Fuller's view of Brown's character is, like all his judgments, impartial; and Neal, Mosheim, and Collier agree with him in the main. Without a doubt Brown is referred to by Fuller in the following very characteristic description of those qualities which dispose a man to be a father and founder of heresy. "1. He must be abominably proud. Pride is the key of the work, especially spiritual pride. When one is elated with conceited sanctity above others, chiefly he will snarl at his superiors, and quarrel with men in authority, that those are before him in place, which are behind him in piety. 2. To pride add discontentment, that his preferments bear not proportion to his supposed deserts. Thus Arius would be an Arian, because he could not be a bishop. 3. Learning void of humility. The serpent was the subtilest of all the beasts in the field.' In this kind a dunce is no dish for the devil's tooth. But in default of learning, good natural parts will serve the turn, especially memory (which is avμarovpyós, a 'wonder working' faculty), and a fluent expression; so that when he calleth for words, Gad, behold, a troop cometh. If both learning and natural parts be wanting, yet (as, when the golden shields were taken away, Rehoboam's brazen shields did the deed, and made as much glittering [2 Chron. xii. 10], boldness and brazen-faced impudence will supply the place, especially if he trades with the vulgar, broaches dregs, and founds a dull and sottish heresy which hath no affinity with learning. To varnish all these, there must be pretended piety and austerity of life; and how foul or filthy soever the postern or backdoor be, the door which opens into the street must be swept and garnished. Put all these together and they spell hæresiarcham, one cut and carved out to be ringleader and captain of a heresy." (Joseph's Parti-coloured Coat, 1640, page 18, Tegg's edition.) See also Fuller's The Heretic and The Rigid Donatists (Holy State). "Brownism," said Fuller, "was Donatism vamped with some new additions." CHAPTER IV. STUDENT-LIFE: QUEENS' COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, (1621-29.) ADMISSION TO QUEENS' COLLEGE.-ADVANCEMENT OF DR. DAVENANT.-FULLER'S 66 COMMENCEMENT "Epistles are the calmest communicating Truth to Posterity; presenting History unto us in her night-cloths, with a true Face of things, though not in so fine a dress as in other kinds of writings." (Worthies, § Middlesex, p. 179.) ULLER'S removal to Cambridge occurred about the time of the death of his uncle, Bishop Townson. The young student was then about twelve years of age, and his education had been so far successful that he was fully ready for this important advance in life. The early age at which this event occurred is noticeable. It must, however, be remembered that pupils were at that time sent to college at a time of life earlier than is now usual. Jeremy Taylor, e.g., entered when even younger than Fuller; so that admissions in tender years are not altogether to be set down to the fact that the youths were precoces fructus. Of his uncle Townson, however, Fuller admits that he was admitted "very young" to Queens' College," but twelve years of age." There is mention of this subject in our author's history of his Alma Mater, where he says that at Cambridge the Franciscans, A.D. 1384, "surprised many when children into their order before they could well distinguish betwixt a cap and a cowl, whose time in the University ran on from their admission therein, and so they became Masters of Arts before they were masters of themselves." To remedy this, an order was issued that no scholar should be admitted under the age of eighteen. Fuller believes that the order was "never retracted, though it stands not in force this day, wherein many of younger age are daily admitted. And seeing man's life is now shortened, it is but reason that what we want of our ancestours in long running, we should supply in soon starting. Let the Watermen of London (whose violent work requires robustious bodies) make an order in their Hall that none under the age of eighteen should be bound apprentice in their Company: ability is more to be respected than age in the sons of the muses, in whom, often eruditio supplet aetatem. Nor is there to my knowledge any prohibition in this kind observed, save that they fright scholars of a low stature with a jocularie tradition, That none are to commence which are not higher than the Bedles staff!"1 Mr. Fuller had still many friends at Cambridge on whom he might rely for the care of his son's education. His own duties in connection with the college often, indeed, called him thither. In the matter of his choice of a college for his son, his brotherin-law Davenant, resident at the University until he became Bishop, would chiefly be consulted; he was now head of Queens' College, and also Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity. Dr. Samuel Ward seems also at this time to have had intimate relations with Davenant and the Fullers: he was, in the academical year 1620-1, Vice-Chancellor of the University. After due deliberation, to Cambridge, accordingly, Fuller-" this hopeful slip," as his eulogist styles him,-"was translated; being entered at his uncle's college, Friday, June 29, 1621. For some reason—perhaps to save a term-he entered towards the close of the academic year, which began on the 10th October. Like the bulk of the students, he no doubt took the standing in the college of a lesser-pensioner, the annual expense of whose maintenance was about £50. QUEENS' COLLEGE took its name from Margaret of Anjou, wife of Henry VI., who began to build it in 1448; and from Elizabeth, wife of Edward IV., who completed it; "so that," says Fuller, who invariably sees a coincidence where others would never think of looking for one," the two houses of Lancaster and York had their first amity in that foundation." It is entered by a towered gateway, upon which are emblazoned the arms of Queen Margaret; it had, however, other coats, as Fuller says, laid up in her wardrobe." The gateway is said 'Hist. Univ. Camb. § iii. ¶ 46-84, P. 55. 1621. Thomas Fuller, Northampt. admissus Junii 29°. Tutore Magistro Davenant." (Queens' Coll. Records.) The anonymous biographer misplaces this event in 1620, and the Sydney College register (see p. 47) in 1622. |