The Development of Religious Liberty in Connecticut | Page 7

censure them. Barrowe also maintained that the church was "above its
institutions, above its officers," [12] and that every officer was
responsible to the church and liable to its censure as well as indebted to
it for his election and office. But he further maintained that the
members of the church should render meek and submissive, faithful
and loving obedience to their chosen elders. Barrowe thus taught that
guidance in religious matters should be left in the hands of those to
whom by election it had been delegated. The elders were to be men of
discernment, able to judge "between cause and cause, plea and plea," to
redress evil, and to see that both the people and their officers [g] did
their full duty in accordance with the laws of God and the ordinances of
the church. Barrowe had seen the confusion and disintegration of
Browne's church, and he planned by thus introducing the Calvinistic
theory of eldership to avoid the pitfalls into which the Brownists had
plunged while practicing their new-found principle of religious equality.
Barrowe hoped by his system to secure the independence of the local
churches and also to avoid the repellent attitude of a nation that was as
yet unprepared to welcome any trend towards democracy. [h] Having
devised this system of compromise, Barrowe made a futile attempt to
interest Cartwright, but the latter regarded the reformer as too heretical.

Yet Cartwright himself, tired of waiting for the better day when his
desired reforms should be brought about through the operation of
Parliamentary laws, was attempting in Warwickshire and
Northamptonshire to test his system of Presbyterianism.
To the list of church officers already enumerated, both reformers added
deacons and widows. The deacons were to attend to the church finances
and all temporal cares, and, in their visiting of the sick and afflicted,
they were to be aided by the widows. The latter office, however, soon
fell into disuse, for it was difficult to find women of satisfactory
character, attainments, and physical ability, since, in order to avoid
scandal or censoriousness, those filling the office had to be of advanced
years. [i]
With respect to the relation of the churches among themselves, Browne
and Barrowe each insisted upon the integral independence and
self-governing powers of the local units. Both approved of the "sisterly
advice" of neighboring churches in matters of mutual interest. Both
held that in matters of great weight, synods, or councils of all the
churches should be summoned; that the delegates to such bodies should
advise and bring the wisdom of their united experience to questions
affecting the welfare of all the churches, and also, when in consultation
upon serious cases, that any one church should lay before them.
Browne insisted that delegates to synods should be both ministerial and
lay, while Barrowe leaned to the conviction that they should be chosen
only from among the church officers. Both reformers limited the power
of synods, maintaining that they should be consultative and advisory
only. [13] Their decisions were not to be binding upon the churches as
were those of the Presbyterian synods, [j] whose authority both
reformers regarded as a violation of Gospel rule. The church system,
outlined by these two men, became, in time, the organization of the
churches of Plymouth, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Haven.
The character of their polity fluctuated, as we shall see, leaning
sometimes more to Barrowism and sometimes, or in some respects,
emphasizing the greater democracy which Browne taught. In England,
and because of the pressure of circumstances among English exiles and
colonists, Barrowe's teachings at first gained the stronger hold and kept

it for many years. Moreover, as Barrowe's almost immediate followers
embraced them, there was no objection to the customary union of
church and state. And furthermore, if only the state would uphold this
peculiar polity, it might even insist upon the payment of contributions,
which both Browne and Barrowe had distinctly stated were to be
voluntary and were to be the only support of their churches. Though
Barrowism was more welcomed, eventually--yet not until long after the
colonial period--Brownism triumphed, and it predominates in the
Congregationalism of to-day.
The immediate spread of Barrowism was due to the poor Separatists of
London. Doubtless among them were many who in the preceding years
had listened to Browne and had begun to look up to him as their Luther.
While Barrowe and Greenwood were in prison, many of these
Separatists had gone to hear them preach and had studied their writings.
During the autumn of 1592, there had been some relaxation in the
severity exercised toward the prisoners, and Greenwood was allowed
occasionally to be out of jail under bail. He associated himself with
these Separatists, who, according to Dr. Dexter, had organized a church
about five years before, and who