This article was downloaded by: [Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund]On: 22 October 2014, At: 05:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of EducationalAdministration and HistoryPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjeh20

In Defence of Education:Some Early Separatist ViewsH. Foreman aa Wolverhampton PolytechnicPublished online: 07 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: H. Foreman (1985) In Defence of Education: Some EarlySeparatist Views, Journal of Educational Administration and History, 17:2, 1-12,DOI: 10.1080/0022062850170201

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0022062850170201

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:42

22

Oct

ober

201

4

In Defence of Education:Some Early Separatist Views

Reference has previously been made by the present writer to the existence withinEnglish Separatism in the late sixteenth century of views hostile to education,especially that of the clergy, such hostility manifesting itself by questioning boththe content and desirability of such education.' In displaying such hostility theseSeparatists were adopting a stance which could only be described as radical andwhich was to provide valuable ammunition for their opponents in the main-streamof English religious life. But such radical views were not necessarily typical of allSeparatists: there were those who were not only supporters, but also advocates, ofan educated clergy and it is with the works of three of such that this article isconcerned. The three are John Penry, John Smyth and John Robinson whosewritings span a period of some forty years and should be seen not so much aspresenting a concerted defence against the attacks of the radicals but rather asportraying different aspects of the value which it was believed education possessednot only for the clergy but for all people. Thus Penry saw the provision of aneducated clergy as necessary for national well-being: to Smyth, education wasessential if the clergy were to fulfil their duties whilst Robinson saw education as adivine gift and so to be valued accordingly.

John Penry (1559—1593) was a Welshman who had been educated at bothOxford and Cambridge universities. At the latter he had espoused Puritanism butnever sought ordination although he did engage in extensive open-air preaching inhis beloved native land. About 1591 Penry openly aligned himself with theSeparatists, especially with those meeting in London, and some two years laterwas arrested, brought speedily to trial, condemned and hanged in May 1593. Thework which is the subject of our consideration — The Aequity of an HumbleSupplication — was published in 1587 some four years before Penry became aSeparatist but there is no evidence that the views expressed therein were discardedor even modified on their author's acceptance of Separatism.

The Aequity was a plea to Queen and Parliament to provide clergy for the Welshpeople. Considering it a necessity for men to know God and serve Him, Penry'swish was that it would please both Monarch and Parliament to look withcompassion on the Welsh people who, because of a lack of a teaching ministry,were living in a state of spiritual ignorance and darkness. He hoped it would provepossible for this situation to be remedied and so meet the wishes of the peoplewhose only desire was to have taught to them the knowledge of God and His laws.2

In making such a plea Penry showed his affinity with the Puritans who hadmade similar requests on behalf of the English people. A petition of 1584, forexample, pleaded for a supply of good preachers to meet the need for a knowledgeof the scriptures. It went on to complain that in many places there was no one topreach in the course of the Sunday worship and repeated its plea for a good supplyof ministers to teach the people so preventing their falling into error andwickedness.3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:42

22

Oct

ober

201

4

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY

Penry's work was of similar tenor. He accepted that an education to beworthwhile must have a religious basis and argued that Parliament had a duty to seethat such education was provided and to ensure that laws concerning this were putinto effect. Parliament's objective should be to see that the whole country, andespecially Wales, was provided with the men required for the task.4

Penry then examined the consequences of failure to provide this religiouseducation. One was the Roman Catholic plots against Elizabeth of Babington andhis followers: therefore, if the Queen wished to retain the loyalty of the Welshnation, she would see fit to redress this grievance and so earn its undying gratitude.Failure to meet the Welsh people's needs in this respect, however, could only resultin the Queen's reputation suffering in that future generations would blame her forfailing to ensure that 'that true religion she professed [was] made known unto us'.5

The major consequence of this lack of religious education was ignorance of theChristian (that is, Protestant) religion and so grave was this that Penry believed thatQueen and Parliament could not fail to admit the justice of his plea. The situationwas desperate. There were thousands living in ignorance of Christ,6 such beingeither atheists or steeped in superstition. These latter were either Roman Catholicsor those who possessed some instinctive belief in a deity who was to beworshipped.7

Because of a lack of a teaching ministry, such people had formulated false notions,savouring of antinomianism and dualism, of God and His worship. Amongst suchbeliefs were those that all men would be saved, or that it was only the soul that wentto heaven so they could do what they pleased with the body. God was thought of asbeing savagely cruel because of His allowing the crucifixion and so whilst Christwas commended, God was rejected. These people loved to have prayers for anycontingency and should they meet any literate person would ask if they could betaught any prayers for use on varied occasions such as, for example, disease in manor beast. Indeed, Penry declared, 'the onely staffe & stay of al privat religion amongour people . . . are latine praiers, praying unto Saints, superstitious observations,with ungodlie welsh songs and books'.8

The results of this religious ignorance were to be seen in the country: profanity,adultery and fornication were widespread.9 The punishments of the Church forsuch sins were derided by the people: 'For what is it to them to pay a little money orto run through the Church in a white sheet? They have made rimes and songs of thisvulgar penance.' Common justice was perverted, too. A man could have to wait upto two years to have his case heard even though he had firm evidence that he wasguiltless. Amongst the many devices used to delay the course of justice was that ofexcommunication, a device regarded by Penry as infallible. Apparently it was aneasy matter for a plaintiff to be declared excommunicate in a Church court at therequest of his adversary and so have to wait for a year before being grantedabsolution. During the time of excommunication the plaintiff could not proceedwith his case in the civil court. It was difficult, therefore, for a poor man to retain anyof his rights or possessions against a rich and unscrupulous opponent. Even if hewere to see his sheep and cattle grazing in some other man's pasture, on his owndoorstep as it were, he could take no steps to regain them. Another matter whichwas of concern to Penry was the prevalence of drunkenness.IO

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:42

22

Oct

ober

201

4

EARLY SEPARATIST VIEWS

Such conditions demanded, in Penry's view, immediate attention and could onlybe cured by the provision of a good number of preaching and teaching clergy —which was no more than Wales deserved seeing that the people paid their tithesregularly.11 There were, however, three difficulties which Penry envisaged inmaking such provision. The first was that 'the woorde in welsh neither must nor canbee gotten. Must not, because al should be brought to speak English...'. This readsas though Penry wished to see the Welsh language disappear but this may not havebeen his real intention. His thought appears to be a little confused at this point. Onthe one hand he was advocating that the Scriptures ('the woorde') should not beprovided in Welsh but that everyone should be taught to read and understandEnglish, but then he went on to say that this did not mean that the people shouldremain in ignorance until English had been learned. Welsh-speaking preachers wereto be provided where necessary and Penry gave as his opinion that this would in facthasten the learning of English, how, he did not say unless he had in mind that suchpreachers would be bi-lingual and so able to translate freely from one language intothe other. But where English was understood there were to be English-speakingclergy and this, according to Penry, would include most of Wales.12

The second difficulty was the shortage of ministers. Penry hoped that the Queenand Parliament might see their way clear to remedying this situation and he offeredthem his solution to the problem. This was to utilise the universities more efficientlyto provide a greater number of clergy. Penry calculated that the universitiesproduced about 300 clergy per annum and, since there was no particular need inWales for Welsh-speaking men, he thought that some of these might well bedirected to serve the Principality. By so providing livings in Wales he felt that thiswould serve as an encouragement to others to enter the ministry: perhaps evendouble the number of entrants might be recruited. Other reasons suggested byPenry for the shortage of clergy were the debasing of the calling by the idle clergyand the anti-Puritanism displayed by some clergy. If the Queen could guarantee thatthose clergy of Puritan persuasion would not be so harrassed then, Penry believed,more would be attracted to the ministry. He also advocated the use of laymen:'Private men that were never of Universitie have well profited in divinity. These nodoubt would prove more upright in heart . . . than many of our learned men.'13

Penry estimated that since Elizabeth's accession one of the universities (unspecified)had produced 3,400 graduates of whom he reckoned some 400 should have settled inWales 'whereas at this day we have not 12 in all our country that doe discharge theirduety in any good sort'. He hoped that situation would soon be remedied, 'If not,wee may be eight and twenty years more without the word preached.'14

The third difficulty in the provision of ministers was the lack of maintenance forthem. Penry pointed out that impropriations and non-residences were making itimpossible for many parishes to have clergy. He advocated the bestowing ofone-tenth of every impropriated living in Wales to the support of a teachingministry and that non-residences be abolished.

These remarks of Penry put him in marked contrast to those Separatists whoattacked the universities and the education they provided for the clergy. Rather theyshow him to be more in sympathy with the Puritans: indeed, his plea for his belovedWales was almost identical to those of the Puritans for the better provision of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:42

22

Oct

ober

201

4

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY

teaching clergy for the English people. In this connection we might note a Puritantract, Of Discipline (1584), which argued that the universities should either be givenover entirely, or at least the chief colleges, to training able ministers15 whilst inanother tract, Certaine Points conceminge the Policie and Government of the EcclesiasticalState (1586), it was urged that some organised entry to the ministry from theuniversities be arranged.l6 The object of this proposal was to put a stop to the practiceof clergy occupying posts in academic life without ever serving at the parish level. Asit stands, then, there is nothing in the Aequity to distinguish Penry as a Separatist. Yethe was, and the work illustrates that there was not necessarily general agreementamongst Separatists, even in their early years, on all matters with the exception of theideals of Separation and Independency in Church government and order.

Some twenty years separate the writings of Penry from those of John Smyth(?i57O-i6i2) another Cambridge graduate and minister of the Church of Englandwho left that body to join the Separatists in 1606. Forced by persecution to leave thiscountry he and his group settled in Holland where in 1609 he formed what was tobecome the first English Baptist Church. Smyth published a number of works but nolengthy reference to education as such is to be found in them. Indeed, the fullestreference is found in a book published before his departure from the Church ofEngland: his Separatist writings were mainly concerned with Church government.Whether, had he lived longer, he would have had more to say about education isimpossible to say but his death at the age of 45 after only six years in the Separatistmovement cut short what promised to be an invigorating influence upon it.

It is in his A Patterne of True Prayer (1605) that we find Smyth's lengthiest treatmentof education. This work was an exposition of the Lord's Prayer and in the sectiondealing with the clause 'Thy Kingdom come' was a lengthy defence of the need for alearned ministry in the Church. Smyth argued thai ii was the duty of ilic minisicr ioteach and instruct his flock so that there ought to be no place for the ignorant anduneducated in the ministry of the Church. It should be illegal for anyone to beordained unless he could satisfy certain educational conditions. All ordinands shouldbe required to 'render a reason of their faith in Latine', teach the Catechism, and 'haveauthoritie given them to expound the Scriptures being called thereto.'17

Smyth went on to argue that faith could not come unless there was knowledge ofGod, an argument which would have met with general approval in Christian circles,but when he went on to say that this knowledge could not come unless there wasteaching (by a minister) and so learning, he was cutting right across the teaching of theradicals that this knowledge could be imparted directly by the Holy Spirit to theindividual without recourse to any human agency. For Smyth, 'Ministers that wantlearning cannot teach... and by this meanes the people perish for want of knowledge,and God's kingdome is diminished in the number and qualitie of good subjects.'18

Like Penry before him, and the Puritans, Smyth saw the provision of a good supply oflearned clergy as the only solution to the ignorance, spiritual and otherwise, of thepeople.

Having stated the need for a learned and teaching ministry, Smyth observed thatteaching is a skill, that good learning does not make a person a good teacher, and so heexpressed a wish that ministers might be trained to teach. There were some ministersknown to him who wanted to teach but could not and so 'their service is therefore

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:42

22

Oct

ober

201

4

EARLY SEPARATIST VIEWS

refused of God, for that they take upon them that whereto they have no competentabilitie'. Men who could not teach should not be allowed into the ministry, theywere 'manglers and hackers of God's word'.I9

Smyth valued the manual arts, seeing in them, as did Calvin, for example,20

God-given gifts for the care of the body which, in turn, was important for the wellbeing of the soul. To that end he advocated training in such 'artes manuarie ofpreparing and fitting daily bread for our use, the moderate use whereof is lawfull,as of Cooke and Apothecarie, &c, thereby the Lord doth give us to understand thatsome time, and therefore some care may be bestowed to that end'.21

Because of the limited material relating to education emanating from Smyth wehave to be guarded in positing any firm conclusions on his attitude, as a Separatist,to the subject. All that can be done is to show that, as a clergyman of the Church ofEngland, influenced as he was by Puritanism, Smyth valued learning highly. Howfar, if at all, this attitude changed on his embracing Separatism we cannot say withany certainty. All that can be said is that, as in the case of Penry, from what littleevidence we possess the indications are that there was very little, if any, change onSmyth's part and he serves, with Penry, as an example of the more moderateelement in the Separatist movement.

Penry and Smyth were concerned with education as it affected the clergywhereas John Robinson (1576-1625) treated it more generally. Like Penry andSmyth, Robinson was a Cambridge graduate and had also been for some time aclergyman of the Church of England. About 1612 he joined the Separatist churchin Scrooby which then emigrated to Amsterdam before settling in Leyden withRobinson as their pastor.

Theologically, Robinson was a Calvinist who, in his capacity as a lecturer atLeyden University, defended in public disputation the Calvinistic theology againstthe teachings of the Dutch theologian, Arminius, and so it should occasion nosurprise that in his writings on education Robinson should express views generallyin accord with those of Calvin. It is in his New Essays: or Observations Divine andMoral (written 1625, published 1628) that Robinson's fullest treatment ofeducation is to be found, a treatment comprising of three areas, (a) Knowledge(Essays I, XIV, and XXIII), (b) Reason (Essays IX, X, and XVI), and (c) TheEducation of Children (Essay LX).

On the subject of Knowledge, Robinson repeated the generally accepted viewamongst Christians that a man's knowledge of God was the pre-requisite for a fulland happy life. He agreed with Calvin that 'all our wisdom to happiness consists,summarily in the knowledge of God, and of ourselves',22 and argued that it wasnot easy to determine which of the two must come first. Robinson came to theconclusion that since both kinds of knowledge were essential to each other, andsince it was impossible for man to come to know God of his own accord, then itmust be knowledge of God which comes first. As to the means by which thisknowledge was acquired, Robinson showed his affinity with general Puritan asopposed to radical Separatist thought when he stressed the value of reading andlearning as features of this process. In all, he distinguished six means of acquisition:(a) to love knowledge, (b) to know our own ignorance, (c) to fear God, (d) topray, (e) in reading, especially the Bible and approved commentators, and (f) by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:42

22

Oct

ober

201

4

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY

keeping the 'company and society of wise and understanding men . . . They whoprofit not in knowledge and wisdom by conversing with wise men, are unworthyof their company; and are worthy to keep with, men and asses'.23 On (e),Robinson later made the observation that the existence of the Bible is sufficientproof of the Divine commendation of the writing and reading of other booksdealing with 'all subjects, and sciences lawful' and he went on to make the pointthat even in 'human writings, the truth in its kind, is taught commonly both morefully, and more simply, and more piously, than by speech'.24 In their advocacy ofthe study of commentators for guidance in the understanding of the Scriptures andtheir commendation of the wise and learned to the congregation for theiredification, points (e) and (f) were directly at variance with the radical stream ofSeparatist thought and one wonders if it was these radicals that Robinson had inmind in the remarks quoted above from (f)?

In his treatment of Reason, Robinson examined it from three aspects: itsrelationship with Authority, as a distinguishing mark of man, and as an ally ofReligion, devoting an Essay to each aspect. On the relationship of Reason andAuthority he argued that the former was to be preferred at all times to the latterexcept when the Authority was of God. Authority was defined as leading 'us to theauthor of a thing, and bids us rest in his word, whether for credence to his relationor obedience to his commandment' whereas Reason 'wills us to look to the thingitself, and to the arguments for or against it, taken either from common sense ornatural principles, and conclusions, or other undoubted grounds of truth, orgoodness of matter'.2S To use reason is to impeach authority and if authority becalled in to decide an issue then it is prejudicing the work of reason. There could beonly one exception to this rule and that was when the authority was God's forthen, Robinson argued, reason was justifies, indeed 'reason bids receive theauthority, and do all things commanded without reasonings'.26 (This last remarkwas based on the Pauline injunction in Philippians 2.14 to 'Do all things withoutmurmurings or disputings', a text which radical Separatists used to support theirargument against the use of Logic.)

Robinson, as might be expected, had no doubts as to the existence of a DivineAuthority and of its supremacy but he was also prepared to argue that, throughreason, this was accepted by all men. Human authority, however, was relative inthat it was dependent upon the worth of the person and so, in matters of faith, the'meanest man's reason . . . is to be preferred before the authority of all men', thatis, the individual was responsible for his religious attitude. So long as the Divinesupremacy was acknowledged, Robinson believed that reason must otherwisehold pride of place. It was a God-given gift with a particular function to play. Justas the sun and moon had been given to provide external illumination for man, sotwo sources had been provided for his internal enlightenment — the Scriptures forthe supernatural and reason for the natural. The superiority of religious to naturaltruth was a point of view acceptable to the radical Separatists but they might nothave been so ready to accept Robinson's argument that this did not mean thatreason was to be despised: 'God . . . teacheth even the most powerful and mightymen . . . to prefer reason before authority. And the man that would not rather ruleby reason . . . is himself inhuman and beast like.'

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:42

22

Oct

ober

201

4

EARLY SEPARATIST VIEWS

Another important difference from the radical Separatist standpoint is seen inRobinson's remarks about the Bible and its interpretation. He would agree withthe radicals that the authority of the Bible was permanent since it was groundedupon God's unchangeable nature but when it comes to men's understanding of ithe observed that their judgments vary according to their particular abilities.Therefore it was more likely that 'a man wise, learned, and studious in theScriptures . . . should find the truth than one flighty, illiterate, and of more shallowmeditations'. Thus it grieved Robinson that there were those who considered it'half popery, so much as to seek counsel and direction of men of learning andknowledge: lest forsooth, they should be deceived by them', an argument whichhe believed belittled God who had given men all their abilities.27 Rather, since weshould seek to walk in the ways of God so we should endeavour to have thecompany of those who are wiser than ourselves. Learning, then, was to be valuedfor 'as learning makes the good better, and the bad worse; so it is more likely, thata man should be bettered by it than not . . . ' .

It is clear from these remarks that Robinson did not agree with those radicalSeparatists who argued for the direct inspiration of the believer by the Holy Spiritirrespective of his intelligence and ability. He did not dispute the Spirit'sinspiration of the individual but saw it working in harmony with reason andintelligence rather than against it. Reason was not equated with the Spirit butregarded as the channel whereby it could work in the believer. In common withthose of Puritan persuasion, Robinson saw in the differing abilities and gifts ofmen an interpretation of the Parable of the Talents.28 God had given these gifts andabilities — which included reason and intelligence and learning — to men to beused by them in His service and for His glory. What was more likely, then, that inthe believer these gifts would be the means by which the Spirit worked? Theperson who had been endowed with more talents would, by the Holy Spirit'sinspiration, be used to a greater degree in God's service than the man with fewertalents. The notion of the Spirit as a 'leveller' of men in this respect had no place inRobinson's thought. That all men had been created by God and were, in a spiritualsense, equal in His sight, yes; but He had also made them different in reason,intelligence, and so on, and whilst it was true that the more gifted were expected tobear greater responsibility it was equally true that the less gifted were to look up totheir more able brethren for guidance and instruction. There was present in thethought of Robinson the idea of an elite although he would have thought of it as anelite of service and responsibility rather than of privilege. Rewards there would bebut these would be no more than were due for the exercise of such service andresponsibility: they were not to be the fruits of exploitation and oppression.

As far as the second aspect of Reason was concerned, Robinson made the pointthat the possession of reason was the distinguishing mark between man and theanimals and he asked, 'Now who would not strive to excel other men in that,wherein men excel all other creatures?'29

The third aspect is treated of in Essay XVI, Of Wisdom and Folly, in whichRobinson again revealed his dissent from some of the views of the radicalSeparatists. He made the point that 'the highway to wisdom Divine or human is toobserve and consider the reason and causes of things'. He then distinguished three

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:42

22

Oct

ober

201

4

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY

types of religious person. The first was the man who believed in a matter simplybecause God affirmed it: such a person showed faith. The second will do a thingbecause God commanded it: this person showed obedience. Both persons wereexhibiting traits which were commendable but they were not so well equipped,spiritually, as the third category of believer, the one who, whilst displaying bothfaith and obedience, also thought about the doctrine and the reasons for it. Such aman 'gets into his heart the props of wisdom against the storms of temptation bothof unbelief and disobedience'. What was true of Divine knowledge was equallytrue of human affairs, 'he that minds or remembers things to be thus and thus, getsskill in the things; but he that observes and learns the reasons and causes why theycome so to pass, or are so done, he takes the right course to become wise in thematter of what kind so ever'.30

The point that Robinson was making here was that it is through experience thatknowledge, both religious and secular, comes, a point with which the radicalswould not necessarily have disagreed but whereas it would seem from some oftheir writings that they were prepared to accept the experience as sufficientjustification in itself for arriving at some conclusion or belief, Robinson was sayingthat experience must be weighed against reason to see whether such conclusion orbelief was justified or not. Reason, therefore, acted as a safeguard against basingone's standpoint solely on an emotional experience.

Of the Separatist pioneers, Robinson was the only one to devote any great spaceto the education of children. In Essay LX, Of Children and their Education, he gavenot so much an account of what forms their education should take in terms ofsubjects to be studied, but how parents were to bring up their children. The Essayfalls into three sections: first, some treatment of the nature of the discipline towhich children were to be subjected; second, a consideration of how children wereto be prepared for their place in the world of trade, and so on, and third, someremarks upon parents' relationships with their children in general.

The opening words of the Essay reminded its readers that children were ablessing from God and parents were to take care as to how they brought up theiroffspring remembering that in their children their own attitudes would bereflected. This raised the question of discipline: was it to be severe or not?Robinson acknowledged that many parents, out of love for their children, wouldrather not impose a severe discipline, but this was not good enough for him. 'Butsay men what they will, or can, the wisdom of God is best: and that saith, that"foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, which the rod of correction mustdrive out": and that "he, who spares his rod, hurts his son", Prov. xxii. 15, xxiii,24.'

This dictum, based on a literal interpretation of Scripture, fulfilled Robinson'srequirements of satisfying both observation and reason in so far as he believedchildren to be tainted with that corruption of human nature brought about by thefall of Adam. This corruption was seen in their actions which displayed a stubbornand rebellious nature in need of being 'broken and beaten down'. This rebelliousnature having been so broken, the child would then become tractable and humbleso providing a suitable foundation for the building, in due course, of other virtues.But unless this rebellion and disobedience were broken and destroyed the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:42

22

Oct

ober

201

4

EARLY SEPARATIST VIEWS

consequence would be to 'plant a nursery of contempt of all good persons andthings, and of obstinacy therein'.

No children were to be excused this treatment. Some parents had evidentlyargued with Robinson that if this treatment were applied to the children of greatmen, that is, those children who in later life might be expected to take a lead inpublic affairs, they would be repressed and refuse to accept responsible positions inadult life. This, however, did not convince Robinson. He argued that suchchildren probably possessed more than enough of'stomach and stoutness of mind'so making them 'unmeet for Christ's yoke, and to learn of him who was lowly andmeek'.

The process of breaking and suppressing children's wills had to start very earlyon in case 'the tender sprigs grow to that stiffness, that they will rather break thanbow'. Children were not to know that they had a will of their own, nor, except byconsent, should they ever use the words 'I will' or 'I will not'. The reason for thiswas that if children were allowed to exercise their will when young they would beunable to restrain themselves when they arrived at youthhood with its greaterperils. A good education and the grace of God might undo much of this in later lifebut in general, Robinson argued, such young people would tend to follow a wayof life which would display 'a kind of unwieldiness, inflexibility and obstinacy,prejudicial to the parties themselves and uncomfortable, at least, to such asconverse with them'.31

A second means of keeping stubbornness and pride in check advocated byRobinson was to keep children in what he described as 'a state of meanness' whichcould be accomplished by giving them plain food and clothing, sending them toschool, putting them to some trade or work requiring considerable effort andpreferably beneath their social status, not taking their side openly in any matteraffecting them, in short by not 'making them men and women, before theybecome good boys and girls'.32

It was a frequent failure in parents, according to Robinson, to instil into childrenan attitude which despised people and things. This was because parents tended toshow affection and pride in their children, an attitude which Robinson regarded asinordinate, and he claimed that there were plenty of examples of parents who,following this line, had found themselves to be the slaves of their children.Affection, then, must not be misplaced: children were to know their subordinationand to be kept in it.

When the time came for the child to be put to a trade or profession the first act ofthe parent should be to make a correct assessment of the child's ability. This wasoften difficult for the parent because of his love of the child which was likely toexaggerate his ability. Such exaggeration (described by Robinson as 'a perniciouserror') arose because the parent was unable to take a dispassionate view of the childyet such assessment must be made so that 'we build not either upon a vain oruncertain foundation, with great hazard of loss both of labour and expense, insorting our child to his particular calling and course of life; as all without it, is but avery rash adventure'. Here Robinson referred approvingly to the practice of somefathers who took their sons to various craftsmen to try out their tools andimplements as a means of testing their aptitude for a particular trade. He concluded

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:42

22

Oct

ober

201

4

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY

this section of the essay with a plea for children not to be put into any occupationfor which they did not possess the disposition arguing that such action could onlyresult in loss all round.

The Essay ended with further advice to parents as to their relationships withtheir children. First there was a warning against showing any preference for one orother of their children. Such preference could have two consequences: first, saidRobinson, the recipients of it might suffer an early death 'to punish the father'sfondness' or, second, and more usual, they would grow up to be the worstmembers of the family, 'proud and arrogant in themselves, presumptuous upontheir father's love and contemptuous of the rest of their brethren and sisters'.Rather parents must endeavour to love their children equally, reserving thebestowing of their best love until they have seen upon whom God bestows His.33

Robinson then reminded his readers that 'the Lord promises and affords long lifeto such as "honour father and mother"'. He commented that stubborn anddisobedient children were sometimes cut short in life as a divine punishment. Ifthey did live lengthy lives it was again a punishment from God for either theywould have no children themselves or they would suffer at the hands of theirchildren as they had made their own parents suffer. His last words on the subjectwere, 'And how should they expect honour from their children who havedishonoured their parents? or a happy life who despise the author of their life underGod? This honour is due not only to them by whom we have our being; but tothem also by whom our well-being is furthered.'34

The rigorous upbringing prescribed for children by Robinson is not unique tohim, examples can be found in other writers before him of such attitude of whom,in this country, Hugh Latimer may be cited.3S But perhaps the most influentialperson, as far as Robinson was concerned, was John Calvin. In his treatment in hisInstitutes of the Fifth Commandment he used arguments which were reflected inRobinson's views. Thus he declared that it was a Divine command that rebelliouschildren should be put to death, their crime being that in disobeying their parentsthey had shown disrespect to God.36 Later he argued that whilst God promisedblessing to children who did obey their parents He also indicated 'that an inevitablecurse is impending over the rebellious and disobedient; and, that it may not fail ofexecution, he, in his Law, pronounces sentence of death upon them, and orders itto be inflicted'. Should such wicked children escape the judgment, God will still,somehow or other, execute His vengeance. As examples of this were cited thenumbers of people killed in battles or brawls and those who were killed in somedisaster or other, all of which were proof that the threat of divine retribution wasnot in vain. If any did still escape, then punishment would catch up with them inthe next world.37

Admitting the importance of Calvin's influence not only on Robinson but onChristian thought generally, it is still worthy of note that there were thoseChristians who did not share these views on the nature of punishment. In the earlyChurch, Chrysostom argued that the rod was self-defeating.38 Nearer toRobinson's time was the advice of Thomas Becon that correction should be 'gentleand favourable' and according to the nature of the child and the gravity of theoffence.39 Similar sentiments were expressed by Thomas Cartwright — also a

10

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:42

22

Oct

ober

201

4

EARLY SEPARATIST VIEWS

Calvinist — who whilst admitting that it would be necessary from time to time topunish children maintained that this should not be done indiscriminately. Childrenwere to be shown that such punishment was in accord with their parents' duty toGod but the punishment was not necessarily to be corporal, a wise admonitionmight well suffice. Parents should also be ready to praise and reward their childrenwhen they have done well.40

Such views, especially those of Becon and Cartwright, would seem to indicatethat within that general body of opinion known as Puritanism there was somedivision over the question of the nature of the punishment to be administered tochildren and this in its turn would seem to lend weight to the argument that by thebeginning of the 17th century there is evidence that the severe physical punishmentof children was becoming less acceptable and two differing attitudes to thequestion began to appear. On the one hand there was the old rigorous attitudewhilst on the other there was one which would like to have children more gentlytreated, even 'spoilt' according to the old attitude.41 In this case we should perhapssee Robinson as making some contribution to the debate and giving his support tothose who wished to maintain the old order.

The writings of Penry, Smyth, and Robinson reviewed above serve asillustration of a division of opinion within Separatism over the question ofeducation, a division which was to persist throughout the 17th century and intothe 18th century particularly amongst that stream of Separatism which came toform the Baptist Church. It can be of no great surprise that the opponents of theSeparatists seized upon the views of the radicals on this question seeing in them athreat to social order and stability. In so doing they chose to ignore that there werethose in Separatism who held conventional views on the matter and who could inno way be seen as a threat to the fabric of English society but rather sought touphold and strengthen that which they believed to be good and valuable. It is tosuch tradition that Penry, Smyth, and Robinson belong.

H. Foreman,Wolverhampton Polytechnic

This article is largely based on the author's unpublished Ph.D thesis, 'The Early Separatists, theBaptists and Education 1580-1780, with Special Reference to the Education of the Clergy',University of Leeds, 1976.

1. 'A Sixteenth century Radical's views on Education: Henry Barrow' in this Journal x (1) (1978);'Robert Browne and Education', Baptist Quarterly, xxx (1) (1983).

2. J. Penry, The Aequity of art Humble Supplication (1587), p. 11.3. A. Peel (ed.), The Seconde Part of a Register (1915) i, p. 268.4. Penry, op. at., pp. 27-8.5. Ibid., pp. 37-9.6. Ibid., pp. 39—40.7. Ibid., p. 4.6.8. Ibid., p. 48.9. Ibid., p. 49.

10. Ibid., pp. 49-50.11. Ibid., p. 51.12. Ibid., p. 52.13. Ibid., p. 54.

I I

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:42

22

Oct

ober

201

4

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY

14. Ibid., p. 55.15. Peel, op. cit., p. 169.16. Ibid., ii, pp. 21-2.17. W. T. Whitley (ed.), The Works of John Smyth (1915), i, pp. 167-8.18. Ibid., pp. 168-9.19. Ibid.20. J. Calvin (trans. H. Beveridge), Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559), Book 11, Chap. n. 14,

p. 235.21. Whitley, op. cit., p . 189.22. R. Ashton (ed.), The Works of John Robinson (1851), i, p. 76, Essay xiv, 'Of Knowledge and

Ignorance'.23. Ibid., p. 79.24. Ibid., p. 107, Essay xxm, 'Of Books and Writings'.25. Ibid., p. 52, Essay IX, 'Of Authority and Reason'.26. Ibid., p. 53.27. Ibid., p. 54.28. Matthew 25.14-30: W. Haller, The Rise of Puritanism 1570-1643 (New York, 1938), p. 127.29. Ashton, op. cit., p. 67, Essay x, 'Of Faith, Hope, and Love'. Cf. Calvin, op. cit., Book 11,

Chap. 11. 17, p. 237.30. Ashton, op. cit., p. 84.31. Ibid., p. 246, Essay LX, 'Of Children and their Education'.32. Ibid., p. 248.33. Ibid., p. 249.34. Ibid., p. 250.35. G. Corrie (ed.), The Works of Hugh Latimer (1844), i, p. 501.36. Calvin, op. cit., Book n, Chap. vm. 36, p. 345.37. Ibid., Book 11, Chap. vm. 38, p. 346.38. Chrysostom, On Vain-glory and the Right Way for Parents to bring up their Children.39. J. Ayre (ed.), The Catechism of Thomas Becon (1844), p. 354. It should also be noted that Becon

»dvoc»ted the bre^kin" of the cbUH's will40. A. Peel and L. H. Carlson, Cartwrightiana (Elizabethan Nonconformist Texts, i, 1951),

pp. 189-90.41. I. Pinchbeck and M. Hewitt, Children in English Society (1969), i, p. 17.

12

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:42

22

Oct

ober

201

4