¹ The date of Barwell's will is 20 September. Cambridge University Registry Trans. III/60.

² Knappen, M. M. (ed.), Two Elizabethan Puritan diaries (Chicago, 1933), p. 133.Google Scholar

³ Collinson, Patrick, The Elizabethan Puritan movement (London, 1967), pp. 448–67.Google Scholar

⁴ Knappen, Two Puritan diaries, p. 116.

⁵ Ibid. p. 122.

⁶ Curtis, Mark, Oxford and Cambridge in transition (Oxford, 1959), pp. 40–1.Google Scholar

⁷ Peile, John, Christ's College (London, 1900), pp. 9–68Google Scholar. According to Fuller, the college was so superstitious in 1548 that it was commonly believed that the master and twelve fellows alluded to Christ and his twelve apostles. Edward VI ‘remedied’ the situation by adding a thirteenth fellowship. Fuller, Thomas, History of Cambridge (London, 1840), pp. 135–6.Google Scholar

⁸ Dering was fellow 1560–70. He left before the Cartwright controversy reached its climax. Peile, John, Biographical register of Christ's College 1505–1905 (Cambridge, 1913), I, 55; D.N.B.: Edward Dering.Google Scholar

⁹ Chaderton was fellow 1568–77. Surprisingly, he was passed over for the mastership in 1582 (see below) , Peile, , Christ's, p. 91Google Scholar; Shuckburgh, E.S., Laurence Chaderton D.D. Translated from a Latin memoir of Dr. Dillingham (Cambridge, 1884); D.N.B.: Laurence Chaderton.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Broughton became fellow in 1572. In 1579, Hawford, the master, attempted to deprive him of his fellowship for accepting a prebend at Durham. He was eventually reinstated but seems never to have returned to the college. He is best remembered for his heterodox interpretation of Christ's descent into Hell. Peile, Christ's, pp. 86–7; Strype, John, Life of Whitgift (Oxford, 1822), ii, 220, 359Google Scholar; Lightfoot, John, Works of Hugh Broughton (London, 1662); D.N.B.: Hugh Broughton.Google Scholar

¹¹ Peile, Christ's, p. 60.

¹² Hawford's only real difficulties stemmed from his unwillingness to sell the popish vestments reintroduced by the Marian master, Cuthbert Scot. Ibid. pp. 71–2.

¹³ British Library Sloane MSS 478, fo. 48; Willet, Andrew, Harmony on 1 Samuel (London, 1614), preface.Google Scholar

¹⁴ British Library Additional MSS 5821, fo. 61; British Library Lansdowne MSS 39, no. 10; Peile, Christ's, p. 92; Mullinger, James Bass, The University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1911), ii, 472. Another indication of Barwell's low esteem in the university is that although he was master of Christ's for twenty-seven years he was never selected vice-chancellor.Google Scholar

¹⁵ , Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan movement, pp. 159–90Google Scholar; , PaulSeaver, S., The Puritan lectureships (Stanford, 1970), pp. 211–12.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Strype, John, Annals of the Reformation (Oxford, 1824), iii (1), 496Google Scholar; , Peile, Biographical register, 1, 120. Mullinger (ii, 319) incorrectly refers to him as the ‘Se-Baptist’.Google Scholar

¹⁷ , Strype, Annals, iii(i), 645.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Henry, Charles, Cooper, Annals of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1843), ii, 422. Usher was dismissed with an exhortation to be ‘circumspect and wise in talking of princes matters’.Google Scholar

¹⁹ , Mullinger, Cambridge, ii, 329Google Scholar; , Cooper, Annals, 11, 430.Google Scholar

²⁰ Cooper, Annals, 11, 450.

²¹ , Strype, Annals, 111(2), 117–8Google Scholar; Heywood, JamesWright, Thomas, Cambridge University transactions during the Puritan controversies (London, 1854), I, 548–70Google Scholar; Lake, Peter, ‘The dilemma of the establishment Puritan,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History, xxix (1978), 23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Porter, H.C., Reformation and reaction at Tudor Cambridge (Cambridge, 1958), pp. 157–63.Google Scholar

²² The instigator was probably Richard Clerke whose name is conspicuously absent from the list of fellows who protested against the visitation (see below). On 12 December, Copcot wrote to Burghley that a visitation was ‘of such necessity at this present, that I was bold, at the time appointed by the statutes of their foundress, to put it in practise’. , Strype, Annals, 111(2),439–40.Google Scholar

²³ Particularly illuminating is the third injunction in which Copcot ordered that commonplaces were to be held in such a manner that no man ‘of whatever place or condition’ was to be stigmatized or defamed in them. Ibid. 111(2), 440–1 (my translation). The college appealed to Sir Walter Mildmay who interceded with Burghley. Heywood Wright, Cambridge transactions, 1, 464–6; Peile, Christ's, pp. 98–9.

²⁴ Cambridge University Registry 92(1), no. 7; Wright, Heywood, Cambridge transactions, II, 16–17 (My translation); Peile, Christ's, pp. 99–100.Google Scholar

²⁵ Cambridge University Registry 92(1), no. 10.

²⁶ Cambridge University Library MSS M.M. 5.48, fos. 20–1; Cambridge University Registry 92(1), no. 10.

²⁷ John Powell left in 1597, Richard Clerke in 1598, Robert Snoden in 1599, Martin Day and Valentine Cary in 1600. Peile, Biographical register, 1, 143, 156, 159, 183, 201.

²⁸ In 1603, when Daniel Rogers and William Ames accused Thomas Bainbridge of incontinence, Barwell made no effort to intervene. Bainbridge protested his innocence and the matter was resolved in the vice-chancellor's court. Cambridge University Registry 92(1), no. 10.

²⁹ Knappen, Two Puritan diaries, p. 130; Christ's College Archives College Accounts 1580–1609 (folios unnumbered).

³⁰ Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1603–1610, p. 364.

³¹ Christ's College Archives College Accounts 1580–1609; Historical Manuscripts Commission Salisbury MSS, 19, 212–3.

³² H.M.C. Salisbury, 19, 405–6.

³³ Christ's College Archives College Accounts 1580–1609; , Peile, Biographical register, I, 238. Taylor formally gave up his Christ's fellowship in 1604 but remained at the university until his silencing.Google Scholar

³⁴ , Mullinger, Cambridge, 11, 509Google Scholar; Brook, Benjamin, The lives of the Puritans (London, 1813), ii. 397.Google Scholar

³⁵ , Cooper, Annals, iii, 31–2.Google Scholar

³⁶ Mullinger himself points to the ‘comparative lull in theological warfare’ after 1595, though he draws a different conclusion. , Mullinger, Cambridge, ii, 444–5.Google Scholar

³⁷ Baker, Thomas, History of St Johns (Cambridge, 1869), 1, 190–201.Google Scholar

³⁸ Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan movement, pp. 448–67.

³⁹ , Mullinger, Cambridge, 11, 326–9Google Scholar; , Porter, Reformation and reaction, pp. 344–90Google Scholar; , Knappen, Two Puritan diaries, p. 126.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ , Cooper, Annals, iii, 2Google Scholar; Babbage, S. B., Puritanism and Richard Bancroft (London, 1962), pp. 53–4Google Scholar; , Mullinger, Cambridge, 11, 447–8.Google Scholar

⁴¹ , Knappen, Two Puritan diaries, p. 130.Google Scholar

⁴² Bancroft would also have had a personal reason for crushing Puritanism at Christ's. He had been a student there but had been ‘forced’ to move on to Jesus in 1568, the year three avowed Puritans - Chaderton, John More and John Millen - were elected to fellowships. Bancroft may have been referring to Christ's when he noted in his 1593 Survey of Puritanism that one Cambridge college revered Calvin and Beza only slightly less than Scripture. , Peile, Biographical register, 1, 80Google Scholar; , Mullinger, Cambridge, 11, 299Google Scholar; , Babbage, Puritanism and Richard Bancroft, P. 8.Google Scholar

⁴³ H.M.C. Salisbury, 21, 138–9.

⁴⁴ , Peile, Biographical register, 1, 143, 166Google Scholar; , Strype, Annals, 11(1), 6.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ , Peile, Biographical register, 1, 149; H.M.C. Salisbury, 21, 147.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ H.M.C. Salisbury, 21, 143–4.

⁴⁷ Peile, Biographical register, 1, 212.

⁴⁸ H.M.C. Salisbury, 21, 143–4, 149.

⁴⁹ Ibid. 21, 138–9, 149.

⁵⁰ Ibid. 21, 138–9.

⁵¹ Ibid. 21, 138–9.

⁵² Ibid. 21, 138–9. The four protesting fellows were probably Jacob Harrison, William Sydall, Gabriel More and William Power. Power, Harrison and More were later reimbursed by Cary for their expenses in London ‘about ye election’. Christ's College Archives College Accounts 1609–25 (folios unnumbered).

⁵³ H.M.C. Salisbury, 21, 142–3, 145.

⁵⁴ Ibid. 21, 142.

⁵⁵ Ibid. 21, 142–3; Public Record Office SP 14/48/115.

⁵⁶ H.M.C. Salisbury, 21, 152–3.

⁵⁷ Public Record Office SP 14/68/8.

⁵⁸ H.M.C. Salisbury, 21, 138–9, 160; Public Record Office SP 14/48/100, SP 14/49/42.

⁵⁹ Public Record Office SP 14/49/61.

⁶⁰ Babbage, Puritanism and Richard Bancroft, pp. 139–42.

⁶¹ Kenyon, J. P., The Stuart constitution (Cambridge, 1966), p. 55.Google Scholar

⁶² Note, for example, Burghley's behaviour during the controversy over Copcot's visitation (see above). Burghley must also have been partially responsible for the free election of Barwell in 1582. The fellows feared royal interference. Public Record Office SP 12/152/51.

⁶³ As Bainbrigg wrote to Salisbury from his imprisonment at Cambridge (October 17), ‘My conversation in the University and college and conformity to the laws and statutes are well known to many in these places, and was well known to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, so long as he continued in the University.’ H.M.C. Salisbury, 21, 147.

⁶⁴ Cooper, Annals, iii, 31–2; Wright, Heywood, Cambridge transactions, 11, 233–5. Heywood Wright erroneously give the date of his ejection as 8 February.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ H.M.C. Salisbury, 21, 193. Cary included a testimonial signed by Jacob Harrison, Gabriel More, William Syddal William Adison.

⁶⁶ Sprunger, K. L., The learned Doctor William Ames (Urbana, 1972), p. 21.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Ames's first publication in exile was a translation of William Bradshaw's congregationalist tract, English Puritanisme.

⁶⁸ Cooper, Annals, in, 34; , Peile, Biographical register, 1, 211Google Scholar; British Library Harley MSS 389, fos. 133–4. Cary is supposed to have tried to convince Ames to wear the surplice by calling it ‘the armor of light’. , Mullinger, Cambridge, 11, 510.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Pemberton left to serve in ‘the church abroad’. Public Record Office SP 14/68/8.

⁷⁰ The other fellow known to have supported Pemberton, William Adison, quickly made his peace with Cary. He was one of those who signed the testimonial on behalf of Franklin. H.M.C. Salisbury, 21, 193.

⁷¹ The other two were probably Hewett (fellow 1610–20) and Joseph Mede (fellow 1613–38).

⁷² , JohnMiller, C. (ed.), The works of Thomas Goodwin (Edinburgh, 1890), 11, lviii-lix.Google Scholar

⁷³ Even in 1622, however, when Preston had the support of the duke of Buckingham, the fellows of Emmanuel feared that they would not be allowed freely to elect him to the mastership. They therefore held a secret election before the Crown was aware Chaderton had resigned. British Library Harley MSS 389, fo. 235.

⁷⁴ Prynne (Canterburies Doom) denounced this charge as ‘superstitious and ridiculous frenzie… when as neither his predecessors Whitgift, Bancroft and Abbot (men very ceremonious and two of them much addicted to superstition) ever so much as moved any such question concerning the necessity of their consecration’. Mullinger, Cambridge, III, 130.