ngland. We would have learned from
the editor of these volumes whether any inquiries have been made at
Scrooby and its neighborhood for confirming Mr. Hunter's conjectures. Be
this as it may, it is pleasant to believe, and on such good evidence,
that Robinson found a retreat in the home of his college-fellow and
after-associate Brewster, there to mature his views, and lay the
foundation of that religious life the fruits of which have have been so
enduring.

But neither Scrooby, nor any other place, was secure from the
inquisitorial interference of the high church functionaries. The spy and
the informer were abroad. No place of meeting could long remain a
secret--whether manorial halls, shopkeepers' storerooms, barns,
hay-lofts, or the broad shadows of copse and forest. Go where they
would, the conscientious worshippers were sooner or later detected, and
dragged as culprits before bishop or magistrate. But the chief objects
of vengeance at this period were the Separatists. The Nonconformists
(for, contrary to the opinion sometimes expressed on this subject, there
were Nonconformists, known by that name, long before there were
Separatists and Independents) were at first dealt with in a
comparatively gentle manner. They were censured, suspended, and, in some
cases, imprisoned. Afterwards, as they multiplied and became more bold,
greater severity was exercised towards them. But never were they
regarded in the same light, or treated in the same spirit, as the
Separatists. To object to the vestments and the ceremonies of the
church, as the livery of Antichrist, was held to be extremely censurable
and worthy of punishment; but to separate from the church altogether,
and renounce all ecclesiastical allegiance, was an unpardonable offence.
The Nonconformists generally agreed in this latter judgment, and
frequently compounded for their own sins of omission by speaking and
writing against their brethren of the separation. There are many proofs
of this, as may be seen in Stillingfleet's elaborate treatise on _The
Unreasonableness of Separation_ published in 1681. The first part of
that work is devoted to an "Historical Account of the Rise and Progress
of the Controversie about Separation," and contains many references to
persons, events, and writings that have been too much overlooked. As
might be expected, there is much in Stillingfleet's account that
requires correction. His prejudices against the Separatists were strong,
and le