XIX. 1610. these excesses may be restrained, but that, the CHAP. court itself, the very constitution of which served to foster them, should be abolished, as "a very great grievance." It is scarcely necessary to add, that the demolition thus meditated and avowed, was reserved to be accomplished amid the convulsions of the next reign.* Such was the state of religious parties during the 1603-1610. first seven years of the present reign. Through that interval, the suppression of puritanism was the object to which the king and the primate devoted all their influence and authority. But the language of its partisans in the senate continued to assume a bolder tone; it was still necessary, in some measure, to tolerate the evil within the pale of the establishment; and in secret places, it not only continued to vegetate, but sometimes manifested itself in a temper increasingly hostile to the pretensions of the hierarchy. Amid this irritating aspect of affairs, Bancroft was called to leave the Death of world. By many, the attention of James was * Neal, II. 68-75. Bancroft watched the proceedings of this session with much interest, and laboured to defeat the plans of the puritans. He procured, with this view, the payment of a subsidy voted sometime since by the convocation, and the vote of a larger; and complains much that the zeal shown against pluralities and non-residence, and in favour of poor livings, had not led to any restoration of lay impropriations, so unjustly retained by some of these stormy patriots.-Dalrymple, I. 18-27. We have noticed Dr. Ames as distinguishing himself by his writings at this time in behalf of the puritans. His "Fresh Suit against Ceremonies,” is replete with allusions to the convocation of 1604, and the ecclesiastical proceedings of parliament, especially in the session of 1610. The argument so frequently urged in that assembly as to the illegality of obliging the clergy to quit their freeholds on account of not conforming to rites imposed without consent of parliament, is strongly insisted on. See particularly Chaps. X. XI. The following anecdote is greatly more to the credit of Bancroft than any thing I have met with in his history. "A minister, estimable in all Bancroft, XIX. 1610. CHAP. directed to Andrews, bishop of Ely, as a person particularly qualified for the vacant dignity. But the earl of Dunbar possessed a powerful claim on the gratitude of the English monarch, and his influence was successfully employed in favour of Abbot, bishop of London. Abbot chosen primate. respects, saving that he troubled himself and others with those busy scrupulosities which were the disease of the party, told him in private, that it went against his conscience to conform, and therefore he must submit to be deprived. Bancroft asked him how, then, he would be able to subsist. He replied, that nothing remained but to put himself on Divine Providence, and go a begging. 'You shall not need that,' the primate answered; 'come to me, and I will take order for your maintenance.'"-Book of the Church, II. 333. This writer has remarked of Bancroft, that "he framed canons by which all persons who spoke in derogation of the church of England, either as related to its doctrine or discipline, were to be excommunicated ipso facto;" and to this statement even Dr. Southey adds-" the laws against libels were already too severe." CHAP. XX. CHARACTER OF THE BROWNISTS-RISE OF THE INDEPENDENTS. PRINCIPLES OF THE BROWNISTS. THEIR LOYALTY. FATE OF BARROW INDEPENDENTS.-ROBINSON. XX. 1558. Principles of the Brownists. THE religious party which became known in this CHAP. country by the name of Brownists, had existence so early as the time of Edward the sixth. We know but little, however, of their character or proceedings, before the latter half of the reign of Elizabeth. From that period, their principles appear to have assumed more of the nature of a system, and to have been generally understood. They considered every properly constituted church in the light of a strictly voluntary association, and, in consequence, were opposed to the use of any means in the cause of their principles, save those of reason and persuasion. And as every Christian association, or church, was to include such persons only as made a credible profession of the gospel, CHAP. and as the object of the union so formed was purely XX. 1596. religious, they claimed for themselves an entire independence of the magistrate, and also of that kind of jurisdiction which had been conceded to the established priesthood. To the magistrate they looked for protection from injury on account of their religious opinions, but for nothing more; and with respect to the prelates, their great solicitude was, to be freed, in all respects, from the interference of such authorities. They chose from among themselves the pastors who should administer the word and the ordinances of the New Testament, and the deacons, or elders, who should manage the few temporal matters connected with their proceedings. They discarded forms of prayer, but retained the practice of church censures, and appealing to the inspired volume, as the only acknowledged rule of their faith and obedience; they spoke of their peculiarities as those which had distinguished the first Christian societies, as adapted to every conceivable state of the church on earth, and as sanctioned by the direct statements of the gospel, or by the example of inspired men. They were, in short, with some slight exceptions, what the churches of protestant dissenters in this country have long been, and the arguments employed by them in vindication of their tenets and conduct, will be found, upon examination, to be in substance the same with those which influence the body of professors who have separated themselves from our ecclesiastical establishment. That the feeling of the Brownists, with regard to the ruling clergy, was sometimes strongly indig XX. 1596. nant, can occasion no surprise to those who know CHAP. any thing of their character, and of the severity of their sufferings. They have been represented by their enemies, and by some nonconformist writers, as a people who questioned the christianity of all parties opposed to their doctrine. The following passage will vindicate them from this charge:"The next calumny," says Barrow," whereby Mr. Gifford endeavoureth to bring us into hatred with the whole land, is-that we condemn all the persons, both men and women of England, which are not of our mind, and pluck them up as tares. Wherein, methinks, he doth us open wrong, if not against his own conscience, yet against our express writings every where. Have we not commended the faith of the English martyrs, and deemed them saved, notwithstanding the false offices and great corruptions in the worship they exercised, not doubting but the mercy of God, through their sincere faith to Jesus Christ, extended and superabounded above all their sins, seen and unseen? And what now should let, that we should not have the same hope, where the same precious faith in sincerity and simplicity is found ?"* That the men whose views respecting the constitution of a Christian church were what we have described, should regard the ecclesiastical state of England as not intitled to that distinction, was inevitable. From this fact, however, their adversaries proceeded to reason by way of inference, and, in conclusion, described the Brownists as teaching, not only that the church of An Apologie or Defence of such true Christians as are commonly, but unjustly, called Brownists. 1604. P. 96. See page 60 of this Volume. |