of his, but acceptable to him, and at least equally preferred by him."*

During this season of calm, many of the exiles returned to England; amongst others, Helwisse, at an earlier, and Jacob at a later period. In what year Jacob returned has not been ascertained. It appears certain, however, that in 1616, he formed a church in London, which has been described as "a separate congregation," and "the first Independent or congregational church in England."+ The latter part of this statement is not correct; since we have already seen that there were many churches in England based on the same principles in Elizabeth's reign, while Helwisse's church was, no doubt, of the same order in this respect. If it be said that Jacob's church was the first that was known by the name of Independent, we reply that there is no proof of the fact. This term was in all probability unknown as the name of a peculiar party until some years later. There is something interesting however in the statement respecting the simple and scriptural method in which this church was formed. Having consorted with certain parties, some of whose names have reached us-amongst others those of" Staismore, Browne, Prior, Almey, Throughton, Allen, Gibbet, Farre, and Goodal," they observed "a day of solemn fasting and prayer, for a blessing upon their undertaking." At the close of this "solemnity," each of them made "open confession of their faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; and then, standing together, they joined hands, and solemnly

*History of the Rebellion, i. 157.

† Edwards asserts that the church at Duckenfield, in Cheshire, was formed before any of the exiles came over from Holland. Orme's Memoirs of Dr. Owen, p. 51.

of

covenanted with each other, in the presence Almighty God, to walk together in all God's ways and ordinances, according as He had already revealed, or should further make known to them. Mr. Jacob was then chosen pastor, by the suffrage of the brotherhood." Afterwards, "others were appointed to the office of deacons, with fasting and prayer, and imposition of hands." * From what has already been stated respecting the principles of Jacob, there can be no doubt that this was an Independent church, as is also evident from the "Confession of Faith," published by the associated parties in the same year. In one particular it is observable that this church came more nearly to the practice of the Independent churches of the present day, than those of the separatists in Holland. Jacob had by this time rejected the "triformed presbytery," and the church formed by him might have been saluted, as the church of Philippi, with its "bishops and deacons."

Such was the course of events in the period marked out by this chapter. We have reserved, however, for this place, a few remarks in relation to the views entertained up to this time respecting liberty of conscience.†

As we have already shown, Robert Browne went very far in asserting the broad distinction between things civil and religious. He not only distinguished between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdoms of this world, but defined the proper limits of the civil

*Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, i. 476.

The reader will bear in mind, that in the following pages we refer to liberty of conscience, properly so called; on the broad ground of the essential distinction between things civil and religious, and the inalienable right of every man to follow his own religious convictions.

magistrate as having respect to "outward justice only. He differed from many of his followers, so called, in his views on these matters. He rebuked the puritans of his day for looking to the civil power to deliver them from "the yoke of antichrist, by bow, and by sword, and by battle," instead of using the weapons of truth and of the spirit. And in re

ference to the advancement of Christ's kingdom, he differed from Barrowe and Greenwood, who thought that the magistrate might compel to the hearing of the word. "It is the conscience," said he, " and not the power of man, that will drive us to seek the Lord's kingdom."

:

Notwithstanding this, some expressions of his have been thought to wear a dubious aspect.* The following have been referred to as examples :"Neither durst Moses, nor any of the good kings of Judah, force the people, by law or by power, to receive the church government; but after they received it, if then they fell away, and sought not the Lord, they might put them to death." Again :-"If the magistrate be of their flocks, why should they tarry for them? Unless they will have the sheep force the shepherd unto his duty. Indeed, the magistrate may force him, but it is shame to tarry till he be forced." The inference that has been drawn from these passages is, that “while he claimed for the church a perfect independence of the civil power, he yet allowed the magistrate a coercive authority in cases of acknowledged duty." We think the inference scarcely conclusive. The first passage is the narration of an historical fact, and does not, in itself, implicate Browne in the principle of civil procedure adverted to. The

* Broadmead Records, Hist. Introduction, p. xxxvii,

second depends for its force altogether upon the kind of emphasis put upon the word " may." Browne may have said, "the magistrate may force him," in an ironical, or even satirical humour, without asserting that the magistrate might do so lawfully. On the whole, we are inclined to think that these isolated passages are not sufficient to warrant the exception that has been made against the comprehensive views entertained by Browne.* We are confirmed in this opinion by Giffard's animadversions on Browne's writings. "He maketh many arguments," says Giffard, "to prove that princes are not to be stayed for, nor yet to have to do, by public power, to establish religion. Which opinion of his, is such abridging the sacred power of princes, and such horrible injury to the church, contrary to the manifest word of God, that if there were nothing else, it is enough to make him an odious and detestable heretic, until he show repentance."+

With all deference, then, to the judgment of others, we are compelled to regard Robert Browne as the first in this country to advocate liberty of conscience on the broad ground of the distinction between matters civil and religious. There can be little doubt,

*Orme, in his Memoirs of Dr. Owen, p. 74, says, "To the Brownists are to be ascribed the first correct views of religious liberty." Mr. Brook, author of the Lives of the Puritans, says, "Notwithstanding all that has been said, it does appear that the first dissemination of these enlightened principles belongs, not to the baptists, but, in truth, to Robert Browne." MS. letter, October 27, 1847.

+ Giffard's Answer to the Brownists, p. 104; Stillingfleet, p. 78. As we have already affirmed, in the first chapter of the last volume, there were advocates of liberty of conscience, under one form or another, in every age; but not in connexion with Congregational Independency. See Appendix A.

also, that the early Brownists held the same views as their leader, since they are so referred to in the contemporaneous writings of the day. The Barrowists were in this, and in some other respects, another class of men; as the separatists in Holland were a third, and the rigid puritans in England a fourth. All of them, together with the baptists, were Congregational Independents; but they did not all hold the same views in respect to the scriptural power of the magistrate in matters of religion.

The Barrowists, following the two leaders whose names have been mentioned, were very far wrong on this point. "The magistrate," said Greenwood, "ought to compel the infidels to hear the doctrine of the church, and also, with the approbation of the church, to send forth meet men, with gifts and graces, to instruct the infidels."* "The prince," says Barrowe, 'is charged, and in duty ought to see the ministers of the church do their duty, and teach the law of God diligently and sincerely." At the same time, both Greenwood and Barrowe would have the magistrate keep to God's laws and ordinances, and refrain from making any of their own. "A godly prince," says Barrowe, " is bound to God's law; made the keeper thereof, not the controller; the servant, not the Lord.”+

Johnson, and the separatists in exile, were an offshoot from the Barrowists, and held the same erroneous views. "We condemn not," said Johnson, "reformation commanded and compelled by the magis

* Conferences, p. 59; Broadmead Records, Historical Introduction, p. xlii. This work has done good service on this question; although in error on some points, as we have shown, and have yet to show.

Brief Discovery, pp. 218, 219.