: very explicit in asserting Congregational Independency; but retains the incorrect principle relative to civil authority. In its twenty-seventh article, the views of the Independents of Jacob's order are thus expressed :—“ We believe that we, and all true visible churches, ought to be overseen and kept in good order and peace; and ought to be governed, under Christ, both supremely and also subordinately, by the civil magistrate; yea, in causes of religion, when need is. By which rightful power of his, he ought to cherish and prefer the godly and religious, and to punish, as truth and right shall require, the untractable and unreasonable; howbeit, yet always but civilly. And, therefore, we from our hearts most humbly do desire that our gracious sovereign king would himself, so far as he seeth good, and further by some substituted civil magistrate under him, in clemency take this special oversight and government of us, to whose ordering and protection we most humbly commit ourselves, acknowledging that because we want the use of this Divine ordinance, that, therefore, most great and infinite evils both to us and even to the whole kingdom do ensue; and also because of the spiritual lords, their government over us. And, notwithstanding, the spiritual lords do think it injury and wrong to themselves if the king should substitute civil magistrates to this business; yet, as it is said, that is God's own ordinance; and to do otherwise-namely, to commit either spiritual or civil government, diocesan or provincial, to ministers of the Word is evil; and, as we believe, a direct transgression of the text of the gospel." From this it is plain, that the assertion which has sometimes been made in our day, respecting the in compatibility of Congregational Independency with the civil establishment of religion is not absolutely true; since the Congregational Independents of this period, or some of them, sought that civil oversight and interference, which, in later periods and in other countries, have actually been connected with the system. On the whole, then, we are compelled to admit, that there was a departure from the principles of Browne on the part of the Barrowists, the exiles, and the rigid puritans. Were there, then, any parties who had more just views respecting this subject at this time? We think there were; and that these were Independents also; but "members of a calumniated and despised sect, few in number and poor in circumstances." ""* We refer to the baptists, or, as they were termed in that day, anabaptists. The peculiar circumstances in which they were placed led them no doubt to examine more searchingly into the principles on which mutual toleration should be based, and they were gradually led to advocate those broad and enlightened views which have since been so extensively diffused in later times. The first work in which liberty of conscience was avowedly advocated, was published by Leonard Busher, a citizen of London, and entitled "Religion's Peace; or a Plea for Liberty of Conscience." + Although printed in 1614, it was "presented to King James and the High Court of Parliament," some time be *Price's Hist. of Nonconformity, i. 523. This has been republished by the Hanserd Knollys Society, in the volume entitled "Tracts on Liberty of Conscience." It is referred to approvingly by Orme, in his Memoirs of Dr. Owen, p. 74. But, then, Robinson's Justification of Separation is spoken of in similar terms, in relation to our present topic. fore, as we are informed on the title page. Busher was probably one of Smyth's congregation in Amsterdam, and came over to England with Helwisse in 1611-12. We cannot, however, regard his treatise as fully answering to its title; neither can we consider it as containing a "clear, broad, and explicit statement of the doctrine of religious liberty."* The argument against persecution is in some respects ably conducted; but the basis on which the theory of religious liberty is built, is very much narrowed. For example; in the petition to king and parliament, after explaining how the "one true religion is gotten by the Word and Spirit of God alone," he proceeds as follows: : "Seeing, then, the one true religion of the gospel is thus gotten, and thus defended and maintained— namely, by the word preached only; let it please your majesty and parliament to be intreated to revoke and repeal those antichristian, Romish, and cruel laws, that force all our land, both prince and people, to receive that religion wherein the king or queen were born, or that which is established by the law of man, And instead thereof, enact and publish that apostolic, Christian, gentle, and merciful law of Christ; viz: Go, teach all nations, preach the gospel to every creature.' That is, Christ will have his ministers to preach and teach the people of all nations, the things that concern the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Messiah, repentance and remission of sins, and to baptize in his name such as do believe."† This would give authority to king and parliament to follow their own convictions of what the gospel * Broadmead Records, Historical Introduction, p. lxxxiv. †Tracts on Liberty of Conscience, p. 16. allowed them to do, in matters of religion; and to "enact and publish," in their civil capacity, "the law of Christ." Surely, Busher would not set himself up as the infallible interpreter of the spirit and law of the gospel. If, therefore, king and parliament took a different view respecting what the gospel authorized them to do in religious matters, they would be justified on the principle of this petition in acting and enacting in accordance with that view. So far, this is not a "broad statement" of the doctrine of religious liberty; but really and practically, a very narrow one. one. Neither is the passage quoted above an isolated one, and the inference we have deduced from it, an unfair The spirit of it pervades the whole treatise, even the " reasons against persecution." Busher did not clearly see the distinction between private and public grounds; and hence he urges many things as reasons, that were no doubt good reasons so far as his private views were concerned, but very poor ones as presented to king and parliament. In one part he endeavours to prove that "the church of Rome, called catholic," and "those that are descended of her, and have received their ministry and ordination from her," never could be "the apostolic church, called primitive church." He also exhorts his majesty "not to beautify his court and presence with any popish stones, not with one, though it be of alabaster." This is urged not on political grounds alone, but on certain doctrinal views, drawn from scripture, in chapter and verse, respecting the "mystical woman, the great Babylon." Moreover, one of his "rules," for the furtherance of liberty of conscience and the preservation of "peace and quietness," contains a singular restriction, and as singular a reason in favour of it. He would have it to be "lawful for every person or persons, yea, Jews and papists, to write, dispute, confer and reason, print and publish, any matter touching religion, either for or against whomsoever." So far, good. He adds, however, "always provided they allege no fathers for proof of any point of religion, but only the Holy Scriptures."* Thus he narrows his ground, and vitiates the argument. But let us hear his reasons for this exception. "By which means, both few books will be written and printed, seeing all false ministers, and most people, have little or nothing else, besides the fathers, to build their religion and doctrine upon. Or if it be once established by law, that none shall confirm their religion and doctrine by the fathers, and by prisons, burnings, and banishing, etc., but by the Holy Scriptures; then error will not be written nor disputed, except by obstinate persons and seared consciences, seeing the Word of God will be no shelter for any error. "Yea, I know by experience among the people called Brownists, that a man shall not draw them to write, though they be desired; for one of their preachers, called Master Robinson, hath had a writing of mine in his hands above six months, and, as yet, I can get no answer. It seems he knoweth not how better to hide his errors, than by silence. And this will be the case of all false bishops and ministers, who had rather be mute and dumb, than to be drawn into the light with their errors." No wonder Robinson refused to reply to a writer, who could draw a grave argument on liberty of conscience to so "lame and impotent a conclusion." But we have further evidence in this treatise that Busher * Tracts on Liberty of Conscience, p. 51. |