conjuncture of circumstances, in which it might be possible for the magistrate to interfere for the propagation and enforcement of the laws of Christ, after their own interpretation of them, these men, following in the steps of Robert Browne, sought to dissever the connexion between magistracy and religion as an unscriptural and iniquitous alliance. Neither should we forget that, while the parties thus distinguished by their early advocacy of an obnoxious but just principle were Congregational Independents, they were but a comparatively small and despised section of them. At the same time, it should be borne in mind, that the principles of Independency had only to be rightly understood in order to lead to convictions similar to those which the baptists cherished and avowed with so much fidelity. Brownists, Barrowists, separatists, rigid puritans, and baptists, had in common an element of truth, which, sooner or later, would operate, according to the law of affinity, in drawing to itself other elements subversive of all domination in matters of religion.

CHAPTER III.

INDEPENDENCY IN ENGLAND, HOLLAND, AND NEW ENGLAND, DURING THE LATTER PART OF THE REIGN OF JAMES THE FIRST. 1616-1625.

AFTER the period referred to in the last chapter, various events occurred of some importance in relation to our subject. Principles were spreading amongst the people, which the vacillating policy of James in political and ecclesiastical matters, confirmed in the minds of their advocates. The court party was given to change, according to the fashion of the monarch, while the puritan party received continual accessions, notwithstanding the severe measures practised against it; and every onward impulse of the popular mind was a preparation for the diffusion of juster and more liberal views. In tracing the history of this period, from the elevation of Abbot to the death of James, it is impossible not to perceive that, amidst many fluctuations and apparent recessions, it was a period of considerable progress in relation to principles.

During the early portion of his reign, James was supposed to favour Calvinistic doctrines; and the fact of his sending over to Holland, in 1618, four Calvinistic divines, to represent Great Britain in the Synod of Dort, seemed to indicate that his views were unchanged up to that period. Heylin, however, has affirmed that he acted thus, "not out of judgment, but

for reasons of state, and from a personal friendship to Prince Maurice," the leader of the Calvinists, in opposition to the Arminians. Whatever may have been his real judgment in the matter of difference, is difficult to ascertain, and of little consequence.* It was not likely that a monarch who lived so loosely as James, would care much for purity of doctrine. When it served his purpose, he could play the part of the Calvinist or Arminian, the protestant or the papist. The great question with him respected the augmentation of his authority and revenue. Whether truth or error was to secure his favour, depended upon the sinister purpose of the moment. He became, in fact, a nucleus of corruption. That minister of state alone could secure his confidence, who knew how to fleece the people, and pander to his vices; and those clergy alone belonged to the true church, and held orthodox sentiments, who preached up the royal prerogative, and inculcated subserviency and submission amongst his subjects. Sycophancy, effeminacy, and dissoluteness of the grossest kind, characterized the court, and contaminated a large portion of the nation; while the church, infected with the same vices, assumed higher pretensions, and became more persecuting in proportion as it departed from its avowed design, as the religious teacher of the people. Meanwhile, the puritan party one section of which, as we have already seen, was Independent-grew in numbers and influence. In a manner not altogether unobserved at the time, it was drawing to itself the best portions of

* Heylin's statement (Hist. Presb. p. 381) seems confirmed by the fact that such men as Buckeridge, Neile, Harsnet, and Laud were soon after this promoted to some of the chief bishoprics. All of them high Arminians. Neal, i. 492.

the nation. Its representatives in parliament were increasingly powerful in resisting the advances of prerogative, and giving voice to popular complaint. Thus truth was advancing, amidst much that was obnoxious, and in spite of much that was hostile to her claims. Scarcely a single public event occurred that did not directly or indirectly strengthen the popular party, either by eliciting the folly and tyranny of the monarch, or by provoking to indignation and resistance.

The "Book of Sports," drawn up by Bishop Moreton, and published in 1618, was a singular proof of the short-sightedness of the rulers of the day in church and state; and the reasons alleged in justification of its enforcement, show the extent to which puritanism prevailed. "The puritans," says Heylin, "by raising the Sabbath, took occasion to depress the festivals, and introduced, by little and little, a general neglect of the weekly fasts, the holy time of Lent, and the embring days." He then adds, that "several preachers and justices of the peace took occasion from hence to forbid all lawful sports on the Lord's day, by means whereof the priests and jesuits persuaded the people that the reformed religion was incompatible with that Christian liberty which God and nature had indulged to the sons of men. So that to preserve the people from popery, his majesty was brought under a necessity to publish the Book of Sports.'"*

In keeping with the above, the declaration was entitled "A Declaration to Encourage Recreations and Sports on the Lord's Day," and was to the following effect: "That for his good people's recreation, his majesty's pleasure was, that after the end of divine service, they should not be disturbed, letted, or dis

* Heylin's Hist. of Presb. p. 389.

couraged from any lawful recreations; such as dancing, either of men or women, archery for men, leaping, vaulting, or any such harmless recreations; nor having of may-games, whitsun-ales, or morris-dances, or setting up of may-poles, or other sports therewith used, so as the same may be had in due and convenient time, without impediment or let of Divine service; and that women should have leave to carry rushes to the church for the decorating of it, according to their old customs; withal prohibiting all unlawful games to be used on Sundays only, as bear-baiting, bullbaiting, interludes, and (at all times in the meaner sort of people, by law prohibited) bowling."*

Such were the ingenious provisions adopted for the spread of the protestant religion, and the prevention of popery. To render them yet more effectual in alluring people to the church, it was declared that no papist should have the benefit of them, nor such as were not present during the whole period of Divine service preceding the season of recreation; nor such as did not attend their own parish churches, that is, the puritans. The effect of this declaration on the public mind may be easily inferred. The papists and puritans were confirmed in their position, and the establishment gathered to its bosom all that was debased, without in any way augmenting its strength.

Previous to this, John Selden, one of the most learned men of that age, had published a work on the history of tithes, in which he proved that they were no longer of Divine, but of human institution; and although, from fear of consequences, he had been induced to make a public acknowledgment of his "error

*Neal, i. 486. Fuller's Church Hist., book x. cent. xvii. sects. 55, 56,