father's house, where he remained quiet four years. His spirit being again stirred within him, we soon find him with an assistant, Richard Harrison, travelling up and down the country, preaching his peculiar sentiments, and stirring up the people to revolt from the Established Church. What his peculiar views upon church polity were, will appear from the following summary.

Browne's sentiments.

He maintained-That the Church of England was antichristian in her polity, and that her officers were unscriptural in their character and appointment.-He denied the right of the throne to exercise jurisdiction over the affairs of the church. He recognized the injunctions of the Scriptures, and the authorized practice of the apostolic churches as the only sources from which instruction relative to church order and discipline should be drawn: and insisted that these authorities required,—that “ a church should be confined within the limits of a single congregation ;" and should consist of such only, as "made a confession of their faith, in the presence of each other, and signed a covenant, obliging themselves to walk together in the order of the gospel, according to certain rules and agreements therein contained." -He believed that the Scriptures gave" the whole power of admitting and excluding members, with the deciding of all controversies, to the brotherhood."-That church officers should be chosen from the church, by the votes of the brethren; and the preachers, at least, should be separated to their work, by fasting and prayer, and the imposition of the hands of the brethren.-He seems to have recognized five kinds of office bearers in the church, viz. a Pastor, a Teacher, Elders or ancients, Relievers or deacons, and Widows.He maintained, that, as the vote of the church could make

church officers, so, it could reduce them again to mere laymen; not allowing the priesthood to be a distinct order from the laity. He confined the labors of a minister to his own church; recognizing no authority in the pastor of one church to administer the ordinances to another church.— All the brethren of a church were allowed, by him, license to ask questions of the preacher in their public assemblies, and to confer together upon the subject matter of his sermons. He held that one church could exercise no jurisdiction over another; though it might give advice, counsel, and even reproof; and, if needful, withdraw fellowship from such as walked disorderly.-Every church, in all other respects, was considered by him as entirely independent." In short, every church, or society of Christians meeting in one place, was, according to the Brownists, A BODY CORPORATE, having full power within itself, to admit and exclude members, to choose and ordain officers; and, when the good of the society required it, to depose them; without being accountable to classis, convocations, synods, councils, or any jurisdiction whatever.” *

It is evident from this account of Brownism, that, in its essential features, it corresponded with Congregationalism, as since established in New England.

These sentiments were first openly advocated about the year 1580.

First separate Congregation of Brownists.

About the year 1583, the first separate congregation was

* Neal, Vol. I. pp. 378-380; Hanbury, Vol. I. Chap. 2 passim ; Neal's Hist. of New England, Vol. 1. pp. 61-65.

gathered upon these principles.* Its existence had scarcely commenced, however, before the queen and her bishops laid violent hands upon it; the congregation was broken up; and many of the members, together with Browne himself, fled to Holland; the refuge of all the oppressed Protestants of those days. At Middleburgh, in the state of Zealand, the refugees found a resting-place from oppression; and were permitted to organize a church on their own principles.t

In a little time,-from some cause not certainly known, -dissensions arose among the brethren of this church. Browne abandoned them; and with a few adherents retreated to Scotland, as early as 1584; where he sowed his "popple," as king James I. says, among the Scots. From Scotland he returned, the next year, into England; and so far conformed, as to obtain a rectorship in Northhamptonshire, "and that none of the meanest." It is doubtful, however, whether he ever renounced his principles of church polity; for, he never preached in his church, but supplied it by a curate; and Fuller, (Chh. His.) who had known Browne, says: "I will never believe that he ever formally recanted his opinions, either by word or writing, as to the main of what he maintained."§

After his return to England, his life is represented to

* Neal says: In 1586; but Hanbury's account requires it to be put two or three years, at least, earlier. See Vol. 1. p. 22.

Lucy Aikin, in her Memoirs of the Court of Queen Elizabeth, says: "He founded several churches "in Holland. Quoted in App. to Barklie's His. Memoir of Ply. Colony, Vol. II.

‡ Neal says, in 1589; but Hanbury, who is the best authority, says, 1585.

§ Quoted by Hanbury, p. 24.

have been idle, immoral, and dissolute.* At length, his poverty, pride, and passion, involved him in a quarrel with the constable of his parish; which resulted in the commitment of the decrepit old man to the Northampton gaol; to which place he was carried upon his bed in a cart, being unable to walk. Here he soon sickened and died, in the year 1630, and in the eighty-first of his age, unloved and unwept.

Thus perished in disgrace, a man who had discernment to discover, and courage to advocate, some of the soundest principles of church polity which the world has ever known; principles, which required only to be cleared of the impurities with which the temper of the man, and the spirit of the age had tarnished them, to shine forth as lights to the church, and a blessing to the world.

The church in Middleburgh, in the mean time, being forsaken of its pastor, and rent with internal dissensions, soon crumbled to pieces and perished.t

Frequent attempts have been made to cast reproach on Congregationalists by reference to the exceptionable character and miserable end of Browne; but let the candid of all parties judge who have the most occasion to be ashamed of their relation to Robert Browne. While he was accused of nothing but enmity towards the anti-scriptural character of the church of England, he was persecuted and hunted down like a wild beast: thirty-two times he was imprisoned.

*

Pagit, quoted by Hanbury, p. 24, note e, says: “Old father Browne being reproved for beating his old wife, distinguished, that he did not beat her as his wife, but as a curst old woman."

t Harrison, Browne's associate and assistant, seems to have remained at Middleburgh, where he died in the faith which he had labored to defend—“ in this faith," says Ainsworth, “that we profess."-Hanbury, p. 172.

But, when he professed conformity to her rites and ceremonies, he was received to the bosom of the hierarchy, and retained in her embrace, though openly immoral, dissolute, and abandoned; thus showing, as Pierce, in his "Vindication of Dissenters," shrewdly remarks,-That "our adversaries are more strict in punishing men for disparaging their constitution, than for transgressing the undoubted laws of Christ."*

Progress of Brownism.— Thacker and Copping executed, 1583.

In order to present a connected view of Browne's life, I have disregarded the chronological order of our history. I now resume.

The principles and doctrines promulgated by Browne, and for which he suffered so much, found many friends and advocates; and such as were ready to defend them and suffer for them.

The year 1583 is memorable in our history for the public execution of two clergymen for their attachment to these opinions. June 4th, Elias Thacker was hanged at St. Edmundsbury; and two days after, John Copping. They were accused of "spreading certain books seditiously penned by Robert Browne against the Book of Common Prayer established by the laws of this realm."+

These appear to have been the proto-martyrs of the dedenomination. And, for what were these worthy ministers hanged like public felons? Were they charged with any crime against the state? Were they accused of disloyalty to their queen? Were they suspected of heresy even in their doctrinal creed? No. Nothing of this sort was laid + Neal, Vol. I. p. 389.

* Quoted by Hanbury, p. 24. note a.