Nicholas Fuller, to plead their cause. Fuller argued on their behalf with great fearlessness, and maintained that the commission had no legal power either to fine or imprison. Anticipating the consequences of such a mode of warfare against authority, the archbishop represented the matter in false colours to the king, and procured the incarceration of the champion of right. Fuller remained in prison to the end of his days; but this one act, so illegal and unconstitutional, did more than any thing else to alienate the members of the legal profession from the rulers of the church, and was the means of raising up amongst them, in after periods, a succession of public-spirited men, who proved the advocates of law and justice, and the successful defenders of the persecuted and oppressed.

Archbishop Bancroft died in 1610, and was succeeded by one in many respects his very opposite. Archbishop Abbot was a Calvinist in doctrine, and favourable to the puritan party so long as they maintained what he conceived to be a respectful demeanour towards the hierarchy of the day. When severe, his severity arose rather from his position, and the instigation of the zealots of the church by whom he was surrounded, than from his own disposition. He has generally been considered one of the mildest occupants of the see of Canterbury; and yet he was not free from great blame in respect to some of his public acts. The circumstance that two individuals, Bartholomew Legate and Edward Wightman, were burned at the stake for imputed heresy during his ecclesiastical administration, is sufficient in itself to stamp it with infamy.*

* King James is said to have been most in fault in this matter. The cruel pedant, imagining that persuasion was a prerogative of

In 1611, the "authorised version" of the Holy Scriptures now in use was first published. This great work was commenced in 1604, and its completion was the occasion for satisfaction amongst all parties. On the whole it is an admirable translation, and has given a character to the English language as spoken in succeeding times. One circumstance, however, in relation to this deservedly popular version is worthy of notice as bearing upon our subject. It appears that the earlier translation of Tindal, in 1526, had exerted some influence on the public mind against the hierarchical orders and dogmas of the church, in consequence of putting the word "senior" for priest," congregation" for church, "repentance" for penance, and so forth. When King James, therefore, in compliance with the request of the puritans at the Hampton Court conference, gave orders that a new translation should be commenced by the most learned men of the age, he prescribed as a rule that the old ecclesiastical terms should be employed, as in the Bishops' Bible, instead of the vernacular, which Tindal had used. The motive of the monarch was palpable enough, and some of the translators would have departed from the prescribed rule, as in all fidelity they were bound to do. As, however, the work of translation went on, discussions bearing upon the differences between Congregational Independency, puritanism, and prelacy were going on also. It was felt by Archbishop Bancroft, in whose administration the

On failing

royalty, endeavoured to convince Legate of his errors. to do so, he "spurned at him with his foot, saying, Away, base fellow," and handed him over to the executioner. Legate was burned at Smithfield, in March, 1612; Wightman, at Burton-onTrent, in the following April.

work was drawing to a close, that if Tindal's terms were employed, as Dr. Miles Smith and some others thought they ought to have been, the common reader would be confirmed in the principles which had been so ably advocated by Jacob, and were then rapidly spreading. He was therefore peremptory, at least with respect to the word "church" instead of congregation; the translators and revisers were compelled to yield; and so the word has remained to the present day.*

After this period, there was, with the exception referred to above, a comparative lull in the proceedings of the hierarchical party. For some years the spirit of Abbot prevailed, and the puritans and nonconformists were to a great degree unmolested. While Bancroft, according to Clarendon, had almost subdued the "unruly spirit of the nonconformists," and "if he had lived, would quickly have extinguished all that fire in England which had been kindled at Geneva," Abbot brought none of the same "antidote" into operation, The same authority adds:

For the strict observance of the discipline of the church, or the conformity to the articles or canons established, he made little inquiry, and took less care. If men prudently forbore a public reviling and railing at the hierarchy and ecclesiastical government, let their opinions and private practice be what it would, they were not only secure from any inquisition

* Dr. Miles Smith wrote the Preface to the authorised version, and was created Bishop of Gloucester, for his pains. According to him, Bancroft altered the various passages where Tindal's version had been followed. The Bishop of Gloucester excused himself for submitting to this tampering with the sacred text, by saying-" but he is so potent, there is no contradicting him."

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

66

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 ob

served "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.

covenanted with each other, in the presence of 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.