for any, and of the wickedness of those preachers who will not reform themselves and their charge, because they will tarry till the magistrate command and compel them.' Upon the publication of this work he was again arrested and committed to prison, but having denied that he was acquainted with the publication of the book, and through the intercession of the lord-treasurer, he was again liberated, and sent home to his father, with whom he appears to have continued about four years. After this, he again engaged in disseminating his opinions upon church government, and in condemning the established church. During this period he formed many societies upon the principles he had imbibed— but was so closely pursued by the bishops and the court, and his new societies so severely persecuted, that with many of his followers-who now included among them several very learned and able men-he passed over to Holland, where leave was granted them to worship God in their own way.

The exiles settled at Middleburgh in Zealand, and formed a church to their own mind. But Brown soon became uncasy. His associates adhered to his leading principles, but disowned the man and were offended by his conduct. In the year 1589, he returned again to England, and having renounced the principles he had at first propagated, accepted the rectory of a church near Oundle, Northamptonshire. He had now become a dissolute and idle man. He is represented as having cast off his wife, and become wholly regardless of the duties of his rectory, which was served by a substitute. His disorderly life brought him to poverty and disgrace, while his pride and violence of temper brought upon him a wretched and pitiable end. It appears that when he was about 80 years of age, the payment of some rate was demanded of him by the constable of the parish, at which he became enraged and struck the constable. For this assault he was committed to Northampton jail, where he sickened and died in the year 1630, at the age of 81.

It is to be observed, that much uncertainty hangs over many of the facts of Brown's history, and that it is not easy now to determine the sentiments which he taught, and which his followers continued to maintain after he had himself abandoned them. Fuller acknowledges that "little can be known of them, but from pens which avowedly write against them." Although Brown was the first to propagate and act upon the peculiar sentiments afterwards so extensively embraced, yet there is every probability that many learned men had discovered them, at least in part, and were ready to sanction them as soon as they were openly proclaimed. It is quite clear that these sentiments spread rapidly in England during Brown's lifetime, and that after his death they became extensively popular. In the hands of several of his followers, the system was greatly improved, and by it several churches both at home and abroad were regulated. The celebrated Henry Ainsworth was the most distinguished of these. As they continued to increase, their sentiments gradually improved and became more liberal in the hands of the independents or congregationalists—which name they subsequently assumed. At the period of the commonwealth they had become a formidable party and exercised a most salutary check upon the intolerance both of the espiscopalians and presbyterians. As

they have in England completely absorbed presbyterianism, and become. one of the most considerable religious denominations, it may not be uninteresting to state what were at least the opinions of their founder.

It does not appear that the early Brownists differed materially in articles of faith from the church of England; but Brown himself was exceedingly rigid in points of discipline, and contended for matters of church order with as much zeal as for the fundamentals of the Christian faith. He openly denied the church of England to be a true church, and insisted on the invalidity of her ordination, and by consequence the nullity of all her rites. Hence he forbade all communion with it, even in the public ordinances of religion. This principle of separation he carried so far as to denounce all the churches of the reformation that were not formed upon his own model. "They apprehended," says Neal, "according to the Scriptures, that every church ought to be confined within the limits of a single congregation; and that the government should be democratical. When a church was to be gathered, such as desired to be members 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. The whole power of admitting and excluding members, with the deciding of all controversies, was in the brotherhood. Their church-officers for preaching the word and taking care of the poor, were chosen from among themselves, and separated to their several offices by fasting and prayer, and imposition of the hands of some of the brethren. They did not allow the priesthood to be a distinct order, or to give a man an indelible character; but as the vote of the brotherhood made him an officer, and gave him authority to preach and administer the sacraments among them; so the same power could discharge him from his office, and reduce him to the state of a private brother."

"When the number of communicants was larger than could meet in one place, the church divided and chose new officers from among themselves as before, living together as sister-churches, and giving each other the right hand of fellowship. One church might not exercise jurisdiction or authority over another, but each might give other counsel, advice, or admonition if they walked disorderly or abandoned the capital truths of religion; and if the offending church did not receive the admonition, the others were to withdraw, and publicly disown them as a church of Christ. The powers of their church-officers were confined within the narrow limits of their own society. The pastor of one church might not administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, to any but those of his own communion and their immediate children. They declared against all prescribed forms of prayer. Any lay-brother had the liberty of prophesying or giving a word of exhortation in their church assemblies; and it was usual after sermon, for some of the brotherhood to ask questions, and confer with each other upon the doctrines that had been delivered; but as for church censures, they were for an entire separation of the civil and ecclesiastical sword. 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 classes, conventions, synods, councils, or any jurisdiction whatsoever."

It is not a little remarkable that, notwithstanding the discredit thrown upon the principles of the Brownists, by the defection, and by the disgraceful conduct of their founder, still they should have survived, and been gradually advancing, till they have become, with some modifications, the accredited opinions of two numerous sects, the baptists and independents, respectable alike for their numbers and their talents. It is not less remarkable, that with the early Brownists, or, as they were subsequently called, independents, should have originated the doctrine of universal toleration, or the separation of the power of the church entirely from the power of the magistrate; and that the most distinguished church historians, as Mosheim, Milner, Campbell, and many others, should have agreed that the early Christian churches were undoubtedly in the main founded and regulated after the manner of the independents.

The chief of Brown's works are:-1. A thin quarto, published at Middleburgh, 1582; mentioned above. 2. A Treatise upon the 23d chapter of Matthew, both for an order of studying and handling the scriptures, and also for avoiding the popish disorders, and ungodly communion of all false Christians, and especially of wicked preachers and hirelings.' 3. A book which showeth the life and manners of all true Christians, and how unlike they are unto Turks and papists, and heathen folk,' &c.1

George Herbert.

BORN A. D. 1593.-DIED A. D. 1632.

THIS excellent man was born at Herbert castle, near Montgomery, on the 3d of April, 1593. He was the fifth son of Richard Herbert, father of Lord Herbert of Cherbury. His father having died when he was only four years of age, George spent the next eight years of his life under the immediate tuition of his excellent mother. In his thirteenth year he became a king's scholar in Westminster school, where he continued two years, and then removed to Trinity college, Cambridge. In the first year of his residence at the university we find him lamenting, in a letter to his mother, that so much of the poetry of the day was consecrated to Venus, and so little to God and heaven; and declaring that all his poetry should be devoted to the glory of God,—a resolution to which he ever afterwards steadily adhered. During his residence at college he was a diligent and successful student. In 1619 he was chosen orator of the university, in which character he acquired the particular notice of King James, who used to call him the jewel of Cambridge, and always required his attendance when in the neighbourhood of the university. His majesty's patronage, aud his friendship with the great Lord Bacon, seem to have at first excited Herbert's ambition. For a time he turned his attention to politics, and aimed at high office in the state. But the death of the king, and his mother's

'Bogue and Bennett, vol. 1. p. 128. et seq.-Wilson Dis. Ch. vol. 1. p. 14.-Neal.

decided opposition to his views, made him relinquish the idea of a courtier's life.

In 1626, he entered into deacon's orders. In the same year, he was made prebend of Layton, a village in Huntingdonshire. He soon afterwards married Miss Danvers, a relation of the earl of Danby, and who appears to have been a person of singular excellence. In 1630 he was inducted into the living of Bernerton, near Salisbury, vacated by the elevation of Dr Curle to the see of Bath. Immediately upon entering on this charge, he drew up certain rules for the future conduct of his life, which he subsequently committed, in a more distinct and extended form, to writing, and which were given to the world after his death, under the title of the Priest and the Temple, or the Country Parson's character,'-a book with which every clergyman ought to be familiarly acquainted, and which will amply repay every reader. Mr Herbert's constant practice was to attend with his whole family, twice every day, at ten and four, at the church-prayers, which he read in a chapel close to his house. His example, in this respect, was soon fol lowed by many of his parishioners, and, it is said, the farmers in the neighbourhood would let their ploughs rest when Mr Herbert's bell rung to prayers, that they might offer their devotions to God with him, and carry back his blessing with them to their labours. Many anecdotes are related of his amiable and Christian dispositions. His love for music was such that he usually went twice a-week to Salisbury cathedral, and, at his return, would say, that the time he thus spent in listening to the church music elevated his soul, and was his heaven upon earth. He used also to take a part in a private music club, and to justify this practice, would say, "Religion does not banish mirth, but only moderates and sets rules to it."

Herbert died in 1632. His poetical effusions were the most popular of the day; but we must rank him beneath Donne, Quarles, and Crashaw.

Archbishop Abbot.

BORN A. D. 1562.-died a. D. 1633.

GEORGE ABBOT, archbishop of Canterbury, was born October 29, 1662, at Guilford, in Surrey, where his father, Maurice Abbot, was a cloth-worker. He received the rudiments of his education at the grammar-school of his native town, whence he was removed to Baliol college, Oxford, of which, in 1593, he became a fellow. He took his degree of D.D. in 1597, and the same year, was chosen principal of University college. In 1599, he was installed dean of Winchester, and the year following, he was chosen vice-chancellor of the university of Oxford, which office he again filled in 1603, and a third time in 1608.

In 1604, the translation of the Bible, now in common use, was begun by the direction of King James, and Dr Abbot was one of the eight divines of Oxford to whom the care of translating the New Testament, with the exception of the epistles, was committed. In 1608, he went to Scotland with Hume, earl of Dunbar, to assist in bringing

about a union between the national churches of Scotland and England. The object of this mission was so far accomplished that the bishops were appointed to be perpetual moderators in the diocesan synods, and invested with the power of presentation to benefices, and of deprivation or suspension; the skill and prudence which Abbot exhibited in the discharge of his delicate task, laid the foundation of his rapid preferment. In 1609, upon the death of Dr Overton, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, Dr Abbot was appointed bishop of these united sees: a month afterwards he was translated to London; and on the 2d November, 1610, he was raised to the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury.

It is not improbable that he owed his advancement as much to his adulation of his royal master-whose itch for flattery is well known as to the real merit which he unquestionably possessed, and his sincere attachment to the protestant cause, in which his parents had suffered considerably. In the preface to one of his pamphlets, the following specimen of ridiculous flattery occurs :-Speaking of the king, he says, "whose life hath been so immaculate, and unspotted, &c., that even malice itself, which leaves nothing unsearched, could never find true blemish in it, nor cast probable aspersion on it. Zealous as a David; learned and wise, the Solomon of our age; religious as Josias ; careful of spreading Christ's faith as Constantine the Great; just as Moses; undefiled in all his ways as a Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah; full of clemency as another Theodosius." It would also appear from a letter of King James's to Abbot, first published by Dean Sherlock, that his ideas of regal power were little likely to give offence, even to such a prince as James; nevertheless, Abbot could sometimes oppose the will of his sovereign with great decision and firmness, and his moderation in the exercise of his high functions recommended him greatly to the puritanic and popular party. He strenuously promoted the projected match between the Elector Palatine and the Princess Elizabeth, and performed their nuptial coremony on the 14th of February, 1612. "It was acceptable news," says Neal, "to the English puritans, to hear of a protestant prince in Bohemia; and they earnestly desired his majesty to support him, as appears by Archbishop Abbot's letter, who was known to speak the sense of that whole party. This prelate being asked his opinion as a privy-councillor, while he was confined to his bed with the gout, wrote the following letter to the secretary of state :-That it was his opinion that the elector should accept the crown; that England should support him openly; and that as soon as news of his coronation should arrive, the bells should be rung, guns fired, and bonfires made, to let all Europe see that the king was determined to countenance him.' The archbishop adds, It is a great honour to our king, to have such a son made a king; methinks I foresee in this the work of God, that by degrees the kings of the earth shall leave the whore to desolation. Our striking in will comfort the Bohemians, and bring in the Dutch and the Dane, and Hungary will run the same fortune. As for money and means, let us trust God and the parliament, as the old and honourable way of raising money. This from my bed (says the brave old prelate), September 12, 1619, and when I can stand I will do better service."

The affair of the divorce of the Lady Essex, has been considered