15 R O 



about iVf.-d iiichti long, ovate-oblonjj, very- entire, narrow- 

 ing abruptly toivaitlj the end, fniootli on both fides, with 

 ftiori Detioirt J the loiver ones j;radii:iilv diminilhing ; the 

 lottcll oviite, a httic hcart-lliapid at the bafc. Flnzveis col- 

 leClid imo a head or fatcicle, furrouiided by a leafy invo- 

 lucre ; 1 -aflrts or brakes ovate, rallier fliarp-poinlcd, fonn.-- 

 what inmitiraiiaccons, concave, finoiUh, about two inches 

 lonp, red, iin. hiding one and fometimes two or three flowers, 

 decidnons ; the outer onfs rounded, the inner fmaller, and 

 gradually becoiniirjj linear. FUnmtnIs coiiftanlly eleven. Ga- 

 thered at I'orto Bello in America, by a Mr. Pike, and feiit 

 to Bergiiis. 



It dors not appear that eillicr of the three fpecieshas been 

 cidtivated in Euiope 



J\Y.it\v\ \ .\ /•ju-l/fara. Willd. .See Palovi A. 



BROWNHEl.D, in Gn!;rahhy, a fiiiall fettlement in 

 York countv, and dillri>'\ of ^Iail1e, in North Amirica ; 

 which, toijether with Suncook, contains 2<^o inhabitants ; 

 fo called in 1 79 1 by captain Gray in honour of Sam. Brown, 

 cfq. of licirton. 



HkOWNISTS, in Ecclrf.ifical Hiftory, a religions fefl, 

 which fpriing out of the Purit.ins, towards the clofe of the 16th 

 century, and derived their appellation from Robert Brown. 



The revolt of Brown, already mentioned under his article, 

 was far from being followed with the diifohition of the feft. 

 On the contrai-y it daily increafcd ; infomuch that fir Walter 

 Raleigh, in a fpecch, delivered in the houfe of commons, in 

 159:, computes no Icfs than twenty thouland followers of it. 



The occtlion of the fepaiation of the Brownifts was not 

 any fault tlicy found with the faith, but only with the dif- 

 cipline and form of government of the other churches in 

 England. They equally charged corruption on the epifco- 

 pal form, and on that of the prefbyterians, by confillories, 

 clafTes, and fynods ; jior would they join with any other 

 rcfoiTTied church, becaufe they were not afTured of the fanc- 

 tily and regeneration of the members that compofed it, and 

 on account of the toleration of finners, with whom they 

 maintained it an impiety to communicate. They condemned 

 the folemn celebration of marriages in the church, and the 

 life of the ring in marriage, as making it a facramental fign, 

 which encouraged the popifh herefy, that matrimony is a 

 facrament ; and maintained, that matrimony being a political 

 contradl, the confirmation thereof ought to come from the 

 civil msgiftrate. They would not allow any children to be 

 baptized, whofe parents were not members of the church, 

 or of fuch as did not take fufficient care of the education of 

 thofe baptized before. They rejefted all forms of prayer ; 

 and held, that the Lord's prayer was not to be recited as a 

 prayer ; being only given for a rule, or model, whereon all 

 our prayers are to be formed. They held, that the evil life of 

 rhe miniftr)' deftroyed the efficacy of the facraments ; and 

 they olijciScd againft bells in churches, becaufe, as they 

 pretended, they were confecrated ts the fervice of idolatry. 

 They urged alfo many other objections againft the forms and 

 ceremonies of the eflabliftied church, which are recapitulated 

 ill a fmall 410. pannphkt, pnblilhcd at Middleburgh in 1 ^99, 

 on occafion of a contioverfy between Francis Johnfon, a 

 Brownift, and H. Jacob, about fome of the tenets of the 

 Brownilis, a::d entitled " A Defence of the Churches and 

 Miniflery of England, againft the Reafons and Objeftions 

 of Mailler Francis Johnfon, and others of the Separation, 

 commonly called Brownilis ; in two treatifes, publiflied 

 ffpecially for the benefit of thofe in thefe parts of the 

 Low Countries." 



The form of church government which they eftablidied 

 was democratkal. When a church was to be gathered, fuch 

 a& dcfircd to be members of it made a confefiion of it ; and 



B R O 



fiffned a covenant, by which they obliged themfelves to walk 

 together in the order of the gofpel. The whole power of 

 admitting and excluding members, with the decifion of all 

 controverlies, was lodged in the brotherhood. Their church- 

 officers were cholen from among themfelves, for preaching 

 the word, and taking care ot the poor, and feparated to 

 thiir feveral offices by failing, prayer, and impofiiion of 

 hands of fome of the bretiuen. But they did not allow the 

 prielUiood to be any diftinft order, or to give any inde- 

 lible chai-acter. As the vote of the brotherhood made a 

 man a miiiifter, and gave him authority to preach the word, 

 and admiiiiller the facraments among them ; fo the fame 

 power could difchargc him from bis office, and reduce 

 him to a mere layman again. And as they maintained 

 the bounds of a church to be no greater than whnt 

 miglit accommodate thofe who could meet together in one 

 place, and join in one communion ; fo the power of thefe 

 ofiiccrs was pr^fcribed within the fame limits. The minifter 

 or pallor oi one church could not adminifter the Ijord's 

 fupper to another, nor baptize the children of any but thofe 

 of his own fociety. Any lay-brother was allowed the li- 

 berty of giving a word of exhortation to the people ; and 

 it was ufual for fome of them, after fermon, to aik queftions, 

 and reafou upon the dotlrines that had been preached. In 

 a word, every church on the " Brownifts" model, is a body 

 corporate, having full power to do every thing which the 

 good of the lociety requires, without being accountable to 

 any claffis, fynod, convocation, or other jurifdic^ion what- 

 ever. It has been faid, particularly by Dr. Fulke, that if 

 we compare the principles of the Brownifts with thofe of 

 the ancient DonatilU (which fee), vi'e (hall find them to be the 

 fame ; and that Brown derived them from the Puritans 

 and Separatists. Brown, it is faid, was preceded by 

 Bolton, and followed by Barrow, a man of ingenuity and 

 learning, but, like many others of his fed, of a warm fpirit, 

 who was condemned and executed, at the inftigation of the 

 bilhops, very much to the dilgrace of the reign of queen 

 Elizabeth. Indeed the laws were executed with great feve- 

 rity on the Brownifts ; their books were prohibited by queen 

 Elizabeth, and their perfons imprifoned, and many of them 

 were hanged. The ecclefiaftical commiffion, and the ftar- 

 chamber, in fine, diftrefltd them to fuch a degree, that 

 they refolved to quit their country. Accordingly, many 

 families retired, and fettled at Amfterdam, where they 

 formed a church, and chofe Mr. Johnfon for their pallor ; 

 and after him, Mi-. Ainfworth, author of the learned com- 

 mentary on the Pentateuch. This church, notwithilanding 

 its uihappy inteftine divifions, flouriftied under a fucceffion 

 of paftors for above 100 years. Other Brownifts ereifled 

 churches after their own model, at Anihcim, Middleburgh, 

 Lcyden, and otherplaces. See Ainsworth. The next perfoii 

 that appeared as an aftive fupporter of Brownifm was Robin- 

 fon, wlio fomewhat foftened the dogmas of Brown, and endea- 

 voured to unite the difcordant mem'bers of his fed. For fome 

 time the followers of Robinfon ileered a middle courfe be- 

 tween the Brownifts and the church of England, calling them- 

 felves " Semi-Separatifts ;" but at length they proceeded far- 

 ther than the Brownifts themfelves. Tlie Brownifts, though 

 ranged under diff'erent leaders, generally retained the name 

 of their founder for feveral years after his death ; for in the 

 civil war in 1640, &c. we read of a mob of 2000 Brownifts, 

 who entered St. Paul's church in London, when the high- 

 commifiion court was fitting, and making a great tumult, 

 cried out "No Biftiops," "No High Commfffion," &c. : 

 and m 1642, king Charles, in a fpecch made at the head of 

 his forces on their march towards Shrewfhury, mentions the 

 Brownifts, and by a ilrange kind of junaion connefts them 



and 



