Persecution never fails to foster and spread the principles it attempts to exterminate. Instead of ceasing altogether, the conferences of the clergy assumed a more formidable aspect. Not long afterwards there was an assembly at Mr. Knewstub’s church at Cockfield, near Lavenham, in Suffolk, of sixty clergymen of that county, Norfolk, and Cambridgeshire. The subjects for consideration were the Book of Common Prayer, and the extent to which submission to the ecclesiastical authorities was allowable. After repeated adjournments they agreed, that although such of the Articles as contained the sum of Christian faith and the doctrine of the sacraments might properly be subscribed, neither the Common Prayer Book, nor the rest of the Articles, ought; “no, though a man should be deprived of his ministryfor refusing it.”[62a]They were desirous, however, of introducing a reformation into the church, without separating from it.
Archbishop Grindal and some other prelates endeavoured to regulate the “prophesyings,” by enjoining the observance of strict order, and by confining them to the conforming clergy.[62b]But this renewed the displeasure of the despotic woman in whose hand, by a fundamental and fatal error, had been placed the supremacy of the church of England. “By means of these assemblies,” her Majesty observes, writing to the bishop of London, “great numbers of our people, especially of thevulgar sort, meet to be otherwise occupied with some honest labour for their living, are brought to idleness, seduced, and in manners schismatically divided among themselves into a variety of dangerous opinions.” She commanded that these “exercises” should be forthwith put down, adding an order for the imprisonment of such as should refuse compliance, with a threat of severer punishment, and closing hercommunication by an insolent menace to the bishop himself.[63a]
Meanwhile, continued oppression induced the ministers of Norfolk to present to the privy council a supplication, in which, after many expressions of loyalty to the queen, they add, “Yet we desire that her Majesty will not think us disobedient, seeing we suffer ourselves to be displaced, rather than yield to some things required. Our bodies and goods, and all we have, are in her Majesty’s hands;only our souls we reserve to our God, who alone is able to save us or condemn us.”[63b]
Slaves could not have sued for less; but this was far too extensive a reservation to be allowed. The pacific Bishop Parkhurst having been succeeded by Dr. Freke, a man of very different spirit, seven ministers, in or near Norwich, were soon afterwards suspended.[63c]
Subsequent years brought no mitigation. Besides other instances of ecclesiastical molestation in the East Anglian counties, Mathew Hammond, a poor plough-wright at Hethersett, wascondemned by the bishop as a heretic, had his ears cut off, and after the lapse of a week, was committed, in the castle ditch at Norwich, to the more agonizing torment of the flames.[64a]
Many puritan ministers who had livings in Suffolk were prosecuted for neglect or variations in the performance of the public service. Upon this some of the justices of the peace, and other gentry in that county, made a complaint to the privy council; thus declaring their grievance: “We see, right honourable, by too long and lamentable experience, that the state of the church (especially in our parts) groweth every day more sick than other; and they whom it most concerneth have been so careless in providing the means, as the hope of her recovery waxeth almost desperate . . . These towers of Zion, the painful pastors and ministers of the word, by what malice we know not,—they are marshalled with the worst malefactors, presented, indicted, arraigned, and condemned, for matters, as we presume, of very slender moment.”[64b]Valuable testimony, since it was borne by men who, nevertheless,avowed, in the very same document, their detestation of the name and heresy of puritanism.
The translation of Dr. Whitgift to the see of Canterbury,[65a]was the signal for augmented rigour. He was charged by the queen to restore religious uniformity, which she confessed, notwithstanding all her precautions, had “run out of square.”[65b]Canute had rebuked the profanity and folly of those who desired him to attempt the repression of the flowing tide. Elizabeth challenged to herself the right to bind, with the fetters of a statute, the immortal spirit. Losing sight of the true nature of religion, and regarding it only as a piece of state machinery, she sought to bend it to her despotic will, and wondered that it continually escaped from her grasp, and scorned her fury.
His Grace forthwith furnished the bishops of his province with certain articles for the government of their dioceses, by which all preaching, catechising, and praying in private families, whereany were present besides the family, were prohibited; and it was required, that all preachers should wear the habits prescribed, and that none should be admitted to preach, or execute any part of the ecclesiastical function, unless they subscribed the three following articles:—
“1. That the queen hath and ought to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner of persons born within her dominions, of what condition soever they be; and that none other power or potentate hath or ought to have anypower,ecclesiasticalor civil, within her realms or dominions.
“2. That the Book of Common Prayer, and of ordaining bishops, priests, and deacons,containeth nothing contrary to the word of God, but may be lawfully used, and thathe himself will use the same,and none other, in public prayer and administration of the sacraments.
“3. That he alloweth the Book of Articles agreed upon in the convocation holden at London in 1562, and set forth by her Majesty’s authority; and he believethall the articlestherein containedto be agreeable to the word of God.”[67a]
These were called “Whitgift’s Articles,” as he was their principal author. Subscription to them was required, for many years, without the warrant of any statute, or even of any canon.
On the archbishop’s primary metropolitan visitation, a hundred and twenty-four clergymen in Norfolk and Suffolk were suspended in consequence of the application of this test.[67b]Petitions again flowed in from Norwich and Norfolk, and from other counties. But Whitgift opposed every degree of relaxation, “lest the church should be thought to have maintained an error;” and a new commission was granted for the detection of nonconformity, against which even the privy council remonstrated, as a copy of the Spanish Inquisition.[67c]
A conspicuous agent in this commission wasAylmer, bishop of London. At one visitation in Essex he suspended nearly forty ministers. Those who were brought before him, in his progress through the country, were loaded with invective.[68a]
Others were summoned, from distant parts of the kingdom, to appear at St. Paul’s, or at Lambeth.[68b]The inconvenience and expense of travelling at that period rendered their case particularly grievous. They had to answer, upon oath, a string of interrogatories with which they were previously unacquainted, and which could not fail to convict the puritan clergyman on his own testimony.[68c]Too conscientious to conform in all points, he scorned to avert the sword of persecution by the aid of falsehood. If he would have sacrificed his convictions at the shrine of bigotry, and have signed his name where his reason refused assent, he might have revelled in the emoluments of ecclesiastical preferment, although he were
“a sot, or dunce,Lascivious, headstrong, or all these at once.”
“a sot, or dunce,Lascivious, headstrong, or all these at once.”
But it was enough to extort from him an admission that he had, in anyone instance, deviated in the slightest particular from the ceremonies; or that he had said or written, publicly or privately, aught against the Book of Common Prayer, orany thingtherein contained, as being unscriptural orinconvenient;—and although he had evinced the laborious zeal of Paul, displayed the eloquence of Apollos, and exemplified the holy benevolence of John, still—he was a nonconformist—he was cast out.
Among those who were suspended for nonconformity at Archbishop Whitgift’s first visitation, wasWilliam Fleming, rector of Beccles.
The information which has been preserved respecting him leads to the conviction that he was a useful and an exemplary man, to a considerable extent influential and beloved; and respected even by his enemies. He had enemies. They who congratulate themselves on having none, have, frequently, cause to inquire whether they are discharging the duties incumbent upon them as members of society, with that high regard toprinciple which characterized the puritans, and is as remote from the meanness of indecision as from the rancour of mere party zeal.
During Mr. Fleming’s ministry in Beccles, a warm and long continued dispute, occurred between the first grantees from the crown of the tract of marshes already mentioned,[70a]and some of the inhabitants. The grant had been accompanied by extensive powers, which were employed with little moderation. This was naturally a source of dissatisfaction, and led to animosities which ended in a surrender of the property in question to the queen.[70b]The incorporating of the “portreeve, surveyors, and commonalty of the Fen of Beccles,” was the result; an arrangement which met with considerable opposition, from a person named Harsault and others. The plan, however, was probably approved by the more judicious inhabitants, as calculated, in thethen existingstate of things, to preclude the evils ofeither a narrower or a broader system of municipal government. Mr. Fleming appears to have lent his influence in support of the new charter.
A commission was issued to Sir Robert Wingfield and others, to attempt an arrangement of these differences. The commissioners met accordingly, at Beccles, and made a return, in which, after expressing their persuasion that the government of the town was likely to proceed in peace, they add: “And furder, whereas by vertue of the same yor ho: letters we are directed to th’ examynac’on of certeyn trobles and molestac’ons brought upon one Mr. Flemyng, the minister there; we fynde the man to beof verie good desert bothe concerning life and doctryne,and to have p’fited the peple there verie greatly, yet had he ben much trobled by some sorrie instruments issueing from the same spring as we take it; for having hym and them before us, they alledged no cause of offence, but rather iustified the man, and reconciled themselves to hym, except one Harsault, whome we fownde factious, and a man utterlie unworthye of enygood allowance or regarde emongst his honest neighbors.”[72a]
There was, however, one offence of which Mr. Fleming was found guilty. He did not conform in all points to the prescribed ritual. Urged in extenuation of this, the pains of a doubting or the convictions of a settled judgment, the testimony of a good life and the profession of sound doctrine, the attachment of his flock and the usefulness of his ministry—were, in the estimation of the intolerant ecclesiastics, of no value. He was summoned to London[72b]to undergo the mockery of an examination, and to sustain the costs of his journey, and the ultimate loss of his preferment.
Mr. Fleming refused to subscribe Whitgift’s Articles; and the discipline of the ecclesiastical courts having been employed in vain in his correction, the bishop, on the 23rd of July, 1584, deprived him of his living.[72c]He continued toreside in Beccles, probably exercising privately the most essential branches of a minister’s duty, if not, after a time, officiating in the parish church through the connivance of those who were consciousof his value.[74a]He died in 1613; and his interment, on the 8th of September in that year, is recorded in the parochial register in terms which prove that time had not sullied the reputation which persecution had failed to injure, and that when the grave had closed over his remains, he was remembered as the benefactor of his neighbours, and honoured as the founder of a new order of christian ministers among them. The entry, in the oldest register book now preserved, stands thus:
“Bury: Master William Fleming, our minister and faythfull teacher, the glory of our towne, & father of yeministery round about us.”[74b]
“Bury: Master William Fleming, our minister and faythfull teacher, the glory of our towne, & father of yeministery round about us.”[74b]
From the terms in which the above entry is couched, it seems that Mr. Fleming was the first clergyman in Beccles who had cordially embracedand advocated the doctrines of the Reformation.[75]He had carried out its great principle to an extent which marks him as the father of the protestantdissentingministry in that place. What were the precise objections made by him to the archbishop’s Articles, is unknown. But the nonconformity of Beccles will appear to have been justifiable in itsorigin, if it be shown that those Articles embraced any point to which, as an upright man, he could not unhesitatingly assent.
It will be recollected that by them he was required solemnly to acknowledge the queen’secclesiasticalsupremacy; and to declare that the authorized ritual containedNOTHINGcontrary to the word of God; that he would use itand none otherin the public service; and that he believedALLthe Thirty-nine Articles to be agreeable to the word of God. There was no room for evasion, no saving or qualifying clause. However trivial or indifferent the ceremony respecting which conscience paused, still, as nothingis trivial when truth and conscience are concerned, he could not with propriety subscribe. His apparent worldly interest and his desire for usefulness would naturally give him a bias towards conformity, and he would lament that matters so unimportant should be imposed as essential terms of preferment; but to have yielded, would have been to have climbed into the fold of Christ over the barrier of truth, to have held his living by the tenure of a solemn and deliberate falsehood.
It is probable that he did not altogether deny the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the queen; though cruelty was already leading many to the conviction that human authority had no proper place in the administration of the kingdom of Christ. But, like the puritans in general, he was, no doubt, deeply impressed with the unscriptural character of popery, and with the mischievous tendency of cherishing any remnant of its idolatrous abominations. The arguments employed against the ceremonies which had been abolished, applied, with equal force, to some which had been retained. The sign of the cross in baptism, the use of thesurplice, bowing to the east, and kneeling before the table of the Lord, were as devoid of warrant in the Bible, as the ceremony of following the cross in procession, the use of holy water, ashes, and palms, or the worship of the sacramental wafer. The bishops in the earlier part of Elizabeth’s reign, had looked upon the catholic rites, which had been allowed to creep into the protestant church, as having been only tolerated for a time, and as a blot upon the Reformation, to be wiped off as soon as circumstances would admit.[77a]On the contrary, they were now held up as, each and all of them, essential to the uniformity of religion, and indispensable to the authorized performance of her public services. If Mr. Fleming deemed any one of them contrary to Scripture, as not being conducive to edification, but rather causing offence,[77b]he could not honestly put his signature to the archbishop’s Articles.
Turning over, with anxiety and thoughtfulness, the pages of the Book of Common Prayer, towhich he was called upon to give so uncompromising an approval, he may be supposed to have noticed such particulars as the following.
The Creed attributed to Athanasius in effect declared it essential to salvation, not only that the mysterious doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation of Christ should be believed, but that theexplanationtherein attempted of those doctrines should be embraced as “the right faith;” and it denounced the sentence of eternal condemnation against those who did not “thus think,” with a peremptoriness and reiteration amounting to a virtual claim of infallibility. But if he could not discover in the Sacred Records any such explanation of the doctrines in question, nor, consequently, any such conditions of salvation, he might hesitate to declare his belief that those harsh clauses were not at variance with the word of God.
In the Baptism of Infants he would perceive that the priest was required to declare the baptized child to beregenerated, and to return thanks to God for so great a blessing. And he might think the doctrine obviously implied inthat form, and plainly expressed in the catechism which follows it, “contrary to the word of God,” which treats of regeneration as a change of heart, such as no outward ceremony could confer.[79a]
In the Catechism also, the Common Prayer Book taught that there were two sacraments “generallynecessaryto salvation,” whereas he might conceive that it was “contrary to the word of God” to make such an assertion respecting either of them, in any instance.[79b]
In the Order for the Visitation of the Sick, the priest was directed to assume authority to “absolve” the penitent sinner: but while he was required to subscribe, as perfectly scriptural, the volume containing that formulary, consciencemight be demanding, who can forgive sins but God alone?[80a]
Perhaps Mr. Fleming might apprehend that it was “contrary to the word of God,” which enjoins faithfulness in ministers, and sincerity in all,[80b]to adopt indiscriminately, with reference to all who were not unbaptized, excommunicated, or suicides, the form for the Burial of the Dead. He would gladly have availed himself, it may be, always of some portions, and frequently, of the whole of that beautiful and impressive service, if he might have been excused from expressing alike over the saint and the reviler of holiness—over him who had embraced and him who had denied the creed which all were required to receive as expounded by the church on pain of eternal death—over him who had calmly died in the well-grounded hope of acceptance at the bar of God, and him who had been hurried to that bar from scenes of intemperance or brawling—the same “sure and certainhope” of the resurrection of the deceased to eternal life; and if he had not been called upon, however depraved and hopeless the character of the departed, or however irreparable the breach in society occasioned by his removal, to give Almighty God thanks for taking him to Himself—thanks which the lip must profess to be “hearty,” but to which the heart, in the utmost stretch of charity in the one case, or of self-denial in the other, could not respond.
The version of the Psalms incorporated with the Book of Common Prayer, differed in many respects from that in the authorized version of the Bible, and in one instance directly contradicted it.[81]He, therefore, who acknowledged the more recent version as the word of God, and had noticed the discrepancy, could not, with strict truth, profess his conviction that the Prayer Book containednothingcontrary to the word of God.
Again: one of the Thirty-nine Articles expressly affirmed that “Christ went down intohell.” If Mr. Fleming was not at liberty to assign to this language a meaning such as the words, in the plain literal sense, do not express, and such as the compilers did not intend to convey, he might naturally feel some difficulty in admitting the statement to be “agreeable to the word of God.”
Another of the Articles asserted that Christ rose from death, “and took again his body withflesh,bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature; wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sittethuntilhe returnto judgeall men at the last day.” But a contemplative mind, accustomed to bring all its speculations to the test of holy writ, might be ready to assent to the proposition that there is a sense in which the glorified body of Christ is identical with that in which he tabernacled on earth, and yet might venture to doubt whether the language of that Article was altogether “agreeable to the word of God,” in which the distinction is so clearly marked between the “natural” and the “spiritual” body; between that which is sown in corruption, dishonour, andweakness, and that which is raised in incorruption, glory, and power; and in which it is expressly asserted that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.”[83]Nor could the concluding words of this Article be regarded as having the warrant of Scripture, by any who were looking for the millennial reign of Christ upon earth.
It is possible that the “penance,” prescribed by another of the Articles as requisite to the restoration of an excommunicated person, would appear to some, to be more consonant with the genius of popery, but less “agreeable to the word of God,” than thatpenitence, without which the garb or the posture of humiliation could avail nothing.
Or, (not to multiply instances further,) perhaps Mr. Fleming was an admirer of instrumental music in public worship, and believed it to have the warrant of Scripture. But by the thirty-fifth Article it is declared that the homilies contained “a godly and wholesome doctrine,” although one branch of the doctrine comprisedtherein was, that “chaunting and playing upon organs displeased God sore, and filthily defiled his holy house.”[84]
In the above statement, no account has been taken of the invasion of Christ’s authority and of his people’s freedom, implied in the requirement of subscription toanyhuman formulary. Nor is it intended to rest the argument upon the most formidable objections to the Common Prayer Book of the English church in particular. Some of those objections relate to doctrines so momentous, sanctioned under circumstances so peculiarly solemn, as to relieve the dissentient altogether from the suspicion of captious trifling.
But it is submitted to the consideration of the candid reader, whether any hesitancy existing in the mind of a minister of the gospel, on any one of these, or any similar point, would not be enough to justify his declining, at whatever apparent sacrifice of usefulness or emolument, to give his deliberate assent to the propositions containedin Whitgift’s Articles. The law of sincerity binds not to a partial but to a universal obedience. A deep reverence for truth, and a peculiarly tender conscience, are obviously just the qualities most likely to have insured a refusal. Cruel and mischievous indeed must have been the policy which thus demanded an unqualified acquiescence in so heterogeneous a mass of propositions, holding out a premium to the temporizing and careless to fritter away the eternal boundaries of right and wrong.[85]
If the separation which took place among the professed Christians of Beccles at this early period may be designated a schism, the chargedoes not attach to Mr. Fleming, and those who, probably, seceded with him, but to the parties by whom they were rejected. “Schism is a thing bad in itself, bad in its very nature; separation may be bad or good according to circumstances.” Separation is not necessarily schism; “for while it may be occasioned by crime, it may be occasioned by virtue; it may result in those who depart from intolerance attempted, or intolerance sustained, from the pride of faction, or the predominance of principle, attachment to party, or attachment to truth. A schismatic, in short,mustbe a sinner, on whichever side he stands; a separatistmaybe more sinned against than sinning.”[86]
Mr. Fleming was a separatist, he was so by compulsion; but he was not a schismatic: and protestant dissent in Beccles was pure in its source; for it must in justice be traced not to a factious disobedience to the higher powers, but to an act of moral heroism, elicited by the despotism of Queen Elizabeth and the severity of a protestant archbishop.
Rise of the Brownists; persecuted—James I.—Millenary petition; Brownists imprisoned and exiled—Robinson; father of the Independents—Jacob establishes the first English Independent church—Book of Sports—Bishop Harsnet—Laud—Bishop Wren’s Articles of Visitation—William Bridge retires to Holland—Returns on the change of affairs—Formation of Independent churches at Yarmouth and Norwich—Cromwell.
Theearly puritans, in general, were strongly attached to the principle of a national established church. But some of them were at length prompted, by their sad experience of episcopal domination, openly to seek the substitution of presbyterianism, as a form of church government which promised to preserve the equality of christian ministers, while it maintained their connexion and their authority. Others conceived that if episcopacy trampled on the scriptural rights of the clergy, presbyterianism interfered withthose of the laity, and that both invaded the authority of Christ.[88a]Convictions of this nature flashed across the active mind of a young clergyman named Robert Brown. In 1581, he attracted the notice of Bishop Freke, as a teacher of “strange and dangerous doctrine” at Bury St. Edmunds, where he received so much encouragement, and his opinions were spreading so rapidly, as (in the serious apprehension of the bishop) to “hazard the overthrow of all religion.”[88b]
The Brownists differed little from the Church of England in their doctrinal views; but they looked upon her discipline as popish and antichristian, her sacraments and ordinances as invalid; and renounced communion with every church that was not constituted on the same model as their own. They held that as the primitive faith was to be maintained, so also the primitive institutions, as delineated in the New Testament, were to be imitated; and that every congregation ofbelievers was, according to the Scriptures, a church in itself, having full power to elect, ordain, and dismiss its own pastor and other officers; to admit or exclude members; and to manage all its affairs, without being accountable to any other human jurisdiction. They discarded all forms of prayer. As they did not allow the priesthood to be a distinct order, the laity had full liberty to “prophesy,” or exhort, in their assemblies, and it was usual, after sermon, for some of the members to propose questions and confer upon the doctrines that had been delivered.[89]They were careful respecting the religious character of those who united with them in church fellowship. Thus their views embraced the substance of those entertained by the Independents of the present day. But the Brownists introduced into their “first rude sketch,” some opinionswhich have since been modified by the steady hand of wisdom, and some practices which have been expunged as unsanctioned by Scripture. They lost sight, too, of that which constituted the glory of their system, that its leading principle forbad the assumption of infallibility, while it provided the best security for the correction of whatever was erroneous in the scheme they had adopted, and for the preservation of all that was according to the will of God.
Brown took refuge from persecution at Middleburg, in Zealand; but soon returned to England, and ultimately renounced those principles of nonconformity, which he was better fitted to develope by his ardour, than to recommend by his character.
The flame which he had kindled continued to burn with a purer, a steadier, and a broader lustre. In the parliament which met in February 1592–3, Sir Walter Raleigh said he feared there were near twenty thousand Brownists divided into congregations in Norfolk and Essex and in the neighbourhood of London.[90]Even this enlightenedstatesman declared that he deemed them “worthy to be rooted out of a commonwealth;” and the parliament, which had often shown a disposition to favour the puritans, consented, with a view to the extermination of the Brownists, to pass an act characterized by consummate tyranny. It consigned to prison all, above sixteen years of age, who should forbear for a month to go to church, or who should deny the queen’s ecclesiastical authority. And in case they refused to make a most degrading submission, they were to go into perpetual banishment; and such as remained beyond the specified time, or returned without license from the queen, were to suffer death as felons.[91]
The Brownists felt the full weight of this cruel law. The justices of Suffolk who petitioned the council in favour of the puritan clergy, had no mercy for such audacious heretics as these. “We allow not” (said they) “of the anabaptists and their communion; we allow not of Brown, the overthrower of church and commonwealth;we abhor all these; we punish all these.”[92a]Many were imprisoned; some were hanged; multitudes were driven to the protestant states on the continent. Others remained at home “fluctuating between the evasion and violation of the law,” and casting a wistful glance towards the expected accession of a prince educated in the presbyterian Kirk of Scotland.[92b]
They had formed an estimate of James’s character, of which it was eminently undeserving. When the demise of the queen brought him to the English metropolis, he was met by a petition from the puritan clergy (popularly called themillenarypetition) for the reformation of ceremonies and abuses in the church. The signatures to this document were obtained in twenty-five counties of England. They amounted to a less number than the name implied, and Suffolk suppliedseventy-one, while the highest number from any other county was fifty-seven.[92c]The petitioners learned the fate of their application, when at the conclusionof a conference the king had appointed to be held at Hampton Court, he declared that they should conform, or he would “hurry them out of the kingdom, or do worse.” James fell an easy prey to the adulation of the English bishops, and was soon converted to a church of which he found he could be “supreme head.” While he thus revived and pronounced the claim of infallibility, Whitgift echoed the language employed by the pope on a former occasion, declaring that “undoubtedly his majesty spake by the special assistance of God’s Spirit.”
The archbishop died soon after, and was succeeded by Dr. Richard Bancroft, who “trod in the steps of his predecessor in all the iniquities of persecution.”[93a]
In the second year of King James’s reign three hundred ministers were deprived, imprisoned, or banished. Persons were subjected to fine and imprisonment, for barely repeating to their families, in the evening, what they had heard at church, during the day, under the pretence that this constituted the crime of irregular preaching.[93b]
Mr. Maunsell, minister of Yarmouth, and Mr. Lad, a merchant of the same place, were cited before the High Commission at Lambeth, for holding a supposed conventicle, and cast into prison. Nicholas Fuller, a learned bencher of Gray’s Inn, appeared as their counsel when they were brought to the bar; for which crime he also was consigned to prison, where he lay to the end of his days.[94]
Among those who were proscribed and exiled for professing the Brownist tenets, were Mr. John Robinson, and Mr. Henry Jacob.
Mr. Robinson had been educated in the University of Cambridge, and beneficed near Great Yarmouth, in which neighbourhood he had also a separate congregation. They assembled in private houses for seven or eight years; but disturbance from the bishop’s officers, and ruinous proceedings in the ecclesiastical courts, induced them to remove to the continent. Mr. Robinson settled at Leyden. He had commenced his career a rigid Brownist; but a more extensive acquaintance with the world, and the conversationof learned men, particularly Dr. William Ames, an exile also for religion, rendered him more charitable and moderate.[95a]He struck out a middle course between the Brownists and Presbyterians. Maintaining the lawfulness of separation from the reformed churches, he did not deny that they were true churches: and while he contended that each christian society was invested with power to choose officers, administer the gospel ordinances, and exercise all needful discipline over its members, and that it was consequentlyindependentof all classes and synods; he nevertheless admitted the expediency of grave assemblies among the elders of churches for the purposes of mutual friendly advice.[95b]Mr. Robinson recommended his sentiments by a character in which eminent faculties and attainments were crowned and encircled by the predominating power of a solemn and affectionate piety.[95c]The Independents generally regard him as the father of their sect. But since they claim for their sentimentsa yet nobler origin, they have preferred to be designated by the termsCongregationalorIndependent; as indicating the point of church government in which they so materially differ from all who acknowledge the authority of bishops or a presbytery.
Robinson, though distinguished by moderation, was not deficient in vigilance. After some years, his congregation began to be removed by death, and their children to form connexions with Dutch families. There was ground to apprehend that their church, few in number, might gradually be melted away into an irreligious population. No encouragement was afforded to return home; and after spending many days in solemn addresses to Heaven for direction, they formed the sublime resolution of transplanting themselves to the shores of America, “where they might enjoy liberty of conscience” with a more cheering prospect of propagating their principles. It was arranged that a part of them should first embark, and that their pastor and the rest should afterwards follow. A day of fasting and prayer was appointed; and Mr. Robinson preached, concluding his discoursewith an exhortation which breathes a spirit of candour far in advance of the age in which he lived, and strenuously enforces the principle upon which the religious system of the protestant nonconformists is founded, and with which it must, ultimately, either sink into oblivion, or win its way to universal prevalence.
“Brethren,” said this truly venerable man, “we are now quickly to part from one another, and whether I may ever live to see your faces on earth any more the God of heaven only knows;[97]but whether the Lord has appointed that or no, I charge you before God and his blessed angels, that you follow me no farther than you have seen me follow the Lord Jesus Christ.“If God reveal any thing to you by any other instrument of his, be as ready to receive it, as ever you were to receive any truth by my ministry; for I am verily persuaded, I am very confident, the Lord has more truth yet to break out of his holy word . . . I beseech you, remember it, ’tisan article in your church covenant, that you beready to receive whatever truth shall be made known to you from the written word of God. Remember that, and every other article of your sacred covenant. But I must here withal exhort you to take heed what you receive as truth. Examine it; consider it; and compare it with other scriptures of truth, before you receive it; for ’tis not possible the christian world should come so lately out of antichristian darkness, and that perfection of knowledge should break forth at once.”[98a]
“Brethren,” said this truly venerable man, “we are now quickly to part from one another, and whether I may ever live to see your faces on earth any more the God of heaven only knows;[97]but whether the Lord has appointed that or no, I charge you before God and his blessed angels, that you follow me no farther than you have seen me follow the Lord Jesus Christ.
“If God reveal any thing to you by any other instrument of his, be as ready to receive it, as ever you were to receive any truth by my ministry; for I am verily persuaded, I am very confident, the Lord has more truth yet to break out of his holy word . . . I beseech you, remember it, ’tisan article in your church covenant, that you beready to receive whatever truth shall be made known to you from the written word of God. Remember that, and every other article of your sacred covenant. But I must here withal exhort you to take heed what you receive as truth. Examine it; consider it; and compare it with other scriptures of truth, before you receive it; for ’tis not possible the christian world should come so lately out of antichristian darkness, and that perfection of knowledge should break forth at once.”[98a]
Mr. Robinson accompanied the adventurers to Delfthaven, and kneeling on the sea-shore committed them, in fervent prayer, to the protection and blessing of Heaven.[98b]
It is difficult to conceive of an expedition more truly noble and momentous in its objects and results.
“What sought they thus afar?Bright jewels of the mine?The wealth of seas? the spoils of war?—They sought a faith’s pure shrine.Aye, call it holy ground,The soil where first they trod;They have left unstained what there they found—Freedom to worship God!”[99]
“What sought they thus afar?Bright jewels of the mine?The wealth of seas? the spoils of war?—They sought a faith’s pure shrine.
Aye, call it holy ground,The soil where first they trod;They have left unstained what there they found—Freedom to worship God!”[99]
Mr. Jacob, who has been mentioned as another of the exiled Brownists, had adopted their creed, without their uncharitableness; and during his residence on the continent, embraced Mr. Robinson’s views, of church government. In 1616 he returned to London, and there planted the first Independent church in England. In this step he had the sanction of the leading puritans of those times.
Several of his friends who were desirous of uniting in church fellowship having assembled with him, a day of fasting and prayer for a blessing upon their undertaking was observed; and each individual, towards the close of the solemnity, made a public confession of his faith in Jesus Christ. Then standing together, they joined hands, and solemnly covenanted with each other to walk together in all the ways and ordinances God had already revealed or should further makeknown to them. Mr. Jacob was chosen their pastor by the suffrage of the brotherhood, and proper persons were appointed as deacons, with fasting and prayer, and imposition of hands.[100]
The policy of the king, alike despotic, bigoted, and weak, continued to expatriate many of the best of his subjects, and swelled the ranks of the Independents at home. By the advice of the bishops his Majesty issued directions that none should be allowed to preach without perfect conformity, and that no preacher should maintain any point of doctrine not allowed in the church of England; a requirement utterly irreconcileable with his subsequent patronage of the Arminian tenets.
By the millenary petition the puritans had prayed “that the Lord’s day be not profaned;” and James, taking an atrocious advantage of their regard to the sanctity of the sabbath, published, to prevent the spread of their opinions, the “Declaration for sports on the Lord’s day,” commonly calledThe Book of Sports.
This equally profane and ridiculous document originated, as his Majesty declared, from the prohibition of Sunday recreations by some “puritans and precise people;” from which “unlawful carriages” there flowed, according to the royal doctrine, two main evils, the hindering the conversion of many from popery, and the preventing the meaner sort of people from using such exercises as would render their bodies fit for war, when his Majesty might “have occasion tousethem.” He therefore announced his pleasure, that all the “puritans and precisians” should be constrained to conform, or to leave the country; and that, after divine service, the people should not be discouraged in anylawfulrecreation, such as dancing, archery, leaping; nor from May-games, Whitson-ales, morris-dances, and the setting up May-poles, and other sports therewith used.[101]
The clergy were required to publish this “Declaration” in all parish churches. Many who refused to do so were brought into the highcommission court, suspended and imprisoned.[102a]
Dr. Samuel Harsnet, who was translated in 1619 from the see of Chichester to that of Norwich, was a zealous assertor of the ceremonies of the church,[102b]and a bitter enemy to all “irregularities.” Mr. Peck, having catechised his family and sung a psalm in his own house when several of his neighbours were present, the bishop required them all to do penance and recant. Those who refused were immediately excommunicated, and condemned in heavy costs. The citizens of Norwich afterwards complained to parliament of this cruel oppression.[102c]
By the same prelate, an individual named Whiting, was prosecuted and brought before the high commission, expecting to be deprived of considerable estates; but the death of the king put an end to the prosecution.[102d]
When Charles the first succeeded to the throne many of the descendants of the early puritans still adhered to the established church, seeking only the reduction of the inordinate power of the bishops, and the removal of “popish ceremonies.” But the injuries they received were constantly stimulating their inquiries, and strengthening their objections to episcopacy. Dr. Laud, who was successively promoted from the bishopric of Bath and Wells, to the see of London,[103a]and the archbishopric of Canterbury,[103b]wielded the terrors of the star chamber and high commission courts with redoubled cruelty. New and more offensive rites were introduced into the church. The communion table was converted into an altar, and all persons were commanded to bow to it on entering the church.[103c]All week-day lectures, and afternoon sermons on Sundays, were abolished; and the king, “out of pious care for the service of God, and for suppressing humours that oppose truth,” republished, by the advice of his ecclesiastical favourite, the Book of Sports, with a command that it shouldbe read in all parish churches.[104a]This the puritan clergy refused, for which they felt the iron rod of their oppressors.
Another grievance under which the puritans laboured at this period, arose from the power assumed by the bishops, (in manifest dereliction both of the canons of the church and the laws of the land,) of framing and enforcing Articles of Visitation in their own names. The Articles of Dr. Matthew Wren, bishop of Norwich, were among the most remarkable. They consisted of nearly nine hundred questions, some very insignificant, others highly tinctured with superstition, and several impossible to be answered.[104b]They appear to have been chiefly designed to detect such ministers as were not “perfect” conformists—inquiring minutely into the observance of the ceremonies, the reading of the Book of Sports, the practice of conversing upon religion at table, and in families, &c.[104c]By his severities this prelate drove upwards of three thousand persons to seek their bread in a foreign land.[104d]
Among many who refused to read the Book of Sports, and otherwise disobeyed some of the bishop’s Articles, was Mr. William Bridge, who had been a fellow of Emanuel College, Cambridge, and was parish chaplain of St. George’s, Tombland, Norwich.[105a]He was silenced, and afterwards excommunicated. The writde excommunicato capiendo, having been issued against him, he withdrew into Holland.[105b]An Independent church of English refugees, at Rotterdam, chose him as their pastor, and, during his residence among them, he appears to have become firmly attached to the Congregational mode of church government.[105c]
The forbearance of the English nation at last broke beneath the despotism of a king, who, not content with governing by a parliament, desiredto rule without one, and the cruelty of a hierarchy which had become a hideous contrast to the church of the “holy, harmless, and undefiled” Redeemer. On the assembling of the long parliament in 1640, a storm of righteous retribution fell upon the authors of the ecclesiastical oppressions. The people assailed the parliament with complaints; the parliament presented their grievances to the king; and the deluded monarch replied by a proclamation, requiring an exact conformity to the established religion! But tyranny had already reached its height, and the torrent had set in an opposite direction.
The Independents, who had assembled in private, and shifted from house to house for many years, took courage and showed themselves in public. The same promising appearances induced Mr. Bridge to return to England in 1642. Many families of refugees accompanied him, some of whom settled in Yarmouth, and others went to reside at Norwich. All of them appear to have been warmly attached to Mr. Bridge, and very desirous of continuing under his pastoral care. This however was highly inconvenient, and itwas at length agreed that the seat of his church should be at Yarmouth, and that the residents at Norwich, with some other serious persons there, should form themselves into a separate communion. This was done June 10th, 1644, several of the Yarmouth brethren signifying their consent with expressions of the most tender and endeared affection, as having been, many of them, “companions together in the patience of our Lord Jesus, in their own, and in a strange land, and having long enjoyed sweet communion together in divine ordinances.”[107]
Mr. Bridge may be regarded as the founder of the Independent churches in the East Anglian counties. A constant intercourse had been maintained between those counties and the opposite coast of Holland, from whence they were not too remote to catch the spirit of religious freedom which had actuated the conduct, and which constituted the reward of the exiled Christians. A district so situated—the scene of Robinson’s usefulness and sufferings, and which had given birth to Goodwin and Ames, and was receivingback into its bosom the champions of liberty and truth—presented an encouraging field for disseminating the principles of Independency. Hence they were rapidly and extensively embraced in this part of the kingdom. Dr. Calamy intimates that, some years after Mr. Bridge’s return, “most professors of religion” in these counties “inclined to the Congregational way.”[108a]
It was not, however, till after the monarchy had given place to the military usurpation of Cromwell, that those who were favourable to Congregational sentiments ventured to form themselves into churches in provincial places,—always doubly exposed to the inspection of ill-designing curiosity.[108b]
Though it is doubtful whether Cromwell really embraced the sentiments of the Independents, yet he certainly countenanced them, by selecting his chaplains, and supplying vacancies in the universities, from amongst the members of their communion; and by recognising in his public acts the right of private judgment.[109]The instrument of government which he framed, declared that none should be compelled to conform to the public religion, by penalties or otherwise; and that such as professed faith in God by Jesus Christ, though differing in judgment from the doctrine, worship, or discipline, publicly held forth, should not be restrained from, but shouldbe protected in, the profession of their faith and exercise of their religion, so as they abused not that liberty to the civil injury of others, and to the actual disturbance of the public peace.[110]
An exception was made to the prejudice of “popery” and “prelacy,” which would be generally regarded, by the Independents of the present day, as equally unjustifiable and needless.
Formation of the Independent church at Beccles—Probable covenant—Earliest members—John Clarke—Baptists—Robert Ottee; made pastor—Deacons chosen—First administration of the Lord’s supper and baptism—Prudential arrangements—Day of thanksgiving—Singing introduced—Prophesyings—Savoy conference—Interruption of the record—Act of Uniformity—Mr. Ottee continues his ministry; his death; posthumous work; opinions and character—Meeting-house—Communion plate.
Theformation of an Independent church at Beccles naturally followed from the course of events sketched in the preceding chapters. The sufferings of the martyrs, the puritans, and the Brownists, had preserved the leaven of christian freedom; and the political circumstances of the times combined with the fostering aid of the Norwich and Yarmouth churches, to encourage its manifestation, and to promote its diffusion. Upon those models several christian societieswere formed, in various towns of Norfolk and Suffolk, during the years 1652 and 1653.[112a]Beccles took the lead. The church book opens with the following record:—
“The 6th day of ye fifth month, com’only called July, 1652.”[112b]“The names of such persons whoe have covenanted togither to walke yeof Christ according to Gospell Order, wthan account of such matters as haue occurred in yeChurch att Beccles.“In yeday & yeare above written, these following p’sons joyned in covenant[112c]togitherunder yevisible Regiment[113]of Christ, according to yeGospell, vz. Joh. Clarke, James King, jun Robt. Ottey, Edm. Nevill, Joh. Morse, Willm. Cutlove, Edm. Artis, Robt. Horne, Joh. Botswaine.”
“The 6th day of ye fifth month, com’only called July, 1652.”[112b]
“The names of such persons whoe have covenanted togither to walke yeof Christ according to Gospell Order, wthan account of such matters as haue occurred in yeChurch att Beccles.
“In yeday & yeare above written, these following p’sons joyned in covenant[112c]togitherunder yevisible Regiment[113]of Christ, according to yeGospell, vz. Joh. Clarke, James King, jun Robt. Ottey, Edm. Nevill, Joh. Morse, Willm. Cutlove, Edm. Artis, Robt. Horne, Joh. Botswaine.”
Although this mutual engagement was all that was essential to the formation of a church of Christ, yet on an occasion so deeply interesting, and fraught with consequences so momentous, it was natural that the brethren elsewhere should be requested to add their approval, their counsel, and their prayers. In the Congregational church book at Norwich, a letter is stated to have been “received from the Christians at Beckles, by which they signified their intention to gather into church fellowship,” and desired that church would “send messengers to be there upon the 23. of July, 1652.” Daniel Bradford, James Gooding, and Samuel Clarke, were selected for this service.
The first of these three individuals had been “employed in the army,” when the Yarmouthchurch was formed, and was afterwards a deacon at Norwich. The other two appear to have been among Mr. Bridge’s companions in exile, and to have returned with him.[114a]Doubtless they were men whose zeal was chastened by experience and discretion, and whose piety had stood the tests of time and persecution.
It was usual with the early Independents, at the formation of their churches, to sign an agreement, or covenant, expressive of their objects in thus associating, and pledging themselves to the faithful performance of the duties devolving upon them as church members.[114b]On the formation of their first church at Norwich, theircovenantwas read aloud by one, and then subscribed by all the brethren.
That document, since it is highly probable that, at least in substance, it was adopted on the gathering of the church at Beccles, shall now be laid before the reader. It displays a noble solemnity and simplicity, connected with a candour and sense of fallibility, which have been justlydescribed as “extremely graceful and evangelical.”[115]
“It is manifest by God’s word, that God alwaies was pleased to walke in a way of couenant with his people knitt together in a visible church estate, He promising to be their God, and they promising to be his people, separated from the world and the pollutions thereof as may appeare therein.“Wee therefore, whose names are subscribed, being desirous (in the feare of God) to worship and serve Him according to his reuealed will, and beleeving it to be our duty to walke in a way of church couenant, doe freely and solemnly couenant with the Lord and one another, in the presence of his saints and angells—“1. That we will forever acknowledge and avouch the Lord to be our God in Christ Jesus, giuing up ourselves to Him, to be his people.“2. That we will alwaies endeuour, through the grace of God assisting us, to walke in all his waies and ordinances,according to his written word,which is the onely sufficient rule ofgood life for euery man. Neither will we suffer ourselues to be polluted by any sinfull waies, either publike or priuate, but endeauour to abstaine from the uery appearance of euill, giuing no offence to the Jew or gentile, or the churches of Christ.“3. That we will humbly and willingly submit ourselues to the gouernment of Christ in this church, in the administration of the word, the seales, and discipline.“4. That we will, in all loue, improve our com’union as brethren, by watching ouer one another, and (as need shalbe) counsell, admonish, reproue, comfort, releeve, assist, and beare with one another, seruing one another in loue.“5. Lastly, we doe not couenant or promise these things in our owne, but in Christ’s strength; neither doe we confine ourselues to the words of this couenant,but shall at all tymes account it our duty to embrace any further light or trueth which shalbe reuealed to us out of God’s word.”[116]
“It is manifest by God’s word, that God alwaies was pleased to walke in a way of couenant with his people knitt together in a visible church estate, He promising to be their God, and they promising to be his people, separated from the world and the pollutions thereof as may appeare therein.
“Wee therefore, whose names are subscribed, being desirous (in the feare of God) to worship and serve Him according to his reuealed will, and beleeving it to be our duty to walke in a way of church couenant, doe freely and solemnly couenant with the Lord and one another, in the presence of his saints and angells—
“1. That we will forever acknowledge and avouch the Lord to be our God in Christ Jesus, giuing up ourselves to Him, to be his people.
“2. That we will alwaies endeuour, through the grace of God assisting us, to walke in all his waies and ordinances,according to his written word,which is the onely sufficient rule ofgood life for euery man. Neither will we suffer ourselues to be polluted by any sinfull waies, either publike or priuate, but endeauour to abstaine from the uery appearance of euill, giuing no offence to the Jew or gentile, or the churches of Christ.
“3. That we will humbly and willingly submit ourselues to the gouernment of Christ in this church, in the administration of the word, the seales, and discipline.
“4. That we will, in all loue, improve our com’union as brethren, by watching ouer one another, and (as need shalbe) counsell, admonish, reproue, comfort, releeve, assist, and beare with one another, seruing one another in loue.
“5. Lastly, we doe not couenant or promise these things in our owne, but in Christ’s strength; neither doe we confine ourselues to the words of this couenant,but shall at all tymes account it our duty to embrace any further light or trueth which shalbe reuealed to us out of God’s word.”[116]
Such was the spirit, if not the letter, of themutual engagement into which they entered, who introduced into the town of Beccles the Independent form of church government.
Within twelve months from the formation of the church, twenty-one other persons had joined. The first of these was Mr. Joseph Cutlove, who appears to have been, at the same time, portreeve of the Corporation of Beccles, and to have had some influential friends among the members of the long parliament.[117]Amongst the namesis also that of “Humphry Brewster,” one of the truly honourable family to whom belonged the hall and manors of Wrentham, and who, for many years, greatly encouraged and supported the dissenting interest there.[118a]And “Francis Hayloucke,” subsequently a deacon of the church.
During the above period there was no recognised pastor. But in the year 1653, occurs this memorandum:—
“29 d. 5 m. com’only called July.A pastor was chosen.”
“29 d. 5 m. com’only called July.
A pastor was chosen.”
Who this was is rather uncertain; perhapsMr. John Clark.
He seems to have been a minister in the established church, for in the parochial register, under the years 1647 and 1648, are recorded the baptisms of two sons of “John Clark, minister, and of Ann his wife.”[118b]It is also observablethat his name is the first enrolled on the list of members of the Independent church. And among the individuals subsequently admitted, was “Anna” his wife; which serves to identify him with the person mentioned in the parish register.
He does not appear to have engaged fully in the performance of pastoral duties. Perhaps he had a lingering preference for the establishment, although the peculiar circumstances of the times, after the death of Charles the first, induced him to unite with other serious persons in church fellowship. Dr. Walker states that he got possession of the living of Beccles in 1655.[119]This he might be enabled to accomplish when Cromwell, in order that the Presbyterians might not fill all the livings with persons of their persuasion, appointed, by an ordinance in council,commissioners, partly selected from the Independent denomination, to examine all persons seeking admission to benefices.[120]