Transcribed from the 1837 Jackson and Walford edition by David Price,
email ccx074@pglaf.org
[Picture: Independent Chapel, Beccles]
BRIEF RECORDS
OF THE
INDEPENDENT CHURCH,
AT
BECCLES, SUFFOLK;
INCLUDING BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICES OF ITS MINISTERS, AND
SOME ACCOUNT OF THE RISE OF NONCONFORMITY
IN THE EAST ANGLIAN COUNTIES.
* * * * *
BY
SAMUEL WILTON RIX.
* * * * *
LONDON:
JACKSON AND WALFORD, 18, ST. PAUL’S CHURCHYARD.
M DCCC XXXVII.
* * * * *
“The churches in those early times were entirely Independent; none of
them subject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each one governed by
its own rulers and its own laws.”
MOSHEIM, Cent. I.
“Indeed this way of examining all things by the Word . . . is a
course I would admonish all to beware of who would avoid the danger
of being made Independents.”
OWEN ON SCHISM.
* * * * *
WILLIAM LENNY, PRINTER, BECCLES.
* * * * *
THE FOLLOWING PAGES
ARE INSCRIBED
TO THE YOUNG PERSONS
OF THE INDEPENDENT CHURCH AND CONGREGATION
AT BECCLES.
* * * * *
PREFACE.
MANY months ago, I was favoured with a perusal of the earliest records of
the Independent church at Beccles. An interest in the subject once
excited, I went on to collect such other materials for its history as
fell in my way: and the re-opening of its place of worship, after
considerable alteration, appeared a suitable time for offering these
records to notice, in a permanent and connected form.
Publications of dissenting church history have not usually received
extensive encouragement. That circumstance is, I believe, chiefly
attributable to the anxiety of dissenting ministers and parents, in
general, to inculcate and maintain the principles of personal religion,
rather than the peculiarities of nonconformity. A just preference,
unquestionably,—but which has betrayed many into a neglect of topics
immensely, though not supremely, important. The youth of dissenting
families too frequently grow up in ignorance of any other reason for
their nonconformity than parental example. The natural result is, that
“by and by, when persecution ariseth,” or when fashion, or emolument, or
the attractive pomp of the national worship, allures, they forsake the
ground which their ancestors maintained at the peril of liberty, and of
life itself.
Viewed in this light, the prevalent disregard of such subjects becomes a
powerful inducement to invite attention to them. Nor am I altogether
without hope that local associations and attachments, may, in the present
instance, be subservient to such a purpose. At all events, I am desirous
that my humble compilation should not be regarded as a _mere_ depository
of what is curious; but should tend to encourage a thoughtful and candid
investigation of the history and principles of nonconformity, as they are
developed in works of wider interest and higher literary pretensions.
{vi}
Hence I have been induced to sketch at some length, though, I am aware,
very imperfectly, the rise of nonconformity in the East Anglian
counties,—a topic which deserves to be separately discussed, with the
aids of extensive knowledge and ample leisure.
The value of such a book as this greatly depends upon its accuracy and
fidelity. At the same time it must be recollected, that general
inferences cannot be deduced from isolated facts. The cause of
nonconformity, if it be the cause of truth, will not ultimately suffer
from the most candid development of its local history.
I do not know that what I have written can justly give offence to an
individual of any communion. There is high ecclesiastical authority
{vii} for the sentiment, that “whatever moderation or charity we may owe
to men’s persons, we owe none at all to their errors, or to that frame
which is built on and supported by them.”
I must not omit to acknowledge the assistance I have received from
several ministers and other friends; especially the Rev. Edward Hickman,
of Denton, to whom I am indebted for material aid in compiling the
account of his intimate and lamented friend, Mr. Sloper.
My express thanks are also due to the Rev. Dr. Owen, Rector of Beccles,
for the readiness and courtesy with which he allowed me to inspect the
early parochial registers in his possession.
S. W. R.
BECCLES,
_March_ 11_th_, 1837.
CHAPTER I.
Antiquity of dissent from state religions—Leading principles of modern
nonconformity: authority of Christ; sufficiency of the Scriptures; duty
of examining and privilege of interpreting their contents—Right of
private judgment claimed by its enemies—Position and duty of those by
whom it is conceded—Illustrations from English ecclesiastical
history—This right asserted by the first converts to Christianity; by the
reformers—Henry VIII.—Edward VI.—Mary; seeks support from Suffolk
protestants; promises toleration; practices persecution—East Anglian
counties abound with protestants; they petition the queen; are rebuked;
and remonstrate with her commissioners in vain.
IT has been remarked by Lord Bacon, that “those times are ancient when
the world is ancient, and not those we vulgarly account so, by counting
backwards: so that the present time is the real antiquity.” Modern
institutions are not hastily to be rejected as impertinent or crude; for
they are frequently found to exhibit the successful result of a
protracted struggle between truth and error, or to imbody the accumulated
wisdom of many generations. But if it be contended that, in speculations
relating to religion, “_quod verum_, _id antiquissimum_,” that antiquity
is the test of truth; they who claim to be free from all human authority
in religious affairs, need not shrink from the application of such a
principle. The origin of dissent from “the commandments of men,” on such
subjects, must be sought at a period far more remote than the rise of
Independent Churches in England. Under the Old Testament dispensation,
nonconformity, thus understood, was nobly exemplified and divinely
sanctioned in the instances of Daniel, and the three Hebrew youths.
During the apostolic times its course was distinctly marked. It has
since mingled with the impurities, and has sometimes been almost lost
amid the intellectual and moral stagnation, of passing ages. At length
opposing elements again brought it more conspicuously into notice:
obstruction augmented the rapidity of its current; and it will flow on
until it shall be lost in the ocean of piety and freedom, which is
destined to cover the whole earth.
The leading principle of nonconformity, as the term is now generally
employed, to signify a continued separation from the national church of
England, is, the _sole_ authority of Jesus Christ as the head and
lawgiver of his people. This exclusive right he is alleged to have
claimed, when he cautioned his disciples against the assumption of
ecclesiastical power, emphatically reminding them that _One_ was their
master, “even Christ.” {3} A sentiment, which, from the peculiar form of
its announcement, he appears to have intended that they should adopt as a
principle and quote as an axiom of his government. All that _he_ taught
them, they were bound to obey; all that _he_ enjoined, they were to
practise; and he discharged them, by that brief and memorable sentence,
from all spiritual allegiance to each other, and to their fellow-men,
however exalted or wise. Reason, persuasion, the evidence of the sacred
writings, “the effectual fervent prayer,” and the eloquence of a holy
life, these were the weapons he put into their hands, the only weapons
adapted to the genius of his religion and to the nature of man. {4}
From this view of Christ’s authority is derived another principle
scarcely less momentous,—the absolute sufficiency of the sacred
Scriptures, “the word of Christ,” to prescribe the faith and regulate the
practice of his followers. A revelation inadequate to these purposes, it
is generally admitted, would be at once derogatory to God, and a cruel
mockery of erring man. Nor can the perplexity arising out of contending
human powers, and conflicting articles of faith and rules of practice, be
avoided, but by submitting all to one criterion,—“to the law and to the
testimony,”—and by the consideration that “if they speak not according to
this word, it is because there is no light in them.” {5}
The Bible, possessing such claims, addresses itself to every rational
creature with an individuality which none can evade, and fixes upon each
a responsibility which cannot be delegated. Hence there appears (at
least in the apprehension of a nonconformist) to devolve upon every one
to whom the page of revelation is accessible, the sacred and inalienable
right, or rather the imperious and solemn duty, of personally examining
its contents and submitting to its precepts. Since its Author has
commissioned none to dictate its interpretation, he has, in effect,
granted to all a perfect freedom of inquiry and discussion. Nor is it
less a duty than a privilege, to aid, as circumstances may allow, in
elucidating its doctrines and requirements, and in promoting the practice
and the promulgation of such views of religion and forms of worship as an
enlightened conscience may approve. This right alone, it is urged, could
justify “Peter and the other apostles” when they openly disobeyed the
command of the high priest; and, without claiming any special exemption
in their own case, laid down as the ground of their conduct, the general
principle “we ought to obey God rather than men.” {7a} They deduced
their duty from their convictions; and while their enemies “took counsel
to slay them,” they firmly resisted the interference of human authority
between their own consciences and that God who “seeketh such to worship
Him” as “worship Him in spirit and in truth.” {7b} Unhappily there has
not always been found, among persecutors, a Gamaliel to point out the
propriety and the result of allowing the free publication of religious
opinions. “Refrain,” said he, in terms, a due regard to which would have
saved mankind from an inconceivable amount of suffering; “refrain from
these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of
men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it;
lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” {7c}
Nonconformity, then, dates its existence from the time when the secular
power first infringed upon the liberty wherewith Christ had made his
disciples free. It professes to be jealous of _his_ authority, and to
adhere to _his_ laws and institutions. Though ever so palatable or ever
so bitter a draught be presented from another source, it still dares to
draw from the well-spring of truth the waters of everlasting life which
he came to dispense. Whatever, in modes of faith or forms of worship,
may be enjoined by civil or ecclesiastical powers, it prefers “to keep
close to the college of fishermen, and to the doctrine of inspired
apostles; to a Scriptural creed and a spiritual worship.” {8} It claims,
in a word, to be the only _true_ conformity.
The right of private judgment in religious matters, which follows
immediately from the first principles of dissent, has been too generally
denied by the rulers of this world to their subjects. Nevertheless, its
enemies have frequently been constrained to bear a _practical_ testimony
in its favour. Under varying circumstances in our own history, for
instance, this indestructible privilege has been assumed, alternately, by
the christian convert from paganism, by the protestant, and the papist,
again by the reformer, again by the Roman catholic, and, still more
recently, by the puritan, and the dissenter from protestant
establishments. This is the moving power which has caused, and the
unfailing clew which has run through, all these changes, and will only
find its termination in the perfect concord and liberty of the universal
church.
To the truly liberal and candid, it must be a subject of profound regret,
that, for so many ages, no party duly appreciated, or heartily
countenanced, the liberty which each, in turn, asserted. But in
proportion to the sorrow which such a view of ecclesiastical history
occasions, will be the joy, if a gradual though tardy approach to the
full recognition of the rights of conscience can be perceived; and
especially if it be discovered, that there has long existed a numerous
and intelligent portion of the christian world, among whom those rights
have not only been claimed, but generally conceded; not merely assumed to
serve a purpose, but watched and advocated as the invaluable and
inalienable birthright of man. And although it will be admitted as a sad
evidence of human frailty, if intolerance be found lurking even among the
class of persons just referred to, yet, as a body, they ought never, on
that account, to be ranked with those whose principles would lead them to
enthral the conscience within creeds and formularies of man’s devising.
The characteristic views of congregational dissenters, containing the
very elements of freedom, rise up to condemn, with double energy, the
least departure from its laws in _them_. They, assuredly, should be the
last to lord it over the consciences of their fellow-men, who,
themselves, acknowledge in religious affairs, no lawgiver but Christ, and
no directory but the Bible. {10}
A glance at some of the great religious alternations which have occurred
in England, will serve to illustrate the preceding remarks, and, at the
same time, furnish occasion to trace, imperfectly, the origin and
operation of dissenting principles in the locality to which the following
pages are especially devoted. Perhaps it may be found that institutions
which, even by the candid and charitable, are sometimes supposed to have
their foundation in a morbid disaffection towards secular rulers, or at
best, in a too prurient scrupulousness, and to lead to anarchy and
infidelity, are based on nobler principles and tend to happier results.
In various parts of the Roman empire, multitudes were converted by the
instrumentality of the apostles and their successors, and many died in
testimony of their sincerity, and in defence of the right to deviate from
human authorities in their religious creed. All the sanctions of
Christianity were addressed to the reason, the affections, the hopes, and
the fears, of the individual. Appealing from human tribunals to the
commission she had received from the King of kings, she challenged the
soul as the province of her undisputed sway; and the sincere convert to
Jesus Christ felt that he dared not, and could not, had he dared, resign
his faith at the bidding of any mortal.
When Christianity was adopted as the religion of the empire, and the
clergy became wealthy and ambitious, the bishops of Rome assumed a
superiority over their brethren, and announced themselves as possessing
infallible authority in matters of faith. A claim, which, in the
darkness of the middle ages, met with too ready a compliance, and has
strikingly exemplified the fearful consequences of departing from the
plain rules of the New Testament.
During the long reign of popery in England the general perusal of the
Scriptures was prohibited; the services of the sanctuary were enveloped
in a foreign language; a contribution towards the aggrandizement of the
papal see furnished the customary atonement for the worst crimes; and the
extermination of heretics was esteemed the brightest of virtues.
At length Wycliffe appeared;—he urged upon all the study of the
Scriptures as a book “full of authority.” {14}—Luther afterwards
announced himself a dissenter from the established faith. The
reformation was begun in Germany; and the writings of the reformer were
disseminated at home.
Henry the Eighth, on his accession, vainly thought to arrest the growth
of “heresy” by a rigorous execution of penal statutes against the
Lollards or Wycliffites, while he unconsciously surrendered the principle
of infallibility, on which alone the attempt could be justified, by
entering the arena of controversy with Luther. The pope declared that
the royal pen had been guided by inspiration, and rewarded Henry’s zeal
with the title “Defender of the Faith.” So illustrious a controversy
naturally attracted notice; and some were even presuming to compare the
merits of the combatants, when the prince himself shook off the dominion
of the Roman pontiff. But the privilege which, in so doing, he claimed
for himself, he was not prepared to grant to others, though demanded by
them on far worthier grounds. He declared himself “head of the church of
England,” {15a} taking care to explain that office as including “full
power to visit and correct all heresies and other abuses.” Seizing, with
a tyrant’s grasp, the torch which was destined to enlighten the moral
world, he employed it to guard his despotic sway and to kindle the fires
of persecution. {15b} He dissolved the monasteries, whose existence was
inconsistent with the line of policy he had adopted, and whose wealth
furnished a powerful temptation. The reading of the English Bible in
churches was prohibited, as well as its perusal by women, artificers, &c.
Spiritual persons maintaining any thing contrary to the king’s
instructions, were to recant or be burned. Nearly all the leading
doctrines of the Romish faith were retained; and papists and protestants
went together to the stake, the former for denying the supremacy, the
latter for questioning the creed, of an arbitrary and vicious monarch.
{16}
On the death of Henry, a brighter era seemed to be dawning. The Bible
had already been published in English, and had become the intelligent
study of many. Edward the Sixth, who succeeded to the throne, and those
by whom his mind was chiefly influenced, were favourable to the
Reformation. The right of private judgment, sanctioned alike by the
example of the prince and the subject, might reasonably have been
expected to receive encouragement, or at least protection. Hence
numerous confessors who had fled to the continent, returned joyfully to
their native land, looking for ameliorated institutions, and perhaps
dreaming of entire liberty.
He who contemplates for the first time, this crisis of religious history,
imagines, like some of the early maritime adventurers, that he is about
to plant his foot upon the soil of truth and freedom; but he speedily
discovers that he is chasing a beautiful illusion, and that many days of
suffering and nights of darkness must intervene before the vision can be
realized.
Edward’s advisers loosened the reins of ecclesiastical authority: they
were unconscious that no mortal should have ever held them. Some
statutes against the Lollards were repealed. An act of parliament was
passed allowing the sacrament to be received by the laity in both kinds,
of bread and wine, whereas the cup had previously been confined to the
priests. Prescribing an improved form of worship, though retaining much
of superstition in deference to the popish party, the legislature
enjoined uniformity in the services and sacraments of religion. {17}
Cranmer was directed to draw up articles, with the delusive expectation
of “rooting out the discord of opinions.” This led to the imprisonment
of many, and even to the burning of some. But Edward’s better judgment
and his tender heart revolted from the infliction of such a punishment.
He is said on one occasion, to have bedewed with tears the warrant which
he reluctantly signed for the execution of the law, and to have told the
archbishop “that if he did wrong, since it was in submission to his
authority, he should answer for it to God.” {18} Among those who dared
to differ from the established faith, were Bonner and Gardiner; and Mary,
the king’s sister. They were incited by protestant persecution, as well
as by their own intolerant principles, to the cruel course by which the
succeeding reign is proverbially distinguished. The princess pronounced
in reply to Edward’s injunctions, at once her own apology and that of her
victims: “Her soul,” she said, “was God’s.”
Mary was at her manor of Keninghall in Norfolk, when consumption carried
off the young and promising king. His regard for the cause of the
reformation had induced him to nominate as his successor the Lady Jane
Grey in preference to Mary, in whose mind the claims of the papacy had
been long identified with the rights of her mother Catharine of Arragon.
Finding her claim to the crown disputed by some of the leading nobles,
Mary sought to engage the commons in her cause. With this view she
“speedeth herself secretly away” (to use the quaint but expressive
language of Fox) “into the North.” She soon learned that the council had
sent out the Duke of Northumberland with an army in support of her rival,
and “tossed with much travel up and down, to work the surest way for her
best advantage, withdrew herself into the quarters of Northfolk and
Suffolk, where she understood the Duke’s name to be had in much hatred
for the service that had been done there of late, under King Edward, in
subduing the rebels; and there gathering to her such aid of the commons
on every side as she might, keeping [kept] herself close for a space
within _Fremingham Castle_. {19} To whom, first of all, resorted the
Suffolk men; who being always forward in promoting the proceedings of the
gospel, promised her their aid and help, so that she would not attempt
the alteration of the religion which her brother King Edward had before
established, by laws and orders publicly enacted and received by the
consent of the whole realm in that behalf. To make the matter short,”
adds the historian, “unto this condition she eftsoons {20a} agreed, with
such promise made unto them that no innovation should be made of
religion, as that no man would or could have misdoubted her. {20b} Which
promise if she had as constantly kept as they did willingly preserve her
with their bodies and weapons, she had done a deed both worthy her blood,
and had also made her reign more stable to herself through future
tranquillity. For though a man be never so puissant of power, yet breach
of promise is an evil upholder of quietness; fear is worse; but cruelty
is the worst of all.” {21a}
Mary no sooner found herself, by “the power of the gospellers,” firmly
seated on the throne, than she qualified the promises she had made them
in the hour of need, declaring, that she would not compel her subjects to
be of her religion, _till public order should be taken in it by common
consent_. {21b} A parliament sufficiently obsequious was assembled; the
laws passed in the preceding reign, in favour of the reformation, were
repealed, the service and sacraments used at the close of the reign of
Henry the Eighth, restored, {22a} and the crown and realm of England
formally reconciled to the papal see. A series of barbarities ensued,
under the alleged sanction of religion, at the recital of which humanity
shudders. The persecutors had been taught in the school of their
victims, and neither party understood the principles of religious
liberty. All the people were required to come to church, where the mass
was revived. {22b} To deny the supremacy of the pope, was once more
become as heinous an offence as it had been to question that of Henry the
Eighth during the latter years of his reign. The dungeon and the faggot
{22c} were the arguments by which erring judgments and tender consciences
were to be restored and comforted. When some members of the convocation
declined subscribing to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the
discussion was terminated with the following conclusive reasoning:
“_You_,” said the prolocutor, “have the _word_, but _we_ have the
_sword_.” {23a} An argument which has not unfrequently been employed in
behalf of a state religion in more enlightened times.
Rogers, the protomartyr of Mary’s short but frightfully sanguinary
career, died because he would acknowledge no head but Christ, of his
catholic church, and no authority above the word of God. {23b} Saunders,
Hooper, Bradford, Latimer, Ridley, and the frail but afterwards repentant
and magnanimous Cranmer, with a multitude of less eminent but equally
honourable and worthy men, expired in the flames, to testify their
attachment to a faith which, three years earlier, their rulers had taught
them to admire and maintain.
Suffolk, and the adjacent maritime counties, had always been the
stronghold of protestantism. Their geographical situation occasioned
considerable intercourse with the continent, where the reformation still
flourished, and whither many were self-exiled for conscience’ sake. At a
much earlier period the Lollards appear to have been numerous in Norfolk;
they had been multiplied by persecution, and by a comparatively extensive
circulation of the writings of the reformers. {24a} Undeterred by the
terrible examples of the queen’s severity, the protestants of Suffolk and
Essex met privately for religious worship. {24b} Great numbers entirely
forsook the public authorized service. At Stoke in Suffolk, there was a
congregation of protestants, so considerable in number and so united in
their views, that the bishops for some time hesitated to interfere. And
at last, when the whole society was required to come to church, they
contrived to escape, leaving their angry diocesan first to suspend, and
then to excommunicate them. {24c}
Every where the protestants had to endure the anxiety attending an
exposure to the vengeance of their enemies, or the privations and
inconveniences of concealment. Indescribably dreadful as the pains of
martyrdom must have been, they were brief in their duration, and their
very bitterness kindled the pity of the spectator and the fortitude of
the victim. Perhaps the total amount of misery which they occasioned,
was overbalanced by the less agonizing, but more protracted and retired,
sufferings of the multitudes who “wandered in deserts, and in mountains,
and in dens, and in caves of the earth,” and “of whom” (with equal truth
it might be affirmed) “the world was not worthy.” The following are,
probably, neither rare nor extreme instances. In the parish of St.
James, near Bungay, there resided a family named Fisk. Of six brothers,
three were protestants. A pursuivant employed to apprehend one of them,
gave him, from motives of personal friendship, a private notice of the
intention to seize him. Whereupon, the good man first called his family
to prayer, and then hastened away to hide himself in a ditch, with his
godly wife and her helpless babe. Another of these brothers was, to
avoid burning, hid many months in a pile of wood; and afterwards, for
half a year, in a cellar, where he diligently employed himself in
profitable manufactures by candlelight; but his many hardships brought on
an excessive bleeding, which shortened his days, and added unto the cry
of the “souls under the altar.” {26a}
Calling to mind their own efforts and the queen’s promise, the Suffolk
protestants ventured to send a deputation to her to represent their
grievances. But, “it was,” as Fox very justly remarks, “an heavy word
that she answered them: ‘Forasmuch,’ saith she, ‘as you, being but
members, desire to rule your head, you shall one day well perceive that
members must obey their head, and not look to bear rule over the same.’”
{26b} One of the deputation having referred to the particular ground on
which they rested their claims, was put in the pillory three days, and
had his ears cut off.
When the queen and council sent commissioners to Norfolk and Suffolk “to
enquire into matters of religion,” a supplication was presented “by some
good and well disposed men dwelling about those parts,” {27} in which
they contended earnestly for the superiority of King Edward’s ritual.
“All our bodies, goods, lands, and lives,” say they, “are ready to do her
Grace faithful obedience and true service of all commandments that are
not against God and his word: but in things that import a denial of
Christ, and refusal of his word and holy communion, we cannot consent nor
agree unto it . . . We think it no true obedience unto the queen’s
highness or to any other magistrate ordained of God under her, to obey in
the things contrary to God’s word, although the same be never so straitly
charged in her Grace’s name . . . We think not good by any unlawful stir
or commotion, to seek remedy . . . But unto such ungodly bishoplike
commandments, as are against God, we answer with the apostles, _God must
be obeyed rather than man_. If persecution shall ensue, (which some
threaten us with,) we desire the heavenly Father, according to his
promise, to look from heaven, to hear our cry, to judge between us and
our adversaries, and to give us faith, strength, and patience, to
continue faithful unto the end, and to shorten these evil days for his
chosen’s sake; and so we faithfully believe he will.”
The queen was alike deaf to reason and regardless of her promise. She
answered the remonstrances of those who reverenced the Scriptures more
than her command, and valued conscience more than life, with the most
fearful torments bigotry and tyranny could inflict. Suffolk furnished
its share of victims. Amongst them were, Dr. Rowland Taylor of Hadleigh,
and three men who suffered in the town, to which the subsequent records
more immediately relate.