Queen Elizabeth, an intolerant protestant; her measures—Rise of the
puritans; their views and position; persecuted; instances in eastern
counties—Account of the “prophesyings;” suppressed by the queen—Continued
cruelty—Norfolk and Suffolk petitions—Whitgift’s articles—New commission
granted—Aylmer—Puritan clergy summoned to London—William Fleming, rector
of Beccles; his connexion with corporation differences; testimony to his
worth arising out of them; summoned; deprived of the living—Honourable
record of his interment—Justifiableness of his nonconformity.
THE accession of Elizabeth, once more, revived the hearts of the
reformers. Her personal character, indeed, afforded no hope of her being
favourable to freedom, though her parentage and education led to the
reasonable expectation that she would encourage protestantism. Of all
that was safe to be believed and fit to be practised, she deemed herself
the competent and supreme judge. Regarding the privilege of dissenting
from the state religion as part of her prerogative, she exercised that
right herself, and then sternly denied it, alike to the learned and the
rude, the conscientious and the careless, among her subjects. Her
proclamation prohibited all preaching, until consultation should be had
by parliament. In that assembly she was no less absolute than elsewhere.
The supremacy of the church of England was again vested in the crown, and
a statute {54} passed which was designed to establish uniformity in
religion, and required all persons, having no lawful or reasonable
excuse, to resort to their parish churches, every Sunday, and on all
holidays.
Under the authority of the Act of Supremacy, a court was erected, called
the court of High Commission, which took cognizance of religious matters,
without the aid of a jury. The liturgy was revised, and rendered more
palatable to the papists. The clergy were required to comply with all
the queen’s injunctions, and at their entrance on their cures, publicly
to assent to a declaration of articles of religion, drawn up by the
bishops.
Previously to this period, the contest between catholicism and the
reformed faith had absorbed all minor differences of opinion. But the
frequent changes of the national creed, induced many to consult the Bible
for themselves, in order to ascertain its testimony as to faith and
discipline. It was impossible the humblest capacity should not perceive
that, had it been a part of Christian duty, to conform to the religion
patronised and established by the state, that duty had been equally
imperative in every successive reign. He whose life had been spared for
half a century, must, unless there had been a strange vacillation in his
opinions, or, at least, in his professions, have been very fortunate to
have escaped the doom of an obstinate heretic.
The _exiles_ of previous reigns had awaked to the perception of the great
truth, that no human authority could deprive them of the right, or
discharge them from the obligation, of seeking after God and his true
worship. Some of them, availing themselves of the liberty they enjoyed
upon the continent, had introduced what they deemed a purer, because a
more scriptural, form of worship, than had yet been used in England.
Returning to their native country on the accession of Elizabeth, they
found her little disposed to co-operate with them in carrying on the
reformation. A large portion of the clergy desired that the services of
religion should be retained as near as possible to the popish form; and
those who were favourable to religious liberty, or contended for further
purification of the service book from the dregs of superstition, received
the contemptuous but honourable name of _puritans_. These questioned not
the propriety of a secular establishment of Christianity; but they
objected to wearing the popish vestments, and to various ceremonies
derived from the same source. {56} They disapproved of some things in
the public liturgy, of church festivals, pluralities, non-residence, and
lay patrons; they complained of the want of godly discipline, and desired
to bring both the faith and polity of the state religion to the test of
Scripture. {57} They were eminent for piety and devotedness to the cause
of Christ. To say that their views of religious liberty were confused
and inconsistent, and that they were themselves intolerant in their
temper and conduct, is only to admit that they did not shake off, at the
first effort, all the errors of the times in which they lived, and that
their course, if it was firm and daring, was not precipitate or
impetuous. They were for going fearlessly as far in the path of
improvement as they could perceive that the inspired volume invited them:
and with a moral magnanimity of which their persecutors dreaded the
effect, they bared their souls before God, desiring to receive “ampler
communications and superior light.”
Puritanism constituted a sanctuary in which the sacred rights of
conscience were preserved and propagated, while the high church party had
forgotten and forsaken the ground on which alone a departure from the
papal authority could be maintained. The puritans occupy an intermediate
position, between the first adherents to protestant popery, and the more
enlightened nonconformists of the succeeding century.
They were soon compelled to supply a test of their sincerity in the
sacrifices they made. He who omitted _one_ of the most unimportant of
the enjoined ceremonies, was deemed “guilty of all.” The most exemplary
ministers were silenced; while the profane and the unprincipled were
beneficed, upon the sole ground of their unqualified conformity.
Among many who were suspended in Norfolk and Suffolk, may be mentioned
Mr. Lawrence, an eminent divine, who had been beneficed in the latter
county. When Mr. Calthorpe, “a gentleman of quality,” interposed in his
behalf, urging the great want the church had of such men as Mr. Lawrence,
whose fitness for his work, he said, the chief men of credit in the
county would certify, the bishop pleaded that the queen required him to
allow of no ministers but such as were perfectly conformable. {59a}
Dr. Crick and Mr. Sanderson, two learned and useful ministers in Norfolk,
and many others in the diocese of Norwich, refusing conformity, were
prosecuted in the ecclesiastical courts. {59b}
Some of the bishops, {59c} however, sanctioned their clergy in setting up
religious exercises among themselves, for the promotion of discipline and
the dissemination of scriptural knowledge. These were called
_prophesyings_, from the apostolic sentiment, “Ye may all prophesy, one
by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.” {59d} They
furnish the original of similar discussions held, at a subsequent period,
among the Brownists, and of which some traces are found in the
Independent Church at Beccles soon after its formation.
The clergy who attended these meetings spoke in succession upon the
interpretation of a given passage of Scripture, and conferred respecting
sound doctrine and a good life. Their names were written in a table, and
three took part in each exercise. The first opened and closed the
meeting with prayer, and gave his explanation of the text. The other two
added any further explanation of the subject and stated their objections.
At the close of each meeting, the next speaker was appointed and his
subject fixed upon. Those who joined in these “prophesyings” signed, on
being admitted, a confession, to the effect that they believed the word
of God to be a perfect rule of faith and manners; that it ought to be
read and known by all; that its authority not only exceeded that of the
pope but of the church also; that they condemned, as a tyrannous yoke,
such articles of faith and fashions of serving God as men had enjoined
without the authority of his word. “And to this word of God (said they)
we humbly submit ourselves and all our doings, willing and ready to be
judged, reformed, or further instructed thereby in all points of
religion.” {60}
The utility of these grave debates early introduced them into the eastern
counties, where they were encouraged by Bishop Parkhurst, till he
received a reprimand from the queen, who insisted upon their suppression
as “no better than seminaries of puritanism.”
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 ministry for 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 the _vulgar 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 her communication 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, was condemned 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, where any 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 any
_power_, _ecclesiastical_ or 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 that _he 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 believeth _all the articles_ therein contained _to 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 was Aylmer, 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.”
But it was enough to extort from him an admission that he had, in any
_one 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, or _any thing_ therein contained, as being
unscriptural or _inconvenient_;—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, was WILLIAM 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 to
principle 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 the _then existing_ state of things, to
preclude the evils of either 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 be _of
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 eny
good 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 to reside 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 conscious of 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 ye ministery 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 embraced and
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
protestant _dissenting_ ministry 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 its
_origin_, 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’s _ecclesiastical_ supremacy; and to declare that
the authorized ritual contained NOTHING contrary to the word of God; that
he would use it _and none other_ in the public service; and that he
believed ALL the 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 nothing is 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 the surplice,
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, to which 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 the _explanation_
therein 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 be _regenerated_, and to return thanks
to God for so great a blessing. And he might think the doctrine
obviously implied in that 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 “generally _necessary_ to 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, conscience might 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 certain_ hope” 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 contained _nothing_ contrary to the word
of God.
Again: one of the Thirty-nine Articles expressly affirmed that “Christ
went down into hell.” 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 with _flesh_, _bones_, and all things appertaining to the
perfection of man’s nature; wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there
sitteth _until_ he return _to judge_ all 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, and weakness, 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 that _penitence_, 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 comprised therein 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 to _any_ human 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 contained in 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 charge does
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, _must_ be a
sinner, on whichever side he stands; a separatist _may_ be 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.