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.
THE early 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 with those 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 of believers 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 opinions which 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 enlightened statesman 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 the _millenary_ petition) 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 supplied _seventy-one_,
while the highest number from any other county was fifty-seven. {92c}
The petitioners learned the fate of their application, when at the
conclusion of 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 conversation of 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 consequently _independent_ of 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 sentiments a yet nobler origin, they have
preferred to be designated by the terms _Congregational_ or
_Independent_; 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 discourse with 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, ’tis an article in your church covenant, that you be
_ready 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}
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 make known 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 called
_The 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 to _use_ them.” 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 any _lawful_ recreation,
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 high
commission 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 should be 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 writ _de 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, desired to
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 it
was 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
receiving back 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 should be 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.