Chapter IV

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.