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.