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 11th, 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]