Who were the Nonconformists in church history?

The Homilies, Prayer Book and Catechism are again introduced, and England is once more a Protestant country. The queen is now head of the church. Certain rules are made, even as to the gowns to be worn, and the queen being very resolute no deviation is allowed. It was indeed sad to see the church of England, only just free from a dreadful persecution under Queen Mary, now split up by internal quarrels — and those quarrels in many cases about the colour and shape of a preaching gown! But man likes to use his authority. The queen was now head of the church, and head she would be.

Many felt that though the dress of the clergy was made the war-cry, deeper principles lay at the root of the differences. England professed to be Protestant, but was only half reformed, as they judged, and therefore when the Act of Uniformity was passed in 1562, many declared they could not conform, and this gave rise to the name of "Non-conformists" (though this name was not formally adopted till long afterwards), or as they were called by the queen's party, "Puritans," a term of reproach because they were judged to be over-nice or purer than need be. Many of the clergy threw up their livings, and endeavoured to meet privately. But these meetings were forbidden. Some were imprisoned, and others fled to the continent.

"Among the first," says Marsden, "who introduced into England the controversy which soon afterwards ripened into Puritanism, was the martyr, bishop Hooper. He had lived some time abroad, and was the friend of Bullinger and Gualter-the two leaders of the Protestant cause in Germany and Switzerland. Returning from his exile in the days of Edward VI., his piety and talents were at once appreciated, and he was nominated to the see of Gloucester. But his conscience was embarrassed; and in his person a contest began, which has never since been stilled. He demurred to the robes in which the episcopal investiture usually took place." Hooper, with many of the exiles, had contracted a love for the severely simple style of worship which existed in the Reformed churches on the Continent, and led them to complain that the Reformation in England was left in an imperfect state: many abuses, both in worship and discipline, being still retained.

Hooper begged to decline the bishopric, or be admitted without the usual ceremonials. Through the influence of Peter Martyr and Bucer, then professors of divinity at Oxford and Cambridge, he at length consented to use the vestments at his consecration, and to preach in them, once at least, before the court. It is not certain that he ever wore them afterwards. But the controversy was now begun; the elevated position of Hooper and his popular eloquence kept it alive. Some of the greatest names in the church of England of that day became friendly to the Reform pleaded for by the Puritans. Many refused to be consecrated in robes worn by the bishops of the church of Rome, and which they regarded as the badge of Antichrist. Elizabeth, though opposed to popery, was resolved, notwithstanding, to retain as much show and pomp in religious matters as might be possible. From this time the court party and the Puritan party became more decidedly opposed to each other. An order was issued by the queen, that exact uniformity should be maintained in all external rites and ceremonies. This was followed by another, requiring immediate uniformity in the vestments on pain of prohibition from preaching and deprivation from office. Matters were now brought to a crisis; multitudes of godly ministers were ejected from their churches, and forbidden to preach anywhere else. All hopes of further reform in the church being now at an end, the suspended ministers formed themselves into a body distinct from the church of England, which they regarded as only half reformed. Elizabeth was enraged, and threatened them with her royal displeasure; but in the face of persecution the Puritans, or Nonconformists, as they were now sometimes called, rapidly increased. The famous Thomas Cartwright, with three hundred more, threw off their surplices in one day within the walls of one college.*

There were many godly men who felt that even when commanded by the king they must not, dared not, disobey God. These soon became known as Nonconformists. Among them John Bunyan was perhaps one of the best known in Bedford and the neighbourhood. For five or six years he had been preaching the gospel; God had blessed his labours, and many persons had been led to a saving knowledge of Christ.

Puritanism, properly so-called, became extinct under the Commonwealth. The vestments being generally laid aside, the ground of contention was removed. But the later Puritans went farther than the Hoopers and Cartwrights, and contended not only against the forms and vestments, but against the constitution of the Church of England; and these immediately became two great parties-PRESBYTERIANS AND INDEPENDENTS.

Still this did not heal matters. There was a large and increasing number who could not conform, and these banded themselves in any way they were able. But more stringent measures were taken by parliament. Heavy fines and imprisonment were inflicted on those who absented themselves from the places where "common prayer is said according to the Act of Uniformity."

This made many of the Puritans the more resolute. Nearly all had heretofore gone to the Established church for the Lord's supper; but now they entirely separated, and began to meet in congregations anyhow they could. This gave rise to the name "Congregationalists." Others viewed themselves now as independent of the Established church, and thus arose the name "Independents." Heavy fines and imprisonments followed these actions. The parliament endeavoured to lessen these severities; but the queen was not to be moved. She was head of the church and would have conformity at all cost.

After the restoration of Charles II. prelacy was restored with all its popish ceremonials. On May 19, 1662, the following act was passed: "That all who had not received episcopal ordination should be re-ordained by bishops. That every minister should, on or before the 24th of August following, declare his unfeigned assent and consent to everything contained in the Book of Common Prayer, on pain of being deprived of his benefice," etc. "The dreaded day arrived. Great anxiety was felt as to whether the Reformation was to stand or fall in England. But the grace of God triumphed, and the enemy was defeated. Two thousand ministers, rather than submit to the act of uniformity, surrendered their livings, and left their parsonages. Thus were the most faithful and able ministers of the church of England cast out, ignominiously reduced to great poverty, and provoked by spiteful usage."-Burnet.

Let us distinguish things that differ. The English Establishment, in spite of many and grave drawbacks, had a holy object in its rise, turning its back as it did on an abominable and ever swelling imposture. Though much hindered, especially by the king, in its work of clearing itself from many inveterate superstitions, it honestly set its face against what was known to be evil. But it retrograded afterward, until its ritualistic observances being made a test forced out many pious nonconformists, whose origin thus was morally respectable and godly. For it was no mean struggle in those days to keep a good conscience, and to stand opposed to those who were dragging them down into formalism. We need not speak of the Wesley and Whitfield movement, which was in main missionary, not ecclesiastical. We know later on, how powerfully God wrought in awakening His children fifty years ago to a sense of the departure that had taken place from the original ground of keeping the unity of the Spirit. In such days it was no small thing to recognise that there is such a reality on earth as the presence of the Holy Ghost, and consequently the body of Christ. Hence, if members of that body, it is our inalienable duty to keep that unity in its true character, whilst subject to the conditions which the Lord has laid down in His word, and to none other. The Spirit has created that unity, a unity which takes in all members of Christ's body, excepting those whom discipline according to the word requires us to reject.

Let us distinguish things that differ. The English Establishment, in spite of many and grave drawbacks, had a holy object in its rise, turning its back as it did on an abominable and ever swelling imposture. Though much hindered, especially by the king, in its work of clearing itself from many inveterate superstitions, it honestly set its face against what was known to be evil. But it retrograded afterward, until its ritualistic observances being made a test forced out many pious nonconformists whose origin thus was morally respectable and godly. For it was no mean struggle in those days to keep a good conscience, and to stand opposed to those who were dragging them down into formalism. We need not speak of the Wesley and Whitfield movement, which was in main missionary not ecclesiastical. We know later on, how powerfully God wrought in awakening His children fifty years ago to a sense of the departure that had taken place from the original ground of keeping the unity of the Spirit. In such days it was no small thing to recognise that there is such a reality on earth as the presence of the Holy Ghost, and consequently the body of Christ. Hence, if members of that body, it is our inalienable duty to keep that unity in its true character, whilst subject to the conditions which the Lord has laid down in His word, and to none other. The Spirit has created that unity, a unity which takes in all members of Christ's body, excepting those whom discipline according to the word requires us to reject.

On regaining his liberty he continued his charge at St. Stephen's until the passing of the Act of Uniformity in 1662. By this intolerant Act upwards of two thousand clergy were driven from their parishes; among them the wisest and most godly in the land. For conscience' sake the greater part of these ejected ministers had, henceforth, to face poverty and reproach, suffering and trial.

Thomas Watson was one of the London ejected ministers. His touching farewell address is still extant. The closing paragraph is worth quoting:

"The hour is come wherein the sun is setting on not a few of the prophets: our work seems to be at an end; our pulpits and places must know us no more. You are not ignorant what things there are imposed on us as the condition of our continuing our ministration. I must profess before God, angels, and men, that my non-submission is not from any disloyalty to authority or any factious disposition, but because I dare not do anything concerning which my heart tells me the Lord says, 'Do it not.' I feel I must part with my conscience or with my ministry. I choose, therefore, that my ministry be sealed up by my sufferings, rather than be lengthened out by a lie; but I shall, through the grace of God, endeavour patiently and peaceably to suffer as a Christian. And now welcome the cross of Christ; welcome reproach; welcome poverty, scorn, and contempt, or whatever may befall me. This morning I had a flock and you had a pastor, but now behold a pastor without a flock, and a flock without a shepherd! This morning, I had a house, now I have none. This morning, I had a living, now I have none: 'The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord.' And thus, brethren, I bid you all farewell. 'Finally, brethren, farewell.'"

137 It is often said, Can you not acquiesce in what these saints shed their blood for? My answer is, they shed their blood for no such thing, but remonstrated against these things, and secular authority alone enforced them. It is but an example, how the piety of good men becomes continuing sanction for any evil they continue in, and so the snare of Satan; as the piety of Fénelon, Pascal, Arnauld, and De Sacy, is used as an authority for continuance in the Roman-catholic church system: and what is more, the editor's friend, Baxter, in his day (having in vain endeavoured to get them altered, much as he disliked separation and thought it an evil to separate) did separate, when these things were enforced by an Act of Parliament, and with him between one thousand five hundred and two thousand godly ministers, who all left their cures, rather than acquiesce in the things, dissatisfaction at which is now sneered at as the sign of a morbid conscience. I do not doubt that the editor and his friends are much better and wiser than these men, these separatists, whose piety however they are generally content to feed on and to minister for the present food of the Church. But how comes it, if this same Baxter was so averse to separation, he felt it necessary to separate, when these things which constitute the uniformity of the Church of England were imposed? Or will the editor allow me to ask, is it honest to adduce Baxter as an enemy to separation in his day, when Baxter did actually separate because the things objected to now were insisted on? The editor should remember, that the Church of England had ceased to be "a hierarchy inconsistent with the progress of the Gospel" when Baxter objected to separation, but when it was, he separated from it - got, I suppose, a morbid conscience, along with the hundreds of fellow ministers, for which they were fools enough, many of them, to beg their bread with their families. Morbid consciences are very troublesome things sometimes easy consciences very seldom. There is a day coming in which they may be more occasion of sorrow.