The Reformed Church of England acknowledged the right of private judgment in theory, but ignored it in practice. The Puritans, on the other hand, carried it out to its legitimate consequences; and Milton, their great champion, advocated absolute freedom of thought and speech as the birthright of every man. No doubt Puritanism ran into some excesses of bigotry and intolerance, but it was an intolerant age. Puritanism, however, preserved civil and religious liberty and the right of private judgment, and perpetuated that right to all sects and classes of the nation. Puritanism has been charged with the sin of schism, but the early reformers were forced into it by persecution for conscientious scruples respecting points of doctrine and discipline. William Bridge, Asty, Allen, Cromwell, and Fynch, all were thrown out of their livings by the Act of Uniformity, and became Nonconformist ministers in Norwich. Without any conference the question put to them was, “_Will you upon oath conform_?” The answer was, “We cannot.” Immediate expulsion followed. Where, then, was the sin of schism? Their sin would have been in conformity. They would have proved to the world that they were mere hirelings, like the “Vicar of Bray,” who changed his religion to please the reigning sovereign of the day. Bridge, returning with some others to his native county, founded the first Independent church at Yarmouth about 1642. A year later the church at Norwich was formed into a distinct body. They met at first in a brew-house in St. Edmund’s, afterwards in the refectory over the cloisters in the convent formerly belonging to the Black Friars.
We shall now briefly advert to the rise of the Nonconformist religious denominations in this city, and quote a passage from a discourse by the Rev. A. Reed, delivered at the Old Meeting House, Norwich, on February 27th, 1842, on the occasion of the second centenary. He said,—
“There is no doubt that in or about 1641 many refugees returned to their homes in Norwich, Yarmouth, and other places. Those who returned to the two former localities had been united together in fellowship with the church at Rotterdam. They earnestly desired that, as they had been companions in suffering, they might not cease to form one church. The difficulty was where to fix the joint society. Norwich offered liberty and opportunity. But the proximity of Yarmouth to the sea was desirable for safety. Early in 1642 they met, probably in Norwich, to discuss the point; and agreed to send to Rotterdam for leave to gather in fellowship here. The assent reached them in the autumn, authorizing them to form a church at Norwich or other place. On November 23rd, 1642, they met to form a church. Most of the members’ names, twelve in all, we find afterwards attached to the Norwich covenant. They did not settle the question of place at this meeting. The Yarmouth church book records a resolution to fix the church at Norwich for the present. They met again for this purpose, and the brethren at Norwich, out of an earnest desire to finish the work of incorporating a church, yielded that the church meetings (i.e. ordinances and meetings for admission of members) should be for the present at Yarmouth. The church was to settle with all convenient speed where most liberty and opportunity appeared, and wherever the increase of the church was greatest; but none of them were required to remove their habitations at present. Soon after this agreement, however, the Norwich brethren find these concessions too inconvenient; they beg that the church may be settled at Norwich, and that the Yarmouth people would remove to the city. At length they consent reluctantly to part company, and a separate church is formed at Norwich. But the materials for the society already existed, and owing to these facts, the early date of 1642 appears to me to belong as much to us as to our sister society at Yarmouth.”