of one hundred and fifty-six. Well, the majority was immensely large, but there were a few neuters, which, for a short time, made work for prayer, faith, and patience. God owned the word; many were brought to believe, and unite with the church; and, probably, very few churches have enjoyed a larger measure of peace, love, and happiness than the church in Little Alie-street has done for upwards of forty years. God has blessed us with excellent deacons, men of God, men of prudence, and men of peace. We have loved each other, and striven in harmony to promote the welfare of Zion, each sinking his own private feelings for the good of the whole. "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" But I must here break off, or shall encroach too much upon your врасе. Peace and joy be yours, so Yours affectionately, prays PHILIP DICKERSON. EARLY WITNESSES FOR THE TRUTH IN NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK. (Continued from page 185.) WHAT afterwards became of these thirty poor prisoners of the Lord thus shut up in Yarmouth gaol, history does not record. Probably some of them died in their prison house, whilst others were liberated by their imprisoners, perhaps to be again incarcerated if found again assembled to worship their Lord after their own fashion, and not after the fashion prescribed for them by their priestly persecutors; but the details of the sufferings of such humble followers of the Lamb of God as these are not to be found in annals written by human hands. God, however, who puts the tears of His saints into His bottle, has recorded them in that chronicle which shall be completed and read out at the end of time, when "the books shall be opened," and the secrets of all hearts be revealed. At the period in the history of our country now referred to, it was not only considered and treated as a crime to worship and believe otherwise than as directed by the State Church; but it was also reckoned as an offence to be visited with punishment that comprised the most savage cruelties, to utter protests against the popish and tyrannical prelates then ruling in the said Church. It will be remembered that the period in question was when Archbishop Laud was at the head of ecclesiastical affairs in this country, it being the reign of Charles I. This prelate tried to do in his day what the Ritualists of our day are trying to do, that is, to get as much popery into the land as may be possible to do without recognizing the supremacy of the Pope. When we consider the arrogance of these men, their pretensions and extravagant claims, together with their profane jestings at the doctrine of justification by faith, their unblushing advocacy of popish doctrines in connection with the Lord's Supper, and the mummeries and fooleries set up by them as being all-important matters in the worship of God, the mind is compelled to admit that the doings of Laud are being repeated in the present century, and that at the present time. Happily, however, for us, the priest no longer has the power of the sword at his command, and in that respect, in this country, we need not fear a repetition of the atrocious deeds formerly enacted at the bidding of a persecuting hierarchy. In other respects, however, and to a wonderful extent, considering the rapidity with which the change has come over the land, we are witnesses to the fulfilment of Dr. Gill's prophecy respecting popery again flourishing in this country, which in one form or other it certainly does. One of the atrocious deeds just referred to as being connected with the history of nonconformity in Suffolk is related by Mr. Browne, as showing what fiendish kind of treatment men were, at one time, subject to from their fellow mortals who arrogated to themselves the right of dictating to others the form and manner in which the Majesty of Heaven should be worshipped and His word preached. It arose and was carried out as follows: In the year 1636, there appeared a pamphlet bearing the title," Newes from Ipswich," and purporting to have been printed in that town. It is not certain that it was printed at Ipswich, but its contents related to the popish doings that had been enacted in the diocese of Norwich in general, and some matters of the same kind in particular, that had transpired at Ipswich, in all of which the Norwich bishop (Wren) had been concerned. It contained also a protest against the "detestable practices of the prelates of the day in general, which, indeed, it was the main design of the writer to censure. The "practices" in question included 66 shutting up the mouths of godly preachers, closing the presses against works of truth and piety, encouraging Lord's-day afternoon revellings, and ordering the discontinuance of afternoon sermons on the Lord's-day, that the people might have more time for sport and play on the sacred day." These, certainly, were detestable practices to lay to the charge of professedly Christian bishops. The writer, Mr. William Prynne, a man of great learning, a lawyer, and a zealous Puritan, had only spoken the truth. He had taken some precautions to prevent it becoming known that he was the author, being already under cruelly inhuman punishment for a sentence occurring in a book he had written against the immorality of the stage, which was falsely construed as a libel on the Queen. It was, however, discovered that he had written this "Newes from Ipswich," and, in consequence, was brought before the Star Chamber by the bishops. That cruel, arbitrary, and unconstitutional engine of despotism and priestcraft of those days sentenced him to pay a fine of £5000 to the king, to be branded on the cheek with S. L., for slanderous libeller (which he was not), to stand in the pillory and have his ears cut off, and to be perpetually imprisoned in Caernarvon castle. What an accumulation of horrors to endure for writing a letter complaining of the misdeeds of the "Fathers of the Church." As regards the cutting off his ears, having suffered that cruel indignity on a previous occasion, for "libel," it might be thought that his inhuman persecutors would have omitted that part of their wicked sentence. But no, that might not be, and so, in default of ears proper, the stumps were now sawn off, in consequence of which, the temporal artery being cut, the blood flowed down in streams. Mr. Bastwick, a physician, and Mr. Burton, a divine, were fellow sufferers with Mr. Prynne, undergoing a similar punishment, having been convicted of the same offence of finding fault with the episcopal bench. History relates that in twelve years of Laud's administration, four thousand Puritans became planters in America, having left their native land to "make that their country, which would afford them what was dearer than property or life, the liberty of worshipping God in the way that appeared to them most conducive to their eternal welfare." A considerable number of persons left Ipswich for New England at this period on these grounds; being, said one of their persecutors, "dissatisfied with the government of our church." That is, they objected to be mutilated, flogged, fined, and imprisoned for not submitting to the rule of a tyrannical priesthood, which, to use the words of one of the sufferers, 66 now added to its other marks of Antichrist, corruption of doctrine, and a bloody persecution of the saints." During the time of the Commonwealth, there was a brief respite from the reign of priestly intolerance. The great Protector was ever ready to lift his strong arm to put down or prevent persecution for conscience' sake, whether at home or abroad, and it was a cause of deep sorrow to the churches when the death of Cromwell took place. The following extract from the church book of one of the Congregational churches at Yarmouth shows the light in which that event was viewed by our non-episcopalian forefathers of that period, and the dangers they apprehended in consequence: 66 September 7th, 1658.-The Lord having caused a great change of providence to pass upon this nation in taking away the late Lord Protector, the church appointed the 9th instant, in the afternoon, to be spent in seeking the Lord for the settlement of the nation, and for humbling ourselves before the Lord for our sins, as they had a hand in the same, to begin at two of the clock, which meeting was accordingly held," also a similar one on the 30th of the same month, "For seeking the Lord and humbling ourselves for the nation." Our anxious godly forefathers had not long to wait to know whether the sweets of liberty of conscience, were to be continued to them or not. The Restoration took place in 1660; the scene again changed, and we find the bitter waters of persecution again flowing from the mouth of the dragon, to afflict the people of God; for during the reign of Charles II., the sufferings of those who resisted or refused to comply with the arbitrary laws affecting their consciences that were then enforced were bitter in the extreme. Some idea of the severity of the measures adopted against them may be formed from the following statement, which is said to be imperfect, and rather below than beyond the truth :-" From 1660, the year of the Restoration, to 1668, when William and Mary were called to the throne, sixty thousand persons suffered for dissent, of whom five thousand died in prison. Property to the amount of two millions was wrung from dissenters within the space of three years, in the shape of fines, for absence from church, or attending their own meetings for worship." That being so, the total loss of life *Bogue and Bennett's History of the Dissenters, vol. 1, page 87 and substance for conscience' sake, from the rise of the Puritans to the accession of King William, must have been incalculable. The fines above referred to were most exorbitant, and recoverable on the action of a common informer, so that there was no need for thieves and pickpockets to pursue their nefarious occupation in their customary manner; a mode of lawfully plundering their neighbours was provided for them by the rulers of the land; a third of every fine being handed over to the informer, whose unsupported oath was sufficient to ensure conviction. The fine for any person above the age of sixteen being present at any meeting for worship where there were five persons present other than the household, was five pounds, or three months' imprisonment; double for the second offence; and for the third, one hundred pounds fine, or seven years' transportation; and if they returned from banishment, to suffer death. So much for the worshippers in general; but as for the poor pastors and preachers, they, in addition, were subject to a fine of £100 for administering the Lord's Supper; for preaching, £20 for the first offence, and £40 for the second. They were also liable to a penalty of £40 if they came within five miles of any city, corporate town, or borough. There were also heavy punishments enforced for not attending" church;" so that persons were not only prohibited worshipping as their consciences approved, but punished if they declined to unite in what their consciences disapproved. For this latter "offence," they were finable one shilling for each time of non-attendance, and £20 per month for continuous absence: those who had servants, £10 per month for their nonattendance. These fines were also recoverable by very summary, process; the person offending might be put in prison, or even his lands, if he had any, be seized by the crown; and in the event of certain acts of contumacy, might even be hanged like an atrocious malefactor. Two extracts from church books are given by Mr. Browne, which relate to these days, when the witnesses for the truth in this country had to prophesy in sackcloth and ashes. One is from the "Bury church book," being that of the Congregational Church in Whiting-street, and is as follows:"July 10th, 1681, being Lord's-day, ye church gave solemn thanks for God's delivering brother Bowers out of prison, who had been detained above three years upon ye Writt-de excom capiend, and was brought out by a supersedeas, at which time ye church freely distributed (contributed) towards ye charge." The good man, it seems, was about 73 years of age when the ecclesiastical authorities seized upon him and thrust him into prison, lived nearly three years after his liberation,and was faithful unto death." The other extract is from the Yarmouth Congregational Church book, and reads thus:-"1676, September 20,-Agreed at a church meeting, held at Mr. Albertson's-1. That at what church meeting convicted, what should be paid for the house and minister should be allowed by the church and friends. 2. Whatsoever charge should be spent for the benefit of the church should be allowed by the church and friends. 3. That whatever fine should be on any poor indeed should be allowed." The ex planation of this is, that if a meeting was surprised by the officers of the law, the fines incurred by the master of the house where it was held, and the officiating minister, should be paid out of the common fund. They would not be deterred from meeting by the fear of the infliction, but would meet and risk the consequences, such love had they to the means of grace, and regard to the apostolic injunction, "forsake not the assembling of yourselves together." Personal fines imposed on those who were convicted of being present at the meetings they would each pay for themselves, except in the case of the poor indeed, whose burden the church would take upon itself. After ten years of these harassments under Charles II., a breathing time of about two years was granted to the persecuted Dissenters by the proclamation of an "Indulgence," which permitted preachers and preaching places to be licensed. Immediately application was made for licences for forty-six preachers, and eighty for preaching-rooms in thirty-eight parishes. In Suffolk, sixty licenses for preachers, and one hundred for preaching-rooms, in sixty-seven parishes, were obtained; thus showing that persecution had not damped the zeal of the godly ministers of that day in preaching the gospel of the grace of God, nor the desire of Christ's sheep to hear the voice of their Shepherd by the mouth of their faithful pastors. They knew not the voice of strangers, and notwithstanding all the efforts of their cruel persecutors to compel them, strangers they would not follow. The Lord give His faithful followers in the present day grace to hold fast to the truth of God, and to listen to no voice, however soft and bewitching, but that of the good Shepherd of the sheep, as delivered in the oracles of eternal truth. THE NEW BURIALS ACT. By W. J. Styles, Keppel-street Chapel. GREAT things have been achieved in the present century in the cause of religious liberty-a cause which must claim the hearty suffrages of all intelligent nonconformists. That the State should exalt one section of the professing church into a position of honour, favour and emolument to the disparagement of all others, is a violation of the most sacred principles of truth and righteousness. Our Episcopalian brethren are but a sect; and no valid reason, scriptural political, or social, can be alleged for the elvation of one sect, to the depreciation of the thousands who do not accept its liturgy, admit the authority of its dignitaries, or believe in the rectitude of a religion which claims popular homage on the ground of the patronage of the Government. In our large town's, however, the days are gone bye in which dissent was regarded as a thing of scorn and obloquy. Noble men fought for, and have won, the prize of religious liberty; and in the great seats of civilization, the tyranny of former days is unknown. In many country districts, however, a different state of things unhappily obtains. The parish clergyman is too often a proud, arrogant, and bigoted despot, regarding all non-church goers with contempt, and omitting no opportunity to insult them. The line of demarkation between the " respectable" part of the population who attend his ministrations, and the common "nobodies" who decline to do so, is maintained with the utmost diligence. If the latter are poor, their children are treated with marked disfavour, and care is taken that the united influence of parochial bigotry, beef, and blankets, is brought to bear upon the work of proselytizing them to a religion that they must hold in contempt. There are yet unrepealed laws, which, if enforced against dissenters, would make their lot hard indeed; and we hail with satisfaction the labours of the Liberation Society to obtain perfect religious equality in our beloved land. The dis-establishment of the church of England is, indeed, the far-off goal to which all such endeavours should tend; the ultimatum without which enlightened dissenters will never be satisfied. We do not, however, think the time ripe for so momentous a change. Other and far more pressing matters claim the attention of Government. We have, therefore, small sympathy with the violent and ill-judged things that have been said in certain quarters on this question. The time for Episcopalianism to throw away her state crutches, and to walk erect like her sister churches, will, however, we are persuaded arrive; and we are mistaken if the cry for her liberation, which shall Ecclesiastical tyranny has been wont to show itself in its most hateful form in connection with rural churchyards, and the interment of dissenters therein. The power to insult mourners, over the coffined remains of their loved and lost ones is, however, now taken from the Church of England for ever; and we beseech every intelligent Baptist to master the provisions of the enactment which came in force on the 7th of September in the present year. แ The Liberation Society has published the following abstract. It is freed from the legal technicalities of the Act, for the guidance of those whose duty it may be to make arrangements for the burial of deceased persons. Summary of the Burials Laws Amendment Act, 1880. I. THE NOTICE OF BURIAL. 1. The notice of an intention to bury in accordance with the Act, in either churchyards or the consecrated parts of parochial cemeteries, should be given with as little delay as possible, and must not be later than forty-eight hours before the time proposed for the burial. 2. The notice may be given by any relative, friend, or legal representative having charge of, or being responsible for, the burial. 3. It must be in writing; must be endorsed on the outside "Notice of burial;" must be signed with the name and address of the person giving it, and be in the form, or to the effect, following: "I, of "being the relative [or friend, or legal representative, as the case may be, describing the "relation, if a relative], having the charge of, or being responsible for, the burial of A.B., "of who died at 66 |