The town of Lowestoft has been much distinguished in religious concerns, for its invoilable attachment to the establishment of the Church of England, as in civil affairs, for its unshaken loyalty to its sovereign. Nevertheless, it is not without its sectaries, which, at different times, have arisen in the town; the principal of which sectaries is that society denominated Independents or Congregational Dissenters. At what time it was that this religious sect first began to make its appearance in Lowestoft is uncertain. Previous to the year 1689, when the learned Mr. Emlyn came to reside in the town, and commenced as minister to the Congregational dissenters, it was but an inconsiderable body, destitute of a regular pastor, and also of a decent structure for the purpose of religious exercises. At this early period the Dissenters of Lowestoft had no other building for the public exercise of religion than a barn situate in a lane called Blue Anchor lane, opposite Rant’s score; and they continued in this obscure situation till the year 1695, when a decent structure was erected for religious uses. Probably the Society was much increased after the year 1689, when so distinguished a character as Mr. Emlyn became their minister, and in consequence thereof might be enabled to erect this building. This meeting house was erected in 1695 upon a small piece of ground given for that purpose by Mr. James Ward of this town. The eminent Mr. Emlyn was born at Stamford, in Lincolnshire, May 22, 1663. In August, 1674, he was put to a boarding school at Walcot, near Folkingham, where he continued four years, and on Sundays was the constant auditor of the noted Mr. Brocklesby, the then incumbent of that parish. Mr. Emlyn’s parents were of the established church, and were very intimate with the very learned and worthy Dr. Cumberland, then minister at Stamford, and afterwards Bishop of Peterborough, but being inclined to the Puritans, they choose to educate their son among that sect; for this purpose he was sent, for academical education, in 1678, to Sulby, near Welford, in Northamptonshire, where he continued four years. In 1679 he went to Cambridge; and in 1682 was admitted of Emanuel College, but, returned again to Sulby; and in the same year he removed to Mr. Doolittle’s academy, first at Islington, then at Clapham, and afterwards at Battersea. He made his first essay as a preacher December 19, 1682, at Mr. Doolittle’s meeting house, near Cripplegate. In 1683 he was chaplain to the Countess of Donegal, a lady of great quality and estate in the north of Ireland, but resided then in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, and the year following accompanied the family to Belfast. While in this station he made a journey to Dublin, and during his continuance in that city, preached once before that congregation of which Mr. Daniel Williams and Mr. Joseph King James having fled into France, and Ireland being nearly reduced by King William, the affairs of that Kingdom began to be in a more settled state, and the dissenting congregations assembled in larger numbers. This induced Mr. Boyce to renew his application to Mr. Emlyn, to accept, jointly, with himself, the pastoral care of his congregation at Dublin; and to effect his purpose, wrote him a very pressing letter, and sent it to Mr. Nathaniel Taylor, minister at Salter’s Hall, London, who transmitted it enclosed in one from himself, to Mr. Emlyn, at Lowestoft. Mr. Emlyn being so strongly solicited to accept the office of assistant pastor to the congregation at Dublin, complied with the invitation, and accordingly arrived in Dublin in May, 1691, and continued there until 1702, when his troubles began; for Dr. Duncan Cummins, a physician in that city, suspecting him of heterodox notions, about the Trinity, put Mr. Boyce first upon the enquiry, and went afterwards with him to Mr. Emlyn’s house, where the Unitarian freely confessed his belief “That God the Father of Jesus Christ, is above the Supreme Being, and superior in excellency and authority to his Son, who derives all from him.” Protesting, however, that he had no design to cause strife among them, he offered to leave the congregation peaceably. But, Mr. Boyce, not willing to take such a weighty matter on himself, brought before the meeting of the Dublin ministers; in consequence of which, Mr. Emlyn was immediately prohibited from preaching, and in a few days obliged to withdraw into England. But some zealous Dissenters, having resolved to prosecute him with the utmost rigour, they obtained a special warrant from the Lord Chief Justice to seize him and his books, and went with the keeper of Newgate to execute it upon him. The Chief Justice refused at first to take bail, but at length accepted of a recognizance, from two sufficient persons, of £800 for his appearance. On his trial he was found guilty. He was moved to retract, which he absolutely refused; and was therefore sentenced to suffer a year’s imprisonment, to pay a fine of £1,000 to the Queen, to live in prison till it was paid, and to find security for his good behaviour during life; telling him that the pillory was the punishment due, but because he was a man of letters it was not inflicted. After this he was led round the four Courts to be exposed, with a paper on his breast, signifying his crime. The fine was afterwards mitigated to £70, and this, together with £20, claimed by the Primate, as the Queen’s Almoner, was paid. Thus, after an imprisonment from the 14th of June, 1703, to the 21st July, 1705, and on giving security During Mr. Emlyn’s residence in Lowestoft, he cultivated the most friendly intercourse with the Rev. Hudson, at that time vicar of the parish; accompanying him in collecting public charities, and would frequently himself with several of his society attend the service of the church, by which means a perfect harmony subsisted between the members of the Establishment and the Dissenters. Nevertheless, his conduct in this respect was not approved altogether by those of his own community. Mr. Emlyn was also intimately acquainted with the Rev. Whiston, vicar of Lowestoft, and a successor of Mr. Hudson; and he was also particularly intimate with Dr. Samuel Clarke, who entertained nearly the same sentiments in religion as Mr. Emlyn and Mr. Whiston. It is a little difficult to ascertain precisely who the ministers were that officiated at Lowestoft from the departure of Mr. Emlyn to the year 1698. There is an account of one Mr. Manning, who was an occasional preacher in the latter end of the reign of Charles II, or in the time of his brother James; but who this person was, whether he was an ejected minister (as there were several of that name in this country) or some other minister of the name of Manning, does not appear. It is not improbable that he was the Rev. Manning, of Peasanhall, previously mentioned, who was the intimate friend of Mr. Emlyn. Be this as it may, authentic accounts say that the Rev. Samuel Baxter, the eldest son of an ejected minister of Lancashire, settled here as minister to the Dissenters about the year 1698. He left the congregation about the year 1703, and removed to Ipswich. He was succeeded by the Rev. Henry Ward, who left Lowestoft about midsummer, 1707, and settled at Woodbridge, where he died at the close of the year 1734. Mr. Ward was succeeded at Lowestoft by Mr. Samuel Say, in 1707 or 1708. Mr. Say was born in the year 1675, and was the second son of Mr. Giles Say, minister of St. Michael’s parish, in the town of Southampton, but rejected thence by the Act of Uniformity in 1662. But after the grant of liberty of conscience, in the reign of James II, he was chosen pastor of a Dissenting congregation at Guestwick, in Norfolk, where he continued till his death, April 7th, 1692. Mr. Samuel Say, the son, received his first education at Southwark; and having discovered when he was but a young man, a strong inclination to the ministry, his father accordingly took care to have him educated in the best manner he could for that purpose, from his earliest years; and about the year 1692 he entered as a pupil the Rev. Rowe’s academy at London, where he had for his fellow students Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Isaac Watts, Mr. John Hughes, and Mr. Josiah Hort, afterwards Archbishop of Tuam. When he had finished his studies, he became chaplain to Thomas Scott, Esq., of Liminge, in Kent, a gentleman eminent for piety and goodness. Mr. Say continued in this family three years, and was well esteemed by all for his Christian behaviour and exemplary conversation. From thence he removed to Andover, in Hampshire; but in a short time came to Yarmouth, in Norfolk, and soon after that became a constant preacher at Lowestoft. Here he continued eighteen years, labouring In the year 1725 Mr. Say was succeeded by the Rev. Whittick, who removed to Kingston-on-Thames in 1733. It was during the ministry of Mr. Whittick, that the dissenting congregation at Lowestoft became a perfectly distinct body, and dissolved the connection which hitherto had subsisted with Yarmouth, Mr. Whittick declaring that unless they became a separate body, distinct from any other congregation, he would leave them. In 1733 Mr. Whittick was succeeded by the ingenious Mr. Thomas Scott, son of a Dissenting minister at Norwich. Mr. Scott, the grandfather of Mr. Thomas Scott, was an eminent merchant in London. He had two wives. By his first wife he had the above-mentioned Mr. Scott, Dissenting minister at Norwich, who had (besides other children) two sons of considerable note in the learned world, namely Mr. Thomas Scott, who was minister at Lowestoft, and Dr. Joseph Nicoll Scott, who was first a Dissenting minister, and published two volumes of sermons; but afterwards practised physic in London, and was well-known by the hand he had in several ingenious and useful publications. He was an assistant to his father in the congregation at Norwich; but embracing the Arian principles, (received there only by a few at that time) his father was under the painful necessity of expelling him from that society. By his second wife he had Dr. Daniel Scott, author of the Appendix to H. Stephens’s Greek Lexicon, in two volumes, folio, dedicated to Archbishop After Mr. Scott’s removal to Ipswich, he became well known to the learned world by several very ingenious publications, particularly by his poetic translation of the book of Job, with critical notes, and some other poetical pieces. But finding, during his residence at Ipswich, the infirmities of age coming on him very hastily, and rendering him incapable of discharging the duties of his function with that care and exactness which he had always observed with the most scrupulous attention, he quitted that town in 1774, and retired to a small congregation at Hepton, in the neighbourhood of Norwich, where he died about two years after. Mr. Scott was succeeded in the year 1738 by Mr. Alderson, who continued pastor till his death, which happened in 1760. Mr. Alderson having a large family, and the stipend at Lowestoft being small, Mr. Elisha Barlow, a dissenter and eminent merchant of the town, was so far influenced by the considerations as to bequeath by will to the dissenting congregation at Lowestoft a considerable estate in the adjoining parish of Mutford, as an augmentation of the salary of the minister; but on this condition, nevertheless, that if Mr. Alderson was not continued pastor, the said estate should devolve to him and to his heirs for ever. In pursuance of this obligation, it was agreed on by the whole body of Dissenters at Lowestoft (in consequence of their great esteem for Mr. Alderson) to draw up an instrument, in which they formally expelled him as pastor, in order to give him a legal claim to the estate and afterwards re-chose him into his former pastoral office. But notwithstanding all these endeavours on the part of the congregation to render Mr. Alderson so essential a service, they were soon after entirely frustrated by the heirs at law of Mr. Barlow, who disputed the legality of the donation on the Mortmain Act, and commenced a suit in Chancery for recovering the estate. The result of this suit was, that Mr. Alderson was obliged to relinquish all future claims whatsoever to the same. This misfortune was an irreparable loss to Mr. Alderson. The anxiety which he suffered during the contest greatly impaired his health and shortened his days; for soon after, as, on the Lord’s day, he was preaching to his congregation, he was suddenly taken ill, was obliged to be led home, and died in a short time. Mr. Alderson was a worthy, well-disposed man, of an exceedingly affable and peaceable disposition, much esteemed by the whole circle of his acquaintance; and as he lived much respected, so he died universally lamented. The Dissenting congregation at Lowestoft appears to have been but very small before the year 1689, when Mr. Emlyn became their officiating minister; after this period they became a more numerous body, and continued increasing till the year 1735, when their number was become very considerable; after that year they appear to have been in a decreasing state, and declined very fast, especially since the death of Mr. Alderson; for, according to an account taken in 1776, the number amounted to only 35, that could be properly called Independents and Congregational Dissenters. The number of Dissenting families in 1780 to 1790 (exclusive of the Methodists) was under twenty, but the congregation usually consisted of 150 and 200 persons. A digression may be interesting respecting an extraordinary trial, concerning two poor old widows belonging to Lowestoft who were tried, condemned, and executed on a charge of witch-craft. In the year 1663 Mr. Samuel Pacey, an eminent Dissenter at Lowestoft, commenced a prosecution against two widows, on a suspicion of witchcraft. Mr. Pacey had conceived an opinion that two of his daughters, Elizabeth and Deborah, respectively eleven and nine years of age, were bewitched; and that these two women, whose names were Rose Cullender and Amy Duny, were the cause of the misfortune. In consequence of this suspicion, he caused Amy Duny to be set in the stocks; but not thinking this a sufficient punishment, he caused both women to be apprehended; and at the ensuing Lent assizes, held at Bury, the 10th March, 1664, before Sir Matthew Hale, Knt., Lord Chief Baron of his Majesty’s Court of Exchequer, they were severally indicted for bewitching (amongst others) the said Elizabeth and Deborah Pacey; and being arraigned on the said indictment, pleaded not guilty; but being afterwards, after a long course of evidence, found guilty, they were thereupon, on Thursday, March 13th, sentenced to die for the same, and accordingly, on Monday, the 17th of March following, they were executed. Dr. Hutchinson, in his historical essay concerning witchcraft, has given many pertinent observations respecting this very extraordinary trial; intending thereby to expose its absurdity, and to detect and ridicule the evidence on which the sentence was founded. To give a detail of every ridiculous circumstance that was urged in the course of the evidence, would be both irksome and disgusting; but two of the most material points may be related, which were adjudged to have the most weight, and principally to affect the cause then before the Court; adding thereto the remarks made thereupon by Mr. Hutchinson. In the course of the trial it was deposed by Samuel Pacey, that his younger daughter Deborah, was suddenly taken ill with a lameness in her legs, was seized with violent fits, and felt the most excruciating pains in her stomach, like the pricking of pins, which caused her to shriek in an alarming manner; and also, that his daughter Elizabeth was afflicted in the same manner, and that they could not open their mouths wide enough for respiration, sufficient to preserve life, without the help of a tap. But Dr. Hutchinson says, there was no necessity for putting taps in the children’s mouths when a sufficient quantity of air to preserve life could have been drawn through their nostrils. John Soam, of Lowestoft, deposed, that, in harvest time, as he was going into the field to load, one of the carts wrenched the window off Rose Cullender’s house, whereupon she came out in a great rage, and threatened him for having done wrong. The consequence whereof was, that the cart was overturned twice that day; and the last time of loading it, as they brought it through the gate which led out of the field into the town, the cart stuck so fast in the gate’s head that they could not possibly get it through, but were obliged to cut down the post of the gate, to make the cart pass through, although they did not perceive that the cart did of either side touch the gate-posts. Dr. Hutchinson says, very true, Rose Cullender might well be in a passion when they ran the cart against her house and damaged it; and an unruly horse or a careless driver might easily overturn a cart two or three times a day; and if the cart stuck so fast in the gate’s head so as they could not get it through (though it did not touch the gate-post as they could perceive), what made them cut the post down? These depositions shew the kind of evidence it was on which these poor unfortunate women were condemned and executed, the ludicrous manner in which Dr. Hutchinson has treated it, as well as the contemptible light in which it was regarded by all the wise and discerning part of mankind. But exclusive of the evidence, they had also recourse, during the trial, to art and stratagem; for they caused one of Mr. Pacey’s daughters to be blindfolded and to be touched by one of the supposed witches, in order to discover what effect it would produce; and on using this experiment, the girl fell into a violent rage, and gave the Court what they deemed The eyes of all the sensible and inquisitive part of the nation were fixed on this very extraordinary trial, and waited with impatience the decision of the Court. They were full of expectations that the point would be so fully discussed as finally to determine it, and leave no room for posterity to engage in any farther controversy concerning these notions. But this was reserved for a more enlightened age; for it appears that nothing but perplexity and confusion ensued thereupon. The judge himself was so far from being satisfied with the evidence, that, on the contrary, he was extremely doubtful concerning it; and was under such distressing fears and apprehensions during the trial, and proceeded with such extreme caution therein, that he forebore summing up the evidence, but left it to the jury, with prayers to God to direct their hearts in so weighty a matter. Accordingly the jury, after withdrawing about half-an-hour, returned with their verdict, which pronounced the prisoners guilty. After this the judge gave the law its course, pronounced sentence of death upon them, and they were executed very soon after. Thus were these two unfortunate widows, whose only misfortune was either the poverty of their circumstances, the deformity of their persons, or the weakness of their understandings, sacrificed to the superstition of the age, the insufficiency of the evidence, and the ignorance and credulity of the jury. Possibly it may be admitted, as some extenuation of the absurdity of this prosecution, to remember that it was undertaken in an age in which the notion of witchcraft was generally received; that not only among the illiterate and vulgar, but even amongst those who were in the highest estimation for rank, piety, and learning. It was in consequence of this ridiculous notion that one Matthew Hopkins, of Manningtree, in Essex, together with some others, were commissioned by Parliament in 1664, and the two following years, to perform a circuit, in order to discover witches. By virtue of this commission they went from town to town through many parts of Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, and Huntingdonshire, for the purpose of detecting them; and caused sixteen to be hanged at Yarmouth, forty at Bury, and also as many more in different parts of the country as amounted in the whole to nearly one hundred persons. It is to this absurd commission that Butler alludes in Hudebras, when he says:
This Hopkins used to call himself Witchfinder General, and had twenty shillings allowed him for every town he visited. He used many arts to extort confession from suspected persons, and when they failed he had recourse Returning from the digression it may be noted that another religious sect which appeared in Lowestoft is the Methodists. The society first made its appearance here in the year 1761; and was introduced by that great leader of the sect, the Rev. John Wesley, and has continued. In the year 1776 their number was increased to about fifty; they purchased a piece of ground on the north side of Frary lane, and soon after erected a meeting house there, which was opened on the 19th November, 1776, by Mr. John Wesley, who came to Lowestoft for that purpose. |