for the display of an unseemly spirit even by Bishops otherwise exemplary; bad mutual relations consequently in many quarters existed between Churchmen and Nonconformists.

should be granted (as he told me himself), without acquainting the Bishop of the Diocese with it. But for fear of the worst, I will write to his Grace by the next post, and let him know what the sectaries pretend, who, I am sure, will stop the granting of a licence, or revoke it if any have been granted, which I think

you need not fear; for after a great deal of vapouring at Littleport about the licence they said they had got, the fellow durst not appear at the sessions, nor come to me, but ran the country."-Letter to the Rev. Mr. Williams, Rector of Dodington. Cole MSS. (British Museum), xxx. 148.

DU

CHAPTER XIX.

URING the Civil Wars, heart-burnings existed between Presbyterians and Independents. They continued under the Protectorate, they diminished after the Restoration, and it might have been hoped would then have died out for ever; but unhappily they revived when the Revolution had set both parties at liberty. When old persecutions ended in England, it could not be said, as it was when Saul of Tarsus ceased to breathe out threatenings and slaughter, "then had the Church rest.' Whatever might be the dispositions of some—and certainly Howe and others were lovers of peace-ancient animosities exploded afresh. What happened at the Rathmel ordination indicated this; other proofs will appear.

An effort at union was, however, made in 1690, under the form of articles agreed to by the Dissenting ministers. They were published, under the title of "Heads of Agreement, assented to by the united ministers in and about London, formerly called Presbyterian and Congregational." This document is worth attention, not only as an experiment to bring together different parties, but also as indicating modifications of opinion on both sides. The Presbyterians and Independents, who after the Revolution adopted these Articles, could not have held exactly the same views as did Presbyterians and Independents before

the Restoration. The former must now have abandoned all notions of parish presbyteries and provincial synods, and must have approximated to the Congregational idea of what used to be called "gathered churches," or limited communities, resting on a principle of mutual choice. Reference is made to parochial bounds as not being of divine right; yet for common edification, the members of a particular church, it is said, ought, as far as convenient, to live near each other. A great deal was conceded by Presbyterians, when they allowed that each church has a right to choose its own officers, and that no officers of any one church shall exercise any power over any other church.1 The Independents also must have passed through a change, inasmuch as they now ceased to insist upon the duty of church members entering into formal covenants, and allowed that, in the administration of church power, it belongs to the pastor and elders to rule and govern, and to the brotherhood to consent, according to the rule of the Gospel. They also tacitly admitted that a man might be ordained to the work of the ministry without having a specific pastoral charge, and that the pastors or bishops of neighbouring churches should concur in the ordination of a new pastor or bishop over a particular congregation.

In the chapter relative to the communion of churches, the Independents of the Revolution showed more disposition towards unity than their predecessors had done, and the chapter indicates an approach to Presbyterian government.2 Seeds of concord between the two denominations bore some fruit in the provinces. An association combining them grew up in Devon and Cornwall, and Flavel preached and presided at its first meeting. In Hampshire and Norfolk the plan met with favour. So it

1 Heads of Agreement.

Ibid.

did in Nottinghamshire, and in the neighbourhood of Manchester, where, however, Independents were few. It was warmly taken up in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and at Wakefield a united meeting was held, when Heywood preached from Zech. xiv. 9: "In that day shall there be one Lord, and His name one." It seems that the townspeople at Wakefield were alarmed at the influx of ministers walking through their streets-the fashionablydressed people of the reign of William III., in their jaunty costume, looking with curiosity and suspicion upon the Puritan garb and the staid demeanour of their visitors. Yet these reverend gentlemen did not amount in number to more than twenty-four, and "when the service at Mrs. Kirby's 66 was over, they thought it prudent to go apart, and by several ways, to the house at which they dined." 1

A violent controversy-which, before its close, ran through both Calvinistic and Socinian questions, and gathered up personal entanglements-started into life soon after the Act of Toleration had been passed. The doctrines of Justification, the Atonement, and Christ's Divinity came successively within its range. Combatant after combatant entered the field, and although the antagonists, for the most part, were Nonconformists, they managed, before they had done, to involve one or two distinguished Churchmen within the coils of their dispute.

The scene of the first stage was the little town of Rowell, in Northamptonshire, where a devoted Puritan, named John Beverley, had created a considerable sensation in the days of the Commonwealth, and out of this a church had sprung. After the Revolution, Richard Davis,

1

Thoresby's Diary, i. 210. Hunter's Life of Heywood, 374.

from the Principality, became minister; and as an indication of his narrow and jealous independence, it is mentioned that he was "installed in the office of pastor or bishop" by the church itself, and by that church alone, some pastors of other congregations, who had come "to behold their faith and order," withdrawing from the assembly, because there was nothing for them to do. Brooking no restraint, he made the whole county of Northampton his diocese, and went from place to place preaching and gathering converts into his fold.

He

enflamed others with ardour like his own, and became the centre of a wide circle of lay agency. People living at a great distance were brought into fellowship with the band at Rowell, and they would, lantern in hand, trudge twenty miles along dirty roads on winter mornings to hear him preach, and in the same way go back at night. Offshoots from this vigorous community became in time distinct societies. These proceedings soon excited jealousy, and the jealous were not slow to accuse the lay agents of ignorance, and their superintendent of great imprudence.1 A noisy revival broke out in February, 1692, and the press was soon employed in giving what is called A Plain and Just Account of a most Horrid and Dismal Plague at Rowell, in which tract the "visions and revelations" of Richard Davis and his "emissaries, the shoemakers, joiners, dyers, tailors, weavers, farmers, &c.," are odiously exhibited. Tidings of this reached London, and attracted the attention of respectable Presbyterian ministers, who were as much shocked as it was possible for any Episcopalians to be. What was worse, heresy, as reported, mingled with wildfire, and Davis stood charged with maintaining that believers always appear before God

1 Extracts from the Church-Book in Memorials, by T. Coleman.