[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
During the Civil Wars, heartburnings 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.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
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.[509] 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.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
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.[510] 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 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 fashionably-dressed 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” was over, “they thought it
prudent to go apart, and by several ways, to the house at which they
dined.”[511]
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.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
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,
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.[512] 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 without sin; that
if they do wrong they are still without spot; that prayers are offered
more for the sake of discovering guilt to their own consciences, than
for securing forgiveness from God; and that Christ fulfilled the
covenant of grace, “and believed for us as our representative.” Oddly
enough, this Antinomian preacher is said to have entertained an idea
that baptism in the parish church is invalid, for this, amongst other
reasons, that the administrators are not of Christ’s sending. Davis
defended himself as best he could, and the church of which he was
pastor vindicated his character, denying some ridiculous stories, yet
speaking of his ministry in terms corroborative of its high Calvinistic
type.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
The second stage of this controversy appears in London. The Calvinism
of the Commonwealth had by no means perished. Old books bearing its
impress, old preachers repeating its echoes, remained, and wherever
sympathies with it continued to thrive, of course the Northamptonshire
pastor found advocates. Just at this moment an insignificant incident
fanned the flame. A son of the noted Dr. Tobias Crisp reprinted his
father’s works, with additions from unpublished papers; and very
artfully, the editor procured the names of some well-known Divines,
simply, as he said, to attest the genuineness of the MSS.--a thing
perfectly superfluous--really, as he must have meant, to promote the
sale of the new edition. Crisp was a Predestinarian of the first water,
and maintained the doctrine of Election and the limitation of the
Atonement in the narrowest and most repulsive form.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
The excitement produced by this book, in connection with the
disturbance created by Davis, was wonderful. The advocates of High
Calvinism hailed it as the commencement of a millennium; they talked
and preached and wrote with renewed vigour, and those who opposed them
were denounced as legalists. On both sides bitterness increased. The
more Crisp’s book was condemned, the more it was read. Its circulation
was greatest amongst the uneducated, who praised the author up to the
skies. The editor informs us that, in so unlikely a place as Guildhall,
at one of the livery meetings, he was accosted by a citizen, who
wrung him by the hand, and, with tears in his eyes, thanked him for
reprinting his father’s sermons.
Daniel Williams, a Presbyterian minister, formerly of Dublin, and at
the time of the Revolution presiding over a numerous congregation at
Hand Alley, in Bishopsgate Street, was then rising into eminence; and
being a moderate Calvinist, he determined to oppose the circulation
of Crisp’s work. Consequently, in 1692, he published his _Gospel
Truth Vindicated_, in which Crisp’s dogmas are arranged, errors
are separated from truths, and confutations supplied, not only from
Scripture, but also from other writings of that very Divine. Prefixed
to Williams’ book is a list of approving theologians, including Bates,
Howe, Alsop, and Lorimer.
[Sidenote: 1688–1702.]
This publication led to unpleasant complications, and to understand
them we must refer to the celebrated lectures delivered in Pinners’
Hall. Lectures in the heart of the Metropolis had been popular when
Puritanism was at its zenith. Merchants turned from their walk in
the Exchange and their seats in the counting-house, to listen to a
favourite preacher as he meted out his message by the hour-glass.
When Indulgence came, Pinners’ Hall happened to be vacant, and being
conveniently situated in Broad Street, it was hired for a Wednesday
morning exercise. Four Presbyterians and two Independents undertook
to officiate in succession. Dr. Bates, Dr. Manton, Mr. Baxter, and
Mr. Jenkyn, had as their associates Dr. Owen and Mr. Collins. From
the beginning, however, unfortunate bickerings appeared, and at the
Revolution dogmatic differences became increasingly manifest--the
Independents were more Calvinistic than their Presbyterian brethren.
The circumstances of this Lecture perhaps had something to do with the
way in which the Northamptonshire quarrel was taken up, certainly it
added fuel to the fire kindled by the republication of Crisp’s works.
In 1692, of the old Pinners’ Hall lecturers only Bates remained, his
new colleagues being Williams and Alsop. The other new lecturers were
Mead and Cole, decidedly Independent, and John Howe, who, although
previously reckoned amongst Independents, seems by this time to have
associated chiefly with Presbyterians, and to have had more sympathy in
their temper than in that manifested by some of his active Independent
brethren. Attempts at union entirely failed. Storms of feeling could
not be allayed by verbal incantation, and a contemporary, who narrowly
watched the proceedings, deplored the absence of a healing spirit.[513]
Williams, by his book against Crisp, offended some of the supporters
of the Lecture--a circumstance which led to discussion amongst the
lecturers; and in 1694, Williams was voted out, and three of the
number--Bates, Howe, and Alsop--withdrew from Pinners’ to Salters’
Hall, and commenced a distinct lecture there. Cole and Mead, the two
Independents, remained in the old place, and associated with themselves
four other Independents--Mather, Cruso, Lobb, and Gouge.
[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.]
But I must hasten to the third stage of this intricate dispute, when,
in 1695, Stephen Lobb, “the Jacobite Independent,” charged Williams
with implicitly denying the commutation of persons between Christ and
believers, because he had denied such a relation as Crisp maintained,
who went so far as to declare Christ to be by imputation as sinful as
man, and the believer to become through faith as righteous as Christ.
This led to explanations too wearisome for notice. If anyone will take
the trouble to look into what Williams wrote, he will be astonished to
find a man, who went so far in his notions of the union between the
Mediator and His people, suspected of not believing in the Atonement;
and he will discover a signal instance of the intolerable demands which
some will make upon others, in order to enlist from them a full amount
of prescribed orthodoxy.
The battle raged hotter and hotter. Williams was even accused of
Socinianism, and not content with robbing him of all claim to
orthodoxy, his exasperated opponents tried to filch from him his
virtuous reputation. But he kept them at bay, and at last completely
overcame them.[514]
Towards the end, two distinguished Churchmen came upon the stage--Dr.
Jonathan Edwards, Principal of Jesus College, Oxford, and Bishop
Stillingfleet--both of whom were appealed to by the disputants as to
the doctrine of Commutation, and the charge of Socinianism brought
against Williams. The Bishop, of course, contradicted Crisp’s absurd
notion, and pronounced Williams innocent of heterodoxy.
It is said that the number of Antinomians amongst Nonconformists
diminished after the close of the controversy.