“Meade, Pastor of the Independent Church, meets twice a week with Greenhill at Ratcliffe, and Stepney.”
“Dr. Owen (Pastor), dwells in the fields, on the left hand near Moorgate, where the quarters hang, and meets often with Goodwine.”
“Robinson (Andrew), a Scotts Quaker, dangerous young fellow; carries letters between London and Edinburgh; comes frequently to Mr. Lawrye’s.”
“Sprig, a minister, and great creature of the late usurper’s. Mr. Johnson knows him intimately. Sprig is a great acquaintance of Sir Hen. Vane’s and Ludlow’s.”
No. VIII.—Vol. I., p. 319.
In connection with the narrative on this page, and others elsewhere of the same kind, I would request the reader to bear in mind what I have remarked on p. 102. of this volume.
After the printing of the anecdote respecting Mr. Ince, a very interesting little book, entitled The Church at Birdbush, has come under my notice, from which I extract the following passages in reference to the story I have related:—“This striking narrative has sometimes been repudiated as a fiction. The evidence for its credibility seems, however, to be stronger than the supposition of its falsehood. The fact that the individual on whose authority it rests, had spent much time and labour in collecting authentic accounts of the period to which it refers, and that before the year 1705, he had lived at Shaftesbury, where, from its proximity to the scene of its occurrence, this event would be the theme of general conversation, is a fair argument in proof of its validity. Assuming then, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the principal points in this striking incident are true, there are connected circumstances which require that some additional remarks should be made. The date of the occurrence of this remarkable event has been a matter of conflicting statement. While the Nonconformist’s Memorial fixes it at ‘not long after the year 1662,’ a writer in the Evangelical Magazine for 1798, states it to have taken place ‘soon after the Toleration Act passed in 1689.’ Perhaps the precise year cannot be fixed, and yet, from an incidental remark in the life of the Rev. T. Rosewell, given in the Nonconformist’s Memorial, we may arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. His biographer says, ‘After leaving Lady Hungerford’s family, he was invited, in 1672, into that of Mr. Grove, at Ferne, where Mr. Ince lived, where he spent some months much to his comfort.’ By this it is evident that the event referred to happened before the year 1672. A second disputed point is, the apparent improbability of Mr. Ince being unknown at Ferne, after having been Rector of the adjoining parish for fourteen years or more. It should be remembered, that some few years, at least, elapsed between his ejectment at Donhead, and his being employed on the before-named estate. Time would of course leave its impressions on the form which would otherwise have been easily recognized. Besides, it is attested that he had hired himself to the ‘employment of tending sheep;’ and the shepherd’s dress, connected with the effects of prison usage, and of the other circumstances of trial to which he had been exposed, may all have combined to conceal his true profession as a minister of Christ, until the time fixed in the Infinite Mind arrived for its discovery. His ‘appearance’ was that which surprised Mr. Grove, when he contrasted it with his ‘language and manner.’ The last sentence of the statement obviously requires correction. The Meeting-house referred to, was not erected on the estate at Ferne, nor by Mr. Grove.”
No. IX.—Vol. I., p. 374.
I have adopted the common account of Cecil’s signing Edward VI.’s Instrument of Succession as a witness. It is endorsed by Mr. Froude.—(Hist., v. 509). But I ought to add, that Tytler, in his England under the Reigns of Edward VI. and Mary, discredits the story which rests on a statement made by Roger Alford, twenty years afterwards, who on Cecil’s authority, and at his request, was trying to make out a case in favour of his master. Cecil’s signature occurs in the midst of many names appended to the document, not at all in the way of witness; and Tytler thinks, that Cecil had determined to retain his place, whatever sacrifice it might cost him. It did cost him dear—“for he was driven by it to falsehood, to evasion, and to little subterfuges, from which every upright mind would have recoiled.”—(Vol. ii. 175.) In a defence of himself, written in his own hand, for the eye of Queen Mary, and which Tytler has printed (vol. ii. 192), he says nothing of having signed the instrument as a witness.
It appears further, from an examination by Tytler, of some of Cecil’s papers in the Record Office, that in the reign of Queen Mary he conformed to the established religion by attending mass.—(Vol. ii. 443.) Yet it is remarkable that although regarded kindly at court, he never held office under the Popish Sovereign; and is distinctly described as “a heretic” by the Count de Feria, writing in 1558.—(p. 499). Whatever his compliances at the time, there must have been enough in his conduct to indicate that he was an unwilling Conformist, and that he was in heart a Protestant. Still, in respect to religious profession in the earlier part of life, he is seen to disadvantage when compared with Clarendon.