1688–1702.
What the most distinguished teachers were, and what many of the pupils became, may be seen in preceding pages.
I must not conclude this chapter without stating that as these academies were interrupted by intolerant laws, common schools also were subject to the same inconvenience. Cunning methods were sometimes adopted by schoolmasters, or were alleged to be so, with the view of overcoming clerical opposition,[508] and occasion was given for the display of an unseemly spirit even by Bishops otherwise exemplary; bad mutual relations consequently in many quarters existed between Churchmen and Nonconformists.
CHAPTER XIX.
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.
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.
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]