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.
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.
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.
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.
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.