The Early History Of The Independent Church At Rothwell, A Defense Of Richard Davis
The Early History Of The Independent Church At Rothwell, Alias Rowell, In Northamptonshire, From The 3rd Year Of The Protectorate To The Death Of Queen Anne.
By Norman Glass, Pastor Of The Church
1871
To Pickering P. Perry, Esq., Mayor Of Northampton.
Dear Sir,
Coming into the county not many months ago as a total stranger it was my good fortune to be casually thrown into your society, and thus to commence an acquaintance which has been to me an increasing source of pleasure and satisfaction.
Your frank and genial disposition, your unpretending piety and intelligence, and your fearless advocacy of the principles of civil and religious liberty, have endeared you to the hearts of many, who will no doubt envy me the opportunity of giving this public expression of regard.
I feel assured that there are few of my brethren in this district who can think of the county-town without associating it in their minds with the pleasure and benefit of your society. And I have no doubt that many a village pastor equally with myself, has returned to his quiet, but none the less arduous sphere of labour, strengthened and encouraged by your generous sympathy.
The principal aim of the following work is the resuscitation of the fame of one of the greatest Evangelists in England prior to the time of Whitfield and Wesley—of one whose memory should be especially dear to the lovers of religion in this county in which he chiefly laboured.
This work I now by permission dedicate to yourself, and I trust you will find that the interest of its subject has not been lessened by the style of its execution.
Earnestly desiring for you and yours the continuance of every needful blessing,
I remain, my dear Sir,
Yours respectfully,
Norman Glass
Rothwell, October 27th, 1871
Preface
It would be well perhaps to state the reasons by which we were induced to write the following small section of church history.
Having read the work of Mr. Coleman on the Independent Churches of Northamptonshire, it seemed to us that, despite its many excellencies, the accounts were too general, and the particulars too isolated to yield all the interest or instruction that might be obtained from a knowledge of the olden dissent of the county. We thought that if, leaving the work of Mr. Coleman to answer as a general record, some old and interesting section of county dissenting history were worked out with more full connection and details it might supply an apparent need, placing us in closer connection with our nonconforming ancestry, and giving us a clearer impression than could otherwise be obtained of their opinions and practices.
Whilst under the influence of these impressions we came into the possession of two old volumes of the records of the church at Rowell, containing a vast body of material for church history, and going back as far as the foundation of the church in 1656. Besides this we discovered that from a biographical work of Mr. Maurice, the fourth minister of the church, much information might be obtained concerning the lives and characters of those who preceded him in the pastorate. We also found in public and private libraries many works either written by these early ministers, or relating to them or to the church over which they presided.
In addition to this it appeared that, compared with others, our church was a very ancient one, and that there was a time in the history of dissent in the county when the church at Rowell was almost its sole representative. (There were two General Baptist Churches in Northamptonshire during the Protectorate, one at Peterborough and the other at Ravensthorpe; but the information concerning them is very slight. See Taylor’s History of the General Baptists, 1818, and Wood’s Condensed History of the General Baptists, 1847).
It appeared also that the first three ministers of the church at Rowell were in many respects notable and worthy men, the last of them especially being not more distinguished by the greatness of his labours, than by the intensity of the persecutions with which he was assailed.
These then were the circumstances and inducements which led to the production of the present history of the church at Rowell from its commencement to 1714.
We have added an Appendix (A.) at the close of the work, containing a list of all the Ministers of the church at Rowell, and some memorabilia which may be interesting to the reader.
It only remains here to notice the principal sources from which we have drawn our information, in addition to those works the titles of which will be given in the course of the narrative.
1. —The first two vols. of the Church Records [1st vol. Quarto.—2nd vol. Folio.] These early records have been very carefully kept, and apparently the principal part of them is in the handwriting of the respective ministers. In other cases where aid was obtained (probably from the elders) to enter the Minutes, they seem to have been subsequently corrected by the minister.
2.—“ Monuments of Mercy; or some of the distinguishing favours of Christ to his Congregational Church at Rowell, as handed down in the Ministry of Mr. John Beverly, and Mr. Thomas Browning, remembered. But more especially, as held forth in the evangelical labours and holy conversation of Mr. Richard Davis; being a true account of his life and principles, and a just vindication of his memory from the false aspersions cast thereupon by Dr. Calamy, in the continuation of his account of the ejected ministers. By Matthias Maurice. London printed for Richard Hett, at the Bible and Crown in the Poultry, near Cheapside. 1729.” [8vo.] In Mr. Taylor’s collection at Northampton.
Some of the aspersions referred to above are peculiarly gross, as for example accusing Mr. Davis of having greatly troubled Mr. Browning when the latter was the minister of the Established Church at Desborough, whereas Mr. Davis never came into the county until some time after Mr. Browning’s death. Mr. Maurice wrote to Dr. Calamy in vindication of Mr. Davis, but the Dr. taking no notice he published the above work in defence of his friend and predecessor.
In his preface he handles the Dr. Very shrewdly. A more telling piece of critical censure we have seldom read. (See Appendix B.)
3.—”An abridgement of Mr. Baxter’s history of his life and times, with an account of the ministers, &c., who were ejected after the Restoration of King Charles II. The Second Edition in 2 vols. By Edmund Calamy, D.D. London. 1713.” [8vo.]
4.—”The Nonconformist’s Memorial, an abridgement, &c., of Dr. Calamy’s work by Samuel Palmer in 3 vols. London. 1802 and 1803.” [8vo.]
5.—”The history and antiquities of Dissenting Churches in London, Westminster, and Southwark, by Walter Wilson of the Inner Temple. In 4 vols. London. 1808.” [8vo.]
6.—”History of Dissenters, from the Revolution in 1688, to the year 1808. In 4 vols. By David Bogue and James Bennett. London 1808.” [8vo.]
7.—”Memorials of the Independent Churches in Northamptonshire. By Thomas Coleman. London. 1833.” [8vo.]
8.—”English Nonconformity by Robert Vaughan, D.D., London: Jackson, Walford and Hodder, St. Paul’s Churchyard, 1862.” [8vo.]
N.B.—We cannot expect that the following work will be entirely free from errors, though we have reason to hope from the pains we have taken in its production that there will not be many. We should be glad to receive the correction of any misstatement, or the notice of any further information.
Contents
• Historical Introduction—Containing a brief account of Puritanism in Rowell during the reign of Charles the 1st.
• Part I. 1655 to 1658—Ministry of Mr. John Beverly. (Closing period of Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate.)
• Part II. 1658-1685—Interval of 4 years without a Pastor, and Ministry of Mr. Thomas Browning. (Protectorate of Richard Cromwell and reign of Charles the 2nd.)
• Part III. 1685 to 1714.—Interval of 4 years without a Pastor, and Ministry of Mr. Richard Davis. (Reigns of James the 2nd, William the 3rd, and Queen Anne.)
• Chapter I.—Interval of 4 years without a pastor.
• Chapter 2.—The life of Richard Davis Previous to his settlement at Rowell, with some notices of that event, and some account of his labors immediately subsequent to it.
• Chapter 3.—The history of the persecutions with which Mr. Davis was assailed principally in 1691 and the following year.
• Chapter 4.—Number of members admitted during the time of Mr. Davis, and a list of the places at which the members resided at the time of their admission; also the number of excommunications, together with a list of the churches to which some of the members were dismissed.
• Chapter 5.—Number and character of the meetings of the church, exclusive of the usual gatherings on the Sabbath.
• Chapter 6.—Discipline of the church, with some of the principal cases in which it was exercised.
• Chapter 7.—A brief notice of the practice of the church in relation to Marriage, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.
• Chapter 8.—The hysterical fits with which some of the members of the church were afflicted.
• Chapter 9.—Some account of the preachers sent out by Mr. Davis, and the new churches which he founded.
• Chapter 10.—Relations of the church at Rowell (Exclusive of those referred to in the last chapter) with other churches in the neighborhood or at a distance.
• Chapter 11.—Some account of the writings of Mr. Davis.
• Chapter 12.—An account of sundry troubles in the church at Rowell towards the close of Mr. Davis’s ministry, and a brief relation of his illness and death.
• Appendix.—(A.) List of the Ministers of the Independent Church at Rowell, from its commencement to the year 1869; (B.) Mr. Maurice’s criticism of Dr. Calamy, extracted from the Preface of the work entitle “Monuments of Mercy,” &c.
———————————
Historical Introduction—Containing a brief account of Puritanism in Rowell during the reign of Charles the 1st.
In the Calendar of the State Papers of the Reign of Charles I., Domestic Series, (published by Longman & Co., London,) there are some interesting notices of Puritanism in Rowell. These notices, as will be seen, reflect some light upon the character of several of those whose names subsequently appear upon the first church list.
“1634. April 28. Presentment made by the Church wardens and Sidesmen of Rothwell, co. Northampton. They present nine persons for not doing reverence at the name of the Lord Jesus in time of divine service.”
“1634. May 15. Answer of William Dodson, of Rothwell, co. Northampton, mercer, to articles objected against him by the Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical. On Sundays in the afternoons he has had repetitions of sermons and other religious exercises in his own private family, none of other families being present. Is of opinion that all persons ought to keep Sunday holy and that sports after evening prayer ought to be left. Is also of opinion that collections of money for the poor or upon any brief should be made after divine service and sermon ended. Holds it necessary for a Christian man to go from his own parish church when he has not two sermons on a Sunday there, and that it is necessary to salvation (though not of absolute necessity) to have two sermons upon every Lord’s Day, preaching being the ordinary means ordained by God to salvation. Has sometimes omitted to stand at the reading of the Gospel and has not bowed his body at the hearing of the name of Jesus in service or sermon. Has been presented for not bowing and stands excommunicated for the same. After the serving of the letters missive on examinant and the rest he and they rode to Mr. Bagshaw, a common lawyer dwelling in Broughton, for his advice, and he showed them a book written, as he said, by Archbishop Whitgift, wherein it was set down that he would not have people pressed to bow at the name of Jesus because he would not have none ‘nuzeled’ in popery and superstition, and the same book he afterwards shewed to Sir John Lambe.”
“1634. Nov. 3. Declaration prepared for the signature of William Dodson the elder, of Rothwell, co. Northampton, called in question before the Ecclesiastical Commission. It purports to make him promise not to suffer in his house any conventicle, that he will stand up at the reading of the Gospel, and will bend his body at the naming of the name of Jesus in divine service, especially in the Creed, Gospel, and Lessons. Underwritten is a memorandum that this paper was tendered to William Dodson who refused to sign it.”
“1634? Articles administered by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to John James, of Barton Cortis, co. Northampton, yeoman, William Dodson [the same referred to in the previous extracts], William Foxe [afterwards entered as John Fox], John Ponder, and Thomas Wells, of Rothwell, in the same county. They were charged with having been present at one another’s houses where exercises of religion had been used, and were called upon to state how often. That one of them had taken upon him to conceive and utter openly among them a prayer, and the same by other persons present in order, and the one thought most able concluded. That they had maintained the following tenets:—That when any Christian man came into the church at the time of service, he ought to join in that particular exercise which was in hand, and that it was unlawful for him to kneel down and pray that ringing a peel or two, dancing, playing at foot-ball, barley-break, and other recreations, on the Sunday after evening prayer, or for the neighbours to sit and talk together at their doors in the street, or there to look on or view such like sports, was unlawful; that to gather money on briefs during divine service, but only at the church doors after service, was unlawful; that the father ought to answer for his child at christening, and not the godfather, and godmothers, who were but man’s inventions; that all children were within the covenant of God, and were saved though not baptised; that Christians might lawfully go from their own parish church when they had not two sermons on Sunday; that persons excommunicated by the ordinary might come to church. They were also charged with having spoken against the ceremonies and orders of the Church of England, as, namely, against the surplice, the cross in baptism, and the ring in marriage; also with having been presented by the churchwardens for not bowing at the name of Jesus, which they had obstinately defended, and said that to bow at the name of Jesus was to bow to five letters, and that it was as lawful to bow at the name of Judas, or Satan, or Devil.”
Of those above mentioned John James appears from subsequent entries to have withdrawn under the pressure of persecution. William Dodson, referred to in one of the preceding papers as “the elder,” probably died during this reign or the early part of the Protectorate. The other three remained in Rowell as sturdy puritans, and more than twenty years after, in 1656, they aided Mr. Beverly in the formation of an Independent Church.
In the earliest church list John Ponder is entered as the first elder, and John Fox as the first deacon, whilst the name of Thomas Wells is the third in the.list of members.
When these worthies attended the Established Church at Rowell prior to their being summoned before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, it was a very different building to what it is now, for the square tower of the church was then surmounted with a spire, and the transepts were still stand ing. The spire fell in 1660, and the transepts were taken down in 1673.
Some notices also occur in the Calendar of the State Papers under the date of March, 1637, in relation to the assessment of Ship Money on the Hundred of Rothwell. Two petitions were sent to the Council, one from the High Constables of the Hundred, John Daulby and William Halford, and the other from the Freeholders and Tenants of the Hundred. Roth well Hundred was charged with the payment of an eighth part of the County, and in justification of this it is stated in one of the papers that “divers Hundreds are not in true value worth one manor in Rothwell.” The petitions do not touch the question of the legality of the imposition of the Ship Money, but they give incidental evidence of that rising feeling of dissatisfaction, which at last culminated in the strife between King and Parliament.
Part I. 1655 to 1658—Ministry of Mr. John Beverly. (Closing period of Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate.)
The records of the Independent Church at Rowell are contained in three volumes. The first volume commences with certain Articles of Faith written out at some length in a neat hand, and entitled “A Translation and Collection out of Dr. Francis Junius his Ecclesiasticus, or concerning the nature and administrations of the Church of God, Professor of Divinity in Leidon, a choice University in Holland, about 1595.” After the above Articles there occurs the Covenant which was agreed upon by the members of the church at its first formation. Between this Covenant and the succeeding list of the officers and members of the church the date is given, “Anno Domini, 1655/6.” This must be taken as referring to the year 1656, the date given by Mr. Maurice, and not 1655 the date given by Mr. Coleman. The civil year at one time commenced in March and closed in February, and it was not until the second half of the sixteenth century that the civil year was made to begin on the first of January. In the church records a century later than this, the number of the month is often given according to the old style of reckoning. Thus we have the following entries, “9th day of the 5th month, called July,” and “1st day of the 6th month, called August.” Another relic of the old civil year contained in the church records of the 17th century, and in contemporaneous published works, is the use in the early months of the year of a double date. Generally, as in the instance given above (1655/6), the figure denoting the old style of reckoning is put first, but occasionally it is put last, as for example in a subsequent entry in the church books, “February 9, 1693/2.”
The first church list commences with the names of the officers:
Pastor—John Beverly
Elders—John Ponder, John Cooper
Deacons—John Fox, Ralph Mun
And then occur the names of thirty members.
Mr. John Beverly, who was a devoted puritan, after labouring in several parts of Scotland, came to Rowell about the year 1655 (the church being formed in the following year). He was a man not only of great piety, but also of considerable learning, and he had been a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Though offered through the influence of Colonel Read a living of £200 per annum he preferred remaining at Rowell, where, as he says, in a letter to Mr. Collins, preacher to the Council in Scotland, he was not sure of £50 per annum.
He seems to have come to Rowell in search of health, and having gathered around him a company of true believers, some of them converted under his ministry, he was loth to leave them. He suffered great weakness of body and continual indisposition, but never relaxed his earnest efforts for the conversion of sinners and the edification of the people of God.
It was through his influence that Mr. Thomas Browning, who afterwards succeeded him in the pastorate, was chosen by the people of Desborough Church (that is the Established Church) for their minister in 1657, and during the short interval between Mr. Browning’s appointment to Desborough and Mr. Beverly’s death, the friendship of these two godly men was very dear and intimate.
The character of Mr. Beverly is clearly shewn in a letter to him in 1657 from Mr. Robert Scot of Trinity College, Cambridge.—“The remembrance of your exemplary heavenly conversation, your self-denial, humility, meekness, tenderness of spirit, your caution of offending your brethren, and readiness to pass by offences from them, your unwearied desires of promoting grace and holiness, both in yourself and others, your more than ordinary love to such as you apprehended to be lovers of Christ, with many other blessed fruits of God’s spirit in you, whereby you were endeared to the hearts of all your Christian acquaintance; the remembrance I say of these will, I hope, ever have an influence upon my heart in provoking me to press after the same spirit.”
The following entries in Mr. Beverly’s journal during the last year of his ministry at Rowell reveal the depth and sincerity of his piety.
“March 14, [1658]. The Lord in mercy prepared me for, and assisted me in, this first day’s public labours on Isaiah 56-8 [this Mr. Maurice tells us was his last sermon] to the refreshment of the piously affected, and to the confusion of others. One most remarkable instance we had of a most desperate loose sinner, and opposer of my ministry, who not being humbled by the loss of a child, by God’s stroke (for that a little before he had scornfully objected to me that I had no children, nor never would, when I reproved him for no better educating his) he since, by over drinking, ran mad, and came stripped naked in a frenzy, with a drawn knife in his hand, as to have done me hurt on purpose (so great was the devil in him) yet it pleased the Lord he was stopped ’ere he got to me; but still he cried out. Oh for Beverly! Beverly! whereupon hearing his sad condition I went to see him, and prayed with other neighbours at his bedside for mercy to him, and gave sundry instructions.”
“March 25. I was much cast down, yet the Lord in mercy gave me real experience of having a predominant frame of cordial love to the persons so sinning, [probably members of his church], and joy in myself, notwithstanding their offence against me. Oh the power of love, sound love!it can….as a ship well ballasted, bear a great burden of sense of apparent evils, yet without turbulent inward shakings. It makes one to be as a rock in the midst of waves, and assaults of contrary temptations. Oh how small a thing will trouble one when love is wanting! and on the contrary, when love abounds more can easily be indulged; personal failings not then imputed to question their state in grace. Oh look above saints’ failings; triumph in Christ; expect the weakest saint shall once triumph with thee, and the sinfullest of the godly shall be crowned as the rest! Oh how noble and divine a frame solid love is! how cheerfully did I act, being thus poised by so blessed affection!”
“April 28. The Lord gave in to me an apprehension of the certainty of my restoration in body at the last day and that notwithstanding all the weakness and consumption sin had brought, and could bring upon my body; yet should I, with these very bodily organs more gloriously renewed, be acceptedly instrumental in praising the Almighty in the church above; howbeit for the present I can be no way useful to Christ and his Church below. Oh the meltingness of this apprehension! In discourse with such as visited me, I was glad to think of death; exhorting them to live above. Yet at one of the brethren, and others, weeping to see me so dead-like, my old spiritual love-spring began to issue in tears; which I studiously suppressed.”
“May 5 and 6. These days I was sensible of much spiritual deadness and unsuitableness in my soul, as to walking with God…I poured out my complaints of my sins, losses, wants and misery, especially at such a time, when death approaching and I not awakened. I, like an unconverted soul! Oh it pleased the Lord to pierce me in great mercy (because he knew my feebleness), upon my first addresses! Oh what a flood was made to flow out of my heart’s rock by his spirit! Mourning for his special revisit, he gave me some secret persuasions for my further settlement in his mercy and loving-kindness. Oh this was a comfortable heart-breaking! a soul refreshment! Oh the unsearchable seasons and methods of grace in Christ! This night the brethren met, and brother Cooper the Lord helped to pray affectionately to my and all our refreshment.”
“May 13. Pretty cheerful, till brother Browning’s return from Essex, who told me the saddest news (among some other more refreshing), that there was some discord in the New England churches…Oh what a fountain of tears broke my heart forthwith, to conceive that Satan should infest those precious churches, which the Lord had hitherto so gloriously carried as on eagles’ wings!”
“May 30. It pleased the Lord, after all public excercise was done [probably at a Sunday’s service in which he took part], something being spoke preparatory, as to the ordinance, I administered baptism to three or four children of the church. The last public personal service I am in this life like to do for this holy flock; who I expect to meet in heaven.”
“May 31. I am all this while purely speechless, whoever comes to me, in a manner doing all by signs: yet it is strange that I have no apprehensions now of dying at all; but as in my [life] making Christ my refuge, I hope so to find him in death also. I never was under such constant weakness, and total indisposition of soul or body. Sweet Christ! I will lean on thee alone, while I pass out of this pilgrimage. Oh for an everlasting rest!”
“June 1. The same weakness continued night and day. The Lord drew out his saints’ hearts much for me in prayer. Oh the hope of Israel!”
This last entry was made on the day before his death, for he died on the 2nd of June, 1658. (Mr. Beverly’s death occurred about three months before that of Oliver Cromwell). There is but little doubt that Mr. Beverly was interred in the burial ground attached to the Established Church. Unfortunately the burial registers preserved at Rowell do not extend further back than the commencement of the 18th century, and the copies of the burial registers which were sent to Peterborough from all the parishes in the county during the 17th century have been lost. There is an old tomb close to the buttress at the south-east corner of the Chancel which we believe to be that of Mr. Beverly. In the nearly effaced inscription we fancied we could read—“Here lyeth the body of holy, humble John Beverly,” but fearing that imagination might have led us astray we did not venture to have the stone re-cut.
Mr. Beverly wrote several works in defence of Congregational principles, two of which were published in the year after his death. Of the two works, one in Latin and the other in English, the English one was published last, for it contains in its preface a reference to the Latin work as having been recently issued. Both of these works, the titles of which we will now give, are in the British Museum; the English one is also in Mr. Taylor’s Collection at Northampton.
1. “Unio Reformantium sive Examen Hoornbecki de Independentismo…Per Johannem Beverly, Scholae Regiae Westmon. olim Alumnum, exinde Trinit. Colleg. apud Cantabr. Socium, & tandem Ecclesiae Rothwellensis in agro Angliae Veteris Northamptonensi Pastorem…Londini, Excudebat J. H. pro S. Thomson ad Insigne Capitis Episcopi in Coemeterio Paulino. 1659.” [7 chs. Sm. 8vo. 185 pp.]
There is an Epistle to the Reader in Latin recommending the work, with the following names of ministers attached. Joh. Stalham. Sam. Crossman. Guliel. Sparrow. Joh. Sammes. Joh. Bulkley.
The preface to the work by Mr. Beverly is dated “Rothwelli, Oct. 27, 1657.”
Watts in his Bibliotheca Britannica gives the titles of two Latin tracts by Hoornbeck in reply to the above work of Mr. Beverly. The first was published in Leyden in 1660, and the second in Utrecht in 1661. John Hoornbeck was professor of divinity in the Universities of Utrecht and Leyden.
2. “Unio Reformantium. Or the Presbyterian and Independent Vindicated, from the Contradictious Way of Free Admission:…. In Seven Chapters. By John Beverly, sometime Fellow of Trin. Col. Camb. and lately Pastor of the Church of Christ at Rothwell in Northamptonshire. London, Printed by Ja. C. for John Allen at the Rising-Sun in Pauls Church-yard. 1659.” This was seven years before the Great Fire of London, and when Old St. Paul’s was still standing. [This work like the other is in sm. 8vo.]
There is prefixed to the above work a letter of condolence from the church of Christ at Terling in Essex to the church of Christ at Rothwell upon the death of their pastor Mr. Beverly. The letter is signed “John Stalham, Pastour.”
This English work of Mr. Beverly abounds in quotations from the Greek and Latin Fathers, criticisms of the Greek text of the New Testament, and references to the polemical writers of the day. Though many of the arguments are conclusive, and many of the criticisms show considerable acumen, yet there is in the work such an utter lack of system as makes the reading of it rather tedious. Mr. Beverly seems to have been somewhat conscious of this, as we gather from the following note which concludes the work. This note, as the reader will see, is not remarkable for its lucidity. “Reader, My defect in Method I was necessitated to, by that Rambling Discourse, the Rhapsody of Mistakes, the icvneoav of heady mischarges, the too truly-confused suggestions of the Author (especially’in this Close) I had to do withal. But Truth may shine through the Lattice of some immethodicalness.”
We have seen, from the preceding list of the officers of the church, that there were two elders as well as two deacons. The duty of the elders related to the spiritual affairs of the church, and, in most of the subsequent entries in the church books in relation to the election of such officers, they are referred to as ruling elders. The custom, however, of having such officers has long since died out in this church, and in the other churches of the same order. These officers, both elders and deacons, were, after their election, set apart at a meeting of the church by fasting and prayer and imposition of hands. (Subsequently to this, in the time of Mr. Davis, we have an entry concerning the election of deaconesses. The entry referred to is as follows:—“1 Feb., 1691. Sister Day and Sister Frizby were chosen deaconesses. Sister Day consented. Sister Frizby desired time.”)
The following is all the information which we can gather concerning the first elders and deacons of the church. We have already referred in our Introduction to John Fox and John Ponder as having been summoned before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the reign of Charles 1st. John Cooper has also been referred to in one of the extracts from Mr. Beverly’s journal as having greatly comforted his pastor by his prayers. In the work of Mr. Maurice, John Ponder is said to have been sent by the church to present their call to Mr. Browning, of Desborough, in 1662. The said John Ponder seems to have been in some fair way of business, judging from a brass token we have seen which was dug up on the farm of Mr. Cook of Orton. On one side of this token, which is about the size of a sixpenny-piece, there is the inscription “John Ponder of Rowel,” and on the other side “Half Penny, 1664,” that is two years after the incident above referred to of his mission to Desborough. We have seen the drawing of another token of John Ponder’s bearing the date of 1655, and on one side of it there is a trade sign having very much the appearance of a number of candles strung on a cord, perhaps therefore he may have been a grocer. Private tokens were early used in our country and are mentioned by Erasmus as being used in England in his day. They were provided by tradesmen for their own customers, and were intended to compensate for the scarcity of half-pence and farthings. They were prohibited by James the 1st in 1613, but during the distractions of the Civil Wars they were again brought into use by tavern-keepers, grocers, and tradesmen in general. These tokens were usually of brass, and were stamped with various devices, besides bearing the name, &c., of the person by whom they were issued.
Part II. 1658-1685—Interval of 4 years without a Pastor, and Ministry of Mr. Thomas Browning. (Protectorate of Richard Cromwell and reign of Charles the 2nd.)
There is no entry in the church book in relation to the period between Mr. Beverly’s death, and the choice of his successor, 1658 to 1662, but there is the following reference to it in the work of Mr. Maurice. “Though the church now mourning the loss of their dear pastor was young and tender, yet through grace the godly members thereof had been well instructed to look to the great shepherd and bishop of their souls, and still cleave to him, with purpose of heart: and that not only as particular or distinct believers, each one for himself, but as a church, though now destitute. They exhorted each other, they prayed together; and for soul-feeding under the doctrine of grace, they constantly went down to Desborough, being but a little mile distant, to attend on Mr. Browning’s ministry, where God was pleased to give them many a refreshing time.” Desborough, which Mr. Maurice here calls “but a little mile distant” from Rowell, is now regarded as being two miles distant. It seems probable, therefore, that Rowell was at that time (as it certainly was more anciently) considerably larger than it is now, and that it extended further in the direction of Desborough.
After the entry of the death of Mr. Beverly the list in the church book is resumed as follows:—“Added since the death of Mr. Beverly. Thomas Browning, pastor. Decr. 1662.” Then before any regular entry of church meetings there occur 64 names of members. These names fill up the interval between 1662 and 1676. From the latter date to the death of Mr. Browning in 1685 the list of the members is given with the date of the church meeting at which they were admitted. The number of members entered at these meetings between 1676 and 1685 is 73, making the total during Mr. Browning’s ministry 137.
Mr. Thomas Browning, who succeeded Mr. Beverly as pastor of the church at Rowell, was designed by his parents for the ministry of the Church of England, and sent to Oxford about the sixteenth year of his age. He led a depraved life during his residence at the University, and then after some vicissitudes, and having married a wife in Hertfordshire, he removed to London. He there attended with great profit the morning lecture at Westminster Abbey that was supplied by very able and godly men. After a time of great poverty and distress, by the kind invitation of his parents, he and his wife went to live with them at his old home at Coggeshall, in Essex. Here he greatly profited under the ministry of Mr. Samms, and became a devoted member of his church. It was through a conversation between Mr. Samms and Mr. Beverly, when they met at a Commencement at Cambridge, that Mr. Browning was introduced to the people at Desborough Church, and chosen by them as their minister in the year 1657. He laboured amongst them for five years, until the passing of the Act of Uniformity in 1662, when he gave up the living rather than comply with the terms required. He preached his farewell sermon from 2 Cor. 13, 14, which contained, as he told them, the best farewell any minister could take of his people.
He was then invited to become the minister of the Independent church at Rowell, the invitation being conveyed to him by Mr. John Ponder, an elder of the church. Many of the pious people of his old flock at Desborough joined in the invitation, and connected themselves thenceforth with the church at Rowell. Having accepted the invitation he entered upon his labours at Rowell, which extended over a period of 23 years.
It would seem from the church book that Mr. Browning was married a second time during his ministry at Rowell, for besides the entry of “his wife, deceased,” there is also the entry of “Susanna Ponder, Mr. Browning’s wife;” she was probably the daughter of John Ponder, the elder of the church previously referred to. Under the date of March 1st, 1680, there is the entry “Mrs. Bigge, Mr. Browning’s daughter.” The next entry is that of “Mary Humphry, Parson Humphry’s daughter,” and it is added “both of them gave satisfying account of God’s work upon their hearts.” This Mary Humphry was probably the daughter of John Humphry, who was minister of the Established Church in Rowell from 1663 to 1686. Under the date Feb. 18, 1694, fourteen years after the above, there is the entry of the admission of a grand-daughter of Mr. Browning.
During the time of Mr. Browning’s ministry in Rowell the Dissenters throughout the country were subject to great persecution. In 1664 the infamous Conventicle Act was passed, by which all who assembled for religious worship other than that of the Established Church were made subject to fines, imprisonment, and transportation. This Act was renewed with even greater severity about the commencement of the year 1670.
An interesting reference to a Visitation at Rowell, by the Bishop of Peterborough, a few months after this renewal of the Conventicle Act, occurs in a work entitled “A Collection of the Sufferings of the People called Quakers…By Joseph Besse. In 2 vols. Folio…London, 1753.” The reference is contained in what is given as an “Extract of a Letter from Wellingborough, dated the 13th of the Fourth Month 1670.” This would probably be June, according to the old style of reckoning. The reference is as follows: “The Bishop of Peterborough visited at Rowel last Week, and there said openly in the Mass-house, after he had given every Officer a Charge to put the late Act in Execution; That when they met again, (meaning the Parliament) they would make a stronger for them, they would get a Law made to take away their Lands and Goods, and then they should be sold for Bond-slaves.” This charge of the Bishop seems to have borne ample fruit to the poor dissenters of Rowell.
Before referring to the entries about the persecutions of these days contained in the church book, we will notice a graphic incident, in relation to the intended capture of Mr. Browning. This incident is recorded in a work by Mr. Pierce, entitled “The Conformist’s fourth Plea for the Non conformists…London, Printed for L. Curtis at the Sign of Sir Edmund-Bury Godfrey, near Fleet-Bridg. 1683.” [4to.] The following is the incident referred to: “Some Souldiers came one Lord’s-Day, in April last, 1682, Low Sunday as it is remembered, to break up a Meeting, and to take Mr. Browning of R, in Northamptonshire. The Constable admonished them to be well advised what they did: For (said he) when Sir——–was alive, he eagerly prosecuted these Meetings, and engaged eight Souldiers of the County-Troop therein, whereof myself was one. Sir——–himself is dead (it is said he died not long after) six of the eight Souldiers are dead; some of them were hanged, and some of them broke their Necks; and I myself fell off my Horse, and broke my Neck [sic!] in the Act of Prosecuting them, and it cost me thirty Shillings to be cured and recovered. It hath given me such warning, that for my part I am resolved I will never meddle with them more. He told this Story to them all at several times that day. This Story is related by others with some considerable Circumstances; but this being the more moderate Relation, I give it almost in the very same Words, in which it was sent from a good and reputable hand to a Friend. Several Justices of Peace were in a great Heat that day in the pursuit of the Preacher, and the Meeting; but the Birds were flown, before they could cast their Net, and so escaped.
“I do not hear that this Constable, for all his Conviction, is at any time a Hearer at that Meeting. It is remarkable how such Persons may be restrained, and how readily the Con science a little awakened makes Constructions of the Divine Providences to be Acts of Judgment, and Admonitions to them.
“From the same hand I am assured of another Example: Since that, W. H. one of the Church-wardens of the same Parish, and one of the most imbittered Enemies of the Meetings, who had often Quarrels with some of his near Relations about them, and especially the Night before he died, who was suddenly struck dead in his own Yard, and never spoke nor breathed one Breath after he was taken with it. As he had no notice of its Arrest, till it came; so he gave no notice of his being to die, to any other. Surely the Constable must needs be confirmed in his Resolutions against Acting by his sudden Death. Some threatening Words against the Barn, the common Name of Meetings, spoken by hint, are by some remembered; but general Words are most sparing, and I will content myself with them.”
The Barn referred to above was probably used from the very commencement of the church as a place for public worship. The explanation which the author here gives of the use of the term Barn was in this case unnecessary, for the original Trust Deed, executed in the time of Mr. Davis the next pastor, in 1699, shews that during his time the Meeting-house was literally a six-bayed barn. The present Chapel was erected on the site of this Barn in 1735, and there is a stone in one of the side walls bearing the date 1676, but whether this was taken from the structure used as a Meeting-house in the time of Mr. Browning we cannot tell. The only account of Chapel alterations which we have during the whole period to which our history relates is contained in the following entry in the church records during the pastorate of Mr. Davis. The date of the entry is a few months previous to that of the original Trust Deed. “April 10, 1699. The church has consented the building, and repairing, and ordering the affairs relating thereto, to be left to the elders and deacons, at the discretion of Bro. Cogan.”
Having alluded to the old chapel, it may be well to make a short statement here concerning the minister’s house. This messuage or tenement, situated near the chapel, is probably the same as that referred to in the old Title Deeds, and in the original Deed of Trust, bearing dates respectively during the reign of Charles the 2nd and William of Orange. When the six-bayed bam alluded to above was used simply as a barn, probably the messuage or tenement now used as the minister’s residence was a farm house. There have been some alterations and improvements since then; notably the great open fire-places have been closed in and fitted with modern stoves, but the heavy ceiling beams, and the dark oak floors sufficiently remind us of the olden times. The following entry in the records of the church at College Lane, Northampton, no doubt refers to this house, which was probably at that time subject to certain alterations and repairs. “Collected for the Church at Rowell towards the Minister’s House, Nov. 9, 1701, 3s. o.” This was in the time of Mr. Davis the third Minister of the church at Rowell, and is the earliest reference to the Minister’s House which we have been able to discover. Allusions to the Minister’s House occur also subsequently to this in connection with the pastorate of Mr. Sanderson, the fifth minister, and it is well known that, with certain brief exceptions, the old house adjoining the chapel has been the residence of the minister from the time of Mr. Sanderson until now.
Some evidence of the trials to which Mr. Browning and his flock were subject in those days of bitter persecution, is given in the church book. Under the date Feb. 28, 1683, we find the following entry—“This day some members with the pastor and officers had a delegated power of admitting members during present persecution without a church meeting.” The following side entry (which occurs almost immediately after, in the first vacant space) would seem to refer to the above, “This proceeding condemned afterwards by the church.”
The next entry was after an interval of fourteen months, on Ap. 3, 1684, and is as follows—“From the last date a sore persecution and scattering lay upon us, that we hardly got together, much less obtained church meetings. Kept a night in prayer to God, humbling ourselves before him. We partook of the Lord’s Supper, and admitted Anne Warren and Sarah Bishop, both declaring satisfyingly God’s work on their souls.”
There is a reference in Mr. Maurice’s book apparently applying to the above period when the people “hardly got together, much less obtained church meetings.” He says, “Their former dear pastor, Mr. Browning, used to tell some of them in times of sore persecution, that their Meeting house Doors should thereafter be opened, and the everlasting love of God abundantly preached there.” There is a tradition still remaining in the town, probably referring to this period, to the effect that in certain byegone days of persecution some of the members of the church were in the habit of assem bling secretly at night in Rowell wood. This wood was probably larger then than now.
Mr. Browning was for some time imprisoned in Northampton jail for preaching the Gospel, though we do not know the exact time when this imprisonment occurred. The following is a copy of the concluding part of a letter which Mr. Browning addressed from prison to the church at Rowell.
“A suffering day is the trial of our love to follow Christ. When there is no opposition it is easy. Do not hypocrites do so? But this is the commendation of Christ’s followers; they ‘follow him whithersoever he goeth.’ These are they that came out of great tribulation; they are before the throne and serve him night and day; and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them; the Lamb in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall wipe away tears from their eyes! Come, my brethren, you weep now. Our tender father has a handkerchief in his hand to wipe away our tears, ere long. Do not offend with weeping; too many tears may defile. ‘Woman, why weepest thou!’ was our Lord’s enquiry. Tears of joy become the saints, and there is no danger in them; they will be sure to drop into his bosom, and draw out, it may be the like in him; for he rejoices over us with singing, he rests in his love. Oh, my brethren, methinks I am with you, weeping with you, joying with you, praying with you, and hearing with you. It is true fellowship my soul has with you at a distance. I long after you much in the Lord; yet rejoicingly stay his good pleasure. I would not come out a moment before his time. I would not take a step without his direction. I am wonder fully well, better and better. The cup of affliction for the Gospel is sweeter, the deeper; a stronger cordial, the nearer the bottom; I mean death itself. Oh the joy, unspeakable and glorious, the dying martyrs of Jesus have had! How full freight have been their souls in their passage to their port! I tell you, if you knew what Christ’s prisoners some of them enjoyed in their jails, you would not fear their condition, but long for it; and I am persuaded, could their enemies conceive of their comfort, in mere vexation of heart they would stay their persecutions. ‘Therefore, my brethren, my joy, my crown, stand fast in the Lord.’ Rejoice greatly to run your race; fear not their power; sit loose from the world; allot yourselves this portion, that God has allotted you; ‘through many tribulations to enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Come, the worst is death, and that is the best of all. What, do we stick at dying for him, who stuck not at it for us? Do we find difficulty in that, which will be an entrance into glory? Do princes dread their coronation days? or any loathe to come to their nuptials? Foolish hearts! why do ye err, not knowing, rather, not believing the Scrip tures? I must stay my pen to dry my eyes, because of the overflowing of God’s love upon my soul. And now I see, if I had not something to keep me down, I could not bear the loads of God’s favour. Blessed be God, blessed be God! ‘Let every one that hath breath praise the Lord.’ ‘Oh, love the Lord ye his saints!’ My brethren do not budge. Keep your ground the scripture is your law, God is your king. Your principles are sober; your practises are peaceable; your obedience to superiors known, in those things wherein obedience is required. If men have nothing against you but in the matters of your God, rejoice and triumph in all your persecutions. I exhort you all to walk in the faith, fear, love, and joy of the Lord. I do not suspect your remembrance of me, yet I beseech you to abound in it more and more, as you can, and may the Lord assist you. Study your mutual edification. Fear nothing of events till they come; only fear offending God with a neglect of your duty. There is no shadow like the shadow of God’s wings, keep therefore close to God.”
Mr. Maurice in his book gives another letter which was written by Mr. Browning from Prison. It is addressed “to the brethren of the church dwelling at Broughton.” Some hymns were found in Mr. Browning’s study after his death, which he had been in the habit of using at the Ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, and which were probably written by him self. They are published at the end of Mr. Davis’s Hymn Book, to which we shall have occasion subsequently to refer. Mr. Gregson the sixth minister of the church at Rowell, having married a descendant of Mr. Browning, came into possession of his diary, some portions of which were shewn to Mr. Palmer, the editor of the u Nonconformist’s Memorial;” but this diary is now lost.
The following extract from the correspondence of Mr. Browning, contains an affecting account of the impressions produced upon his mind by a visit which he paid to Mr. Beverly, who was then fast approaching the close of his ministry. This extract we have obtained from the work of Mr. Maurice.
“Ah! thought I, this is a saint indeed; but what am I; I bid him farewell; which was not ordinary with me so soon! but I sought a place to be alone, and melt to death at the foot of God. I returned home, called my little family together, which consisted but in myself, wife, and godly servant, and prayed with them: somewhat was stirring then; but I repaired to my study and threw myself all along Upon the ground, and laid my mouth in the dust, and wept sore, saw no grace of God in me, had fresh remembrance of notorious sins, and was confounded, that one who hoped in pardon should be no more holy. I had at this time such a work upon my heart as I never before had, especially before I was got off my knees j such a prospect of Christ, in his person and offices, as I never had before; and such a sensible closing with Christ, and evidence of God’s love to my soul as I never before had. And, indeed, it was a repetition of all I had before found in a better edition, with such a progression into evidence, peace, joy, and assurance, as I never before had. The remembrance of it is precious to this day, now sixteen years ago, and has been of marvellous advantage ever since. It was the first mighty losing time that ever I had in God; for I was lost and swallowed up in him. I went out of my study, walked in the Chamber, admiring God, bewailing my hard thoughts of him, mourning for my unbelief more than all my sins; with great purposes of heart to cleave close to God, and grow up to the highest pitch of holiness.”
The Rector’s house at Desborough which was occupied by Mr. Browning was pulled down a few years ago and another erected on the same site.
Mr. Browning was minister of the church at Rowell for about 23 years. He died on May the 9th, 1685, (three months after the death of Charles the 2nd). Mr. Browning was interred in the burial ground attached to the Established Church. His tomb is near the North-East Corner of the Chancel. The inscription when we discovered it was nearly effaced, but with patience we have been enabled to decipher it. The tomb is now properly built together and strengthened, and the inscription is re-cut, so that probably it may last another 200 years. The following is the inscription.
“Thos Browning
Eccl Cti qvae Rothwelliae conveniebat Pastor erat fidissimus, cvjvs indefessa qva pvblice qva privatim in mvnere pastorali fvngendo opera memoriam posteris comendabat Obiit May 9. A D 1685 Aetat. 52.’’
That is “Thomas Browning was the very faithful pastor of the church of Christ which met at Rothwell, his unwearied labours both in public and in private in the discharge of the pastoral office commended his memory to posterity. Died May 9th in the year of our Lord .1685. Aged 52.”
It is said that the late Prince Albert, contrary to the original intention, ruled that the Royal Exchange in London should bear an English inscription so that all might read it. The inscription he chose was a very appropriate one, namely “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.”
“We were reminded of this by an incident which occurred in connection with this tomb of Mr. Browning. One afternoon, after the workmen had replaced the stones of this tomb, with the renewed inscription, a number of the old men from the neighbouring charitable institution called “Jesus Hospital,” gathered around on the green sward to pass their opinions. First one discovered from “Eccliae.” that Mr. Browning used to preach out of the Book of Ecclesiastes. “Conveniebat pastor” was then freely rendered as a convenient pastor who was ready to supply the church when required. It was afterwards ascertained from the word “pvblice” that Mr. Browning was a publican. And one old gentleman finally wound up by saying that “fvngendo opera” meant that he was some kind of an opera singer. The memory of Mr. Browning might have been spared some reflections if the inscription had been in English.
Some of the members of the church during Mr. Browning’s Ministry came from the villages and towns around Rowell, and some even from a considerable distance.
They came from the following places, Achurch, Arthing-worth, Brigstock, Broughton, Desborough, Great Bowden, Hallaton, Oakley, Old, Orton, Northampton, Stoke Albany, Thorpe Malsor, Walgrave, and Wilbarston.
Several of the members during Mr. Browning’s time were dismissed to other churches, namely to Kettering and Cambridge, and to Mr. Clarke (Harboro’), Dr. Chancey (London), and Mr. Cranch.
The following are the most notable entries in the church book during this period, besides those previously referred to. “John Dobbs son to Will. Dobbs, of Orton, and Elizabeth Mun, daughter of Robt. Mun, both gave a good account of God’s work upon their hearts before the Congregation, and God had praise from the mouth of young ones.” “Mr. Strickland Negus, Minister.” This gentleman was ejected from Chester (in the parish of Irchester, near Welling borough). He was one of the Thursday lecturers at Oundle, and he is said to have been a truly good man and a useful preacher. “Goody Law, ripe and gathered, Jan. 7, 1682, on the Lord’s day went to rest.” Mary Gascoine, a very glorious relation of God’s work upon her heart, one of the greatest accounts that ever I heard, few eyes without tears.—She’s gone to glory.”
Part III. 1685 to 1714.—Interval of 4 years without a Pastor, and Ministry of Mr. Richard Davis. (Reigns of James the 2nd, William the 3rd, and Queen Anne.)
Chapter I.—Interval of 4 years without a pastor.
The first entry in the church book in relation to this period is as follows: “The church had but little communion for some months till God put it into our hearts to humble ourselves, reform his house, and set upon his work, almost lost by five or six years persecution, and the death of our pastor. We kept a solemn day of prayer April 22, 1686, with good encouragement in it, by drawing out an account of God’s dealings with the souls of these following, namely:” then occurs a list of seven names.
At this time many of the members of the church had withdrawn from fear of persecution, and there are several references to church admonitions being addressed to them. This proceeding seems to have been effective; no less than eleven having expressed their repentance and been re-admitted. Some of them are said to have given “account of their repentance and sorrow for their absenting and going to the publique.” The meaning of this phrase, as applicable to the Established Church, we shall have occasion to notice more fully further on.
During the time the church was without a pastor they obtained the services of several ministers, and Mr. Saunders (of Bedworth) is referred to as having preached about “the Covenant,” and Mr. Clarke (of Harboro’) about “Lot’s wife’s sin and judgment.” An invitation to preach was sent to Mr. Holcroft (of Cambridge), and Mr. Harris supplied the pulpit for about twelve months, though not as a settled pastor.
The number of members admitted during this time was thirty six.
Just before the narration of the coming of Mr. Davis there is an entry in the church book in relation to the renewal of their Covenant by the members of the church. This entry is succeeded by the signatures of one hundred and seventeen members, exclusive of the officers of the church. Many of the members had to have their names written for them; their mark being generally placed between the Christian and Surname.
Chapter 2.—The life of Richard Davis Previous to his settlement at Rowell, with some notices of that event, and some account of his labors immediately subsequent to it.
Mr. Richard Davis, the third pastor of the church, was born in Cardigandshire in South Wales, in 1658 (the year of Mr. Beverley’s death). He had a liberal education in his own country, and after some years removed to London, where he became Master of a Grammar School, in which office he secured a large share of approval and confidence. For several years whilst in London he lived with Mr. Langston, who was afterwards Minister at Ipswich in Suffolk. His intercourse with Mr. Langston, together with his many opportunities of hearing the faithful proclamation of the Gospel, were blessed to the conversion of his soul.
He seems to have been greatly impressed with some wholesome counsel which he received from the celebrated Dr. Owen, who was ever open and affable in his address to all who waited upon him. The Dr. said to Mr. Davis, “Young man, pray after what manner do you think to go to God?” Mr. Davis answered “Sir, through the Mediator.” To which the Dr. replied “Young man, that is easily said; but I do assure you that it is another thing to go to God through the Mediator indeed, than perhaps many men who make use of the expression are aware of. I myself preached Christ some years when I had but very little, if any, experimental acquaintance with access to God through Christ; until the Lord was pleased to visit me with sore affliction, whereby I was brought to the mouth of the grave, and underwhich my soul was oppressed with horror and darkness; but God graciously relieved my spirit in a powerful application of Ps. 130-4 ‘But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.’ From whence I received special instruction, peace, and comfort in drawing near to God through the Mediator, and preached thereupon immediately after my recovery.”
Whilst in London Mr. Davis joined the church of which Mr. Thomas Cole was pastor. (This Mr. Cole was a celebrated and eminent divine in his day. During the time of the Protectorate he was the Principal of St. Mary’s Hall, Oxford. He had the honor there of educating many who were afterwards eminent for their learning and ability, and amongst others the great metaphysician John Locke. During the reign of Charles the Second he for some time kept an Academy at Nettlebed, in Oxfordshire, and there he had for one of his pupils Mr. Samuel Wesley, the father of the celebrated John Wesley.) Mr. Davis was not long connected with the church of Mr. Cole before he was urged by many Christian friends to dedicate himself to the Ministry, and his preaching in compliance with their request was rendered very acceptable and useful.
It was during his residence in London that he married Mrs. Rosamond Williams, who is described by Mr. Maurice as “a gentlewoman of eminent godliness, prudence, and wisdom: a helpmeet indeed, who always strengthened his hands in God, a constant comfort unto him under all the trials of his life, and a constant example of prudence, and all piety unto others.”
The report of Mr. Davis reaching the church at Rowell, they desired him to come down and preach to them. (This was in the latter part of the year 1689, not many months after the accession of William and Mary). As the result of his ministrations to the church consequent upon this invitation, he became joined to it in fellowship, and received and accepted an invitation to become its pastor. The following entries occur in the church book in relation to these events—“Feb. 20, 1690, Mr. Richard Davis, after a large account given of God’s work upon his heart, was with the full and rejoicing consent of the whole church joined to the communion in order to his being pastor.” There is also a copy of his letter of dismission from the church in London over which Mr. Thomas Cole was pastor. The invitation to the pastorate and its acceptance is thus recorded, “March 3, 1690. A solemn invitation and call of the whole church was given to Mr. Richard Davis above said to the office of Pastor, which he accepted.” It is narrated by Mr. Maurice that when Mr. Davis came down finally to settle at Rowell, he was accompanied during part of the journey by Sir William Langham, who expressed some surprise that he should leave the advantages he possessed in London to embrace “the mean prospect he must have at Rowell amongst such a poor number of Dissenters,” to which Mr. Davis replied “that according to Christ’s Word he was to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness.”
The following is the entry in the church book in relation to the Ordination of Mr. Davis, “On the seventh-day, March 22, 1690, the said Mr. Davis by fasting and prayer of the church, and imposition of hands of the eldership, in the name of the said church, was set apart to and installed in the office of Pastor and Bishop of the said church of Christ at Rowell; being the answer of many prayers of the said church.”
Mr. Davis was a man of most remarkable energy and zeal. He not only engaged ardently in the work of Preacher and Pastor at home, but extended his ministrations through several adjacent counties. Wherever he was invited to preach or the people were represented to him as being in a peculiarly benighted condition, there he carried the glad tidings of salvation, travelling for this purpose on horseback hundreds of miles.
His ministrations were accompanied with a surprising amount of success, and wherever he went saving impressions were produced and members admitted into the church.
Not content with proclaiming himself the glorious truths of the Gospel, he sought out amongst the members of his church those who were fitted by their piety and intelligence to instruct their fellows, and sent them far and wide on the same errand of mercy. Regular meetings also both on Week-days and Sundays, public and private, were appointed and maintained by him and by his followers in places far distant from each other and from the parent church.
Such in a few sentences, was the character of the labours of Mr. Davis, when (as we shall see in the following chapter), he was overtaken by the storms of persecution.
Chapter 3.—The history of the persecutions with which Mr. Davis was assailed principally in 1691 and the following year.
Our knowledge of the persecutions which were endured by Mr. Davis, we have obtained from the following sources, in addition to the work of Mr. Maurice to which we have already referred.
1.—“A Plain and Just Account of a Most Horrid and Dismal Plague, begun at Rowel, alias Rothwell, in Northamptonshire. Which hath Infected many places round about. Or, A Faithful Narrative of the Execrable and Noisom Errours, and the Abominable and Damnable Heresies vented by Richard Davis, pretended Pastour to a People at Rowel; and by his Emissaries, the Shoomakers, Joyners, Dyers, Taylers, Weavers, Farmers, &c. … By Mr. P. Rehakosht, &c. Inhabiting on the East side of the seat ofthe Plague…London, Printed for the Author, 169a.” [4m. 24 pages.] In the British Museum, Dr. Williams’ Library, and Mr. Taylor’s Collection at Northampton. Of course the P. Rehakosht above is merely a nom de guerre.
2.—“Truth and Innocency Vindicated, against Falshood & Malice; Exprest in a Late Virulent Pamphlet, Intituled, (A True Account of a most Horrid and Dismal Plague, began at Rothwell, &c.) Without Printer’s Licenser’s, or Author’s Name thereunto: Together with an Account of the Kettering Visitation. By R. Davis, a poor Despised Servant of Christ…To which is Added Mr. Rob. Betson’s Answer to so much as concerns him in the said Libel. London. Printed for Nath, and Robert Ponder, and are to be Sold by Randal Taylor near Stationers-Hall, by Mr. Coolidge at Cambridge, Mr. Prior, Shopkeeper at Colchester, Mr. Nolle at St. Edmund’s Bury, Mr. Haworth Grocer at Ipswich—Northampton, Wellingborow, Kettering, Oundle, Harborow, Litter-worth, Upingham, Bedford, Kimbolton and Canterbury.” [4to. 86 pages.] The date of the License at the back of the title is, “November 4, 1692.” In the British Museum, Dr. Williams’ Library, and Mr. Taylor’s Collection at Northampton.
3.—“Uavovpyia. A Brief Review of Mr. Davis’s Vindication: Giving no Satisfaction…By Giles Firmin, one of the United Brethren…London, Printed for John Lawrence, at the Angel in the Poultrey. 1693.” [4to. 32 pages.] In the British Museum. It would seem from the British Museum Catalogue that this Giles Firmin wrote many other Controversial Works.
4.—There is another pamphlet also in relation to Mr. Davis which we shall have occasion to quote in this chapter and subsequently, the title of which is as follows, “Account of the Doctrine and Discipline of Mr. Richard Davis, of Roth- well, in the County of Northampton, and those of his Separation…London, Printed in the Year 1700.” In the British Museum, Dr. Williams’ Library, and Mr. Taylor’s Collection at Northampton. This pamphlet seems to have been written by a minister of the Church of England, and is conceived in a very fair spirit. The first part of the pamphlet consists of a copy of the Church Covenants during the time of Mr. Davis.
There were two Covenants used by the church at this time, a smaller one for ordinary occasions, and a much larger one based upon this and supplying a full explanation and enforcement of its contents. These covenants are both entered in the church book, and are both given in the pamphlet referred to. We find from the preface of the pamphlet that these Covenants were printed by order of the church in the year 1694; but we have not been able to find a copy.
The persecutions which fell to the lot of Mr. Davis, were not from the State or Government, for he lived under a reign of liberty; neither did they arise in any great measure from the wicked and profane who make no profession of religion; neither were they caused by the jealousy or ill-will of the members of the Established Church; but he was opposed and traduced by his own brethren in the ministry, and “wounded in the house of his friends.”
During the early part of the Ministry of Mr. Davis, the majority of the Nonconformist Ministers in England were Presbyterians, and many who were professed Independents, as the events recorded in this chapter will shew, possessed little more than the name. Mr. Davis, however, was a thorough Independent, and carried the principle further even than we of the same persuasion do at the present day.
It was seen for example that at his Ordination the imposition of hands was made by the Elders of the Church, and it is narrated by Mr. Maurice that this gave great umbrage to many of the neighbouring ministers who were present, several of whom abruptly withdrew, saying that “there was no business for them.” Giles Firmin in his pamphlet gives a clear insight into the aversion which many of the brethren cherished to that principle of Independency which Mr. Davis so ardently espoused. He says, “No wonder…the third Synod of Charenton in France, when they heard of Independentism in England, what woful work it made here, was so careful that it should get no footing in their Churches; because, say they, it ushereth in Confusion, all hinds of Singularities, Irregularities, and Extravagancies, and larreth the use of those means which would most effectually prevent them, and dangerous to the Civil State also.”
Many of the Dissenting Ministers also during the early part of Mr. Davis’s Ministry were those who had been ejected from their livings in 1662, but who nevertheless retained a considerable fondness for the Establishment, as shewn by their Occasional Conformity. Mr. Davis on the other hand manifested a spirit of intense dislike and reprehension in relation to the Established Church; and attendance upon its services during his time by any of the members of his own church was treated as an offence deserving of censure, and if unrepented and unforsaken of excommunication.
Again the affairs of the Dissenting Churches in Northamptonshire and the adjoining counties in Mr. Davis’s time were carried on in an eminently quiet and respectable manner; precedents being regarded as having almost the force of Gospel Rules. Whilst on the other hand Mr. Davis seems to have been a man of burning zeal, having little respect for any precedents or usual modes of procedure, unless they commended themselves to his judgment, as being just and beneficial. He was prepared at once to carry out that which he regarded as the work of the Lord, altogether regardless of the opinions or wishes of his brethren in the neighbourhood, or the rules laid down by “the United Ministers in and about London.” Thus we have seen, he not only preached himself wherever he was requested, or where ever he thought the people greatly needed the sound of the Gospel, but he also sent out members of his own church to minister in far distant places to those whom he had gathered into church fellowship. This in his day was a completely new thing: it was “Independentism” with a vengeance. Ministers like John Bunyan of Bedford, and Francis Holcroft of Cambridge, had previously to his time made wide counties their bishoprics, and many had engaged in preaching without the authority or recognition of any organised community of Christians, but never before had a dissenting church sent out such lay agents as these. Drs. Bogue and Bennett in their History of Dissenters, referring to this fact, term Mr. Davis “the morning star of propagation.” The custom died out in the church at Rowell after this day, but had a grand revival in the apostles of Methodism. Now we can easily imagine the intense dislike with which the respectable and comparatively easy-going Ministers of Mr. Davis’s neighbourhood, must have regarded this new thing. Giles Firmin in his pamphlet, referring to Mr. Davis and his agents, says, “As for your Mechanicks, which you have sent out as your Apostles, I look upon them, as I do upon all these Lay-Preachers in England, now risen up in this boundless Liberty, to be but the Devil’s Design, first to Debase the Ministry, and then to overthrow it.”
About this time arose also, through the republication of some of Dr. Crisp’s works, the celebrated controversy between the Antinomians and Neonomians, as they were called; the former led by Dr. Chancey and others; and the latter by Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Williams. This contest raged for some time very bitterly, and whilst the majority of the ministers of his neighbourhood opposed the views of Dr. Crisp, Mr. Davis to some extent espoused them.
The above considerations seem to account, to a considerable extent, for the intense and unscrupulous opposition to Mr. Davis on the part of many of his brethren in the ministry, and we confess that without such considerations the opposition would be to us perfectly inexplicable.
But before entering upon an account of those persecutions which Mr. Davis encountered almost exclusively from his brethren, it would be well perhaps to anticipate here some notice of his Trial at the Northampton Assizes in the early part of 1692. It would seem from the following entry in the church book that one of Mr. Davis’s lay preachers had to share this trouble with him. “Feb. 12. 1692, Agreed that a day of fasting and prayer be kept on Monday next, to seek the face of God with respect to our honored Pastor that is to appear before men for the sake of Christ, and also with respect to Brother Rowlatt which is also to appear before men.” Mr. Davis refers in his Vindication, in relation to this Trial, to the ill-affection towards him of the gentry of this and the adjoining counties, induced as he says by false suggestions and malicious accusations purposely spread about amongst them by his opponents. Mr. Maurice makes the following reference to this Trial, “When unjustly accused to authority by invidious wretches who could not follow their charge, nor make any part of it good, and therefore publicly and honorably acquitted, a certain gentleman in a virulent and impertinent manner asked him what business he had to go up and down to such places babbling? for so he called the preaching of the Gospel; Mr. Davis, in the presence of all, turned to him, and with a countenance which testified a good cause, and a good conscience, said, ‘Sir, I was upon the work of my Lord and Master Jesus Christ; do you know him?’ Whereupon the gentleman was struck with silence, and many more with amazement.” We cannot discover the particular character of the accusations brought against Mr. Davis at this Trial, but they probably had some relation to Conjuration and Jesuitism, which formed the ground of some of the subsequent attacks of his opponents. The serious nature of such charges at that time could hardly be exaggerated, and those who made them must have been influenced by the most bitter enmity.
Some of Mr. Davis’s friends in London, who had been intimate with him during his residence there, sent down testimonials about this time to Rowell, copies of which Mr. Davis gives in his Vindication. These testimonials are from the Deputy, the Common-Council Men, and other principal inhabitants of the Ward of Queenhithe, and speak emphatically of their high estimation of Mr. Davis, and of their disbelief of the reports which were then so industriously spread in relation to him.
We will now go back to a period previous to the above Trial in order to narrate from their commencement the persecutions which Mr. Davis encountered from his brethren. Towards the close of 1690, and during the early part of the following year several of Mr. Davis’s ministerial opponents were very busy in going up and down the country collecting stories to his prejudice, and they do not seem to have been at all particular either as to the characters of those from whom they were obtained, or as to the evidence by which they were supported. They also (and others whom they employed) took frequent opportunities of hearing Mr. Davis and taking notes of portions of his sermons. In these notes, as the evidence afterwards clearly shews, many expressions were twisted into a meaning they were never intended to convey, and the explanatory context was utterly ignored. The results of these presumed investigations were freely communicated by letter to their ministerial friends in London and its vicinity. These ministerial friends were members of a society in the Metropolis which had been then recently incorporated under the name of “the United Ministers in and about London,” and it was not long before they introduced the accusations against Mr. Davis into the discussions of the body with which they were connected.
Mr. Davis, hearing that these calumnious reports had been broached before the United Ministers, went up to London in the Spring of 1691, and attended one of their assemblies. The matter concerning him was not introduced whilst he was there, but some time after certain questions were sent down to him from them, and his answers desired. Mr. Davis replied to this communication, but never received an acknowledgment. In the beginning of the Summer of 1692, and persuaded thereto by the earnest solicitation of some of his friends, he again paid the United Ministers a visit at one of their Assemblies, when several questions were addressed to him, and he gave replies according, as he says, as his memory served. But before the conference ended Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Williams said openly that he had many things against Mr. Davis in matters of faith, but he had not his witnesses ready to prove them. Mr. Davis upon this offered to come up to their next meeting if Mr. Williams would then produce his witnesses, but this it was said was not possible. Mr. Davis then offered to come up to meet them at any future time, when the evidence against him was completed. He heard no more about the matter until some time after, when on returning from a long preaching tour (probably in the early Autumn of the same year, 1692), he was met everywhere with the report that there was shortly to be a Visitation at Kettering, by some Ministers deputed from the Assembly in London, for the purpose of taking evidence against him. When he got home, he found a letter, subscribed by Mr. Godman (Minister at Deptford), in which he styled himself Moderator pro tempore. The contents of the letter were to this purpose. That since he had passed a promise to meet them and their evidences in London, when they should give him notice thereof, they to spare him that pains, had sent some of their company to examine them nearer home, and that therefore they would desire him to give them a meeting at Kettering on such a day; and they also desired that he would bring none with him that might cause public observation. After this a note came to him delivered personally by Mr. King (minister at Wellingborough, one of his most bitter opponents), desiring him to meet them “at a certain Ale-house at Ketterin” on the appointed day.
Mr. Davis remarks upon this procedure that their stating that their coming down to Kettering was to save him trouble was manifestly insincere, and that it was rather for the evident purpose of exposing him to the country. He also says that he never offered to meet them at Kettering, nor any other place in the country, nor had he the same reasons to move him to do so. He promised to meet them in London because he designed privacy, and because he knew that any such meeting in the country would expose them to public observation, and a tumultuous noise. He also asks, if the meeting was to be in the country why at Kettering rather than at Rowell, unless because of the well known fact that both the worldly and the professors of religion at Kettering were most disaffected towards him. He remarks again that it was manifestly unjust that whilst they had summoned in people from eight or nine counties, and their friends had greatly noised it up and down the country, they yet debarred him from bringing those with him who might be witnesses in his favour.
Mr. Davis at once communicated the matter to the church at Rowell, and at a meeting which was immediately gathered they came to these decisions.
1.—That the appearance of their pastor at Kettering would be owning the authority of the United Brethren which was none.
2.—The authority of their deputies which was less if possible than nothing.
3.—The owning of, and submitting to, all the irregularities they had committed contrary to the Word of God, and the principles of the Congregational Churches.
The church was aided in its deliberations by the advice of two ministerial brethren who happened to be in the neighbourhood, Mr. William Haworth of Hertford, and Mr. Julius Saunders of Bedworth.
The church at Rowell, however, was completely ignored during these proceedings. An offer was made by them to assemble a church meeting with all speed, where the opponents of Mr. Davis might come if they pleased to declare their message and act their matters, but this was utterly refused once and again. Also at the close of the day’s proceedings in Kettering, the church sent messengers to request a copy of the accusations, but this was declined with expressions of scorn and contempt. Mr. Davis, in harmony with the wishes of his church, refused to appear before the Kettering Assembly, and some of his reasons for this course, and some further account of their procedure, we now give in his own words.
One “Reason for not appearing there, was a matter of Prudence: The matters of Charge and their Evidences they had ready against me, but I was ignorant of either; so that if I had appeared there, I must have been worried, and run down before the Country, having not any Witnesses ready; nor could I, till I knew what and who would evidence against me: so that I had no publick way left me but this of Printing, which I chose rather prudentially to have Recourse unto.”
Another “Reason, and a very weighty one, for not appearing, was because I understood there was a great enraged Assembly gathered together, that waited to make a Riot, therefore I durst not go to affront and disturb the Government under which I enjoyed such Peace and Tranquility. I had fresh in my memory, how many Citizens suffered about the Guild-Hall Riots. Besides, I was advised by a Magistrate to this course. It is more than probable, if I had appeared there then, it would have been of dangerous Consequence. Yet, when I understood the Rabble was gone away, I went to them, and having entered my Protest against their Proceedings, left them. Had they given a candid Answer to the Proposals made to them by the Messengers of the Church, they might have received a speedier Answer. It was proposed to them. Whether they came as a Presbyterian Classis, or as Messengers of Churches, or as Friends, or lastly as avowed Opposers. As a Classis we should have slighted them, as we did. As Messengers of Churches they confess they did not come. If they had come as Friends they would never have come after that manner. If they had been above-board and said they came as Opposers, we should have defended the Truth against them to their teeth, as the Lord should have enabled us, provided it had not been in a tumultuous Assembly.”
“Some weeks after this Transaction, I received from London a Copy of what was deposed against me at Kettering in matters of Faith and Practise. I shall expose it to the World verbatim, (because I know there is a great noise about it, as most conceive more dreadful of it than it is,) together with the Witnesses Names, that they may have the publick Honor they aspire to.”
Mr. Maurice informs us that Mr. Haworth of Hertford, who, as we have seen, aided the church at Rowell, in their deliberations concerning this matter, went over on the appointed day to the Assembly at Kettering, when, witnessing their proceedings he was pleased to call into question their authority, and cried out aloud, “Quo jure? Quo jure?” They being startled, surprised, and for a time silenced at this unexpected challenge of their power; after a while, one of them replied “Nullo jure.” Then retorted Mr. Haworth it is “Injuria.”
Where this Assembly at Kettering was held we cannot discover, certainly not in the present Independent Chapel there, for it was not erected until 1723, that is 31 years after. We can hardly think it was held in the “certain Alehouse” where Mr. Davis was summoned to meet his opponents. Perhaps it was held in the older Chapel in which the dissenters of Kettering worshipped, during the time of Mr. Maidwell. The most ancient records at Kettering relating to the Independent Church there (which records are now in possession of the Baptists) contain no entries up to 1692 save a bare list of members. There are no records at Kettering, with which we are acquainted, which can throw any light upon this Visitation.
Before entering upon the consideration of the depositions at Kettering against Mr. Davis, a copy of which he gives in his Vindication, it would be well perhaps to interpolate here a notice of the Libel against him which had been printed and circulated not long before this, during some part of the Summer of 1692, and the remarkable title of which we have already given, namely, “A Plain and Just Account of a Most Horrid and Dismal Plague, &c.” This pamphlet is perfectly anonymous, for as Mr. Davis says in the title of his Vindication, there is neither “Printer’s, Licenser’s, or Author’s Name thereunto;” but certainly all concerned in its production might well court concealment. The attack is one of the most foul and dastardly character. Mr. Davis is accused in set terms of drunkenness, adultery, disaffection to the Government, jesuitism, conjuration, heresy, and many other lesser crimes, and all this is done under the cover of a mask, no opportunity being given him of knowing and meeting his accusers. Mr. Davis is addressed in the Pamphlet in the most abusive and railing terms, and point is endeavoured to be given to many of its sarcasms by obscene proverbs and allusions which are too gross for quotation.
One remarkable feature of this Libel is its striking resemblance in the main body of it to the depositions subsequently taken at Kettering. The more gross accusations in the Libel, for example those of adultery and drunkenness were not repeated before the Kettering Assembly, but the great bulk of the accusations are the same in either case. The same charges, in the same words, and attested by the same witnesses, occur constantly in the Libel and in the depositions at Kettering. After careful, consideration of the evidence adduced, we agree with Mr. Davis that it is perfectly clear that the leading spirits at the Kettering Visitation were greatly if not solely responsible for the Libel. We should state here that Mr. Davis in his Vindication expressly exculpates, and in terms of marked respect, two of his opponents from any share in this scurrilous pamphlet, namely Mr. Maidwell of Kettering, and Mr. Clark of Harboro’. The following are his exact words—“I also declare, that I think holy and grave Mr. Medwell, would abominate having an hand in the base Stuff. The same I think of worthy Mr. Clark, who (as I am informed), generously proffered to testify his abhorrence of the Libel under his own hand, when none present would second him.” This was probably at the Assembly at Kettering, for though Mr. Clark did not witness there against Mr. Davis, he might nevertheless have been present. His death did not occur until 1708. There are two references to this Libel in the church records at the close of this year (1692), in the shape of complaints sent to other churches concerning the conduct of some of their members in relation to it. One of these complaints is about Mr. Pain of Oundle, “for handing the Libel to the press,” and the other is about Mr. Hawkes of Bedford, “for vending the Libel.” There is no need of our saying anything more in relation to this disgraceful pamphlet. Its being published shortly before the Kettering Visitation must have been a real benefit to Mr. Davis, because revealing to all impartial minds the bitter animus of his opponents, and the unscrupulous means they were ready to employ.
We return now to the Inquisition at Kettering, and before referring to the depositions which were made there, we will give as full particulars as we are able to obtain as to those who took an active part in it.
There extent of the deputation from London we do not know, but it certainly included Mr. Godman, Minister of Deptford, and the celebrated Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Williams, the same who had previously withstood Mr. Davis in the Assembly of the United Ministers in London. The fact of the latter gentleman forming a part of the deputation from London is perfectly clear from the following passage, amongst others, of Mr. Davis’s Vindication. Referring to Mr. Williams’s book against Dr. Crisp, then recently published, he says, “But it is very remarkable, that the reverend Assembly send such an one to judge of a church of Christ, and of their faith and order, at Kettering, in great State and Pomp, when he had newly declared himself in Print, to be the Admired Head of the Neonomian Sect, or in plain English, the New-Law-Men.” Mr. Williams was a very rich man, and the “great state and pomp” to which Mr. Davis refers, may have consisted in his travelling comfortably in accordance with his means. If such a man were coming down to Kettering on such an errand now (the fates forbid!) he would no doubt travel by 1st Class Express. Mr. Williams probably came down in his private carriage, and with his personal attendants; and as he neared Kettering on the rough highway (for this was long before the days of Metcalf and MacAdam) the cortege would no doubt be swelled by ministers and others on horseback, who were bent upon the same errand. From Dr. Williams’s connection with this affair at Kettering, it seemed to us possible that there might be some MSS. in relation to it (either of his own or of the United Ministers) in his Library, now located in Queen’s-square, Bloomsbury; but on a personal application we found that this was not the case.
Beside the above there were 13 Ministers present at the Kettering Assembly as witnesses against Mr. Davis— namely:
Mr. Robert Billio, St. Ives, Huntingdonshire. He was the son of an ejected minister. He afterwards succeeded Dr. Bates at Hackney, He died May 3, 1710.
Mr. Samuel Blower, Northampton. He was Lecturer at Woodstock, in Oxfordshire, until the Ejectment in 1662, when he removed to Northampton, and founded the church there, now worshipping at Castle-Hill. He died in 1701, after having removed into Berkshire.
Mr. Ebenezer Chandler, Bedford. He was the immediate successor of John Bunyan, but was a Poedobaptist. He was ordained at Bedford in 1691. He died in 1747, after having been for some years blind and superannuated.
Mr. Dowley, Lutterworth.
Mr. Joseph Hussey, Hog-hill, near Cambridge. He was afterwards Minister in London, and was a very popular preacher there. In Wilson’s History of the Dissenting Churches in London, &c., there is a portrait of him. He seems from this portrait to have been a man of striking and handsome appearance. He afterwards, in a work of his entitled “The glory of Christ unveiled,” expressed his regret and the sense of his error in having opposed Mr. Davis. He died in 1726, aged 67.
Mr. King, Wellingborough. He was the first Minister of the church now assembling in Cheese Lane.
Mr. John Maydwell. He was Rector of Kettering before 1662. After his ejection he commenced, and for some years continued, a dissenting interest in the same town. Palmer, in his lives of the Ejected Ministers, and Mr. Coleman, in his work on the Independent Churches of the county, give the date of Mr. Maydwell’s death as 9th Jan., 1692. Not only, however, is this proved incorrect by the presence of Mr. Maydwell at the Kettering Visitation in the early autumn of the same year, but also by the date given in the Burial Register at Kettering, which is January 14th, 1693. Palmer says he was 83 years old when he died. The stone over Mr. Maydwell’s grave in the Chancel of Kettering Church, with its Latin inscription, is so worn that no information can be gained from it. In the church registers previous to 1662, Mr. Maydwell’s name is spelt as it is here given, and not Maidwell.
Mr. Negus, Stephenton, in Bedfordshire.
Mr. William Shepherd, Oundle. He quitted his living at Tillbrook, in Bedfordshire, some time after the Ejectment in 1662. He became pastor first of a dissenting congregation at Oundle, and afterwards of the church at Kettering. He died at the latter place in 1698.
Mr. John Singleton, Stretton, near Coventry. He was a student of Christ Church College, Oxford, and was turned out by the Commissioners in 1660. He then went to Holland and studied Physic. After his return, and the Declaration of Indulgence by James the 2nd, he preached at Stretton, 8 miles from Coventry, and subsequently became the pastor of the Independent Church at the latter place.
Mr. Thomas Taylor, Cambridge. He was ejected and imprisoned at Bury St. Edmunds in 1662. He died in 1700, aged 75.
Mr. William Terry, Hitchin, Hertfordshire. He after wards succeeded Mr. Shepherd as Pastor at Kettering. Mr. Worden, Willingham, Cambridgeshire.
In addition to the above, the following Lay Witnesses against Mr. Davis were present:—
Mr. Bland
Mr. Tomlins
Mr. Holledge
Mr. Carlile
Mr. Ainscombe
Mr. Page
Mr. Marshall
Mr. Gunton
Mr. Moor
Mr. Jennings
Mr. Freeman
Mr. Speckman
Mr. Leigh
Mr. Cook
Mr. James
Mr. Nickolls
All the above are entered as witnesses in the copy of the depositions given by Mr. Davis, and they were no doubt present at the Assembly. Where the evidence was not personally tendered, certain absent individuals are simply declared (on the authority of those present) to have been willing to give evidence. Amongst such willing but absent witnesses the name occurs of Mr. John Hunt, minister of Royston, in Cambridgeshire. He was afterwards pastor of the church at Castle Hill, Northampton.
Mr. Davis asserts that the chief managers of the evidence at Kettering were Mr. King and Mr. Chandler. Mr. King seems to have been a peculiarly active and unscrupulous opponent, and Mr. Davis affirms certain things concerning him which make it very probable that he had some hand in producing the libellous pamphlet to which we have already referred. A certain Captain Hilton is also mentioned as having been very busy in connection with the Kettering Visitation. Many of the depositions at Kettering relate to certain things that Mr. Davis was said to have uttered in his public ministrations. His reply to these charges seems to be very cogent and logical. Some things he confesses to have uttered, and enters at length into their defence, others he shows were passages of his sermons wrested from the meaning which they originally bore.
As to the doctrinal questions we will not enter into their discussion, labouring as we do under a constitutional inability to understand, or at least to appreciate, many of the very nice distinctions for which our forefathers so ardently contended. We prefer on this matter quoting Drs. Bogue and Bennett in their History of Dissenters, who say, “When Mr. Davis is heard in his own defence, as every man ought to be, the accusations of his adversaries, as to the erroneousness of his doctrine, dwindle into a point.”
As to passages of his sermons wrested from their original meaning, we will give one example. It was witnessed against him that he had said, “All the law doth, is to drive persons farther off from Christ, and make some go away and hang themselves.” Mr. Davis replies, “This I preached, that the law convincing and condemning a man for sin in a state of nature, hath a tendency to drive souls to despair (and that is far enough from Christ); and some, forced with the terrors thereof, have executed themselves, witness Judas.” The triviality, indeed, of many of the accusations in relation to his preaching, considering they came before “the United Ministers in and about London,” is perfectly astounding, especially to us in the present day, when the liberty of the pulpit, so far as doctrine is concerned, almost approaches to license.
Of the other charges against Mr. Davis advanced at Kettering, the principal are as follows:—
1.—“Mr. Davis, and his preachers sent from the church at Rothwell, set up Meetings in very many Countries, to the compass of about fourscore miles: viz.—At Willingham, Cambridge, Bedford, Needingworth, Northampton, Kempson, Wellingborough, Oundle, Kimbolton, Caysoe, Kettering, Thorp-waterfield, Chatresse, Aireth, Creaton, Wormditch, Caysoe-brook, Woolaston, Olny, Lutterworth, the Fenns, Codgbrook, Old Weston, Broughton, Rusden, Brigstock, Cockingworth, Great Oakly, Geddington.” Mr. Davis, after saying that some of these towns he did not know, defends his practice of both preaching himself, and of employing the members of his church to preach, wherever there was a need of the Gospel. Retorting upon the United Ministers in the Metropolis, he says, “Why do not they, if they pretend to authority, thrust out some of that great swarm they have at London (that eat the fat and drink the sweet) to offer the grace of Christ to the poor country people?”
2.—“Several of these Meetings are in or near the places where dissenting Ministers have their stated congregations and churches: Kempson, within a mile of Bedford. At Willingham, where Mr. Worden preacheth. At Cambridge, where Mr. Taylor is. Where Mr. Hussey is. Codgbrook, within a mile of Mr. Haycock. Frequent week-day meetings at Kettering. At Northampton, where Mr. Blower is. Near Mr. Gibbs. Though desired to forbear coming to several of these places, yet persisted.”
Mr. Davis, after some denials and explanations, asks this question, “Whether Bedford, Kempson, and 5 miles round, by any Law of God, or Act of Parliament, be so peculiarly appropriated to Mr. Chandler? Willingham and the towns adjacent to Mr. Worden? Cambridge to Mr. Taylor and Mr. Hussey? St. Ives and the towns adjacent to Mr. Billo? Northampton to Mr. Blower? Kettering to Mr. Medwell? Creton, Codgbrook, and the parishes round about, to Mr. Haycock? Newport, with a vast circuit round, to Mr. Gibbs? So that none must dare to presume to preach in those fore-mentioned places without a License from them first obtained? I may well demand here Quo jure? By what right do they exercise such a power and authority?”
3.—“He administers the Lord’s Supper in Places far distant from each other, as at Rothwell, Thorp-waterfield, Wormditch, Northampton.” This he confesses and defends.
4.—“He hath taken in members of other churches, without any dismission; yea, against the will of the Pastor and church.” This he declares to be false, and goes into details of proof.
5.—“He hath broken churches, and caused divisions and confusions. Mr. Taylor’s church at Cambridge broken. He hath broken them at Willingham.” This he also denies with details of proof.
6.—“He said that Mr. Shepherd was an enemy to Christ and the Gospel.” Mr. Davis replies that he is sorry that Mr. Shepherd, in his treatment of himself, should have shown such enmity.
“Also he said that Mr. Medwell had done more mischief in two years, than he could repair in all his life.” Mr. Davis confesses that he said this in a moment of passion, and expresses his sorrow, but asserts that he felt somewhat of the truth of it when he was Indicted at the Assizes. And says that Mr. Maidwell’s character had added great strength to the cause of his opponents. The following extract from the work of Mr. Maurice seems to refer to Mr. Maidwell, but whether the “uncommon instance of persecution” relates to the trial at the Assizes, or the Visitation at Kettering, we cannot tell. Alluding to Mr. Davis’s forgiving and charitable disposition Mr. Maurice says, “When a neighbouring minister, who had a principal hand in an uncommon instance of persecution against him, was called to eternity, he stooped under the stroke, lamented the loss, and publicly, with the whole church, condoled with the people of God who were deprived of his ministry and service.”
7.—”He, with the church at Rothwell, sends forth many illiterate and ignorant preachers, without advising with neighbouring ministers.” To this he answers, “So we do, and so we will do, in the name of the Lord,” &c.
8.—“Mr. Davis pretendeth to visions, as shewn in a funeral sermon he preached at Oundle.” Mr. Davis’s explanation reduces this to a very trifling matter.
9.—”That he anoints the sick with oil is confessed both by himself and friends.” This Mr. Davis acknowledges and defends, asserting that at all events he should be permitted to retain his right of private judgment in the matter. In the pamphlet published in 1700, giving an account of the doctrine and discipline of Mr. Davis and his followers, we find the following reference to this subject:—”If any sick person desires it, the Pastor and some Elders repair to him and anoint him, praying over him. They dip their Fingers in a Porringer or Saucer of Oyl, wherewith they rub the Temples of the sick person.”
10.—“That he had re-baptised one formerly baptised by Mr. Browning.” This Mr. Davis confesses, but says he did it ignorantly.
The close of Mr. Davis’s defence is in so pure and noble a strain of eloquence, that we cannot resist giving it to the reader. He says, “If there be any errors I maintain, I care not how soon they fall, though I fell with them: Nay, if I could be convinced that I erroneously worded any matter, I should soon publicly declare against own wording: It is not my own honour I seek, but the honour of him that sent me; and I hope I am always ready to bury my own honour in shame, provided I could secure thereby his name from dishonour and contempt. I should think hard of no confession of mine that should give glory to God. But if it be the truth of Christ, I am assaulted for (as thereto I am persuaded it is), then all the attempts against it will be in vain: his truth is like himself, eternal, and will abide steadfast, bright, and insuperable, when I and my opposers are mouldered to dust and ashes.”
In concluding our review of the Visitation at Kettering, we can only say, that the more we have searched into and examined the evidences in relation to it, the more has our feeling of reprehension and disgust increased. It would require a vigorous imagination to picture as occurring now such tyrannical proceedings as those to which we have referred. It would be as easy to re-institute the Star Chamber as to renew the Kettering Visitation, or any inquisition like it. We are too used to our liberties, and too sensible of their worth to permit them without a straggle to be trampled under-foot.
It only remains for us to notice, before passing away from the subject of these persecutions, the final decision or declaration of the United Ministers in London. This is given in full in “Calamy’s Life and Times of Richard Baxter, &c.” It is there said to have been made in 1692, probably in December of that year. It goes over nearly the same ground we have already traversed, and we need make no further reference to it than that contained in the work of Drs. Bogue and Bennett which we have recently quoted. “It plainly appears [they say] that the London ministers were imposed upon by blundering hearsays and inaccurate reports.” The bitter and paltry squabbles of the United Ministers in London, immediately after their condemnation of Mr. Davis, certainly do not add to its weight.
In view of the conduct of these men, and their rash and lordly proceedings in relation to the subject of our history, we feel thankful that the Presbyterian system in England was doomed so soon to fail, and the Independent to be so universally accepted in its place. But we must not forget that the battle was fought by such men as Mr. Davis against an almost overwhelming opposition, an opposition which would have been insuperable but for its own follies and mistakes.
The celebrated Dr. Gill, who was born at Kettering, and in his youth acquainted with Mr. Davis, bears high testimony to his worth. This testimony is given in full in a succeeding chapter, but we will here anticipate a portion of it. He says, “His great usefulness raised him many enemies: never was any man more traduced, reproached, and calumniated; and never did any less deserve it, being eminent for humility, piety, and an unblemished life and conversation; though his principles were charged as licentious, and loaded with the odious name of Antinomianism.”
We cannot better conclude this chapter than by a quotation from the work of Dr. Robert Vaughan, entitled “English Nonconformity.” He says, “Mr. Richard Davis, a Welshman, pastor of an Independent church at Rothwell, in Northamptonshire, possessed the spirit of a Whitfield, and surrendered himself to the promptings of his generous nature. His passion to proclaim his faith to the ignorant and perishing, even by means of laymen and of humble artisans, scandalised the professional pride of his brethren. The bold man was not silenced by the formidable opposition made to him. But its effect was, that his kind of labour appears to have died with him. Under wiser influences the great evangelical revival in England might have dated from the former half of the Eighteenth century instead of the latter.”
Chapter 4.—Number of members admitted during the time of Mr. Davis, and a list of the places at which the members resided at the time of their admission; also the number of excommunications, together with a list of the churches to which some of the members were dismissed.
The number of members admitted during the 25 years of Mr. Davis’s ministry, as entered in the church books, is 795. The larger portion of these were admitted during the earlier years of his ministry, which may in some measure be accounted for from the fact that, during these years, several branches of the church were successively formed into separate interests. Of course, after these new churches were formed, they would appropriate many of those sources of increase which previously fed the parent society. The total number of members, however, forms a remarkable testimony to the success of Mr. Davis’s labours.
Mr. Davis, we are told, was a very popular preacher, and bearing this in mind, and remembering the usual proportion of members to hearers, we may gain some idea of the large number of persons who, either in Rowell or in other places, attended his ministry.
In the following list, referring exclusively to the time of Mr. Davis, the names of the places are given at which the members resided at the time of their admission. The number of members admitted from each place is also added. We have taken great pains to verify the places to which the names given in the church records refer, but for the sake of convenience we will now give the modern spelling:—
Northamptonshire
2 Achurch
15 Aldwinkle
1 Arthingworth
1 Ashby, near
Wellin
1 Ashton, near
Oundle
1 Benefield
1 Boughton
1 Brampton
21 Brigstock
8 Brixworth
29 Broughton
3 Burton Latimer
1 Chelveston
1 Corby
1 Coton
3 Cottesbrook
1 Cranford
4 Cransley
1 Creaton
2 Dallington
4 Denford
19 Desborough
1 Doddington a Elkington
9 Faxton
1 Finedon
9 Geddington
1 Grafton Underwood
1 Hardwicke
2 Harrowden
6 Haselbeech
1 Higham Ferrers
3 Holcot
2 Houghton
1 Isham
2 Islip
2 Kelmarsh
11 Kettering
2 Lamport
11 Loddington
1 Long Buckby
2 Lowick
1 Maidwell
1 Middleton
4 Naseby
1 Newton
11 Northampton
17 Oakley
3 Old
1 Orton
10 Oundle
2 Oxendon
7 Raunds
13 Ringstead
3 Rushden
6 Scaldwell
1 Sibbertoft
3 Spratton
2 Stanion
4 Stanwick
3 Stoke Albany
3 Stoke Doyle
7 Thorpe Malsor
1 Thorpe Mandeville
13 Thorpe Waterville
1 Thrapston
16 Tichmarsh
2 Twywell
1 Walgrave
2 Watford
1 Weekley
3 Welford
37 Wellingboro’
1 Wilbarston
12 Woodford near Thrapston
3 Woollaston
Bedfordshire
1 Bedford
9 Bletsoe
8 Bolnhurst
3 Bury-field
8 Colmworth
2 Gt. Staughton
3 Kempston
12 Keyso
3 Pertenhall
7 Risely
1 Shelton
1 Stagsden
1 Tillbrook
1 Wooten Pillinge
Buckinghamshire
24 Olney
1 Warrington
Cambridgeshire
4 Cambridge
12 Chatteris
1 Cottenham
4 Elm
2 Eversden
1 Friday-bridge
1 Gamlingay
23 Guyhurn, and the Fens
1 Haddenham
2 Hardwick
3 Hill Row
1 Isle of Ely
8 March
1 Orwell
1 Soham
6 Swavesey
2 Thetford
I Tholomas Drove
I Toft
I Upwell
I Whittlesea
5 Willingham
4 Wimblington
2 Wisbeach
Huntingdonshire
7 Bythorne
1 Eynesbury
3 Gt. Catworth
3 Holywell
3 Keystone
19 Kimbolton
2 Molesworth
15 Needingworth
7 Old Weston
4 St. Neot’s
7 Spaldwick
6 Stoneley
7 Stow
5 Swineshead
I Thurning
2 Woodhurst
4 Wornditch
Leicestershire
2 Bitteswell
2 Bradley
1 Drayton
2 Great Bowden
2 Great Easton
2 Hallaton
1 Leicester
The number of places in the above list is 140, the number of members 668. We have seen that the total number of members admitted during Mr. Davis’s time was 795; deducting from this number those who were admitted from the places just enumerated, we have left 127, who were probably inhabitants of Rowell.
In the above list 37 members are accredited to Wellingborough. When the church was formed there by Mr. Davis (as we shall subsequently narrate), no less than 72 members were dismissed at once, but probably many of these would not be entered in the church books as admitted from Wellingborough because of their residing at various places in its vicinity, and not in the town itself. The same explanation will apply to members dismissed for the formation of other churches, when their number is in excess of those said to have been previously admitted from the places where the new churches were formed.
The enquiry naturally suggests itself, when looking over the above list, whether the members of these distant places were in the habit of coming in to Rowell to the services on the Sabbath, or whether their membership was to some extent a nominal one.
Numerous traditions furnish us with information as to this point. Four of these traditions are so widely spread and so circumstantial that we will give an account of them here.
1.—The tradition in relation to Ringstead and its neighbourhood. In the year 1714 a church was founded at Ringstead by Mr. Davis, an account of which will be given in a subsequent chapter. In the records of this church an entry occurs, made by one of its ministers, probably towards the close of the last century. This entry contains the following tradition in relation to the attendance of the Christians of that neighbourhood upon the Sabbath services at Rowell.
“Clusters of them, leaving their homes before daylight on Lord’s Days, came from even beyond Hargrave, Raunds, &c., and passing through Ringstead, they increased and gathered as they went. They left their lanterns at Cranford, and went on to Rowell to worship God. Returning after the after noon’s services, they again lighted up their lanterns at Cranford, and so reached their homes hours after sunset.” The above tradition is referred to, in the entry which embodies it, as relating to the time of Mr. Browning; but our investigations lead us to conclude that it properly relates to the time of Mr. Davis his successor. The church books at Rowell, as well as the general current of the existing traditions in the county, seem conclusively to prove this. In Mr. Browning’s time there may have been some few members of the Rowell church living at Ringstead or in its neighbourhood, though as there is no mention of such in the church books we think it is highly improbable. It is certain, however, that in the time of Mr. Davis (who founded the church at Ringstead), there were many members of the church at Rowell in all those parts.
2.—The tradition in relation to Oundle and its neighbourhood. The members from about Oundle are said in the same way to have left their lanterns at Aldwinkle, calling for them on their return from Rowell at night.
3.—The tradition in relation to Kimbolton and its neighbourhood. The members from about Kimbolton are said in the same way to have left their lanterns at Raunds, calling for them on their return from Rowell at night.
4.—The tradition in relation to the villages in the northern part of Bedfordshire, and those about Higham Ferrers. The members from these parts are said in the same way to have left their lanterns at Irthlingborough Toll-gate, calling for them on their return from Rowell at night.
We may remark here that this large ingathering to the church at Rowell during the time of Mr. Davis, was then, both in this neighbourhood and throughout the country, an altogether exceptional thing. It is true that most of the older Dissenting churches had more distant members at that time than they have now, but their proportion of such mem bers was nothing like that of the church at Rowell.
The number of excommunications during the time of Mr. Davis was 199, the discipline (as we shall presently see) being very severe. This would still leave a total of about 600 members as the result of Mr. Davis’s ministrations.
Members were dismissed to the following churches:—
Mr. Clark’s, at Harboro’.
Dr. Chancey’s, at London.
The church at Goldington.
Mr. Humphrey’s at London.
The church assembling in Pewterers’ Hall, Lime Street, over which Mr. Robert Bragge, senr., is Pastor. Mr. Trail’s.
The church at Hayleweston, Mr. Rawlings being their Pastor.
The church at Arnsby (Leicestershire), to which Mr. Winkly is the Pastor.
Mr. Thomas Bradbury’s, at London.
The church of Christ at Steppingley, whereto Mr. Matthew Dutton is Pastor. Mr. Steed’s church at London.
The church at Welford.
The church at Bedford.
The church at Cambridge. Mr. Moor’s, at Northampton.
In addition to the above there were dismissions also to the following churches, which were offshoots of the church at Rowell during the pastorate of Mr. Davis.
The church at Wellingborough.
“ Needingworth.
“ Kimbolton.
“ Guyhurn.
“ Thorpe Waterville.
“ Ringstead.
Chapter 5.—Number and character of the meetings of the church, exclusive of the usual gatherings on the Sabbath.
The records of the business meetings of the church during the time of Mr. Davis cover 338 pages 4to., and 60 pages Folio. There are entries of 691 meetings held in Rowell, and 70 meetings in other places. The following is a list of these latter meetings.
6 Brigstock.
1 Broughton.
3 Denford.
1 Geddington.
4 Guyhurn.
14 Kimbolton.
3 Needingworth.
3 Northampton.
1 Old Weston.
7 Ringstead.
2 Scaldwell.
16 Thorpe Waterville.
2 Welford.
4 Wellingborough.
1 Woodford.
The meetings at Rowell were held very frequently, though not at regular intervals, until some time after the commencement of Mr. Davis’s ministry. There are entries of as many as 8 of these meetings in one month. The records shew that very often these business meetings of the church were held on the Sabbath, probably because then many members from a distance would be present, who could not conveniently come to a meeting in the week. As we shall subsequently see, it is probable that these meetings on the Sabbath were open to the whole congregation.
As Mr. Davis originated that system of sending out lay preachers which was subsequently adopted by Mr. Wesley, so he seems to have anticipated in some measure the Experience Meetings which form so prominent a feature of Methodism. Amongst other entries bearing upon this matter we select the following.
“Oct. 28, 1700. The church ordered some time to be spent every church meeting in relating their profession of faith, and experiences, and prophesying, if God lays any word upon the heart of any brother.”
The following entry of a resolution passed at one of the church meetings in 1691 deserves attention, “It was judged to be the rule of Christ that no accusation be. spread by whisperings, backbitings, or the like against any, but to go immediately and deal with them. The members solemnly forgave one another offences of that nature past by lifting up their hands.”
General meetings also were sometimes held at Rowell (in addition to the meetings above referred to) at which all the members at a distance that could come were expected to be present. The following full and literal quotation from the church book will give some idea of the nature of the business which was transacted at such meetings.
“Sept. 7, 1691. At a General Church Meeting were admitted in the Morning—Will. Braybrook of Olney, Anne Watkin of Loddington, Tho. Cogan of Olney, Benjamin Archer of Northampton, Will. Howligen of Olney, Hugh Boswell of Olney.
About noon the church proceeded to determine the matter about Bro. Betson, and having heard our brethren at Wellingborough first, then our brethren at Thorp, and lastly our brethren from Cambridgeshire (who spake very affectingly), caused them all to withdraw, and the majority advised for Wellingborough, which advice he closed with, and determined for Wellingborough. It was awfully carried on, and we were persuaded the Lord our High Priest answered by Urim and Thummim in that matter. Anne Hoby being then admonished by the church and continuing very obstinate, was for violating her covenant made with the Lord Jesus and his people in long withdrawing communion, for evil speaking, evil surmising, raillery, and high and frequent contempts of the authority of Christ in his church and refusing to hear them, deservedly by the unanimous consent of the church excommunicated for the destruction of the proud flesh, that her spirit may be saved (if God will).
Sister Mary Hoby though also continuing very obstinate was admonished again, and deferred to the next General Meeting.
Sister Betty Davis though then very obstinate was the same.
Bro. Birt returned to the communion of the church, and reconciliation by the church offended was declared to him, and he was received again with tears of joy.
The church was acquainted that Bro. Will. Hoby was sick.
The church resolved they would not hold communion with any of the church that formerly Mr. Dunn was pastor of, unless they renewed their covenant and got into Gospel order.
That night, the Church Meeting being continued after some refreshment, Bro. David Culy preached.
Then there gave in their experience these six from the Fens.
David Culy.
John Relysh.
Hester Maurice.
Isaac Maurice.
Joseph Palmer.
Anne De-la-hoi.
The church being exceedingly affected to observe how their Lord had gloriously taught these poor people in those dark corners.
The church approved of Bro. David Culy exercising his gifts, and then this great church meeting, wherein all the while the Lord Jesus was so eminently present, concluded with prayer, when it had continued till midnight, it being a very pleasant night to most there.”
It may be mentioned also here that private or cottage meetings for devotional purposes were regularly held in most of the towns to which the church had extended, and several entries occur of messengers being sent by the church to stir up its scattered members to attendance upon these means of grace.
In the early part of Mr. Davis’s Ministry, a Monthly Fast seems to have been kept, by those members of the church living in Rowell and its immediate neighbourhood. And after this had fallen through. Solemn Fast Days were occasionally kept in connection with the Special Providences then surrounding the church or the nation. There are several references also in the church books, during the time of Mr. Davis, to the keeping of Days of Public Thanks giving.
One of these Thanksgiving Days was kept by Order of the Queen in the latter end of 1704, in commemoration of the Battle of Blenheim.
Chapter 6.—Discipline of the church, with some of the principal cases in which it was exercised.
The discipline of the church during the time of Mr. Davis we have already said was very severe. Many things which would not now be regarded with any special aversion, or which would be considered as outside the province of the notice or determinations of the church, were then not only made the ground of censure, but even of excommunication.
This was especially true (as we shall presently see), in relation to the courtship or marriage of members with those who made no profession of religion, as also in relation to the occasional attendance of members upon the services of the Church of England.
It was usual to give offending members a first and second admonition, and they are generally referred to as being admonished “in the bowels of Christ.” If after being thus admonished they expressed their repentance, they were forgiven, but if not they were at last cut off. The following is one of the forms of excommunication (it is similar to that given in the preceding chapter), “excommunicated for the destruction of the proud flesh, that their souls may be saved, if the Lord will.”
There is also an entry in relation to Bro. Joseph Clark, who for various offences was “cut off, and delivered to Satan, &c”
There are several expressions in the church records, during the time of Mr. Davis, which seem to imply that the discipline of the church was sometimes administered publicly on the Sabbath before the whole congregation, and that the repentance of erring members was occasionally received in the same public manner. The following entry at the commencement of the ministry of Mr. Davis’s successor seems to add to the probability of this. “It was debated on the Lord’s Day, March 20, 1715, Whether the rule or government of the church ought to be administered privately in the church, or publicly in the presence of the Congregation.”
In the “Account of the Doctrine and Discipline of Mr. Richard Davis,” the meetings on the Lord’s Day are said to be “for prayer and preaching, and receiving the Sacrament as often as it is administered; likewise for receiving the public acknowledgments of those whose crimes have been public.”
Before making any further reference to the subjects of discipline already named, we will glance at some other matters which the church regarded as coming within the province of their examination and judgment.
This, perhaps, may be done best by giving a list of offences for which discipline was exercised, of course excluding the more serious ones. The cases are written down as they occur in the church records without any attempt at classification. After such a lapse of time there can be no indelicacy in mentioning names.
Richard Hill, for unfaithfulness in his master’s service.
Eliz. Campion, for being an unfaithful and disobedient servant.
Bro. Campion, for proffering love to one sister whilst engaged to another.
Bro. Palmer, for admitting card-playing into his house, and playing himself.
Richard Gam, for injustice about hiring a horse.
Sister Bundy, for railing, anger, clamour, wrath, and evil speaking.
Bro. Vinly, for neglecting the duties of a husband to his wife, and many ill-carriages to her.
Bridget Rowlatt, for sloth in business.
Simon Crozier, of Kettering, for withdrawing from the private meetings.
Sarah Kirk, for idleness and rebellion against her parents.
Robert Homan, for stealing away a maid’s affections at Weekley, and now leaving of her, falsifying his word, and going to others.
Bro. Cussens, for being overtaken in beer.
John Quincey, for idleness.
Joseph Quincey, for want of brotherly love.
Bro. Tomson, for leaving his master.
Sister Hemington, for taking a journey on a Lord’s Day.
Susan Ponder, for conforming herself to the fashions of the wicked world.
Sister Hollick, for her pride.
Bro. Clark, for riding over unmown grass.
Bro. Roberts, for dealing unjustly with his creditors: advised and admonished to make sale of all he had, and divide it among them.
Walter Horn, of Islip, for being drunk and found in the Stocks.
Mrs. Wood, for borrowing a pillion and not returning it.
Bro. Crozier, for spending a day in an Ale-house, and going away without paying his reckoning.
Bro. Hoby, for jumping for wagers.
Sarah and Isabel Whitwell, for holding communion with their brother, an excommunicate person.
Sister Durdin and Sister Lumley, for dancing and other vanities.
Bro. Yewell, for ringing and drinking.
Sister Boazworth, for backbiting neighbours.
Thomas Foster, for company-keeping, and singing vain songs.
Damaris Lenton, for dealing unjustly and deceitfully with a young man.
Sister Barnes, for disobedience to her husband.
John Cussens, for threatening to knock his brother’s brains out.
Sister Stimpson and Sister Bennett, for going to Milking when they should have been at a Meeting.
Ruth Wymont, of Kettering, for the following falsehoods, 1.—for saying there was not a drop of drink in the barrel. 2.—for saying her mistress wore her clothes. 3.—for saying her mistress sent her to take clothes for her on the tick.
Sister Stimpson, for unbecoming behaviour in the worship of God.
Bro. Mansfield, for his passion in the church meeting.
Sister Cussens, for keeping a sinful wake-feast.
Bro. Wright, for cudgel-playing.
Bro. Musket, for playing at nine-pins.
Bro. Fisher, for encouraging fiddling and vanity, and singing vain songs.
Mary Wilson, for keeping a wicked juncketting company in her house.
Bro. Parratt, for making promises to pay his debts, and continually breaking his word.
Bro. Smith, of Burton, for having no conjugal affection.
Bro. Baggerly, for assaulting and riding over a poor shepherd in the fields.
Bro. Dix, for staying with his relations on the afternoon of the Lord’s Day, and not coming out to the meeting.
Betty Coales, for whispering and tattling.
The following entries also occur, “The church was satisfied with Mrs. Charlton as to the weight of her butter.” “Sister Lenton of Aldwinkle and her maid were brought before the church for unbecoming carriage one to another, and both put under admonition, but especially the mistress.” Two sisters being accused of singing of tunes “it was judged by the church to be no ground of a breach.” In the further records of the meeting at which this matter was brought forward there occurs the following entry, “A debate about singing, when it was agreed that any tune may be sung provided it be grave.”
It will be seen from the above how wide a range of conduct was brought under the review of the church, and how particular and minute were the investigations it conducted. Were such discipline exercised now, there would, we fear, be very few members left in our churches. Not that we think such discipline would be desirable; it is too meddlesome about little matters, and too arbitrary in its assumptions, to be altogether beneficial.
The light in which the marriage and courtship of the members was regarded at this time is clearly shewn from the following entry, “May 4, 1691, It was unanimously agreed that our brethren and sisters should chiefly endeavour to marry amongst themselves, or else them that are church members; but if a brother or sister should be inclined towards any that are not members of a church in a Gospel order, that then they at first should make it known to the officers, or any of them, and they to the church, that so the church may be satisfied ere they proceed to entangle one another’s affections.”
The cases of discipline under this head are very numerous, members being had up and censured, either for “keeping company with a carnal maid in order to marry her,” or for “entertaining a carnal man in order to marriage.”
If the objected alliance was consummated, the member who had so refused to listen to the church, was expected publicly in the church meeting to express repentance, and if this was obstinately withheld, such member was at last excommunicated.
The defence of their proceedings which was made by some of the offenders is rather amusing, as will be seen from the following entries. “July 2, 1694, A complaint brought in against Sister Mary Stimpson for entertaining a carnal man, and that she should say it was so decreed in the decrees of God.” “Oct. 23, 1698, Messengers that were sent to admonish Sarah Uffington a second time, brought her answer, which was to this effect, that if the church would provide her an honest man, she would possibly renounce the company of the carnal man, but she thought there were but few honest men in the church.”
The motives of the worthy men who conducted the affairs of the church at that time we cannot doubt, but we are not quite sure as to their wisdom in relation to these delicate matters. We presume that there are few churches or ministers in the present day who would risk the consequences of a similar procedure.
It must not be thought, however, that the church at Rowell was singular at that time in the action which it took in relation to these matters. In the History of the Baptist Church at Weston-by-Weedon, published by Taylor & Son, of Northampton, the following passage occurs in relation to the same period. “The prime importance they attached to one precept of the divine word, to ‘marry only in the Lord’ is indicated by many instances of censure administered to male and female members for the violation of it. In cases where no regret was expressed for breaking this new Testament law, and no humility shown on account of it, the offending members were excluded.”
There is one other matter of discipline to which we have to refer, and that relates to attendance by the members upon the services or rites of the Established Church.
We have seen that in the reign of James the 2nd, when the church was four years without a pastor, many of the members had withdrawn from fear of persecution, and some of them returned upon admonition, and expressed their repentance “for their absenting, and going to the publique.”
That by the publique, or publick, the Established Church is meant is abundantly clear from many subsequent entries, for example from the following: “Feb. 1, 1691, The church declared their judgment that a member coming in with provisoes of going to the Publick worship, if the church should wickedly consent thereto, yet that is no incorporation, and that member no member, for they cannot be for God and Mammon, nor have concord with Christ and Belial.” Again, “Oct. 13, 1694, Sister Chapman of Old was put under admonition for going to the publique place to hear a sermon.” In the Judgment of the United Ministers upon Mr. Davis, to which reference has been previously made, an extract from one of his letters is given, which makes the meaning of this term perfectly clear. Speaking of the non efficacy of Infant Baptism by the Ministers of the Church of England, Mr. Davis says, “For if any, being the seed of strangers, and having no other baptism than that of the Publick, desire to submit to the ordinance, I dare not refuse it; for I look on that done in the Publick, null and void.”
The modern term of Public-house was not known in those days, such places being termed Ale-houses; and it was not until long after that they were first called Public Ale houses, and then Public-houses.
The cases of discipline for attending service in the Established Church, or for taking part in its Ceremonies, were very frequent during the time of Mr. Davis, and Unless repentance for such offences was expressed, excommunication was awarded with an unsparing hand.
Members were censured or ultimately expelled for:
—compliance with false worship at a funeral
—going to the publick at a burial
—being present when the funeral services were read
—conformity with false worship in being gossip to a child
—complying with false worship at their marriage
—compliance with false worship in kneeling at the high altar at her marriage.
The above spirit and procedure of the church at Rowell may have been unusual (though from our slight acquaintance with the records of other churches we are not sure of this), but it certainly was not unique. In the Covenant which Mr. Joseph Hussey drew up for his church at Cambridge, the members were forbidden entering on any account what ever the Established places of worship. They were also prohibited accompanying with people of that communion, or having any intimacy with them; and the penalty of not submitting to these rules was excommunication.
Whilst far from according our approval to these ancient proceedings, we may fairly remark, that there was in all probability at the basis of them, some smarting from recent persecution, and some reprehension of the immoral character of many of the Clergy. The character of the great body of the Clergy was not improved by the Ejectment in 1662 of many of the most worthy of their number, and we know that even in more recent times, swearing, gaming, and drunkenness were no infrequent accomplishments of the spiritual guides provided by the State. All this has been greatly changed since, but the credit of the alteration is due, in a great measure, to the purer life and example, and more ardent zeal of such men as Mr. Davis, and his worthy successors throughout the country. At the present time, whilst the large majority of those called Congregationalists or Independents sturdily oppose the principle of a State Church, they welcome every approach to friendly intercourse and cooperation with the ministers and laymen of the Establishment. If there be any unpleasant distance still remaining, the fault certainly does not rest with us.
Chapter 7.—A brief notice of the practice of the church in relation to Marriage, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.
In relation to Marriage, the only information we possess is that which is contained in the following entries in the Church Books:—
“May 25, 1693. Bro. Coales propounded this question to have our advice, namely, whether, if a brother were lawfully married by the pastor, he ought to go to the parish parson to be married, as if the first was not lawful. The church’s judgment and advice he did evil in so doing.”
“Sept. 3, 1694. Bro. King, of Geddington, was publicly married before the church.” “March 1, 1696. It was published that Bro. Toby Turland, and Sister Eliz. Tarry, intended to marry.”
Our information in relation to Baptism is even more meagre. There are many references to the baptism of infants, of which the following may be taken as a specimen:—“June 20, 1692. Bro. John Taylor’s only child was solemnly in the church dedicated to the service of the Lord Jesus, if he please to accept of him.” In the following entry the baptism of an adult is referred to, as well as that of an infant:—“March 7, 1699. Sister Balden’s child was baptised, and Sister Danford was also baptised.” This sister had been just admitted a member. Whether the baptism were by sprinkling or immersion, we are not informed, probably by the former, as we have no reason to believe that any convenience existed for immersion.
The following information concerning the practice of the church in relation to the Lord’s Supper is obtained from the Pamphlet giving an account of the Doctrine and Discipline of Mr. Davis:—“Every member is required to receive the Sacrament as often as it is administered. The Table stands in the midst of the Congregation, near the Pulpit. The Pastor sits in his Chair near the Table, and the Receivers on Forms round about it; the People, as spectators, at some small distance behind them. The Pastor Prays (all standing) and craves a Blessing on the Bread then sets it apart in almost the same Words which the Church of England uses; then breaks it into small pieces, and puts them on divers Plates, saying, whilst be is breaking. Thus was our Lord’s body torn, mangled, broken, &c. The Bread thus broken is carried in the Plates by the Deacons to the several Receivers. The Pastor Sits in his Chair eating with the rest. As soon as the Bread is eaten, the Pastor prays then pours out the wine, saying, Behold the Blood of Christ poured out for thee, and for me, and for all of us, &c. Drink ye all of this, drink large draughts of the Love of Christ, &c.: as he thinks most proper to express himself. Then he drinks and gives to the Deacons. When all have drank the Pastor prays, an Hymn is sung, and the assembly is dismissed. They forbid all private prayer at this Ordinance, saying. The Pastor’s prayers are sufficient. They esteem it a Memorial only: Examine none before they come, saying, There is no need of any more preparation at that time than any other. In the absence or sickness of the Pastor, there must be no Sacrament.”
Chapter 8.—The hysterical fits with which some of the members of the church were afflicted.
It appears that, before Mr. Davis came to Rowell, several of the members of the church were afflicted with hysterical fits. After his coming the affliction was continued, and several others became affected in the same manner. Mr. Maurice says, “There was never a man, and but a few of the women under these afflictions.” He further says, “I have for my part discoursed of those fits with several who had been afflicted with them, and with others who were eye-witnesses of these afflictions, and according to the best judgment I can form of them, they were only hysterical.” He says again, “Several women belonging to the church were afflicted with hysterical fits, whereby they were, while these fits lasted, incapable of any motion, or thrown into that which was irregular and violent. Though there was nothing belonging to those fits, but what is common in the world, instances of the same kind being frequent, yet there were some attending circumstances which made the affliction great. They were often seized with them in the public assemblies, and perhaps, when their affections were most powerfully touched with any truth they heard, they were then in the most danger of being overpowered therewith; so the decent orderly worship of God was interrupted, the church in their attendance upon their Redeemer disturbed, the ignorant filled with amazement and wonder, and the mouths of the enemies of the Gospel opened to revile and reproach the Salvation of God.”
These hysterical fits were a great thorn in the side of Mr. Davis, and were eagerly seized upon by his opponents and made the ground of base insinuations against him. In the Libel they are plainly attributed to his skill in Conjuration. Such an idea would be laughed at now, but it was no laughing matter then. Mr. Davis well says in his Vindication—“Any impartial man of reason, that considers matters without prejudice, may see the evident folly of fixing the charge of Conjuration upon me from these fits. If he had no other argument to weigh but this, that they are my friends, and not my foes, that are generally afflicted with them. Conjurers and Witches do not use to act revenge upon their friends, but upon them they hate.” He then goes on to assert his utter ignorance of the Black Art, and of all books on Magic or Conjuration whatsoever.
From a reference in the Libel, it would seem that some of Mr. Davis’s hearers at Kimbolton were afflicted with these fits, in addition to those who suffered with them in Rowell.
There is a reference also in the Libel to Mr. King, of Wellingborough, who is said to have got rid of these fits out of his congregation, and Mr. Davis is urged to follow his example. This seems to show that they did not exclusively pertain to the ministry of Mr. Davis.
There are six references to these fits in the Church Books, five in 1691, and one in 1694, so that they would seem to have been confined to the earlier portion of Mr. Davis’s ministry. The last entry relates to a solemn day of thanks giving for the signal mercies of God “shewn to divers of the afflicted among them,” and as, after this, we find no reference to these fits in the church records, we may conclude that they died out about this time.
The only remarkable features of the entries referred to here, which are of some length, is there implying—1. that the affliction was the result of demoniacal agency—2. that the affliction sensibly abated on one occasion through the naming by some of the brethren of the awful name of Jesus of Nazareth—3. that the affliction was possibly sent in judgment because of some secret sins of which some of their number had been guilty.
We certainly cannot see here, bearing in mind the general impressions and views of those days, anything either very peculiar or very blameworthy. It seems to us, looking at the whole matter, that neither Mr. Davis nor his church deserved the obloquy which, for this cause, was so freely cast upon them.
Chapter 9.—Some account of the preachers sent out by Mr. Davis, and the new churches which he founded.
Most of the preachers Mr. Davis sent out were elders or deacons of his church, residing either in Rowell or in other towns to which the church had extended.
Though it was at the suggestion and through the influence of Mr. Davis that these preachers were sent out, yet in this, as apparently in most other concerns, the church was always consulted, and every step was taken in their name, and in accordance with their expressed opinion.
The following entries from the church records may serve to explain the action of the church in this matter: they occur under the date of May 4, 1691:—”The church unanimously agreed, that though human learning was good in its place, yet it was not essentially necessary in the qualifications of any to be sent forth to preach the Gospel.” “The church unanimously agreed that the church of Christ had power within itself to choose, approve of, ordain, or send forth any to preach the gospel, either by virtue of office, or in a probationary way in order to office, without calling in the assistance of the officers and elders of other churches to approve with them, unless at any time they thought it necessary to desire their assistance by way of advice.”
Many of the succeeding entries show that it was the custom of the church, before sending out any of their own number as preachers, to hear them discourse either at the church meeting or at the Sabbath assembly. Many cases occur of brethren after such a hearing being deferred, or advised instead of preaching to adhere to their trade. Mr. Davis’s preaching corps was not open to any one who might present himself: it was a select band, and this no doubt, to some extent, accounts for the success of their labours.
As far as we can ascertain, the following is a full and correct list of the preachers sent out by Mr. Davis. We have put none on the list except those who are referred to either in the church records or in the Libel as engaged in preaching in connection with the church at Rowell. A few of them may have engaged but casually in the work, but there can be no doubt that the majority of them were regular preachers. Mr. Betson, in his Vindication in 1692, says their number was under 12; but there were subsequent additions to the list, and the number which we here give is 28.
Mr. Bear, of Olney. He was not a member of Mr. Davis’s church, but frequently preached under his direction, and was a warm partizan of his cause. We learn from the Libel that he was an Apothecary, and that he married Mrs. Bigge, the daughter of Mr. Browning, to whom previous reference has been made. She is referred to in the Libel as a rich widow, whom Mr. Davis procured for Mr. Bear as a reward for his services.
Mr. Robert Betson. He was admitted to the church in 1682, and the entry, probably in Mr. Browning’s writing, is as follows:—“Robert Betson, understanding Christian.” He was chosen an elder of the church at Rowell, and afterwards, in 1691, became the first minister of the church founded by Mr. Davis at Wellingborough. He is referred to in the Libel as having been a shoemaker. He was grossly attacked in the Libel, and he wrote a short vindication, which was published with that of Mr. Davis. He continued pastor of the church at Wellingborough for 33 years, and died in 1724, aged 72.
Mr. Burgis. He became the pastor of the church at Willingham, in Cambridgeshire, in 1695, and afterwards, in 1701, went to Stanstead, in Essex.
Mr. Samuel Campian, of Stoke Albany. He is referred to in the Libel as one of Mr. Davis’s preachers. He was at one time censured by the church for some irregularities of living.
Mr. Francis Cave, of Faxton. He was admitted a member in 1686, and afterwards became an elder of the church. He was a farmer, and one of the original trustees of the chapel. He subsequently became a weaver, and was unfortunate in business, and got imprisoned for debt, upon which the church at Rowell subscribed towards his release, and sent letters signed by the elders to the associated churches for the same end.
Mr. Nathaniel Chambers. He was a deacon, and one of the original trustees of the chapel. By trade he was a blacksmith, and he lived in Rowell.
Mr. Coales. He was an elder of the church. In 1692 he was deputed to preach at Needingworth as often as he could go.
Mr. David Culy. We have already had some reference to him in the chapter on Church Meetings. He was chosen an elder of the church, and afterwards became the first pastor of the church founded by Mr. Davis at Guyhurn in Cambridgeshire. He was subsequently accused before the church at Rowell for certain “errors and unsound expressions.” An explanation and apology was sent up by him, and by the church he represented, which at the time was considered satisfactory. It is a strange epistle, the “I” of Mr. Culy, and the “we” of the church being mixed up in hopeless confusion. The last entry about Mr. Culy relates to a written testimony by the church against him and his adherents: this was in 1702. On the back of the title of one of Mr. Davis’s printed works, there is an advertisement of books to be had at the publisher’s, and amongst others, “The Works of David Culey of Guyhorn.”
Mr. Thomas Curtis. He was an elder of the church at Rowell, and in the year 1714 became the first pastor of the church founded by Mr. Davis at Ringstead.
Mr. John Fox, of Wellingborough. He was admitted into the church in the year 1690, and was probably the “J. F.” referred to in the Libel as one of Mr. Davis’s preachers.
Mr.William Hensman, of Wellingborough. He was admitted into the church in the year 1686. He was after wards chosen as an elder, and was probably the “W. H—n.” referred to in the Libel as one of Mr. Davis’s preachers.
Mr. Robert Hills, of Walgrave.
Mr. Killingworth, probably of Keystone in Huntingdonshire. He afterwards became the pastor of the church at Stagsdon in Bedfordshire.
Mr. Thomas Loftus, of Thorpe Waterville.
Mr.John Mansfield. This was the preacher of Mr. Davis probably referred to in the Libel as “Mansi.”
Mr. Richard Pain. He preached for some time at Needingworth, and then at Chigwell in Essex. He afterwards preached at Mr. Steed’s church in London, and was dismissed to that church in the year 1700. At the time of his dismission he seems to have lived at Willingham in Cambridgeshire, as that church remonstrated with the church at Rowell for dismissing him to London, on the ground of his being “a brother that was serviceable to them.”
Mr. Joseph Perry, of Ringstead. He was admitted a member at a church meeting at Thorpe Waterville on the 16th of March, 1693. The following are the further entries in the church records concerning him.
1694, May 31, at a Church Meeting at Ringstead “Bro. Perry made his acknowledgment for his unfaithfulness to his master, and was received into our affections again.” Immediately before this in the records of the same meeting Bro. Clarke is said to have been acquitted. As Mr. Perry tells us in his Autobiography (of which an account will presently be given), that his master at Ringstead was a dissenter and of the name of Clarke, it is probable that these entries refer to some dispute between him and his master, in which at last he confessed himself in the wrong.
1703, Dec. 3, “A church meeting was appointed next monday three-weeks, and the church desired Bro. Perry of Ringstead to be here that day to exercise his gifts before the church.”
1703, Dec. 27, “Bro. Perry of Ringstead preached before the church according to the church’s order, and had so far the approbation of the church that they would not discourage him in the work, but desired to hear him again as soon as may be in order to further satisfaction.”
1704, Feb. 28, “Bro. Perry having preached again before the church they judged that his gift might be serviceable to others, but thought it not convenient to come to a final judgment and determination, till they had heard him oftener. Therefore he was exhorted to come and exercise his gift as often as he could before the church.”
1710, Jan. 15, “A letter of dismission of Bro. Perry to the church at Arnsby [Leicestershire], was approved of, and signed in the presence and by the appointment of the church.”
This Mr. Perry appears afterwards (as will be seen in the next chapter under the date of 1713) to have become the Minister of the church at Flower.
We have given the above entries from the church records in full because the Mr. Perry to whom they relate has left behind him a very interesting Autobiography.
We first met with this Autobiography in the Monthly Numbers of “The Gospel Standard” from July to November, 1853. But we afterwards found (though “The Gospel Standard” does not acknowledge it) that it had been published many years before as a separate work. There have been three editions of this work, and we have met with copies of the 2nd and 3rd. The following is the title of the 2nd edition, “The Life and Miraculous Conversion from Popery, &c. of Joseph Perry, in Three Parts:…The Second Edition. Written by himself….London: Printed for John Marshall, at the Bible in Gracechurch-street, and Joseph Marshall, at the Bible in Newgate-street. 1727. Price is.”
Copies of the 2nd and 3rd editions are in the British Museum, Mr. Taylor has a copy of the 2nd edition.
We will now give a running abstract of the narrative from the 2nd edition, only quoting Mr. Perry in full when the particulars are of special interest.
Mr. Joseph Perry was born in the Strand, London, in the reign of Charles the 2nd. His father was a Whitesmith and possessed a good appointment in the service of the king. Both his father and mother were Roman Catholics. His father died during his infancy, and his mother afterwards took him with her to Holland, in order to escape the persecutions which then befell the Roman Catholics as well as the Dissenting Protestants. He was still very young when he lost his mother, upon which a Roman Catholic lady of her acquaintance took charge of him, and gave him a fair education. He was whilst in Holland strictly brought up in the Roman Catholic faith, and had many serious impressions in relation to heaven, hell, and purgatory.
In the beginning of the reign of James the 2nd the lady who had taken charge of him, availing herself of the greater liberty the Roman Catholics then enjoyed in England, brought him over to this country, and succeeded in discovering some of his relations. During his voyage from Holland the weather was very tempestuous, and he was grievously frightened and sick. On landing, he and his protectress came on to London in “the Hackney-Coach.”
Whilst in London he was under the care of his relations, and was well-treated. He was put out to school to learn English, as when he came back to this country he could speak nothing but Dutch. He says, “During our Continuance here, we used to go to Mass, to a Place about St. James’s Park, where we had Organs, Singing-Men in their white Surplices, burning of Incense, and all Things delightful to Nature.”
Some time after this he went down to live with his grandfather at West Hallem in Derbyshire. A priest with whom he formed an acquaintance at this place, obtained for him, not long after, a situation at Cransley in Northampton shire as personal attendant to Sir Henry Robinson. (The family of the Robinsons remained in Cransley nearly to the close of the last century. They were probably related to the Robinsons at Cranford.) He entered upon this service when he was about eleven years of age, and his master put him into a blue livery. Sir Henry Robinson was a strong Roman Catholic, but his Lady was an equally strong adherent of the Church of England.
His master used frequently to come over to Desborough, about a mile from Rowell, to the house of one Mr. Polton, a great Roman Catholic, who was made Justice of the Peace in the time of James the 2nd. In this house Sir Henry with his attendant used to hear mass, and make confession of sin, and occasionally a Jesuit priest used to come there to preach. There were other papists in Desborough, as well as those of the household of Mr. Polton, and thus quite a little congregation of Roman Catholics used to assemble on these occasions. (The Poltons or Pultons held the manor and principal estates at Desborough for a great number of years. Some 12 years ago a part of the old house of the Pultons at Desborough was still standing, with a broad staircase, and old-fashioned rooms, the furniture and wainscoting of which were nearly black with age. It was however burnt down about the time referred to, and no vestige of it now remains.)
Towards the end of 1688, and just before the landing of the Prince of Orange, Sir Henry Robinson became “distracted.” The following is the account which Mr. Perry gives of this sad event:—“I remember the Lord’s-Day, which we called Sunday, before Sir Henry fell mad, we went to Desborough, and a Priest that was with us at that Time; we came Home that Night, as we usually did: And after the Family was all gone to Bed, some Time in the Night, Sir Henry got up, put on his Morning Gown, begins to threaten and abuse his Lady; she cries out, the Servants rise, and all the House was in an Uproar immediately, who soon got him out of the Chamber, without doing, as I remember, the Lady any Harm. He seeing of himself beset with his Servants, comes furiously down Stairs into the Kitchen, his Servants being some before and some behind, all in a terrible Fright, not having Power or Courage, to lay Hands, on him: He takes the great Kitchen Tongs in his Hands, and makes towards them, they all flee out of the House into the Yard, and he after them; our Priest being up too, and sorely frighted, got among the Servants into the Yard. Sir Henry Robinson having his Eyes upon him, makes up with great Fury to him, and flings the Tongs with all his Power and Will at his Head, and if the poor Priest had not been nimble in his Joints, and by sculking down miss’d the Tongs, his Scull had certainly been dash’d to Pieces. The Priest seeing how narrowly he escaped with his Life, and that he must now expect no more Favour than the rest, took to his Heels, and run for it. The Servants seeing he was bent to do Mischief, they got into the Street, and call’d up some able Men in the Town to help and assist them in laying hold of him, for they durst not themselves, without more Help, Sir Henry being a strong, lusty, proper Man, as one should see in a hundred, and just in his Prime; what with his great Looks, and terrible Words, he was as if he would have drove the whole Town before him. I remember that I was in a dreadful Fright myself, for my Master was gone out of the House, into the Yard, before I could get down Stairs, had he returned into the House again, I must have fallen into his Hands; but I got out of the House into the Street. Which Way to go where I might be safe, I could not tell: one Time I thought he was just behind me, but I run and flew over a Pair of Gates into some Bodies Yard, expecting he would surely kill me, but the Lord preserved me, blessed be his Name. The Servants in this Time being dispersed up and down the Town, to call in Help, Sir Henry meets a Woman that was got into the Street, and makes her fall down, upon her Knees, and pray to the Virgin Mary, and swore he would run her thro’ if she did not pray to the Virgin: Now Sir Henry Robinson had got a little Sword, that was his Son’s of about six or seven Years old, and put it secretly under his Gown, none knowing that he had any such Thing about him: This he drew out, and held it against the Woman, swearing he would kill her if she did not say her Prayers; the poor Woman being terribly frighted, fell down upon her Knees, but not being used to pray to the Virgin Mary, she could not tell what to do, and cry’d out that she was willing to pray, but did not know how, so he learned her, and made her say after him, Ave Maria, &c. She willingly obeys, and answers him as fast as he could tell her: Prayer being ended, he let her go without doing her any Harm, the Woman being glad she was got away safe, goes home to her House as fast as she could.
“By this Time several Men were got up, and after Consultation, they concluded to run up to him all together, and so take him by Force, for they were afraid Mischief would be done by him.
“Now among these Men was one Mr. Chamberling, who was Sir Henry’s Steward, he being a married Man, lived with his Family, in another House in the Town. This Man being of a stout, undaunted Spirit, claps up first to him; the rest hanging a little back. Sir Henry got the Liberty of his Hands, drew out his little Sword from under his Gown, which they were not aware of the Woman (mentioned before) being gone, before the Men came up to him, he had concealed the Sword under his Gown again; this he drew out the other Men not coming up quick enough. Sir Henry runs the Sword into Mr. Chamlerling’s Side, and, I think, wounds him in two Places: Mr. Chamlerling cries out, God bless my Wife and Children, looking upon himself as a dead Man, this was very dismal: The rest of the Men now came and laid hold of him (when he had done this Mischief) they took his Sword from him, and led him to his own House. He growing worse and worse, being in a dreadful Rage, they were forced to bind him, and make a Bed purposely for him, and bound him fast in it, making it convenient, where he lay Day and Night some Time.
“Mr. Chamberling that was sorely wounded, they carried to the Parson’s House, one Mr. Bullivant, being not far off his House, they had him to Bed, and sent Man and Horse with all the Haste they could, for a Surgeon to Kettering, who, through the Blessing of God, recover’d him, and he did well again.
“My Lady Robinson made Use of a Doctor, one Mr. Courtman [he belonged to Thorpe Malsor, and was buried there in 1691], some Time to see if any Help could be had, but none appeared, he growing rather worse and worse: Sometimes he would be in such terrible Fits as would make one tremble to hear him; sometimes he would call upon me to come up, and kneel down at his Bedside and say my Prayers, which when I did, he would be very still. Continuing without any Hopes of Recovery, it was at last concluded by my Lady to send him up to London, when all Hopes failed of having any Help in the Country, and therefore a Coach was made fit for him to sit, and be bound in. When things were got in Readiness for his Journey, they made him believe that he should go a hunting in his. Coach, which pleased him very well. But being got into his Coach, they bound him fast, and so drew him up to London, where he has been ever since, and is to this Day, if living. I have heard that since he has been there, he has killed a Maid, which used to wait upon him.”
After Sir Henry Robinson became “distracted,” the household was broken up, and for a short time Mr. Perry lived at the house of Mr. Polton at Desborough, until he became apprentice to “one George Clarke, living at Cransly.” At this time he was between 12 and 13 years old. (Mr. Perry does not state the nature of the trade to which he was thus apprenticed: probably it was that of a Shoemaker.)
His master was a dissenter, and he was persuaded occasionally to accompany him on the Sabbath-Day to “Kettering Meeting, where one Mr. Meadwell preached.” He says, but he being old and very low in his Voice, I could neither understand nor well hear what was said; but sometimes he [that is, my master] went to Rowell, and would have me go along with him there, and accordingly I did; this was some little Time before Mr. Davis came: I think the man which I then heard, which, I suppose, they had upon Trial, was one Mr. Harris. I thought the Man preached well, and looked with a sober, solid Countenence: But alas! I do not remember that I understood any Thing, any more than the Ground I stood upon. [This Mr. Harris has been previously referred to as preaching for a year at Rowell between the time of Mr. Browning and Mr. Davis.] Soon after this, Mr. Davis came, we went to hear him, he had a good Voice, and a thundering Way of preaching, which I was pleased with; but I used to wonder at one Thing, and that was their sitting with their Hats on their Heads, while they were hearing, which I thought was not right.” (This statement of the people wearing their hats during preaching is borne out by the following extract from the Account of the Doctrine and Discipline of Mr. Davis, “When the Congregation is assembled, the Preacher, whether Pastor or Elder, begins with prayer, the people generally standing, as they lock upon those as lazy who sit, and will not suffer any man to be covered: When prayer is ended, they cover their heads, and sit or stand as they please during the sermon. This is the whole of their behaviour and service, unless they sing an hymn, which they ordinarily do.” The fashion as to the disposal of the hats has gone through several changes in the Dissenting church at Rowell. First, as we have seen here, the men used to wear them during a large part of the ser vice; then the hats were hung up on rows of pegs both downstairs and in the gallery; and now these crowning appendages have so far lost their original glory as to be put out of sight under the seats.)
Lady Robinson coming back to her house at Cransley, found out the young apprentice who was formerly serving man to her husband, and soundly rated him for his atten dance at the Dissenters’ Meetings. She gave him a prayer-book and catechism, and desired him, on peril of losing her favour and every spiritual blessing, to go regularly to church.
This, Mr. Perry did for some time. He says, “My Lady having prevail’d with me, I went to the Church, nor had I Inclinations then of going elsewhere, but our Parson was a very indifferent living Man, so that the very Light of Nature would convince me, that he was not a good Preacher, there appearing no good in him, no good was to be expected from him, which made me, with some others of our Town, to go to Tharpe [Thorpe Malsor], a Mile off, where one Mr. Courtman preached.” (We find from the Burial Register at Thorpe, that Mr. John Courtman, Rector of Thorpe Malsor, died April the 9th, and was buried April the 12th, 1719. He was probably related to the Doctor of the same name previously referred to.)
The narrative of Mr. Perry proceeds, “I remember that I was dismally frighted the Day called Running Thursday, when there was such a Rumor all over the Nation, that the French and Irish were landed in England, and that they kill’d, burnt up, and destroy’d, all the Way that they went: This was in the Beginning of King Williams Reign, and about us where I then lived, it was on aThursday, and therefore called Running Thursday, though I have heard since, that in some Places it was not till Friday; a very terrible Time it was, while the Fright lasted. I expected to be killed.”
Mr. Perry proceeds again, “In this Time, I remember, there was a Fire broke out at Tharpe, where I used to go to hear: The Fire was violent, and did much Damage: the neighbouring Towns being alarmed, I went among the rest, and was frighted to see how terribly the Fire burned: This did a little stir up Conviction in me again.” “And then there was another Thing which was taken Notice of, and that was, that the Fire miss’d the Parson’s House, although it was very near it; and, I think, I heard them say, that the Fire flew over his House, and set Mr. Mansfield’s Barn on Fire, which had a great deal of Grain in it; which was but a little Way off of the Parson’s: This begat in me a better Thought of Mr. Courtman.” (The traces of this fire are still to be seen in Thorpe, in numbers of calcined stones in the barns and outbuildings near the church. These are new buildings, and the calcined stones have been taken from older structures on the same spot. The old parsonage at Thorpe was pulled down a few years ago. We are told that it was covered with Collyweston slates, and that the buildings near it were simply thatched. Its being spared in the fire there fore does not seem after all so remarkable an event.)
Mr. Perry served the concluding part of his apprenticeship with a Mr. John Clarke who lived at Ringstead, and who was a nephew of his former master. His new master and mistress were dissenters, and he used sometimes to accompany them on Sunday to the Meeting at Kettering, where Mr. Maidwell, the first minister of that place, still preached. Mr. Perry says that his master and mistress when they went to Kettering had a horse (she no doubt riding on a pillion). He found the walk very tiresome, and was unwilling to go there often because, as he says, “Mr. Meadwell being aged, and, as I said before, very low in his Voice, I could hear but little, and understand less.”
When, however, his master and mistress left Kettering-Meeting to attend the Meeting at Thorpe Waterville, he regularly accompanied them, and there he heard Mr. Taylor preach, and sometimes Mr. Tebbut, of Rowell, and some times Mr. Davis. He refers to Mr. Taylor and Mr. Tebbut preaching on trial at Thorpe, and to his preference for the former. (We shall see more about this presently in the notice of Mr. John Taylor as one of Mr. Davis’s preachers.) He goes on to say, “Sometimes I heard Mr. Davis of Rowell, and when I heard him again. Dear Lord, thought I, what a Man is this: I was ready to look upon him as if he had been an Angel come from Heaven; I thought the Majesty of God shone in his Countenance; his Words seemed to stick like Arrows upon my Soul; I did feel such Power and Authority in his preaching the Gospel, that made me fall like a conquer’d Captive at the Sound of it. I saw now that I was a miserable Sinner; and when he came to shew, how dreadful it would be with such that had not an Interest in Christ, but lived and died in Sin I was afraid this would be my condition.”
Mr. Perry was troubled about this time by many fears about his soul, thinking that perhaps Christ might not save him even if he sought his mercy, and that perhaps he was not one of those who were elected to salvation. He says, “But as to this, Mr. Davis’s preaching was made of great Use to me. I remember when he used to speak to Sinners (for then I did listen in particular) he would exhort with great Earnestness poor Sinners to come to Christ, Sinners as they were, and believe on him at the Word of Command; This is the Command of God, that ye believe on his Son, 1 John 3, 23, and not stand to dispute whether thou art worthy or not worthy, elected or not elected, this being a Secret it was not for us to pry into, but as Sinners we must come to Christ, believe on him or be damned.”
Mr. Perry refers also to his having obtained great assistance from the ministry of a Mr. Ward, who preached for some time at Ringstead, before the church was regularly formed there by Mr. Davis.
Mr. Perry refers several times afterwards in his biography to the help he had obtained from the ministry of Mr. Davis. Having expressed the desire he once had for the “faith of assurance,” he says, “Well, the Lord was pleased in some little Time after to grant my Desires, and it was under Mr. Davis’s preaching at Tharpe Waterfeld; the Particulars I have now forgot, but this I remember, it was such a Sealing-Time of the Love of God in Christ Jesus, as that I am not able by Words to express it.”
Again, after expressing the fear he once had that his conversion having been gradual and not quick and sudden, it was therefore not genuine, he says, “I remember Mr. Davis’s preaching was made of great Use upon this very Account, he would sometimes use this Objection, that the Soul’ is so ready to make against itself, and that is. It may be thou art afraid the Work of God is not right upon thy Soul (oh! this used to be my Objection often) well, what then. Soul, tell Satan (for it is his Business to make thee question), if the Work be not right, if I have not yet believed on Christ, if I have not come to him, and ventured my Soul upon the Lord Jesus for Salvation, it is Time now to come, it is Time now to believe, it is Time now to venture upon Christ. Therefore come now, come now as a poor Sinner, and throw thy self now in the Arms of his Mercy for Salvation. While Mr. Davis was speaking thus, by way of Encouragement to poor doubting Souls, I was made to see, that coming, believing, and venturing upon the Lord Jesus Christ, as a perishing Sinner for Salvation, was a continual Work all the Days of my Life. I have heard of an Expression that one Mr. Browning, a great Man of God, that was Mr. Davis’s Predecessor, should make Use of, and that is. If ever I have been converted once, I have been converted a hundred and a hundred Times. This, through infinite Grace, I have experienc’d something of, that conversion, believing, and coming to Christ, is not only needful once, but as long as we live.”
Mr. Perry says once more, in relation to the Ministry of Mr. Davis, “I remember one Time, when I was at Rowel, and Mr. Davis was administering the Ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, I had such a Sight, by Faith, of the Death, Blood, Righteousness, and Satisfaction, which the Lord Jesus Christ gave as a Sacrifice for my Sins, as afforded much Comfort to my Soul.”
The rest of the Autobiography of Mr. Perry is bare of all personal details, and contains nothing further concerning the incidents of his life. There are many pious reflections added both doctrinal and practical, but it does not come within our purpose to give any further notice of them here. We close our review of this work with a genuine feeling of respect for the writer, and some sense of personal obligation for the light which he has thrown upon the subject of our history.
We have met with another work of Mr. Perry, bearing the following title, “The Glory of Christ’s Visible Kingdom in this World, asserted, proved, and explained,…By Joseph Perry, an unworthy Servant in the Work of the Gospel. Northampton: Printed by R. Raikes and W. Dicey, for the Author, 1721.” [562 pages. 8vo. In Mr. Taylor’s Collection at Northampton.]
Mr. Thomas Rowlatt, of Rowell. He had to appear with Mr. Davis at the Northampton Assizes in the early part of 1692. The Libel refers to him as being by trade a joiner. He afterwards, in 1693, became the first pastor of the church founded by Mr. Davis, at Kimbolton, in Hunt ingdonshire.
Mr. Thomas Saddington, of Kimbolton. He became an elder of the church. In a church entry, Feb. 9, 1693, the request is referred to of the brethren in and about Kimbolton, who desired to break off and embody together, and then these words occur, “The church consented to their request in that case, provided they get Bro. Saddington, or any other, to be in office to baptise the seed of the godly.”
Mr. Scot.
Mr. Thomas Sewell, of Brigstock. He was one of the original Trustees of the Chapel, and by trade a dyer. He was admitted a member in the year 1678. He preached occasionally to the members of the church at Northampton, and in the latter end of the year 1700, or the beginning of the following year, became the first pastor of the church founded by Mr. Davis at Thorpe Wateryilie, though he was not regularly ordained as pastor there until the year 1708. In Deer., 1707, he desired to leave Thorpe in order to go to Weedon, and his reasons and the objections of the church at Thorpe (for they desired him to remain), were brought before a Church Meeting at Rowell. The following extract relates to two of his reasons for desiring to leave them, and the opinion of the church at Rowell concerning them. “That that was no evidence that his work was done, because there was a stop put to conversion-work, for he still may be useful in the Spirit’s hand to edify the saints, and he knows not how soon God may open to his ministry a door of conversion in that place. The church judged the last reason had weight in it, namely, that they did not allow him, as was there testified, £5 a year for maintenance.” Money was worth somewhat more then than now, but surely this was little enough. The church then goes on to say that if he had remonstrated with his people about this, and they had refused to improve, it would have been his duty to leave them; but this not having been done, they think it advisable for him to remain and try them yet further. This advice he seems to have taken, for in the following year, as we have seen, he was regularly ordained as their Pastor. However, in the year 1712, the church at Thorpe requested the advice of the church at Rowell as to their dismissing Mr. Sewell, on the ground that they could not maintain him. Surely it would have been better to have let him go when he wanted. Mr. John Taylor. He was an elder of the church. It seems that he had made a vow to build or embody a church at Thorpe Waterville, but afterwards he desired to found a church at Welford. This matter came up at several church meetings at Thorpe and Rowell in Deer., 1691, and in the following year. Mr. Robert Tebbut was also on probation at Thorpe at the same time as Mr. Taylor, and the church at Rowell consented for the former to be the pastor at Thorpe and the latter at Welford j but many of the people at Thorpe being unwilling to release Mr. Taylor, the matter entirely dropped through at both places. At one of the church meetings held at Thorpe, Jan. 27, 1692, at which this matter was discussed, a letter was read from “one and twenty godly ones from Welford” desiring the services of Mr. Taylor. It is probable that only a few of these were members of the church at Rowell. Towards the end of 1692, Mr. Taylor was requested by the people at Willingham, in Cambridgeshire, to become their pastor. Probably he did not accede to their request, for, as we have seen, in 1695, Mr. Burgis became pastor of the church at Willingham.
Mr. Robert Tebbut, of Rowell. He was admitted as a member, and also chosen for an elder, in the time of Mr. Browning. We have just seen that at one time he preached on probation at Thorpe Waterville, but was rejected. There is no name which occurs so frequently in the old church records as that of Tebbut. Some of that name were very useful and worthy members of the church, but the subject of our present notice was a great disturber. From Oct., 1693, to March, 1694, he seems to have kept the church in constant uneasiness, and to have been as mischievous as the extent of his power permitted. Like most such malcontents he began by reproaching the doctrine and practice of the minister and church. He affirmed that they had left the good old ways to run after new notions, and that they were either passionate, or ignorant, or slothful.
When a member of a church becomes envious or discontented, he nearly always discovers that the doctrine preached is unsound, and that the spirituality of the church is at a very low ebb. And then instead of earnestly striving in love for a wholesome reformation, he goes about like Bro. Tebbut, using every influence he can to make matters worse, by false accusations and embittered reflections. When such men talk of evils in the church, let them see to it that they are not themselves the principal cause.
The list of Robert Tebbut’s dealings with the church at this time is not a very inviting one.
1.—He accused Mr. Davis of having taken away his livelihood as a Schoolmaster, by bringing a carnal man into the town to teach school. This was proved in his presence to be false, and he did not deny that it was so.
2.—He was reported to have made many reflections in his prayers before others upon Mr. Davis and the church.
3.—He braved the church in its presence by proud and arrogant, and sometimes by passionate and scurrilous words.
4.—He wrote down in the church meeting all that was said against him, and continued to do so despite remonstrance. And when Mr. Davis was praying he ostentatiously copied down what he said.
3.— He spread false reports reflecting upon the character of one of his fellow-preachers.
At last, after every admonition had failed, the patience of the church was exhausted, and he was deservedly cut off.
The last notice we have of him in the church records is as follows. “March 22, 1694, Robert Tebbut, lately a member of us, desired to have our church book, but the church not knowing his intentions, refused to let him have it.” This decision of the church was perfectly sound and wise, for if he had obtained possession of the church book, he would in all probability have torn out some of the entries obnoxious to himself. Such a course, however reprehensible, is not without examples.
Mr. Thomas. He preached sometimes at Northampton, and afterwards, in 1697, was dismissed “to minister the Word to them at Pershore.”
Mr. William Watts. There were several members of the name of William Watts during the time of Mr. Davis; one lived at Long Buckby, and another at Bythorne. One of the original Trustees of the Chapel was a Mr. William Watts, farmer, of Scaldwell.
Mr. Wells. Probably Jonathan Wells, who was admitted a member in Mr. Browning’s time, and was afterwards chosen as an elder.
Young Bro. Wells. Probably a son of the above who was admitted a member in 1691.
Mr. William Whittwell. He was an elder of the church.
The following Churches were Founded by Mr. Davis: we give them in the order of their formation.
Wellingborough in Northamptonshire.
Needingworth in Huntingdonshire.
Kimbolton
Guyhurn in Cambridgeshire.
Thorpe Waterville in Northamptonshire.
Ringstead
Before treating of these churches more particularly, it would be well perhaps to make some reference to the members in and about Scaldwell. From 1694 to 1701 there are no less than 33 entries in the church books in relation to their desire to embody as a separate church, and the troubles which arose from their desire not being granted by the church at Rowell. The church at Rowell refused their repeated requests to embody together, and refused also to have meetings there, or to permit the administration of the Ordinance of the Lord’sSupper. This was done on the professed ground of their scanty numbers, and the small distance at which they lived from Rowell. The members at and about Scaldwell at last determined to break off whether the church at Rowell consented or not. Thereupon their request to embody was granted; but the design seems never to have been carried out, for dissensions at once arose amongst themselves. These dissensions, however, were at last healed, and instead of embodying separately, the members filled up their old places in the church at Rowell. There are two entries subsequently of church meetings held at Scaldwell, at one of which the Ordinance of the Lord’s Supper was administered.
1.—Wellingborough in Northamptonshire. The church was founded on Oct. 22, 1691.
The first entry about Wellingborough in the church records is under the date of Feb. 1, 1691, and is as follows: “The church consented to feed our brethren and sisters at Wellingborough.” From this date to Sept. 18 of the same year 4 church meetings were held at Wellingborough, at which 52 members were admitted.
The members in and about Wellingborough were embodied into a distinct church on Oct. 22, 1691, when 27 brethren and 45 sisters were dismissed from the church at Rowell.
Mr. Robert Betson, an elder of the church at Rowell, became the first minister of this new church at Welling borough, in the same year in which it was founded.
The church thus formed, originally met in a chapel in Sheep Street. In 1734 they removed to the present chapel at West End. The chapel is now in a very dilapidated condition, and is used for public worship by one of the Methodist bodies in the town, the Independent church formerly meeting in it having become extinct during the last few years. The records of this church from its commence ment are still preserved, and are now in the possession of Mr. T. S. Curtis, of Wellingborough.
2.—Needingworth in Huntingdonshire. The church was founded on Jan. 17, 1693.
There were five church meetings held at Needingworth between April, 1692, and Jan., 1693, at which 67 members were admitted. Bro. Coales and Bro. Pain were deputed at different times to minister the word to them at Needingworth. On Decr, 12, 1692, a letter of dismission for the members about Needingworth was signed by the church at Rowell, in order that they might separate into a distinct body. In the records of a church meeting held at Needingworth, Jan. 17, 1693, after some reference to discipline, the following entry occurs, “Then the messengers of this church proceeded to the work of the day to break them off into a distinct church.”
There is a reference to this church at Needingworth further on in the same year in the records of the church at Kimbolton.
The present Baptist interest at Needingworth originated from the labours of a Mr. Ladson nearly 100 years after the foundation of the church there by Mr. Davis.
The memory of the first Dissenting church at Needingworth seems to have completely died out there. Probably a place called Chapel Close derives its name from some relation to it.
3.—Kimbolton in Huntingdonshire.
The church was founded on March 14, 1693.
The first notice we have of Kimbolton in the church records, is the account of a church meeting held there Oct. 6, 1691. Before the church at Kimbolton was actually embodied apart, 14 church meetings were held there, between Oct., 1691, and Jan., 1693, at which meetings 99 members were admitted.
The following entry occurs under the date of Feb. 22, 1692, “An act passed that our brethren and sisters at Kimbolton-side (with brother and sister Rowlatt) should break off and embody together.”
It was not, however, until the following year that this act was carried out. On March 12, 1693, a letter of dismission was signed for the members at Kimbolton, and they were appointed to break off on the 14th of that month.
At a meeting in Rowell on March 23, 1693, an account was given, by the messengers who had been appointed to be present at this embodying, of its having been properly done, and afterwards at the same meeting messengers from Kimbolton gave the church at Rowell the right hand of fellowship.
At a meeting in Rowell, on June 19th of the same year, certain elders and brethren were appointed as messengers to be witnesses to Bro. Rowlatt’s being set apart to office at Kimbolton on the 28th of that month.
The present Baptist Union church at Kimbolton is the same church which was thus founded by Mr. Davis in 1693 (the date 1692 in the Baptist Hand Book is incorrect). The present chapel is a neat and commodious structure at the main entrance of the town. The old chapel in the centre of the town, having the date in front of 1786, is now used as a coach-house. Probably this latter building stands on the same site as the original chapel in which the members worshipped during the time of Mr. Davis. The records of this church are very full, going back to the time of its first formation.
The following are the provisos, on which the embodying of the members at and about Kimbolton into a separate church, was permitted by the church at Rowell; which provisos, together with a full and detailed account of the embodying, are contained in the records of the church at Kimbolton.
“Provided 1—They acknowledge an oneness with us in the faith and order of the Gospel, and that if the Lord leads them into any new light, they communicate it to us as a loving sister church, as we promise to do to them.
2—That they promise and engage to hold communion of churches with us in the strictest sense, embracing those we embrace, and rejecting those we reject.
3—That they promise and engage to fill up their church with officers for the administration of all Christ’s ordinances, and particularly such as be duly in office for baptising the seed of the godly.” (We commend this latter proviso to the attention of our Baptist friends at Kimbolton.)
43 brethren and 52 sisters were dismissed to form this church at Kimbolton, and their dismission, a copy of which is entered in the records of the church thus formed, was signed by Mr. Davis, and 24 brethren of the church at Rowell. Thomas Rowlatt, as we have seen, was the first pastor at Kimbolton. His pastorate was short, for on the 21st Oct., 1697, Mr. Shortin was set apart as his successor.
A very peculiar mode of expression is used in the old church records at Kimbolton in relation to the admission of members: for example, under the date of May io, 1693, we read, “Then the church proceeded to open the gates of Zion, and there offered herself, Elizabeth Johnson, of Keyso, who was admitted.”
4.—Guyhurn in Cambridgeshire, spelt in the church books Guy Horn. The church was founded on July 23, 1693.
The first notice in the church books in relation to those brethren and sisters who were ultimately formed into the church at Guyhurn is under the date of Feb. 1, 1691, “The church appointed messengers to enquire into a handful of late converts in the Fens, and to give the church an account.” Towards the close of the same year, as we have seen in the chapter on Church Meetings, six of these converts came up to a General Meeting at Rowell, and were admitted as members, amongst them being David Culy who was after wards the first minister of the church at Guyhurn. Shortly after, four more of these converts were admitted. In the following year, 1692, three church meetings were held at Guyhurn, at which 27 members were admitted, making with those previously referred to, a total of 37.
At the beginning of 1693, “the distinct enchurching of the brethren and sisters at the Fens” begins to be mentioned. On July the 16th of that year the church ordered a letter of dismission to be signed for the brethren in the Fens; and on the 23rd of the same month a meeting was held at Guyhurn, in the records of which the following entry occurs, “ Then our brethren and sisters there embodied into a church apart from us, by the consent, and in the presence, of the mes sengers deputed by us.” The only other entries in the church records in relation to the church at Guyhurn are those concerning David Culy already referred to in the previous part of the chapter.
The church thus founded by Mr. Davis still exists, and has for some time been a Baptist church. After having a settled pastor for more than 150 years, it has recently been without, and the church seems almost on the verge of extinction.
There is an old Chapel and Chapel-house, probably on the site of still more ancient structures. There are no church records preserved; the tradition being that one of the ministers, thinking himself badly treated, burned them all.
In the record of a General Church Meeting at Rowell, given in a previous chapter, the names occur of David Culy (who was afterwards the first minister of the church at Guyhurn), and Anne De-la-hoi.
They are referred to in this record as “poor people.” Whether this is to be taken literally or not, some of their descendants, until recently living in’ Guyhurn or the neighbour hood, were evidently people of good position. Abraham Culy, a direct descendant of the David Culy mentioned above, died some years ago, worth from between twelve to fifteen thousand pounds. And one of the De-la-hois (reputed as originally a family of French refugees), died not long since, leaving a property worth from three to four thousand pounds.
In 1802, when the present Chapel and Chapel-house were put in trust, Abraham Culy, the De-la-hois, and a wealthy farmer named Foster, were all connected with the church at Guyhurn, and it seems to have been in a very flourishing condition. But since then death has removed the principal supporters ; and two neat little chapels, belonging to different Methodist bodies, having been built one at either end of the village, the congregation has gradually dwindled away.
A tradition still lingers in the place that David Culy, the first minister, was for some time pastor both of Guyhurn and Biilinghay, in Lincolnshire, and that he used to ride over to the latter place on a pony. The distance from one place to the other by the Map seems to be over 30 miles.
A more desolate-looking country than that about Guyhurn can hardly be conceived. For miles there is nothing to be seen but stunted trees, sluggish water, and interminable banks and dykes. The minister condemned to live in such a country would be deserving of pity, unless he were mercifully a man of unrefined taste or iron nerves.
3.—Thorpe Waterville in Northamptonshire, spelt in the church books Thorpe Waterfield.
The church was founded on Feb. 15, 1694. The first entry about Thorpe in the church records relates to a church meeting held there on.July 26, 1691. 12 other church meetings were held there before the members at that place were actually embodied into a distinct church. The following is the entry relating to this embodying, extracted from the records of a church meeting at Thorpe on Feb. 13, 1694, “Then the messengers appointed to manage the work of the day, dissolved the church meeting as it was a meeting of the church of Rowell, and declared that now they had a liberty to covenant and embody if they would, which accordingly they did.”
At one of the church meetings held at Thorpe 53 mem bers are referred, to as being present. One of the requests to embody sent from Thorpe to the church at Rowell, was in the name of 48 members. Mr. Thomas Sewell began to minister to the church at Thorpe about six years after it was founded, and afterwards, in 1708, he was regularly ordained as pastor. Under the date of July 1, 1722, in the time of Mr. Davis’s successor, there is a reference to members being dismissed to the church at Thorpe.
In the time of Mr. Davis there are no less than 60 entries about Thorpe, and some of these very long and detailed. We were therefore somewhat surprised to find the village of Thorpe now composed of a few straggling houses, in which there cannot be many more than 150 inhabitants. We found an old resident who shewed us the traditional site of the Chapel close by an ancient moat. The foundations of the chapel can be clearly traced under the green sward, and probably it may have accommodated about 200 persons. The same old resident assured us that Thorpe must once have been much larger than it is at present, for many foundations of buildings had been grubbed up in the surrounding fields even during his recollection.
6.—Ringstead in Northamptonshire.
The church was founded on June 17, 1714. The first mention we have of Ringstead in the church records is towards the close of 1693, when the brethren and sisters in and about that town requested to be embodied into a separate church. Their request was granted at the time, but was not acted upon until some years after. There are records of 7 church meetings being held at Ringstead, between May, 1694, and September, 1712. The church there was actually embodied on June 17, 1714, when 43 members enchurched together. Shortly after, Mr. Thomas Curtis, one of the elders of the church at Rowell, was set apart as the minister of the church at Ringstead. This settlement of Mr. Curtis occurred about a month before the death of Mr. Davis.
Previously to the foundation of the church at Ringstead in 1714, a Mr. Ward had settled there, and he preached there for some time with great acceptance; but no regular church was formed by him, and the members there who occasionally attended his ministry, still retained their connection with the church at Rowell, until they were embodied into a separate church,, under the pastoral care of Mr. Cuftis. This was not long after Mr. Ward had left Ringstead.
The church thus founded by Mr. Davis at Ringstead, and still extant, has been for many years a Baptist church. The records of the church have been well kept from the time of its commencement. The present chapel is a comparatively recent structure; but at one end of it there is a part still remaining of an older building, which is reputed to have been a barn accommodated to the purposes of public worship.
Chapter 10.—Relations of the church at Rowell (Exclusive of those referred to in the last chapter) with other churches in the neighborhood or at a distance.
It would be beyond our purpose, and would lead to tedious prolixity, if we were to give anything under this head, beyond a bare reference to the various matters pertaining to it, as recorded in the church books.
The following list of what we may term the “foreign relations” of the church at Rowell, is drawn up in chronological order, this seeming to us better than any attempt at classification. The relations, however, of the church at Rowell with the churches at Bedworth, Kettering, Northampton, and Oundle, are treated separately at the end of the list, because involving in each case so many references.
1691, Feb. 1. Messengers from Mr. Holcroft’s church nigh Willingham (Cambridgeshire), desired the prayers of the church.
1691, July 7. At a general meeting, resolved they would not hold communion with any of the church that formerly Mr. Dunn was pastor of, unless they renewed their covenant and got into Gospel order.
1692, Sept. 23, Resolved that the church at Cambridge be assisted. Also that a complaint be made to the church at Bedford of Mr. Hawkes for vending the Libel.
1692, Decr, 21. This day, after solemn calling upon the Lord, the messengers who were appointed by the church of Christ assembled at Coventry to declare their union and fellowship with us in the faith and order of the Gospel, did solemnly give us the elders of the church in the name and by the consent of the rest, the right hand of fellowship, which we also, by the aforesaid consent, gave so to them again. It was also agreed to send as messengers the elders and brethren, as many as can go, to Coventry, solemnly to give them the right hand of fellowship at their church meeting, as a fuller confirmation of the former act. Agreed further that the same messengers should debate the method of communion when met together, and so bring a report to the church.
1693, Feb. 9. William Smith, of Ashen, one of Mr. Gibbs’s church (Newport Pagnell), offered himself to our communion, declaring his case to us, and shewing his reasons why he could not walk with his own people. The church ordered messengers to go to their next church meeting to expostulate the case with them, why they dealt so injuriously with him and us, as to declare non-communion with us before they had dealt with us as according to Gospel rule, and so debarring his members communion with us. And ordered Mr. Davis, Bro. Tebbut, Bro. Sewell, &c., to go as messengers to them. (The church afterwards admitted Mr. Smith, and determined to have no communion with Mr. Gibbs’s church.)
1693, June 25. The church granted a letter of dismission to Bro. Clark, Bro. Carter, Bro. Mun, Brb. Sosberry, Bro. Fisher, and Sister M. Carter, to the church of Christ lately planted at Bedford.
1693, Aug. 7. Advised that they that have covenanted at Cambridge are the church, and if the rest will come in, they must come in as the World do.
1693, Sept. 7. Some brethren from Hitchin gave an account that several of their brethren and sisters had offended, and that the church was twice desired to stand by them in dealing with them, but yet delayed the matter. The church’s unanimous advice was they should wait a little longer and try farther.
1694, Feb. 24. Agreed to send messengers, with the messengers of the church at Kimbolton, to the churches at Gransden and St. Neot’s. Also ordered that the officers and brethren, as many as can go, be sent as messengers of the church to them at Erriffe.
1694, May 21. Two brethren from Bedford requested Bro. Killingworth’s dismission to them; when, after a long unripping of former matters, the church judged our Bro. had been falsely accused, and consented to dismiss him.
1694, July 8. A letter of complaint being sent against a brother of ours, at Braintree, for withdrawing from their communion, the church requested their pastor to introspect the matter. Upon a report given by him, the church look upon the charge as of no efficiency, and a letter to be sent to Bro. Pain accordingly.
1694, Oct. 13. A letter from Stagsdon, Bedfordshire, to request our brethren to be at the ordination of Bro. Killingworth.
1695, Jan. 13. The church resolved to hold communion with those of Mr. Holcroft’s church that had renewed covenant.
1695, April 22. A letter sent to a disorderly member in Cambridgeshire, and some of Holcroft’s church, desired to deliver it and know her answer.
1695, June 27. A letter sent to the church at Coventry, about a member of Rowell church, who desired to join them, he being at the time under the discipline of his own church.
1696, Feb. 16. Joseph Palmer, of the Fens, being admonished for divers immoralities, instead of hearing the church, he violently rent from them and went to Kilby church. He was deservedly cut off, and messengers were appointed to that church to expostulate with them.
1696, June 1. Our messengers that went to Charlton report that Mr. Greenwood says he made an acknowledgment and he will do no more, but promised to send us a further answer.
1696, Sept. 29. Enquiry to be made about Sister Free man at Olney, who had rent from the church and gone over to Mr. Gibbs’s church. (She was afterwards twice admonished.)
1702, March 8. A question was propounded to the church for advice, by messengers from the church at Southam, whether a church may translate the seat of their church from where it was first founded. Answer unanimously that the seat of the church must always be where the majority judge it most convenient for the assembling of the whole. 1706, Sept. 9. After prayer Father Palmer, being a member of a free-will people at Eltington, in Huntingdonshire, proposed himself to the church, and upon debate it was agreed—
1.—That such a church that did not hold the head could be no true church of Christ, especially since it appeared they had no outward bond of communion but plunging.
2.—That he could have no transient communion with us by virtue of his being member of such a church.
3.—That therefore, if he would offer himself, they would take him in as one out of the world; whereupon he spake his experience, which was approved of by the majority, but his actual admission was deferred.
1706, Sept. 30. The actual admission of Father Palmer was further deferred. (A subsequent entry shews that he removed to live with his daughter nigh Huntingdon; his admission thus becoming impracticable.)
1713, Aug. 2. A letter was read from the church at Flower desiring us to send messengers the 13th day of this instant, to stand by at their setting apart Mr. Perry for their pastor: consented to by the church, Bro. Arnold, Bro. Remington, Bro. Balderson appointed to go. (The same event is referred to in the records of the church at College Lane, Northampton, and the name of Mr. Perry is given in full, namely, Mr. Joseph Perry. A successor to Mr. Perry was ordained at Flower in 1713; but in 1717 Mr. Perry returned to his old charge.)
1713, Oct. 22. A letter of thanks to that church of Christ in London over which Mr. Bragge and Mr. Collins are pastors, for their gift to the poor, was read and approved, and ordered to be signed by the brethren in the town in the name of the rest. (After Mr. Davis’s time the same church several times sent down donations for the poor of the church at Rowell, and. references to these gifts are found in the church records. In 1716 s€6 was sent, and in 1719 £5. In 1721 and in 1724 donations were also sent, but the amount is not stated).
Relations of the church at Rowell with that at Bedworth.
1693, June 19. Messengers appointed to visit Mr. Saunders and return them the right hand of fellowship.
1695, Decr. 9. Ordered that messengers be sent with a letter to the church at Bedworth, to expostulate the case with them, and charge their sin upon them, namely, that they had by their messengers charged the church and its officers with sundry false accusations relating to doctrine, order, and walk, which they could not prove, but yet continued to asperse with dismal calumnies.
1696, Feb. 2. The church understanding Mr. Saunder’s refusal to appoint a meeting for them to expostulate with them, and also that their meeting was the following day, and that the former messengers through shortness of time could not be gathered together, appointed other messengers to go and read the letter to them, if leave could be obtained, if not to know if they would appoint a meeting for us.
1696, Feb. 10. Messengers and their messages were rejected by Bedworth church: other messengers were appointed to treat with them again.
1696, July 26. An account was given that the mes sengers had not been yet to Bedworth, nor could they possibly learn when their church meeting was, being they did so industriously shift them.
1697, Feb. 22. Ordered to advise with sister churches what further to do with Mr., Saunders, and the church he belongs to.
1697, June 7. It was propounded to the church to consider, how they would carry it towards Mr. Saunder’s members that kept faithful to the Lord, after they declare non-communion with him and the rest, that answer might be given to the church at Wellingborough. Resolved to pray over it, and consider it against another time.
1697, Aug. 29. The church declared non-communion with Bedworth church, excepting those that approved themselves to be orderly walkers.
1698, April 3. Ordered a letter to be drawn up to Bedworth church to renounce communion with them.
Relations of the church at Rowell with that at Kettering.
1692, Sept. 23. That a complaint be made of Mr. Pain of Oundle to the church at Kettering, for handing the Libel to the press.
1693, Aug. 7. Agreed that Bro. Mansfield and the brethren at Kettering should acquaint the elders of Kettering people, that this church is dissatisfied with the carriage of several of their members towards that servant of Christ, Mr. Humphrey.
1693, Sept. 23. The judgment of the church was given to enquire whether the church at Kettering be a right constituted church or no.
1694, March 22. The church advised a letter to be sent to the church at Bury, whether they will give us a true account of Mr. Milway’s case or no. (This Mr. Milway had been recently settled as minister at Kettering).
1694, May 21. An account given of the manner of the church at Bury’s procedure with Mr. Milway. The church took into consideration the form of their sentence. At the same meeting the church judged the assembly at Kettering were no church.
1694, Oct. 13. A question proposed whether our brethren or sisters might hear Mr. Milway? but deferred answering.
1701, May 5. Ordered to write in the letter to Northampton church (now College Lane), our dislike at their holding communion with Kettering church, who have received our excommunicated members.
1705, Deer. 29. The church agreed that none of their members could hold communion with the church at Kettering, because they had received our excommunicated members.
Relations of the church at Rowell with that now at College Lane, Northampton.
1697, Nov. 2. The church consented, having heard the report of their messengers, to give the church newly constituted at Northampton the right hand of fellowship; but yet resolved to speak of it further on the Lord’s Day. (The records of the church, now assembling in College Lane, show that previous to this, on Oct. the 27th of the same year, Mr. Davis of Rowell, Mr. Betson of Wellingborough, and Mr. Shortin of Kimbolton were present as witnesses and advisers of their first embodying. The churches represented by Mr. Betson, and Mr. Shortin were both founded by Mr. Davis: the honour therefore belongs to the church at Rowell of having solely, so far as the action of other churches is concerned, advised and countenanced the formation of this now large and active cause).
1698, Jan. 13. At a church meeting held at Northampton, Bro. Shelton was accused by Mr. Ward of lying, falsehood, slander and malice. After the church had heard the charge, proof, and his defence they acquitted him, and judged the accusation false, and Mr. Ward too violent in accusing him. Bro. Shelton and Bro. Buste being then accused of offering violence to the church at Northampton were also acquitted.
(The Mr. Ward spoken of above, came from Weedon-in-the-street. He was for about three years minister of the church afterwards assembling in College Lane, and it would seem from the above and following entries that he disagreed with some of the members of the Rowell church living at Northampton. He had some misunderstanding also with the church to which he ministered, having been admonished by them at various times for equivocation about his debts, lying, and assuming the power of the church).
1698, Jan. 16. The church ordered that a letter should be drawn up to the church at Northampton to acquaint them with our grievance that Mr. Ward should charge our members with that he could not prove against them.
1698, March 27. The messengers that went to the church at Northampton gave an account, that. Mr. Ward acknowledged what this church charged upon him, with which this church was satisfied.
1698, June 18. At a church meeting at Northampton, Bro. Shelton was accused for saying Mr. Ward told lies about a Scotchman. Bro. Shelton could not make it out.
Mr. Ward promised to satisfy him by letter under the Scotchman’s hand. Bro. Shelton was also accused for saying Mr. Ward owed £10; but it appeared he owed a great deal more. Bro. Shelton was not thought blame worthy. It since appeared that Mr. Ward did owe above £20 and very nigh £30 at a time. The matter could not then be healed.
(On Deer. 3, 1700, as we gather from the church records of College Lane, Mr. Ward having left, Mr. John Moore was solemnly set apart as the pastor. Mr. Richard Davis, and Robert Balderson, messengers of the church at Rowell, and Mr. Robert Betson, and Joseph Chater, messengers of the church at Wellingborough are referred to as spectators of that solemn act. These are the only messengers of churches alluded to as being present on that occasion—that is messengers from the church at Rowell, and from its offshoot at Wellingborough—so that here again we see the prominent part the church at Rowell took in the early affairs of this now eminent cause).
1701, Feb. 10. The church gave their judgment that it was necessary that the churches send their messengers to meet and hear matters between Northampton church and the grieved members there (that is between Mr. Moore’s church, and the members belonging still to Rowell), before they can judge of matters.
1701, April 21. A letter ordered to be sent to Northampton to John Shelton, and another to the church there (that is to Mr. Moore’s church), to move them to a mutual and cordial reception of each other.
1707, Jan. 5. A letter from Mr. Moore of Northampton to the church was read, wherein he, and two brethren of our church there, testified, that Sister Johnson in their apprehension was in some measure humbled for her keeping company with and marrying a carnal man, and for her kneeling at false worship, when she was married. The consideration thereof was deferred to another time.
1708, Deer. 27. Ordered a letter to be written to the church at Northampton in answer to a letter from that church, to acquaint them that the church will appoint a day for a hearing between Bro. Watts and Sister Tebbut, of Scaldwell, and to desire their messengers to be present, and that Sister Tebbut may bring whom she will. (We gather from a subsequent entry, that the meeting was held at Scaldwell, and that the messengers from Rowell were Bro. Arnold, Bro. Balderson, Bro. Wells, Bro. Hoby, and the brethren at Hoacott).
1712, March 30. A letter was read from Sister Davis in answer to the charge from Mr. Moore’s church at Northampton, wherein she asserts and proves by witnesses that in the first founding of Mr. Trigg’s church (?), and in their after and present proceedings, it is chiefly Congregational. The church ordered to send this her answer to Mr. Moore’s church to know what they say to it.
(The first chapel in College Lane was erected in the years 1713 and 1714. In the vestry of the present chapel an interesting record is preserved of the moneys subscribed and disbursed for the erection of this original structure. Amongst other subscriptions named there is the following: “From Rothwell by Mr. Davis £7 6s. 4d.” Mr. Davis is also credited with obtaining some subscriptions from other places, and several of the churches which he had founded are likewise named as contributors. In the account given by Mr. Moore, the minister, of his personal expenses, we find the following entries:
“For a Horse to Rothwell, Ap. 13, 1713…IS. 8d.”
“For a Horse to Rothwell, May 21, 1713…IS. 8d.”
These journeys were no doubt undertaken by Mr. Moore with a view to the above subscriptions. He would probably have interviews at this time with Mr. Davis, and as Mr. Davis died in the following year, possibly these were the last occasions when they conferred together. Dark clouds at that time were hanging over the horizon, threatening that religious liberty which they had both so well employed; and besides this Mr. Davis had been confined for some time about home by prevailing indisposition; it is most likely therefore that their conversation would be grave and sober, touching not only upon the erection of the new chapel, but also upon the general prospects of the church of Christ)
In the time of Mr. Maurice, the successor of Mr. Davis, the following entry occurs in the church book: “Jan. 7, 1720. A letter read from Mr. Moore and a part of his church, wherein their own difference was mentioned. Flower people’s case stated, and our advice desired. Whereupon there was an answer immediately read and ordered to be signed and sent, the sum of which was, to advise them to study to be quiet, and to do their own business.”
Relations of the church at Rowell with that at Castle Hill, Northampton.
1699, May 1. Ordered by the church that we write to Mrs. Hardin to forbear any communion with Mr. Hunt’s people at the Lord’s table till she has satisfied the church from them that they are a church rightly constituted, and that they own this as a true church of Christ. (Mr. Hunt was then minister of the church at Castle Hill. Mrs. Hardin is entered in the church book as admitted from Northampton).
In the time of Mr. Sanderson, the second minister after Mr. Davis, the relations between the church at Rowell and that at Castle Hill became more amicable. Mr. Sanderson was a personal friend of Dr. Doddridge, and on several occasions that eminent man preached at Rowell.
Relations of the church at Rowell with that at Oundle.
1691, Feb. 1. Mr. Shepherd desired the church’s assistance by messengers to direct to build a house for God at Oundle. Messengers, including Mr. Davis, were sent.
1692, Feb. 22. Agreed not to dismiss any member to the church at Oundle, till better satisfaction concerning their faith and order. The elders were appointed as messengers to that church.
1692, Sept. 23. The matter of Oundle considered again and deferred; but the church judged that people to be constant opposers of the faith and order of the Gospel. It was ordered also at the same meeting that a complaint be made of Mr. Pain of Oundle to the church at Kettering for handing the Libel to the press.
1692, Nov. 21. It was agreed that this church would not hold communion with the people of Oundle as a church of Christ.
1693, Oct. 8. Mother Tomlin, one of the people to which Mr. Shepherd belongs, proposed to our communion: advised she testifies first by writing against their corruption.
1694, May 21. Messengers sent to St. Neot’s and Weston to expostulate the case with them about their holding communion with the church at Oundle.
1694, October 13. A question proposed whether our brethren or sisters might hear Mr. Shepherd? but deferred answering.
1698, July 17. The church having heard the proceedings of Mrs. Mullard, Betty Clifton, Houghton, and Elso, towards the people at Oundle to whom they belonged, and the resolution of that people not to dismiss them, judged that they or any other church might take them in as from the world.
In the preceding records of the relations of the church at Rowell with other dissenting churches, we see a continuation of the embittered feeling, which arose from the ministers of several churches in the neighbourhood and at a distance witnessing against Mr. Davis at Kettering, or opposing him, during the early part of his ministry. This is seen in the case of the churches at Cambridge, Hitchin, Kettering, Newport Pagnell, Northampton (Castle-Hill), and Oundle.
It cannot be denied, however, that in some of the above proceedings of the church at Rowell, there are signs of a spirit of intolerance, such as no surrounding circumstances can justify or excuse. It would have been well if Mr. Davis and his friends had shewn their love of liberty, not only by demanding it themselves, but also by according it to others.
In Mr. Davis’s time, as shewn by the church records, a certain select number of dissenting churches in Northampton shire and the neighbouring counties were in the habit of holding, at different places, what were called “Messengers’ Meetings,” for the purpose of consulting together upon any difficult affairs.
These meetings seem to have been appointed at the request of any church who desired to have the benefit of a general council. Thus there is the following entry in the church-book: “Letters ordered to be sent to the churches in strict communion, to desire them to appoint a meeting by their messengers at Kimbolton.”
In the “Account of the Doctrine and Discipline of Mr. Davis,” these Messengers’ Meetings are referred to as being held monthly. Such meetings are recorded in the church books as having been held at—
Bedford
Cambridge
Charlton, in Bedfordshire
Chigwell, in Essex
Kimbolton
Needingworth
Northampton (in connection with Mr. Moore’s church)
Rowell
Thorpe Waterville
Wellingborough
Willingham.
At these Messengers’ Meetings, not only matters of practice, but also matters of doctrine were considered, and there is a curious entry in proof of this in the church-books, relating to a decision which was given at Rowell: “April 20, 1710. The church being advised with by the messengers of churches present, gave their judgment on this truth, that there was a vast difference between Adam’s perfect moral righteousness, and Gospel holiness implanted in the soul out of the fulness of the second Adam. That to fix this consequence on that truth, namely, that we are Godded with God, and Christed with Christ is very unjust.”
Chapter 11.—Some account of the writings of Mr. Davis.
In addition to “The Vindication” already referred to, the following works were written by Mr. Davis:
1.—“The Doctrine of Union to Christ, and Justification in him as before, and upon our faith; stated, cleared, and vindicated.” This is the title of one of Mr. Davis’s works as given by Mr. Maurice, but we have not been able to find a copy of it.
2.—“A Sermon preached at the funeral of Mr. John Bigg. To which is added, another Sermon upon the same subject. Also, a Narrative of Mr. Bigg’s Conversion, &c. By R. Davis, Minister of the Gospel. London: Printed for Robert Ponder, 1691.’’ [4to.] We have taken this title from a copy in Dr. Williams’s Library, London. There is a copy in the British Museum of a third edition of these sermons. The Mr. Bigg referred to above was the husband of Mr. Browning’s daughter.
3.—“The true Spring of Gospel Sight, and Sense of Sin: Jesus Christ, and him Crucified; evidently set forth by his Spirit in his Word. Delivered in a Sermon, Preached at London. And since enlarged by Richard Davis.” The above title is taken from an advertisement contained in the second edition of Mr. Davis’s Hymns. This work is combined with the third edition of the above sermons on the death of Mr. John Bigg, the same title-page answering for both; but in the Museum copy the whole of that portion of the book containing “The true Spring of .Gospel Sight,” &c., is missing. We have not been able to find a copy of this work elsewhere.
4.-—”Faith the Grand Evidence of Our Interest in Christ: or the Nature of Faith and Salvation opened, from John 6, 40. By Richard Davis of Rowell. The 3rd edition. London: Printed for John Marshall at the Bible in Grace- church Street.” [18mo.] A copy of this work is in Mr. Taylor’s collection at Northampton. There is no date. This work was probably written by Mr. Davis towards the close of his ministry. The following extract from the Address to the Reader will shew the probability of this:—”Since it pleased the God of all grace to call me to labour in his vineyard, he thought good to implant in me some bowels for poor souls, which laid me under a necessity to take many journeys formerly, to offer the grace of God in Christ, and to proclaim his name to saints and sinners, under many labours, frowns, and reproaches. Thus I continued when the darkness grew great amongst God’s children and my labours met with many discouragements, because I thought the Lord’s sick family did in a manner want visits of love, and the souls of the disciples stood in the greatest need of confirmation in so gloomy a dispensation. And though it has pleased my all-wise and gracious father to lay his hand upon me by sickness, and to confine me about home for these two years and upwards, yet my compassions to sinners, and my love and pity to the Lord’s distressed little flocks of Christ, are not lessened. I fain would go out to comfort, warn, exhort, and beseech such, as in days past, but I find my strength of body is not sufficient at present to accomplish this design. I look upon it a great mercy that I am assisted hitherto to work this great good work at home, amongst that poor despised flock of Christ committed to my care and charge; and I am very thankful to the Lord, and bless his holy name for it. Yet I could not be quiet in my spirit, unless I shewed some token of my good-will to the saints abroad. And since I could not with my tongue, I thought it Would be the best way to reach them with my pen. This was one of the main occasions of my publishing the ensuing discourse.”
Mr. Davis was often accused of Antinomianism. There is not much trace of it, however, in the practical close of this work, which we will now give—“As soon as ever thy soul sees an absolute need of closing with Christ, venture on him for thyself, for blood to wash thee, for righteousness to cover thy shameful naked pollution. Let the present sense of thy need oblige thee, the authority of God in his command constrain thee, the suitableness of Christ to thy case allure thee to venture to receive Christ for thyself, in the face of all objections to the contrary. Be encouraged to cast thy own soul on Christ for righteousness, guidance, and life, (1st) from the possibility of obtaining him. A drowning man, if there is a bare possibility of his being saved, when just a sinking, by catching at a meer twig, will venture to stretch forth his hand and catch at it. Surely a poor soul, sensible he is sinking into perdition, when he hears of such a mighty saviour offered most freely to the chiefest of sinners, ought the rather to venture to receive this saviour for himself, though there were no more than a bare possibility of being saved by him. Ah! poor soul! If thou hast no more to encourage thee to look to Christ for thyself than this. That possibly he may save thee; yet believe thou may’st be saved, because ’tis possible, and therefore venture to go to Christ and try him. Sink or swim, saved or damned, yet venture on him, and tell him plainly. That if thou art a reprobate that must perish, yet thou wilt perish at his feet, continually catching at him, and trusting only to his strength to help thee to look up to him, and to lay hold on him for thyself. But (2ndly) dear soul, there is more to encourage thee to venture; there is for thee, besides a possibility, a great probability also of obtaining, since the grace we offer in preaching the Gospel is indefinitely for sinners, as sinners, and infinitely free for the chiefest of them: ’Tis possible Christ and his grace may be for thee by name, who art the vilest and securest sinner in the world. ’Tis possible for that poor sinner, whose heart at present is harder than the nether mill-stone, yet to obtain Christ for himself. But thou art awakened to see thy present need of closing with Christ; ’tis most probable then that thou in particular shalt have him, if thou hast not him already; he has shewn thee thy disease, and therefore he bids thee take him and all his grace, as the only remedy. Has this exalted Prince given thee repentance, and will he not be thy Saviour, to give thee remission of sins? Does he thus call thee by name, and canst thou think that he will not suffer thee to have him and possess him? Go on, poor soul, and take him for thyself: What he has done in thee, what he offers to thee, makes it highly probable he calls thee to venture on him now for thyself, as a naked, perishing, empty sinner. Yet (3rdly) ’tis not only probable thou shalt have him, if thou venturest on him for thyself, but thou hast the greatest assurance under heaven to encourage thee to come to him; and that is his word and oath. That every comer thus unto him shall in no wise, by no means, be cast out; ’tis equivalent to any oath of his; heaven and earth shall sooner be blended together; nay, higher yet, he will lose himself and his own glory, rather than such a comer unto him shall be cast out.”
5.—“Hymns Composed on Several Subjects, and on Divers Occasions: in Three Parts. With an Alphabetical Table. By R. Davis, Minister of the Gospel. The Second Edition. Some of the Hymns composed by other Hands. London: Printed for W. Marshall, at the Bible in Newgate-Street; and H. Barnard, at the Bible in the Poultry, 1694.” [12mo.] In the British Museum there is a copy of the 7th edition [1748], and in Mr. Taylor’s Collection at Northampton there are copies of the 2nd, 4th, and 8th editions [1833]. The Imprint to the 4th edition is a rather curious one, “London, Printed for, and Sold by William and Joseph Marshall, at the Bible in Newgate-Street. Where you may be supplied with Mr. Banyan’s Works, and Stringer’s Short hand Book, and most Sorts of Short-hand Books. Also Matthews’s Pills rightly prepar’d.”
There are nearly 200 Hymns in this Collection, the greater portion of them by Mr. Davis.
We give the two following as fair specimens of the whole:—
I.
“Through ev’ry grace and duty too.
Faith doth itself diffuse;
For holiness in heart and life
Is faith put out to use.
Faith is the root and tree, from which
All other branches slide.
And every grace o’ th’ spirit is
But faith diversified.
Love’s faith embracing; hope is faith
That looks for what’s to come;
Patience is faith expecting; zeal
Is faith upon the run.
Each duty must be done in faith;
Faith throughout all must run:
The devil, sin, the world, and all,
’Tis faith must overcome.
Now to the Purchaser of faith.
And Giver of it too.
Be honour, glory, thanks, and praise.
As it’s most meet and due.”
II.
“My Jesus, he is all to me,
Whate’er my soul can crave;
A fountain free’s my Christ to me.
That I no want can have.
My Jesus, he is strength to me.
When I do fainting lie:
He’s health in sickness, life in death;
In war he’s victory.
In famine he is food to me.
In thirst he’s royal wine;
No want can be attending me.
Since Jesus he is mine.
My Jesus, he is light to me.
When I in darkness go:
Such fulness in my Jesus is,
That I no want can know.
My Jesus, he is liberty.
When bondage doth oppress:
Though I in sin have reeking been.
My Christ is righteousness.”
There is a recommendatory Preface by Dr. Gill, attached to the 7th and 8th editions of these hymns, bearing high testimony to the worth of Mr. Davis. Dr. Gill says, “As I had the honor in my youth of knowing the worthy author of the following hymns, being born (at Kettering in Northamptonshire) and brought up within a very few miles of the place (Rowel, also Rothwell, the same county) where he statedly ministered, I was the rather inclined at request to write a preface to them. His memory has been always precious to me, partly on account of his great regard for my education, for which he was heartily concerned, and also for my spiritual and eternal welfare. I well remember, though very young, that having discovered some eager desire after some part of literature, he though fit to suggest to me what was more valuable, by repeating the following distich, Si Christ bene scis, fatis est, si caetera nescis, Si Christum nescis, nihil est, si caetera discis. “If you knew Christ well, it is no matter, though you are ignorant of many other things; if you are ignorant of Christ, other knowledge will avail but little;” and chiefly on account of his very powerful and evangelical ministrations. He was a very lively, warm and zealous preacher of the gospel; his light in it was very uncommon, clear and distinct, which he communicated and diffused not only in the place and county in which he lived, but in several adjacent counties, being indefatigable in preacher the word in season and out of season; in which he was greatly succeeded to the conversion of many, and to the spreading of gospel-light in several parts, which in some measure still continues. He was a Boanerges, a son of thunder, when he delivered out the law in its proper place and manner; and a Barnabas, a son of consolation to distressed sinners, and drooping saints; his great usefulness raised him many enemies; never was any many more traduced, reproached and columnated; and never did any less deserve it, being eminent for humility, piety, and an unblemished life and conversation; though his principles were charged as licentiousness, and loaded with the odious name of Antinomianism.”
Chapter 12.—An account of sundry troubles in the church at Rowell towards the close of Mr. Davis’s ministry, and a brief relation of his illness and death.
In the year 1704 some of the male members at Oakley were guilty of certain abominable crimes, for which they were censured by the church; but on the expression of their repentance they were soon after restored. This latter proceeding on the part of the majority, gave great offence to some of the members, and led to sad disturbance. After some stormy meetings, in relation to which we read of “undue heats and confusions,” the church became almost disorganized for about six months. Gradually, however, the offended members returned; though it was not until the latter end of the year 1707 that peace was thoroughly restored. In the records of the Church at College Lane, Northampton, there is an extended reference to these disturbances, including a letter of advice and sympathy to the church at Rowell.
Mr. Maurice, who was the minister of an Independent church at Olney (this church was founded by Mr. Gibbs of Newport Pagnell, and is now Baptist), was chosen as assistant by the people at Rowell, shortly before the death of Mr. Davis; and after that event he entered upon the full pastorate. He was for some time acquainted with Mr. Davis, and he gives, in the biographical work to which we have so often referred, a very high testimony to his character and worth. He says at the close of his description of Mr. Davis, “Let it be a wonder or not that Mr. Davis should be so hated and reviled, I am very sure I have not exceeded in any part of his character. I live in the midst of hundreds who knew him very well, unto whom his memory is precious, who can attest to the truth of whatever I have said of him.”
We cannot do better than give the account of Mr. Davis’s illness and death, in the words of his immediate successor. “When constant and prevailing indisposition of body made it evident that his Lord was hastening to call him from his labours and reproaches to receive the crown of righteousness, it is impossible to put into words the tender and mutual affections expressed between him and the dear church God was calling him from. Often would he in the church with the greatest tenderness say, I die; and God will surely visit you. Oh his prayers and wrestlings on his knees on their behalf before the great Shepherd, that he would take care of them in the wilderness, and keep them from all error in judgment or practice, and feed the poor of the flock. On the other hand, oh what cries were sent to heaven, with submission to the Divine will, for his stay among the dear children of God! Oh tears, tears, floods of tears did the children of God pour out before their heavenly father on this occasion! But the time drew nigh that this Israelite indeed, in whom there was no guile, must die. In views of the approaches of death he was helped to move on in steady-comfort and solid peace. Some time before he departed I was to visit him, and humbly took it upon me to ask how it was with his spirit now, in views of death and eternity? His answer was, I am sedate. His mind was stayed upon the Lord, and so was kept in perfect peace. He rejoiced greatly that he was going to the God of all grace, and desired others might rejoice with him on that account j and having gone through his appointed time, fell asleep in Jesus, Sept. 11, 1714.”
Mr. Davis’s death occurred about a month subsequently to that of Queen Anne. Not long before, the Schism Bill had been passed, which if it had come into operation would have renewed the persecutions and sufferings endured by the Dissenters during the reign of Charles the 2nd. Queen Anne expired on the very day (Aug. 1, 1714), that this Bill was to come into force, and by this event it was rendered a dead letter. The sense of relief felt at this time by dissenters throughout the kingdom must have been shared by Mr. Davis, and the downfall of this infamous attempt to fetter religion, and to coerce the conscience, must have been to him as a ray of light to gild his pathway to the grave.
Mr. Davis was interred in the burial ground attached to the Established Church. His tomb is close to that of Mr. Browning. It has now been raised and repaired, and the inscriptions upon it have been re-cut. The following are the inscriptions, one on either side of the tomb:
“HERE Lyeth the Body of that Holy Able and Faithfull Minister of the Gospel Mr. Richard Davis, who departed this Life the 11th of September 1714 in the 57th Year of his Age.
He left the following lines for his Epitaph:
Here lyes the meanest Dust
Whom God of his own good pleasure
Out of his rich glorious Treasure
Of grace did ere entrust.”
“Here Resteth also the Body
of Mrs. Roase Davis the Wife
of Mr. Richard Davis deed.
She departed this Life Octr
the 19th, 1725. Aged 81.”
A copy of the Will of Mr. Davis is preserved with the Deeds of Trust relating to the Congregational Church at Rowell. This arises from the fact that by his Will Mr. Davis left £100, the interest of which, after the death of his wife, was to be paid to the minister for the time being for ever. Amongst other bequests he left fifty shillings to be distributed “to the poor of the Parish of Rothwell,” and £5 to be distributed “to the poor members of the Dissenting Congregational Church meeting at Rothwell.” To one of his friends, Samuel Tebbut, he left his “Japan Box, tipped with Silver.” His books he bequeathed to his nephew Joseph Wright, with the condition that if he died before the close of his apprenticeship, or if he did not purpose to make use of them, they were to pass to Benjamin Moor, Junr., of Sutton, in Leicestershire. With the exception of several other small legacies, the remainder of the property of Mr. Davis was left to his wife, she being made sole executrix.
Conclusion
Up to the death of Mr. Davis, in 1714, the church had existed nearly 59 years, there had been three settled pastors, and 1,002 members had been admitted.
Here then we conclude that portion of the history of the Independent Church at Rothwell which we designed to write. The task of authorship is to us a novel one: it is our first attempt and probably our last, and we hope that it may bear some fruit of interest and instruction.
Appendix.—(A.) List of the Ministers of the Independent Church at Rowell, from its commencement to the year 1869; (B.) Mr. Maurice’s criticism of Dr. Calamy, extracted from the Preface of the work entitle “Monuments of Mercy,” &c.
Appendix (A.) List of the Ministers of the Independent Church at Rowell, from its commencement to the year 1869
List of the Ministers of the Independent Church at Rothwell, from its commencement to the year 1869.
John Beverly (1655-1658)
Thomas Browning (1662-1685)
Richard Davis (1689-1714)
Matthias Maurice (1714-1738)
Jonathan Sanderson (1740-1747)
Moses Gregson (1748-1788)
John Wood (1789-1811)
Walter Scott (1813-1833)
Thomas Gallsworthy (1837-1841)
Richard Jessop (1842-1857)
Evan Lewis (1858-1863)
James Hoyle (1864-1869)
The first six ministers in the above List died in Rowell. The first three of them are interred in the Grave-yard connected with the Established Church. Mr. Maurice, Mr. Sanderson, and Mr. Gregson are interred in the Chapel. Mrs. Maurice and Mrs. Gregson are also interred in the Chapel.
The flat stones which covered these graves were either concealed or destroyed in the year 1852 when the Chapel was re-pewed. The grave of Mr. Maurice and his wife was just below and in front of the pulpit. The inscriptions upon the stone were as follows:—
“Here
lieth interr’d the
Body of the Revd.
Mr. Matthias Maurice,
who departed this life
Sept. 1. 1738. aged 51.
As unknown.
Here lies also Elizabeth,
his wife, who died the
8th October, 1771, aged 73.”
Mr. Sanderson was buried between the pulpit and the side-wall of the Chapel facing the stables. The inscription upon the stone which covered the grave we have not been able to discover.
Mr. and Mrs. Gregson were buried near to the grave of Mr. Maurice. The wife of a son of Mr. Gregson is buried in the Chapel Cemetery. We gather from the inscription on the stone that she died in 1836, in the 91st year of her age.
There are residents now in Rowell who can remember the whole of the last six ministers of the church, commencing with Mr. Wood. The most eminent of these was no doubt the Rev. Walter Scott, who afterwards became the resident Divinity Tutor of the College at Airedale, near Bradford.
He was the author of one of the volumes of Congregational Lectures on “The Existence and Agency of Evil Spirits.”
It is remarkable that out of the twelve ministers, three of them should have been Welshmen. First there was Mr. Davis. Then Mr. Maurice, who was minister at Olney before he came to succeed Mr. Davis at Rowell. Tradition says that he was introduced to Olney by Dr. Watts. Mr. Maurice was in bis day an eminent as well as a voluminous writer. The most valuable of his works is undoubtedly “Social Religion Exemplified.” This work is written in the form of Dialogues, and has passed through seven editions. More recently Mr. Lewis has kept alive in Rowell the tradition of Welsh enthusiasm. His death not long ago, shortly after entering upon the pastorate of the church at Offord Road, London, has caused deep mourning to a wide circle of friends.
Appendix (B.) Mr. Maurice’s criticism of Dr. Calamy, extracted from the Preface of the work entitle “Monuments of Mercy,” &c.
Whether we were in our Duty or not, in that we did not publish an Account of this Nature long before now, I shall not here determine; but it is likely we should have lived longer in the neglect of it, if Dr. Calamy had been pleased, either to have said nothing concerning the Dead, or to have given a true and just Account of their Memory. The Account which the Doctor heretofore gave of the ejected Ministers, being judged even by himself very short and imperfect, he thought it his proper Business to continue the Account under additional Improvement. It is no part of my Business to consider how true or how pertinent his Stories in general are; only I must own that I was even astonished to read what he thought fit to add unto the Story of Mr. Browning (in pag. 638. of his Continuation lately published) which I shall here Word for Word transcribe.
“Rothwel or Desborough, Mr. Thomas Browning; it should be Desborow near Rowel. A remarkable Story in which this Mr. Browning was concerned, may be met with in the Conformist’s fourth Pleafor the Nonconformists, p. 83. In the latter part of his Life he bad a great deal of Trouble from his Neighbour Mr. Richard Davis, who, with his odd Notions, and dividing Principles and Practices, gave no small Disturbance to all the Ministers and Congregations, round him, and even many that lived at a Distance, and in other Countries; but Mr. Browning oppos’d him to the uttermost, and after the Fits of Mr. Davis’s Hearers (which had some what in them that was pretty singular) had made a Noise for some time, they at length ceased and wore off by Degrees; and it is to be hoped that Mr. Davis, with all his Faults, was not destitute of a real Spirit of Piety.”
I never did see a Story in my Life, of such a little Compass, liable to so many Exceptions; and I am amazed the Doctor should draw such a Cloud over his Character, as to own himself the Author of it. What Humour he pro posed to gratify, or what Cause he designed to support by such Stories, I determine not: But as I am certain a good Cause will for ever abhor all the Assistance Falsehood may offer, so I am well satisfied that a Person who makes Conscience of walking with God, will not chuse to hunt after, take up and publish evil and unjust Reports against others, under whatever pretended Provocations. Surely then such a Person cannot think of defaming the Dead, trampling upon their Ashes, and casting Dirt upon their Memory, who had a real Spirit of Piety while here, and consequently are now at rest with Christ, without the utmost Abhorrence. I cannot persuade my self that a good, Man can be so wicked as to invent such egregious Untruths as the Story contains; nor can I, without the greatest Difficulty, once imagine, that a great Man should be so weak, to say no worse of it, as to publish such Stories to the World upon slight and uncertain Information.
The Doctor in the beginning of this Story finds Fault with himself for saying Rothwel or Desborough, whereas he says it should be Desborow near Rowel. It often falls under Observation, that Men speak with Abundance of Guard and Caution, in acknowledging their own Faults; but there is so much of that, or something else that can’t deserve so good a Name us’d here, that no Body, without the Doctor’s Help, can understand what is intended.
Whether he was heretofore at a Loss to know which of the two Towns Mr. Browning lived at, but now in correcting his own Story, fixes upon one of them; or whether he for merly thought both the Names belonged to one Town; or whether he finds Fault with the Spelling used in his first Account, but now altered in his Continuation, is very difficult to understand, though of very little Use when understood. But all the Use the Doctor designed this for was, to introduce a piece of Indignation against the Memory of a faithful Servant of Christ and so reforms himself in an insignificant Trifle, to signify how exact he must be in every Punctilio of History, and how the Reader may satisfy himself that the Story which was to follow must not only be altogether true, but exceeding pertinent, and pen’d after diligent Search, and the utmost Deliberation.
But supposing the Doctor by saying it should be Desborow, intends the fixed Place of Mr. Browning’s Abode, I must observe, that his Story is miserably mended: If he had pleas’d to use proper Methods to inform himself, without taking things upon trust any how’, he might have known, and so might have informed the World, seeing he judged it his Business, that Mr. Browning, after having preached about five Years at Desborow, turned out upon Nonconformity, was then chose by the Congregational Church at Rowel, with whom he dwelt and served Christ as their Pastor for about twenty three Years, and then fell asleep in the Lord. What Concern Mr. Browning had in that Story called remarkable in the Conformist’s Plea, I shall take no farther Notice of than the Doctor did, but immediately go along; with him to what he calls the latter part of Mr. Browning’s Life; and there we are informed that he met with a great deal of Trouble from his Neighbour Mr. Richard Davis. Perhaps some might have thought it very entertaining, if the Doctor had given the World some Account of the Particulars of that Trouble: For as a great deal must be capable of being divided and distinguished into its several Parts, so we must think the Doctor, if any Body, capable of giving a very distinct Account of the many Instances of Trouble good Mr. Browning underwent from his Neighbour. He might as well have told us what Sermons he preached, what Cautions he gave, what Journies he took, and what Disputations he maintained against Mr. Davis, and what Success attended all his Endeavours. But had the Story been as particular as it is positive, there is one thing that must for ever effectually spoil it, Mr. Browning was dead near five Years before ever Mr. Davis came into Northamptonshire.
But we are informed that the things in Mr. Davis which brought about this great Trouble to Mr. Browning were his odd Notions, and dividing Principles and Practices. Neither was the Doctor at Leisure to give us any particular Account of those Notions, nor whether he meant thereby different ones from his dividing Principles; only by calling them odd, he must surely intend that he stood by himself in those Notions; none of the Godly being of his Mind: But all this being general, ambiguous, and without any Instance, I must humbly take leave to look upon the whole as defaming and slanderous. Indeed it is a’ possible thing for an odd Notion to be a very true one, and for dividing Principles and Practices to be very just, or the Doctor will be very hard put to it to justify his own Separation: But when he condescends to explain himself, and make it evident unto the World, that though he entertains dividing Principles and concerns himself in dividing Practices, others must not; or, that it is our Duty to divide along with him, but not divide from him, to divide just so far as he does, but a downright Sin to step any farther: what he says shall be considered.
Mr. Davis’s Principles and Practice the Doctor may find a true Account of in that part of the following Narrative which more directly concerns him. But in general I may here observe, that his Principles in Matters of Faith were entirely consistent with what is justly called the Protestant Doctrine. In Church Discipline he was of the same Judgement with the blessed Hooker, Cotton, Owen, Goodwin, Chauncy, and other eminent and faithful Servants of Christ in the congre gational Way; which the Doctor calls Independency. But it seems those Principles are dividing ones, and therefore by all means to be opposed; and perhaps we must not be told that most of the ejected Ministers were of those Principles, lest a vigorous Imitation should render the Opposition contemptible and ineffectual. I suppose the Doctor is no Stranger to that Person who said, I have rooted Independency out oj Kent, and I am resolved I will root it out of Essex. But alas! all will be in vain; so long as the Root of it is in the Bible it will grow again, though the Lord should suffer that Gentleman to glut himself with Indignation against it, and Revenge upon it.
Mr. Davis’s Practice was to walk humbly with God in a holy Conversation, and a strict Observation of Christ’s Com mand to feed his Sheep. Ay, but such Principles and Practices, says the Doctor, gave no small Disturbance to all the Ministers and Congregations round him, and even many that lived at a Distance, and in other Countries. The more the Pity! That Truth, Holiness and Zeal should disturb them. So of old All the City was mov’d, saying, who is this? But seeing one godly, humble, zealous Servant of Christ gave them so much Disturbance, what will become of them when the Spirit shall be poured down from on high, according to the Promise! when God shall give the Word, and great shall be the Company of them that publish it? But however, let us consider the Relief those Ministers and Congregations had; for Churches it seems they must not be called, in order to compose them for a little more Rest: Says the Doctor, but Mr. Browning oppos’d him to the uttermost. This was very kind of Mr. Browning to undertake such a Labour, that his Neighbours might lye down and take their Ease: And it seems the Doctor would have us believe, that the good old Gentleman# in the latter part of his Life, did not only oppose Mr. Davis about Home, but pursued him and opposed him at a Distance, and in other Countries. For it is not said that he opposed him to his uttermost, but to the uttermost: So that he made a perfect Opposition, by all Ways and Means, at all Times and Places, and to all Intents and Purposes. This is what we must believe, if we believe the Doctor’s Words. But to take this off I must again acquaint the Reader that Mr. Browning was at Rest with Christ long before Mr. Davis came into the Country. And 1 must observe, that if Mr. Browning and Mr. Davis had been Neighbours, it would have been almost impossible for such Persons to have disagreed; being both of such excellent self-denying Spirits, and of the same Principles in Doctrine and Discipline. But to follow the Doctor.
What Success Mr. Browning’s Endeavours had among the disturbed Congregations the Doctor informs us not; yet seems to acquaint us that his Labours had some Success among Mr. Davis’s Hearers and Admirers: For their Fits which had somewhat pretty singular in them, at length ceased, and wore off ly Degrees.
In this there are several unaccountable Insinuations, which must fall under the Notice of any considerate Person: As first, that Mr. Davis’s Hearers were Admirers of Him. I must tell the Doctor, that Mr. Davis was a Man that never sought after popular Admiration. He never coveted the chief Seat in the Synagogue, nor to be called of Men Rabbi, a Title of the same Importance with Doctor. He might have adorn’d his Name with additional Letters with as much Justice as some others, who make it evident they seek the Honour that is from Men; but he preached not himself, but Christ Jesus the Lord. And as for the People who loved to hear him, they were better instructed than to admire any Man, Christ was their all in all; and I am persuaded, if the Doctor had but acquainted himself with them, he would have restrained his Pen from this unjust and unbecoming Censure.
Then the Doctor must intimate, that all Mr. Davis’s Hearers had Fits; or else sure, he would have said some of his Hearers, or many of them. Any Person being a Stranger to the Affair, must, by the Doctor’s Words, think that every Individual must be intended. Whereas there was never a Man, and but a few of the Women, under those Afflictions. But why must a few hysteric Fits, star’d at by the Thoughtless, and reproach’d by the Malicious heretofore, be now, by so grave and considerate a Person, reviv’d for Ends mean and low, not becoming the Gospel? Why must Afflictions of this Nature be mentioned at all, unless with a Design to vindicate some Providence from abusive Interpretations, any more than Fevers, Agues, & c. Or are they the only Afflictions which must not be thought under the Management of wise Love, as designed Blessings to the chosen? I must own, that I am very sorry the Cavils and Clamours of the Ignorant and Ungodly should be so far countenanced.
The Doctor must also insinuate that Mr. Davis some how or other procured those Fits: If he does not intend so much, why must they be brought in to blacken his Character? I think nothing more uncharitable could be insinuated against a holy Man of God, judged even by the Doctor himself to have a real Spirit of Piety.
But then in the next Place those Fits, the Doctor says, had somewhat in them that was pretty singular. What would he, I wonder, have the World believe concerning them? What was this pretty singular Somewhat? I am persuaded he cannot give a fair Account of any thing realty singular in them; though he leads the Ignorant by the Hand so far as to point him to the worst Thought he can entertain.
To censure without just Cause is bad; to carry Expressions in Censures beyond Fact and Proof is worse; and still to suggest and insinuate beyond what Persons dare express is most abominable: The first is far beneath a Gospel-Minister, the next is far beneath a Christian, but the last is very far beneath a Man. Paying due Deference to the Doctor’s Name, I must assert here what I am fully persuaded will stand in the great Day of Account, that the Doctor was, when he writ this Story, in a Fit ten thousand times worse than any he endeavours to expose to Reproach; though I must own that in his Fit there was nothing singular; such Fits being very common among all Mr. Davis’s Enemies, from the least to the greatest.
Upon the Doctor’s Account of the Fits I shall only add, that it is clever to see how Mr. Browning is brought in as the mighty Person who conquered those Fits at last: For the Doctor plainly asserts, if his Words in any Coherence can be understood, that upon Mr. Browning’s Opposition, those Fits, after some Noise, at length ceas’d, and wore off by Degrees: And besides, we must know that he was giving Mr. Browning’s Character unto the World; and therefore what he says of things done in his Story, must some how or other refer to him. It is however pretty remarkable, that after the Fits had ceas’d, they wore off by Degrees.
I have for my part discoursed of those Fits with several who had been afflicted with them, and with others who were Rye-witnesses of those Afflictions, and according to the best Judgment I can form of them they were only hysterical, which being attended with an Obstruction of the animal Spirits, and in Proportion with its Consequences, or with Perturbations and violent Emotions of Body and Mind, though not foreign to the Nature of such Afflictions, rais’d Amasement in the Ignorant, and were improved by the Malicious to serve their base Designs, in Opposition to the Salvation of God. There were several afflicted therewith, before ever Mr. Davis came into the Country. He found them afflicted, he pitied them, he prayed for them; nevertheless for some time, so was the Will of God, the Affliction continued and in some measure increas’d; and Mr. Davis’s Concern on the account thereof was very great, so that it might be said to be a great Affliction to him and the Church, and for the Removal of it, before the Lord they prayed with out ceasing. But why their Affliction should be turned to their Reproach; or why they should be insulted by Men, because afflicted by the Lord, I leave to Persons of the Doctor’s charitable Principles and Spirit to answer!
It is indeed promised that Jerusalem should prove a burdensome Stone unto all that burden themselves with it, though all the People of the Earth be gathered together against It; which shall not only be eminently fulfilled hereafter before all the World, but even falls in particular Instances, often under Notice at present. One lively Stone belonging to the spiritual Building proved burdensome to the Doctor; for in rolling the Memory thereof in the Dirt, it returned upon him. In wounding the Name and Labours of Mr. Davis, he gave his own Conscience a little Wound, Grace not having left it destitute of Tenderness, and therefore he spreads a little Plaister, and applies it to Mr. Davis, hoping doubtless thereby to heal himself5 and says, though the Words come from him awkwardly enough, and it is to be hoped, that Mr. Davis, with all his Faults, was not destitute of a real Spirit of Piety. This Spirit of Piety in Mr. Davis, seems also in Connexion to be the Fruit of Mr. Browning’s vigorous Opposition; though the whole of it is put into such a diminutive Form that it comes to very little; however, it is all his Charity could afford, and so we must be contented. First it is to he hoped; then hoped with all his Faults; that is, notwithstanding all his holy Zeal against all Sin, and for powerful Godliness in Christ Jesus, for other Faults neither the Doctor nor the World can prove upon him, and then to be hoped he was not destitute. It is so often clipped and clouded, that were it not handed to us by one that evidently hates Mr. Davis’s Memory, from it we must be at a great Loss what to conclude concerning his State. But I must, I hope without Vanity, take the Liberty to tell the World, that as holy Mr. Davis is never the worse for all those sinful Endeavours of the Doctor to blast his Memory, so all impartial Persons will never look upon the Doctor to be much the letter for this mean Restitution, which either Mercy to himself, or Pity to abused Piety, did draw from him at last.
I would not have any Body imagine that I think there is no more Justice and Truth in any of the little Stories the Doctor has sent into the World, than in this under Consideration; only I must own, that from this I cannot help being fixed under a sort of a Difficulty to believe any thing therein, unless I know it to be true. It is Pity that any who pretend to write History, should, by Partiality, Indignation, Weakness, or Wickedness, lay such stumbling Blocks in the Way of their Readers.
Upon the most deliberate Consideration, I can by no means blame my self, nor can I expect the Censure of any impartial Man in the World, for attempting a just Vindication of a godly Man’s Memory. This I could never do, without taking Notice of the false defaming Aspersions, together with the Gentleman, who owns himself before the World, to be the Author of them; for which the Doctor must excuse me: For I use no more Freedom with him than the Nature of the thing required. If he could have thought of a better Way, I gave him Opportunity enough to acquaint me with it; for quickly after I had read the unjust defaming Story in the Doctor, I took the Liberty to write to him as follows.
“Reverend Sir,
What you have been pleased to add in your Continuation of Account p. 638. concerning Mr. Browning and Mr. Davis, is entirely false. Mr. Davis never gave Mr. Browning any Trouble. Mr. Browning was so far from opposing Mr. Davis to the uttermost, that he never oppos’d him at all; being at Rest with Christ near five Years before ever Mr. Davis came from London into the Country. But had they been neigh bours, it is very improbable that Persons of such an excellent Spirit, as they both were, and also of the same Judgment in Doctrine and Discipline, should have disagreed. Your fixing odd Notions upon Mr. Davis, without naming them, and insinuating, as if all his Hearers had Fits, which upon Mr. Browning’s Opposition first ceas’d, and then wore off by Degrees, must certainly be judged every Way beneath a Gentleman of your Character. Sir, what you have printed is a notorious Mistake, and a manifest Injury to the Memory of holy Mr. Davis, and good Mr. Browning his Predecessor. We desire to know what Method you will please to take to rectify this publick Wrong done to the Dead and the Living, which also must now be transmitted to Posterity; and if we approve thereof, it will spare us the Trouble and Pains to set the whole Affair in a true Light before the World.
I am &c.”
But the Doctor not thinking it worth his while to send me one Line, put me upon some Endeavours to offer the true Character of the holy and abused Mr. Davis and being so engaged, I found myself under a Necessity to give a true Account of Mr. Browning also, his Principles and Practice, because the Doctor has abused them both. Then being carried back so far in my Thoughts, I judged it expedient to give some Account of godly Mr. Beverly, who was Mr. Browning’s Predecessor, and an Instrument in the Hands of Christ, for the gathering of the Church; with whom therefore all Order requires I should begin.
I shall here only add, that as the Matter of all History should be Truth, and the Design thereof Information, unto the special Advantage of those who are for furnishing them selves or others with agreeable Notions of Persons and Things, so I humbly expect the following Narrative will, among Lovers of Truth, meet with Acceptance; having Simplicity, Truth, and I trust a good Design to recommend it. And I am persuaded, that even Dr. C. so far as real Christianity prevails, will, in the Spirit of Love, rejoice in the Truth; and the rather, because some in the World may hereby be delivered from the bad Consequences of his Mistakes.
Richard Davis (1658-1714) was a High-Calvinist Independent gospel preacher. In 1689, he was appointed pastor of the church meeting at Rothwell, Northamptonshire, a position he held for twenty-five years. Although his testimony was heinously smeared by many of his ministerial peers, the integrity of his life and ministry has subsequently been vindicated. He is best remembered for “originating that system of sending out lay preachers which was subsequently adopted by Mr. Wesley, so he seems to have anticipated in some measure the Experience Meetings which form so prominent a feature of Methodism.” He was also an early influencer of John Gill during his youth.
Robert Vaughan, in his “English Nonconformity”, wrote of him—“Mr. Richard Davis, a Welshman, pastor of an Independent church at Rothwell, in Northamptonshire, possessed the spirit of a Whitfield, and surrendered himself to the promptings of his generous nature. His passion to proclaim his faith to the ignorant and perishing, even by means of laymen and of humble artisans, scandalised the professional pride of his brethren. The bold man was not silenced by the formidable opposition made to him. But its effect was, that his kind of labour appears to have died with him. Under wiser influences the great evangelical revival in England might have dated from the former half of the Eighteenth century instead of the latter.”
Further Study
