between the years 1689 and 1696. Of these the majority were Presbyterian in their views of church polity, and the rest Independents and Baptists. The Presbyterians, however, were such only in name, or at any rate they had no more of Presbyterianism than to shut out the suffrages of the congregation, and to direct their church affairs by a body of trustees, or elders. No presbyteries were formed, nor any church courts got up beyond the circle of each congregation. Indeed, the difference between the two bodies of Presbyterians and Independents was considered so small as to present, in the view of many, no insurmountable obstacle to a coalition between the two bodies. The London ministers were the first to promote this blessed work of union, a basis for which was agreed upon, embracing such common principles as both parties could consent to subscribe, which contains this preamble: "The following heads of agreement have been resolved upon by the united ministers in and about London, formerly called Presbyterian and Congregational; not as a measure for any national constitution, but for the preservation of order in our congregations, that cannot come up to the common rule by law established." The principle of association commended itself to the judgment of very many in the provinces, and similar unions were formed there, the most celebrated of which was the Exeter assembly, which was a revival of one formed so far back as 1665, after the model of that established by Baxter and his brethren in Worcestershire. Why should not this spirit of union extend itself? The spirit of sects is opposed to the spirit of Christianity. Dissenters, in their zeal for liberty, have been in danger of losing a love of unity. They do not deserve the charge of schism as coming from the Church of England. It were to be

wished they were equally guiltless of this sin among themselves. They have contended nobly against intolerance from without-let them finish their work, and contend as mightily for toleration within.

WILLIAM was scarcely settled on the throne before he manifested a desire to introduce dissenting laymen to offices of trust, but the Test and Corporation Act prevented the King from accomplishing his benevolent design. But another most important movement for union, which was almost immediately commenced, must not be passed over, and that was an attempt, which however ultimately proved abortive, to bring in an act for making such alterations in the liturgy and services of the Church of England as should meet the scruples of the Nonconformists and make way for their being received into the Church of England. This had been thought of, and proposed, once or twice before, as we have already seen; but it was now resumed by Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, who for conscience' sake soon after resigned his see, and became the head of the nonjuring clergy, that is, a class which could not take the oaths required on the change of the government under William and Mary. A commission was issued by William, to thirty divines, ten of whom were bishops, to consider this subject. The commissioners, at least most of them, went to their work in the best and most candid spirit, really desirous of promoting union. As the result of their labours, six hundred alterations, many of them trivial, but some of them important, and viewed as a whole, removing entirely all objections of dissenters to the Book of Common Prayer, were agreed upon as proper to be recommended for approval to the convocation. But the scheme entirely failed, for that body would not so much as take

the subject into consideration. Neither had the measure better success in the House of Commons. It may be well affirmed that six hundred alterations proposed to be made in the standards and services of the Church of England, by such men as Archbishop Tillotson, and Bishops Burnet, Stillingfleet, Patrick, Sharp, Kidder, Beveridge, and Tennison, certainly go far to prove that the Book of Common Prayer is susceptible of some improvement; and that dissenters, in objecting to it, are not quite so unreasonable as many in the present day would represent.

The Nonconformists continued, during the reign of William and the early part of that of Anne, in the enjoyment of their new liberties, not however without some feeble but unsuccessful attempts, by the High Church party, to restrict the meaning of the Act of Toleration, by contending that though it gave liberty of worship, it made no provision for the education of ministers. There was too much good sense, as well as too deep a regard to justice, to allow the validity of such a quibble, for of what use was toleration to worship God according to the dictates of our conscience, if we had no ministers to conduct our services?

The scripture says, "how great a fire a little matter kindleth," and this was proved by an unwise act of Sir Humphrey Edwin, who, while Lord Mayor of London, in the reign of William and Mary, being a dissenter, carried the regalia of the city to a meeting-house at Pinner's Hall. This needless and irritating act was considered as a very heinous crime, and generated as keen wrath in the hearts of many zealous churchmen as ever Achilles felt towards Agamemnon. The bad feeling called out by this act of dissenting ostentation, existed however already, though latent, and was now only ex

cited to combustion. The fact is, the liberty of dissenters is a grudged right with high church bigots, and which they determined, if possible, to abridge. The clergy were now distinguished by the names of HIGH CHURCH and Low CHURCH, which were appropriated, the latter to all who treated the dissenters with temper and moderation; the former, to those who viewed them as enemies to the Establishment, that were to be oppressed and vanquished, if this were possible, and to be despised and insulted, if not. The spite of the High Church party was soon manifested in obtaining, after considerable opposition, an act called "The occasional Conformity Bill." In explanation of which it is necessary to say that ever since the passing of "The Act of Uniformity," some of the Nonconformists occasionally attended public worship at the parish church and received the communion there. Men no less venerable and esteemed than Baxter, Howe, Bates, and Philip Henry, sanctioned this practice by their example. This continued after the Revolution, and as it was not confined to ministers, but was adopted by laymen also, many of the latter, notwithstanding "The Test and Corporation Acts," had obtained a share of civic office, honour, and emolument. The provisions of "The Occasional Conformity Bill" made it a crime, to be visited with a heavy fine, for any one holding office, civil or military, to be found at dissenting worship; and required every one occupying a place of profit or trust to take the sacrament according to the rules of the Church of England, three times in the year, after he declared his conformity. The object of this cruel measure was to expel all dissenters from every public office, and to compel such as had no conscience, if any such there were, to conform. Great numbers, who had a conscience, were

thus effectually ruined. The Church gained some apostates and hypocrites; the dissenters, many confessors and martyrs. For exposing in somewhat disguised but cutting irony, the rancour of this bill, the celebrated Daniel De Foe, the well-known author of Robinson Crusoe, and of innumerable other works, suffered imprisonment in Newgate, and the indignity of the pillory.

The horizon of the religious world became, during the reign of ANNE, cloudy and lowering with gathering storms of intolerance and persecution. The Scottish parliament, will it be credited? passed an act, making it high treason to attempt to overthrow, by writing or speaking, the Presbyterian government of Scotland. In the south a furious agitation was raised by Dr. Sacheverell, chaplain of St. Thomas's, Southwark, who threw all England into confusion by his distempered zeal for the Church of England, which, as one observes, burnt as hot in his breast as the flames of Nebuchadnezzar's furnace. In his rabid passion he reflected with great bitterness on the memory of William; condemned the Revolution; vented the greatest fury against the Whig administration; and seemed to court notoriety and sympathy by provoking suffering. This he gained, by a sermon he preached at St. Paul's, November 1, 1709, from 2 Cor. xi. 26, which he entitled "The perils of false brethren, both in church and state." It was full of the most virulent declamation against many, both in church and state; it asserted to the fullest extent the doctrines of passive obedience and nonresistance; condemned all toleration; and poured out a turbid flood of scurrility and abuse upon the dissenters. Of this infamous philippic forty thousand copies were sold in a few weeks, which filled the land with myriads