what Harmony in respect of Doctrine there is among all sincere Professors of the Truth, have been published in one Volume) all these have been of singular use, not only to those that lived in the Ages when these Declarations were emitted, but unto Posterity, yea unto this day.

There have been some who have reflected upon these New-English Churches for our defect in this matter, as if our Principles were unknown; wheras it is well hnown, that as to matters of Doctrine we agree with other Reformed Churches: Nor was it that, but what concerns Worship and Discipline, that caused our Fathers to come into this wilderness, whiles it was a land not sown, that so they might have liberty to practice accordingly. And it is a ground of ludy rejoycing before the Lord, that now there is no advantage left for those that may be disaffected towards us, to object any thing of that nature against us. For it hath pleased the only wise God so to dispose in his Providence, as that the Elders and Messengers of the Churches in the Colony of the Massachusets in New-England, did, by the Call and Encouragement of the honoured General Court. meet together Sept. 10, 1679. This Synod at their second Session, which was May 12. 1680. consulted and considered of a [vi] Confession of Faith. That which was consented unto by the Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches in England, who met at the Savoy (being. for the most part, some small variations excepted, the same with that which was agreed upon first by the Assembly at Westminster, & was approved of by the Synod at Cambridge in New-England, Anno 1648. as also by a general Assembly in Scotland) was twice publickly read, examined and approved of: that little variation which we have made from the one, in compliance with the other may be seen by those who please to compare them. Put we have (for the main) chosen to express our selves in the words of those Reverend Assemblyes, that so we might not only with one heart, but with one mouth glorif1e God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

As to what concerns Church-Government, we refer to the Platform of Discipline agreed upon by the Messengers of these Churches Anno 1648. & solemnly owned & confirmed by the late Synod.

What hours of Temptation may overtake these Churches, is not for us to say. Only the Lord doth many times so order things, that when his People have made a good Confession, they shall be put upon the trial one way or other, to see whether they have (or who among them hath not) been sincere in what they have done. The Lord grant that the loins of our minds may be so girt about with Truth, that we may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

[This Confession fills pages 1 to 65 of the little book, and is so nearly identical with the doctrinal part of that adopted at the Savoy Synod in 1658 that I have ventured to omit the text here, and to refer the reader to pages 367 to 402 of this volume, where the Savoy Confession may be found, and where the few variations of this Confession from its prototype are indicated in the notes.]

XIV

THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT OF 1691

Editions And Reprints

I. Heads of Agreement Assented to by the United Ministers in and about London: Formerly called Presbyterian and Congregational, London, 16qi. 40 pp. [vi], 16.1

II.

Cotton Mather, Blessed Unions

a Discourse Which makes Divers Offers, for those Unions; Together with A Copy of those Articles, wherc-upon a most Happy Union, ha's been lately made between those two Eminent Parties in England, which have now Changed the Names of Presbyterians, and Congregationals, for that of United Brethren, Boston, 1692, 120 pp. x, 86, 12.

III. Cotton Mather, Magnolia, London, 1702, Book V: 59-61; ed. Hartford, 1853-5, II: 273-276.

IV. At New London in 1710, in connection with the Result of the Saybrook Synod, and in the subsequent editions of that Result.5

V. Neal, History of New England, London, 1720, II: 656-663.

VI. Bogue & Bennett, History of Dissenters, London, 1808-12; ed. 1833, I: 382-386.

VII. In The Discipline Practised in the Churches of New England, Whitchurch, Salop, England, 1823.

VIII. In The Cambridge and Saybrook Platforms

sion of

.

with the Confes

16S0; and the Heads of Agreement assented to by the Presbyterians and Congregationalists in England in rbqo. Boston, T. R. Marvin, 1829, pp. 125-132.

IX.

T. C. Upham, Ratio Disciplina, Portland, 1829, pp. 303-311.

X. In Congregational Order. The Ancient Platforms of the Congregational Churches of New England. Published by direction of the General Asso

ciation of Connecticut, Middletown, 1843, pp. 251-263.3

Sources

Matthew Mead, Two Sticks made one, or the Excellence of Unity. Being a Sermon Preachcd by the Appointment of the Ministers of the Congregational and Presbyterian Perswasion, at their Happy Union. On the sixth day of April, i6g/,* London, 1691.

A Brief History of Presbytery and Independency, from their first original to this Time With some remarks on the late Heads of Agreement* etc.,

London, 1691.

1 Full title in reprint at close of this chapter. 2 See next chapter.

3 Dr. Dexter notes other editions of Congregational Order, as Hartford [1842] and 1845.

* Unfortunately about all the historical value of this sermon is in its title. The preacher

gave abundant exhortation, but no facts.

Anonymous, contains little of value.

ENGLISH CONGREGATIONALISM AND PRESBVTERIANISM 441

Free Thoughts occasioned by the Heads of Agreement,1 etc., London, 1691.

A History of the Union between the Presbyterian and Congregational Ministers in and about London, and the Causes of the Breach of it,' London, 2nd ed., 1693.

Literature

Cotton Mather, Blessed Unions, etc' C. Mather, Magnalia, London, 1702, ed. Hartford, 1853-5, II: 272. Neal, History of New England, London, 1720, II: 411. C. Mather, Parentator. Memoirs of Remarkables in the Life and the Death of the Ever-Memorable Dr. Inerease Mather, Boston, 1724, pp. 147, 148. Bogue & Bennett, History of Dissenters, London, 1808-12; ed. 1833, I: 381.. Bacon, Discourse, in Cont. Eccles. History of Connecticut, New Haven, 1861, pp. 35~37. Fletcher, History of Independency, London, 1862, IV: 266-268. J. Waddington. Congregational History, 1367-1700, London, 1874, pp. 675-677. Dexter, Congregationalism, as seen in its Literature, p. 489. Stoughton, History of Relig ion in England, London, 1881, V: 293-299.

Τ

HE Westminster Assembly and the later history of Parliament during the struggle with Charles I. showed clearly the radical difference in view between Presbyterians and Congregationalists. Alike in doctrine, in their hatred of prelacy, and in their conceptions of the proper forms of worship, and largely accordant in their views as to the nature of the ministry and its functions, their great point of divergence was in regard to the existence or non-existence of a national church. To such an institution the Presbyterians clung. In their estimation the local congregation was to be a part of a reformed church of England, responsible to a series of church courts which should knit together the whole. In the Congregational view, on the other hand, no such thing as a national church existed. There should be churches, each independent in its local concerns, each bound to its neighbors by links of fellowship and advice (though on this point English Congregationalism never arrived at any such clearness of conception as was attained in New England); but over these churches the Congregationalist would place no ecclesiastical body, self-constituted or representative of the churches as a whole, whose behests could bind the action of the smallest local congre

1 Anonymous, I have not seen this tract.

2 An exceedingly well-informed account of the rupture of the Union, written by an anonymous Congregationalist.

8 See No. II. under Texts. It contains little of value beyond a dedication to Matthew Mead,.. John Howe, and Increase Mather, as the authors of the Union.

gation. Here, then, was a radical and, as experience proved, irreconcilable difference of conception.

But though the great body of Presbyterians and Congregationalists walked in divided paths, there were not wanting a number of attempts at union under the Commonwealth. Such a union was effected, on principles which reflect credit on the Christian charity of the two parties, in the far northwestern counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland in 1656.' At about the same time similar associations came into being in Worcestershire, Devonshire, Essex, Dorset, Wiltshire, Hampshire, Yorkshire, and Lancashire.' But though these bodies had some partial success in fusing together the rival parties in these various districts of England, the populous region immediately about London saw no real union between them under the Commonwealth.

With the Restoration the whole situation was changed. The repressive acts of the government bore on Congregationalists and Presbyterians with impartial severity. The Act of Uniformity of 1662 drove some 2,000 Puritan ministers from their livings in the Church of England. The same year saw, for the first time since the Reformation, the prescription of episcopal ordination as a necessity for all who held benefices in the English Church. The Conventicle Act of 1664 rendered public worship, save in accordance with the rites of the Establishment, almost impossible; while the Five Mile Act of 16656 made it very difficult for a Puritan minister to earn a living. Under such hardships the differences between Presbyterians and Congregationalists became less and

London

1 The Agreement of the Associated Ministers and Churches of the Counties of Cumberland, and VVestmerland 1656. Some extracts from this valuable tract, illustrative of the earlier union efforts between Congregationalists and Presbyterians, will be given at the close of this introduction.

2 See the Brief History of Presbytery and Independency, London, 1691, p. 27; and Briggs, American Presbyterianism, New York, 1885, pp. 77, 78.

Passed May 19, 1662, went into force August 24. There was an excuse for such an act in the removals made by the Parliament and Commonwealth; but the cost to the Church of England itself was appalling. Compare the remarks of J. R. Greene, History of the English People, 111: 346, 347

4 May 7, 1664. This law forbade any religious meeting of more than five persons outside of one family, save in conformity with the Establishment, the penalty being transportation on conviction by a justice of the peace and without jury trial, on the third offense.

* Oct. 30, 1665. It forbade any non-conformist minister, who would not swear never to attempt any alteration in Church or State, to come within five miles of a corporate town or Parliament borough, or to teach school anywhere.

less. The national church, for which Presbyterians had longed, was evidently a dream impossible of realization. The persistent efforts of many of their leaders for some kind of a compromise which would give them a place in a more comprehensive Establishment were without result. It was evident that, hunted as they were, the most strenuous Presbyterians were in a position practically similar to that of the Congregationalists. They could maintain little more than isolated congregations, fortunate if able to secure advice and fellowship from other bodies similarly situated, but unable effectively to operate any elaborate system of church courts or ecclesiastical assemblies. So it came about that, under the pressure of persecution, the remnants of the two bodies drew closer together; and after the first relief from their burdens came in the Declaration of Indulgence of 1673, by which Charles II. wished to favor his Catholic friends and obtain some degree of popularity with the Non-conformists, the leaders of the Congregationalists and Presbyterians in the vicinity of London strove earnestly for a union. Renewed persecution in 1682 ended their attempts for the time.'

With the success of the Revolution of 1688, effected by the joint action of Churchmen and Non-conformists, and the consequent passage of the Toleration Act in 1689,' the right of Dissenters to exist and to worship was legally recognized, though under somewhat onerous conditions; but neither Congregationalists nor Presbyterians could look for any wide extended acceptance of their polities. All the circumstances of their situations counseled the union of bodies so similar in beliefs and practical administration. Much of that which had seemed important under the Commonwealth and which had divided the two parties, was now clearly a matter of theoretic desirability rather than practically attainable. Accordingly, not long after the passage of the Toleration Act

1 "Some Ministers several Years ago, [were stirred up] to attempt something towards the Healing of the Differences between the Brethren of the Presbyterian and Congregational Pcr. suasion, in Matters of Discipline, but before they could bring their laudable Enterprize to any Ripeness, a stop was put to their Pious and Peaceable Undertaking, by the Persecution raised against them in the Year 1682." Hist. 0/ the Union between Presb. and Cong. Ministers, etc. London, 1698, p. r.

> May 24, 1689.