1680. This was animadverted upon and answered by the memorable _Dr. Collinges_ of Norwich, an eminent ejected Minister, _first_ in a piece entitled, “A reasonable account of the judgment of nonconforming ministers, as to prescribed forms of prayer; with a supplement in Answer to Dr. Falkner of Liturgies;” and afterwards in another piece, entitled, “The vindication of Liturgies, lately published by Dr. Falkner, proved no vindication, &c.” 3. _Christian Loyalty_: or a discourse, wherein is asserted that just Royal Authority and Eminency which in this Church and Realm of _England_ is yielded to the KING. Especially concerning _supremacy_ in _Causes Ecclesiastical_. Together with the disclaiming of all _Foreign Jurisdictions_ and the unlawfulness of Subjects TAKING ARMS against the KING. This is a most notable production, and it seems not a little unaccountable that it did not immediately procure him a mitre. It is much in the way of Sir Robert Filmer, and the rest of our great Tory-writers, and scarcely inferior to the very best of them. It was printed in London in 1679, and again, it seems, in 1684, which shews that it was well approved of and sought for. Dr. Falkner dying, as was said, in 1682, was succeeded at St. Nicholas’ by a _Mr. Killeingbeck_, of whom we have heard nothing further. SECTION XI. _Biographical Sketches continued—Littel—Pyle—Hepburn—Rastrick—Browne—Keene—&c._ 9. _Thomas Littel_, _D.D._ He is supposed to have settled here, as one of our officiating clergy, pretty soon after the revolution; but whether as vicar and principal minister of the town, or as Lecturer, or in an inferior station as the Vicar’s curate, we cannot positively say. It is certain however that he soon succeeded as vicar or chief minister of the town, and continued in that situation for a great many years. Though a Doctor in Divinity, he is supposed not to have stood high among his brethren and contemporaries as a scholar, a preacher, or as a divine; but there were traits in his character that were of no unamiable cast, especially in regard to his attention to the edification of the common people. In more recent times he would probably have been deemed a methodistical clergyman, which is not mentioned here as dishonourable to his memory, but rather the contrary, as it is the opinion of the present writer, that if a _reasonable portion_ of methodism were imbibed by the clergy, it would render their ministry more popular, and prove of material advantage to the lower orders of their auditors. In Dr. Littel’s time, a great many of his hearers, of the poorer classes, as it would seem, became desirous of improving themselves in religious knowledge; and the course that appeared to them most likely, or the best for attaining that object was to establish private meetings for free discussion, or serious conference. Whether they had been led to this from something of the kind that existed among their dissenting neighbours