An old woman of Wesley’s society, named Mary Hubbard, would often wash her linen, hang it out to dry, and go away to work in the fields or to Taunton Market four miles from her house, and when blamed for thus leaving her linen unprotected, she would reply that “the Lord watched over her and all that she had, and that he would prevent any person from stealing her two old smocks, or if He permitted them to be stolen, He would send her two new ones in their stead.” I seriously assure you,says the author who relates this tale, and who at one time went even greater lengths[62]than this old woman, “that there are many thousand Mary Hubbards among the Methodists.”
It may be added, that their strict abstinence from the common amusements of the world, even where innocent in themselves, has its evils,as I have already noticed when speaking of the Quakers; for the mind cannot always be kept in a state of tension, and if we refuse ourselves recreation altogether, there is danger that we shall find the yoke of Christ a wearisome instead of an easy one, and cast it off in disgust; nay, I am afraid that if we were to inquire closely, we should find instances enough of this result to demonstrate, what indeed wants but little proof, i.e. that God knows better than we do “whereof we are made,” and that it is not wisdom to bind a heavy burthen on our shoulders when Christ himself has declared that his is light. Still, though tinged with a degree of enthusiasm which we may regret, the doctrine of the Wesleyan Methodists retains the fundamental parts of Christianity, and after reading the following extracts from Wesley’s Sermons, I think you will hardly forbear asking, Why is this a separate sect?
“Justifying Faith implies not only a Divine ελεγχος, evidence or conviction, that ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself,’ but a sure trust and confidence that Christ died formysins, that he lovedme, and gave himself for me; and the moment a penitent sinner believesthis, God pardons and absolves him.”[64a]“Christian perfection does not imply, as some men seem to have imagined, an exemption either from ignorance, or mistake, or infirmities, or temptations; indeed it is only another term for holiness: thus every one that is holy, is in the Scripture sense ‘perfect.’ We may yet observe that neither in this respect is there absolute perfection on earth.”[64b]“If the Scriptures are true, those who are holy or religious in the judgment of God himself, those who are endued with the faith that purifies the heart, that produces a good conscience; those who live by faith in the Son of God; those who are sanctifiedby the blood of the Covenant may nevertheless so fall from God as to perish everlastingly, therefore let him who thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” “In strictness neither our faith nor our works justify us, i.e.deservethe remission of our sins, but God himself justifies us of his own mercy through the merits of his Son only.”[65]
Among the sects which arose about the period of the Reformation of the church in the sixteenth century, we find the Anabaptists[66]playing rather a conspicuous part, by exciting political tumults in Saxony and the adjacent countries. For this, Munzer, their leader, after the defeat of his forces, was put to death, and the sect generally was proscribed, and the profession of its doctrines punished capitally. What those doctrines were is not easy, nor is it essential now, to state, since the modern sect, which we now term Baptists, retain only so much of them as relates to baptism by immersion,and of adults only, and the rejection of episcopal church government.
The more modern sect is subdivided into General and Particular Baptists. The General or Arminian Baptists admit “much latitude in their system of religious doctrine, which consists in such general principles, that their communion is accessible to Christians of almost all denominations, and accordingly they tolerate in fact, and receive among them persons of every sect, who profess themselves Christians, and receive the Holy Scriptures as the source of truth, and the rule of faith.”[67]They agree with theParticular Baptistsin this, that they admit to baptism adults only, and administer that sacrament either by dipping or total immersion; but they differ from them in another respect, for they repeat the administration of baptism to those who had received it, either in a state of infancy, or by aspersion instead of dipping: for if the common accounts may be believed, the Particular Baptists do not carry matters so far.
The General Baptists consider their sect as the only true church; in baptism they dip only once and not three times as was the practice inthe primitive church: and they consider it a matter of indifference whether that sacrament be administered in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or in that of Christ alone:[68a]they adopt the doctrine of Menno with regard to the Millennium; many of them also embrace his particular opinion concerning the origin of Christ’s body.[68b]They look upon the precept of the Apostles prohibiting the use of blood and of things strangled, as a law that was designed to be in force in all ages and periods of the church: they believe that the soul, from the moment that the body dies until its resurrection at the last day, remains in a state of perfect insensibility: they use the ceremony of extreme unction, and finally, to omit matters of a more trifling nature, several of them observe the Jewish as well as the Christian Sabbath.[68c]In some of their churches they have three distinct orders separately ordained, i.e. messengers, elders, and deacons; and their general assembly (where a minister preaches, and the churchesare taken into consideration), is held annually in London on the Tuesday in Whitsun week, and they afterwards dine together. They have met thus for upwards of a century.
The propriety of the exclusive application of the term “Baptists” to those who baptize adults by immersion, has been questioned; and for this reason they are by many styled Antipædobaptists,[69]namely, opposers of infant baptism; but the term Anabaptist should not be applied to them, it being a term of reproach.
The old General Baptists have been on the decline for many years; their churches are principally in Kent and Sussex. The English and most foreign Baptists consider a personal profession of faith, and immersion in water, essential to baptism: this profession is generally made before the church at a church meeting. Some have a creed, and expect the candidate for baptism to assent to it, and give a circumstantial account of his conversion: others only require him to profess himself a Christian. The former generally consider baptism as an ordinance which initiates persons into a particular church,and they say, that without breach of Christian liberty, they have a right to expect an agreement in articles of faith in their own societies. The latter think that baptism initiates into the Christian religion generally, and therefore think that they have no right to require an assent to their creed from such as do not join their churches. They quote the baptism of the Eunuch in Acts viii. in proof.
The first mention of the Baptists in English History is as the subject of persecution in the reign of Henry VIII. During that of Edward VI. a commission was issued to bishops and other persons “to try all Anabaptists, heretics, and despisers of the common prayer,” and they were empowered, in the event of their contumacy, to commit them to the flames. The same inhuman policy was persisted in under Elizabeth. The last Baptist martyr burned in England was Edward Wightman; he was condemned by the bishop of Lichfield and Coventry,[70a]and burned at Lichfield April 11, 1612.[70b]
The celebrated Whiston became a Baptisttowards the close of his life, retaining nevertheless his Arian belief.
TheMoraviansare supposed to have derived their origin from Nicholas Lewis, Count Zinzendorf, a German nobleman, who died in 1760. The society however assert that they are descended from the old Moravian and Bohemian Brethren, who existed as a distinct sect sixty years prior to the Reformation. No sooner had these Moravian Brethren heard of Luther’s bold testimony to the truth, and of the success which attended his labours, than they sent in the year 1522 two deputies to assure him of “the deep interest which they took in his work;” giving him, at the same time, an account of their own doctrine and constitution. They were most kindly received; and both Luther, and his colleague Bucer, recognised the Moravians as holding the same faith; and bore honourable testimony to the purity of their doctrine, and the excellence of their discipline. The chief doctrine of the Moravian society is, that “by the sacrifice for sin made by Jesus Christ, and by that alone, grace and deliverance from sin are to be obtained for all mankind:” and they stedfastly maintain the following points:
1. The divinity of Christ.
2. The atonement and satisfaction made for us by Jesus Christ; and that by his merits alone we receive freely the forgiveness of sin, and sanctification in soul and body.
3. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and the operations of his grace. That it is he who worketh in us conviction of sin, faith in Christ, and pureness of heart.
4. That faith must evidence itself by willing obedience to the commandments of God from love and gratitude.
The internal constitution of the ancient church of the Moravians, which is still substantially adhered to, was originally adopted in 1457, and more definitely settled in 1616 by the Synod of Zerawitz. Its principal peculiarities are,
1. Every church is divided into three classes, i.e. 1.BeginnersorCatechumens. 2.The more advancedorcommunicants, who are considered as members of the church. 3.The perfect, consisting of such as have persevered for some time in a course of true piety. From this last class are chosen in every churchthe Elders, from three to eight in number.
2. Every congregation is directed by a board of elders, whose province it is to have a watchful eye over its members with respect to thedoctrine and deportment. Once in three months these elders are bound to visit the houses of the brethren, in order to observe their conduct, and to ascertain whether every one is labouring diligently in his calling, &c. of which they make a report to the pastor. They also are required to visit the sick, and assist the poorer brethren with money, contributed by the members of the church, and deposited in an alms box.
3. The ministration of the Word and Sacrament is performed either by members who have received ordination from the bishops of the church of the brethren, or by those who have received that of the Calvinist or Lutheran church. The deacons, according to the ancient constitution of the church, are the chief assistants of the pastors, and are considered as candidates for the ministry. The bishops, who are nominated by the ministers, appoint the pastors to their stations, and have the power of removing them when they think fit, and of ordaining the deacons as well as the ministers. Every bishop is appointed to superintend a certain number of churches, and has two or three co-bishops, who, if necessary, supply their place. The ancient church appointed some of its members to the business of watching over the civilaffairs of the congregation, under the name ofSeniores Civiles, who were ordained with imposition of hands. This office is still continued. The synods, which are held every three or four years, are composed of the bishops and their co-bishops the Seniores Civiles, and of “such servants of the church and of the congregation as are called to the synod by the former elders’ conference, appointed by the previous synod, or commissioned to attend it as deputies from particular congregations.” Several female elders also are usually present at the synods, but they have no vote. All the transactions of the synod are committed to writing, and communicated to the several congregations.
A liturgy, peculiar to the Brethren, is regularly used as a part of the morning service on the Sabbath; on other occasions the minister offers extempore prayer. The singing of hymns is considered as an essential part of worship, and many of their services consist entirely of singing. At the baptism of children, both the witnesses and the minister bless the infant, with laying on of hands immediately after the rite. The Lord’s Supper is celebrated every month: love feasts are frequently held, i.e. the members eat and drink together in fellowship: cakes andtea are distributed during the singing of some verses by the congregation. The washing of feet is practised at present only at certain seasons by the whole congregation, and on some other occasions in the choirs. Dying persons are blessed for their departure by the elders, during prayer and singing a verse with imposition of hands. At funerals, the pastor accompanies the corpse to the burial place with the singing of hymns; and an address is delivered at the grave. Marriages are, by general agreement, never contracted without the advice and concurrence of the elders.[75a]The casting of lots is used among them to know, as they express it, “The will of the Lord.”[75b]
With regard to discipline, “the Church of the Brethren have agreed upon certain rules and orders. These are laid before every one, thatdesires to become a member of the church, for his consideration. Whoever after having voluntarily agreed to them, does not act conformably, falls under congregation discipline.” This has various degrees, and consists in admonitions, warnings, and reproofs, continued until genuine repentance and a real conversion become evident in the offender, when he is readmitted to the holy communion, or reconciled to the congregation, after a deprecatory letter has been read, expressing the offender’s sorrow for his transgression, and asking forgiveness. The Brethren assert that the church government in the established Protestant churches “does not apply to the congregations of the Brethren, because they never were intended to form a national establishment: for their design is no other than to be a true and living congregation of Jesus Christ, and to build up each other as a spiritual house of God, to the end that the kingdom of Jesus Christ may be furthered by them.” Hence the doctrine of Jesus and his Apostles, and the order and practice of the Apostolic churches, are the models by which they wish to be formed. It may be added, that they are generally the most successful Missionaries, and that their society seems the most nearly to realizethe practice of the early Christians, of any sect now remaining.
TheSwedenborgianstake their name from Emmanuel Swedenborg, who was born at Stockholm in 1683. His father was Jasper Swedberg, bishop of West Gothland. He received his education chiefly in the University of Upsala; and in 1716 was appointed by Charles XII. Assessor of the Royal College of Sciences; he was ennobled by Queen Ulrica Eleonora, and received the name of Swedenborg. He published scientific works on various subjects, but in 1747 he resigned his office, in order, as he himself states, that he might be more at liberty to attend to that new function which he considered himself called to, and the rest of his life was spent in composing and publishing the voluminous works which contain his peculiar doctrines. He died in 1772. He was a man of blameless life and amiable deportment, and was distinguished for his attainments in mathematics and mechanics.
His writings are so very obscure, that it is difficult to state what are the opinions contained in them; he taught, however, that by the New Jerusalem which came down from heaven, wasintended a new church as to doctrine, and that he was the person to whom this doctrine was revealed, and who was appointed to make it known to the world. Swedenborg made no attempt to found a sect; but after his death, his followers, in 1788, formed themselves into a society under the denomination of “The New Jerusalem Church.” They have several places of meeting, both in London and Manchester, and send delegates to a “General Conference,” under whose direction a liturgy has been prepared, from which I shall make a few extracts to shew the peculiar doctrines of this sect.
The following are some of the questions asked of the candidate for ordination, which is performed by imposition of hands, of course of a minister of their own communion.
“Min.Dost thou believe that Jehovah God is One both in Essence and in Person; in whom, nevertheless, is the Divine Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and that these are, his Essential Divinity, his Divine Humanity, and his Divine Proceeding, which are the three Essentials of One God, answering to the soul, the body, and the operative energy, in man, and that the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is that God?
Dost thou believe that by his temptations,the last of which was the passion of the cross, the Lord united, in his Humanity, Divine Truth to Divine Good, or Divine Wisdom to Divine Love, and so returned into his Divinity in which he was from eternity, together with, and in, his Glorified Humanity?
Dost thou believe that the sacred Scripture, or Word of God, is Divine Truth itself, and that it contains a spiritual and celestial sense, heretofore unknown, whence it is divinely inspired and holy in every syllable; as well as a literal sense, which is the basis and support of its spiritual and celestial sense?
Dost thou believe that the books which have the internal sense and are truly the Word of God are,—the five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, the two books of Samuel, the two books of Kings, the Psalms of David, the prophets, including the Lamentations of Jeremiah, the four Gospels, and the Revelation?”[79]
It is further stated in their eleventh article of faith, “That immediately after death, which is only a putting off of the material body, never to be resumed, man rises again in a spiritual orsubstantial body, in which he continues to live to eternity.”
On these doctrines it may be observed that the forms of worship founded on them are not such as Christ and his apostles ordered. The doxology is, “To Jesus Christ be glory and dominion for ever and ever;” the blessing, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.” The prayers are addressed to the “blessed Lord Jesus.” Whereas Christ, when he gave us a form of prayer, bade us address “our Father in heaven;” and bade us ask of the Father in his name; and the form of the apostolic doxology is, “To God only wise be glory through Jesus Christ for ever”;[80a]and the blessing, “Grace be unto you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”[80b]As at this time Christ had ascended from the earth, had the human nature been entirely merged in the Divine, as this sect asserts, Paul the Apostle would not have made this distinction, which implies that the Lord Jesus still existed somewhere in his human form as the everlasting visible temple of the Invisible father of all things, for “no man hath seen God atany time,” says the beloved Apostle,[81a]and this is confirmed by Christ himself.[81b]If the man then be lost in the Deity, it follows that the Lord Jesus exists no more for us. I am aware that this consequence is denied by the sect, but it is a self evident proposition: for their creed runs thus, “I believe in one God in whom is a Divine Trinity, &c., and that this God is the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who is Jehovah in a glorified human form.” Now a human form must have some properties of matter; it must be visible, and circumscribed, or it is not form; and what is circumscribed and visible cannot be God, who, of necessity, is uncircumscribed, and therefore invisible. The infinite Eternal Omnipotent Deitymustbe where that glorified body is not; therefore, the Great Father of all things must always be the object of worship, through Jesus Christ, who is thevisibleimage of his glory. Theformof baptism is retained by this sect, though they assert that the rite was “constantly administered by the Apostles in the name of Christ alone”; an assertion contradicted by the whole testimony of antiquity from the earliest times; adding, “nevertheless it iswell to use the express words of the Lord, when it is known and acknowledged in the church that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three separate persons but three Divine Essentials, constituting the single Divine Person of our Lord Jesus Christ.”[82]With regard to the “internal sense” of Scripture it is sufficient to observe that if “every syllable” were to be considered as inspired and holy, the long list of various readings would grievously shake our faith, though these are quite immaterial as to the general meaning.
There are serious objections to the distinctive tenets of this sect, yet, in justice to them, it must be allowed that the unguarded language of some preachers does so split up the Deity into separate individuals as to make the doctrine so taught a complete tritheism, and that a serious mind returning to the express declaration of the Scripture, that God is One, may be so far shocked by such unmeasured expressions, as to run into the extreme which I have condemned. Unitarianism on the one hand, and the doctrine of Swedenborg on the other, have equally sprung from a want of proper caution when speaking ofthe different manifestations of the Deity, and an unmeasured itch for the definition of things too far beyond the reach of our finite faculties to admit of any precision of terms.Wordswere formed for the things pertaining to earth; how then can they ever exactly express the nature of the Deity?
Notwithstanding the faith professed by this sect, their teaching, nevertheless, returns to the doctrine of the Gospel. In a tract “on the true meaning of the intercession of Jesus Christ,” published at Manchester by their own religious tract society, we have the following passage: “The Humanity named Jesus is the medium whereby man may come to God, because the Father,heretofore invisible, is manifested and madevisibleandapproachablein him. This is meant byour coming unto God by him;” and elsewhere, as we cannot obtain this “light of life” without following the Lord, and doing his will, as he did the will of the Father, agreeably to his own saying, “If ye keep my commandments, even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love;” so neither can we obtain that divine food by which our spiritual life is to be sustained, unless we labour for it, as the Lord himself instructed us when hesaid “Labour for the meat which endureth unto everlasting life”; and is it not of the greatest importance clearly to understand what this labour implies? Let the reader be assured that he must labour in that spiritual vineyard which the Lord desires to plant in his soul, in order that it may bear abundant fruits of righteousness to the glory of his heavenly father.”[84]Thus we see again that the fundamental doctrines of Christianitywillfind their way, however men may speculatively disclaim them. Why then do we differ outwardly, when at heart we agree?
ThePlymouth Brethren, so called probably from the place where this society first arose, do not allow themselves to be a sect, though in their practices they differ considerably from those of the Established Church. They meet together on the morning of the first day of the week to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, when any “Brother” is at liberty to speak for mutual edification. In the afternoon and evening, when they have preachers, the services are similar to those in the Congregational Churches (Independents):the desk, however, for they condemn pulpits, is not occupied by one man, but used as a convenient place for speaking, being alternately occupied by the “Brother,” who reads the hymn, the one who prays, and the one who teaches or preaches the Word. There are also “Meetings for Prayer,” and what are technically called “reading meetings;” when a chapter is read, and those “Brethren” who have made it matter of reflection, speak upon it clause by clause for their mutual instruction.
Before a person is acknowledged a “Brother,” his name is announced at one of the times of “meeting together to break bread,” as it is termed, and if nothing occurs in the interval, he takes his seat with them the next Sunday.[85]Any one is admitted to their communion whom they believe to be “a child of God;” but they do not receive or acknowledge him as a brother, “while in actual connection with any of the various forms of worldliness,” i.e. the other churches of Christ. Their preachers move about from place to place, forming different congregations, which they again leave for other places where their services are required. None of theirministers receive anystipulatedcharity. The “Brethren” disapprove of any association of Christians for any purpose whatever, whether civil or religious, and therefore discountenance all Sunday School, Bible, Missionary, or even purely Benevolent, Societies. They do not disapprove of sending either Bibles or Missionaries to the heathen; but they say that if they go at all, “God and not the church must send them.” They do not think that the Gospel is to convert the world, but that it is to be “preached as a witness to” or rather against “all nations.” The world, they say, “is reserved for judgment, and therefore it is wholly contrary to the character of a Christian to have any thing to do with it or its government.” When a child of God is born again, “he lays,” say they, “all his worldly relations down at the feet of Christ, and he is at liberty to take up none but those which he can take up in the Lord.” They neither pray for pardon of sin, nor for the presence and influence of the Spirit, and carefully exclude such petitions from their hymns. Many of them think it inconsistent with the Christian character to amass wealth, or to possess furniture or clothing more than isnecessaryfor health andcleanliness; and very great sacrifices have been made by the more wealthy of them.
These are most of them unimportant peculiarities; but the great feature of this sect, for so notwithstanding their protest, I must call these “Brethren,” is a degree of self approbation and uncharity for others, which, to say the least, is not what Christ taught. “No sect,” says Rust,[87a]“is more Sectarian, and none more separate from Christians of all denominations than “The Plymouth Brethren.” The Church of Rome they consider “bad.” The Church of England “bad.” “A popish priest and a parish priest, both bad;” “but infinitely worse,” says one of the Brethren (a Captain Hall), “is a people’s preacher.” They occasionally indulge in what they term “biting jests and sarcastic raillery,” of the ministers of our church, and of those who differ from them, which evince but little of the meek and peaceable spirit of the Gospel;[87b]for,as Lord Bacon has well observed, “to intermix Scripture with scurrility in one sentence;—the majesty of religion and the contempt and deformity of things ridiculous,—is a thing far from the reverence of a devout Christian, and hardly becoming the honest regard of a sober man.” If I have appeared to speak harshly of thissect, it is because they seem to me to have abandoned so much of the spirit of the Gospel. “If the tenets of the Plymouth Brethren be consistent with themselves,” observes Mr. Rust, “they necessarily withdraw them from all society, and every existing form of Christianity, shutting them out from all co-operation with the holy and benevolent, for the relief and blessing of their poor or sinful fellow creatures, making it sinful to fulfil the duties of a subject, a citizen, &c.” But I hope and believe that these tenets must be and are counteracted by the instinctive love of our kind, which for the benefit of the world God has implanted in man. The human race is so essentially social that they who endeavour to dissociate mankind, stand in much the same situation as he would do who should hope to dam up the ocean. It is in fact to these silent tendencies of human nature, whose force we never know till we attempt to check them, that we owe much of the innocuousness of false or overstrained opinions: the reason is deluded, but the feelings which the Creator has made a part of our very being, generally correct the false argument; and the man, if not previously corrupted by vice, acts right though he argues wrong.
I have already noticed that the sects into which the reformed churches are split, may be classified generally under two great divisions, the one adopting mainly the milder views of Melancthon, whose advice was much used in the reform of the Anglican church; the other following those of Calvin, which were chiefly carried out, at Geneva, the birthplace of that reformer, and among the Huguenots of France. It may be well, therefore, before we proceed to notice the particular sects which profess to combine in a greater or less degree the doctrines usually termed Calvinistic, to examine what the opinions are which pass under that name.[90]
It was at the Synod of Dort, which was assembled in the year 1618, that these opinions received a decided form; for James Arminius, professor of divinity in the University of Leyden, having rejected some part of the Genevan doctrine respecting predestination and grace, this synod was called in order to settle the disputed points. After much debate the opinions of Arminius were condemned, and the doctrine of Calvin was summed up in five points, which gave name to what has been called the Quinqueticular controversy between the Calvinistic and Anti-calvinistic divines of Holland. They related to,
1. Predestination or Election.
2. The extent of redemption.
3. Moral depravity and impotency.[91]
4. Effectual calling.
5. Final perseverance of the sanctified.
Calvinists are understood to maintain that predestination is absolute; redemption limited;moral impotency total; grace inevitable; and the salvation of the believer, certain. But among Calvinistic as among Arminian divines, there are many shades of difference indicated by the termshighCalvinist, andmoderateCalvinist,sublapsarian andsupralapsarian,scholasticCalvinism andpopularCalvinism; which latter has been described as “the Augustinian theology strained off from its mathematics.” These all differ so materially that Bishop Horsley found it necessary to admonish his clergy “to beware how they aimed their shaft at Calvinism before they knew what it is, and what it is not;” a great part of what ignorantly goes under that name, being “closely interwoven with the very rudiments of Christianity.” I believe, however, that though differences may subsist among Calvinists themselves, as to the explication of their doctrines, they generally allow,
1. That God has chosen a certain number in Christ, to everlasting glory before the foundation of the world, according to his immutable purpose, and of his free grace and love; without the least foresight of faith, good works, or any conditions performed by the creature; and that the rest of mankind he was pleased to pass by,and ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sins to the praise of his vindictive justice.
2. That Christ by his death and sufferings made an atonement only for the sins of the elect.[93a]
3. That mankind aretotallydepraved in consequence of the fall.
4. That all whom God has predestined to life, he is pleased in his appointed time effectually to call by his Word and Spirit out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ.
5. That those whom God has effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, shall never finally fall from a state of grace.
The prominent feature then, of the Calvinistic system,[93b]is the election of some, andreprobation of others from all eternity; but tothis we may answer, that if all mankind are really appointed to sin and punishment, holiness and salvation irrespectively to any act of their own, then they will be judged in exact opposition to our Saviour’s declaration, that he will reward every manaccording to his works:[95a]and again, that it is “not the will of ‘our’ Father which is in heaven that one of those little ones,” i.e. children, “should perish.”[95b]These declarations would, I think, sufficiently prove that St. Paul’s expressions on the subject relate to national, and not individual election, even had the Apostle himself left his meaning unexplained: for the servant is not greater than his master, and it is not possible that an inspired Apostle should preach a doctrine different from that of Him who commissioned him; but if I mistake not, he has himself taken especial care that his meaning on this important subject shouldnotbe misunderstood. For first, it is a notorious fact, though often overlooked in argument, that the very passage, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion,” which is the main support claimed for the doctrine ofabsolute decrees, is quoted from Exodus, and forms the assurance given by God himself to Moses, that He had separatedthe Hebrew nationfrom all the people on the face of the earth.[96a]Again St. Paul has asserted that God will render toeverymanaccording to his deeds, for there isno respect of personswith God.[96b]God will haveall mento be saved, &c. &c.
God forbid that we should consider that a man may not be a sincere Christian, who believes himself irrevocably called, “elect,” and inevitably secure of his salvation; or declare that a strict Calvinist cannot be attached to our church: but St. Paul teaches that “Christ died for all;” that grace instead of being irresistible may be received in vain; that those who have been once justified instead of beingsureof “final perseverance” and salvation,may“sin wilfully after they have received the knowledge of the truth,” and “draw back to perdition,” so that it behoves every one “who thinketh he standeth to take heed lest he fall.”[96c]
In regard to “irresistible” (special) “grace,” Scripture assures us that grace sufficient for salvation is denied to none; for St. Paul in every passage of the Epistles, which relates to grace, declares that the Spirit works in the souls ofall, enabling them, if they do not obstinately resist it, “to work out their salvation.” The following passage is taken from the work of a teacher of the doctrine of Special Grace. “The reign of sin consists not in the multitude, greatness or prevalency of sins, for all these are consistent with a state of grace, and may be in a child of God, in whom sin doth not and cannot reign; but in the in-being of sin without grace, whether it act more or less violently, yea, whether it acts at all or no: yet if the habit of sin possess the soul without any principle of grace implanted, which is contrary to it, that man may be said to be still under the dominion of sin. This mortification then of sin, as to its reigning power, is completed in the first act ofconversion and regeneration.”[98a]But this language is by no means that of St. Paul: for the writer makes grace the test of holiness; whereas the apostle, following therein the doctrine of his master,—“by their fruits ye shall know them,”—makes holiness the test of grace. Indeed the obscurity and perplexing nature of the doctrine above quoted, stands in no favourable contrast with the simple and clear declaration of the Saviour, that we “do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles,”—and that therefore the heart must be known by the words and actions: and the no less decided and simple exposition of the doctrine of Christ, by the beloved disciple, “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous . . . he that committeth sin is of the devil. Whosoever is born of Goddoth not commit sin. . . whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.”[98b]
The doctrine of thetotaldepravity of human nature, it appears to me, cannot be proved fromScripture any more than the two former. St. John, whilst asserting that no man is wholly without sin, exhorts to efforts, and supposes a possible state of Christian perfection in his converts, wholly incompatible with a state of entire corruption: and St. Paul, though he clearly states that sin has brought all men under condemnation, and that the unspirituality of the flesh can only be successfully opposed by the influence of the Holy Spirit, does not declare the consequences of the Fall in terms such as we find in the Calvinistic writers—as “Man, instead of the image of God, was now become the image of the Devil; instead of the citizen of heaven, he was become the bond-slave of hell, having in himself no one part of his former purity, but being altogether spotted and defiled—now he seemed to be nothing else but a lump of sin.” And again: “Man is of his own nature fleshly and corrupt, &c. without any spark of goodness in him; only given to evil thoughts and evil deeds.” Even human nature, if closely examined, does not bear testimony to this as truth: for either the grace of God is accorded in such large measure to man from his birth, that none can be considered as wholly bad; or the utter corruption preached by Calvin doesnot exist. All experience may be appealed to on this point, even that of the persons who use the above language; for if they search their own hearts in sincerity, they will become conscious of amiable affections, and admiration of what is good and right: neither, probably, are they guilty of any such gross and habitual sins, as must mark a nature so wholly depraved. The Calvinist therefore can only use these strong phrases with certain grains of allowance: and he would be wiser if he were to avoid offending his—if he prefer so to call him—weaker brother, by technical terms which he himself cannot use in theirfull forcebefore the Searcher of hearts.
When the preaching of Luther and his coadjutors had effectually called men’s attention to the affairs of the church, it was natural that questions with regard to its government no less than its doctrine, should be freely mooted. The usurpations of Rome had a tendency to disgust the Reformers with episcopal government, and accordingly we find both Calvin and Luther establishing a more republican form; and instead of giving the ecclesiastical power into the hands of one man, they judged it proper to delegate it to the elders (presbyters) of each church respectively; subject only to the control of the majority of a general synod. Such was the origin of what we now term Presbyterians as a sect: for inEnglandmore moderate councils, and the circumstance that the reformed tenets were embraced by many of the bishops, led to retaining the Episcopal form of church government. InScotland, after a struggle, the Presbyterianform was finally established, and the church or kirk of that part of Great Britain is regulated upon that system. A secession has lately taken place on the question of the right of presentation to livings, but thedoctrinetaught in both is nearly similar, i.e. that of the Calvinistic churches.
The General Synod of Ulster (originally a branch of the established kirk of Scotland), is the principal body of Presbyterians considered as dissenters from the establishment: and there also, there is a Presbyterian Synod, or Church of “the Apostolic Seceders,” formed by seceders from the General Synod, which is thoroughly Calvinistic, and which maintains the same discipline that is usually observed among the seceding “Scottish Presbyterians.” In the reign of Geo. I. Arianism[102]was openly embraced by some of the more speculative of the Presbyterian ministersin Ireland, and in consequence, a theological controversy was carried on for twenty years (from 1705 to 1725), which ended in the secession of eight Arian ministers, and the formation of the Presbytery of Antrim. Some who were secretly inclined to Arianism had not the courage to follow the example of the eight seceders, and the leaven continued to spread among the general body during the latter part of the eighteenth century, till at length inquiries were instituted in the Synod, which led to a fresh separation. Seventeen at length seceded out of thirty-seven ministers, holding Arian or Socinian tenets in the year 1830, and they subsequently formed themselves into a distinct Synod, under the name of “the Remonstrant Synod of Ulster,” and the Presbytery of Antrim has now become incorporated with this Synod. These Arian congregations are chiefly situated in the counties of Antrim and Down, in the north and eastern part of the province. There are ten or twelve congregations in the south of Ireland forming the Synod of Munster, which were also, till within a few years, Arian or Socinian. The total number of Remonstrant and Socinian congregations is between thirty and forty.Allthe Presbyterian bodies,—Orthodox and Arian, sharein the Government grants known under the name of “Regium Donum.” This royal bounty was originally dispensed among the Presbyterian clergy of Ulster in lieu of the tithes which were taken from them at the Restoration, and bestowed upon the Episcopal conformists. It was withdrawn towards the close of the reign of Charles II.; but at the Revolution, letters patent passed the great seal of Ireland, granting £1200 per annum to seven Presbyterian ministers, during pleasure, for the use of the ministers of the north of Ireland, to be paid quarterly out of any of the revenues of the kingdom. This grant was renewed, under certain limitations, in the reign of Queen Anne: and in the reign of Geo. I. £800 per annum was divided in equal shares between the ministers of the Ulster Synod and those of the Southern Association. In 1784 an additional grant was made to the Ulster Synod of £1000 per annum. In 1792 the grant was augmented to £5000 to be divided among the ministers of the Synod,—the Presbytery of Antrim,—the Seceders,—the Southern Association,—and the ministers of the French church, Dublin. In 1803 some fresh regulations were made, by which the distribution of the bounty wastaken immediately into the hands of Government, and the Presbyterian clergy were thus rendered more ostensibly what they had previously been only in effect, i.e., stipendiaries of the state. The congregations under the care of the several Synods and Presbyteries are now arranged in three classes according to the number of families and the stipend of each minister; and the allowance to the ministers of the three classes was fixed at £50, £75, and £100 per annum. The members of the congregation feel under no obligation to contribute much, if anything, to their pastor’s support, who is therefore often compelled to have recourse to farming, grazing, or some other secular employment, for the support of his family.
“In 1834 the ascendant party in the Synod succeeded in carrying a resolution enforcing unqualified subscription to the “Confession of Faith,” which had not previously been enforced. The ostensible motive for this is a desire to bring about a closer union with the Established Church of Scotland. The Irish Synod being now so far connected with the state as to form a species of ecclesiastical establishment, a feeling has been generated in favour of the establishedchurch of both countries: a strong protest, however has been made against the decision, but without avail.”[106]
The increase of the Presbyterians in Ireland from whatever cause has borne no due proportion to that of the general population.
“Presbyterianism received as a scheme of policy, though admirably adapted to the exigencies of the times in which it originated, partakes of the essential defectiveness of the incipient reformation of the sixteenth century, embodying these erroneous principles which were adopted by the founders of most of the Protestant churches, and which soon proved not less fatal to the cause of scriptural truth than to the internal peace of the Christian communities.”
The first Presbyterian church was founded in Geneva by John Calvin, abouta.d.1541, and the system afterwards introduced into Scotland, with modifications by John Knox, about the year 1560, but notlegallyestablished there till1592. It has never flourished greatly in England, and the Unitarian doctrine has now been almost universally received among the quondam Presbyterian congregations.
Thetheoryof discipline in theScottish Churchdoes not differ very widely from that of the English episcopacy, but thepracticeof the two churches, as modified by the habits of the two nations, is totally different. In order to reconcile the Anglican and Scottish confessions of faith, it would be requisite that the Church of England should consent to suppress Articles III. VII. XXXV. and XXXVI. also that part of Art. VI. which sanctions the public reading of the Apocrypha, and the first clause of Art. XX, attributing to the church a power to decree rites and ceremonies, as well as authority in controversies of faith. Agreeing, as the English and Scottish Churches dosubstantiallyin the doctrines of the Protestant faith, they nevertheless differ widely,
1. As to the nature of holy orders and the power of ordination.
2. As to the hierarchical constitution of the Anglican Church.
3. As to matters of ritual, especially the use of liturgies which the Church of Scotland rejects.
4. As to the doctrines of sacramental grace and sacerdotal absolution, implied in the offices of the Anglican Church.
5. As to the whole system of discipline, Ecclesiastical Courts, &c.
6. As to certain points of Calvinistic theology.