Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

THE

CONGREGATIONAL

No. 11. N. S.]

ON

[blocks in formation]

ORIGINAL ESSAYS, COMMUNICATIONS, &c.

་་་་་་...

THE UNION FORMED BETWEEN PRESBYTERIANS AND

INDEPENDENTS TOWARDS THE OF THE SEVENTEENTH

END CENTURY.

(To the Editors.) GENTLEMEN,-It has occasioned much perplexity, I doubt not, to many others, as well as to myself, in studying the history of Dissenters, that, during a long period, there is no line of separation to be perceived between the two denominations of Presbyterians and Independents. From the time of the revolution until late in the last century, it is exceedingly difficult, and frequently quite impossible, to determine to which of these denominations many dissenting ministers belonged. The same remark is applicable to the meeting-houses of Dissenters, concerning many of which, erected during the period referred to, it would be difficult to pronounce whether they were originally Presbyterian or Independent. In fact, it does not appear that they were ever distinctly either the one or the other.

It is somewhat remarkable that the cause of this state of things, is so little understood, especially as it is not among the recondite or doubtful matters of history. This promiscuous intermixture of the two bodies in question, was occasioned by a formal union which took place between them, towards the end of the seventeenth century. This union was entered into very soon after the revolution of 1688, NEW SERIES, No. 11.

by the leading ministers and congregations of the two denominations in London, and was recommended by them to the Dissenters throughout the kingdom. How far the measure was adopted in every part of the country it would be now difficult to trace out; we know, however, that, in the West of England, Mr. Flavel exerted himself, with great success, in promoting its object, his efforts for its advancement having been some of the last acts of his exemplary life. In Cheshire, too, as appears from Tong's Life of Henry, the plan succeeded, and associations of ministers were held, which, he says, "took their rise from that agreement between the ministers of the Presbyterian and Congregational way, that was concluded and published in London, and recommended to all parts of the nation."

A few remas on the nature and results of an event so important in its consequences to the body of Dissenters, will not, I trust, be unacceptable to your readers.

The Heads of Agreement," or platform, according to which this union was founded, supply very fully the means of understanding its nature and object. This important document is inserted at length in Bogue and Bennett's History of Dissenters, vol. ii. p. 130, &c. Many particulars respecting the union may also be found in the three last volumes of the miscellaneous works of Dr. Daniel Williams,

4 C

who was mainly instrumental in the Church of England, or the Confession, or Catechism, shorter, or larger, compiled by the Assembly at Westminster, or the Confession agreed on at the Savoy, to be agreeable to the said rule." Probably this was the origin of a clause found in many deeds of trust relating to the public property of the dissenting body, in which it is stated, that the docrine intended to be maintained, is such as accords with the Assembly's Catechism, or with the doctrinal Articles of the Church of England.

its promotion and accomplishment. From these sources it is evident, that the object intended was not a mere truce between the parties, nor an occasional intercourse expressive of good-will, but such an union as was designed entirely to break down the separation between the two denominations, and to render them, in fact, one body of people. That such was really the end proposed, is evident from various particulars.

For instance, the "Heads of Agreement" contain such passages as the following: "We judge it our duty to bear a christian respect to fellow Christians, according to their several ranks and stations, that are not of our persuasion or communion." Here the people united are described as one "persuasion or communion." Again, the "Heads of Agreement" are introduced in this manner: "The following heads of agreement have been resolved upon by the united ministers in and about London, formerly called Presbyterian and Congregational." From this, it is plain, that it was intended to merge the names by which the two denominations were "formerly called," in some one distinction common to both; and hence the more general name of "Protestant Dissenter," much used after this time, seems to have had its rise.

66

Among other means of union, "the united ministers" appear to have considered unity of doctrine necessary, at least in the capital and leading tenets of religion; and hence they insert in their agreement" an article which is thus expressed: "As to what appertains to soundness of judgment in matters of faith, we esteem it sufficient, that a church acknowledge the Scriptures to be the word of God, the perfect and only rule of faith and practice, and own either the doctrinal parts of those commonly called the Articles of

From these passages the character of the religious tenets embraced by the Dissenters of that time, is sufficiently apparent; but an event shortly occurred which had the effect of sifting this matter still farther, and of eliciting from them yet more precise statements of doctrinal sentiment. I allude to the controversy occasioned by the republication of Dr. Crisp's sermons. It is well known that much violence of temper and language occurred among the combatants in that contest. In the heat of discussion the two parties dubbed each other Antinomians and Arminians, and some one so far outheroded Herod as to call Dr. D. Williams, to his utter astonishment, a Socinian. Although the Socinianism of those days was but the half-way house to modern Unitarianism, yet Dr. W. took the imputation of it to himself and his works so extremely ill, that he appealed to Bishop Stillingfleet and Dr. John Edwards, who were eminent writers against the Socinians, and who both acquitted him of the charge, with great commendation of his writings. This controversy sorely threatened the union which had been recently formed, but it had not the effect to dissolve it. The parties were, by and by, tired of contention, and Dr. W. closed the whole, in 1699, with a pamphlet bearing this remarkable title:

"An End to Discord:

wherein is demonstrated, that no doctrinal controversy remains between the Presbyterian and Congregational ministers, fit to justify longer divisions. With a true account of Socinianism as to the satisfaction of Christ."

or

In the state of things in which the Dissenters lived, it would doubtless be found a more easy thing, to agree among themselves, upon terms of unity in doctrine, than in reference to matter of church government; and hence several particulars relating to discipline are left undetermined by them, as matters of indifference, which, they say, "shall not be any occasion of contention difference among us." Upon the whole, their heads of agreement" present rather an odd mixture of Presbyterianism and Independency; but the judicious reader will perhaps perceive that the latter system preponderates. Many of the signs of the times might probably render the Dissenters of that day more indifferent than formerly to Presbyterianism, as a system of church government.

If any of your readers should be either Presbyterians or Independents of such strictness as to start with surprise at so comprehensive a measure as the union now detailed, I must beg leave to remind them, that I am merely relating historical facts, and not deciding upon the wisdom or scriptural consistency which appears in them. Among Dissenters of the present day, few persons could perhaps be found who could adopt the "heads of agreement," without considerable limitations. But the end proposed by these excellent nonconformists, is greatly to be admired, however doubtful the means of accomplishing it might be. Much practical wisdom has been acquired, in the course of near a century and a half which have -elapsed since their day, and Pres

byterianism and Independency, as to their tendencies, are now much better understood. The fact, however, that such an agreement between the two denominations did take place, is indisputable; it is equally true, that this agreement has never been dissolved in the formal manner in which it commenced; and it is not less certain, that consequences of the utmost importance have resulted from it to the body of Dissenters at large.

From the time of this coalition, Presbyterianism has scarcely existed, as an organized system, in English Dissenting congregations. A detached and lifeless member of it might be found here and there, but the complete body, in an active state, was no where to be recognized. The other system, on the contrary, prevailed so greatly, that, in forty years after the union, (A.D. 1735,) Daniel Neal, (than whom no one was better acquainted with the state of Dissenters,) says, of the principles of Independency, "I may venture to declare, that these are the sentiments of almost all the Protestant nonconformists in England at this day." In forty years more, (A. D. 1777,) Job Orton, an equally competent judge, says, "We are all Independents in the country, and have no distinguishing names, except Baptists.' fact, to plant Presbyterianism in English soil, which had never been found favourable to its growth, was no longer attempted. The admission of that system at first, to the south of the Tweed, was rather owing to political than to religious causes. It was the condition upon which the aid of the Scotch people was granted to the English parliament and nation, in their struggle with Charles; and, from the first, the price of this important interference was paid with such tardy reluctance, that remonstrances from the north were

In

frequent and loud. No wonder, therefore, that the system should disappear with the necessity by which it was first introduced.

The history of this union also serves to explain the true cause of that unconcern which prevailed at the beginning of the last century, and at the close of the preceding one, respecting points in which Presbyterians and Independents differ. Controversy, on these subjects, scarcely ever occurred; the same academies trained up ministers for all the dissenting churches; and the trust-deeds of chapels, and other public property of the nonconformists, were expressed in the most general terms. Minor questions of discipline were compromised, while the Dissenters made it their concern, by the light of Gospel truth, to steer clear of the opposite rocks of Antinomianism and Arminianism, but, most of all, to avoid the whirlpool of Socinianism.

The name Presbyterian, it is true, has survived the thing to which it was first and properly applied. Having no longer any consistent meaning among English Dissenters, it has been exposed to all the vagaries which caprice or convenience have dictated. About the year 1718, Antitrinitarianism began to prevail in some dissenting churches, and by degrees produced a people more unlike the old Presbyterians, than any other professing Christians which can be mentioned. To this new sect, however, the name Presbyterian was, for a considerable time, applied; but the impropriety of the application has occurred so forcibly to themselves, that, for a number of years past, it has been little used by them, and, on some occasions, they have even openly disclaimed it. Probably this might, before the present time, have been universally the case, but for the difficulty of finding an appropriate name for

a people whose genus and species are yet undetermined. The term Presbyterian, however, had nearly been consigned to oblivion by English Nonconformists, but events have recently occurred, which have caused it to be recalled, with injudicious haste, from the shades in which it was almost completely enveloped.

I remain, Gentlemen,
Yours truly,

POPLICOLA.

THE WELSH COTTAGER. No. I.

(To the Editors.)

A

GENTLEMEN,-It will be remembered, that when the late Dr. Horsley was elevated to the See of St. David's, the religious world was too soon made acquainted with his Lordship's imperious character and high-church principles. These he took an opportunity of fully disclosing at a visitation, when he laid down directions which were to ruin for ever the Dissenting cause;" or, at any rate, reduce it to such a forlorn state, that "the Dissenter in his conventicle should preach to bare walls, and the field-preacher bellow to the empty air." His scornful, contemptuous, and illiberal treatment of Dissenters on that occasion, gave rise to a well-written and spirited pamphlet, under the title of "A Letter to the Right Reverend Samuel, Lord Bishop of St. David's, on the Charge he lately delivered to the Clergy of his Diocese, by a Welsh Freeholder." fair opportunity was thus afforded for one of the clergy to stand up in defence of his Diocesan, which was done in a " Letter" of a truly Quixotic description, teeming with abuse, and bearing every mark of party spirit and unchristian feeling. This was soon followed by "The Welsh Freeholder's Vindication of his Letter to the Bishop of St. David's, in Reply to a Letter from a Clergyman of that Diocese; together with Strictures on on the said Letter.' In this pamphlet, the Freeholder declared himself declared himself an enemy to all doctrines, professed by Churchmen or Dissenters, which wise and enlightened men have proved to be contradictory to reason.' In short, the Freeholder had embraced what he was pleased to call "rational Christianity," and not only wrote in defence of nonconformity, but of certain points adverted to in the " fierce contro

[ocr errors]

versy" between his Lordship and Dr. Priestley. The different pamphlets pub

lished at the time, very deeply interested the mind of the late Rev. Benjamin Evans, of Trewen, whose memoir appeared in the sixth volume of your esteemed Magazine. Among his numerous manuscripts, which

have been transmitted to me, is one occa

sioned by the above controversy, entitled "Remarks on a Dispute between a Clergyman and a Welsh Freeholder, by a Welsh Cottager of the same Diocese." As this appears to me not unsuitable for the pages of the Congregational Magazine, I have resolved to offer it for insertion, in sepa

rate portions, under the title assumed by

its venerable author. Haverfordwest.

J. B.

WHEN a cottager undertakes to write remarks on what he reads or hears, no man of understanding will expect from him either elegance of style, traits of learning, or much fruit of genius. All that comes from his pen, must bear the marks of home, like the coarse hangings of his dwelling. Nor can he be supposed to write for the use of men of letters, but merely for the benefit of his own class.

We cottagers, consigned to poverty and obscurity, think ourselves highly honoured, when any of the Literati deign to visit our humble habitations. We haste to meet even their approaching shadows. When they speak, we are all attention, and, for the moment, forget the spade and the shovel. We gaze, with pleasing rapture, on the astronomer's lofty flight; and listen, with double reverence, to the language of the investigating philosopher.

We

regard these sons of science as far superior to the heroes and demigods of ancient times. We relate, with delight, whatever we can learn at the feet of these Gamaliels, and rejoice in our little fund of second-hand knowledge. But when, in treating of religious subjects, these geniuses attempt to wrest from our hands the key of divine knowledge, by subjecting Revelation to the light of reason, we begin to suspect them for designing men. When they would

put out our eyes, that they may divert themselves by leading us into a new track, we infer that they are Philistines; we quit our slumbers, and break their fascinating cords asunder.

Humble as the station of cottagers is, they have one privilege, in matters of religion, which places them on a level with freeholders, that is, the unalienable right of philosophers, and dignitaries; and judging for themselves, what is truth, and what is the unerring standard of it. We reverence the Bible, as containing the dictates of divine inspiration, superior in authority and certainty to all philosophy. We believe that its penmen, under a divine direction, have used the most proper expressions to convey ideas of truth; that they in no instance imposed upon mankind, by using words without correspondent ideas; and that the great Supreme demands our assent to the doctrines they have delivered, as well as our consent to the precepts they have imposed. The Bible, then, is our standard of moral and religious truth.

We find, however, that learned men are at variance about this standard. Some advert to tradition, and to the sanction of ecclesiastical and civil authority, as if the Bible were not sufficient without these aids. In this class, we find Popes, and various ecclesiastics, as far as their interests will admit, uniting with them. Others, with equal zeal, cry up reason, and invite all men to her more than royal ensign. Here we find Deists, Socinians, and Arians, ranging, themselves with great parade. All agree to idolize Reason, at all events, though in some points unhappily disagreeing,

each party, in each succeeding age, continually shifting their ground, and changing the dress of their sublime goddess with almost every new moon. We e are

« AnteriorContinuar »