"that Lady Hewley before and at the time of her death, which happened in and about the year 1710,.... was a Dissenter from the Established Church, of the Presbyterian, or Congregational order, but of which cannot be precisely ascertained."* Of not less ambiguous import was the evidence given by Dr. John Pye Smith, in support of the "Counter Statement" to which I have referred. In an affidavit, sworn on the 18th of April, 1836, the learned Doctor declared his utter inability to specify to which of the two denominations Lady Hewley belonged. I rejoice, therefore, that the historical inquiries of " Verus" have at length enabled him to arrive at a different result: and now that he has given me the satisfaction to know, that all doubt as to the specific persuasion to which her ladyship adhered has been happily removed from his own mind, allow me to hope that his candid acknowledgment of the truth may not be lost upon the Congregational litigants, whom the orthodox Presbyterian petitioners in this suit had in vain laboured to enlighten. 2. Again, "Verus" "freely admits that Dr. Calamy's testimony in 1717, produced by Mr. Hunter, is true, that he (namely, Calamy) and his brethren generally agreed to the Confession of Faith, and Larger and Smaller Catechisms, compiled by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster." In frankly making this acknowledgment, "Verus" concedes one of the principal points for which his Presbyterian opponents had strenuously contended. My object was, to corroborate the statement of the two classes of Presbyterian petitioners, that "the standards of the Westminster Assembly of Divines were the standards of the English Presbyterians" of the Hewley era; to show that this wellauthenticated fact was not at all contingent upon his allegation, “that we said so," without sufficient evidence; but that it was fully borne out by proofs, which could not be successfully resisted. And if in this instance, also, he has happily yielded to the force of conviction, the field of controversy between him and his Presbyterian antagonists, is thereby brought within a more contracted and manageable compass. 3. Nor does "Verus" deny that the Westminster Confessions and Catechisms, to which Calamy and his brethren "generally agreed," are the Confession and Catechism to which the two classes of Presbyterian petitioners assent. But while he freely admits, that the "doctrines of the original standards" of English Presbyterianism are ours, he continues to question our right to interfere with the Hewley Trust, because we adhere to these venerable formularies more faithfully than * Third Act of the Controversy pending in the High Court of Chancery, p. 62. + The Doctor's words are,-"that in his judgment and belief Lady Hewley.... was a Dissenter from the Established Church, of the Presbyterian, or Congregational order, but of which cannot be precisely ascertained." Third Act, p. 71. See the Article of "Verus" in the Congregational Magazine for January. he alleges was the case with some of our Presbyterian predecessors. No unprejudiced individual, however, can discover the slightest shadow of a disqualification in this strange objection. The orthodoxy of the Westminster standards upon the several important points, pronounced by Lord Lyndhurst, in his judgment against the late Unitarian Trustees, to be essential in the future administrators of the charity, cannot be impugned. And those who, like the Presbyterian claimants, have adopted these standards as expressive of the sense in which they understand the Scriptures, and have proved the sincerity of their assent by their subsequent subscription, are, doubtless, far more worthy of trust than those modern Congregationalists, whose conscientious scruples lead them to repudiate all creeds and confessions as human inventions and unscriptural restraints. 4. Once more, "Verus” acknowledges that the word “audacious,” which he applied to the claims of the two Presbyterian classes, was an offensive mode of expression. About this, candid and reflecting men among our Independent brethren can entertain no difference of opinion. But, when he adds that the word "modest might, perhaps, have more happily expressed his meaning," I might have been induced to put upon the substituted vocable a charitable construction; I might, in Christian simplicity, have at once attached to it the commendatory qualification which it is usually employed to convey, did I not find him, in every paragraph of the article referred to, opposing our claims of admission to the Trust with undiminished boldness, and treating them as one who really considers them as the reverse of unassuming. Having thus adverted to a few points, wherein I was glad to discover an approximation to my views, I now proceed to execute a less agreeable and grateful task. Such of your readers as take an interest in the Hewley controversy will recollect, that "the Secession ministers," who represent one of the Presbyterian parties in the suit, were accused of attempting to strengthen their argument, "by misquoting a passage from Calamy's Abridgment of the Life of Baxter." So far as I can infer from a subsequent reiteration of the charge, "Verus" appears to be dissatisfied with my plain and simple explanation. Had my Congregational friend exercised a little more candour, he would have found no difficulty in arriving at a different result. He would at once have concluded, that "the Secession ministers" could have no conceivable motive to ascribe to the Presbyterian Nonconformist historian other language than his own; and that, if there was any mistake in the transcription of their original affidavit, rather than in its unauthorized publication by the anonymous editor of "The Third Act," the mistake must have arisen out of circumstances, of which, after the lapse of seven years, we could not be presumed to have a distinct recollection. But be this as it may, I confidently maintain that the substance of the statement attributed to Calamy, has not in reality been misrepresented. We are accused of stating, on the alleged authority of the 184th page of his Abridgment, that "nearly two thousand ministers suffered themselves to be ejected, rather than invalidate their Presbyterian ordination." Now, on turning to the identical page referred to, I find it stated in terms of precisely similar purport, that "two thousand at once had their mouths stopped, and were doomed to silence, they did not throw themselves out of service, but were forcibly ejected." * Nor is this all in the paragraph immediately preceding, I find this very historian, not only specifying the particular denomination to which the sufferers belonged, but also mentioning the reason why they nobly preferred the loss of their ecclesiastical temporalities, rather than part with their Presbyterian consistency; that, in short, "those called Presbyterians must be forced to do that which they accounted public perjury, or be cast out of trust and office in (the) church." From all this, your readers will be at no loss to discover on what a slender basis the charge of misquotation rests. They cannot do otherwise than conclude, that with such irresistible proofs as the venerable biographer of Baxter had furnished for the confirmation of our argument, we could have no inducement whatever to depart from a rigid adherence to verbal fidelity, or recklessly to hazard our reputation for accuracy, by substituting our own phraseology for his. Nor does the truth of another of our statements admit of a doubt, that, after the downfall of Episcopacy, Presbytery was established in England. Neal expressly states, that on "June 6th, 1646, the Presbyterian form of church government became the National Establishment by way of probation, as far as an Ordinance of Parliament could make it; for the preamble sets forth, that if, upon trial, it was not found acceptable, it should be reversed or amended. It declares, further, that the two houses found it very difficult to make their new settlement agree with the laws and government of the kingdom; that it could not be expected that a present rule in every particular could be settled at once, but that there will be need of supplements and additions, and perhaps alterations, as experience shall bring to light the necessity thereof."+ Two Independent historians-Bogue and Bennett-assure us, that "Episcopacy was abolished, an Assembly of Divines was called to meet at Westminster, by whom was framed a Directory for Worship, which superseded the Prayer-Book; and the Scotch army being called to the assistance of the parliament, Presbytery was established." And a more recent Independent writer of patient research and great respectability, the Rev. Dr. Vaughan, in his "Account of Religious Parties in England,” Calamy's Abridgment of the Life of Baxter, Edition of 1713, p. 184. + Neal's History of the Puritans, Toulmin's Edition, 1822, vol. iii. p. 250, 251. History of Dissenters, by David Bogue and James Bennett, 1808, vol. i. p. 84. N. S. VOL. VII. 3 н informs us, in language equally explicit, that "Presbyterianism was the established religion." "'* Surely, after such an unequivocal array of testimony to the truth of our affirmations, by his own denominational friends, I may safely leave "Verus" to settle the matter at issue with those whose historical impartiality he may have no inclination to dispute. Before leaving this subject, I cannot avoid expressing my surprise, that "Verus" should have attempted to controvert such a well authenticated historical fact. That Presbytery was received unto alliance with the state, is not at all contradicted by the circumstance, that a few who afterwards embraced the peculiarities of Congregationalism, submitted to conform to the new ecclesiastical regime. Of this number was the celebrated Doctor John Owen, in reference to whom, Orme, his biographer, informs us, that "by accepting the living of Fordham, Owen formally connected himself with the Presbyterian body."+ I cannot conceive, indeed, how any conscientious Congregational minister could really avail himself of the secular endowments provided by the state. No Congregationalist could do so, in accordance with his principles, if the representations of a modern Independent historian, on whose judgment "Verus" seems to place unbounded reliance, be correct; for, "the renunciation," says Orme, "of all dependence on civil authority in matters of religion, and of all connexion with temporal government, forms an essential part of consistent Independency." Nor, after the Restoration of 1660, could any honest Independent have acquiesced in the adoption of Archbishop Usher's scheme, to which many of the most distinguished of the Presbyterian ministers declared their readiness to submit. For, unless Mr. Orme have somewhat misrepresented the characteristics of English Independency-" to withdraw from national churches, protest against authoritative synods, and refuse subscriptions to human creeds,"§-formed part and parcel of the system of the old Congregationalists: and if so, I may without presumption indulge the hope, that "Verus" will at length concur with me in thinking that a scheme which, according to Calamy, was, in its distinguishing details, "answerable" to the Presbyterian polity prevalent in Scotland,|| must have been utterly abhorrent to their views, as Independents. Without particularly adverting to the history of the rival sects, during the dreary and troublesome period which preceded the Revolution of 1688, I proceed to make a few remarks upon an expedient which was resorted to, soon after the passing of the Toleration Act, to regard each other with less suspicion. With this praiseworthy object, certain "Heads of Agreement," as they were called, were adopted in * Vaughan's Religious Parties, &c., p. 72. + Memoirs of the Life of John Owen, D.D., by William Orme, p. 38. § Ibid. p. 109. 1691. "These," says Toulmin, were assented to by fourscore ministers in London; not with a view to any national constitution, but to preserve order in their own congregations, and to maintain harmony between the two parties."* Now, your readers will recollect, that we were accused of giving an inaccurate account of the nature of this Union. In order to corroborate his charge, "Verus" quoted a passage from our Affidavit of the 18th May, 1836, in which we declared, that, according to our judgment and belief, it was "an attempt not to compromise, as had been improperly alleged, those essential differences in reference to church government," about which the ministers of the two denominations had previously entertained conflicting opinions, and to the characteristics of which, we had, in the paragraphs immediately preceding, considered it our duty to advert. Our statement of these essential differences "Verus" did not think it expedient to cite; but, according to our shewing, they were four. The first related "to the education and trial of candidates for the holy ministry:" the second, "to the power of ordination," which Presbyterians refer entirely to the ministry, that is, the Presbyters, whereas the Independents refer it to the people: the third, "to the qualifications required of church members :" and the fourth, "to the power of censuring, suspending, or expelling them." On all these essential points, we formerly thought, as we still do, that the Congregationalists yielded everything to the Presbyterians; and that, whatever attempts may have been made by the Independents, who constitute an inconsiderable portion of the general body, to extract concessions from their far more numerous and powerful brethren, the latter seem to have "compromised no essential" principle, for which moderate Presbyterians of the present day would deem it important to contend. Again, we are blamed for declaring, that the Union referred to embraced "certain fundamental articles of faith." We frankly admit that we made such a statement, and we steadfastly abide by it. The Unionists of 1691 did not, like the Congregational Unionists of 1833, express "their jealousy of subscription to creeds and articles, and their disapproval of the imposition of any human standard of faith;" but they solemnly and deliberately gave their assent to certain doctrinal formularies, by whose definitions of orthodoxy they were willing to be bound. They did not, like their alleged successors, the Historical View of the State of the Protestant Dissenters in England, from the Revolution to the Accession of Queen Anne, by Joshua Toulmin, D.D., p. 99. Third Act, pp. 7, 8. Declaration of the Faith, Church Order, and Discipline of the Congregational or Independent Dissenters, as adopted at the Third General Meeting of the Congregational Union of England and Wales, held May 7th and 10th, 1833; seventh preliminary note. |