Page images

kingdoms began (was attempted] to be enforced. As, for a considerable time, it appeared likely to gain the ascendancy, most of those who fell off from episcopacy, from dissatisfaction with its forms, united themselves with it, though many of them were not disposed to admit all its pretensions. Owen, so far as he was a Presbyterian, was one of this description. ... Presbytery was not established in England by way of probation,' as Neal expresses it, until 1645; and as presbyteries were not erected for some time after this, and in many places never erected, it is not probable that Owen was ever a member of a presbytery. This circumstance, together with his sentiments, as stated in the above extract, shows that his connexion with that body was more nominal than real.” * The same might, I doubt not, be said with truth, of several hundred ministers. I am not prepared to mention any number of the ejected divines, who were decidedly Congregational in judgment, but I will venture to state, that it was above one hundred. Nor must it be taken for granted, that all the rest were Presbyterians of the Scottish order. I am strongly inclined to believe, that, were it possible to ascertain the relative proportions of those who held different views on matters of church government, it would turn out, that but a small minority were pure Presbyterians, according to the Scottish model.

Mr. Hunter affirms, “No Congregationalist could avail himself of the secular endowments provided by the state, in accordance with his principles, if the representations of Mr. Orme be correct; for, he says, * The renunciation of all dependence on civil authority in matters of religion, and of all connexion with temporal governments, forms an essential part of consistent Independency.'”+

* The extract from Dr. Owen's Review of the true nature of Schism, &c. 1657, is the following :

“I was then a young man myself, about the age of twenty-six or twenty-seven years. The controversy between Independency and Presbytery was young also; nor, indeed, by me clearly understood, especially as stated on the Congregational side. The conceptions delivered in the treatise were not (as appears in the issue) suited to the opinion of the one party nor of the other ; but were such as occurred to mine own naked consideration of things, with relation to some differences that were then upheld in the place where I lived, only being unacquainted with the Congregational way, I professed myself to own the other party, not knowing but that my principles were suited to their judgment and profession; having looked very little further into those affairs, than I was led by an opposition to episcopacy and ceremonies. Upon a review of what I had there asserted, I found that my principles were far more suited to what is the judgment and practice of the Congregation al men than those of the Presbyterian.”—Chapter II.

† Mr. H. thus describes Mr. Orme—“A modern Independent historian, on whose judgment Verus seems to place unbounded reliance." I beg to inform him, that, entertaining as I do my high respect for the enlightened understanding and historical accuracy of the late Mr. Orme, I place unbounded reliance neither on his judgment nor on that of any other man, but am determined, on all questions of this kind, first to search and examine, and then to judge and decide for myself.

I shall not undertake to vindicate the consistency of those professed Independents (and they were more than a few) who accepted livings, and consented to become ministers of the public religious edifices; but the quotation just made from Mr. Orme will go far to vindicate them. Presbyteries were not established in many counties. Indeed, London and Lancashire were the only parts of England in which the system of classical Presbytery was ever fully carried out. Ministers, therefore, who accepted livings, were under no obligation to submit to what Mr. H. calls “the new ecclesiastical regime.” The fierce attempt of the rigid sticklers for jure divino Scotch Presbyterianism, to obtain from the parliament a coercive enforcement of absolute uniformity, happily for the liberties of Englishmen, civil and religious, did not succeed. There was, properly speaking, no established form of church government and discipline in this country. The probationary establishment of Presbytery to which Neal refers, had only served to show that the favourite Scottish system was not approved, and would not be accepted on this side of the Tweed. There was, in fact, no uniform ecclesiastical usage either legally enforced or practically adopted.

Whether, in any sense, it might be said, with truth, that Presbytery was received into alliance with the state, is a question upon which I shall not, at present, offer any opinion.

Among "the essential differences in reference to church government,” about which Mr. Hunter tells us, the ministers of the two denominations had, previously to 1691, entertained conflicting opinions; the first related “to the education and trial of candidates for the holy ministry."

Much stress is laid in several affidavits on behalf of the Scottish claimants, upon the alleged fact, that the Presbyterians of Lady Hewley's time required their ministers to be educated at chartered universities, and both sets of petitioners found their claim to be the lawful representatives of the English Presbyterians on the fact, that they admit none to the ministry but persons who have received their education at a chartered university. But when the historical test is applied to this allegation, it will be found to fail in affording any support to their case, and will tend rather to strengthen that of the Independent relators.

The English Presbyterians, from the reign of Charles II., obtained their ministers not generally from the chartered universities of Scotland or Holland, but from what were called the private academies, set up in different parts of England.* One of the largest and most celebrated


* Mr. Neal mentions, as one of the reasons which might account for the numbers of the Protestant dissenters, and their influence in the state, about 1687,“ A concern for a succession of able and learned ministers ; for which purpose they encouraged private academies in several parts of the kingdom."-Edition 1822, vol. v. p. 21.

of these, was that kept at different places, by the Rev. Richard Frankland, who, after his ejectment, “ got up a private academy in his own house, at Rathmill, in Yorkshire, where, and at other places, to which he removed, he educated, chiefly for the ministry, upwards of three hundred," of whom a complete list, with the dates of their admission, is preserved, as an appendix to the sermon preached on the death of one of them, (Rev. Daniel Maddock,) in 1746, by Dr. Ebenezer Latham.

It is not true, however, that the English Presbyterians regarded a regular learned education as, in all cases, an indispensable pre-requisite for the ministry. Mr. Oliver Heywood has recorded that, after the trial of Mr. Timothy Jollie, April 26th, 1681, preparatory to his ordination, “we were desired to try the gifts of two othersMr. David Noble, formerly a schoolmaster at Morley, and Mr. Robert Dickenson, an English scholar. The former of these engaged in prayer, and preached on Rom. viii. 1, very profitably; but we wanted time with reference to the latter."*

Another “essential difference,” according to Mr. Hunter, regarded “the power of ordination, which Presbyterians refer entirely to the ministry, that is, the presbyters, whereas the Independents refer it to the people.” As a general statement, this is not true, in reference even to the Independents, and if there were at that time any who held this principle, they were very few, compared with that body. I might adopt Mr. Hunter's own expression, and say it is “a well-authenticated matter of fact," that the Independents of 1704 approved and practised ministerial ordination as well as the (English) Presbyterians ; and I need not inform readers of the Congregational Magazine, that it is the uniform and universal practice in our denomination at the present day.

Lest, however, it should be said, that I have no evidence to produce, I will refer to one decisive proof from the second part of Dr. Calamy's Defence of Moderate Nonconformity, 1704. In the postscript are some animadversions on “A Letter from a Congregational Minister in the Country to the Author," in which it appears he had expressed an opinion against ministerial ordination. Dr. Calamy says, “ It looked strange that there should be so much ignorance of the principles and practice of those of the Congregational way, in one that pretends so much zeal for it;" and, after stating that "he contradicts the body of the writers of the Congregational way, in the things which he most insists on, and entirely falls in with the Brownists,” proceeds to quote a passage from “the Heads of Agreement assented to by the United Minis

* Slate's Memoirs of Oliver Heywood, p. 24. In a MS. record of ordinations, the venerable divine says, “Mr. Dickenson was a ruling elder, a good man of rare parts, had preached about ten years at seasons, and in his own house, beyond Doncaster, eighteen miles from Sheffield—but an English scholar only-not examined." Mr. Dickenson was Mr. Heywood's successor at Northowram.

ters,” in which they declare that the concurrence of the pastors of neighbouring congregations is ordinarily requisite in ordination, and adds, “ This being so directly contradicted by the author of this letter, I think I may safely gather that if he be a Congregational brother he never assented to those Heads of Agreement,” and subjoins, “ If this be a Congregational brother who represents ministerial ordination as so unnecessary, and so unscriptural, he may easily discern he does not less differ from those of his own way, than he does from me."*

The passage just quoted will show that the Heads of Agreement were not regarded even by a leading minister of the English Presbyterians, in London, in 1704, as a mere obsolete document, yet Mr. Hunter persists in asserting that what Dr. Calamy calls “a breach in the lecture at Pinner’s Hall,” † was, in fact, a complete breaking up of the Union formed in 1691. It is important to keep in mind the occasion of this rupture, and the subject-matter of the controversy that ensued. Dr. Calamy, in words quoted by Mr. Hunter himself, tells us, “The difference was chiefly about some terms and phrases, relating to the doctrine of justification, and about the extent of redemption, and the middle way.” I

A few ministers unhappily quarrelled, not on points of ecclesiastical regulation and arrangement, but about matters purely doctrinal. For a few years, contention raged with violence ; but in 1699, the storm had subsided, and Dr. Williams, the leader on one side, joyfully proclaims an end to discord, “the discord which had arisen solely from differences and debates about the minute points of doctrine.” Mr. Hunter himself tells us, that Dr. Williams's faithfulness in denouncing Antinomianism had been the unintentional cause of the schism. $

But now, the Congregational ministers having published "A Declaration against Antinomian Errors, was deemed a sufficient vindication of the approvers thereof,” || this doctrinal controversy is terminated. Granting, however, that the two denominations in the metropolis did not afterwards completely coalesce, what are the facts alleged to show the nature of the subsequent disunion between them, and the extent to which it was carried ? We are told there were two lectures and two funds connected with separate boards. “The lecture was broken into two." There was an open rupture among the preachers at Pinner's Hall, and a new lecture was established at Salter's Hall, which continued for many years. But were the lectures at the former place exclusively Congregational, and those at the latter exclusively Presbyterian ? On the contrary, Mr. Timothy Cruso, pastor of the English Presbyterian Church, near Aldgate, was chosen one of the lecturers at Pinner's Hall, and continued in that office till his death, in 1697; and Dr. Toulmin states, * that Mr. Francis Glascock, minister of the English Presbyterian Church in Drury-lane,

* Pages 391, 395, 397, 398.
+ Life and Times, vol. i. p. 351.

Abridgment, p. 516. Dr. Calamy's account is to the same effect : “ The aversion of some hot men to Mr. Williams, on account of his warm opposition to Antinomianism, rose to a great height. At length, nothing would content them but his being dropped in the Tuesday's lecture, and the having another chosen in his room.”—Life and Times, vol. i. p. 351.

|| Williams's Works, vol. v. pp. 1, 9.

was, a few months before his death, in 1706, chosen, though a Presbyterian, a Tuesday's lecturer at Pinner's Hall.”+

At Salter's Hall, Mr. Howe continued, who certainly had been, and probably was then an Independent, though he preferred to associate and act with the Presbyterians. Mr. Matthew Mead, a leading divine among the Congregational brethren, was also invited to join these lecturers, though he chose to retain his connexion with the lecture at Pinner's Hall. So that, the fact of there being two lectures, when more closely examined, instead of supporting the allegation of a complete alienation, and entire disruption, proves that the differences had been, and still were, in 1694, rather personal than denominational.

There was also a separate fund ; and it is a remarkable fact that the circumstance of a London church sending its annual contribution for students and


ministers to one or other of these funds, gave it its denomination as Presbyterian or Congregational. Mr. Walter Wilson tells us that “the church at New Court, Carey Street, in its original constitution was strictly Presbyterian, and, till the time of Mr. Bradbury, the ministers carried the contributions of the society to the Presbyterian fund. Mr. Bradbury, however, made it a condition of his acceptance of the pastoral office, that the people should join the Independents, and send their contribution to the Independent fund, and this has been its state ever since.”I The same historian, in his account of the church at the Weigh-house, informs us, that the pastor of the church before the Rev. John Clayton, sen., carried their contributions for country ministers to the Presbyterian fund, but Mr. Clayton, soon after his settlement, joined the Independents.”ş

In the country I believe there was generally a very near approach, at least to a coalescence, if not to a complete amalgamation of the two denominations, excepting, perhaps, in some of the larger towns, 80 that the names Presbyterian and Congregational were either altogether dropped, or used indifferently and interchangeably; and the only circumstance which could identify any particular congregation as belong

* Wilson's History of Dissenting Churches in London, vol. i. p. 57. Several sermons delivered by him at this lecture were published in 1699, after his death, with a recommendatory preface by Mr. Matthew Mead, an Independent minister, who preached his funeral sermon, p. 59.

+ Historical View, pp. 249, 250.
| History of Dissenting Churches in London, vol. iii. pp. 493, 494.
§ Vol. i. p. 149.

« PreviousContinue »