LETTER VII.

PRESBYTERIANS. INDEPENDENTS.

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 in _England_ more 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. In _Scotland_, after a struggle, the Presbyterian form 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 the _doctrine_ taught 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 ministers in 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. _All_ the Presbyterian bodies,—Orthodox and Arian, share in 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 was taken 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 established church 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, about A.D. 1541, and the system afterwards introduced into Scotland, with modifications by John Knox, about the year 1560, but not _legally_ established there till 1592. It has never flourished greatly in England, and the Unitarian doctrine has now been almost universally received among the quondam Presbyterian congregations.

The _theory_ of discipline in the SCOTTISH CHURCH does not differ very widely from that of the English episcopacy, but the _practice_ of 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 do _substantially_ in 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.

* * * * *

The INDEPENDENTS differ from the Presbyterians chiefly in three points, namely:

1. As to ordination, and the liberty of preaching.

2. As to the political form and constitution of church government, and the conditions of church communion.

3. As to the grounds and limits of religious liberty.

“Ordination alone,” say the Independents, “without the precedent consent of the Church by those who formerly have been advanced by virtue of that power they have received by their ordination, doth not constitute any person a church officer, or communicate office power unto him.” The Presbyterians on the other hand deny that the mere invitation and choice of the people could confer the pastoral office, or that it was even a pre-requisite. The Independents seem to have identified the ministerial function with the pastoral office; and argued that it was absurd to ordain an officer without a province to exercise the office in. Their opponents viewed the Christian ministry more as an order invested with certain inherent powers; a faculty or profession endowed with peculiar privileges, the admission into which required to be jealously guarded; and this power and authority they conceive could be transmitted by those of the order. All approved candidates for the ministerial office among the Presbyterians, are ordained without reference to any local change; among the Independents no probationer is ordained till he has been appointed to the pastoral office. The first Independent or Congregational Church in England was established by a Mr. Jacob, A.D. 1616, though it is asserted that a Mr. Robinson was the founder of this sect, of which Dr. John Owen, Dr. Isaac Watts, Dr. Doddridge, and Job Orton were members.

The following extracts are from the discourses of Robert Hall, who, though a Baptist, dissented from most of his brethren on the subject of strict communion. He was a preacher both of Baptist and Independent congregations, but he did not hesitate to avow that “he had more fellowship of feeling for an Independent or a Presbyterian than for a close communion Baptist.” His system of theological tenets was on the model of what has come to be denominated “Moderate Calvinism.” With regard to the distinctive Calvinistic doctrine of Predestination, “I cannot,” says his biographer, “answer for the precise terms in which he would have stated it, but I presume he would have accepted those employed by the Church of England. In preaching he very rarely made any express reference to that doctrine.”

“Jesus Christ did not come, let it be remembered, to establish a mere external morality, that his followers might be screened from human laws and human justice, for human laws will take care of this. The holy institution of Christianity has a nobler object, that of purifying our hearts and regulating our behaviour by the love of God. In the most practical accounts of the proceedings of the last day given in the Scriptures, the excellency which is represented as being a criterion and distinguishing feature of the disciple of Christ, and which He will acknowledge, is: Christian benevolence—love to man manifested in the relief of the poor. The Apostle St. John has given us a most sublime description of the love of God, when he says, ‘God is love;’ love is not so much an attribute of His nature as His _very essence_; the spirit of Himself. Christian benevolence is not only the ‘image of God,’ but is peculiarly an imitation of Christ.” “I do not ask, my brethren, what particular virtue you have, but _how much are you under the influence of Him_? for just so much virtue we have, as we have of His spirit and character.” “Our Saviour places the acceptance of men, not upon their dispositions, but upon their actions; upon what _they have done_, not upon what they have _merely believed_ or _felt_, or in any undefined state of mind.”—“I am persuaded that the cause of the ruin of professing Christians does not arise so much from a mistake of the doctrines of Christianity as from a low idea of Christian morals; in abstaining from certain crimes and disorders through fear of the loss of character and of punishment, without reflecting on the spirit of that holy religion which we profess.”—“Christ went about doing good, not as an _occasional_ exercise, but as his _employment_; it was the one thing which he did. Though possessed of infinite power, he never employed it in resenting or retaliating an injury. He was pre-eminently devout. His was an active life; it was not the life of a solitary monk. That devotion which terminates in itself is a luxury which sometimes perverts the principles of benevolence to a pernicious purpose. Let us rather recede from being called Christians than forget the great symbol of our profession, love to one another.”

[Picture: Decorative header]