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 of _all_, 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 of
conversion 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 God _doth not commit sin_ . . .
whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.” {98b}
The doctrine of the _total_ depravity of human nature, it appears to me,
cannot be proved from Scripture 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 does not 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 their _full force_ before the Searcher of hearts.
[Picture: Decorative header]
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]
LETTER VIII.
PARTICULAR BAPTISTS, SUB AND SUPRALAPSARIANS, SANDEMANIANS.
Having now given some account of the principal Calvinistic sects, I shall
conclude by mentioning a few of those less numerous societies, which,
whilst agreeing in the peculiar doctrines of Calvin, differ upon other
points. THE PARTICULAR BAPTISTS, agreeing with the General Baptists on
most other practices and doctrines, differ from them on this. The
separation took place in the year 1616, when a controversy on the subject
of infant baptism having arisen among the Baptists, one portion calling
itself the “Independent Congregation” seceded, embraced the Calvinistic
doctrine, and became the first Particular Baptists: others, who were in
general attached to the opinions of Calvin, concerning the decrees of God
and Divine Grace, were not entirely agreed concerning the manner of
explaining the doctrine of the Divine decrees. The greater part believed
that God only _permitted_ the first man to fall into transgression,
without particularly predetermining his fall: these were termed
SUBLAPSARIANS. But others again maintained that “God in order to
exercise and display his justice and his free mercy, had decreed from all
eternity the transgression of Adam, and so ordered the course of events,
that our first parents could not possibly avoid their fall. These were
termed SUPRALAPSARIANS.
There is a modern sect that originated in Scotland about 1728, termed
Glassites, from its founder Mr. John Glass, who was expelled by the Synod
from the Church of Scotland, for maintaining that “the kingdom of Christ
was not of this world.” His adherents then formed themselves into
churches, conformable in their institution and discipline to what they
apprehended to be the plan of the first churches recorded in the New
Testament. Soon after the year 1755, Mr. John Sandeman (an elder in one
of these congregations in Scotland) attempted to prove that “Faith is
neither more nor less than a simple assent to the Divine testimony,
concerning Jesus Christ delivered for the offences of men and raised
again for their justification, as recorded in the New Testament.” He
also mentioned that the word _Faith_ or _Belief_, is constantly used by
the Apostles to signify what is denoted by it in common conversation,
i.e. a persuasion of the truth of any proposition, and that there is no
difference between believing any common testimony, and believing the
apostolic testimony, except that which results from the testimony itself,
and the Divine authority on which it rests. This led to controversy
among the Calvinists and Sandemanians, concerning the nature of
justifying faith; and the latter formed themselves into a separate sect.
They administer the sacrament of the Lord’s supper weekly, and hold “love
feasts,” of which every member is not only allowed but required to
partake, and which consists of their dining together at each other’s
houses, in the interval between the morning and afternoon service. They
interpret literally the precept respecting the “kiss of charity,” which
they use on the admission of a new member, as well as on other occasions,
when they deem it necessary or proper: they make a weekly collection
before the sacrament of the Lord’s supper; use mutual exhortation;
abstain from blood and things strangled; wash each other’s feet; hold
that every one is to consider all that he possesses to be liable to the
calls of the poor and the church, and that it is unlawful to “lay up
treasure upon earth,” by setting them apart for any future use. They
allow of public and private diversions, so far as they are not connected
with circumstances really sinful; but apprehending a lot to be sacred,
they disapprove of lotteries, playing at cards, dice, &c. They maintain
the necessity of a plurality of elders, pastors, or bishops in each
church, and the necessity of the presence of two elders in every act of
discipline, and at the administration of the Lord’s supper. Second
marriages disqualify for the office of elder. The elders are ordained by
prayer and fasting, imposition of hands, and giving the “right hand of
fellowship.” In their discipline they are strict and severe, and in
every transaction esteem unanimity to be absolutely necessary.
[Picture: Decorative header]
LETTER IX.
CALVINISTIC METHODISTS. EVANGELICAL OR SERIOUS CHRISTIANS.
I noticed the name of George Whitfield when speaking of Wesley and his
followers, for during a time they acted in unison; Whitfield, however,
soon embraced the Calvinistic tenets, and then the friends separated with
much of unkindly feeling. Wesley held the doctrines of Calvin in
abhorrence, as altogether unchristian and unfounded in Scripture. “I
defy you to say so hard a thing of the Devil,” said he with
characteristic earnestness, when speaking of the notion that God could
arbitrarily create any for eternal reprobation. This separation between
the leaders soon extended to their congregations, and from that time
Calvinistic and Wesleyan Methodists became distinct sects, differing,
however, but little on any other point, excepting in the greater tendency
to enthusiasm among the followers of Whitfield.
“Wesley and Whitfield,” says Mr. Sidney in his life of Rowland Hill,
“were men of widely different characters, both in respect to their
natural dispositions as well as the discipline of their minds; and
painful frailties were visible in the midst of their true greatness. An
ambitious love of power was evidently the besetting weakness of John
Wesley; aspiration to the _honours_ when he had no prospect of the
_suffering_ of martyrdom, was that of Whitfield.” In his letters to
Rowland Hill, it is evident how he courted and enjoyed persecution; and
whenever “_the fire_ (to use his own expression) was kindled in the
country;” he was not satisfied unless “honoured” by being scorched a
little in its flame. This was a wrong spirit, and did injury to his own
mind, and to his followers, by encouraging a morose and morbid carriage
towards the world, giving needless offence, and provoking animosity in
those who might have been attracted and endeared to truth by the lovely
graces of pure Christianity.”
At the time when he, and his early friends the Wesleys began their
ministry, the piety of all classes was at a very low ebb. The
earnestness of these men gave a new impulse to religious feeling, and
after a time a considerable number of other episcopally ordained
ministers of the church, together with a portion of the laity, became
influenced by the same sentiments. Without seceding, they formed a party
in the church, leaning to Calvinism to the extent they thought justified
by the XXXIX Articles; and this party soon became designated by several
distinguishing terms. They called themselves _Evangelical_ first,
afterwards when that became a cant term of misapplied reproach, they took
the title of _Serious_ Christians, and by others were called _Low
Church_, and _Methodistical_. Besides distinguishing themselves by an
especial name, they avoided public amusements, used a peculiar
phraseology, and seemed to delight in wearing their religion externally
in the sight of all men, thinking perhaps to reform the thoughtless by
the example of their greater strictness. But herein, in my opinion, they
made a net for their own feet, for that very aspiration after greater
exaltation which is implanted in us as a spur to strive after glory and
immortality, is soon by mismanagement perverted into a love of earthly
distinction. Hence comes ambition; but the ambition for worldly honours
has in it this alleviation, that the man who toils after a title or a
fortune, knows that he is, after all, seeking but a mean object; and if
ever his mind is awakened at all to a sense of the world to come, the
soul springs back to its true ambition, and launches into the career
natural to it: but the man who seeks to be distinguished among his
brethren for superior holiness, and wears it externally, that it may be
seen and honoured by men, blinds his better nature, and fetters it to
earth by chains forged in heaven; he sees not that he is ambitious; he is
not aware that while seeking, as he imagines, to honour God in his life,
he is enjoying at his heart’s core the respectful homage of men; and
whilst attending to his outward deportment, and making a display even of
his humility, he too frequently leaves the inner heart unchastened. Our
Saviour knew the frailties of man, and his injunction that our religion
should chiefly be manifested by our benevolent feelings towards our
fellow creatures, while the communing with God should be carried on in
silence and secrecy, is the only safe guide in these matters.