Up to this point, we have been engaged in watching the course of
affairs within the bounds of the Establishment, and in pointing out its
relations to Nonconformity; it remains for us to examine the growth of
Nonconformity itself, in the principal varieties of its manifestation.
Presbyterianism underwent a change. The ejected ministers, who had
adopted that system, continued to cleave to the idea of an Established
Church, and it was long before they gave up all hopes of some
comprehensive scheme, which, whilst retaining a modified Episcopacy,
should provide for the removal of their own well-known scruples. They
manifested an indisposition to enter upon any proceedings which could
be termed denominational; yet, preaching the Gospel appeared to them an
employment which they ought on no account to relinquish, for they felt
that they had received a Divine commission, and that it would be at
their peril to draw back from its fulfilment. The personal satisfaction
also which they experienced in the discharge of their vocation, and
the eagerness of people to listen to their voices, deepened the
consciousness of a necessity laid upon them. But, at first, they only
preached in their own houses, in the hall of a friend’s mansion, in
some sequestered forest nook, or in the retirement of a mountain dell.
Like the seventy disciples, like the brethren scattered abroad upon the
persecution of Stephen, like the witnesses of the Middle Ages, like
Wycliffe’s friars, like the early Methodists, they simply attempted
to kindle and keep alight the flame of spiritual piety. Two years
after the Act of Uniformity had been passed, although some ministers
then “were vehement for an entire separation” from the Establishment,
others, including Baxter, Bates, and Heywood, advocated attendance
at the parish church--in this respect acting in the same manner as
John Wesley did, at least for some time after the institution of
Methodism. Yet coming events cast their shadows before them. At the
end of 1666, Oliver Heywood baptized a child at Halifax, a significant
incident; and, in 1672, the same patriarch of the “old Dissent” “kept
a solemn day at Bramhope,” when old Mr. Holdsworth “administered
the Supper.”[230] By degrees, and almost unconsciously, the worthy
Heywood--and he may be taken as the specimen of a class--made advances
towards a determined position outside the enclosure fenced in by law.
Celebrating the Lord’s Supper, besides administering Baptism, could
not be consistently repeated many times, without involving other acts,
inevitably preparing for the institution of distinctive and separate
Churches. Admission to the Lord’s table rendered some religious
oversight of the communicants necessary, and practically, what
amounted to a distinct Christian society, would begin to exist before
such an existence became clearly recognized even by those engaged in
its creation. When, in the year 1672, the Declaration of Indulgence
afforded liberty of action, cautious and hesitating men, who had
felt their way, availed themselves of the Royal concession to pursue,
practically, the legitimate consequences of their prior proceedings.
A minister gathered together such godly neighbours as sympathized in
his views; and such persons, owning him as their rightful pastor,
entered into covenant--as it was called--“to believe and practise
what truths and duties,” he should make manifest to them, “to be the
mind of God.”[231] According to the Presbyterian theory, the minister
in the order of nature, and generally in the order of time, takes
precedence of the Church; he does not spring from the Church, but the
Church has its root and beginning in him; nor does the origin of his
ministerial power rest in the people, his vocation is bestowed upon
him directly from above; and this idea of the origin and relation of
the Christian ministry we may see worked out in the history of English
Presbyterianism.
[Sidenote: DEVELOPMENT OF NONCONFORMITY.]
To build upon the platforms of the Westminster Assembly and the Long
Parliament, had become impossible. It was a hopeless thing to think
of forming classes, of meeting in synods, and of exercising parish
discipline, such as had been the ideal of twenty or thirty years
before--of instituting schools of virtue and religion in towns and
villages, where the pastor should have the rod of the magistrate to
enforce the belief of truth, and the practice of goodness. Perhaps,
choice without necessity, through what had been taught by experience
after the Restoration, would have led some Presbyterian pastors
to abandon certain portions of their earlier cherished schemes of
parochial order and discipline.
No deacons, having authority together with the minister, existed in
Presbyterian Churches, and the control of affairs rested chiefly, if
not entirely, with one presiding person, except where there might
be a plurality of pastors. The question of individual admission to
fellowship was decided by the wisdom and the care of the presbyter
or bishop, not by the deliberation or vote of the Church; and the
decision and administration of discipline would naturally fall into
the same hands as those which had opened the door of entrance to the
enjoyment of ecclesiastical privileges. One of the last things which
the Presbyterians accomplished, in reference to their separate and
permanent existence as a religious body, appears, indeed, one of the
first things essential to that existence. The ordination of others to
succeed in the ministry must be reckoned a primary measure, requisite
for the existence of Nonconformist Churches; yet it seems not to have
been until the year 1672, that any Presbyterian orders were conferred
after the Restoration. The first solemn act of this description, with
which I am acquainted, was performed in Manchester, at a house in
Deans’-gate, by five presbyters; and it is worthy of notice that those
so ordained were not novitiates, but persons who had been engaged for
several years in preaching the Gospel.[232] Subsequently, several
instances of ordination occur, but the ceremony continued, up to the
time of the Revolution, to be observed in private. As in the days of
the Commonwealth, so still, a careful examination of the candidates
preceded the service: Latin themes, and theological debates in the
same language were required, and after a confession of faith had been
made by the young minister, there followed the imposition of hands,
and a solemn ordination-prayer, the right hand of fellowship being
afterwards given to him in token of his admission to the ministerial
brotherhood.[233]
[Sidenote: DEVELOPMENT OF NONCONFORMITY.]
The form of Church government, approved at Westminster, 1645,
had declared that “it is agreeable to the Word of God, and very
expedient, that such as are to be ordained ministers, be designed
to some particular Church, or other ministerial charge;”[234] but
from this rule the Presbyterians deviated after the Restoration,
perhaps not so much from any change in judgment, as from a change in
circumstances--scattered flocks and unsettled times rendering a general
provision for perpetuating the ministry alone convenient or practicable.
In these ways innovations arose upon the old Presbyterian system, but
a more important change occurred in the gradual leavening of the whole
body with a more tolerant spirit. Presbyterians had persecuted “the
sects,” or had connived at their persecution, but now, often having
to share with them in the endurance of sorrow, they came to regard
them with brotherly kindness and charity. The principle of religious
liberty had once filled them with alarm, their own freedom for a long
while could not satisfy their wishes, but they now came to see, that
their return to the Establishment being precluded by insurmountable
barriers, they must make common cause with those who were in a like
position with themselves, and the liberty which they had learned to
value, they must also learn to concede. The discipline of circumstances
has played no small part in the education of mankind. Great principles
have, indeed, on rare occasions, flashed on minds of the highest
order with a kind of inspiration; but, in the cases of most men, the
knowledge of truths lying below the surface, has but slowly arisen, and
gradually dawned. Now and then some momentous doctrine has been struck
out as by fire--resembling the _fusile_ process, when a bronze
statue is cast, and at once it comes from the mould complete--but
commonly the acquisition of important principles may be compared to the
hewing of marble, and the carving of oak, by a patient, laborious, and
oft-repeated application of the chisel.
The history of Congregationalism after the Restoration is a history of
development. Between Presbyterianism and an Establishment there are
strong affinities; but there are insuperable difficulties connected
with the maintenance of Congregational order in a parish, and the only
real kind of Congregational Church, formed by any incumbent under the
Commonwealth, had to be practically severed from the legal position
which he held as a parochial clergyman. When, therefore, upon the fall
of Cromwell’s Broad Church, the bark of Congregationalism was cut
completely adrift from its State moorings, it was, so far as intervals
of peace would allow, left to make its way, under God’s blessing, by
the efforts of the rowers whom it carried on board.
[Sidenote: DEVELOPMENT OF NONCONFORMITY.]
Independents and Baptists are included under the general denomination
of Congregationalists. Independents retired into obscurity for a
while after the Restoration. The doors of buildings where they had
been wont to assemble were nailed up; the pastors were driven out;
flocks were scattered; the administration of ordinances could not take
place; and meetings could not be held, as the still existing records
of communities, which had been prosperous under the Commonwealth,
bear ample witness. There is reason to believe that the Independents
had diminished in number. The Court influence in their favour, which
they enjoyed so long as the Protector, Oliver, lived, would die when
he died; and those who had joined their company, so long as the sun
shone on their side of the street, and who had walked with them in
silver slippers, would forsake their old companions, and go another way
when the path was overshadowed, and the silver slippers were changed
for spiked sandals. The political antecedents of the Independents as
a party, their allegiance to Oliver Cromwell, the sympathy of many
of them in Republican ideas, and their supposed complicity in the
execution of Charles I., combined to make them exceedingly unpopular
with the Royalists, whilst their democratic notions of Church
government appeared most offensive to Episcopalians; consequently, to
maintain a position under so much odium, and to withstand the steady
fire of persecution, required a degree of faith, and a measure of
decision, not very common in this world, where the love of ease and the
sacrifice of principle too frequently set the fashion.
The principles of Congregationalism, however, proved their vitality,
and although assemblies of Church-members were unfrequent, or were
altogether discontinued for a while, the identity of Churches was
preserved, and whenever an opportunity presented itself, the scattered
ones gladly re-united in the pleasant fellowship after which they
yearned.
Congregational principles had received a definite expression in the
Savoy Declaration. The Independents had petitioned Oliver Cromwell
for permission to hold a synod, which he had reluctantly conceded.
After his death, they assembled on the 29th of September, and having
conferred together, reached certain theological and ecclesiastical
conclusions, which they published to the world.[235] To their
confession, which is substantially the same as the Westminster
Confession of Faith, they added a clear outline of ecclesiastical
order; and, whereas the _covenants_ or mutual agreements into
which Congregationalists had entered at the formation of their
Churches, in the time of the Civil Wars, generally contained some
references to further light breaking in upon them from God’s Word, we
discover, in the Savoy Declaration, no language whatever of that kind,
and it seems to be assumed in the document that Congregationalism, as
to the knowledge of its principles, had by that period attained to
something like completeness.
The following were fundamental propositions.
[Sidenote: DEVELOPMENT OF NONCONFORMITY.]
A particular Church consists of officers and members: the Lord Christ
having given to His called ones--united in Church order--liberty and
power to choose persons fitted by the Holy Ghost to be over them in
the Lord. The officers appointed by Christ to be chosen, and set apart
by the Church, are pastors, teachers, elders, and deacons. The way
appointed by Christ for the calling of any person unto the office of
pastor, teacher, or elder, in a Church, is that he be chosen thereunto
by the common suffrage of the Church itself, and solemnly set apart
by fasting and prayer, with the imposition of hands of the eldership
of that Church, if there be any before constituted therein; and of
a deacon, that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set apart by
prayer, and the like imposition of hands; and those who are so chosen,
though not set apart after that manner, are rightly constituted
ministers of Jesus. The work of preaching is not so peculiarly confined
to pastors and teachers, but that others also, gifted and fitted by
the Holy Ghost, and approved by the people, may publicly, ordinarily,
and constantly perform it. Ordination alone, without election or
consent of the Church, doth not constitute any person a Church officer.
A Church furnished with officers, according to the mind of Christ, hath
full power to administer all His ordinances; and where there is want of
any one or more officers, those that are in the Church may administer
all the ordinances proper to those officers whom they do not possess;
but where there are no teaching-officers at all, none may administer
the seals, nor can the Church authorize any so to do. Whereas the Lord
Jesus Christ hath appointed and instituted, as a means of edification,
that those who walk not according to the rules and laws appointed by
Him be censured in His name and authority: every Church hath power in
itself to exercise and execute all those censures appointed by Him.
The censures appointed by Christ are admonition and excommunication;
and whereas some offences may be known only to some, those to whom
they are so known must first admonish the offender in private; in
public offences, and in case of non-amendment upon private admonition,
the offence being related to the Church, the offender is to be duly
admonished, in the name of Christ, by the whole Church through the
elders, and if this censure prevail not for his repentance, then he is
to be cast out by excommunication, with the consent of the members.
These particulars respecting a Declaration of Faith but little known,
indicate the opinions entertained by the Independents, not only at the
time of the Restoration, but, with some modification, afterwards; and
here it may be added that if, in the theory of Presbyterianism, the
minister, as to the order of existence, precedes the Church, in the
theory of Congregationalism, the Church, in that same order, precedes
the minister; and in this significant fact may be found a key to some
important differences between the two systems.
Besides those rules, which had reference to the internal order of
the Churches, there were these three, relative to their dimensions,
their co-operation, and the catholicity of their fellowship. For the
avoiding of differences, for the greater solemnity in the celebration
of ordinances, and for the larger usefulness of the gifts and graces
of the Holy Ghost, saints, living within such distances as that they
can conveniently assemble for Divine worship, ought rather to join in
one Church for their mutual strengthening and edification than to set
up many distinct societies. In cases of difficulties or differences,
it is according to the mind of Christ, that many Churches holding
communion together do by their managers meet in a synod or council, to
consider and give advice; howbeit, these synods are not intrusted with
any Church power, properly so called, or with any jurisdiction over the
Churches. Such reforming Churches as consist of persons sound in the
faith, and of conversation becoming the Gospel, ought not to refuse
the communion of each other, so far as may consist with their own
principles respectively, though they walk not in all things according
to the same rules of Church order.[236]
[Sidenote: DEVELOPMENT OF NONCONFORMITY.]
It will be seen upon comparing the account of Independency with the
account just given of Presbyterianism, that the Independents differed
from their brethren (1) in their mode of admitting members,--for
the Presbyterians left that responsibility entirely in the hands of
the minister, and the Independents placed it entirely in the hands
of the Church; (2) in their method of exercising discipline,--for,
in the one case, such exercise followed the minister’s authority,
and, in the other case, it followed the popular voice;[237] (3) in
the relation of pastor and people,--for Presbyterians considered
the first to be placed over the second by the presbyters engaged in
ordination, but the Independents looked upon the second as validly
appointing the first to office, the essence of the call, according to
their judgments, consisting in the election of the Church; and (4)
in the manner of ordination,--fasting, and prayer, and imposition of
hands were recognized by Presbyterians as parts of the one rite, but
though fasting and prayer were generally observed in the ordination
of Independent ministers, the imposition of hands was omitted in some
cases.
The conclusions at the Savoy were not ecclesiastical canons, but simply
united opinions. They had no binding force. They aspired to no higher
character than that of counsel and advice. How far they were studied,
or how frequently they guided the proceedings of Congregationalists,
I cannot say, but they may be considered as embodying the ideas of
Congregationalism, which were most common amongst the early advocates
of the system. The principle laid down with regard to the extent
of a Church is in conformity with the practice adopted under the
Commonwealth, when the multiplication of distinct societies was avoided
as much as possible, and, except when the number of worshippers
demanded a different course, it was the rule not to have more than
one Congregational community in one place; and it would seem that the
multiplication of small assemblies, which afterwards became frequent,
resulted from the pressure of circumstances--persecution, or inability
to obtain extensive accommodation rendering division absolutely
necessary. Conferences in the form, but without the authority, of
synods were held by Congregationalists under the Protectorate, and
the cessation of them afterwards, except upon a small scale, may be
easily accounted for, without supposing the occurrence of any change
of opinion upon the subject. Willingness to receive Presbyterians into
communion, and a disposition to unite with Presbyterian fellowships,
distinctly appear in the history of those times. It is recorded,
respecting Heywood’s Church, in the year 1672, that Independents were
willing to acknowledge Presbyterians, and Presbyterians were willing
to acknowledge Independents; “and a special season was appointed for
communicating together in the Lord’s Supper. Both parties went away
abundantly satisfied.”[238]
Both Presbyterians and Independents adopted the practice of adult and
of pædo-baptism by sprinkling. According to the Westminster Confession,
“not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto
Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to
be baptized.” John Owen remarks, as to the subjects of the rite--“The
question is not whether all infants are to be baptized or not. For,
according to the will of God, some are not to be baptized, even such
whose parents are strangers from the covenant.”[239] Baxter adopted the
same view.[240] So did Goodwin, but he considered that the child of a
godly person, though not in fellowship with any Church, was entitled to
the ordinance.[241]
[Sidenote: DEVELOPMENT OF NONCONFORMITY.]
Of the importance of a baptismal dedication of infants, Presbyterians
and Independents held decided views. Some of the former spoke of the
nature and advantages of the sacrament in terms which would be greatly
modified by their successors,[242] even as the latter confined its
administration within narrower limits than many of the former.
The Baptists resembled the Independents in Church polity, except as
it regards baptism. They were specially singled out for attack by the
High Church party, and their extraordinary sufferings have never been
forgotten by their successors. They could not but be winnowed by the
winds of persecution. Forty-six Baptist Churches are said to have been
in existence in London in the year 1646. The number of them represented
at an assembly held in 1689 is but eleven.[243] Supposing the first of
these statements to be exaggerated, and the second to be inadequate,
allowing that in the former estimate some small groups of worshippers
were counted as Churches, although not organized as such, and that
there might be more Baptist Churches in London than were represented in
the assembly held after the Restoration; further, taking into account
the fact that the erection of larger places of worship, after liberty
had been conceded, would absorb the fragmentary assemblies common when
oppression was rife; still, the comparison even of these loose returns
would indicate that the fact of the case is in accordance with the
probability, and that Baptists, like Independents, declined somewhat
in numerical power.
Baptist Churches sprung out of Independent ones, as before, so after
the days of Cromwell. For instance, in the year 1633, a number of
Baptists in London, who had been members of an Independent Church,
swarmed, and settled down into a distinct Baptist community,[244] and
in 1667 a Baptist member of the Independent Church in Norwich withdrew
from that society, and entered upon the task “of building another house
for God.”[245]
In the records of early Independency we meet with allusions to
messengers appointed to take part in conferences between those Churches
and others of the same denomination. A like practice existed among the
Baptists, who seem to have gone beyond their brethren in the number and
importance of such conferences.
The Baptists were divided into Particular and General. The Particular
Baptists were those who held the doctrine of particular redemption.
Upon comparing the doctrinal part of the confession of the Particular
Baptists, published in the years 1677 and 1689, with the doctrinal
part of the confession of the Westminster Divines, it will be found
to resemble it--differing in this respect from an earlier confession
of faith, published by seven Baptist Churches in 1644 and 1646. That
earlier confession presents a statement of doctrinal belief much
shorter, couched in different terms, and arranged in a different
order.[246] The Predestinarianism expressed by the Baptists in 1677
and 1689, is not less decided than the Predestinarianism of the
Confession of 1644 and 1646, but in neither of these confessions can I
find the doctrine of reprobation. The omission in the last confession,
of the Westminster Article on that subject, is very significant.
[Sidenote: DEVELOPMENT OF NONCONFORMITY.]
The Article on the _nature_ of baptism in the Baptist Confession
of 1677 differs but slightly from the Articles on the same subject
in the Westminster Confession, and in the Savoy Declaration; but,
of course, there is a great difference from these, in the Article
touching the _subjects_ of baptism, and the _mode_ of its
administration. The Baptist Confession says, “Those who do actually
profess repentance towards God, faith in and obedience to our Lord
Jesus Christ are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. The
outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the
party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost. Immersion or dipping of the person in water is
necessary to the due administration of the ordinance.”
The General Baptists, whose early history can be reviewed more
conveniently when we have passed the Revolution, were those who,
resembling their brethren in other respects, held Anti-Calvinistic
sentiments, and preached the doctrine of general redemption. Some of
the Churches of this denomination kept Saturday as a day of rest and
worship, and were on that account called Seventh Day Baptists. They
seem to have been very strict in their ecclesiastical discipline, and
to have drawn around them very closely the bonds of fellowship. Not
only were formal letters of dismissal from one Church to another given
when members removed to a new residence--as was a common practice
amongst all Congregationalists--but an instance is at hand of “an
epistle of commendation,” written in a very primitive style, being
given to a person on the point of travelling to some distant part of
the country.
The document is signed by Francis Bampfield, a well-known ejected
minister,[247]--who died in Newgate,--and also by his deacons. They
thus jointly express their fraternal affection: “To any Church of our
Lord Jesus Christ, to whom our brother may come, who are one with us
in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the order of the Gospel
of God keeping the holy Sabbath. Our brother, having occasion to visit
your parts, and being unacquainted with the faces of the saints in your
parts, was desirous of a testimony from us, which we are desirous to
give unto you, that he may be watched over, and made a partaker of the
privileges of Christ’s house. For he is a brother, and faithful, who
also hath been as a living member amongst us, in varieties of cases in
which he hath been tried. Therefore receive him as you would receive
any of us, and as we would receive you in the Lord, who commend him and
you to the grace of God, and subscribe ourselves in behalf of the rest,
&c.”[248]
Baptists were not only divided into Particular and General, as it
respects doctrine; they were distinguished as Strict and Open with
respect to communion. In the Confession of 1677 the distinction as to
discipline is thus represented--“The known principles and the state of
the consciences of us that have agreed in this confession is such, that
we cannot hold Church communion with any other than baptized believers,
and Churches constituted of such; yet some other of us have a greater
liberty, and freedom in our spirits that way.”
Kiffin and Thomas Paul were advocates of strict communion; Jessy,
Tombes, and Bunyan were advocates of open communion.[249]
[Sidenote: DEVELOPMENT OF NONCONFORMITY.]
The records of the Baptist Church assembling in Broadmead, Bristol,
furnish a complete history of its Christian fellowship. The mode
of admission is fully described. Candidates gave an account of the
work of God upon their souls before the whole congregation. Three
are on one occasion mentioned as giving satisfaction, but two of the
brethren desired further time to discourse with one Mary Skinker
about her principles, whether she was sound in the doctrine of the
Gospel, concerning the person and human nature of Christ our Lord; and
time also to discourse with one Elizabeth Jordan somewhat further,
for their satisfaction concerning the truth of the work of grace
upon her soul. Persons, “hoped to be in the truth,” were baptized in
the river Frome--this was done once, amidst frost and snow, and a
sharp, piercing wind, so that a wet handkerchief was frozen round the
neck of one of the women; although one person was sick, and another
had tooth-ache, and a third had sprained his leg, and a fourth was
consumptive, the Lord, it is said, “to declare His power, did, as it
were, work a miracle, to give a precedent to others,” lest, from the
coldness of the season, they should fear to do His will. He preserved
them all, and not so much as one was ill; each was the better for
being baptized, and all were alive ten years afterwards to speak of the
Lord’s goodness, and have it recorded in the Church Book. Discipline
was rigidly maintained. Letters were written to members suspected of
improper conduct, and the answers they returned of confession, or
denial, or excuse, are carefully preserved. Instances of answers to
prayer are recorded--one of a bachelor, who fell distracted, so that he
was forced to be bound to his bed, but after days of prayer the Lord
cast out, “as it were, three spirits, visible to be seen”--a spirit of
uncleanness for rage and blasphemy, a spirit of horror and fear, and a
spirit of shame and dumbness. Allusion is made to the occurrence of a
fiery apparition on the north-west side of the City, like a boy’s kite,
with a fiery oval head, and a long white tail. These records abound in
stories of persecution and disturbance; but whatever may be thought
of the superstitious tinge, so apparent in the character of these
simple-hearted and pious people, every reader must be touched by the
following entries:--
“On the 2nd of July [1682], Lord’s Day, our pastor preached in another
place in the Wood. Our friends took much pains in the rain, because
many informers were ordered out to search, and we were in peace, though
there were near twenty men and boys in search.” “On the 16th brother
Fownes first, and brother Whinnell after, preached under a tree, it
being very rainy.” “On the 13th [of August] our pastor preached in the
Wood, and afterwards broke bread at Mr. Young’s in peace. But Hellier
and the rest were busy that day, and shut up the gates, and kept watch
at the Weir, and behind St. Philip’s in the morning, to prevent any
going out, and in the evening to catch them coming in, and took up
several in the evening as vagrants on the Lord’s Day, and sent some to
Newgate, and some to Bridewell, watching till seven in the evening for
that purpose.” “On the 20th met above Scruze Hole, in our old place,
and heard brother Fownes preach twice in peace. Brother Terrill had
caused workmen to make banks on the side of the hill to sit down on,
several of them like a gallery. And there we met also on the 27th in
peace. And both days we sang a psalm in the open wood.”[250] No doubt
if other Congregational Church books, Baptist and Pædo-baptist, had
been as minute and copious in detail, and had been as safely handed
down to us as the Broadmead Records have happily been, we should have
found in them somewhat similar information, touching different kinds of
Independent communities.
[Sidenote: DEVELOPMENT OF NONCONFORMITY.]
The history of the Quakers, throughout the period under review, is a
history of spiritual life, of intense suffering, of calm endurance, of
inflexible adherence to principle, of heroic zeal, of indefatigable
activity, and of large success, both as to the increase of numbers,
and the moral improvement of mankind. It is also a history of organic
ecclesiastical development. So spiritual an impulse worked out a
graduated system of co-operation and discipline. Quakers differed
from the Presbyterians, from the Independents, and from the Baptists
in doctrinal opinions, and they also rejected the celebration of
sacraments, which all the others reverentially observed; but in
ecclesiastical government the Quakers were much less unlike the
Presbyterians than the other two denominations. Quakers’ Societies
were not distinct Churches, independent of each other, but they formed
one large spiritual aggregate, the various parts being united, not
only in sympathy and general action, but in certain definite social
arrangements. In respect to corporate unity, Quakers attained to a
perfection at which the Presbyterians of the Commonwealth aimed in
vain, and which the Presbyterians of the Restoration never attempted.
After the first few years of struggle and suffering, Quakerism
consolidated itself into the following shape, as described by Sewell,
the historian of the sect:--
“As to Church government, both for looking to the orderly conversation
of the members, and for taking care of the poor, and of indigent widows
and orphans, and also for making inquiry into marriages solemnized
among them, they have particular meetings, either weekly, or every
two weeks, or monthly, according to the greatness of the Churches.
They have also quarterly meetings in every county, where matters are
brought that cannot well be adjusted in the particular meetings. To
these meetings come not only the ministers and elders, but also other
members, that are known to be of sober conversation; and what is
agreed upon there is entered into a book belonging to the meeting.
Besides these meetings, a general annual assembly is kept at London
in the Whitsun Week so-called, not for any superstitious observation
the Quakers have for that more than any other time, but because that
season of the year best suits the general accommodation. To this yearly
meeting, which sometimes lasteth four, five, or more days, are admitted
such as are sent from all Churches of that Society in the world, to
give an account of the state of the particular Churches, which from
some places is done only by writing, and from that meeting is sent a
general epistle to all the Churches, which commonly is printed, and
sometimes particular epistles are also sent to the respective Churches.
By which it may be known every year in what condition the Churches
are, and in the said epistle generally is recommended a godly life and
conversation, and due care about the education of children. If it
happen that the poor anywhere are in want, then that is supplied by
others who have in store, or sometimes by an extraordinary collection.”
[Sidenote: DEVELOPMENT OF NONCONFORMITY.]
He supplies the following particulars respecting another subject:--
“In their method of marriage they also depart from the common way,
for in the Old Testament they find not that the joining of a couple
in marriage ever was the office of a priest, nor in the Gospel any
preacher among Christians appointed thereto. Therefore it is their
custom, that when any intend to enter into marriage, they first having
the consent of parents or guardians, acquaint the respective men’s
and women’s meetings of their intention, and after due inquiry, all
things appearing clear, they in a public meeting solemnly take each
other in marriage, with a promise of love and fidelity, and not to
leave one another before death separates them. Of this a certificate
is drawn, mentioning the names and distinctions of the persons thus
joined, which, being first signed by themselves, those then that are
present sign as witnesses. In the burying of their dead they mind
decency, and endeavour to avoid all pomp, and the wearing of mourning
is not approved among them, for they think that the mourning which is
lawful may be showed sufficiently to the world by a modest and grave
deportment.”[251]