صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

and still less the Independent Matthew Mead, who feared to offend his Congregational brethren--they and he holding the idea that a minister might be solemnly and fitly enough set apart by other ministers to a particular charge or pastorate, but not be ordained in such a way to the office of the Holy Ministry per se, as Calamy and the other Presbyterians so stoutly maintained.

Before the ordination, the candidates were thoroughly examined in Philosophy and Theology, and each had a Latin thesis to write and defend. On the eventful day, Dr. Annesley began with prayer (the ordination was in his own meeting-house, Bishopsgate Within, near Little St. Helen's); then Vincent Alsop preached; then Mr. Daniel Williams prayed and discoursed on the nature of ordination; then he read the names of the seven applicants and their testimonials. Then each candidate gave his own Confession; and each had to answer the questions out of the Westminster Assembly's Directory; one minister prayed over each, and all the others joined as ordainers. Finally, Mr. Matthew Sylvester gave the solemn charge, concluding with Psalm and devotion. The services occupying the whole day from ten in the morning to past six o'clock in the evening.

It will be noticed that, on account of the great importance and special significance attached by Presbyterians to this mode of ordination, the Presbyterian ministers were, as a whole, much more dignified and clerical in tone than their Independent brethren. For one thing, they had much greater power in their congregations, and their place was much more secure; and in time there was developed something like even High Church views among a class of these Presbyterian ministers, tenacious of what they deemed their primitive and apostolic mode of ordination by the laying on of the hands of a body of Presbyters.

We shall see that, wherever these Ministerial Associations were formed, with a view to external cohesion and organization, their tendency was towards Presbyterian supervision; and, if not ostensibly, yet by the sure operation of moral ascendency, they exercised what the Presbyterians reckoned a genial in

fluence, but what others thought an unfair, if not an unscriptural sway over congregations; and it was a sense of this that either prevented their formation in many quarters where this tendency was being developed, or they were in some cases more easily broken up where they had come already into operation. It was certainly the Presbyterianly disposed ministers, like Matthew Henry in Chester and Richard Gilpin in Newcastle-on-Tyne, who took the lead in forming "Associations" on the plan of the "Happy Union" of Presbyterians and Independents to be immediately described. In some cases, as in Northumberland and Newcastle, there were none but Presbyterians joined together in them; and, as it has been well said,1 "With the decay of orthodox Presbyterianism in the South, these United Associations all died out, for of course the Congregational associations of to-day belong to a much later period, the oldest of them (that of Hampshire) only going back to 1781, while the great majority have been formed during the present century."

2

1 Rev. John Black, M.A., Presbyterianism in England in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. London, 1887, p. 15.

2 Originally the Independents had for the most part a strong natural and logical prejudice against the regular working of such associations, as their modern historians candidly allow, when they say, "In many parts of England it is to be lamented that Associations were unknown, and ministers had little intercourse with each other in acts of social worship or consultation for the general good. This charge falls with peculiar weight on a considerable body of Independents, who will now, instead of praise, scarcely find indulgence for the motive which they assigned for their insociability. It was their earnest wish, they said, to maintain the independency of Churches and guard against any infringement of their rights from the interference of persons in other congregations, whether ministers or private Christians."-Bogue and Bennet, History of Dissenters, 2nd ed. p. 283.

V.

THE PRESBYTERIANS AND INDEPENDENTS IN THEIR

"HAPPY UNION" OF 1690-1694.

WHAT had to be mainly secured and safeguarded at the Revolution, was the Protestant interest, which had been so greatly imperilled and almost swamped under the Stuart influence. It was for Protestant even more than for distinctively Presbyterian principles, that the ejected ministers had suffered for a generation-Protestantism and Liberty, as against Popery and Tyranny, having become fixedly associated in the general mind. Not "order," so much as "freedom," was the louder watchword; and the tendency of Protestant Dissent was to become jealous even to idolatry for the new watchword, a tendency that deepened and strengthened as the new century began to run its course. Presbyterians and Independents, feeling that they had certain very important common ends in view, were more disposed to draw together and work with one another so as to strengthen their general cause; for it was not for nothing that they had been sufferers together under the bitter and heavy experiences of the Stuart régime for twenty-eight long years. They had learned much in the interval; and the Presbyterians especially had realized the need of, as it were, beginning afresh on elementary lines, and of taking into account the strangely fluctuating moods and currents of the national temper. Out of this spirit sprang the interesting movement that issued in the "Happy Union" which was consummated in 1691 between Presbyterian and Independent brethren in London, and

1 When a deputation of the Nonconformist ministers, to the number of about ninety, waited on King William, 2 Jan., 1689, and when John Howe, in their name, presented an address of congratulations, his Majesty said in reply, "My great end was the preservation of the PROTESTANT RELIGION, . and I will use my ut

most endeavours so to settle and cement all different persuasions of Protestants in such a bond of love and unity as may contribute to the lasting security and enjoyment of spirtuals and temporals to all sincere professors of that holy religion."

that spread at once to the provinces; though, for reasons which we shall afterwards see, it was unfortunately of so few years' continuance in London itself. Both parties, for the sake of mutual peace, and for the urgent requirements of a common and sacred cause, showed a disposition to coalesce and co-operate. The effort at union was formally embodied in the famous nine brief chapters, or, as they were called, "HEADS OF AGREEMENT assented to by the United Ministers in and about London, formerly called Presbyterian and Congregational." Both parties had, of course, to sacrifice something of their distinctive methods of action, if not of their special or distinctive principles, in the spirit of a true and loving compromise.

The following passage, from the "Preface" to the "Heads of Agreement," will illustrate the healing spirit as well as the general position of the movers in the case.

"Imposing these terms of Agreement on others is disclaimed. All pretence to coercive power is as unsuitable to our principles as to our circumstances; Excommunication itself in our respective Churches, being no other than a declaring such scandalous members as are irreclaimable to be incapable of communion with us in things peculiar to visible believers. And in all, we expressly determine our purpose to be the maintaining of harmony and love among ourselves, and preventing the inconveniences which human weakness may expose us to in our use of this liberty. The general concurrence of ministers and people in this city, and the great disposition thereto in other places, persuade us this happy work is undertaken in a season designed for such Divine influence as will overcome all impediments to peace, and convince of that agreement which has been always among us in a good degree, though neither to ourselves nor to others so evident as hereby it is now acknowledged. It is incumbent on us to forbear condemning and disputing those different practices we have expressly allowed for; to reduce all distinguishing names to that of United Brethren; to admit no uncharitable jealousies or censorious speeches; much less any debates whether party seems most favoured by this Agreement. Such carnal regards are of small moment with us who herein have used words less accurate, that neither side might in their various conceptions about lesser matters be contradicted, when in all substantials we are fully of one mind; and from this time hope more perfectly to rejoice in the honour, gifts, and success of each other as our common good. That we, as United, may contribute our utmost to the great concernments of our Redeemer, it's mutually resolved we will assist each other with our labours, and meet and consult without the least shadow of separate or distinct parties,

whence we joyfully expect great improvements in light and love through the more abundant supplies of the Spirit, being well assured we herein serve that Prince of Peace, of the increase of whose government and peace there shall be no end."

The leading idea of the Union was not one of entire incorporation of Churches (however much some might sanguinely hope for such a result), but of practical co-operation in all matters where both parties might work in common.

It has sometimes been represented that in this brotherly but unfortunately short-lived Union, the Presbyterians made an entire surrender of all their distinctive positions in favour of the views of their Independent brethren. A careful and candid consideration of the Articles of Agreement will sufficiently dispel this notion; and while both the spirit and measure of their concessions reflect special honour on the conciliatory temper of the Presbyterians, it will be seen that they surrendered their outward methods rather than their inward principles, though no doubt the unwise extent of their concessions as to the former did ultimately operate in the impairing of the latter. The effort was, however, a fair and honourable attempt, on both sides, to find a modus vivendi by mutual concessions, and to exemplify in the altered circumstances the Apostolic injunction, "Whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing."1

Philippians iii. 16. The following account of the Union is given by Rev. John Quick, the Presbyterian author of the Synodicon in Gallia Reformata. "After a most lamentable schism of about forty years' continuance, it pleased God at last to touch the hearts of the godly ministers of the Presbyterian and Independent persuasions with a deep sense of this great evil, in separating so long the one from the other. Whereupon several pious and learned pastors in the City of London, of both ways, met together divers times, and conferred each with other about healing this breach; and having frequent consultations about it, and poured out many and fervent prayers unto the God of grace and peace to assist them in it. Upon 6 March, 1690, most of the Dissenting Nonconforming ministers in the City, and many others from adjacent parts of it, met together, and there was read to them the Heads of Agreement prepared by the Committee, and which had been seen and perused by many of them before; and their assent to them being demanded, it was readily accorded, and afterwards near 100 gave in their names to this Union. This example was taking and leading to the Nonconforming ministers through England, who in many of their respective counties had their meetings to compose this difference.

When the London ministers first signed this Union, they unanimously agreed to bury in the grave of oblivion the two names of distinction, Presbyterian and Independent, and to communicate these Articles of Union unto all members in

« السابقةمتابعة »