Dost thou believe that the books which have the internal sense and are truly the Word of G.o.d are,-the five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, the two books of Samuel, the two books of Kings, the Psalms of David, the prophets, including the Lamentations of Jeremiah, the four Gospels, and the Revelation?" {79}
It is further stated in their eleventh article of faith, "That immediately after death, which is only a putting off of the material body, never to be resumed, man rises again in a spiritual or substantial body, in which he continues to live to eternity."
On these doctrines it may be observed that the forms of worship founded on them are not such as Christ and his apostles ordered. The doxology is, "To Jesus Christ be glory and dominion for ever and ever;" the blessing, "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all." The prayers are addressed to the "blessed Lord Jesus." Whereas Christ, when he gave us a form of prayer, bade us address "our Father in heaven;" and bade us ask of the Father in his name; and the form of the apostolic doxology is, "To G.o.d only wise be glory through Jesus Christ for ever"; {80a} and the blessing, "Grace be unto you and peace from G.o.d our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." {80b} As at this time Christ had ascended from the earth, had the human nature been entirely merged in the Divine, as this sect a.s.serts, Paul the Apostle would not have made this distinction, which implies that the Lord Jesus still existed somewhere in his human form as the everlasting visible temple of the Invisible father of all things, for "no man hath seen G.o.d at any time," says the beloved Apostle, {81a} and this is confirmed by Christ himself. {81b} If the man then be lost in the Deity, it follows that the Lord Jesus exists no more for us. I am aware that this consequence is denied by the sect, but it is a self evident proposition: for their creed runs thus, "I believe in one G.o.d in whom is a Divine Trinity, &c., and that this G.o.d is the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who is Jehovah in a glorified human form." Now a human form must have some properties of matter; it must be visible, and circ.u.mscribed, or it is not form; and what is circ.u.mscribed and visible cannot be G.o.d, who, of necessity, is uncirc.u.mscribed, and therefore invisible. The infinite Eternal Omnipotent Deity _must_ be where that glorified body is not; therefore, the Great Father of all things must always be the object of worship, through Jesus Christ, who is the _visible_ image of his glory. The _form_ of baptism is retained by this sect, though they a.s.sert that the rite was "constantly administered by the Apostles in the name of Christ alone"; an a.s.sertion contradicted by the whole testimony of antiquity from the earliest times; adding, "nevertheless it is well to use the express words of the Lord, when it is known and acknowledged in the church that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three separate persons but three Divine Essentials, const.i.tuting the single Divine Person of our Lord Jesus Christ." {82} With regard to the "internal sense" of Scripture it is sufficient to observe that if "every syllable" were to be considered as inspired and holy, the long list of various readings would grievously shake our faith, though these are quite immaterial as to the general meaning.
There are serious objections to the distinctive tenets of this sect, yet, in justice to them, it must be allowed that the unguarded language of some preachers does so split up the Deity into separate individuals as to make the doctrine so taught a complete tritheism, and that a serious mind returning to the express declaration of the Scripture, that G.o.d is One, may be so far shocked by such unmeasured expressions, as to run into the extreme which I have condemned. Unitarianism on the one hand, and the doctrine of Swedenborg on the other, have equally sprung from a want of proper caution when speaking of the different manifestations of the Deity, and an unmeasured itch for the definition of things too far beyond the reach of our finite faculties to admit of any precision of terms.
_Words_ were formed for the things pertaining to earth; how then can they ever exactly express the nature of the Deity?
Notwithstanding the faith professed by this sect, their teaching, nevertheless, returns to the doctrine of the Gospel. In a tract "on the true meaning of the intercession of Jesus Christ," published at Manchester by their own religious tract society, we have the following pa.s.sage: "The Humanity named Jesus is the medium whereby man may come to G.o.d, because the Father, _heretofore invisible_, is manifested and made _visible_ and _approachable_ in him. This is meant by _our coming unto G.o.d by him_;" and elsewhere, as we cannot obtain this "light of life"
without following the Lord, and doing his will, as he did the will of the Father, agreeably to his own saying, "If ye keep my commandments, even as I have kept my Father"s commandments, and abide in his love;" so neither can we obtain that divine food by which our spiritual life is to be sustained, unless we labour for it, as the Lord himself instructed us when he said "Labour for the meat which endureth unto everlasting life"; and is it not of the greatest importance clearly to understand what this labour implies? Let the reader be a.s.sured that he must labour in that spiritual vineyard which the Lord desires to plant in his soul, in order that it may bear abundant fruits of righteousness to the glory of his heavenly father." {84} Thus we see again that the fundamental doctrines of Christianity _will_ find their way, however men may speculatively disclaim them. Why then do we differ outwardly, when at heart we agree?
The PLYMOUTH BRETHREN, so called probably from the place where this society first arose, do not allow themselves to be a sect, though in their practices they differ considerably from those of the Established Church. They meet together on the morning of the first day of the week to celebrate the Lord"s Supper, when any "Brother" is at liberty to speak for mutual edification. In the afternoon and evening, when they have preachers, the services are similar to those in the Congregational Churches (Independents): the desk, however, for they condemn pulpits, is not occupied by one man, but used as a convenient place for speaking, being alternately occupied by the "Brother," who reads the hymn, the one who prays, and the one who teaches or preaches the Word. There are also "Meetings for Prayer," and what are technically called "reading meetings;" when a chapter is read, and those "Brethren" who have made it matter of reflection, speak upon it clause by clause for their mutual instruction.
Before a person is acknowledged a "Brother," his name is announced at one of the times of "meeting together to break bread," as it is termed, and if nothing occurs in the interval, he takes his seat with them the next Sunday.{85} Any one is admitted to their communion whom they believe to be "a child of G.o.d;" but they do not receive or acknowledge him as a brother, "while in actual connection with any of the various forms of worldliness," i.e. the other churches of Christ. Their preachers move about from place to place, forming different congregations, which they again leave for other places where their services are required. None of their ministers receive any _stipulated_ charity. The "Brethren"
disapprove of any a.s.sociation of Christians for any purpose whatever, whether civil or religious, and therefore discountenance all Sunday School, Bible, Missionary, or even purely Benevolent, Societies. They do not disapprove of sending either Bibles or Missionaries to the heathen; but they say that if they go at all, "G.o.d and not the church must send them." They do not think that the Gospel is to convert the world, but that it is to be "preached as a witness to" or rather against "all nations." The world, they say, "is reserved for judgment, and therefore it is wholly contrary to the character of a Christian to have any thing to do with it or its government." When a child of G.o.d is born again, "he lays," say they, "all his worldly relations down at the feet of Christ, and he is at liberty to take up none but those which he can take up in the Lord." They neither pray for pardon of sin, nor for the presence and influence of the Spirit, and carefully exclude such pet.i.tions from their hymns. Many of them think it inconsistent with the Christian character to ama.s.s wealth, or to possess furniture or clothing more than is _necessary_ for health and cleanliness; and very great sacrifices have been made by the more wealthy of them.
These are most of them unimportant peculiarities; but the great feature of this sect, for so notwithstanding their protest, I must call these "Brethren," is a degree of self approbation and uncharity for others, which, to say the least, is not what Christ taught. "No sect," says Rust, {87a} "is more Sectarian, and none more separate from Christians of all denominations than "The Plymouth Brethren." The Church of Rome they consider "bad." The Church of England "bad." "A popish priest and a parish priest, both bad;" "but infinitely worse," says one of the Brethren (a Captain Hall), "is a people"s preacher." They occasionally indulge in what they term "biting jests and sarcastic raillery," of the ministers of our church, and of those who differ from them, which evince but little of the meek and peaceable spirit of the Gospel; {87b} for, as Lord Bacon has well observed, "to intermix Scripture with scurrility in one sentence;-the majesty of religion and the contempt and deformity of things ridiculous,-is a thing far from the reverence of a devout Christian, and hardly becoming the honest regard of a sober man." If I have appeared to speak harshly of this sect, it is because they seem to me to have abandoned so much of the spirit of the Gospel. "If the tenets of the Plymouth Brethren be consistent with themselves," observes Mr.
Rust, "they necessarily withdraw them from all society, and every existing form of Christianity, shutting them out from all co-operation with the holy and benevolent, for the relief and blessing of their poor or sinful fellow creatures, making it sinful to fulfil the duties of a subject, a citizen, &c." But I hope and believe that these tenets must be and are counteracted by the instinctive love of our kind, which for the benefit of the world G.o.d has implanted in man. The human race is so essentially social that they who endeavour to dissociate mankind, stand in much the same situation as he would do who should hope to dam up the ocean. It is in fact to these silent tendencies of human nature, whose force we never know till we attempt to check them, that we owe much of the innocuousness of false or overstrained opinions: the reason is deluded, but the feelings which the Creator has made a part of our very being, generally correct the false argument; and the man, if not previously corrupted by vice, acts right though he argues wrong.
[Picture: Decorative header]
LETTER VI.
CALVINISM.
I have already noticed that the sects into which the reformed churches are split, may be cla.s.sified generally under two great divisions, the one adopting mainly the milder views of Melancthon, whose advice was much used in the reform of the Anglican church; the other following those of Calvin, which were chiefly carried out, at Geneva, the birthplace of that reformer, and among the Huguenots of France. It may be well, therefore, before we proceed to notice the particular sects which profess to combine in a greater or less degree the doctrines usually termed Calvinistic, to examine what the opinions are which pa.s.s under that name. {90}
It was at the Synod of Dort, which was a.s.sembled in the year 1618, that these opinions received a decided form; for James Arminius, professor of divinity in the University of Leyden, having rejected some part of the Genevan doctrine respecting predestination and grace, this synod was called in order to settle the disputed points. After much debate the opinions of Arminius were condemned, and the doctrine of Calvin was summed up in five points, which gave name to what has been called the Quinqueticular controversy between the Calvinistic and Anti-calvinistic divines of Holland. They related to,
1. Predestination or Election.
2. The extent of redemption.
3. Moral depravity and impotency. {91}
4. Effectual calling.
5. Final perseverance of the sanctified.
Calvinists are understood to maintain that predestination is absolute; redemption limited; moral impotency total; grace inevitable; and the salvation of the believer, certain. But among Calvinistic as among Arminian divines, there are many shades of difference indicated by the terms _high_ Calvinist, and _moderate_ Calvinist, _sub_ lapsarian and _supra_ lapsarian, _scholastic_ Calvinism and _popular_ Calvinism; which latter has been described as "the Augustinian theology strained off from its mathematics." These all differ so materially that Bishop Horsley found it necessary to admonish his clergy "to beware how they aimed their shaft at Calvinism before they knew what it is, and what it is not;" a great part of what ignorantly goes under that name, being "closely interwoven with the very rudiments of Christianity." I believe, however, that though differences may subsist among Calvinists themselves, as to the explication of their doctrines, they generally allow,
1. That G.o.d has chosen a certain number in Christ, to everlasting glory before the foundation of the world, according to his immutable purpose, and of his free grace and love; without the least foresight of faith, good works, or any conditions performed by the creature; and that the rest of mankind he was pleased to pa.s.s by, and ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sins to the praise of his vindictive justice.
2. That Christ by his death and sufferings made an atonement only for the sins of the elect. {93a}
3. That mankind are _totally_ depraved in consequence of the fall.
4. That all whom G.o.d has predestined to life, he is pleased in his appointed time effectually to call by his Word and Spirit out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ.
5. That those whom G.o.d has effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, shall never finally fall from a state of grace.
The prominent feature then, of the Calvinistic system, {93b} is the election of some, and reprobation of others from all eternity; but to this we may answer, that if all mankind are really appointed to sin and punishment, holiness and salvation irrespectively to any act of their own, then they will be judged in exact opposition to our Saviour"s declaration, that he will reward every man _according to his works_: {95a} and again, that it is "not the will of "our" Father which is in heaven that one of those little ones," i.e. children, "should perish."
{95b} These declarations would, I think, sufficiently prove that St.
Paul"s expressions on the subject relate to national, and not individual election, even had the Apostle himself left his meaning unexplained: for the servant is not greater than his master, and it is not possible that an inspired Apostle should preach a doctrine different from that of Him who commissioned him; but if I mistake not, he has himself taken especial care that his meaning on this important subject should _not_ be misunderstood. For first, it is a notorious fact, though often overlooked in argument, that the very pa.s.sage, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compa.s.sion on whom I will have compa.s.sion," which is the main support claimed for the doctrine of absolute decrees, is quoted from Exodus, and forms the a.s.surance given by G.o.d himself to Moses, that He had separated _the Hebrew nation_ from all the people on the face of the earth. {96a} Again St. Paul has a.s.serted that G.o.d will render to _every_ man _according to his deeds_, for there is _no respect of persons_ with G.o.d. {96b} G.o.d will have _all men_ to be saved, &c. &c.
G.o.d forbid that we should consider that a man may not be a sincere Christian, who believes himself irrevocably called, "elect," and inevitably secure of his salvation; or declare that a strict Calvinist cannot be attached to our church: but St. Paul teaches that "Christ died for all;" that grace instead of being irresistible may be received in vain; that those who have been once justified instead of being _sure_ of "final perseverance" and salvation, _may_ "sin wilfully after they have received the knowledge of the truth," and "draw back to perdition," so that it behoves every one "who thinketh he standeth to take heed lest he fall." {96c}
In regard to "irresistible" (special) "grace," Scripture a.s.sures us that grace sufficient for salvation is denied to none; for St. Paul in every pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage is taken from the work of a teacher of the doctrine of Special Grace. "The reign of sin consists not in the mult.i.tude, greatness or prevalency of sins, for all these are consistent with a state of grace, and may be in a child of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d _doth not commit sin_ . . .
whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of G.o.d." {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 a.s.serting 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 G.o.d, was now become the image of the Devil; instead of the citizen of heaven, he was become the bond-slave of h.e.l.l, 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 G.o.d 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 circ.u.mstance 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 princ.i.p.al 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 inst.i.tuted 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 t.i.thes 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 pa.s.sed 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 a.s.sociation. 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 a.s.sociation,-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 cla.s.ses according to the number of families and the stipend of each minister; and the allowance to the ministers of the three cla.s.ses 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. x.x.xV. and x.x.xVI. 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 const.i.tution of the Anglican Church.