CHAPTER VII.

WORKS ON NONCONFORMITY.

Introductory Observations on the History of Nonconformity-The Nonconformist Papers'-Never answered-Sacrilegious Desertion of the Ministry'

་

The Judgment of Nonconformists of the Office of Reason in Matters of Religion''Of the Difference between Grace and Morality - About Things Indifferent About things Sinful ''What Mere Nonconformity is not '— 'Nonconformist's Plea for Peace'-Second Part of Ditto-Defence of DittoCorrespondence with Tillotson-Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet' Second De

fence of the Mere Nonconformist'-' Search for the English Schismatic 'Treatise of Episcopacy' Third Defence of the Cause of Peace '—' Apology for the Nonconformists' Ministry'-' English Nonconformity'—Conclusion.

THE distinction which I have made between the works of Baxter on Catholic Communion and Church Government, and those on the Nonconformist controversy, may appear to some merely a refinement, and that the publications thus distinguished, belong all to one class. Attention to the nature of many of these works, however, will show that this is not correct. The subjects, it is true, do frequently shade into each other; but they are substantially distinct. Many of the publications on church government might have been written, though the question of nonconformity had never been agitated; while that question, on the other hand, involved many points, which are altogether independent of particular views of church polity. The distinction will, at all events, be convenient, as it enables us to separate the voluminous writings of our author on subjects very closely connected, but which, if treated under one head, would have been tiresome both to the writer and to the reader.

Nonconformity is a relative term. It supposes some previously existing system of observances, established either by political authority, or general consent; and denotes a practical secession on grounds conceived by the parties to require and

justify it. Like the term Protestantism, it is general and comprehensive. It applies to various grounds of secession from the national religion, and includes different systems of ecclesiastical polity. No wise man would choose to differ from those around him, in reference to matters either civil or religious, unless in his own estimation he had good reasons for that difference; and in such cases it is the obvious dictate of duty to investigate the questions at issue, with calmness and deliberation; that conviction and not caprice, principle and not passion, may regulate the inquiry, and form the decision.

The Nonconformist controversy is a very unattractive subject to many persons. They regard it as a debate about words, and names, and questions, which gender strife, rather than godly edifying. Assuming either that there is no authority or standard in such matters, or that the authority of certain ecclesiastical superiors ought to be submitted to without murmuring or disputing, they pronounce their disapprobation on all discussions. of such subjects, and on the parties who engage in them. High churchmen are offended that the doctrine of conformity should be called in question at all. Those who profess high spirituality, look on the subject as unworthy of their regard, and as only fit for such as mind the carnal things of the kingdom of God. Dissenters, as well as others, frequently talk of it as being among nonessential matters, and scarcely deserving of profound consideration, and while they luxuriate in the privileges which their forefathers purchased for them at so dear a rate, almost pity and condemn the measures which procured them.

Without professing that the highest consideration attaches to the Nonconformist controversy, or approving of all the views or conduct of the early Nonconformists, I can by no means regard the subject as one of small importance. In a life of Baxter, it is necessarily a prominent subject, and no apology can be requisite for treating it fully in an account of one who was the most moderate of all the Nonconformists, while he wrote in defence of his brethren and their cause, more than they all. But, independently of its connexion with Baxter, the subject has strong claims to dispassionate and careful examination.

It is impossible for any one to form a correct view of English history for nearly three hundred years, without an acquaintance with this controversy, and with the characters and principles of See a very able Sermon on Nonconformity, by the Rev. Joseph Fletcher,

A. M.

the men who engaged in it. It is almost co-eval with the English Reformation; and the great questions then started cannot be considered as yet finally determined. The Puritans under the Tudors, became Nonconformists under the Stuarts, and Dissenters under the family of Hanover. They have been men of the same principles substantially throughout. In maintaining the rights of conscience, they have contributed more than any other class of persons to set limits to the power of the crown, to define the rights of subjects, and to secure the liberties of Britain. They have wrested a rod of iron from the hand of despotism, and substituted in its place a sceptre of righteousness and mercy. They have converted the divine right of kings into the principles of a constitutional government, in which the privileges of the subject are secured by the same charter which guards the throne. The history of the principles of such a body ought not, therefore, to be regarded as unimportant by any friends of British freedom.

The Nonconformist controversy contributed greatly to ascertain the distinct provinces of divine and human legislation; to establish the paramount and exclusive authority of God, and of the revelation of his will, over the conscience of man; and to define the undoubted claims of civil government to the obedience of its subjects in all matters purely civil. It is not alleged that all, or even the majority of the Nonconformists, clearly understood the doctrine of religious liberty. But they, and the Puritans who preceded them, were men of conscience themselves, who could not submit to human dictation when it interfered with what they believed God required; so that, though they did not perceive the full bearings of their own principles, and sometimes acted and wrote inconsistently with them, they remonstrated, resisted, and suffered, when kings and bishops commanded them to fall down and worship the idols which they had set up. From this contest and struggle truth derived great advantage. The untenable and unrighteous exactions of authority were exposed, the supreme authority of the Scriptures maintained, and the rights of conscience at last established. The mist and darkness which had so long covered one of the first and greatest principles of legislation, were gradually cleared away, and in due time that principle stood forth before the world, as no longer to be disputed that man is accountable to God only, for all that he believes as truth, for all that he offers as worship, and for all

that he practises as religion. This is the doctrine of the Bible, the dictate of enlightened reason; and lies at the foundation of all correct and acceptable obedience to God.

To the same controversy we are indebted for the origin of the correct and scriptural sentiments which are now extensively entertained respecting the unsecular nature of the kingdom of Christ. The intermixture of heavenly and earthly things does indeed still prevail, and its pernicious tendency is yet imperfectly estimated by many; but considerable progress has been made towards the full discovery of the entire spirituality of Messiah's kingdom. Its independence of secular support and defence, its resources both of propagation and maintenance, its uncongeniality with the principles, spirit, and practices of earth-born men, are now much more generally admitted than they once were. In fact, the ablest defenders of ecclesiastico-civil establishments, have now entirely abandoned the doctrine of divine right, and boldly avow that they are no part of Christianity, but only a human expedient for its propagation. Many of the Nonconformists, and Baxter in particular, were sticklers for an establishment. They did not clearly understand what was involved in their own principles; but in main-. taining a warfare against the introduction of ungodly men into the ministry, and the neglect of ecclesiastical discipline; and in contending for the rights of the church, independently of the will of the civil magistrate, they prepared the way for better and clearer views than those which they themselves maintained.

With this controversy too, there was often incorporated the defence or the assertion of some of the most important doctrines of the Gospel. These the adversaries of the Nonconformists in general very imperfectly understood. Indeed, enmity to salvation by grace, to justification by faith, election, perseverance, with their collateral truths, was often at the root of the opposition and persecution which had to be endured. There were doctrinal Puritans and Nonconformists, who would not have scrupled at most of the forms of the church, but who regarded its leaders as among the most deadly enemies to those great essential truths which intimately belong to the salvation of men.

There have been High Church and Low Church, which are only different expressions for Puritan and Anti-Puritan, Conformist and Nonconformist, ever since the Reformation. In the reign of Edward, Cranmer and Ridley headed the one class,

Rogers and Hooper the other. Though all four died at the stake for the common faith, the two last had suffered severely from the two former, on account of their opposition to certain imposed rites and ceremonies. In the days of Mary, both parties fled into foreign countries for security. But, even when in exile, the former stiffly adhered to the ceremonies which they had endeavoured to impose when at home, while the latter, availing themselves of the privilege of strangers, as resolutely refused to submit to them. This created no small dissension between the parties while abroad. On their return, after the advancement of Elizabeth to the throne, each hoped to carry their point. Those who were zealous for rites and usages, however, gained the queen's favour; their views being more in unison with her arbitrary disposition, and her love of pomp, in religious as well as in civil matters. But although the other party were disappointed, they were not entirely thrown out. As there was a great deficiency of properly qualified persons to occupy the pulpits and principal places in the establishment, many of those who were known to be opposed to some of its ritual, were allowed to officiate in the churches, and their noncompliance, with parts of the rubric, was connived at. Some of them were also raised to dignified offices. In the course of her reign, however, the bonds were gradually drawn tighter and tighter, and very severe sufferings came to be inflicted on a body of excellent and conscientious men.

What is said of the Israelites in Egypt, may be said with justice of the Puritans, the more they were afflicted, the more they multiplied and grew. The severities they experienced only increased their resolution to submit to no human impositions in religion, to resist encroachments on conscience, and added to their influence among those who respected men suffering for conscience' sake. Nothing but the energy and vigilance of Elizabeth's government prevented very serious disturbances in the country from these causes. Parliament would more than once have given relief, but was prevented from doing so, by the archbishop, and his influence over the queen. In her last days, when the nation was beginning to worship the rising sun, some abatement took place; but still the conflict went on.

A vigorous attempt was made by the Puritans, at the beginning of James's reign, to accomplish a further reformation of the church, and to secure liberty for those who conscientiously scrupled to observe some of its rites, though they wished still to