Chapter II. The "Nonconformists"

NONCONFORMITY IN GENERAL.

NONCONFORMITY, as has already been stated, is the result of nothing else but of the national principle in religion pushed a little farther upon perfectly logical lines. The Anglican reformers never indeed con templated it; and there was as much indignation in the sixteenth century at the rise of the "Inde pendents" as against the "recusancy" of Catholics. Yet the Independent's answer is complete. If it is permitted for a nation to assert its individual religious rights against the union of nations hitherto known as Catholicism; it is as legitimate for a group to assert its individual rights against the union of groups only recently known as Anglicanism. It is of no weight for the Anglican to answer that he has not intention ally separated himself from the vital essence of the Catholic Church, but only from the unwarranted usurpations of particular authorities in that Church; for the Nonconformist can parallel it immediately in his own answer to Nationalism. If the Anglican ob jects to papal authority as a usurpation, the National ist objects equally to State authority. The true Church of Jesus Christ is, on the confession of.the Nationalist, not a matter of external, existing discipline, but is fenced by principles deeper than this: it is to those same principles, or, at least, to similar ones, that the Independent appeals.

When once, however, it had come to be believed that a Church of Christ hitherto visibly one need no longer be so— when once Nationalism in religion had driven the first breach in the walls of this hitherto universally accepted theory, and "Independence" had deepened it, it was a mere matter of time before absolute in dividualism—or pure Protestantism— was reached. If nations can separate themselves from external obedience to Rome and yet claim an invisible union with the "Catholic Church"; if independent groups can separate themselves from this " Catholic Church " and yet claim an invisible union with the "Christian Church "; individuals can also separate themselves from the "Christian Church" and yet claim an in visible union with "Christ". Thus there vanished largely from England any idea of a Divine Society through which the individual is sanctified, and there was substituted for it the theory that the individual, so to speak, comes first and the Society second — in fact, that it is the individual that sanctifies the Society; for the doctrine of the Invisible Church is nothing other in effect than this. Individualism became, therefore the fabric, so to speak, of average English religion — a fabric on which, later, discipline, Church government and the rest, became embroidered. Hence we see with extreme clearness the ordinary religious theory of the present day, to the effect that the sincerity of the individual is his only necessary virtue; the consequent loss of all sense of the value of objective truth, and the final development of the so-called supremely "Christian virtue" of tolerance.

2. Yet, while Individualism in religion became the reigning idea, there was always necessary some accepted treasury of Revelation from which the individual might draw for his needs. Tradition was gone; since Tradition pointed unmistakably to Rome, and Rome had been repudiated — there remained only the Bible. It was upon the Bible that the Reformers rested,1 it was to the Bible that the Independents ap pealed against the Reformers; and it was to the Bible finally that the Individualist turned to select those dogmas that appeared consonant with his temperament and point of view; as is illustrated by Chillingworth's aphorism that "the Bible and the Bible only is the religion of Protestants". We have already discussed this question at length, showing how in the various schools of thought in the Church of England, it was gradually re-perceived that this Rule of Faith is insufficient, unless, that is to say, it is viewed through this or that medium— the Fathers, or the Prayer Book, or the consent of Rome, Moscow and Canterbury, or the "Westminster Confession" — or, finally, through the exceedingly narrow and transient medium of "modern thought " and criticism. But it must be remembered that this need has scarcely even now been perceived by the Nonconformist sects, who still, it would appear, 1 Articles VI, XX, etc.

seem to think that the Scriptures can be approached by the uninstructed individual without prejudice or even predisposition; and even less, of course, by the Individualist who is apt to think that he and he alone is of all men utterly detached and even-minded. Yet it is necessary to remember that such is the Separatist idea. He still claims, though lately with a more faltering voice,1 that his own creed is the one certain and luminous and straightforward statement of the principles laid down by God in His written Word. An explanation of the position may perhaps be found in the fact that the Nonconformist denominations have, up to the present, found their supporters chiefly among the half-educated — among men, that is to say, who know enough to recognize their knowledge, but not enough to recognize their ignorance. They have produced, indeed, men of great personal holiness, as well as vivid, poetical and spiritual writers; but they have produced very few real thinkers — very few men, that is, who can stand in imagination outside their system and criticise it from an impersonal point of view.

3. Again: Though Individualism was ultimately produced by the first impetus of the Reformation, yet Individualists themselves have social instincts that cannot altogether be suppressed. Men may fancy that they can stand utterly alone with God's Revela-

1 It was recently said by a prominent Nonconformist minister that competition between the sects and the representation of many points of view actually served the cause of truth better than could complete unanimity of doctrine.

tion — and their individualism may assert itself constantly in moments of emotion or reflection — yet, as a matter of fact, they cannot long continue to do so. Sooner or later they will begin to re-form themselves into groups, between whom and themselves there will be the constant action and reaction of mutual influence. They will begin, that is to say, to re-climb again that descent down which they have come, at the top of which stands Catholicism whole and entire. It was in this manner that the various Nonconformist sects came into existence. England, in its deepest religious consciousness, had crumbled into Individualism, with solidified groups here and there, in the form of the older Dissenting congregations: in our own day, we see, in the constant formation of new sects, the ineradicable social instincts reasserting themselves once more.

The most startling example of this kind is, however, to be found in the recent movement in the direction of " Free Church Federation ". It is remarkable, first, that the word " Church" is used at all in this connex ion, since the old idea was that of congregations who, all joined together, went to compose the one Invisible Church of Christ. It is secondly remarkable that the movement should be in the nature of federation, since this implies a recognition that what unites professing Christians is more considerable than that which separates them. It was precisely the opposite principle to this that originally brought the Independents into an organized existence.

Three or four elements have tended to bring this movement about — some worthy and some unworthy.

(1) The growing infidelity of modern times — an in fidelity, of course, absolutely inevitable on the heels of Individualism — made necessary some kind of united action on the part of those who still retained portions of the Catholic Creed.

(2) The very social principle already referred to, drove men to ask whether the principles on which they had separated from their brethren were sufficiently vital to justify the continuance of separation.

(3) Owing to the class from which Nonconformists are chiefly drawn — viz., the middle, and half-educated class — a certain social jealousy was bound sooner or later to make its appearance — chiefly directed against the Establishment — so soon as the comparatively transient spiritual impetus faded, with which each Separatist movement had begun.

(4) The extraordinary development of political activity — so great at the present day as almost to have ousted from the more fashion able chapels anything re sembling that spiritual religion so characteristic of the origins of Separatism — naturally fostered and sustains at present a movement towards an unity that carries with it undoubted political weight. But that there was a real spiritual intention, at least at first, in the organizers of this Federation, is evident from the Catechism of " Free Church " doctrine, published during the first years of the movement. (This Catechism will be dis cussed presently.)

The Federation then is a very interesting and significant phenomenon for two or three reasons. First, it is an illustration of a movement towards some sort of idea of an ultimate reunion of Christians, which may have results even in the direction of Catholicism in the future; secondly, because its very name— as well as the character common to all the denominations that have joined in it — witnesses to a real spiritual principle—viz., the intolerability of a claim on the part of the secular State to define any doctrinal matter. This principle of freedom from the State in doctrinal matters is, indeed, one of the very few principles in which the Catholic and the Nonconformist find themselves at one. It was in defence of this principle that the English martyrs suffered at Tyburn, and John Bunyan in the prison at Bedford. It is for the lack of this principle that the Church of England has lost to such a large extent the influence she once enjoyed. It cannot, however, but be noted by the Catholic how extraordinary is the lack of imaginative vision in the pride taken by Nonconformists in their recent develop ments. The growing desire for reunion and the considerable organization that has taken place, after all is limited by the Anglo-Saxon races and only to certain temperaments within those limits, and takes no account at all either of the East or of the Latin countries of Europe. It is true that there are such things as Protestant missions to the heathen, but the feebleness and narrowness of them, as a whole, are simply indescribable.1 Practically it may be said that there is scarcely present to the average Nonconformist mind even the ideal of one Church and one Faith throughout the en tire world; the nearest approach to such an ideal can JCf. Marshall on Foreign Missions.

be found only in the " Bible Society " whose ambition it is to present the Scriptures, without commentary or interpreter, in all the known languages of the world, and to assist in their distribution — an ambition that, however well intentioned, is little better than sheer superstition and bibliolatry. The Church of England certainly has larger ideas than these; her missions, especially in Africa, India and the East, are quite consider able and are organized with at least an Imperial if not a " Catholic " motive. She, however, too, is enfeebled by the virus of Nationalism, and has even gone so far as to contemplate the imposition of the Thirty-nine Articles upon her Japanese converts.... But the Nonconform ists, by their very pride in their missionary efforts and their home-organizations show more eloquently than any coloured "missionary map" how wholly lacking they are in the Catholic idea. In time, as well as in space, they are handicapped; for bodies that do not even profess a continuity of life for more than three or four hundred years, can scarcely be expected even to see as a realizable though far-off vision all the kingdoms and peoples of the world forming one fold under one Shepherd. They have produced individual missionaries of entire self-devotion and zeal, but no more.

4. The movement towards the Federation of the Non conformist sects began to take shape in the last decade of the last century, and culminated in a " National Council of the Evangelical Free Churches," held at Nottingham in 1896 under the presidency of Mr. Price Hughes, of the Wesley an Methodists; and a yearly Congress has been held ever since. Briefly, its avowed objects are to bring about " fraternal intercourse" between the denominations, to increase and foster spirituality, to develop organization, to help on the application of religion to daily life, and "to advocate the New Testament doctrine of the Church and to defend the rights of the associated Churches". It is unnecessary to enumerate the various bodies re presented in this movement; the principal among them will be discussed severally later on; but it may be said that their adherents represent about half of the profess ing Christians of this country. There is no doubt whatever that the enormously increased weight of political influence enjoyed by Nonconformists at the present time is owing largely to the efforts made by the promoters of this movement, and to the immense force that has been organized and directed through its means. It would seem likely that the power thus generated will win greater effects in the future,- and that Puritanism, more or less Christian, allied with Liberalism as its political expression, will take a very considerable part in moulding the immediate destinies of the country. The fact is one more ex ample of the strange swinging of the Protestant pendulum. Those bodies who once withdrew from the shadow of the State in order that spirituality and unworldliness might develop in peace, once more are returning to political life with far more power (but probably less and less spirituality) than is wielded by that body which has enjoyed Establishment and the protection of the State for so long.

It is pleasant, however, to observe that almost the first important work of the Federation was the drawing up of a Catechism which, it was claimed, represented the least common multiple of the doctrinal tenets held by the bodies which took part in the movement; and this fact remains, although, as was said at the time of its promulgation, and has been emphasized more strongly since, the divines who drew it up, exceeded their powers, and did not really represent the views of those for whom they spoke. For it is astonishing, at first sight, that so much orthodox doctrine — and even sacramentalism — should have survived the multiplication of the sects, and should still be held in common, even theoretically, by those who once thought it necessary, for principle's sake, to be out of communion one from another. It is only on analysis that it is perceived how vague and elusive are the formularies dealing with doctrine.1 The intention of the Catechism is indeed admirable enough — namely, to present in as orthodox a manner as possible as many orthodox doctrines as possible; yet analysis reveals how general must be the terms in which such an intention is embodied. The Catechism illustrates, in even greater degree than does that of the Church of England, the essential difference between Catholic and Non-Catholic formularies. Roughly speaking, the Catholic formulary has as its object the definition of exact truth in as detailed a

1 In fact it may be said generally that theology — in the Catholic sense of it as being an actual science — is practically unknown amongst Nonconformists. Certain eminent Dissenting writers have written suggestive and thoughtful books — Dr. Dale's book on the Atonement is a fine example of this class — yet of " theologians " in the strict sense there are none.

manner as possible, in order, among other things, to distinguish the faithful from the heterodox; the Non-Catholic formulary aims so to define what is held as truth as to include and embrace as many minds and points of view as possible. Catholicism seeks to bring the individualities of men under the power of Revelation; Separatism, by a strange irony, to stretch Re velation to the individualities of men.

Particular points in the Catechism that are worth observation, are as follows: — l

(a) The doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Christ is taught implicitly rather than explicitly. Christ is referred to as " God," as the " Mediator," the " Advocate," " our Head and King," " our Teacher, Saviour and Lord "; but Arianism is perfectly compatible with all that is actually defined in this Catechism with regard to His Person. All that is directly stated on the point is as follows: —

4. What does Jesus say about Himself?

That He is the Son of God, Whom the Father in His great love sent into the world to be our Saviour from sin....

1 9. What is the mystery of the Blessed Trinity?

That the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, into Whose Name we are baptized, are one God....

22. What is it to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ?

It means that we rely on him [sic] as our Teacher, Saviour and Lord, putting our whole trust in the grace of God through Him.

1 The version of the Catechism here quoted is entitled " An Evangelical Free Church Catechism," published at the Thomas Law Memorial Hall, and is the zgth edition.

There is, in fact, in this Catechism, no statement equivalent to the doctrine that Jesus Christ is " of one Substance with the Father... equal to the Father as touching His Godhead"; and the omission is prob ably intentional, or at least significant.

(b) The definition of "the Holy Catholic Church" is as follows: —

33. It is that Holy Society of believers in Christ Jesus which He founded, of which He is the only Head, and in which He dwells by His Spirit: so that, though made up of many Communions, organized in various modes, and scattered throughout the world, it is yet One in Him.

And:—

34. For what ends did our Lord found His Church? He united His people into this visible brotherhood for the worship of God and the ministry of the Word and the Sacraments; for mutual edification, the administration of discipline, and the advancement of His Kingdom.

And:-

3 5. What is the essential mark of a true branch of the Catholic Church?

The essential mark of a true branch of the Catholic Church is the presence of Christ, through His indwelling Spirit, manifested in holy life and fellowship.

Now at first sight this language is comparatively orthodox; the administration of the Sacraments is declared to be necessary to true Christianity; the Church is described as "visible," and as founded by Jesus Christ. Yet, on examination, the definition is seen to be almost useless for the purpose of discrimination, since there is no mention of any creed or " symbol " to preserve unity of doctrine, and no " mark " beyond that which could be equally well claimed by any sect however unorthodox, or even degraded, which chose to claim the name of Christian. The answer to the further question, V/hat is a Free Church? seems equally disingenuous or ingenuous.

A Church which acknowledges none but Jesus Christ as Head, and therefore exercises its right to interpret and administer His laws without restraint or control by the State.

For there is, simply, not one sect or denomination of any kind whatever which does not claim that Jesus Christ alone is its Head — the most Erastian of Estab lishments as much as any other; neither is there one sect or denomination which has not either a person or a council as Christ's earthly representative and interpreter. It is impossible to think that the framers of this Catechism deliberately wished to confuse the issues; it is only possible therefore to believe that they had not sufficiently thought out their premises, or distinguished between the senses in -which Jesus Christ, and the Pope (or the King, or the President of a Nonconformist Council) may all legitimately be de scribed as " heads " of a Church on earth. Their in tention, of course, is both evident and praiseworthy; it is to vindicate the "Church" as a spiritual and supernatural body; but the confusion of their language or thought is very characteristic of their work as a whole.

It must be remarked, however, as a great gain that at any rate there is before their eyes an ideal or a vision of one Church throughout the world, even though that Church is " made up of many communions "; and that that Church is so defined that even Catholics are not thought to be necessarily excluded. The theory is in fact, in substance, the old "branch-theory" of the Tractarians, under slightly more vague conditions.

(V) The definitions concerning the ministry are as follows: —

39. What is a Christian minister?

A Christian minister is one who is called of God and the Church to be a teacher of the Word, and a pastor of the flock of Christ.

40. How may the validity of such a Ministry be proved?

The decisive proof of a valid Ministry is the sanction of the Divine Head of the Church, manifested in the conversion of sinners and the edification of the Body of Christ.

Here once more is this same confused vagueness, relieved only by the words regarding the call of the minister by "the Church". A valid ministry, then, is not merely a self-constituted one; there must be some sort of commission externally delivered to the aspirant by some representative of that body also vaguely denned as the " Catholic Church," or of one of its "branches". But, for the rest, the definition is use less. For who is to decide as to what degree or nature of " the conversion of sinners or the edification of the Body of Christ " is a sufficient guarantee? The " decisive proof " is completely indecisive. Neither, it will be observed, is there any hint given that the administration of sacraments is any direct function of the minister, as such.

(d) The sacramental teaching is as vague, yet as indicative of a confusedly Catholic ideal, as the rest. There are declared to be two sacraments only-Baptism and the Lord's Supper (without even the slightly saving clause of the Anglican Catechism to the effect that there are " two only, as generally necessary to salvation " ) — and the sacraments are described as " Sacred rites instituted by our Lord Jesus to make more plain by visible signs the inward benefits of the Gospel, to assure us of His promised grace, and, when rightly used, to become a means to convey it to our hearts". Further the " inward benefits signified" by Baptism are " the washing away of sin and the new birth wrought by the Holy Spirit in all who repent and believe "; and, in the Lord's Supper, " By the Bread is signified the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ in which He lived and died; by the wine is signified His Blood shed once for all upon the Cross for the remission of sins ". And, again:—

47. What do they receive who in penitence and faith partake of this sacrament?

They feed spiritually upon Christ as the nourishment of the soul, by which they are strengthened and re freshed.

There are several observations to be made upon these points.

(i) It is deliberately left an open question as to whether in baptism the " washing away of sin and the new birth" are actually conveyed by the rite, or merely symbolized as being among the " inward bene fits of the Gospel ". Certainly grace in general is said to be conveyed if the sacrament is " rightly used "; but not necessarily these graces. It is possible then for both the believer and the disbeliever in Baptismal Regeneration to use this definition, according as each interprets the word " signify ".

(2) So, too, with regard to the Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, it is possible to take the definition in either sense. His Body and Blood are " signified " by the "Bread and wine,"1 and the soul " feeds spiritually " upon Christ in general. The Zwinglian and the Lutheran, or even the High Anglican, could alike accept this definition as tolerable, or, at least, as not actually " heretical ". At the same time — as will be shown later — the absence of ceremonial dignity, in the administration of the sacrament, indicates plainly in which direction lies the ordinary accepted interpretation of these definitions.

(3) That this vagueness is deliberate is implied in a sentence to the preface to this Catechism, contributed by Mr. Price Hughes, in which he deplores the " lamentable day when Martin Luther contended with Huldreich Zwingli".

(4) It should be noted that nothing is said as to Infant Baptism, as indeed it hardly could be in a Catechism intended as an eirenicon between those who practise it and those who do not. The phrase " rightly

1 1 cannot help thinking that the alternate use and disuse of the capital letter are deliberate.

used " applied to the sacraments in general, is particularly appropriate here, since it is patient of practically any interpretation.

(*) On other points of doctrine the Catechism is sufficiently orthodox, though far from explicit. On the Being and Nature of God, on Sin, and its conse quences, including even " death eternal," the Incarnation, the Mediation of Christ and the Atonement. His Resurrection, Ascension and Session, all is, within limits, satisfactory; and this, in the days of " modern thought" and "new theology," is a considerable relief. There is very little trace of any "justification by faith only "; at any rate the doctrine is not at all empha sized. There is a fair summary of the Ten Command ments; with only one dispassionate warning against " the use of images or other devices of men "; a definition of prayer; a description of " the Holy Bible " as "the inspired record of God's Revelation"; and "the Sacraments" are mentioned as among the "special means " provided by God to " assist us in leading a life of obedience". There is an analysis of the Our Father, and definitions of the respective and mutual duties of Church and State: in this latter point it is declared to be the duty of the State to extend toleration to all " efforts to promote the religion of Christ, which do not interfere with the civil rights of others". Finally there are a few sentences on eschatology.

To sum up, then: —

(i) Too much emphasis cannot be laid on the charitable and tolerant spirit of the Catechism from beginning to end. " Evangelical Christianity " used to be distinguished at least as much by its virulent con demnations of Popery and Prelacy as by its positive principles. It is distinguished now, so far as it is re presented by this Catechism, by its efforts to heal breaches and refrain from strife. But its efforts after tolerance can only be sustained by the sacrifice of any attempt to define exact truth. Underneath all the bitterness of past years, there was at any rate a zeal for exact truth so far as it could be ascertained; at present it seems to be the desire of the professors to unite as many Christians as possible under cover of phrases whose signification is not agreed upon. A unity of this nature is not worth much; it is verbal and superficial, rather than real and profound. The committee responsible for this Catechism consists of five Congregationalists, three Baptists, two English Presby terians, and ten Methodists of various kinds; and these divines, it seems, have been actuated by a desire to agree upon a common formulary rather than upon a common body of belief. They have not relinquished — they have only suppressed — the doctrines that divide them; and although their attempt undoubtedly makes for religious peace, it cannot be said to make for the elucidation of truth. It settles no contro versies; it decides no disputed points: it evades them, or covers them with a phrase.

(2) It is remarkable, however, to notice how far Catholic ideals are once more beginning to loom through the mists of Protestantism. It is true that on the great points round which, historically, the conflict once turned — the Sacraments, the Church, the

Real Presence, Justification, and the like — nothing Catholic is explicitly taught; yet it is much to be thankful for that very little Catholic teaching is explicitly repudiated. And, further, phrases and sentences are used, certainly primarily bearing a Protestant meaning, yet almost Catholic in their sound, and, in some cases, actually patient of a Catholic interpretation. Once more the idea of a world-wide Church — an external visible body — is beginning to take the place of a purely invisible Church, and of a series of completely independent congregations. A ministry is re cognized which depends for its validity upon some kind of exterior mission; and positive teaching upon sacraments occupies a much larger proportion of space than could have been the case half a century ago. It would seem — so far as this Catechism really represents the official mind of Nonconformity l — as if something of a reaction were in process; and as if the great out lines of Catholic Christianity, so long obscured by the dust of Protestant controversy upon comparatively small points, were beginning to reassert themselves. Probably this reaction will not go very far; for there is a solvent at work — as will be observed presently — upon the very foundations of historical Christianity among the Nonconformist bodies; but it is at least something to be thankful for, that a larger view of religion has become possible at all.

The compilers of this Catechism are not trained theologians in the Catholic sense; and it is of no use

1 It is claimed by the compilers of this Catechism that they represent the views of a laity numbering about sixty millions.

to examine their statements too minutely, or, indeed, to regard their opinions as in the least final, or binding upon their respective flocks. All that can be said, in general, of their work, is that it shows the virtues of tolerance and charity, and is, on the whole, favourable in the direction of a more or less orthodox revival.