Chapter IV. The Congregationalists

THE Congregationalists, strictly speaking, with the possible exception of the Baptists, have as a whole the most ancient right to stand for Nonconformity in the history of England. It was their spiritual predecessors who, under the name of Independents, comparatively early in Elizabeth's reign, carried the National idea of religion on to its next logical development, and separated themselves from the State Church as the State Church had separated itself from the Catholic. They underwent considerable persecution at the hands of the National authorities several times, and themselves retaliated to some extent under Cromwell: and it was from that community that the "Pilgrim Fathers" were drawn who founded Plymouth Colony in America. They have therefore a respectable share in history-making to their credit.

I. In regard to their theology they are not distinguished by any particular dogmas from the general scheme of common "evangelical Christianity" as re presented by the Free Church Catechism, except, per is?

haps, that they may be called " minimisers " with respect to all sacramental doctrine. Their positive principles are a confession of faith in the Blessed Trinity, in the Fatherhood of God, the Divinity of Jesus Christ and the redemption of the world through His death, and the inspiring and sanctifying work of the Holy Ghost. Their negative principles consist chiefly in a strong repudiation of "sacerdotalism" and of any idea of spiritual or historical continuity in the ministry, with all conclusions that would naturally flow from this. The "priesthood" of all believers is thought to be delegated by the congregation to the appointed minister. Sacramental doctrine is therefore at a very low ebb. The late Dr. Parker, one of their most eminent ministers in recent times, on one occasion, in protest against a tinge of faint clericalism that he thought he saw to be on the increase in the denomination, repeated with a good deal of vigour the Congregational principles, to the effect that there was no difference whatever in spiritual authority and power between the minister and his congregation. Many Congregational ministers make a point of dressing in lay costume on all occasions, even in the pulpit itself. 2. The distinguishing feature of the Congregationalist is that he holds that a " Church " is synonymous with a congregation. Each body of believers worshipping in one place has all the rights of such a Church, and those rights are inalienable. (There is, of course, a considerable amount of Scriptural phraseology on which they rely for this doctrine.) There is, therefore, among the Congregationalists nothing in the constitution of their body corresponding to diocesan or metropolitan government, or even to the " Conference " or " circuit-system " of the Wesleyans. The recently in stituted "Congregational Union" is in no sense a withdrawal from this principle: it affords merely a central body to help on concerted action, and claims in no manner any real jurisdiction over the inde pendent " Churches " thus united.

3. The result of this system is, of course, that there is a great deal of freedom in each congregation to develop its theological views in this or that direction as determined by the will of the minister or of the stronger spirits supposed to be under his care. It is perfectly characteristic then that the recent movement known as the " New Theology " should have as the home of its origin a Congregational chapel. If " unevangelical " developments reached a certain point it would no doubt be theoretically possible for the " Union " in particular and for the other congregations in general to sever the very slender bonds of communion uniting them with such a " Church "; but the congregational claim to stand for " liberty " and private judgment would make such an action exceedingly un popular. They cannot have it both ways. They can not simultaneously maintain any distinct standard of orthodoxy and repudiate any semblance of general and final authority by which alone such a standard can be imposed. The result, of course, is that peace can only be preserved by persons of peculiar views attaching themselves to a congregation where such views are at least tolerated if not preached.

if>o NON-CATHOLIC RELIGIONS OF ENGLAND

4. Of sacred ceremonial in the Congregational chapels there is, of course, none. Music, however, is permitted freely, and there have been movements in a sufficiently ecclesiastical direction as to produce choirs of women dressed in surplices and mortar-boards. It is remarkable, then, and yet logically natural, that congregations of " believers " who originally united themselves for simple and "primitive" worship, in an endeavour to escape from prelacy and priestcraft and human intermediaries in religion, should have come at last to find that their "worship" consists briefly of sermons and prayers delivered by a popular preacher, interspersed by quartets sung from the organ loft. There is, however, a good deal of warm social life and endeavour amongst these bodies, and, recently, a great deal of political activity. The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are administered on the lines common to most Nonconformists.

There is not a great deal to be said to Congregationalists beyond what can be pointed out to all Non conformist enquirers; but this body, perhaps, from its characteristic disciplinary arrangements, offers the best opportunity for illustrating the inevitable disappearance of all real ideas of " Revelation" if once the Protestant scheme is logically developed.

If it were really true that Christ's intention was that each congregation in each place should be an inde pendent body, with no external authority to check or correct its doctrinal developments, we should surely have a right to demand from Him that a miraculous agreement should unite those assemblies throughout the world; otherwise the idea of a definite and revealed body of truth, delivered by Him to His apostles and handed down through all time, must be relinquished. The only logical answer to this dilemma is that the idea of " Revelation " in the Catholic sense must be relinquished: and this is the answer given by the " New Theology ". This new movement is pitilessly reasonable, granted the premises. Truth is no longer something revealed from above; it is a synthesis of conclusions arrived at from below. The Congregational system therefore affords an excellent method, on these premises, for arriving at the nearest that can be gained to Truth, since it supplies a large number of completely independent bodies of students and thinkers, each group of which works together on its own lines un checked by external authority or the fear of it. But it is this very thing that many Congregationalist "Churches" resent; they complain that the "City Temple" is no longer the home of "evangelical Christianity "; and by that very complaint they show that in spite of their desire for entire independence, that independence must itself be subject to an unformulated standard which must not express itself authoritatively. They wish, as was said just now, to have it both ways. But they cannot.

Among the features of the Congregational bodies which may be treated with sympathy, perhaps the most marked is their social life. A great deal of trouble is frequently taken in their chapels to make the worshipper feel at home; and the controlling body of each chapel has as a part of its duties the keeping in touch so far as possible with all members of the congregation. There is very little of that personal isolation and coldness of which even Catholics occasionally complain.

The origin of the Baptists is a little doubtful, but persons holding their characteristic views are found in England as early as the reign of Henry VIII under the name of Anabaptists. They formed an organized and definable body a century later; and they wielded great influence among the Puritans of the Common wealth. They have suffered religious persecution at various times. To-day they claim, throughout the world, a membership of over six millions, and in Great Britain of nearly half a million. They are distinguished by Mr. Charles Booth in his work on the religious forces of London as being the one Nonconformist sect that works both zealously and successfully among the very poor; and their missions to the heathen are equally significant of real fervour.

i. As regards their theological and disciplinary position, they may be described as holding ordinary "evangelical Christianity" in general, and as being organized on Congregational lines. The Baptists, too, possess a " Union " of their congregations which ex ercises a certain authority over its members, and claims the right to recognize or repudiate the ministers of those bodies. Until the early part of the nineteenth century there were two main divisions of the sect, the "General" (or Arminian) and the "Particular" (or Calvinistic) Baptists; these, however, are now amalga mated, and it is probably true to say that the Calvinistic element has ever since, in this as in other denominations, been tending to disappear. They are a well-organized body on the whole, compact, disci plined and fervent, and are comparatively little affected by advanced modern heterodoxy.

2. The distinguishing feature of the Baptists is that indicated by their name — viz., their attitude towards the sacrament of Baptism. They maintain the solemnity and the importance of the sacrament, although they cannot be said to regard it as more than a very significant symbol of a spiritual fact; and they ad minister it, under the form of immersion, only to those who have given evidence of a true "conversion". " The first duty of the saved sinner is to be baptized," runs an answer in one of their Catechisms; and again, "Baptism is immersion in water of a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ on the profession that he is a disciple of the Saviour. This immersion sets forth the fellow ship of the believer with the Lord in His death (by which He puts away sin) and His Resurrection (by which He ever liveth to fulfil the Divine purpose)," 1 Infants, therefore, are excluded from it; and persons baptized in infancy by the minister of some other de nomination are rebaptized on seeking entrance into

1(1 A New Baptist Catechism," by Rev. Charles Williams (Baptist Union Publication Department).

the Baptist community and manifesting the signs necessary. "Those who are old or young enough to be saved by the Lord Jesus, whatever their age, and who believe in Him, are the proper subjects of baptism." It was this teaching that brought the civil and ecclesiastical penalties down upon them in the sixteenth century; and even Luther himself repudiated it in characteristically violent language. "Who sees not in such Anabaptists," he writes, " not men possessed, but demons possessed by worse demons?"1 It is curious, however, to notice how with these " low " views of Baptism, they yet regard its mode of administration as almost dogmatically important. " Sprinkling," runs the same Catechism, " is not baptism, for baptism means immersion." They are exceedingly strict on this point, and the candidates are always plunged completely beneath the water. The ceremony occasionally takes place in the open air. Their teaching as regards the Lord's Supper is very much the same as that held by the more orthodox of the Nonconformist bodies; and the rite is performed regularly in their chapels.

In dealing with the Baptists it must be remembered that there is a certain proper pride of spiritual ancestry to be reckoned with. They have, after all, a history to look back upon practically as long as that of the Establishment itself, and nearly as many vicissitudes. The reason of their continuity is, no doubt, to be found in the fact that they witness to certain true spiritual 1 Praef. in Epist. ad Galat. Opera, torn. v. p. 271.

principles; they live, as do all religious bodies, upon the truth rather than the falsehood of their system. The main idea underlying that system, may be said to be that of " spirituality " or the personal responsibility of the soul to God; even their very distortions of truth are attributable to this condition. They reject Infant Baptism, not as do the Salvation Army or the Quakers, from directly under-rating the Sacrament itselt, but from denying to the infant the capacity of receiving it. Since active co-operation with grace is, in their opinion, always necessary to its reception, the infant, in capable of the one, is thought incapable of the other.

Next, it must be remembered that their appeal to the Scriptures and apostolic practice is a real appeal, though it rests upon a mistaken interpretation of the facts. There is not, amongst the Baptists, that spirit of modern " progress! veness " that is so much under mining the roots of orthodoxy elsewhere. They are old-fashioned rather than " advanced "; they appeal to the past rather than to the future. They have a real doctrinal system of a kind, which must be dealt with point by point. There is, in fact, in their spirit, a certain clarity and dogmatism which their enemies describe as "hardness"; there is not in them much of that in vertebrate modernism that prevails so largely elsewhere. The late Mr. Spurgeon, with his denunciations of the " downward grade " of Nonconformist Christianity, his strong teaching of the Divinity of Christ, the Atonement, " Justification," " Sanctification " and the rest, is a typical, though exceptionally strong example, of the dogmatic force of the body as a whole.

The Baptist inquirer, therefore, must be met on this platform. He is usually well acquainted with the Scriptures, and a believer in the fullness of their in spiration. He has a real notion of Christianity as a dogmatic system rather than as a "tendency" or a " spirit ". He has strong views on the relations of the soul to God, and a hatred of what he considers " for malism "; he has an immense reverence for the Person of Christ, and is usually tolerably orthodox with regard to Him. And he falls even more explicitly than many other non-Catholic Christians into the fallacy of thinking that written Scriptures, and especially the words of Christ, are so obvious in their meaning as to need no authoritative interpretation. "Jesus only," runs the Catechism quoted above, " has the right to legislate for His Church. A Church or a Council should not go beyond, to exact more or less than, the word of the Lord." Finally he is a hard hitter, and something of a logician, though he has (like most Nonconformists) never thought out to the bottom the principles of Authority and Revelation. He is generally utterly convinced of his own absolute orthodoxy, and of the heterodoxy of every one else.