The Presbyterian form of church government began at mation _|_ the Reformation and attained development only in theories, ^he churches commonly called " Reformed." The Saxon Reformers were not indeed fundamentally averse to Pres-byterian principles. Melanchthon, for instance, expressly declared that no minister, without a college of elders and the consent of worthy members of the congregation, might excommunicate; and, in a letter to Nuremberg (1540), Bugenhagen, Jonas, Luther, and Melanchthon say, "Resti-tuatur et excommunicatio . . . adhibitis in hoc judicium senioribus in qualibet ecclesia." On the other hand, the "Reformed" churches did not all accept the system, e.g., Zwingli and the Zurich congregation.
In 1526 John Brenz drew up at Halle (Swabia) a scheme including elders, ministers chosen from the elders, and councils, by which the elders were chosen by the Government, who also had the final decision in all questions of importance. Franz Lambert, at the same time, provided for the church at Hesse provincial synods, representative of the churches, and a general or land synod, under the control of the Government. Within the limits of a con-gregation the scheme was purely congregational. At Ziegenhain in 1539 a decided advance was made towards autonomy, as only half the elders, who had extended powers, were there chosen by the Government. Zwingli theoretically gave the power to the congregation, practic-ally to the civil power, as being the representative of the church. In Basel in 1529 the clergy alone had the power of church discipline. In 1530, however, CEcolampadius, fearing a spiritual tyranny, wished to join a body of elders with the clergy, to be chosen by the council partly from its own body and partly from the congregation, four from each, who with the clergy would form the "censorum consensus." But the council, fearing the imperium in imperio, preferred four colleges, one for each parish, each college being formed by two members of the council, one of the congregation, and the minister.; and the council also retained the final decision regarding excommunication. At Strasburg (1531) the council created an assembly of the ministers of the seven churches, with three life elders from each, nominated by the council. In 1534 this system was modified: ordinary matters were settled each fort-night by the minister and three of the twenty-one elders. Difficult questions were carried to the twenty-one, and discipline, short of excommunication, to them with the seven ministers. Capito's system at Frankfort differed from this in that only three out of nine elders were elected by the council, and that the office was for three years only.
These all remained mere theories, limited, fragmentary, Calvin's and abortive. Calvin set himself to create a majestic system, and comprehensive system and to give to it the double authority of argumentative statement and practical realiza-tion. He saw that the impulses and the aspirations of the Reformation were, for want of,discipline, robbed of a large part of their dynamic force. He threw these forces and aspirations into the mould of his own genius, developed order out of tumult, and created a definite, yet elastic code, which should match the discipline of Rome and at the same time frustrate the anarchical tendencies of extreme Pro-testantism. The contrast with Luther is complete: Luther created, Calvin fashioned; " the watchword of the one was war, of the other order." Calvin, surrounded by Catholic powers, felt more strongly than Luther that a definite pro-test as to church government was necessary. His leading principles are that(1) a separate ministry is an ordinance of God (Inst., iv. 3, 1-3); (2) ministers duly called and ordained may alone preach and administer sacraments (iv. 3, 10); (3) a legitimate ministry is one where suitable per-sons are appointed with the consent and approbation of the people, but that other pastors should preside over the elec-tion to guard against inconstancy, intrigue, or confusion (iv. 3, 15), the final act of ordination, the laying on of hands, being confined to the pastors; (4) to co-operate with the pastors there should be "governors," whom he "appre-hends " to be persons of advanced years, selected from the people to join with the pastors in admonishing and in exercising discipline (iv. 3, 8); (5) discipline, the ordering of men's lives, is all-important and is the special business of the governors aforesaid. Calvin arrived at these principles as follows. From Eph. iv. 11 sq., Rom. xii. 7, and 1 Cor. xii. 28 he deduced five orders, of which threeapostles, prophets, and evangelistswere extraordinary and had lapsed, but twopastors and doctorswere for all time. Doctors are concerned only with interpretation and exposi-tion, pastors with preaching, sacraments, discipline. From the pastors some are singled out (1 Tim. v. 17), called, and ordained to "labour in the word," to occupy them-selves, in fixed charges, with preaching and administering sacraments; while the rest are invested with jurisdiction in the correction of manners and with the care of the poor. For, although Christ gave to the whole congregation the power of excommunication, as in the Jewish Sanhedrim, and although, therefore, the elders are to use their power only with the consent of the congregation, yet the crowd are not to rule, lest arbitrariness and confusion enter. Deacons (or elders who have the care of the poor) are of two kinds, those who administer alms and those who attend to the sick. For additional sanction to his views Calvin often refers to the primitive church and the writ-ings of the fathers. But with respect to this his position is best indicated by his own words in the preface to the Institutes: " We so read their writings as always to keep in view the saying of Paul (1 Cor. iii. 21-23) that all things are ours, to serve us that is, and not to rule over us, while we ourselves belong to the Lord, whom, without exception, we must all obey." (1) His system, while preserving the democratical theory in so far as it re agnized the congrega-tion as the holder of church power, was in practice strictly aristocratic, inasmuch as the congregation is never allowed any direct use of that power, which is invested in the whole body of elders; and the system constantly tended to development in the aristocratic direction. (2) The great object is discipline of life: " We come now to the third branch of the power of the church, and that which is the principal one in a well-regulated state, which, we have said, consists in jurisdiction. The whole jurisdiction of the state relates to the discipline of manners" (iv. 11, 1). In his correspondence too Calvin is ever on this subject, while the eldership itself is seldom mentioned; at Stras-burg his mind was constantly occupied with it; it was the first business that he set his hand to in Geneva; it was for insisting upon this that he was banished; and he made it his first condition for return (iv. 12). (3) Although the Presbyterian form of church government has to thank Calvin for its vertebrate existence, he nowhere makes the true church depend upon this or any other form of govern-ment. The inner life is what he insists upon, not the out-ward form ; all that is needed for a true church, he asserts, is the word of God duly preached and the pure adminis-tration of the sacraments. He held the jus divinum of the ministerial office as admitting of no question"that mode of governing the church by its ministers which the Lord appointed to be of perpetual continuance" (iv. 3, 1-3) but the manner in which the ministerial office is divided is to some extent in his mind a matter of argument and " apprehension." The same elasticity and desire for adapta-tion may often be noticed in his words, as, for example, when on the very question of election of ministers, whether it should be by the congregation or not, he says, "We must be guided in this respect by times and circumstances" (Henry, i. 371). Nor does he put forward any theory as to the detailsthe number, method of choice, or period of office. All these he leaves to each individual church. (4) He does not include synods as necessary. Should contro-versy arise respecting doctrine (iv. 9, 13), there is no better or more certain remedy, he says, than to assemble a council of true " bishops," in which the controverted doc-trine may be discussed. Regarding the question histori-cally he gives to the ancient councils a modified approbation, but he denies the power of councils to frame new doctrine. With regard to the relations between the church and the state, Calvin was utterly opposed to the Zwinglian Calvin on theory, whereby all ecclesiastical power was handed over church to the state. The political administration, he says, is as necessary to human weakness as are food and light and air; but it has not the right to legislate for religion or divine worship, though it must take care that the gospel religion is not insulted or injured. " The church of God stands in need of a certain spiritual polity, which, however, is entirely distinct from civil polity, and is so far from obstructing or weakening it, that on the contrary it highly conduces to its assistance and advancement" (iv. 11, 2). " The church does not assume to itself what belongs to the magistrate, nor can the magistrate execute that which is executed by the church." Thus, the magistrate imprisons a man for drunkenness; the church excommunicates him, and regards him spiritually as an outlaw. Should he re-pent, the magistrate takes no cognizance of his repentance, but the church can do so by allowing him to return to communion. The magistrate makes laws, and God makes laws; the breach of the one is a " crime," that of the latter is a " sin," though perhaps no crime; it is with the sin that the church deals. The magistrate may neglect to punish magisterially; the church, with spiritual penalty, supplies the neglect.
But, though the church disclaims interference with the domain of the state, she expects the state to support her. Indeed, while Calvin utterly abjures the thought of an imperium in imperio, while he spends much labour in showing how the papacy, by continual encroachments, secured the civil power, and in condemning this confusion of two distinct spheres of action, the function of giving support to the church is in the Calvinistic system really the raison d'etre of the state. In a very remarkable passage (iv. 20, 3) Calvin's position is clearly shown. A well-ordered state, that for which the best of the popes strove, is a theocracy. There can be no question as to what doctrine is right, for the law of God, the only possible doctrine, is plainly stated in the Bible. That law is the highest thing that a state can regard; it is indeed the very life of the state, and the position of the state towards the church follows at once. The words " toward the church " alone introduce the difficulty. They should be " toward God." If the state fail to support the church, it fails to support, not a human, but a divine organization. In the infliction of punishments, for example, the magistrate should regard himself merely as executing the judgments of God. So that the objection of the imperium in imperio, the assertion that the church claims spiritual liberty inde-pendent of the judgment of the state, while at the same time insisting on the support of that state whose authority she thus disregards, falls to the ground. The civil magis-tracy is as much a divine institution as is the ministry of Christ; the state and the church are as much one as are the veins and the blood which permeates and vivifies them.
The fallacy in all this is obvious. The argument necessarily presupposes a theocracy, and such a thing did not exist in Europe. A state church, claiming at once independence of the state and support from the state, must bring about contest and complication where the state is not prepared to recognize the claim. The imperium in imperio difficulty (expressed most briefly by James I.'s "No bishop, no king") arises acutely at once, however much the church may refuse to admit it. This was the case in Scotland. And where, as was the case in France,: it is not a state church but a union of persons holding a religion, and therefore views on important matters, which differ from those of the Government, oppression must arise in an age ignorant of religious liberty, and the oppressed will become a political party opposed to the Government, however much they may disclaim the position.
It can now be seen how far Calvin was able to carry out his theory. But for his life the theory, like those which preceded it, would probably have had no universal historical interest. Calvin's The course of events in Geneva had developed a theo-relations cratical feeling ; and the essence of a theocracy seemed ~lth gained when the citizens were summoned by tens in 1536 to swear the confession contained in Calvin's first Catechism (really an analysis of the Institutes). They swore as citizens, and those who refused lost their citizen-ship. As soon, however, as Calvin attempted to make this a reality trouble followed. His ruling idea was dis-cipline, and this was exercised against both the moral and the spiritual libertines,against those who objected to the discipline of manners and those who disliked sub-mission to the confession. As the reins were drawn tighter these two bodies gained influence in the council, and inveighed against the new popedom. At length, in 1538, when Calvin, Farel, and Conrad refused to give the communion in a city which, as represented by the council, would not submit to church discipline, the storm broke out. The three preachers were banished, and Calvin re-tired to Strasburg. This refusal of the sacrament is im-portant as a matter of ecclesiastical history, because it is the essence of that whole system which Calvin subsequently introduced, and which rests on the principles that the church has the right to exclude those who, according to her judgment, appear unworthy, and that she is in no way subject to the state in matters of religion. For the present the state had refused to admit the claims of the church. Calvin laid down as the conditions of his return the recognition of the church's independence, the division of the town into parishes, and the appointment by the council of elders in each parish for excommunication. The feeling, however, was for three years too strong ; the banishment was confirmed on the specific ground that the insistence on excommunication was an attempt at despotic power. Calvin's absence left the town a prey to anarchy : one party threatened to return to Romanism, another to give up their independence to Bern. It was felt to be a political necessity to recall Calvin, and in 1541 he returned on his own terms. Meanwhile he had been maturing and carrying out his system (Inst, iv. 8) in the French and Walloon churches in Strasburg. Church By the Ordonnances Ecclésiastiques de l'Église de Genève, organiza- which represent the terms on which Calvin consented to Ceneva ^e Pas*or m Geneva and which were published on 20th November 1541 in the name of Almighty God by the syndics, the small and great councils, and the people, there are, as in the Institutes, the four orders,pastors, doctors, elders, deacons. (1) The pastors preach, administer the sacraments, and, in conjunction with the elders, exercise discipline. In their totality they form the "vénérable compagnie." It was the duty of each minister, with the elders of his parish, to be diligent in house-to-house visita-tion, to catechize, and, generally, to supervise family life. After being approved as to knowledge and manner of life, and ordained by the pastors already in office, and settled in a fixed charge by the magistrate with the consent of the congregation, the newly-made pastor vowed to be true in office, faithful to the church system, obedient to the laws and the civil government (with reservation of freedom in doctrine and the rights of office; compare Becket's "saving our order " ), and, in especial, to exercise discipline with-out fear or favour. (2) The doctors teach the faithful in sound learning and guard the purity of doctrine. They too are subject to "discipline." (3) The work of the elders (" Anciens, Commis ou Députez par la Seigneurie ou Consistoire ") Calvin regarded as the sinew and essential substance of the system. They were the bond of union between church and state, and therefore the most important element of the theocratic government. Their business was to supervise daily life, to warn the disorderly, and to give notice to the consistory of cases requiring church chastisement. They were nominated by the small council and confirmed by the " two hundred." Two were chosen from the small council, four from the "sixty," eight from the "two hundred"; some were to live in each quarter, that the whole might be well supervised. After a year's pro-bation an elder might be dismissed or confirmed by the small council. If confirmed, he held office for life. To form the " consistoire " or church court, all the elders, with the pastors, met every Sunday under the presidency of one of the four syndics. This court was erected purely as a means to secure discipline. It could award punishments up to exclusion from the sacrament. It had, too, great authority (with appeal to the civil Government) in marriage questions. An officer of the Government was placed at its disposal to summon persons before it; should they refuse to appear, the Government itself compelled attendance. Moreover, the consistoire was bound to give notice of every excommunication to the Government, which attached to it certain civil penalties : " et que tout cela ne face en telle sorte que les ministres n'ayent aucune jurisdiction civile et que par ce consistoire ne soit rien derogue a l'authorit6 de la seigneurie, ni a la justice ordinaire, ainsi que la puissance divine demeure en son entier."
The inevitable quarrel arose in 1546-53, when the council overruled the decision of the consistory in a ques-tion of excommunication. The deniers of the autonomy of the church referred to the clause which laid down that excommunications were to be notified to the small council; but Calvin argued that the aim of this was merely that in extreme cases the Government should support the action of the church, not criticize it, and he won the victory. His position gradually became stronger. In 1557 banishment was awarded to any one who contemned the sacrament or the sentence of the consistoire. In 1560 it was ordered that the names of the elders should be published, honoris causa; and in the same year the appearance of state con-trol, by the presence of a syndic with his staff of office at the consistoire, was done away with. He was present, but not officially as a syndic, and without his staff.
It should be noticed (1) that the provision that in cer-tain cases the censure of the consistoire should be followed by civil penalties is in keeping with the theocratic view. So too is the provision that members of political bodies alone were eligible to the eldership. The rights of the church as distinct from the state authority were preserved by the condition that the meeting of the consistoire was summoned by the ministers. (2) In the Institutes ecclesi-astical power is ascribed to the congregation, to be exer-cised by foreknowledge of and in agreement with the acts of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But in the Ordonnances the congregation as a unit is passed over in silence as regards discipline and the choice of elders. (3) It must be remembered that Calvin never professed to regard this as a perfect plan, but as good as under the circumstances he could hope for. It was a compromise, and showed the practical character of the man. If he could secure the essence of his longed-for church discipline he was willing to waive the question of privilege.
To sum up the characteristics of early Presbyterianism (1) It is an organization for discipline. Whatever else they may be, the elders of the Reformed churches are, primarily, censors of morals. (2) The institution claims the triple ground of Scripture, history, expediency. (3) The Lutheran doctrine of universal priesthood is wanting. (4) No voice is raised for the choice of elders by the congregation. As to eligibility there is as little anxiety:
Brenz says, " from among the citizens"; CEcolampadius and Capito, partly from the Government, partly from the congregation ; Calvin theoretically leaves it unsettled, but in practice gives it only to the political bodies. As to period of office, Capito wishes for regular change ; the rest leave it in theory undetermined. Geneva retained permanence as the rule and change as the exception. (5) Synods have no place except with Lambert.
Lasky. In 1549 Lasky, who had established a flourishing church at Emden, was driven to London. There in 1550 he became superintendent of the foreign congregation, which was independent of the state church, but which was in-tended by the king to serve as a model to be followed when England should be ripe for reform. This church was in two congregations, French and German. The French kept the Genevan system, the German a modification of it. In this latter the ministers, elders, and deacons were chosen by the written votes of the congregation, with revision and final decision by the officers already existing, though any objection on the part of the congregation must be duly considered. The strictest discipline was carried out. Not merely the congregation but the ministers also were subject to the elders. Every three months ministers and elders came together for mutual censure. Deacons were subordinate to the elders. The eldership was for life, the diaconate for a year. The essential difference be-tween this and Calvin's system is that here the congre-gation has a very real though a limited share in the choice of the officers; the ground-work of Lasky's prin-ciple is subdued Congregationalism. Lasky held also that the ministers should have a fixed president, selected from themselves. This office he regarded as a permanent one. Under the Marian persecution the London system found in a modified form a new home in Frankfort and on the lower Ehine. At Frankfort, in the French congregation, in choosing elders, the church council selected twice as many names as were wanted, and out of them the con-gregation made its choice.
Scotland.The initial conditions of Scottish Presby-terianism are seen in the historical facts(1) that the Reformation was the form taken by the triumph of a violent and grasping aristocracy over the encroachments of the sovereign and an alien church; and (2) that John Knox was its spiritual leader. Under his advice the Pro-testant nobles in December 1557 formed themselves into a covenanted body called "The Lords of the Congregation"; in 1559 Perth declared itself Protestant, and Knox's sermon there on 11th May was the manifesto of revolt. In 1560, being hard pressed, the lords concluded with England the Pacification of Berwick, and a few months later the treaty of Edinburgh, whereby the whole government was placed in their hands.
Gesch. der evang. Kirchenverfassung in Deutschland, and Evang. Kirchenordnungen, <tc. ; Herzog, Real-Encyklopädie ; Allix, Hist, of the Waldetises; and other works. For Calvin, see Institutes and Cor-respondence ; Lechler, as above ; Henry, Life and Times; Mosheim, Eccles. History; Hagenbach, Works ; Cunningham, Hist. Theology; Ranke, Französische Geschichte ; Richter, ut supra.
Organization of ____ To the parliament which now assembled a petition was addressed praying (1) that a "true kirk of God" and the sound doctrines of the Reformation might be established, church. (2) that the true discipline of the ancient church might be restored, and (3) that the ecclesiastical revenues might be applied to the support of the ministry, schools, and the poor. Meanwhile the Reformers garrisoned, as it were, the country. Under Knox's agency Edinburgh, St Andrews, Aberdeen, Jedburgh, Perth, Dunfermline, and Leith had fixed ministers appointed, whilst wider districts were placed under superintendents or travelling ministers. To meet the first prayer of the petition Knox and five other ministers drew up a scheme of doctrine and discipline. The Confession of Faith, produced within four days and ratified by the three estates on August 18, 1560, was natur-ally aggressive and uncompromising. It expresses abhor-rence especially of the blasphemy of them "that affirme that men who live according to equity and justice sail be saved what religioun soever they have professed," and of all the doctrines of the Anabaptists. The civil magistrate is appointed for the " suppressing of idolatrie and supersti-tioun whatsoever." Above all, no mercy was to be shown to Catholicism : the celebration of mass was to be punished by death. To accomplish the second prayer of the petition the Reformed ministers and the leading Protestant nobles met at Edinburgh on 20th December 1560. This was a purely church meeting ; parliament had in it no part what-soever. Even in its birth the Scottish Church announced its independence. It will, however, be observed that there were in the forty-six members comprising it but six minis-ters. At this assembly was drawn up the First Buih of Discipline, which, though not accepted by the privy council, was on 27th January 1561 signed by the great majority of the members, and by the chiefs of the great Protestant families, on the noteworthy condition that- the deposed prelates were allowed to enjoy their benefices during life. This book, which was a grand effort to reconstruct society, and for which, its authors asserted, "they took not their example from any kirk in the world,no, not from Geneva," was nevertheless on the Genevan principle. It deals solely with the congregation; the idea only of synods may be traced. As regards the relations of church and state, the eldership, and the economy of the church generally, especially the supervision of life and manners, its views are those of Calvin. Doctors or teachers are not mentioned until the edition of 1621, published by Calder-wood in Holland. The order of deacons was of the utmost service in poor relief. It was abolished, of course, at the Restoration, and the want of it was shown by the fact that in 1688 one-fifth of the population were beggars. Upon the restoration of Presbyterianism the evil was again grapr>led with, and in 1709 so great a change had taken place that the justices of the peace were instructed to leave the whole question of poor relief to the kirk sessions.2 Besides the regular orders there were two others, called for by the exigencies of the situation, superintendents and readers. The latter of these was temporary, lasting only until 1581; it was required by the lack of highly-qualified men for the ministry. Readers were appointed to read the common prayers and the Scriptures; in process of time they might become ministers. The superintendents travelled through their districtsof which there were to be tenestablishing churches, settling ministers, and generally putting the church in order. Moreover, commissions were given, lasting for a year only, for special needs. It has been asserted that this office of superintendent was also intended to be temporary; but it is not stated so, as in the case of the readers; on the contrary, the whole language points to permanence. It is obvious that it is only by the most strained use of language that this institution can be used as an historical argument for Episcopacy in any modern sense. Not only was the super-intendent in all respects subject to the same rule as his brethren, but in the last exhortation upon election he is strictly charged, " Usurpe not dominion nor tyrannical authority over thy brethren." In June 1562, however, subjection of ministers to superintendents, as far at any rate as receiving admonition, was enacted; and in December 1562 the superintendent received the power, with the con-sent of the majority of the ministers in his district, to trans-
2 Hetherington, ii. 243.
late ministers. In 1565 his functions increased vitally; he might then call a disobedient minister before himself, accom-panied only by the nearest discreet ministers, who might suspend the delinquent from ministry and stipend until the next general assembly. In 1575 it was ordered that superintendents should be elected yearly, to avoid ambition.
Care was taken to preserve the rights of the congregation : " It apperteaneth to the Pepill, and to everie several congregation, to elect their minister. . . . Altogether this is to be avoided that any man be violently intrused or thrust in upon any congregation." But, once elected, he is irremovable, except for heinous crimes or by the majority of the whole kirk. Of course he is strictly " examinated " as regards both " lyiff and maneris " and " doctryne and knawledge," and especially as to his grasp of the chief points of controversy with Papists, Anabaptists, <fce. No special method of nomination of elders is laid down, but from those nominated the whole congregation is to choose, special care being taken " that every man may gyf his vote freelie." The liberty of the churches is preserved by making the elections of elders and deacons annual. The affairs of each congregation were managed by the kirk session (French " consistoire "), which met at least once a week. In every considerable town another weekly meet-ing was held, called the " exercise of prophesying," which in course of time became the presbytery or classical assembly (colloque). It was formally erected in 1579, and gener-ally introduced in 1581. Then, again, the superintendent, with the ministers and delegated elders of his district, formed what developed into the provincial assembly. To this any one aggrieved by the kirk session might appeal, and, if necessary, the appeal went to the general assembly. This right of appeal was given in 1563. The general assembly, composed of delegated ministers and elders, into the constitution of which a change similar to that in France in 1565 was introduced in 1568, met as occasion served. Educa- A splendid educational system was sketched. Parish tional schools, where grammar and Latin should be taught; system. co'ieges m every important town, with professors of logic, rhetoric, and the tongues; universities at Glasgow, St Andrews, and Aberdeen,such was what Knox desired. (The parish schools were not established till 1696.) The principle was affirmed that education was the affair of the state. " No fader, of what estait and condition that ever he be, use his children at his own fantasie, especially in their youthheade, but all must be compelled to bring up t their children in learnyng and virtue." Compulsion and free education for the poor were Knox's idea. In 1567 parliament compelled patrons who had " provestries, pre-bendaries, altarages, or chaplaincies at their gift to present bursars to them to studie in anie college or universitie of this realm."
Struggles with the ____ To carry out these schemes and one for composition of tithes Knox proposed to apply the revenues of the disestablished church. But he was completely baffled by the nobles, crown. wno hastened to divide the spoil. The absolute irrecon-cilability of the views of these feudal barons, who were Re-formers because their supremacy was threatened by crown and church, and because they coveted the abbey lands, with those of Knox and his fellow-labourers was at once brought into strong relief. His petitions were disregarded; the privy council would not ratify the Book; the lords determined that " the kirkmen shall intromett with the 2 parts of their benefices, and the third part be lifted up to the ministers' and Queene's use," or, as Knox bitterly said, two parts were " freelie given to the Devill" and the third part was " divided between God and the Devill." Even the sixth part allowed to the ministers was irregularly paid, a leading subject of complaint for many years. Knox's next struggle was to maintain the right to hold assemblies, the independence of which was the essence of the kirk's existence. Against Mary's able secretary, Mart-land of Lethington, he threw himself with his whole vigour into this vital contest, and so far won the day that all Mary could gain was the compromise (important in prin-ciple) that a representative of the crown should have a place in the meetings.
The next struggle was on the question of patronage. The church requested that the vacant benefices, about 200 in number, might be filled by duly qualified persons. Mary answered that she would not give up her right of patronage. The church replied that no claim was made on this right, only it was desired that the places should be filled, and that the church should have the right of collat-ing, after approval by examination, those presented by the crown or patron. The church, in fact, was compelled to admit the principle of lay patronage. This was accepted in 1567, and no change was made until twenty years later, when all church lands not already bestowed inalienably on the nobles were annexed to the crown. James VI. gave these lands lavishly away with their patronages, which thus became lay patronages. Charles I. and Laud used their best efforts, but in vain, to regain them. The church pro-tested until March 1649, when lay patronage was altogether abolished. It was naturally restored at the Restoration, and remained until the Revolution. On 19th July 1690 the system was again abolished, and the nomination to a vacancy was placed in the hands of the Protestant heritors and elders with a veto to the whole congregation. In 1712, under the influences of the Jacobite revival, the English parliament reimposed lay patronage. This Act, as violating the Act of Security, has never been admitted as valid by the purer Presbyterians.
During the troublous years 1566-67 the kirk, stable in a time of confusion, consolidated her strength, and within her own bounds established the strictest discipline. In 1567 parliament made the monarchy Protestant, ratified the rights of the church to collation, and established the important principle, resisted from time to time, that the "thrids" of benefices should be henceforth collected by persons nominated by herself, and that she should pay the surplus into the exchequer after satisfying the ministers' stipends. Her progress may be gathered from the fact that, while in 1560 the general assembly contained only 6 ministers and 34 laymen, in 1567 she contained 252 ministers and 467 readers. Her power is seen in the cen-sure passed upon the countess of Argyll, the earl being the most powerful of the nobility, for assisting at the baptism of Mary's son with Catholic rites.
To the nobility, which retained the old turbulence of feudalism that had long ceased to be tolerated in any other country in Europe, this power of the church was hateful, and after the death of Murray their enmity became out-spoken. Morton, acting under English influence, led the attack. In 1571, the Roman Catholic archbishop of St Andrews having died, Morton obtained a grant of the archbishopric and of the two-thirds of his revenues dis-posable, and, by appointing a minister on condition that he himself should retain the greater part of the income, gained a strong footing within the church. In January 1572 the earl of Mar got together the superintendents and some ministers at Leith, on pretence of consultation. This convention, under the influence of the nobility, assumed the functions of a general assembly, and restored the titles of " archbishop " and " bishop " and the bounds of the dioceses, on the conditions that they should be chosen by a chapter of learned ministers, that they should have no more power than the superintendents, and that they should be subject to the general assembly in spiritual I matters. These were the " tulchan " bishops. The general assembly of August 1572 was not strong enough to resist. The effect of this arrangement, however, was to rob Episco-pacy, as a system, of all title to respect. It soon became the earnest belief of all who were truthful and independent in the nation that the Presbyterian system was the one divinely appointed mode of church government, from which it was sinful to deviate in the slightest degree. Andrew In 1574 Andrew Melville appeared on the scene, and, by Melville, steady persistence and firm defiance of Morton's violence, gave fresh life to the church. The Second Booh of Disci-pline, sanctioned by the general assembly in April 1578, and ordered in 1581 to be registered in the acts of the church, represents her determination to repel the aggres-sions of the nobility. It was decreed that no more bishops should be appointed, that the existing ones should be called by their own names, not by their titles, and that they should submit to the general assembly for disposal.
The First Book of Discipline occupied itself chiefly with the congregation, the Second Booh with the dependence of the congregation upon higher courts. It did away with superintendents and established complete parity among ministers, transferring discipline and authority from individuals to bodies of men. These were four. (1) The kirk session, which in 1587 was ordered to be subject to the presbytery. (2) The presbytery or eldership, which had the oversight of a number of neighbouring congregations, and consisted of all the ministers of the district, and as many olders as congregations, so that clergy and laity were equally represented. It had authority to control the kirk session, try candidates, ordain or depose ministers. It constituted, in fact, the prominent feature of the system. (3) The provincial synod, composed of all the members of the presbyteries in its district, had jurisdiction of appeal over these presbyteries. (4) The general assembly, con-sisting of ministers and elders, chosen, be it observed, not from the provincial synod, but from the presbytery. Thus the presbytery took the same commanding position in Scotland as, it will be seen, the provincial synod did in France. The importance of these church courts politically, in the organization which they effected of the middle classes against the aristocracy, cannot be overrated.
The ruling elder was now to hold office for life,an important limitation of the power of the congregation. The general tendency henceforward, natural in a complex society, was towards centralization; the rights of the congregation were gradually diminished, those of the presbytery increased. This tendency was strengthened as time went on by the passionate hatred of the Presbyterians for the congregational system. Thus in 1639 Baillie declares that if the congregation is to have a veto upon the appointment of the minister it is "sheer Brownism" (vol. i. p. 241); and on 30th July 1643, although "William Bigg and the people " were against an appointment, the intruder was de-cerned by the general assembly to be admitted, since the patron, presbytery, and provincial synod were in favour of it. As the position of elder increased relatively to that of simple members of the congregation, so the position of minister increased relatively to that of elder. The supremacy of ministers and the subordination of the elders reached their height after the great rising of 1638.
The contest which was waged during 1582-84 between the kirk and the crown was chiefly concerned with the denial by Melville of the primary jurisdiction of the privy council over ministers summoned for offences committed in their ministerial capacity. He demanded in his own case to be tried, in the first instance, by the ecclesiastical courts. A more important case of the same claim, because connected with less important persons, occurred in 1591, and the de-mand of the church was allowed so far that the offender was tried in both courts concurrently. In May 1584 the par-liament met secretly and, having been thoroughly corrupted by the court, passed the " Black Acts." Act 2 declared Melville's claim to be treason ; Act 4 forbade presbyteries, synods, and assemblies, as being not allowed by parliament; Act 20 re-established Episcopacy and made it treason to speak against any of the three estates (e.g., bishops). The king was made supreme in all cases and over all persons, while none were to presume " to meddle with the affairs of his Highness and estate." The course of events from 1584 to 1592, the fear of Catholic Spain, the league with England, and especially the ability of Bobert Bruce led to a settlement, by which in May 1592 Presbyterianism was restored and ratified by parliament. It was of course a compromise, as is shown in the provision that, if a presby-tery refuse to admit a qualified minister, the patron may retain the income.
The quarrel, however, was not to be settled. For rejecting the bill of attainder against the popish lords the synod of Fife excommunicated James and convened aorown-meeting from the whole kingdom to complain of his con-duct. A little later Andrew Melville, when sent on a deputation, called James " God's silly vassal," and told him that there were two kings and two kingdoms in Scot-land, King James the head of the commonwealth and Christ Jesus the head of the church, whose subject he was. James, however, was strong enough to remain inflexible and to secure a victory on the question of the church courts, which, in the case of David Black, one of the ministers of St Andrews, who had in a sermon reflected upon the queen and Church of England, had arisen in its most acute form.
Two alternative steps were now suggested for prevent-ing future strife, the establishment of Episcopacy or the admission into parliament of representatives of the church without any title or jurisdiction derived from the crown. In a general assembly opened at Perth on 29th February 1597, and packed with ministers from the remote northern presbyteries, where the democratic spirit of the High Presbyterians of the South was unknown, James obtained leave to suggest in a future assembly alterations in the existing government of the church, a disapproval of the discussion of state questions and of the denunciation of individuals from the pulpit, and the forbidding of extra-ordinary conventions. Ministers were also to confine their discourses strictly to their own congregations, and summary excommunication was abolished. He had previously with a high hand put down the opposition of the Edinburgh ministers, Bruce and others seeking safety in flight.
In April, at Dundee, an assembly similar to that of Perth consented that commissioners should be appointed to advise the king on church affairs, which step in a great degree freed him from the general assembly. Thes'e com-missioners were easily induced to petition that the church might be represented in parliament. Parliament thereupon passed an Act allowing those to sit there who might be ap-pointed by the king, as bishop, abbot, or other prelate, the duties of their offices to be determined in conference with the assembly. At the second assembly of Dundee, how-ever, which met on 7th March 1598, and at which Andrew Melville was refused admittance by James on frivolous though legal grounds, it was resolved that fifty-one repre-sentatives of the church, chosen partly by the king and partly by the church, should vote in parliament. At a convention held at Falkland on 25th July, at which three representatives of each synod and six doctors of the universities were present, it was decided that the repre-sentatives should be nominated by the king out of a list of six as vacancies occurred. They were to be respon-sible to the general assembly, and were to propose nothing unless instructed to do so by the church. Of these two plans, the parliament's and the church's, James greatly preferred the former; to induce the church to agree to it he held a conference previous to the general assembly at Montrose in 1600, but in vain. At Montrose the assembly put limitations to the plan of the Falkland convention by insisting that their representatives should sit but for one year, and that at the end of that year they should resign and account for their conduct to the assembly, which might depose them. They were to be called commissioners only. Six were to be nominated for each province, from whom the king was to choose one. The commissioner was to have no power above that of other ministers, was to perform full pastoral work, and was to lose his vote in parliament if deposed from the ministry. Victory James at length took a decisive step. On 14th October of James 1600 he summoned a convention of commissioners from VI" the various synods, and by some means secured its consent to the appointment of three bishops in addition to those formerly nominated and still living. They took their seats and voted in parliament next November; but the church, disowning the authority of the convention, refused to ac-knowledge the appointment as valid, and assigned them no place in her own organization. The quarrel became intensified when James was master of the power of corruption with English money. The proposals for union between the kingdoms at once brought out the views of the church. "The realmes," said Melville, "could not be united with-out the union of the kirk; neither could the kirkes be united in discipline, the one being Episcopal and the other Presbyterian, unless one should surrender to the other." When James twice prorogued the meeting of the general assembly nine presbyteries met at Aberdeen in defiance. The Government at once struck hard: eight ministers were banished to remote charges and six to France. Next followed the alienation of church lands and revenues and their erection into temporal lordships, the re-establishment of seventeen prelacies, and the restoration of the bishops. The immense step was taken of recognizing the king as "absolute prince, judge, and governor over all estates, persons, and causes, both spiritual and temporal." In 1606 another packed assembly declared for constant moderators of presbyteries and for the supremacy of the bishops in their own presbytery and provincial synod. In 1609 the bishops gained the right of fixing ministers' stipends. In 1610 courts of high commission with most arbitrary powers were erected at Glasgow and St Andrews ; and in June the general assembly placed the whole ecclesi-astical power in the king's hands. In 1618, under threats of violence, the general assembly of Perth passed the Five Acts, which enforced kneeling at communion, observance of holy days, Episcopal confirmation, private baptism, and private communion. These were ratified by parliament on Black Saturday, 4th August 1621. Thus matters remained until the death of James.
Almost the first act of Charles I. was to proclaim the strict observance of the articles of Perth. In November 1625 he revoked all the Acts of his father prejudicial to the crown, as a first step toward the resumption of the church lands. This, of course, met with the vehement opposition of the nobility, and the scheme in the end had to be given up. In 1630 Maxwell, in Laud's confidence, was sent to Scotland to try to force upon the people the English liturgy. It is significant of the change in feeling that a paper of grievances sent in by ministers was sup-ported by several of the nobility. Their hatred was always directed to the nearest enemy, against the crown before the Beformation and during its early stages, against the Reformed Church of late years, now against the crown again. In 1633 Charles came to Edinburgh and forced through the convention the "Act anent his Majesty's Prerogative and Apparel of Churchmen," a combination of two Acts passed in 1606 and 1609 respectively. All protests were disregarded and the whole nation was thrown into a state of anger and disappointment. The attack on Balmerino still further alienated the lords. In 1635 diocesan courts were erected with the most vexatious powers, and the Booh of Canons, subversive of Presbyterianism and insulting in language, was distributed; and in 1636 the people were ordered to adopt Laud's book of public wor-ship ; while in July 1637 the prelates obtained an order of outlawry against ministers who should be backward in re-ceiving the liturgy. As Baillie said, they were like to go " to Rome for religion, to Constantinople for policy." On 23d July, however, the outburst of St Giles's took place. Final The history of the great rising cannot be traced here. The S£^ss National Covenant, which was its outcome, drawn up by cnurc]j Alexander Henderson and Johnston of Warriston, consisted of the Second Booh of Discipline, a recapitulation of the Acts of Parliament condemning Popery and ratifying the acts of the general assembly, and the application of the whole to present times.
After some months of trickery and evasion, frustrated with firmness and ability by the Covenanters, the general assembly met on Wednesday, 21st November 1638. When they determined to sit in judgment on the prelates, Hamilton, the king's commissioner, dissolved the assembly. It, however, continued its sitting, refused to acknowledge the assemblies which had introduced prelacy, condemned the Acts of Perth and all the late innovations, and abjured all Episcopacy different from that of a pastor over a particular flock. Baillie alone made a stand for not rejecting Episcopacy as represented by the superintendents of Knox's time. Eight prelates were excommunicated, four deposed only, two reduced to the simple pastorate. All church assemblies were restored, and the principle that the con-sent of the congregation was necessary to a minister's appointment was re-enacted. Schools and schoolmasters were at once to be provided. In August 1639 an Act was passed, called the Barrier Act, that no change should be made in the laws of the church until the proposal had been submitted to all provincial synods and presbyteries.
The church was now secure. She had gained the day, because on this occasion the zeal of her ministers and the interests of the nobles had been both enlisted in her service. The victory had been won in her name and the influence of her ministers was vastly increased. For the spiritual tyranny which they introduced the reader should refer to Mr Buckle's famous chapter; or, if he think those statements to be partial or exaggerated, to original records, such as those of the presbyteries of St Andrews and Cupar. The arrogance of the ministers' pretensions and the readi- Rule of ness with which these pretensions were granted, the appal- ministers ling conceptions of the Deity which were inculcated and the °u^^ absence of all contrary expression of opinion, the intrusions on the domain of the magistrate, the vexatious inter-ference in every detail of family and commercial life and the patience with which it was borne, are to an English reader alike amazing. "We acknowledge," said they, " that according to the latitude of the word of God (which is our theame) we are allowed to treate in an ecclesiastical way of greatest and smallest, from the King's throne that should be established in righteousness, to the merchant's ballance that should be used in faithfulness." The liber-ality of the interpretation given to this can only be judged of after minute reading.
Up to this point the Kirk had worked out her own salvation ; the problem had been purely Scottish ; hence-forward her history is in close connexion with that of England and assumes a different complexion. Her first difficulties, however, arose in her own midst. Under the prelatic rale conventicles had arisen, which after the restoration of Presbyterianism caused great searchings of heart. Whatever he had to say about popery, prelacy, or arbitrary power, the true Presbyterian reserved his fiercest hatred and his most ferocious language for anything which savoured of Congregationalism. At the instance of Henry Guthrie, who under Charles II. became a bishop, the general assembly of 1640 limited family worship to the members of each family, and forbade any one to preach who was not duly ordained and approved. This was but the beginning of dissension.
Passing over the events of the next six years, as coming more conveniently under the head of England, we notice that the moment external danger was removed the natural and abiding antipathy between a licentious and entirely selfish aristocracy and a masterful, censorious, and demo-cratic church broke out. Two parties showed themselves, that of the ministers, who insisted that no arrangement should be come to with Charles unless he would take the Covenant (compare the French " consistoriaux"), the other, headed by Hamilton, Lanark, Lauderdale, and others, who " engaged" to raise an army for him on condition, ostensibly,' that he would confirm Presbyterian church government for three years. The real conditions, as long believed but only just discovered, contain not a word about the church, but are entirely concerned with the privileges of the Scottish nobility. A vehement disruption of the church at once took place and did not cease until the defeat of Hamilton. Then the ministers were once more masters. Parliament repealed the Act of Engagement and passed the Act of Classes, whereby all those to whom the church deemed it inexpedient to give political power were regis-tered in four classes according to their faults. It was by this parliament that lay patronage was abolished, and that the rights of the congregation as to election of ministers were settled for the time. After the battle of Dunbar, when troops were being hastily raised, the Act of Classes stood much in the way. In spite of the remonstrances of Patrick Gillespie and the western Covenanters, the com-mission of the assembly (which sat en permanence during the recess of the assembly itself) resolved to allow all persons to serve who were not professed enemies to the Covenant or excommunicated. The parliament went further and rescinded the Act of Classes altogether. Against this union of the church with the "malignants" Gillespie's faction protested, and henceforward the rivalry and bitter-ness between Resolutioners and Protesters, the latter being favoured by Cromwell, deprived the church of much of its power of resistance. Both parties, absorbed in their quarrel, looked on while Monk, after the battle of Worcester (1651), took the matter into his own hands by refusing to allow any general assembly whatever to meet, though he per-mitted the continuance of the other assemblies. Restora- Within two years of the Restoration the Presbyterian tion of Church ceased to exist. Weariness, internal dissension, Episco- in(JifferenCe or positive hatred of the nobles, and the pacy' extremity of treachery in James Sharp brought about the downfall. The steps by which Episcopacy was restored were these. The leaders of the strict Covenanting party were imprisoned, while a quibbling proclamation was issued by Charles which served to keep the Resolutioners in play. Proclamations were issued against all unlawful meetings, and papers such as Rutherford's Lex Rex and Guthrie's Causes of God's Wrath were called in. In January 1661 a bribed and packed parliament passed an oath of allegiance in which the king was acknowledged as supreme over all persons and in all causes. With scarcely an exception,
Cassilis being the only one of note, the nobility took the oath. Next the acceptance of the Solemn League and Covenant was declared null and void, and its renewal was prohibited. And, by way of clearing the field entirely, a Rescissory Act was passed annulling all the parliaments since 1633 and thereby suspending the Presbyterian system. The parliament then declared that the church government was to be such as was most agreeable to the word of God, to monarchical government, and to public peace; remonstrances were disregarded and synods suppressed or corrupted. Argyll and James Guthrie were judicially murdered. Finally, on 14th August 1661, Episcopacy was restored by proclamation ; Sharp, Fairfoul, Hamilton, and Leighton were consecrated in London ; and on 2d January 1662 all Presbyterian assemblies of every sort, unless autho-rized by the prelates, were forbidden. On 8th May the proclamation was enforced by Act of parliament. All reli-gious covenants and leagues, protestations and petitions, were made treasonable, nor might any one be professor, minister, schoolmaster, or private tutor without a bishop's licence. On 5th September 1662 the abjuration of the National Covenant and all other religious covenants was made a condition for public trust. Finally, the Act of Indemnity, which had been delayed as long as possible, contained a schedule of persons of the Presbyterian interest who were punished with heavy fines. Dangerous ministers were banished from Edinburgh and all were ordered to attend the bishops' courts when summoned, while by the Glasgow Act ministers who had taken charges since 1649 were ousted from home, parish, and presbytery unless be-fore 1st November they obtained presentation from the patron and collation from the bishop. This led to the ejectment of 400 ministers. Ejectment led, of course, as in England, to conventicling, and on 17th June and 13th August 1663 severe Acts were passed against these meet-ings. Presbyterian ministers from Ireland were forbidden to reside in Scotland, and absentees from public worship were vigorously proceeded against. The system of perse-cution was now complete, and the triumph was signalized by the execution of Johnston of Warriston, who had been kidnapped in France and who was now put to death with flippant cruelty. In 1664, at the suggestion of the arch-bishops Sharp and Burnet, a court of high commission was erected with unlimited powers.
Revolt soon followed; it was crushed at Pentland and ruthlessly punished. But the nobles speedily became jealous of the growing power of the prelates. Lauderdale in especial saw his influence threatened. He reported to Charles that Prelacy was becoming as great a danger to the crown as Presbyterianism had been, " so unwilling are churchmen, by whatever name they are distinguished, to part with power." Sharp was easily threatened and cajoled, and Burnet, after a struggle of three years, was forced to resign. It was not, however, until after the fall of Clarendon in 1667 that indulgence was seriously tried there as in England. In July 1669 ten ministers, of whom Hutcheson was the chief, who were willing to admit the ecclesiastical supremacy of the king and to accept the bishops' collation, were allowed to return to their livings, and were henceforth known as the "bishops' curates." This subservience caused a renewal of the breach in the church; from henceforward the feud between the " Indulged " and the -" non-Indulged " took the place of that between Resolutioners and Protesters. Forty-two ministers accepted the indulgence. A second indulgence followed in 1672. From Lauderdale's marriage with Lady Dysart until 1687 there ensued a policy of extermination, borne with marvellous fortitude. To Covenanters had succeeded Protesters, to Protesters Conventiclers, to Con-venticlers now succeeded Hamiltonians, to Hamiltonians Cameronians or Society People. Want of space prevents us from giving even the names of a series of Acts which would disgrace any nation however barbarous, in any age however intolerant, and under which, it is asserted with great probability, 18,000 persons died. In February 1687 James II. proclaimed indulgences to moderate Presbyterians as far only as regarded private worship. By the same proclamation the profession of Roman Catholicism was made absolutely free. In March a more extended indulgence and in June the suspension of all penal laws, except as regarded field-preaching, were granted. The party which had throughout refused compromise refused it still. In their Informatory Vindication they scouted the claim of the sovereign to "indulge" orto "tolerate "an inalienable right, and went on with their field-preaching as though nothing had happened. The death of Renwick, their leader, closes the awful story of the rule of the later Stuarts in Scotland.
Presbyterian-ism once more
1 They remained without a minister until 1707, when they were joined by John M'Millan, minister of the parish of Balmaghie, who had been summarily deposed for principles akin to those of the Society People. The accession of Thomas Nairn, one of the ministers of the Secession Church, made a "Reformed Presbytery" possible in 1743 ; this became a synod of three presbyteries in 1811. The first "Testi-mony," published in 1761, was afterwards superseded by that of 1839, which thenceforward was regarded as one of the " subordinate stand-ards " of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. In 1876 before the union with the Free Church (see vol. ix. p. 746) the denomination in Scotland numbered 6 presbyteries, 38 ministers, and 40 congregations. It also had six missionaries in the New Hebrides. For the fortunes of the Reformed presbyteries in Ireland and the United States, see below.
On 5th November 1688 William landed at Torbay; the bishops' curates were ejected without violence; no retri-bution was taken, but Presbyterianism quietly reasserted supreme, itself as the form of church government natural to the Scottish mind. Presbyterianism, however, was not now what it had been in the days of Andrew Melville or in 1638. The last twenty-six years had thoroughly cowed a great part of the nation, and a new generation had come to manhood who could not even remember the time when Scotland was not Episcopal. The nobles had no interest to serve in re-establishing the old form ; the very ministers were those who had conformed or had accepted indulgence. Out of the 400 ejected in 1663 only sixty now survived. Moreover, Scotland had not escaped the wave of latitudi-narianism that had come over all forms of Protestant religion. Most of all, the character of William III. and his confidential adviser Carstares affected the nature of the settlement. William was above all a statesman, and a toler-ant statesman, and he wished for union of the moderate parties in both kingdoms ; on taking the coronation oath he refused to swear the clause binding him to root out heretics and enemies of the true worship of God. The claim of right, too, avoids any assertion of the jus divinum of Presbyterianism. But on 22d July 1689 its declaration that prelacy had been an insupportable grievance was made into an Act by the convention of estates, and all Acts in favour of Episcopacy were rescinded. In April 1690 the Act of Supremacy was also rescinded; ministers ejected since 1661 were replaced, and the Presbyterian government of 1592 (thus avoiding all mention of the covenants) restored; lay patronage was abolished, but pecuniary compensation was granted. On 16th October 1690 the first general assembly since 1653 met, when the preliminary act was to receive into the national church the remaining three ministers of the Cameronians (Thomas Lining, Alexander Shields, and William Boyd). Their followers, however, regarded this as a compromise with Satan, and kept themselves aloof.1 Episcopalian ministers who subscribed the confession and obeyed the Presbyterian government re-tained their livings, and all sentences of Resolutioners and Protesters against one another were rescinded. Mr Hether-ington well says, "Without a clear conception of this point it is impossible to understand the subsequent history of the Church of Scotland. In consequence of the introduction of the prelatic party the church thenceforward contained within its pale two systems, that of the old and true Presbyterian, subsequently known as the 1 evangelical,' and that of the new and semi-prelatical, subsequently known as the ' moderate.' Thenceforward the history of the Church of Scotland is the history of the protracted struggle between these two systems, which were necessarily irreconcilable." o In the first case of friction with the crown, which occurred in 1691, a compromise was effected,the church success-fully asserting its autonomy by granting only part of the privileges which William desired for the Episcopal clergy. The critical dispute occurred when parliament imposed a new oath of allegiance, the taking of which was made a necessary qualification for sitting in the assembly. The church denied the right of the crown to impose a civil oath as a condition of spiritual office ; and a serious breach would have occurred but for the efforts of Carstares, who induced the king to give way at the last moment. Having thus asserted her independence, the church conceded to William nearly all he had asked for on behalf of the Episcopalians. In 1696 the parish schools were estab-lished. In 1698, to vindicate the church from the charges of backsliding, the general assembly published the Season-able Admonition, which claimed in emphatic language the dependence of the church on Christ alone, and repudiated the doctrine that the inclination of the people was the foundation of Presbyterianism. In 1701 the first con-demnation of heresy took place.
The spirit of watchfulness on the part of the church increased during Anne's reign. In naming commissioners for the Union the parliament forbade them to mention the church. The extreme section indeed regarded the Union itself as a violation of the Solemn League and Covenant. The Act of Security provided that the Confession of Faith and the Presbyterian government should "continue without any alteration to the people of this land in all succeeding ages," and the first oath taken by the queen at her accession was to preserve it. The Union, however, tended to Anglicize the upper classes and thus to increase the latitudinarianism which was finding its way within the church. Politically speaking, the settlement of the Scottish Church was of great importance to the Govern-ment during the Jacobite intrigues, for its attitude was one of vigilance against all that was favourable to Prelacy, and its influence consolidated opinion against the Stuarts.
The High-Church revival of 1710, however, had its effect upon the church. In 1711 an Episcopalian named Greenshields used the English liturgy in Edinburgh. He was condemned by the Court of Session; but the House of Lords reversed the decision and imposed heavy damages on the magistrates who had closed his chapel. In 1712 a Bill of Toleration, which allowed Episcopalian dissenters to use the English liturgy, was hurried through both Houses, in spite of the urgent remonstrances of the Scottish commissioners, and on 22d April lay patronage was restored. This latter Act, as violating the Act of Security, has never been regarded as valid by the severer Presby-terians. That no further resistance was made than by protests and petitions shows how far the " moderatizing" spirit had spread. The remnant of the Cameronians, who were outside of and discouraged by the church, alone met and renewed the Covenant after solemnly acknowledging the sins of the nation.
The progress towards Arminianism, due to the influence Schisms, of Baxter's writings and to the training of the young ministers in Holland, may be seen in the treatment of Professor Simson and in the Auchterarder case. It was now that Neonomianism, or the doctrine that the gospel is a new law, promising salvation upon the condition of the abandonment of sin, began. Its first victory was when the general assembly condemned the doctrines of the Marrow of Modern Divinity, and rebuked the twelve ministers who had sent in a representation against the decision. The Patronage Act was rapidly being accepted and was showing its effects chiefly in the neglect shown to the wishes of the congregations. In 1731 the right was given to the heritors and elders to "elect and call" instead of to " name and propose the person to the whole congregation to be approven or disapproven," and was made law without having first been submitted to the pres-byteries according to the Barrier Act of 1639. This led to the first great schism. Ebenezer Erskine denounced the action of the assembly in two sermons. Being rebuked by the synod of Perth and Stirling, he appealed to the assembly, who approved the rebuke. With three other ministers he protested. The four were temporarily deposed by the assembly, and on 6th December 1733 they formed the "Associate Presbytery." In 1737 their number was largely increased, and they published their manifesto, the " Declaration and Testimony." Their final deposition, and the first schism, occurred on 15th May 1740.
For several years the wishes of congregations were ignored; wherever the presbytery refused to appoint at the will of the assembly, a "riding committee," often assisted by military force, carried out the decision. The civil courts were bound to obey the Act of Patronage, and therefore never upheld the congregation against a legal appoint-ment. At length in 1752 the leader of the "moderate" party, Principal Bobertson, seeing in this refusal of pres-byteries the elements of endless confusion, and that temporary substitutes, e.g., riding committees, were uncon-stitutional and bad in principle, determined that the presbyteries themselves should be compelled to carry out the decisions of the assembly. From the deposition of Thomas GILLESPIE (q.v.), a member of the presbytery of Dunfermline, who refused to act in accordance with the assembly's decision, is dated the second or "Relief " schism. Principal Tulloch says upon this : " The policy was so far successful; but the success was of that nature which is almost worse than defeat. It introduced order within the church. It crushed the revolt of presbyteries. It silenced in many cases popular clamour. But it quietly and gradually alienated masses of the people from the estab-lishment." So rapidly did dissent spread that from a report presented to the general assembly in 1765 it appears that "there are now 120 meeting-houses erected, to which more than 100,000 persons resort, who were formerly of our communion, but have separated them-selves from the Church of Scotland. This secession," the report adds, " is most extensive in the greatest and most populous towns." For the subsequent history of Presby-terianism in Scotland, see FREE CHURCH, UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, and SCOTLAND (CHURCH OF).
England.Several faint traces may be noted of the presence of Presbyterian ideas in England within a few years of the Reformation. During the reign of Edward VI., for instance, Bucer, with Cranmer's goodwill, laid before the king a sketch of church discipline and reform of episcopal government. Each bishop was to have a council of presbyters, and provincial synods with a royal commissioner were to meet twice a year. Many English joined Lasky's foreign church, and when it was dispersed under Mary settled chiefly in Frankfort, where the dispute took place in which the adherents of the Prayer Book defeated Knox and his followers. These came to England filled with Calvinistic views regarding church and state, only to find the royal supremacy absolute, and uniformity enforced under crushing penalties. Even the foreign Pro-testants were compelled to choose the bishop of the diocese as their superintendent. The contest, which began after a scheme of reform had been lost in convocation by one vote in 1562, was ostensibly concerning vestments and cere-monies ; really it rested on a far wider basis, one which found place even in Cambridge disputations, viz., " whether the civil magistrate has authority in ecclesiastical affairs." That the Puritans did not look for a speedy setting up of "discipline " may be seen in Cox's letter to Gualter, "We have some discipline among us with relation to men's lives, such as it is; but if any man would go about to persuade our nobility to submit their necks to that yoke, he may as well venture to pull the hair out of a lion's beard." In 1566 took place the first separation of several deprived London ministers, who determined in future to use the Geneva service book, which they did until they were ar-rested in Plumbers' Hall on 19th June 1567. During 1567 and 1568 the persecutions in France and Holland drove thousands of Protestants, chiefly Presbyterians, to England. In 1570 the leading Presbyterian views found an exponent in Thomas Cartwright at Cambridge (the headquarters of advanced Puritanism); and the temper of parliament is shown by the Act of 1571 for the reformation of disorder in the church, in which, while all mention of discipline is omitted, the doctrinal Articles alone being sanctioned, ordination by presbyters without a bishop is implicitly recognized. It is to be observed that Cartwright and the leading Puritan theologians opposed the idea of separation. The voluntary association of bishop, ministers, and laity at Northampton is interesting as showing how earnest men were thinking. Their discipline was strict and their tone with regard to the state and to the existing con-stitution of the church was too bold to allow of indulgence. In spite, however, of constant deprivation, especially in the midland and eastern counties, the obnoxious doctrines spread; and in 1572 the first formal manifesto was put forth in the Admonition to Parliament of Field and Wilcox, with the assent of others. Equality of ministers, choosing of elders and deacons, election of ministers by the congrega-tion, objection to prescribed prayer and antiphonal chant-ing, the view that preaching is a minister's chief duty and that the magistrate should root out superstition and idolatry, are leading points. The controversy which followed between Whitgift and Cartwright showed how impossible agreement was when the one side argued that the Holy Scriptures were the only standard as well for church government as of faith, and the other that a system of church government was nowhere laid down in Scripture, and might be settled by and accommodated to the civil government under which men happen to be living. On 20th November 1572 the authors of the Admonition set up at Wandsworth what has been called the first presby-tery in England. They chose eleven elders and put out a purely Presbyterian system, tlie Orders of Wandsworth. Similar associations were erected in London and in the midland and eastern counties. When, however, an attempt was made to join the foreign churches in London, the privy council forbade it. Jersey and Guernsey, whither large numbers of Huguenots had fled after the massacre of St. Bartholomew's, alone were Presbyterian by per-mission. Cartwright and Snape were pastors there, and from 1576 to 1625 a completely appointed Presbyterian church existed, confirmed by synods (held at Guernsey and Jersey on 28th June 1576 and 17th October 1577) and authorized by the governor. Meantime Cartwright and Travers had drawn up a scheme, never realized, by which ministers were bound to refuse ordination by a bishop unless they had previously been "called" by a congre-gation and approved by a church classis. Ceremonies in dispute might be omitted; should this cause danger of deprivation the classis was to decide. The doctrinal Articles might be subscribed, but not the Prayer Book. Churchwardens might easily be converted into elders and deacons; and classical, comitial, and provincial assemblies were to be held.
The suppression of independent life in the church at length drove numbers out, known in the future as Brownists or INDEPENDENTS (q.v.). Those who remained still strove for reform. They were met by a new court of high com-mission and the " ex officio " oath,an increase of severity strongly opposed by Bnrghley and the privy council. These views are expressed in Travers's Disciplina Ecclesise ex verbo Dei descripta, printed at Geneva in 1574, trans-lated with additions by Cartwright in 1584, then sup-pressed and not again published until 1644, when it was officially recognized as the Directory of Government. Its Presby- leading principles were those of French Protestantism, terianism was signed by some 500 ministers, Cartwright among En land tnem- The actl0n °f the Commons in 1584, stimulated by the opposition of the Lords, shows that the principles of Presbyterianism were very strong in the country. Bills were introduced to limit the stringency of subscription, and to confine the penalties of suspension and deprivation to cases of heresy or scandalous life, to reduce the posi-tion of a bishop wellnigh to that of merely primus inter pares, for placing the power of veto in the congregation, for abolishing the canon law and all spiritual courts, and for establishing a presbytery in every parish. All these proposals were, however, cut short by the unflinch-ing exercise of the queen's prerogative; and, with some slackening during the great year of peril, the Puritans suffered extreme persecution. In 1588 they held a pro-vincial synod at Warwick, and also again at Michaelmas. It is noticeable, as showing the growth side by side with Presbyterianism of the spirit directly its opposite, that on 12th January 1588 Bancroft for the first time maintained tnsjus divinum of Episcopacy.
There seems no doubt that during the later years of Elizabeth Presbyterianism declined. The position of the conforming Puritan was in every way a weak one. He had sworn to the queen's ecclesiastical supremacy, and this supremacy was what he most hated; he was compelled to have recourse to the figment that, although she had this supremacy, she could not exercise it ecclesiastically, but could merely give her sanction to whatever was enacted by the church. On the other hand, in appearing to attack the church he appeared to attack the nationality of the country when the national spirit was most intense. The nation was rapidly becoming conscious of a vivid and energetic national life, and whatever impaired the national unity was regarded with impatience and resentment at a time when the political condition of Europe was fraught with such danger to England herself. The Scottish Presbyterian had triumphed over a hated and alien church, and the bishops whom he overthrew were evil-living and oppressive men; the English Presbyterian knew that his church was the symbol of freedom and that her bishops had been holy men martyred for the sake of that freedom. Finally, in England there had existed among the common people, as there had not in Scotland, an absence of inter-ference and an independence of private life which would naturally form the strongest obstacle to the introduction of the longed-for Presbyterian discipline. The difference between English and Scottish Presbyterianism was clear to James when in the millenary petition the reforming clergy disclaimed all idea of affecting parity in the church or of attacking the royal supremacy, and merely requested the redress of certain abuses in rites and ceremonies. Even with regard to the " ex officio " oath they asked only that it might be more sparingly used. The Puritans had evidently lost faith in themselves and had been unable to spread their views. " Elizabeth had drained the life out of Puritanism by destroying the Armada and by her subse-quent policy in taking the leadership of the Protestant interest in Europe." It needed the abuses of the reign of James I. to restore it. The king was still further en-couraged by the servile support of the universities, which had quite lost their Puritan tone. At the Hampton Court Conference in January 1604, Dr Reynolds as spokesman of the Puritans desired permission for clerical assemblies every three weeks, " prophesyings " in rural deaneries, and that appeals might lie from the archdeacon's invitation to the diocesan synod, composed of the bishop and his presbyters. The coarse and menacing rejection of these demands made clear the weakness of the reforming party within the church as opposed to the cordial alliance between the High Church and the crown. The breach was wider than at any time under Elizabeth. The struggle was becoming political. Divine right of Episcopacy, Arminianism, and prerogative in the crown were becoming ranged against Presbyterianism in church government, Calvinism in creed, and moderate republicanism in politics.
In 1604 James put out the Book of Canons, by which every clergyman was forced to subscribe, " willingly and extion.of animo," (1) the spiritual and ecclesiastical supremacy of the ^ns crown, (2) the Book of Common Prayer, (3) the Thirty-tne nine Articles of 1562, as being all and every one of them Stuarts, agreeable to the word of God. The Book was passed under the great seal, but was never ratified by parliament. As the result, a large number of ministers, variously reckoned at from 45 to 300, were deprived of their benefices. Henceforward the persecution was steady and grievous, and an exodus took place to Holland, where the exiles erected Presbyterian churches which in their turn reacted con-tinually upon opinion in England. By far the larger part of the Puritans, however, clung to the church. As late as 1607 they eagerly expressed their desire " above all earthly things " to continue their ministry " as that without which our whole life would be wearisome and bitter to us." And in 1605, in answer to the attacks from both the extreme parties, William Bradshaw published his English Puritanism. The system herein developed, so far from being Presbyterian, is Congregationalism under state con-trol. While each congregation is to be entirely inde-pendent of all other ecclesiastical courts, the election of its officers and other important matters are ostentatiously given to the civil magistrate. Not the slightest intrusion by ecclesiastical officers upon civil authority may be allowed; and all church preferment is absolutely in the hands of the crown, which is supreme over the constitution and proceedings of synods, and whose commands may not be actively resisted. The king himself is subject to his own particular church alone, and even though apostate or an evil liver he retains his full supremacy. It is clear that the denial, in the Scottish sense, of the state supremacy is not expressed by the English Puritan : that which galled him was the jurisdiction of other ecclesiastics.
From the synod of Dort in 1618 Arminianism gained ground in England in spite of the fact that Abbot, the primate, was head of the " doctrinal" (or old Calvinist) Puritans. As soon as Laud came into power the Govern-ment attacked Presbyterianism wherever it was found. Guernsey was compelled to accept Episcopacy, as Jersey had been in 1605, and the ten foreign congregations in England were placed under the control of the English Church. The English congregations in Hamburg and the Netherlands were also ordered to relinquish their synods. The system of the church was aristocratic exclusiveness.
One effect of the Scottish outburst in 1638 and of the events which followed was of course largely to strengthen in especial the Presbyterian interest. The action of the church tended constantly to cut off waverers. Baxter, for instance, was led to examineand finally to throw off Episcopacy by the "et csetera" oath in 1640. Nevertheless at the opening of the Civil Wars, if he is to be believed, Noncon-formity, and in especial Presbyterianism, was very weak. "Where I was bred before 1640, which was in divers places, I knew not one Presbyterian clergyman or layman. . . . About as many Nonconformists as counties were left, and those few stuck most at subscription and ceremonies, and but few of them studied or understood the Presby-terian or Independent disciplinary causes." Those who sat in the Westminster Assembly were almost all such as had conformed. In 1640 Henderson, Baillie, Blair, and Gillespie came with the Scottish commission to London, the ministers there having written to the general assembly expressing their desire for the establishment of the Scottish system. They at once set themselves to turn the current of Puritan- ism into the Presbyterian channel, and to bring about a union on the Presbyterian basis. Their preaching attracted large crowds, and, by a common mistake, they judged of all England from the London ministry, which was largely Presbyterian and which in December 1641 had petitioned for a synod (a desire expressed also in the Grand Remon- strance) to include ministers from foreign parts. The parties, however, which were to join issue at the assembly were already clearly recognizing one another, for .we hear that " the separatists are like to be of some help to hold up the bishops through their impertinence." For the views of moderate men on church reform the speeches of Sir E. Deering are important. It is clear that had the bishops been willing to become the allies of a reforming parliament Presbyterianism would not have been seriously discussed. The In September 1642 the Long Parliament abolished West- Episcopacy, the abolition to date from the 5th November minster i g^_3 . tne question what form of Puritanism should succeed bly. ^ was that f°r which the Westminster Assembly was sum-moned by parliament on 12th June 1643. The interven-ing months were marked by a great increase of sects, of whom all were by nature opposed to the iron domination of Presbyterianism, which in its turn found support in the English ministers of Dutch congregations. It is important at the outset to notice that the assembly was born in Erastianism, the spirit which, from the whole course of English history for several centuries, may be regarded as national. It was a mere council of advice to the parlia-ment of England, a creature of the parliament alone. Its members, two from each county, though some counties had but one, were chosen by parliament, and "nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland" is one of the chief points in the ordinance. In 1643 also the Long Parliament, needing Scottish support, and willing to bid high, formed the Solemn League and Covenant. In this the English, struggling for civil liberty, cared only for a political league; moreover, " they were," says Baillie, "more nor we could consent to, for keeping of a doore open in England to Independencie. Against this we were peremptorie." To the Scots "its chief aim was the propagation of our church discipline to England and Ireland." The title was a compromise, utterly distasteful to the Scots, who refused to call it anything but the " Covenant."
The number summoned to the assembly was 151, 10 being lords, 20 members of the House of Commons, 121 ministers. About one-half attended regularly. Besides the Episcopalian clergy, who did not attend, there were four parties(1) moderate Reformers of Presbyterian tem-per, (2) Presbyterians of Scottish views, (3) Erastians, and (4) Independents. At the request of the parliament six Scottish commissioners, without a vote, of whom five (the sixth was Maitland, afterwards the celebrated duke of Lauderdale) were informed with the intensest spirit of Scottish Presbyterianism, attended the assembly. To them their mission was a holy one, being no less than "to estab-lish a new platform of worship and discipline for this people for all time to come." That this was to be Presbyterian was the one thought that possessed their minds,at first with eager hope, changing to apprehension and then to disappointment so bitter that it broke the heart of Alex-ander Henderson and made Baillie bewail the distance of the Scotch army. They struggled with pathetic earnestness against influences whose strength they had not realized, the hated sentiment of Erastianism and the still more hated sentiment of Independency. The first of these was chiefly in the background in parliament, where it did not express itself fully until late in the proceedings ; within the assem-bly it was consummately represented by Lightfoot, Cole-man, and Selden, who held that "parliament is the church." The Independents, numbering only ten or eleven in all, their principal representative being Nye, were also men of great ability and clear views, who knew that they could depend on the support of the party led by Cromwell.
The assembly began in September by considering what to substitute for the Thirty-nine Articles. On 12th October, however, in deference to Scottish pressure, the parliament instructed them to take up at once the questions of church government and a liturgy. Church officers were first dis-cussed. The Independents disputed every inch of ground : "to the uttermost of their power they have studied pro-crastination of all things, finding that by tyme they have gained." The long discussion which they forced on the question of the identity of pastor and doctor (in which, holding the offices to be distinct, and that every congrega-tion ought to have both, they were opposed both by the Scots on the latter and by the Anglicans on the former ground) was but one example of their skill in obstruction. The grand battle, however, began on 22d November over the ruling eldershipthe essence of the "Scots' discipline,"against which Independents and Erastians alike did their best. All were willing to admit elders "in a prudential way," i.e., as expedient, but " sundry of the ablest were flat against the institution of any such offices by divine right," and the Independents kept them " in a pitiful labyrinth these twelve days." In the end a com-promise was effected, grievous to the Scots, by which it was merely declared " agreeable to, and warranted by, the word of God, that some others besides the ministers of the word should join in the government of the church." An attempt further to define their office failed. By the end of the year the Scots became anxious : " as yet a presbyterie to this people is conceaved to be a strange monster." In a minor point they had experienced a rebuff. They had done, as true Presbyterians, all they could to induce the assembly to sit on Christmas Day, church fes-tivals being to them an abomination; but they only prevailed so far " that both houses [of Parliament] did profane that holy day, by sitting on it, to our joy and some of the assembly's shame." The observance of saints' days and holidays was not abolished until 8th June 1647.
1 For the first time investigated and brought to light by Professor S.
On 9th January 1644 the pressing question of ordina-tion was brought forward. The committee reported that preaching presbyters should alone ordain. To this the Independents of course objected and kept the assembly in debate until 21st January. The House of Lords pressing for a settlement, it was next day proposed that "certain ministers of the city be desired to ordain ministers in the city and vicinity jure fraternitatis." On this and on the essential question, how far the consent of the congregation should be necessary, the Independents kept up the struggle until 19th April, when the latter point was determined in the non-intrusionist sense. The bitterness of the Scots against the Independents increased daily; they were fairly puzzled at the want of enthusiasm for that which was the breath of their lives. " This stupid and secure people, . . . this fainting and weak-hearted people," Baillie calls them, and adds, "the humour of this people is very various, and inclinable to singularities, to differ from all the world and from one another, and shortly from themselves." No people, he says, had so much need of a presbytery. The hatred was fully returned. An intrigue was set on foot for a union between the Independents and the moderate royalists to keep out Scots and Presbyterianism on the basis of the restoration of Charles. So anxious did this render the Presbyterians that they offered to make a com-promise whereby to strengthen their cause in parliament; and, probably at the suggestion of their chiefs there, the five leading Independents published (February 1644) their Apologetical Narrative, which traversed their whole contro-versy with the Presbyterians and was addressed, not to the assembly, but to the parliament. This manifesto, as well as the Antapologia and other answers from the Pres-byterians, is well analysed by Hetherington. From the moment of this publication there was no longer any object in delaying the main battle. " The Independents are resolute to give in their reasons to parliament against us, and that shall be the beginning of an open schism : lykelie we shall be forced to deal with them as open enemies." On 6th February it was proposed that "the Scripture holdeth forth that many particular congregations may be under one Presbyterian government." After six weeks' incessant debate, in which both Erastians and Independents used their utmost ability, and in which Nye ostentatiously and successfully appealed to the jealousy of the imperium in imperio, they were forced to yield. In this discussion the English Presbyterians were less disposed to compromise than the Scottish, who were keenly anxious for the success of their mission. The ruling eldership was then voted, and " on Fryday, after a week's debate, we carried, albeit hardlie (27 to 19), that no single congregation has the power of ordination." On 31st May Baillie adds, "our church sessions, to which the Independents gave all, and their opposite nothing at all, we have gotten settled with unanimity in the Scots' fashion." The Presbyterians were, however, by no means easy; they felt their triumph to be yet but a barren one. " The chief point we wish were proven is the real authority, power, and jurisdiction of synods and classical presbyteries over any the members of the whole of a particular congregation; also I wish that the power of presbyteries classical to ordaine and excommunicate were cleared. Many beside the Independents are brought to give the rights of both these actions to the congregational presbyteries, much against our mind and practice." The great question, the power of parliament in ecclesiastical affairs, was yet unsettled; and here they looked anxiously at " Selden and others, who will have no discipline at all in any church jure divino, but settled only on the free will and pleasure of the Parliament," and they had forebodings that "Erastus' way will triumph." Their fears were soon realized. On 15th November 1644 the assembly reported to parliament all that had been done, Parlia-and the House at once debated the jus divinum question, mentary Glynn and Whitelocke spoke vehemently and at greatactl0n-length, and then upon the question it was carried to lay aside the point of jus divinum, and the House gave them thanks for preventing a surprise. It was resolved, how-ever, that the Presbyterian government should be estab-lished, and that if upon trial it was not found acceptable it should be reversed or amended.
Cromwell, who had shortly before " expressed himself with contempt of the assembly of divines," terming them "persecutors" and saying that "they persecuted honester men than themselves," and who had told Manchester that " in the way they [Scots] now carried themselves he could as soone draw his sword against them as against any in the king's army," came to the rescue of the Inde-pendents in the assembly by procuring on 13th September an order from the parliament to refer to a committee of both kingdoms the accommodation or toleration of the Independents. This committee, lasting until 15th October, was no doubt intended to gain time, for time was against the Scots, and it did nothing else. The Independents then, with written reasons against the propositions respecting church government, with objections on the question of excommunication, with their "model" and their remon-strances, managed to protract discussion until March 1646, and in the end to leave matters unsettled and without prospect of settlement. In January 1645 the abortive negotiations at Uxbridge took place, at which each party asserted the jus divinum. The conditions proposed to the king had been drawn up by Johnston of Warriston and approved by the Scottish parliament; they included the acceptance of the Covenant. In the compromise offered by the king he assented to the limitation of the bishops' power by a council of the lower clergy, and even by lay-.men to be elected by this council, in each diocese.
In April (Self-Denying Ordinance) and again in October
2 At Newcastle in November 1646 the king offered to sanction the Presbyterian establishment, with all its forms and the order of public worship already adopted, for a period of three years, without preju-
1645 (the battle of Naseby having been fought in June) the parliament passed a vote which was gall and wormwood to the Scots, for it provided a power of appeal from the national assembly to the parliament. It also insisted that there should be two ruling elders for each minister in a church meeting, and allowed censures to be passed only in cases which it enumerated. No way remained to stay the mischief, Baillie felt, except by "hastening up our army, well recruited and disciplined." On 20th February 1646 they resolved that a choice of elders should be made throughout the kingdom; but on 14th March Baillie him-self bewails that " the House of Commons has gone on to vote (by a majority of one) a committee in every shire to cognosce on sundry ecclesiastical causes, which will spoil all our church government." The fact was that, the king being now very weak, Scottish friendship was daily grow-ing of less importance. When the commissioners from the Scottish parliament urged the speedy erecting of presby-teries, the English expressed their dread of "granting an arbitrary and unlimited power to near 10,000 judicatories within this kingdom," and declared that, experience having shown that the parliament had preserved the Reformation and purity of religion, they had no reason " to part with this power out of the hand of the civil magistrate." On 30th April 1646 the House proposed queries which practi-cally challenged the jus divinum position from one end to xhe other. The assembly at once set themselves to answer theie captious questions ; but of questions and answers the parliament took care that for the present no more should be heard. When, however, on 1st December 1646 the London ministers published their manifesto Jus divinum regiminis ecclesiastici, the House of Commons called for the assembly's answers, which do not appear to have been forthcoming. Throughout the contest the Scottish commissioners, especially Biriliie, organized the opposition, im-mortalized in Milton's sonnet, of the London ministers against the parliament's action. The king, however, hav-ing fled in April to the Scots, parliament thought it need-ful to temporize. On 5th June, therefore, both Houses ratified the ordinance establishing presbyteries; on the 9th they ordered it at once to be put into execution; and a still more significant stepthey rescinded the clause for provincial committees which had given Baillie such vexation. The order, however, remained a dead letter until 22d April 1647. Twelve presbyteries were then erected for London; Lancashire and Shropshire were organized, and Bolton was so vigorous in the cause as to gain the name of the Geneva of Lancashire ; but the system spread no farther in the ungenial soil and air of England. Even here the difference between Scottish and English Presby-terianism is shown by the fact that two-thirds of every classis or presbytery wrere necessarily laymen. The first meeting of the London synod was on 3d May 1647, and it met half-yearly until 1655. That of Lancashire met at Preston in February 1648. _ After all, however, it appeared that the votes of the Houses were permissive only; for on 13th October 1647 the Lords voted to ask the king for his sanction to the proviso that " no person shall be liable to any question or penalty only for Non-Conformity to the said government or to the form of the divine services appointed in the ordinances," while such as would not conform were to be allowed to meet for religious exercise in a fit place so long as the peace was not disturbed. The language of the Commons was almost equally indulgent, while on 1st November the "agitators" declared that " matters of religion and the ways of God's worship are not at all entrusted by us to any human power." Presby-terianism was wellnigh as far from being established at the close of the assembly as in the days of Elizabeth. English Protestantism had been a protest, not against Roman Catholicism, but against papal supremacy; the country was as little disposed to accept Presbyterian supremacy. The reader will gain some idea of the parti-cular forms of tyranny which England had declined in "The Harmonious Consent of the ministers of the pro-vince within the County Palatine of Lancaster, &c." (Hal-ley, Lancashire, its Nonconf., p. 467). In May 1648 the parliament, now that army pressure was removed, passed the celebrated " ordinance against blasphemy and heresy." If ordinances could have fought against the inherited instincts of centuries Presbyterian government would have run riot. On 29th August it was again decreed that "all parishes and places whatsoever within England and Wales shall be under the government of congregational, classical, provincial or national assemblies," except royal chapels and peers' houses. In October 1648 Charles at Newport offered to accept Ussher's scheme, and, in answer to an address from London, consented to a temporary alienation of church property for the maintenance of Presbyterian ministers. In November, however, the army asserted it- Under self; it afterwards purged the parliament when it found the that there was an accommodation between Charles and ^°°^n" the Presbyterians, and killed the king. With the founda-tion of the Commonwealth the dream of Presbyterian supremacy passed away. The Presbyterians are hence-forth to be regarded as a political far more than as a religious body. They now formed the nucleus of that party which desired the restoration of monarchy on good conditions. Opposing the toleration granted to all forms of Protestantism by Cromwell, they became his most dangerous opponents by their sympathy with the Scots and their refusal to take the " engagement," as is illus-trated by the plot for which Love was executed. The parliament meanwhile secured them in their livings. As Cromwell said to the Scots, "The ministers in England are supported and have liberty to preach the Gospel, though not to rail at their superiors at discretion, nor under a pretended privilege of character to overtop the civil powers." In the Instrument of Government (1653) Cromwell expressly retained all the laws in their favour and appointed some of them on the list of triers. They had their classical presbyteries for ordination, but these, having no coercive power, gradually became merely meet-ings of ministers of all denominations. The position of Baxter and his followers is worthy of notice, and should be read in his own words (Orme's Baxter, vol. i. p. 92). Nominally a Presbyterian, he disliked the lay eldership; he disliked their intolerance; he disliked the subordinate position ascribed to the civil magistrate; in his own terse language, "Till magistrates keep the sword themselves, and learn to deny it to every angry clergyman who would do his own work by it, . . . the church will never have unity and peace." On the question of the independence of congregations he was an Independent in sympathy and practice. His absorbing idea was union ; with Ussher, he says, he had agreed in half an hour; among rigidly de-fined parties it is not possible to find him a place; but in the light of that idea he appears perfectly consistent. John Owen was another man who illustrates the light and shade of English opinion. He opposed the London ministers, though he held a Presbyterian appointment. In 1644 he upheld Presbyterianism against Independency; in 1646 he became formally connected with the Independ-ents. The Presbyterian was above all, on the political side, a hater of the army and a parliamentarian, and therefore, especially after Richard Cromwell's resignation, a monarchist. Monarchy and parliaments were co-ordi-nated in the English mind. Baxter preaching before the Commons on 30th April 1660 said, "Whether we should be loyal to our king is none of our differences. . . . For the concord now wished in matters of religion it is easy for moderate men to come to a fair agreement." To take advantage of this feeling Charles II. used all the resources Undei of duplicity; the deputation of divines was easily and Charles, entirely tricked, and on his entry into London the Presby-terian ministers received him with acclamation. Until the actual Restoration the ascendency of Presbyterianism, subsequent to Monk's entry into London, had seemed complete. The council was almost exclusively Presbyterian; Presbyterians commanded the garrison towns and the fleet, and had possession of the universities. The last acts of the Long Parliament had been to establish Presbyterianism as the religion of the state. It was therefore necessary on the part of Charles and Clarendon to temporize. Promises were made from Breda; hopes of comprehension and preferment were placed before the Presbyterian minis-ters ; conferences were arranged between them and the leading Episcopal clergy. There is no sign, however, that the most ardent Presbyterian hoped for more than Ussher's model. They were sufficiently bound over by the Covenant, the oath of allegiance, the traditional connexion of parliament and monarchy, and, above all, by their jealousy of the Scots, to restore the king.
The solemn farce began. Ten ministers were made royal chaplains, and Charles II. expressed his intention of doing his best to heal the differences in religion. He wished to know their desires. They asked for a resident ministry, Sunday observance, Ussher's model, the revision of the Prayer Book, extemporary prayer, that kneeling at communion and the observance of saints' days might not be enforced, and that bowing at the name of Jesus, making the sign of the cross in baptism, and the use of the surplice might be abolished. Baxter also suggested that the suffragan bishop should be elected by the clergy of the rural deanery. The bishops replied in writing, refusing all concession, ex-cept, perhaps, as regarded the cross, bowing, and the surplice, and taunting their opponents with " scruple-mongering." Charles now put out his declaration, which included a proviso that the presbyters' advice and assistance should be necessary to certain episcopal functions, and especially to church censures. This, and the Bill to turn it into a law, kept the Presbyterians in play; by Clarendon's influence the Bill was thrown out on the second reading, and the convention parliament was dissolved. The parliament which followed was Episcopalian. The church at once struck hard. The Corporation Act, 20th December 1661, destroyed Presbyterian influence in the large towns, the centres of its power; the Act of Uniformity, 19th May 1662, compelling "assent and consent" to everything in the Book of Common Prayer, destroyed it in the church. Under circumstances of open deceit and flippant cruelty 2000 ministers were, on St Bartholomew's Day, deprived of their offices. It is important to notice that the Papists and other Dissenting bodies opposed toleration to the Presbyterians ; they felt that the only chance of a general toleration was in the failure of the Presbyterians to obtain comprehension.
Between these two Acts the Savoy Conference had been held, beginning 25th March 1662; it met apparently to signalize the church's triumph. It was intended to fail, as the Hampton Court Conference had been intended to fail, and is of interest merely as being the last attempt at union by conference.
With regard to toleration Charles II. and James II. were Bourbons, and they wished to carry out the policy of their ancestor, Henry IV. of France. They hoped to use the gratitude and dependence of the sects whereby to sustain them against the church. Cromwell had done the same ; toleration and military despotism had been parallel ideas. Charles desired that the church should not tolerate, but that he should. Thus he hoped to have a despotism founded upon the support of the sects. The greater part of his reign presents a constant struggle of the church and parliament to frustrate his views. To gain the power of suspending the penal laws was the great object in the com-prehension scheme of 26th December 1662. In an instant church opposition began ; the primate and the parliament spoke with equal sternness, and the suggestion was dropped. As had happened in Scotland, the ejection of St Bartholo-mew's Day had led to conventicles; the first Conventicle Act, 16th May 1664, was an expression of the hatred of the Anglican Church to Charles's scheme.
In 1665 the plague occurred; the pulpits of London were deserted by the Episcopal clergy, with a few brilliant exceptions. The Presbyterians and Independents came forward to fill them. The jealousy of the church was aroused, and at its demand, and in return for a supply for the Dutch War, Charles passed the Five Mile Act. The extent to which these successive acts of persecution affected the country varied greatly. In some parts the justices refused to convict, or were languid. Thus Seth Ward, in one of his reports to Sheldon from Exeter (in 1663), says, " Your Grace shall know that there are, in this county of Devon onely, ... at least fourteen Justices of the peace who are accounted arrant Presbyterians." The bishop of Chester makes the same complaint in 1667. With the fall of Clarendon the idea of toleration at once revived. In February 1667 Charles recommended it to parliament and relaxed the penal laws. But the idea had taken possession of the English mind that what Charles wanted to tolerate was Popery; wherever Charles wrote "dissent" the English mind read "pope of Borne." Some questions drawn out by Sheldon against toleration may be seen in the Sheldon MSS., and are worth reading. It was this fear, and the belief that the integrity of the Church of England was the great safeguard against Popery, that had to answer for much of the persecution. By 176 votes against 70 parliament voted against comprehension, and by 144 against 78 for the continuance of the Con-venticle Act, while on 2d March 1670 a second Conventicle Act of special severity was forced from Charles.
On 15th March 1672 the king made another attempt by his famous Declaration of Indulgence, in which he boldly claimed the suspensory power. This caused great searchings of heart among the Dissenters, for they must either refuse the indulgence or uphold an unconstitutional proceeding. Ought they to accept anything short of comprehension ? Their doubts wrere cut short by the withdrawal of the Indulgence only three months after its utterance, and the Test Act signalized the victory of the church. The church became more and more exclusive; the parliament, drawing its life from the people, gradually changed its tone. In 1663 the Anglican Church wished to triumph over Dissent; in 1673 Protestants wished only to secure themselves against Popery. The Commons there-fore passed a Bill for the ease of Dissenters, which was, however, dropped in the Lords.
capable of teaching in schools, and prohibited from coming within 5 miles of any city, corporate town, or parliamentary borough, or within 5 miles of any parish, town, or place, where they had since the Act of Oblivion been parson, vicar, or lecturer, or where they had preached in any conventicle, on any pretence whatever.
- Sheldon MSS., Bodleian Library.
No further change occurred in the legal status of the Presbyterians. Their party continually increased in influence under Shaftesbury's guidance, and in 1680 the Commons agreed to a scheme of comprehension for all Dissenters who would subscribe the doctrinal Articles; the surplice was to be omitted except in cathedrals or royal chapels; and ceremonies were to be regarded as in-different. This attempt at union came to nothing, how-ever, through church opposition, as did a final attempt at toleration by Charles in 1684. Throughout his reign the church had held him in a never-relaxing grasp. The intervening years were a period of constant annoyance to the Presbyterians, who were discredited by the Bye House Plot. Such were the relations cf the Presbyterians to the church. Their relations to the Independents were the old ones of jealousy and hostility. They themselves always looked for a position in the establishment; the principles of the Independents excluded the idea. Attempts at union occurred, but they were useless. Merged From this time the history of the Presbyterians is lost in Dis- m that of Dissent generally. James refused to enforce the penal laws ; but they enforced themselves, and Baxter ally. was one 01 the first to suffer. Monmouth's attempt only increased their sufferings. In 1687 their prospects bright-ened. James II., following his brother's policy, issued his Declaration for Liberty of Conscience, as he had already done in Scotland and Ireland. The motive, as Hallam says, was that already mentioned, " to enlist under the standard of arbitrary power those who had been its most intrepid and steadiest adversaries." In the addresses of thanks sent up the leading Dissenters (except the Quakers) refused to join ; indeed, at a general meeting of ministers a resolution was passed directly condemning the dispensing power. The action of James, by which the work of the Cor-poration Act was in a great measure undone and the power in corporations once more thrown into Dissenting hands, was equally unsuccessful. Throughout his reign the king failed to comprehend that the Dissenters were, first of all, Protestants. William III.'s declaration from Torbay recom-mended comprehension, and in March 1689 he urged it upon parliament. A Bill was brought into the Lords for abrogating the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and for abolishing the Test Act so far as Dissent was concerned. The High-Church party, however, was strong enough to secure its failure. Another Bill with the same intent, as well as attempts to relieve the Dissenters of kneeling at the sacrament and using the cross in baptism, and to ex-plain away "assent and consent," as required by the Act of Uniformity, was also jealously and successfully opposed. By the Act of Toleration, however, all the penal laws, ex-cept the Corporation and Test Acts and those against the deniers of the Trinity, were removed. But it did not abrogate the statutes of Elizabeth and James I., which exacted certain penalties on such as absented themselves from the parish church. Heresy, too, was still subject to the church courts. A last attempt was made, by an ecclesi-astical commission of thirty divines, to frame a scheme of comprehension. It was vehemently opposed in convoca-tion ; the High Churchmen withdrew from it; and it was never submitted to parliament. Thus ended the last of the fruitless attempts to comprehend Dissent within the estab-lishment. During William's reign the hatred of the church to the Presbyterians had been obliged to lie dormant. Anne's accession, however, led at once to an attempt on the part of the churchmen to revenge themselves by the introduction of the Occasional Conformity Bill for the toleration which they had been compelled to practise. This, however, they were unable to carry through against the opposition, of which Burnet was the foremost champion.
Having secured toleration, the Dissenters began to think of their own internal condition. A coalition of Presbyterians and Independents was thought desirable. The mere mention of such a thing shows how profoundly the complexion of affairs had changed. Under the name of " United Brethren" about eighty ministers of London met and drew up heads of an agreement, in nine articles, on church government and ecclesiastical discipline. Article 8 provided that the union should not discuss doctrine, and named as auxiliaries to Scripture the Articles, the Savoy Confession, and the Westminster Catechism. Mutual concessions were now made. The Independents gave up the necessity of the consent of a church to the ordination of a minister, and only made it desirable ; and the office of doctor, as distinct from pastor and ruling elder, was passed over. But the Presbyterians gave up far more, viz., the authoritative power of synods over individual churches. In other words, the Presbyterians gave up and the Independents retained each the kernel of their system. Excommunication was emasculated. The prerogative of synods was reduced to occasional meetings and a reverential regard for their judgment. But this arrangement only affected London and its neighbourhood. Moreover, while their views of church government were so profoundly modified in the Independent direction, a change equally noticeable took place in their doctrinal views. From the beginning of Modern the 18th century the greater number of their congregations doctrinal became Unitarian, while those which remained orthodox tenf" joined themselves to the Scottish Church. The fact that at a time when full toleration was enjoyed the Presbyterian principle ever grew weaker shows how little it had pene-trated into the English mind. During the present century a new establishment of Presbyterian congregations has taken place upon the Scottish models, and indeed at first as an offset of the Scottish Church itself. In May 1836, how-ever, the synod of the Presbyterian Church of England was established, in entire independence of, though in friendly union with, the Scottish Church, containing at the present time (1885) 10 presbyteries with 280 congregations.
Ireland.Presbyterianism in Ireland dates from the Ireland, plantation of Ulster, by which a large part of Ireland ceased to be Papist and was peopled afresh by Scotsmen and Englishmen. An independent Protestant church was settled in James I.'s reign, and at the convocation of 1615 the first confession of faith was drawn up by James Ussher, which implicitly admitted the validity of Presbyterian ordination and denied the distinction between bishop and presbyter. It was not, however, until 1626 that the begin- Estab-ning of the Presbyterian system was laid by Hugh Campbell, fished in a Scot, who, having become converted, " invited some of his ulster> honest neighbours ... to meet him at his house on the last Friday of the month. ... At last they grew so numerous, that the ministers thought fit that some of them should be still with them to prevent what hurt might follow." Within the Episcopal Church, and supported by its endowments, Blair, Livingstone, and others maintained a Scottish Pres-byterian communion. From 1625, however, to 1638 the history of Presbyterianism in Ireland is one of bare exist-ence, not of progress. The ministers, silenced by Went-worth, fled finally to Scotland, after an ineffectual attempt to reach New England, and there took a leading part in the great movement of 1638. In 1639 the "black oath," which forbade the making of any covenants, was forced by Wentworth upon the Ulster Scots. His absence in 1640 raised hopes which were destroyed by the Irish rebellion of 1641, whereby the Protestant interest was for the time ruined. The violence of the storm had, however, fallen upon the Episcopal Church, and her desolation made the rise of Presbyterianism more easy. A majority of the Ulster Protestants were Presbyterian, and in the great revival which now took place the ministers who accom-panied the Scottish regiments took a leading part. Sessions were formed in four regiments, and the first regular presby-tery was held at Carrickfergus on Friday 10th June 1642, attended by five ministers and by ruling elders from the four regimental sessions. This presbytery supplied ministers to as many congregations as possible, and for the remainder the ministers were sent from Scotland with full powers of ordination. Many of the Episcopal clergy also joined the winning side, and by the end of 1643 the Ulster church was fairly established. Ireland was included in the Solemn League and Covenant, though the oath was not taken until March 1644. So strong were the Presbyterians that their request that the whole army should be subjected to their discipline was at once granted ; and, when a number of Episcopal ministers formed themselves into a presbytery of their own, but without lay eldership and subjection to higher courts, the jealous zeal of the Scots found means to break it up. Meanwhile they were in constant communication with Scotland, of whose system Ulster can best be regarded as a part. In 1645 they were strengthened by the Scots who fled from Montrose, and by the presence of the commissioners of the parliament, who ordered that the covenant should be tendered to all who had not yet taken it. The commissioners also gave the tithes of parishes to ministers who applied for them, and their sanction as a civil power to the presbyteries to censure and punish scandalous ministers. It should be noted that this assumption by the civil power was much scrupled by the ministers as savouring of Erastianism, and the commissioners had to explain away their action. The celebrated vote of the English House of Commons on 14th March 1646 was the first check ; the second was the crush-ing defeat of the Scottish troops at Benburb by O'Neill. Nevertheless by 1647 there were, besides the chaplains of Scottish regiments, nearly thirty ordained ministers with fixed charges in Ulster. When the affair of the " engage-ment" took place, both the Scottish parliament and the general assembly sent to secure the Irish vote. The pres-byteries obeyed the church, the regiments the parliament. Inde- After the Scottish defeat at Preston the English parliament, pendency now entirely anti-Presbyterian, determined to attack the supreme. gcoj.g jn Ulster. In this they were so well served by Monk that by the end of 1648 the Independents, as opposed both to Prelatists and Presbyterians, were superior, and by the end of the year were supreme. Independency became the state church, and the Presbyterian clergy were excluded from the garrison towns. In spite, however, of their downfallen condition, they absolutely refused to take the oath of the engagement, which bound men to be faithful to the Commonwealth without a king or House of Lords, whereupon the most important among them were arrested, while the rest fled to Scotland. During 1651 they were excluded from the pulpit and deprived of their tithes, and in March they were formally banished by a council of war, while the engagement oath was pressed on all classes. Presby- Upon Henry Cromwell's arrival, the Protector's object teriauism being to reconcile all parties to his sovereignty, the penal-restored. ^eg for refusmg the engagement were remitted ; ministers were allowed to officiate without restraint ; and the banished ministers returned. So rapidly did their number increase that by 1655 three bodies performing all the functions of regularly constituted presbyteries had been formed, acting under commission of thè whole presbytery. Meanwhile, however, no settled maintenance was available, and it was with great difficulty that the council was induced to afford two years' salary. One illustration of the united state of this church and of its autonomy is to be found in its action regarding the schism in Scotland between Pro-testers and Besolutioners. At a general meeting at Bangor it was determined, by the Act of Bangor, 1654, that, "though some differed in opinion from the rest, yet there should be no mutual contestings about the differences in Scotland among themselves, nor any owning of them on either side in public preaching or prayer. But, whatever mention might indirectly be made of these divisions, it should be in order to healing them in Scotland." Under Henry Cromwell all sects pursued their course in peace, and the Presbyterians especially increased their strength until the Restoration, in which they heartily co-operated, assisting Sir C. Coote in the coup de main which secured Dublin for the king. There were now in Ulster seventy ministers in fixed charges, with nearly eighty parishes or congregations, containing 100,000 persons. These ministers were in five presbyteries, holding monthly meetings and annual visita-tions of all the churches within their bounds, and coming together in general synod four times a year. An entire conformity with the Scottish Church-was maintained, and strict discipline was enforced by kirk sessions, presbyteries, and house-to-house visitations.
At the Restoration the determination of the Government to put down Presbyterianism was speedily felt in Ireland. In January 1661 the lords justices forbade all unlawful assemblies, under which head were placed meetings of presbyteries, as exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction not warranted by the laws of the kingdom. In a discussion with Jeremy Taylor they upheld the jus divinum of Presbyterianism and refused to take the oath of supremacy without the qualification suggested by Ussher. At first their parishes were merely declared vacant and Episcopal clergy appointed to them ; but shortly afterwards they were forbidden to preach, baptize, or publicly exhort. In Ulster alone sixty-one ministers were ejected; only seven out of seventy conformed. Conventicles, of course, arose, conducted chiefly by young Covenanting ministers from Scotland, of whom the ablest, most indefatigable, and most obnoxious to the authorities was Michael Bruce.
The abortive attempt of Blood, in which he endeavoured to associate the Presbyterians, brought fresh trouble, and the Ulster ministers were with a few exceptions compelled to leave the kingdom. Ormonde, indeed, refrained from harassing them; but it was not until 1665 that the un-molested return of the ministers enabled them to revive their worship and discipline. Presbyteries without ruling elders were organized in private houses, parishes were regu-larly visited, chapels were built, baptisms were performed, help was sent to the brethren in Holland, and offenders once more came under the active discipline of presbyteries and kirk sessions. A committee which met in place of the regular synod went so far as to insist that all irregular baptisms should be regularly performed. The toleration afforded them is remarkable when compared with that in England and Scotland.
Hitherto, thanks to the wise Act of Bangor, the church had had peace within her own borders. It was not until 1671-72 that this was broken by David Houston, who showed an impatience of ecclesiastical restraint and opposed the settled ministry. This led to the drawing up in February 1672 of a series of regulations as to conducting the trials, ordination, and settling of ministers. Houston left Ireland in 1673, but the schism created by him lasted till 1840 in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland. In 1672 the Presbyterian Church received from Charles II. a sum of £600 from the secret service fund.
For several years the church prospered, not only in the north, but in the south and west as well. In 1679 the rising in Scotland, which ended in the battle of Bothwell Brigg, brought trouble on the Irish Presbyterians, in spite of their loyal addresses disowning it. It was not, how-ever, until 1682 that they again lost the privilege of public ministry and that oppression became so severe. They cor-dially concurred with the Episcopalians against James II., though they had benefited by his Declaration of Indulg-ence, and were the first to congratulate William III. on his arrival in England. During the war several of them took an active part in the siege of Londonderry; the rest fled to Scotland. A list sent in by them to the general assembly shows that there were then in Ireland a hundred congre-gations, seventy-five with fixed ministers, and that there were eighty ministers under five presbyteries. With the close of the war came the close of their troubles, as under William they enjoyed complete toleration. So hopeful were they of regaining supremacy that they sent up a petition to the crown that, since the north of Ireland was almost entirely peopled by Scottish Presbyterians, Episcopacy might be done away with in that part. In 1731 again a deputation of ministers and elders went to Dublin with the vain request that their church might receive legal recognition and be placed on an equal footing with the Episcopal Church. Irish Presbyterianism presents no feature of note until 1840, when the original synod of Ulster and all seceding Presbyterian churches united themselves in the " General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland." In 1881 there were 36 presbyteries with 552 congregations, containing 101,403 communi-cants, with 621 ministers. Their synods meet in Belfast. Entirely independent of other churches, they, like those in England, live in friendly union with the Scottish Church. Both English and Irish Churches are in sympathy with the Free Church on the questions which brought about the Disruption of 1843.
France.The extension of the Genevan system on the synodal side became necessary as soon as it was applied to churches a large community. Up to 1555 the organization of the ' French churches had been incomplete : there had been no settled clergy nor regular administration of the sacraments. In that year, however, at the suggestion of De la Ferrière, a church was formed at Paris on the Genevan plan, com-plete in all points, with La Rivière for pastor ; and in a few years the organization was set up in Meaux, Angers, Poitiers, Bourges, Nîmes, Blois, Tours, and Orleans. By 1559, according to Théodore de Bèze, there were in France 2150 organized churches; in 1562 Cardinal St Croix reckoned the Huguenots as being one-half of the population. These churches were isolated, and therefore weak. The step needed to repair their weakness was taken as it were by accident. Antoine Chandieu, minister at Paris, while at Poitiers in 1558, found there several ministers from the neighbourhood. It struck them that it would be serviceable to have a common confession of faith and system of government. Thereupon the consistoire of Paris summoned a synod, not, however, to attribute to this church any special pre-eminence or dignity. On 26th May 1559 the representatives of eleven churches met in the first national synod and laid down a confession of faith (drawn up by Chandieu) and a system of discipline. The confession, in forty articles, was purely Calvinistic. The emphasis with which the right and duty of the magistrate to interfere on behalf of the truth are insisted upon is important. Foremost in the discipline, as in the confession, comes the fundamental statement of perfect equality : " Aucune église ne pourra prétendre primauté ni domination sur l'autre ; ni pareillement les ministres d'une église les uns sur les autres ; ni les anciens, ou diacres, les uns sur les autres." A breach of this law was sternly condemned by the synod of Orleans in 1562.
Next to the consistoire, which, as being well understood, is not mentioned, came the colloque (not finally settled until 1572), consisting of the minister and an elder from each church of the district. In 1637 a colloque was composed of representatives from about ten churches. This met twice a year at least and took cognizance of disputes, but had no initiative power. Each province contained in 1637 three or more colloques. Above the colloque was the provincial synod, also containing a minister and an elder or deacon for each church in the province. This synod met once a year. Finally, there was the national synod, which met every year if possible.
(1) Ministers were not elected by the congregation (not Churc? even by a minister and his consistoire), but by two or three officer; ministers with their consistoires, by the provincial synod, or by the colloque. If the congregation objected, the con-sistoire was to inquire how far the objection wTas valid ; if the consistoire upheld the congregation, the provincial synod had the final right of decision (art. 7). In 1572, however, the synod of Nîmes laid down the principle that no minister might be imposed upon an unwilling people. (2) In the first forming of a church the elders and deacons were elected by the people ; but here the power of the con-gregation ceased. Future vacancies were filled up by the votes of those remaining. The eldership was not to be for life ; but there was always a tendency to make it so. In 1565 the synod of Paris warned the churches not to change without urgent cause, so too in 1572 at Nîmes. In 1596, however, it was decided that they were to be changed when-, ever expedient. (3) The office of deacon was of great im-portance; besides having the charge of the poor and sick, he might catechize and, if the minister were ill, offer prayer and read a written sermon. He was a member of the consistoire, but apparently without the right to vote. In 1572 his dignity was increased, and (compare "readers" in Scotland) he was regarded as preparing for the ministry. As regards the consistoire,if a parish was without one, it must be created ; if a great lord had a congregation in his own family, one must be formed from it. In 1565 the power of excommunication was given to it, and it might depose elders and deacons, with appeal to the provincial synod. Its right to manage the affairs of its own church was strongly asserted inl563, 1565, and 1571 at the synods of Lyons, Paris, and La Rochelle. One of the ministers was president, but only as primus inter pares. Over all marriage and baptismal questions it had jurisdiction so long as it avoided interference with the civil Government by dissolving marriages. The attention paid to marriage by Presbyterianism in all countries is worthy of notice. The ruling idea is the intense sanctity of the tie. Only in case of adultery might it be broken in France. A contract of marriage was declared indissoluble by the synod of Lyons (art. 44) in 1563, though the woman averred that she had been forced into it and that the man had a loathsome dis-ease. Still more remarkable examples might be quoted. The office of elder was far more limited than in Geneva ; his supervision over morals was, for example, confined to reporting scandals to the consistory; but in 1572 this was greatly extended. The remarkable feature of the French system is its aristocratical nature : the consistory, by the method of co-optation, was a purely aristocratic council, and the greatest pains were taken by the various synods to crush all attempts towards giving power to the congregations (e.g., the condemnation of Jean Morelli, 1562-72, and the synods of Verteuil in 1567 and La Rochelle in 1571).
In the national synods, also, the aristocratic formation Synods soon asserted itself. Up to 1565 every church sent a minister with one or two elders or deacons. On questions of discipline elders or deacons might vote, on doctrinal questions only as many laymen as ministers. In 1565, however, to avoid overcrowding, the national synod of Paris determined that for the future only one or two ministers and one or two elders, chosen by each provincial synod, should be admitted. Thus the national synod, which had hitherto represented single churches, now repre-sented only the provincial synods, which of course gained immensely in importance.
The church disclaimed any encroachments upon the civil authority (compare the national synods of Lyons, Figeac, La Rochelle, Montauban, 1563, 1579,1581, 1594). But in (he state, Borrel's work, especially valuable as showing what went on in a single church, we find that so early as 1561 Pres-byterianism was following its natural bent. " A mesure que son pouvoir grandit, il impiéta sur le domaine du gouvernement civil, et crut pouvoir prendre des mesures pour la défense . . . pour ordonner, qui plus est, les levers d'argent. . . . En un mot, la police, la garde de la ville, l'inspection de la conduite des habitants, . . . devinrent graduellement l'objet de ses délibérations et de ses règle-ments." And a stern stand was made against the supre-macy of the state. In 1571 the minister of Bordeaux re-ported to the synod of La Rochelle "qu'un médecin soutient que le magistrat est le chef de l'église et que ce que les ministres entreprennent n'est que tirannie." The synod rejected "l'erreur du dit médecin et de tous autres qui veulent abolir la discipline de l'église en la confondant avec le gouvernement civil." The language of the synods will be found to vary as their political prospects vary. Progress The cause of the astonishing progress of Protestantism of Pro- and the extent to which it was but one phase of a general movement for reform may be seen in the proceedings of the states-general at Orleans in December 1560, where, both in the noblesse and in the tiers-état, loud complaints were uttered against the clergy (Felice, p. 117), and freedom of worship was demanded. Only a few months after-wards a proposal was made by a magistrate of Autun to sell all the church lands, to retain a fourth of the sum for the support of the priests, and with the rest to pay off the crown debts and encourage agriculture and commerce. The disbelief in the possibility* of two widely varying religions living side by side is shown in the proposals of all the speakers for a national council to settle vari-ances. " Otons ces noms diaboliques," said De l'Hôpital, "ces noms de partis, factions, et séditionsLuthériens, Huguenots, Papistesne changeons pas le nom de Chrétien."
Great forces were contending for Protestantism ; it had the goodwill of three-fourths of the nobles and of the bour-geoisie in the principal towns. But against it were ranged the strength of tradition and of habit ; the craft of Cathe-rine de' Medici, to whom all religions were equally matters of policy ; the ambition of the Guises, backed by Spain ; the interests of the clergy, backed by the pope ; and the Paris mob. And there was another influence, perhaps still more powerful. One of the greatest obstacles to the success of a new religious movement in a country of strong national feeling will be the existence of a strong national church. The church of France was Gallican, anti-papal, practically and essentially national. In spite of manifold corruptions she had become the centre of much national attachment. As was the case in England, she represented the idea of nationality in a concrete form, and in this lies to a great measure the explanation of the fact that the Huguenots had so long to fight for the right to exist. Struggles By September 1561 the situation had become intoler-against able. The colloquy of Poissy then met, as desired by De Cathoîi l'Hôpital. It made but one thing clear : union was im-pism. ' possible ; extermination for one of the conflicting faiths, or their concurrent existence, were the alternatives. The edict of January 1562 marked the conditions on which the latter was adopted. One remarkable provision was that ministers should swear before the civil magistrate to preach according to the word of God and the Nicene creed. By March war had begun ; the peace of Amboise in March the next year gave the Protestants some privileges, which, however, were afterwards much restricted, especially in the matter of synods, in August 1564; and the armed truce lasted until 1567. During these years the churches con-solidated themselves. At Nîmes, for example, the Genevan discipline was established in full rigour. The tendency of the consistory to encroach on the civil domain was shown in many ways, while the closely aristocratic nature of the French system appeared from the fact that at each annual election the outgoing members formed a body called the "old consistory," which was joined with the new consistory for election of ministers and all ordinary affairs. Its ministers were of two classesthe one ordinary and per-petual, the other temporary, such as the professors at the theological college.
The wars of 1567 displayed the value of the facility for union, which was one of the most important features of the Presbyterian polity. During three years of horrors meetings both of consistories and of provincial synods were held. In April 1571, at the peace of St Germain en Laye, the seventh national synod at La Rochelle reaffirmed the confession of faith. In May 1572 a very important synod was held at Nîmes, in which the whole church system was carefully revised and developed in many important respects, some of which have been mentioned. The rigidity of the Calvinistic faith was illustrated by the sentence of excom-munication against ministers or elders who caused any dispute touching doctrine, ceremonies, or discipline, and the Puritan temper by the prohibition "assister aux spectacles profanes, comme aux danses de théâtre, aux comédies," &c. The church senate, the difference of which from the consistory it is difficult to trace, was now merged in it, and care was taken to get rid of wandering and uncertificated ministers by drawing up a " rôle des vagabonds."
By the end of 1573 the positions of the Catholics and of the "religion prétendue réformée," as it was henceforward officially known, had greatly altered. Against the Italian and Spanish influences, as represented by Catherine and the Guises, there had after St Bartholomew's Day arisen a patriot Catholic party ; while the Presbyterians had become sharply divided into two bodies,one the Consis-toriaux (the Covenanters of France), careful only for the purity and free exercise of their religion, and the other the Aristocracy (as in Scotland), who, having become Presby- Political terians for political purposes, were now fearful of seeing Presby-. themselves excluded from political life, and were therefore te"an anxious for union and compromise. This party formed a league with the Catholic patriots, and, as the " tiers-parti," was so threatening that Henry III., to sever the alliance, offered to the Calvinist Aristocracy the free exercise of their religion, and,- what they were far more anxious about, full participation in public employments and the re-establishment of their chiefs in their former positions. Fighting, however, again broke out in the beginning of 1577, and was adverse to the Presbyterians, who never-theless held a national synod at Sainte Foy in 1578, attended by a commissioner from Henry of Navarre. Very remarkable is the strictness with which in a time of desola-tion the laws of the church were maintained. The luke-warmness of the Presbyterian Aristocracy had made the ministers stern and unyielding, and they now gained great influence. In this respect too the course of things was very analogous to that in Scotland. In both countries the ministers threw themselves upon the lower middle classes as distinct from and opposed to the aristocracy. In 1585 Henry III. came to terms with the Guise faction at Nemours on condition of exterminating Calvinism. This, however, was under the stress of circumstances ; his policy was to play off one party against the other, and he soon became lukewarm in persecution. Along with Henry of Navarre he was excommunicated by the pope ; he replied by defiance, murdered Guise, was compelled by the abhor-rence thus created to join the Protestants, marched with Navarre on Paris, and was there, in 1589, assassinated. To gain the Catholics and to retain the Presbyterians was Henry IV.'s task after Ivry. To secure the latter he put out an edict of toleration; to gain the former he was "converted" to Catholicism in 1593. The Presbyterian Aristocracy now took a most important step. In May 1594 they held a political meeting at Sainte Foy and formally established a political imperium in imperio of the most decided character. France was divided into ten sections for administrative purposes. There was a general council of four nobles, four bourgeois, two clergy,the numbers being afterwards raised to twelve, twelve, and six. Under the general council were the provincial councils of five or seven members, of whom only one was necessarily a minister. The general council acted as an intermediary between the whole body of the Calvinists and the king. Owing doubtless to its operation Henry, whose leading idea was national unity, in April 1598 ("Fan de salut") put forth the Edict of Nantes, which practically conceded entire liberty of conscience to the Presbyterians. The truce lasted during the rest of Henry's reign. Synods were re-gularly held, and the language of controversy became more bitter. At Gap, in 1603, the pope was declared to be Antichrist, and this declaration was in force until 1637, when the synod of Alencon was compelled to expunge it. At the synod of Gap it was reported that there were 760 organized churches, with 565 ministers. The ministry now received from the king a subsidy of 40,000 crowns, the distribution of which took up a large part of the time of subsequent synods. In spite of the confirmations of the Edict which followed Henry's death, the anxious Presby-terians held another political synod at Saumur in 1611, when they swore faith to the crown, " le souverain empire de Dieu demeurant toujours en son entier." In 1620 the political assembly met at La Rochelle, when they confis-cated all property belonging to Catholic churches, struck a great seal, levied arms and taxes, organized the church, and divided France into eight military districts. The aus-terity and intolerance displayed at the synods at this time were intense (see Buckle, vol. ii. p. 57, ed. 1867). The war, however, was disastrous to the Presbyterians, and at the peace of Montpellier the cessation of political meetings was insisted upon. The policy of Bichelieu was that of Henry IV.,protection as regarded religion, and a stead-fast refusal to permit any political " league " which tended against the concentration of French nationality. The result of his treatment of combined conciliation and repres-sion and of the attractions of the court on the nobility was that the Presbyterians, as a political party, ceased to exist. The number of churches, too, greatly diminished : in 1603 there were 760, in 1619 only 700. Mazarin pursued the same course; and his assent in 1660 to the synod of Loudun was the last favour they received.
The action of the fourteen synods held since 1600 had been (as was also the case in Scotland) in the direction of increasing the power of the minister and diminishing that of the elders and congregations (Vitre in 1603, La Rochelle in 1607, and Gap in 1617), and to define the relations with the state. From 1623 (Charenton) a royal commissioner was always present, and year by year the increasing subserviency of their language shows that the national synods were coming more and more under royal control. In 1637 (Alengon) the royal commissioner, who openly taunted them with their powerlessness, forbade not only the provincial synods but even intercourse of the Period of national synods with the provinces. In 1657 meetings perseeu- for the choice of ministers were prohibited, and then tlon' the colloques were suppressed. At Loudun in 1659 the national synod was forbidden and the provincial synods were restored. The greatest jealousy, too, was shown by the crown in respect of communication with other countries. No one might be a minister who was not born in France, or who had studied in Geneva, Holland, or England, the hot-beds of republicanism. The Presbyterians showed a corresponding desire for union with other Protestants. In 1620 they accepted the confession of the synod of Dort; in 1631, for the first time, they held out the hand of fellow-ship to the Lutherans. In 1614 an attempt had been already made to convene a general council of orthodox churches from all Protestant countries ; and an oath of union was taken among themselves, repeated at Charenton in 1623. With two parties alone they would accept no union, Roman Catholics and Independents.
Of the time of horrors which reached its climax in the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 we can give no account here. The provincial synods were held continuously and were of great importance in preserving the vitality and spirit of the church. Thus in 1661 the pro-vincial synod of Nîmes checked defection by compelling every minister within its bounds to swear that he had not thought of joining "light to darkness and God to Belial." It is reckoned that under the persecution, in addition to the killed, from four to five millions of French Protestants left the country. Armed resistance took place, but no settled struggle until 1702, when the war of the Camisards took place in Languedoc,a war of uneducated peasants without arms or leaders of rank. Like the Cameronians, they believed that they received direct communications from God ; they had their prophets or "inspirés"; they lived in a state of religious ecstasy, and bore with patient defiance spoliation, the galleys, and death ; and, when opportunity offered, they exercised against their enemies reprisals as cruel as was the persecution itself. For three years every effort to crush them was made in vain ; and they yielded at last only to the moderate measures of Villars.
To abolish the undisciplined rule of the "inspirés" and to Antoine restore Presbyterianism, which had ceased since the revo- Court, cation, was the work of Antoine Court, the most notable figure produced by Protestant France. From 1715 to 1730, without a day's rest, this man accomplished a work truly marvellous. He was but eighteen years old when he began it. In momentary peril of death for fifteen years, he restored in the Vivarais and the Cevennes the Presby-terian constitution in all its integrity. On 21st August 1715 he assembled his first colloque, consisting of the preachers of the Cevennes and several laymen. In 1718 he held a synod of forty-five members, and again in 1723, when the old discipline was restored. In 1726 he held another synod attended by three ministers and forty-four elders, and again in the next year; and in 1744, in a re-mote spot of Bas Languedoc, the first national synod since 1660 brought together representatives from every province formerly Protestant. This alarmed the Government, and persecution again began. From 1760, however, thanks to the gradual spread of the sceptical spirit and to the teach-ings of Voltaire, more tolerant views prevailed ; synods were held without disturbance; and in 1787 Turgot, whose great object was to separate the civil and the spiritual domains, put out the Edict of Tolerance. In 1789 all citizens were made equal before the law, and the position of Presbyterianism improved up to 1791. Napoleon in Napo-1801 and 1802 took into his own hands the independence leon's. of both Catholic and Protestant churches. The consistory °^ulza was abolished and replaced by an " église consistoriale," uniting several churches. Representation on the " premier consistoire " of this " église " was now determined by taxa-tion instead of by choice of the people. Five " églises consistoriales " formed a " synode d'arrondissement," which superseded the provincial synod. It consisted of ten mem-bers only, and was absolutely under state control. The national synod was abolished. " C'était une liberté interne et murée dans les temples. II y avait rigoureuse defense de faire aucun bruit, aucun mouvement dans les choses de religion, ni journaux, ni associations, ni controverse, ni prosélytisme; et si quelqu' idee ou action réligieuse osait franchir l'enceinte oú elle était emprisonnée, la main de fer de Napoleón l'y refoulait immédiatement." Its life was taken from the church, and in 1807 it numbered less than 200 ministers.
In 1848, however, all but three of the ninety-two "églises consistoriales" sent a deputy to an assembly at Paris. From this assembly, when it refused to discuss points of doctrine, a secession took place, and the secessionists with the independent churches which had sprung up formed the "Union des églises évangéliques de France." This society held a synod in 1849 and there laid down a con-fession of faith and an ecclesiastical discipline. Mean-while the established church set itself to the work of reconstitution on the basis of universal suffrage (with re-strictions), the particular church being an essential element, with provincial synods, and a general synod meeting at Consti- regular intervals ; but no result was arrived at. In 1852 tution ofa change took place in its constitution. The "églises con-1852. sistoriales" were abolished, and in each parish a presby-terial council was erected, the pastor being president, with from four to seven elders chosen by the people. In the large towns there were consistoires composed of all the pastors and of delegates from the various parishes. Half the elders in each assembly were subject to re-election every three years. Above all was the central provincial council, consisting of the two senior pastors and fifteen members nominated by the state in the first instance. All property qualification for eldership was abolished. In 1858 there were 617 pastors, and the subvention from the state amounted to 1,375,936 francs. The " Union des églises évangéliques " numbered twenty-seven churches. Position The Netherlands.From the geographical position of in the tne Netherlands Presbyterianism took there from the be-lana/ " gmnlng its tone from France. In 1562 the Confessio Bélgica was revived, according to the French Confession of 1559, and publicly acknowledged ; and in 1563 the church system was similarly arranged. In 1572, however, in the northern provinces alone, which had been chiefly Lutheran or Melanchthonian, serious schisms took place. The in-vasion of Alva of course destroyed all Protestant order, and it was not until the Union of Utrecht in 1579 that the exiled Presbyterians returned. Previous to this, how-ever, in 1574, the first provincial synod of Holland and Zealand had been held; but William of Orange would not allow any action to be taken independently of the state. The Reformed churches had established themselves in independence of the state when that state was Catholic; when the Government became Protestant the church had protection, and at the same time became dependent: it was a state church. The independence of the church was not consistent with that of the communes and provinces, each of which by the Union of Utrecht had the regulation of its own religion. Thus the history of the church is one of constant conflict. Both church and state were divided, the former into Zwinglian and Calvinist, the latter into those who desired and those who refused a non-Erastian church. In most cases it was insisted on as necessary that church discipline should remain with the local authority. In 1576 William, with the support of Holland, Zealand, and their allies, put forth forty articles, by which doctors, elders, and deacons were recognized and church discipline given to the elders, with appeal to the magistrate, but which placed the church in absolute dependence on the state. These articles, however, never came into operation; and the decisions of the synod of Dort in 1578, which made the church independent, were equally fruitless. In 1581 the Middelburg synod divided the church, created pro-vincial synods and presbyteries, but could not shake off the civil power in connexion with the choice of church officers. Thus, although Presbyterian congregations remained the rule, the civil Government retained overwhelming influence. As the Ley den magistrates said in 1581, "If we accept everything determined upon in the synods, we shall end by being vassals of the synod. We will not open to church-men a door for a new mastership over Government and subjects, wife and child."
The contest between Zwinglian and Calvinist came to a decision at the synod of Dort, 1618. Arminius, on the one hand, inveighed against church autonomy as a new pope-dom ; Gomarus defended it. The oligarchy supported Arminius; the democratic party, headed by the stadt-holders, held with the Calvinists. The question at first was whether synods should be provincial or general. The independent provinces were naturally for provincial synods, as Arminius wished, the states-general for a national synod. The synod of Dort, wherein were represented all Beformed churches, decided against Arminius. When that was settled, the church system, as laid down in 1586 at the synod of The Hague (called by the earl of Leicester), and including general synods, was confirmed. This, however, was accepted only in Utrecht and Guelders; and from 1619 to 1795 there were seven church republics with more or less state inter-ference. The synodal form predominated, except in Zealand, and the Presbyterian form also, except in a few congregations which did not choose elders. As a rule elders held office for only two years. The "kerke raad," or kirk session, met weekly, the magistrate being a member ex officio. The colloque consisted of one minister and one elder from each congregation. At the annual provincial synod, held by consent of the states, two ministers and one elder attended from each colloque. Every congregation was annually visited by ministers appointed by the pro-vincial synod. The old controversy broke out again in the middle of the 17th century, Johann Cocceius and Gisbert Voet being the Arminian and Calvinist cham-pions. The state made good its power in every case.
In 1795, of course, everything was upset; and it was not until after the restoration of the Netherland states that a new organization in 1816 was formed. Its main features were that it was strictly synodal, with a national synod, and Presbyterian. But the minister was greatly superior to the elder, and the state had wide powers, especi-ally in the nomination of higher officers. In 1827 a new organ was brought into play, viz., a permanent commission of the general synod, consisting of seven members, chosen by the king from twice their number nominated by the synod, meeting twice a year. This was revived in 1847. In 1851 the system now in force was formed. In every congregation sufficiently large there is a church council of all the officers. In large congregations with three or more ministers the ministers and elders alone form one college, the deacons another. The congregation chooses all officers. There are 43 presbyteries in 10 provincial districts; in 1850 there were 1273 congregations with 1508 ministers and over 1,500,000 people. The special provincial synod (1619-1795) has ceased. In its place is the provincial authority of as many ministers as presbyteries in the pro-vince ; it chooses its own president. It meets three times a year, and has general superintendence, with power of examining, placing, and deposing ministers. A general synod meets at The Hague every July; the ten provincial authorities send each one minister and three elders, chosen by each of those authorities in turn, and a deputy from each of the three theological colleges of Leyden, Utrecht, and Groningen. The commissions for the Walloon, East and West Indian, and Limburg churches also send each a representative. The permanent commission is chosen by the synod itself, and altogether the church is independent of the state.
Rhine Provinces.In the Palatinate the spirit of the Presbyterian organization, though not the thing itself, had been active since the middle of the 16th century; and in 1568 Wither of Heidelberg, an Englishman, urged the establishment of the eldership. In 1570 Frederick III. established a church college in every congregation. Elders were for life. Besides the college or kirk session there was the church council in Heidelberg, consisting of three theologians and three laymen; one of the latter presided. These were all nominated by the Government. Between the church council and the various colleges were superintend-ents or inspectors. Finally there were synods, provincial and general, of ministers only. This arrangement was a compromise between the Lutheran and Presbyterian systems. From 1576 to 1583, after Frederick's death, the system was again Lutheran, but was made Presbyterian once more by John Casimir, tutor to Frederick IV., and so it remained. The churches of the lower Rhine were formed at first entirely by foreign refugees. Walloons fled from Charles V.'s persecution in 1545, and again in 1553-54. In 1564 the Heidelberg catechism was introduced. Thousands of Protestants were driven hither by Alva in 1567-68, and in the latter year a synod was held at Wesel of forty-six preachers and elders from twenty Netherland churches. The Presbyterian system was now fully intro-duced. For the election of ministers and elders, until synods could be regularly established, twice as many were to be nominated as were wanted, and then the congregation was to choose by individual voting. A " collegium pro-phetarum " was to be formed of all the officers and learned laymen for Bible exposition every week or fortnight. In 1571 the synod of Emden determined that half the elders and deacons were to give up office every year, but might be re-elected. Readers, on the Scottish plan, were appointed, and entire parity among all the church officers and the congregation insisted on. The synods are as in France, the members of the general synod being chosen from the provincial synod. The system was in fact partly French and partly Scottish. The congregations were in three divisions(1) Germany and East Friesland, (2) Netherlands, (3) England. In 1586 a synod was held at Nassau, and the system was partially introduced in West-phalia in 1588 ; in general, however, in Lutheran countries Presbyterianism made but little way against the consistories. Its prevalence in Germany generally was too partial and obscure, and it partook too much of the consistorial char-acter, to require notice here. Poland. Poland, ¿c.The Polish nobility and all of Slav blood accepted the "Reformed" doctrine and discipline, the aristocratic republican system suiting the national polity. The German element, however, retained Lutheran sym-pathies. The first synod was held at Pinkzow in 1550; from 1556 John Lasky worked in the interests of Calvinism; in 1570 all parties were united at the synod of Sandomir. By this a common confession was agreed to, but church government was left to be settled by each church. Another general synod was held at Cracow in 1573. In spite of the earnest endeavours of the church leaders, it was found impossible to introduce stringent discipline in the congre-gations ; on the synodal side, however, the system flourished, and the nobles were able to convert the synods into new aristocratic assemblies. It must be remembered that the Reformation was confined to the nobility, the serfs being neglected. Many of the nobles relapsed to Roman-ism ; this and internal divisions weakened the Reformed cause. In 1634 a synod was held to meet the taunt of the Catholics that no two churches had the same system. From 1655, when the Swedes were in Poland, the influ-ence of synods practically ceased.
The Bohemian Brethren were known of in 1450; their statutes (1457) discipline, entirely managed by the whole congregation, had an important place; in the 16th century it was specialized, elders being chosen to act with the minister. After the Schmalkald War in 1544 the Brethren were driven to Prussia and Poland. During the 16th century they developed rapidly; their system, sanc-tioned in 1609, had many peculiarities; it placed, for instance, the supervision of the women with female elders. In 1630 they printed at Lissa their Ratio discipline ordin-isque. The Thirty Years' War destroyed them, except in Great Poland, where they were led by Comenius. Just as different civil governmentse.g., monarchical, aristocratic, democraticsuited different peoples, he said, so it was with religious governments, e.g., Episcopal, Consistorial, Presbyterian. Let all three be welded into one, and we shall have unity from the first, association from the second, propagation from the third. Accordingly their system was a combined one of Episcopacy, consistories, and synods.
In Hungary up to 1550 the Lutherans were supreme; Hungary, but in 1557 the Calvinists had the majority, and their system was accepted in its entirety in 1558. The race division here also decided the ecclesiastical system. All of German blood in Hungary and Transylvania remained true to Lutheranism, whilst the Magyars and Slavs ac-cepted Calvinism. Continual contests with both Unitarians and Jesuits prevented the free development of Presbyter-ianism ; hence it was confined to the synodal side, and the synods, in which the nobles had special rights, were entirely clerical.
In 1689 the Waldenses introduced Presbyterianism of a peculiar type. The consistory was the civil authority as well as the church authority. For choice of elders each urban district chose three laymen, from whom the consistory chose the district elders for supervision of manners and of the poor. The ^consistory itself was subject to a church council, consisting of three spiritual and two lay members, which had supreme authority, especially when no
synod was sitting. Synods were called by consent of the congregations and of the king. Two laymen were present for each ecclesiastic. (O. A.)
Presbyterianism in the United States is a reproduction and further development of Presbyterianism in Europe. It differs from the latter in that the various types produced in Great Britain and on the continent of Europe combined to produce a new American type.
1. The Colonial Period.The earliest Presbyterian Colonial emigration consisted of French Huguenots under the period, auspices of Admiral Coligny, led by Ribault in 1562 to the Carolinas and in 1565 to Florida. But the former enterprise was soon abandoned, and the colonists of the latter were massacred by the Spaniards. The Huguenots also settled in Nova Scotia in 1604 under De Monts. The later Huguenot colonists mingled with the Dutch in New York and with the British Presbyterians and Episcopalians in New England and the Carolinas. A Huguenot church was formed on Staten Island, New York, in 1665 ; in New York city in 1683 ; at Charleston, South Carolina, in 1686; at Boston, Massachusetts, in 1687; at New Rochelle, New York, in 1688; and at other places. The Charleston church alone maintains its independence at present.
English Puritanism emigrated under the auspices of the Virginia Company to the Bermudas in 1612. In 1617 a Presbyterian church, governed by ministers and four elders, was established by Lewis Hughes, and the liturgy of the isles of Guernsey and Jersey was used. From 1620 on-wards English Puritanism colonized New England. This was of the two types which developed from the discussions of the Westminster Assembly (1643-48) into Presbyterian-ism and Congregationalism. They co-operated in New England as they did in Old England in the county associa-tions. The Plymouth colony was more of the Congrega-tional type, the Massachusetts Bay colony more of the Presbyterian type. A mixed system was produced which has been happily called by Henry M. Dexter "a Congre-gationalized Presbyterianism or a Presbyterianized Congregationalism . . . which was essentially Genevan within the local congregation and essentially other outside of it." Presbyterianism was stronger in Connecticut than in Massachusetts. Thence it crossed the borders into the Dutch settlements on the Hudson and the Delaware, and mingled with other elements in Virginia, Maryland, and the Caro-linas. Nine of these Puritan Presbyterian churches were established on Long Island, New York, from 1641 to 1670, and three in Westchester county, New York, from 1677 to 1685. In New York city Francis Doughty in 1643 ministered to a congregation of Puritan Presbyterians, and was succeeded by Richard Denton in 1650. Francis Doughty also preached in Virginia and Maryland from 1650 to 1659, and was followed by Matthew Hill in 1667 and others subsequently. Francis Doughty was the father of British Presbyterianism in the middle colonies, but he left it in an unorganized condition.
Dutch Presbyterianism was planted in New Amsterdam, New York, in 1628, when the first Reformed Dutch church was organized by Jonas Michaelius with two elders and fifty communicants. This had a strong Huguenot and Walloon representation. Services were held in the Dutch and the French languages, and subsequently in the English language also. The Dutch churches spread along the valleys of the Hudson, the Mohawk, the Raritan, and the Passaic, and also on the Delaware. They continued in subor-dination to the classis of Amsterdam, Holland, until 1747.
Irish Presbyterianism was carried to America by an unknown Irish minister in 1668, by William Traill in 1683, and especially by Francis Makemie in the same year, an ordained missionary of the presbytery of Laggan, who was invited to minister to the Maryland and Virginia Presby-terians. He was a merchant and a man of executive ability, and was the chief instrument in establishing the presbytery of Philadelphia, and interesting the Presbyterians of London, Dublin, and Glasgow in the feeble state of their church in America. In 1704 he obtained aid from the London ministers and returned to America with two ordained missionaries, John Hampton (Irish) and George Macnish (Scotch).
Meanwhile the New England ministers had sent several missionaries to the banks of the Delaware: Benjamin Woodbridge and Jedidiah Andrews went to Philadelphia in 1698-1700; John Wilson became pastor of a Presby-terian church at Newcastle, Delaware, in 1698; Samuel Davis and Nathaniel Taylor supplied other churches in Presby- the vicinity. Seven of these ministers organized the toy of presbytery of Philadelphia in 1706. It was a meeting r^h" of members for ministerial exercise "to consult the most proper measures for advancing religion and propagating Christianity." The presbytery only gradually learned to exercise oversight over the churches. The ministers con-stituting it were from many lands and of many types of Presbyterianism, and could agree only in a loosely organ-ized body. During the existence of the original presbytery the chief sources of support were London, Glasgow, and Dublin in the United Kingdom, and Boston, Massachusetts, and Fairfield county, Connecticut, in New England. Its Presbyterianism was of the broad, tolerant type that we might expect from a happy union of English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh Presbyterians, with a few Dutch, Germans, and French. In 1716 the presbytery divided itself into four "subordinate meetings, or presbyteries," after the Irish model, and increased its number by a large accession of Puritan churches and ministers from eastern New Jersey and New York.
The synod remained without a constitution and without subscription until 1729. It assumed the functions of Presbyterian government and discipline only gradually, as circumstances required. It developed naturally from its own inherent vitality, and adapted itself to the circum-stances of the New World without anxiety as to its con-formity to stereotyped models in the Old World. How-ever, two parties developed with the growth of the church. The stricter section urged the adoption of the Westminster standards and conformity thereto; the broader party were unwilling to sacrifice their liberty. The former followed the model of the Church of Scotland; the liberal party sympathized with the London and Dublin Presbyterians. The result of the conflict was union under the Act of 1729, which adopted the Westminster symbols " as being, in all the essential and necessary articles, good forms of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine." It allowed scruples as to "articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, or government." The presbytery was to judge in the case and not the subscriber. This Adopt-ing Act (largely influenced by the Irish pacific articles of 1720) established the American Presbyterian Church on a broad generous basis ; but the happy union was brief. In 1730 the stricter party in the presbyteries of Newcastle and Donegal insisted on full subscription, and in 1736, in a minority synod, carried a deliverance interpreting the Adopting Act according to their own views. The liberal men paid no attention to it, except to put themselves on guard against the plotting of the other side. Friction was increased by a contest between Gilbert Tennent and his friends, who favoured Whitefield and his revival measures, and Robert Cross and his friends, who opposed them. The Tennents erected the Log College to educate candidates for the ministry; and the synod passed an arbitrary Act, aimed at the Log College, that all students not educated in the colleges of New England or Great Britain should be examined by a committee of synod, thus depriving the presbyteries of the right of determining in the case. The presbytery of New Brunswick declined to yield, and the body became more and more divided in sentiment. The Cross party charged the Tennents with heresy and dis-order ; the Tennents charged their opponents with un-godliness and tyranny. Passions were deeply stirred when the synod met in 1741. The moderate men remained away. The Cross party brought in a protestation to the effect that the Tennent party were no longer members of the synod ; and thus the synod suddenly broke in two. The New York presbytery declined at first to unite with either party, and endeavoured to bring about a union, but in vain. The Tennent party were found at length to be more reasonable, and the New York presbytery combined with them in establishing the synod of New York, which was called the New Side in contradistinction to the synod of Philadelphia, which was called the Old Side.
During the separation the New Side established Nassau New Hall at Elizabethtown in 1746, and the Log College of the Side and Tennents was merged into it. It was removed to Princeton 01d si °"
in 1755, large funds being received from England, Ire-land, and Scotland in its aid. Thus the Presbyterians of Great Britain showed their sympathy with the broad and tolerant Presbyterians of the synod of New York; and the college at Princeton was based upon the pledges of Davies and Tennent as to liberal subscription in terms of the original Adopting Act. The Old Side adopted the academy at New London, which had been organized by Francis Alison in 1741, as their own. Thus each side gained an important institution of learning. The division continued until 1758. During this period the synod of Philadelphia decreased from twenty-six ministers to twenty-two, whereas the synod of New York increased from twenty to seventy-two. The New Side reaped all the fruits of the wonderful revival that spread over the colonies under the influence of Whitefield and his successors. The barriers to union were the different views as to subscription and discipline, and the arbitrary act of excision; but they were after a while happily removed, and the Adopting Act was re-established in its original breadth as the foundation of the reunited church. The reunion was signalized by the formation of the presbytery of Hanover in Virginia. The synod increased with great rapidity, by the reception of new ministers, new churches, and also entire presby-teries, until the outbreak of the Revolution and the close of the colonial period, when the synod numbered 11 pres-byteries and 132 ministers.
The synod of New York and Philadelphia embraced only a portion of the Presbyterian ministers of the middle colonies. In the Carolinas Presbyterianism had an independent development. There was a considerable Scottish emigra-tion between 1684 and 1687. William Dunlop ministered to them until 1688, when he returned to become principal of the university of Glasgow. A mixed congregation of English Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians was organized at Charleston in 1690. In 1710 there were five churches, which combined to form the presbytery of James Island in 1722-23. This presbytery went through the same struggle with reference to subscription as the synod of Philadelphia, and the parties separated in 1731 into subscribers and non-subscribers.
In 1718 Irish Presbyterianism from Ulster established itself at Londonderry in New England. The church at Londonderry grew into a presbytery in 1726-29, including the Huguenot church of Boston. A second presbytery was organized at Salem in 1745. The original presbytery became extinct owing to internal strife in 1765 ; but the presbytery of Salem grew into the synod of New England, 31st May 1775, composed of three presbyteries and sixteen ministers. Besides this synod the presbytery of the East-ward was organized at Boothbay, Maine, in 1771 and re-mained independent. A presbytery of the Puritan type was organized at Grafton, New Hampshire, and continued from 1776 to 1796 independent of other presbyteries.
The Scottish Presbyterians from the established church combined with the American Presbyterian Church, but the separating churches of Scotland organized independent bodies. The Reformed Presbyterian Church (" Covenanters") sent Cuthbertson in 1751 (or 1752); he was joined by Lind and Dobbin from the Reformed presbytery of Ireland in 1774, and they organized an American Reformed presbytery. The Anti-Burgher synod sent Alex-ander Gellatly and Andrew Arnot in 1752, and they or-ganized the Associate presbytery of Pennsylvania in 1754 ; they were joined by the Scotch Church in New York city in 1657, a split from the American Presbyterian Church; they had grown to two presbyteries and thirteen ministers in 1776. The Burgher synod sent Telfair and Clark in 1764 ; the latter settled at Salem, New York; they united with the Associate presbytery of Pennsylvania.
Dutch Presbyterianism in 1747 formed a coetus which grew into a classis in 1755 independent of the classis of Amsterdam. A minority adhered to the mother classis and organized under its supervision a conference which grew into an assembly in 1764. In 1770 Queen's (now Rutgers) College was organized at New Brunswick, New Jersey. A union of the two parties was accomplished through the efforts of Dr J. H. Livingston in 1772, and a synod of five classes was organized,, of 100 churches and 34 ministers. At the outbreak of the Revolution they numbered 44 ministers and 105 churches.
German Presbyterians began to emigrate into Pennsylvania in 1684, but not in large numbers until 1709, when a tide of emigration set in from the Palatinate and Switzerland. These attached themselves to the Dutch churches, but, where such did not exist, they organized churches of their own. In accordance with the advice of the German mother churches, in 1730 they put themselves under the care of the classis of Amsterdam, Holland. In 1747 the German churches organized a ccetus under the influence of Schlatter, who had found forty-six churches scattered over a wide region in Pennsylvania, but only four ordained ministers. He acted as general superintendent and was very efficient. He sought aid from all quarters, but this excited internal jealousies and controversies. At the outbreak of the Revolution it is estimated that the German churches numbered twenty-five ministers and sixty churches.
The classis of Amsterdam had a magnificent opportunity at the opening of the 18th century. The Dutch, German, and French churches in America were under its care. If it had organized them into classes and a synod at an early date the Reformed Church of America would have been the strongest Presbyterian body in the country, but by keeping them in pupilage it separated the various nation-alities and prevented closer union with British Presby-terians. The strength of Presbyterianism in the colonies which became the United States of America may be esti-mated at the close of the period as 3 synods, 20 presby-teries, 5 classes, 1 ccetus, and 260 ministers. The synod of New York and Philadelphia was a trifle stronger than all the others combined.
2. From the Revolution to the Civil War.During the From the war of the Revolution the Presbyterian churches suffered Revolu-severely. The ministers and people, with scarcely an ex- ^"^jj ception, entered upon the struggle for constitutional liberty War. with all their souls. The Presbyterian Church was the church of constitutional government and orderly liberty. The Presbyterians exerted great influence in the con-struction of the constitution of the United States, and the government of the church was assimilated in no slight degree to the civil government of the country.
At the close of the war the Presbyterian bodies began at once to reconstruct themselves on more solid bases. In 1782 the presbyteries of the Associate and Reformed Churches united and formed the Associate Reformed synod of North America. But there were a few dissenters in both bodies, so that the older Associate and Reformed presbyteries were still continued. The Associate presby-tery of two members, Marshall and Clarkson, continued to exist until 1801, when it was subdivided and became the Associate synod of North America. In 1798 the Re-formed presbytery of North America was reconstituted by M'Kenney and Gibson from Ireland; it grew into a synod of three presbyteries in 1809, and in 1823 into a general synod. In 1781 the Dutch Reformed organized them-selves into a synod and classes. In 1784 they founded a theological seminary, which was settled at New Brunswick, and in 1792 adopted a constitution with general synod, particular synods, and classes. In 1792 the German Reformed declared themselves independent of the classis of Amsterdam, and adopted a constitution in 1793 having 150 churches and 22 ministers.
In 1785 the synod of New York and Philadelphia took steps for the organization of a general assembly and also with a view to the union of all the Presbyterian bodies into one. In 1789 the synod resolved itself into a general assembly of four synods, which, after revising the chapters relating to church and state, adopted the Westminster symbols as their constitution, " as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures," and they made them unalterable without the consent of two-thirds of the presbyteries and the general assembly. In 1798 another effort was made for union with the Reformed Dutch and the Associate Reformed, which failed. Three years after-wards a plan of union with the general association of Con-necticut was agreed upon by the general assembly, and the work of home missions in the western section of the country was prosecuted jointly. The result was mixed churches in western New York and the new States west of the Alleghany Mountains, which grew into presbyteries and synods having peculiar features midway between Pres-byterianism and Congregationalism.
The revivals in Kentucky brought about differences which resulted in the high-handed exclusion of the revivalists. These formed themselves into the presbytery of Cumberland, 4th February 1810, which grew ______ into a synod of three presbyteries. In 1813 they revised the Westminster confession and excluded, as they claimed, fatalism and infant damnation. If they had appealed to the general assembly they might have received justice, or possibly the separation might have been on a larger scale. In 1822, under the influence of John M. Mason, the Associate Reformed synod combined with the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church,' but the majority was too slender to make the union thorough. The greater part of the ministers decided to remain separate, and accordingly three independent synods were organized New York, Scioto, and the Carolinas. In 1858 the Associate synods of the north and west united with the Associate synod as the United Presbyterian Church. In 1833 the Reformed Presbyterian Church divided into New Lights and Old Lights in a dispute as to the propriety of Covenanters exercising the rights of citizenship under the constitution of the United States. Period of A great and widespread revival marked the opening revivals, years of the century, resulting in marvellous increase of zeal and numbers in the churches. New measures were adopted, doctrines were adapted to the times and occasions, and ancient disputes were revived between the conserva-tive and progressive forces. Theological seminaries had been organized at Princeton in 1812, at Auburn in 1820, at Hampden Sydney in 1824, Allegheny in 1827, Columbia in 1828, Cincinnati in 1829, and Union Seminary, New York, in 1836. Differences in doctrine as well as polity and discipline became more and more prominent. Puritan theology had developed in New England into Edwardism and then into Hopkinsianism, Emmonsism, and Taylorism. A new theology had sprung up which was held to be an improvement and adaptation of Calvinism to modern thought. This new theology had entered the Presbyterian Church in the form of a milder Calvinism, which was represented to be more in accordance with the original type. On the other side the scholastic type of Calvinism, as represented by Francois Turretin and the Zurich Consensus, was insisted on as the true orthodoxy. The doctrinal differences came to a head in the trials of Albert Barnes, George Dufneld, and Lyman Beecher, which, how-ever, resulted in the acquittal of the divines, but increased friction and ill-feeling. The differences developed were chiefly between general atonement and atonement for the elect only and between mediate imputation and immediate imputation. But there was a middle party which regarded these differences as forced, and held that the rival views were alike inadequate if taken alone and that they were really complementary.
The agitation with reference to African slavery threw old and the bulk of the Southern Presbyterians on the Old Side, New which was further strengthened by the accession of the sicla' Associate Reformed. The ancient differences between Old and New Side were revived, and once more it was urged that there should be (1) strict subscription, (2) ex-clusion of the Congregationalized churches, and strict Presbyterian polity and discipline, (3) the condemnation and exclusion of the new divinity and the maintenance of scholastic orthodoxy. In 1834 a convention of the Old Side was held in Philadelphia, and the " Act and Testimony " was adopted charging doctrinal unsoundness and neglect of discipline upon the New Side, and urging that these should be excluded from the church. The moderate men on both sides opposed this action and strove for peace or an amicable separation, but in vain. In 1837 the Old Side obtained the majority in the general assembly for the second time only in seven years. They seized their oppor-. tunity and abrogated the " Plan of Union," cut off the synod of Western Reserve and then the synods of Utica, Geneva, and Genesee, four entire synods, without a trial, and dissolved the third presbytery of Philadelphia without providing for the standing of its ministers. This revolu-tionary proceeding brought about the second great rupture in the Presbyterian Church. The New Side men met in convention at Auburn in August 1837 and adopted measures for resisting the wrong. In the general assembly of 1838 the moderator refused to recognize the commis-sioners of the four exscinded synods. An appeal was made to the assembly and the moderator's decision reversed. A new moderator was chosen, while the assembly adjourned to another place of meeting. The Old Side remained after the adjournment and organized themselves, claiming the historic succession. Having the moderator and clerks from the assembly of 1837, they retained the books and papers. Thus two general assemblies were organized, the Old and the New School. An appeal was made to the civil courts, which decided in favour of the New School; but this decision was overruled on a technical point of law by the court in bank and a new trial ordered. It was deemed best, however, to cease litigation and to leave matters as they were.
Several years of confusion followed. In 1840 we have the first safe basis for comparison of strength.
== TABLE ==
The churches remained separate throughout the re-mainder of this period. The North was especially agitated by the slavery question, and the anti-slavery element be-came so strong that the Southern synods of the New School assembly felt constrained to withdraw in 1858. They organized the United Synod of 4 synods, 15 presbyteries, 113 ministers, 197 churches, 10,205 communicants. Just before the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861 these churches numbered :
== TABLE ==
The several branches of the Scottish separating churches continued to grow independently until the year 1858, when the United Presbyterian Church was formed by a union of three synods,one of the Associate and two of the Associate Reformed Churches.
synod with 26 classes, 447 ministers, and 98,775 communicants. Ursinus College was founded by it in 1869. All branches of Presbyterians have increased with the growth of the United States. The present strength of the churches is as follows :
== TABLE ==
The Dutch Reformed increased, though not without slight internal struggles; in 1822 there was a secession of thirteen ministers. The name "Dutch" was dropped in 1867 because it was found hurtful to the progress of the denomination. At the outbreak of the Civil War they numbered 1 general synod, 3 particular synods, 31 classes, 387 ministers, 370 churches, 50,427 communicants.
The German Reformed in 1816 improved their organi-zation. In 1819 the constitution was revised and the church divided into synods and classes. In 1824 they were divided into two independent synods. In the next year they established a theological seminary at Carlisle, which was removed to Mercersburg, and finally to Lan-caster (all in Pennsylvania). This institution became the centre of the liturgical party in the church. The Ohio synod established Heidelberg College in 1850. At the outbreak of the Civil War this denomination numbered 2 synods, 24 classes, 391 ministers, 1045 churches, 92,684 communicants.
In 1826 the first Calvinistic Methodist Church in America was organized in Oneida county, New York, and a presbytery was constituted a few years afterwards. This little denomination, which is in entire sympathy with other Presbyterian bodies, is composed almost ex-clusively of Welshmen, who have settled in communities by themselves.
Period 3. From the Civil War to 1885.The Civil War in since the separating the people of the North from the people of ^j the South also brought about a separation of churches.
Some of the breaches have been healed, others remain until now.
In 1861 the Southern section of the Presbyterian Church withdrew from the Northern and organized the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America, with 11 synods, 47 presbyteries, about 700 ministers, 1000 churches, and 75,000 communicants. In 1865 this body united with the United Synod of the South, and increased its strength by 120 ministers, 190 churches, and 12,000 communicants. After the close of the war the name of the denomination was changed to "the Presbyterian Church in the United States." In 1867 this church was joined by the presbytery of Patapsco, in 1869 by the synod of Kentucky, and in 1874 by the synod of Missouri, all of which had separated from the Northern church.
The war also united the Northern churches more closely together, and there was an increasing desire for organic union. An effort was made to combine all the Presby-terian bodies of the North in 1867, but in vain. In 1869, however, the Old and New School churches of the North combined on the basis of the common standards. A memorial fund of $7,883,983 was raised, and the church entered with renewed strength upon a fresh career of use-fulness. An effort to unite the Dutch and German Re-formed Churches failed, as also the effort to combine the Presbyterian Churches of the North and the South. The German Reformed synods in 1863 united in a general _________
== TABLE ==
The American Presbyterian churches have always been marked by a zeal for missions. John Eliot, the apostle to the Indians in New England, was a Puritan Presby-terian. The synod of New York carried on mission work among the Indians through David Brainerd and others, with the help of the Society in Scotland for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge. The Presbyterian churches generally co-operated with the Congregationalists in the work of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, established in 1710, until 1832, when the Reformed Church in America set the example of organizing a denominational board. Each denomination now has its board of missions. The summary of missionary operations, as reported to the council of the Reformed churches hold-ing the Presbyterian system which met at Belfast in June 1884, was 230 ordained missionaries, 25 male lay agents, and 359 female, all sent out by the societies. These were aided by 138 ordained converts and 1115 other agents from among the converts, and there was a total of 25,235 communicants and 29,060 day-school pupils. The work of home missions is equally extensive, and is especi-ally important in the United States, where the church has to attend to the wants of an immense population constantly flowing from Europe, and the natural increase of population in the country itself also enlarges the older towns and States and creates new ones with astonishing rapidity.
The tendency of Presbyterianism in the United States is to adapt itself to the circumstances of the country. The divisions are chiefly the result of differences of nationality, and traditional doctrines and modes of worship brought by the immigrants from the countries of Europe. These are gradually wearing off, and the churches are assimilat-ing themselves to the country and its institutions, and thus are growing closer together. We may expect at no very distant date a combination of them all into one organism.
The chief authorities for the study of American Presbyterianism areCharles Hodge, Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 1706-1788 (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1840); Records of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. from 1706 to 1788 (Philadelphia, 1841); Richard Webster, History of the Presbyterian Church in America (Philadelphia, 1857); E. H. Gillett, History of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (2d ed., Philadelphia, 1873); Presbyterian Reunion (New York, 1870) ; E. B. Crisman, Origin and Doctrines of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church (St Louis, 1877) ; E. T. Corwin, Manual of the Reformed Church in America (New York, 3d ed., 1879); Reformation Principles (Philadelphia, revised ed., 1863); C. A. Briggs, American Presbyterianism, New York, 1885. (C. A. BR.)
The above article was written by:
-- All article, except the section on the United States] Osmund Airy
---[Presbyterianism in the United States] Rev. Prof. C. A. Briggs, D.D.