OUR PULPITS.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2472, 19 February 1881, Page 2

OUR PULPITS.

By P.R

The revolutionary wave that passed over England in the seventeenth century wrought a good deal of loss to the Church as well as to other venerable institutions. A very great number of persons having ranged themselves under the banner of- the Parliament in the civil war were thrown upon their own resources in religion as in everything else. The “ Lord-General ” was able to inspire bis followers with a firm conviction that the regicidal war in which they were engaged was indeed a glorious crusade against Popery and corrupt practices. Fire-breathing preachers set the masses aflame, and the rough heterogeneous gatherings of which the Parliamentary forces were composed were, by the influence of a frantic zeal, more firmly soldered together than they could have been by the most laborious discipline and drill, or the most galling sense of wrong and injustice. They were no hirelings, no mere adventurers, no gallant knights. War was, in their eyes, not a dashing and glorious pursuit, to be rewarded with the smiles of beauty or the enjoyment of titles and decorations. Every private saw himself a soldier of the Lord of Hosts, engaged in a stern struggle (of which he never doubted the issue) against idolatry and debauchery and spiritual wickedness in high places. With an open Bible in one bund, comforting and inspiring himself with grotesque interpretations, and a naked sword in the other, such a man was irriaistiblc. “ Smito and spare not,” “ The sword of the Lord and of Gideon !” To such texts his commanders ami pastors were constantly directing his mind. And the pupil was apt to learn the deadly lesson. All the fury of his uncultured nature (pent up, as to profanity and libertinism), turned into a “religious” channel, made the soldier of the Parliament a religious maniac, an irresistible power in the field, but dangerous even to his keeper, and requiring to be governed by a mind of surpassing ability. No one can doubt that such a master spirit was Oliver Cromwell, As to the Prelector’s own sincerity there will (Carlyle notwithstanding) always be two opinions. It is not within the scope ot my present intention to discuss this vexed question. All I wish to make dear is that Independency was a great movement of separation from the Established Church, which came into full operation as a consequence of the revolutionary and iconoclastic spirit of the Cromwellian age. The Independent community, however, had first furnished the world with a statement of, their raison d'etre in or about the year 1585, when ono Robert Brown published a pamphlet in which the doctrine of Independency was set forth in a readable fashion. The salient points of the system were (1) that Christians owed no allegiance to any ecclesiastical establishment, but that any body of worshippers in any town or district were scriptually authorised to form a self-governing congregation (always providing of course that they should hold the fundamental doctrines of the Protestant faith.) (2.) Inveterate opposition to both Episcopacy and Presbyterianism. (3.) That ordination confers neither gifts nor authority, but is merely an observance or mode of indicating that the ordained is thenceforward set apart for pastoral labor. The word ehklosia is a strong point with the Congregationalists. Among Episcopalians and Presbyterians this term denotes the “ Church” in a broad sense, embracing the whole body of Christians worshipping in a prescribed method in every place, and it is required that every congregation should submit itself to certain general laws. Against this principle the Congregationalists, or Nonconformists, persistently set their faces. They declare ehhlcsiato mean “ Church,” absolutely in the singular number , and they maintain that wherever more than one congregation is intended the plural is used distinctly thus —“ Let your women keep silence in the churches .” Such an idea, it is well known to the reader, is quite antagonistic to the teachings of the established churches, both Episcopalian and Presbyterian. It originated in the weariness which men in the sixteenth century began to feel at the cleadness of the church, the insufficiency and cumbrousness of her la ws, and her apparent powerlessness to promote true religion. So convinced, they thought it a hard case that they should not be allowed to worship God in their own way, since the church of their fathers was now only (at least in their eyes) a thing of Rubrics and traditions, resting merely on its prestige. The flame of revivalism was further fed in after years by the preaching of the Wesleys and Whitfield, whose fervid oratory made all England thrill and added mightily to the numerical strength of the dissenting ranks. As time wore on it became apparent that no system, however earnestly promulgated, could maintain its ground (or stilt less become a power in the land) unless some measure of that culture and learning which had hitherto been the perogative of the establishment, and the non-conformists addressed themselves to raise the intellectual status of the body. To that end a collegiate course was made a sine qua non for candidates for ministerial labor. At this day there are at least ten congregational colleges in England alone, and others in America. The evil results of Nonconformity (which at first were made much of by its opponents of the establishment), such as the growth of a sefish, narrow spirt, the spread of all sorts of vague and heterodox opinions, have not yet manifested themselves. No body is more united doctrinally, none more brotherly. There is far less wrangling in the “ Congregational Union ” than in any synod in the world, “ In essentials unity, in non essentials liberty, in all things charity,’ seems to be the ruling principle, and it appears to work remarkably well. It is indisputable that the Congregational body at this daj r more than make up for want of prestige of antiquity, by the superiority of its Ministry. Its ministers are men of exceptionally high culture and talent. Having no ritual, no sacerdotal status to overshadow their individuality, they cultivate all the essentials of ministerial success with utmost diligence. No Church has produced men of greater calibre or more world-wide usefulness than llaffles, Binney, and Mellor, in our own day. The Congregational Church, Timaru, is externally a neat and tasteful building. Internally it is a model of elegance and commodiousness. It is lofty, light, and airy, with comfortable seats and a handsome pulpit. There is something strange, however, in the position of the pulpit. It stands at the entrance end of the building. A stranger entering is surprised to see no minister in front of him, and still more

so when arriving at his seat, he turns, and lo ! the minister is by the door. There is a gallery behind him, which no one occupies, and obviously nobody ever will so long as it remains whore it is. This eccentric arrangement was no doubt necessitated by building extension and lam sure has nothing to do with non-conformity. The music here is rendered with spirit and precision by a most tasteful player and a well trained choir—it is a feature of the service. The Eev. Mr Hallowes has been in and out amongst us for some time past now, and I doubt very much whether any person in the community has won from all classes a more sincere regard or a deeper respect. lam fully alive to this, though perhaps I may not be disposed to follow him theologically. His reading is capital-clear, distinct, and justly emphasised. If he would but reform his Timaru brethren in this matter! He enunciates with clearness and reads with expression ; no word or its meaning is lost. His prayers are good—as extempore prayers go. [This is unquestionably a weak point in Non conformity.] When he comes to the sermon his presence, gestures, and tones are strikingly natural, dignified, and impressive. There is no painfulness in listening, the man’s individuality is in a just proportion, an ingredient; not on the one hand the tout ensemble , or on the other, dwarfed and repressed. From first to last one does not lose a word, though I am not quite so sure about the argument.

The sermon was based upon the passage 3 Mark, 22 to 29, and had reference to the much debated “ blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.” I confess I was somewhat amazed to find Mr Hallowes evidently a believer in the personality of the Devil. I can do no more than mention this, for discussion is not my purpose. I had re gardeiL this uncomfortable belief as one which had tacitly been allowed to fall into disrepute. It appears, however, that a minister of scholarly attainments and ordinary intelligence and liberality of thought yet holds fast to it. Mirahile dictu ! There was nothing tedious; a brief summary and “ application ” closed the discourse, the ‘‘ weekly offering ” was quickly and quietly taken, and short closing exercises finished the proceedings. The congregation are punctual, attentive, and in earnest, and everything goes smoothly. I fancy a bachelor minister would find his posi tion peculiarly trying at this church, for it is attended by a surprising number of very charming young ladies.