This Reformation audio resource is a production of Stillwater's Revival Books. There is no copyright on this material and we encourage you to reproduce it and pass it on to your friends. Many free resources as well as our complete mail-order catalog containing classic and contemporary Puritan and Reformed books at great discounts is on the web at www.swrb.com. We can also be reached by email at swrb at swrb.com, by phone at area code 780-450-3730, by fax at 780-468-1096, or by mail at 4710-37A Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6L 3T5. If you do not have a web connection, please request a free printed catalog. History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines by William M. Hetherington, as read by Leah Domes. Tape number 5. 2. That we shall, in like manner, without respective persons, endeavor the extirpation of potpourri, prelacy, that is, church government by archbishops bishops, their chancellors and commissionaries, deans, deans and chapters, archdeacons and all other ecclesiastical officers, depending on that hierarchy, superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness. Lest we partake in other men's sins, and thereby be endangered to receive of their plagues. and that the Lord may be one and his name one in the three kingdoms. 3. We shall with the same sincerity, realty, and constancy in our several vocations endeavor with our estates and lives mutually to preserve the rights and privileges of the parliaments and the liberties of the kingdoms and to preserve and defend the King's Majesty's person and authority in the preservation and defense of the true religion and liberties of the kingdoms, that the world may bear witness with our consciences of our loyalty, and that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish His Majesty's just power and greatness. 4. We shall also, with all faithfulness, endeavor the discovery of all such as have been or shall be incendiaries, malignants, or evil instruments. by hindering the reformation of religion, dividing the king from his people, or one of the kingdoms from another, or making any faction or parties among the people, contrary to this league and covenant, that they may be brought to public trial and receive condined punishment, as the degree of their offenses shall require or deserve, or the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms respectively or others having power from them for that effect shall judge convenient. 5. And whereas the happiness of a blessed peace between these kingdoms, denied in former times to our progenitors, is, by the good providence of God, granted unto us, and hath been lately concluded and settled by both parliaments, we shall, each one of us, according to our place and endeavor that they may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all posterity, and that justice may be done upon the willful opposers thereof, in manner expressed in the precedent article. 6. We shall also, according to our places and callings, in this common cause of religion, liberty, and peace of the kingdoms, assist and defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant, in the maintaining and pursuing thereof, and shall not suffer ourselves, directly or indirectly, by whatsoever combination, persuasion, or terror, to be divided or withdrawn from this blessed union and conjunction, whether to make defection to the contrary part, or to give ourselves to a detestable indifference, or neutrality in this cause. which so much concerneth the glory of God, the good of the kingdom, and honour of the king. But shall all the days of our lives zealously and constantly continue therein against all opposition, and promote the same according to our power against all lets and impediments whatsoever? And what we are not able ourselves to suppress or overcome, we shall reveal and make known, that it may be timely prevented or removed, all which we shall do as in the sight of God. And because these kingdoms are guilty of many sins and provocations against God and His Son Jesus Christ, as is too manifest by our present distresses and dangers, the fruits thereof, we profess and declare before God and the world our unfeigned desire to be humble for our own sins and for the sins of these kingdoms, especially that we have not, as we ought, valued the inestimable benefit of the gospel, that we have not labored for the purity and power thereof, and that we have not endeavored to receive Christ in our hearts, nor to walk worthy of him in our lives, which are the causes of other sins and transgressions, so much abounding amongst us. and our true and unfeigned purpose, desire, and endeavor for ourselves and all others under our power and charge, both in public and in private, in all duties we owe to God and men, to amend our lives and each one to go before another in the example of a real reformation. That the Lord may turn away His wrath and heavy indignation and establish these churches and kingdoms in truth and peace. And this covenant we make in the presence of Almighty God, the searcher of all hearts, with the true intention to perform the same, as we shall answer at that great day when the secret of all hearts shall be disclosed, most humbly beseeching the Lord to strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless our desires and proceedings with such success as may be deliverance and safety to His people. and encouragement to other Christian churches, groaning under or in danger of the yoke of anti-Christian tyranny, to join in the same or like association and covenant to the glory of God, the enlargement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the peace and tranquility of Christian kingdoms and commonwealths. It is difficult to conceive how any calm, unprejudiced, thoughtful, and religious man can peruse the preceding very solemn document without feeling upon his mind an over-awing sense of its sublimity and sacredness. The most important of man's interests for time and for eternity are included within its ample scope and made the subjects of a solemn league with each other and a sacred covenant with God. Religion, liberty and peace are the great elements of human welfare to the preservation of which it bound the empire. And as those by whom it was framed knew well that there can be no safety for these in a land where the mind of the community is dark with ignorance, warped by superstition, misled by error, and degraded by tyranny, civil and ecclesiastical, they pledged themselves to seek the extirpation of these pernicious evils. Yet it was the evils themselves, and not the persons of those in whom those evils prevailed, that they sought to extirpate. Nor was there any inconsistency in declaring that they sought to promote the honor and happiness of the king, while thus uniting in a covenant against that devil despotism which he strove to exercise. For no intelligent person will deny that it is immeasurably more glorious for a monarch to be the king of free men than a tyrant over slaves, and that whatsoever promotes the true mental, moral, and religious greatness of a kingdom promotes also its civil welfare and elevates the true dignity of its sovereign. This, the mind of Charles, was not comprehensive enough to learn, nor wise enough to know. especially as he was misled by the Prolatic faction, who, while seeking their own aggrandizement, led him to believe that they were zealous only for his glory, a glory the very essence of which was the utter annihilation of all liberty, civil, and religious. And as this desperate and fatal Prolatic policy was well known to the patriotic framers of the solemn legion covenant, they attached no direct blame to the king himself, but sought to rescue him from the evil influence of those by whose pernicious counsels he was misled. Aware also how often the wisest and best schemes are perverted and destroyed by the base intrigues of selfish and designing men, the Covenanters solemnly pledged themselves to each other and to God, not to sever themselves, to be divided or withdrawn from the constant and persevering prosecution of their great and sacred cause, till its triumph should be secured, or their own lives terminate. In this strong resolution were involved a lofty singleness of purpose, deliberate determination, and not only self-denial, but if necessary self-sacrifice, that to the world a great example might be given for better times to follow and to realize. Such were the great principles of the solemn Ligon Covenant. And while it is easy, very easy, to frame captious objections against minor points and forms of expression, as is very often done, we do not hesitate to say that in our opinion no man is able to understand its nature, and to feel and appreciate its spirit and its aim, or deny it to be the wisest the sublimest and the most sacred document ever framed by uninspired men. But as afterwards appeared, it was premature. It far outwent the spirit of the time. It was understood and valued but by few, and it was regarded by all who could not understand it with the most intense and bitter hatred mingled and increased by fear. Let not, however, this admission be taken in its most unlimited sense. If the solemn Ligon Covenant was premature, that detracts not from its real value. It only proves that it was promulgated in ignorant and evil times, with darkness and with dangers compassed round. And let these questions be asked and thoughtfully answered. Has it perished amid the strife of tongues? Has it sunk into oblivion and ceased to be a living element in the quick realms of thought? Are there none by whom it is still regarded with sacred veneration? Is it not true that at this very moment there are many lines of great power and energy earnestly engaged in reviving its mighty principles and fearlessly holding them forth before the world's startled gaze? And if such be the case, may it not be that what two hundred years ago was premature has now nearly reached the period of a full maturity? and is on the point of raising up its sacred and majestic head, strong in the Lord and in the power of His might? Before proceeding to relate the discussions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, thus finally constituted and prepared for its duties, it may be expedient to give a brief view of the parties, by the combination of which it was from the first composed, by whose jarring contentions its progress was retarded. and by whose divisions and mutual hostilities its labors were at length frustrated and prevented from obtaining their due result. When the Parliament issued the ordinance for calling together an Assembly of Divines for consultation and advice, there was, it will be remembered, actually no legalized form of church government in England, so far as depended on the legislature. Even Charles himself had consented to the bill removing the prelates from the House of Lords, and though the bill abolishing the hierarchy had not obtained the royal sanction, yet the greater part of the kingdom regarded it as conclusive on that point. The chief object of the Parliament, therefore, was to determine what form of church government was to be established by law, in the realm of that which had been abolished. and as their desire was to secure a form which should both be generally acceptable and should also bear at least a close resemblance to the form most prevalent in other Reformed churches, they attempted to act impartially, and in their ordinance they selected some of each denomination, appointing bishops, untitled Episcopalians, Puritans, and Independents. Several Episcopalians and at least one bishop were present in the first meeting of the assembly. But when the solemn legion covenant was proposed and taken, and when the king issued his condemnation of it, all the decided Episcopalians left, with the exception of Dr. Featley. He remained a member of the assembly for some time, till being detected corresponding with Archbishop Usher, and revealing the proceedings of the assembly. He was cut off from that venerable body and committed to prison. From that time forward there were no direct supporters of Prelacy in the Assembly, and the protracted controversial discussions which arose were on other subjects, on which account we had nothing to do with the Episcopalian controversy. beyond what has been already stated in our preliminary pages. There can be no doubt that the close alliance which the English Parliament sought with Scotland and the ground taken by the Scottish Convention of Estates and General Assembly in requiring not only an international league but also a religious covenant tended greatly to direct the mind of the English statesmen and divines towards the Presbyterian form of church government. and exercised a powerful influence in the deliberations of the Westminster Assembly. But let it be also remembered that in every one of the reformed continental churches either the Presbyterian form or one very closely resembling it had been adopted and that the Puritans had already formed themselves into Presbyteries, held Presbyterial meetings and endeavored to exercise Presbyterian discipline in the reception, suspension, and rejection of members. Both the example of other churches, therefore, and their own already begun practice had led them so far onward to the Presbyterian model that they would almost inevitably have assumed it altogether apart from the influence of Scotland. In truth, that influence was exerted and felt almost solely in the way of instruction, from a church already formed to one in the process of formation, and none would have been more ready than the Scottish commissioners themselves to have repudiated the very idea of any other kind of influence. It may be said, therefore, with the most strict propriety that the native aim and tendency of the Westminster Assembly was to establish the Presbyterian form of church government in England, the great body of English Puritans having gradually become Presbyterians. There is reason to believe that both Pym and Hampton favoured the Presbyterian system, but their early and lamented death deprived that cause of their powerful support and the House of Commons of their able and steady guidance. The chief promoters of Presbytery in the House of Commons were Sir William Waller, Sir Philip Stapleton, Sir John Clotworthy, Sir Benjamin Roodyard, Colonel Massey, Colonel Harley, Sergeant Maynard, Denzel Hollis, John Glynn, and a few more of less influential character. The Independents or Congregationalists formed another party, few in point of number, but men of considerable talent and learning, of undoubted piety, of great pertinacity in adhering to their own opinions, and, we are constrained to say, well skilled in the artifices of intriguing policy. The origin of the independent system has been already stated briefly in our introductory remarks. and will require little further elucidation. It was, according to the statement of its adherents, a medium between the Brownists and the Presbyterian systems. They did not, with the Brownists, condemn every other church as too corrupt and anti-Christian for intercommunion, for they professed to agree in doctrine both with the Church of England in its articles and with the other Reformed churches, But they held the entire power of government to belong to each separate congregation, and they practically admitted no church center but admonition. For that cannot properly be called excommunication, which consisted not in expelling from the body an obstinate and impenitent offender, but in withdrawing themselves from him. With regard to their boast of being the first advocates of toleration and liberty of conscience, that will come to be examined hereafter. This only need be said at present, that toleration is naturally the plea of the weaker party, that the term was then, has been since, and still is, much misunderstood and misused, and that wherever the independents possess power, as in New England, they showed themselves to be as intolerant as any of their opponents. The leading independents in the Westminster Assembly were Dr. Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, Jeremy Burroughs, William Bridge, and Cedric Simpson. These men had at first been silenced by the violent persecution of Lodd and Wren, and had then retired to Holland, where they continued exercising their ministry among their expatriated countrymen for several years. Goodwin and Nye resided at Arnheim where they were highly esteemed for their piety and talents. Bridge went to Rotterdam where he became pastor of an English congregation previously formed by the notorious Hugh Peters. Burroughs went also to Rotterdam and became connected with the congregation then under the pastoral care of Bridge in what was termed the Different but Coordinate Office of Teacher. Simpson subsequently joined himself to the two preceding brethren, having, according to their system, given an account of his faith. But though at first highly approving the order of the Church under the care of Mr. Bridge, he subsequently proposed some alterations which would, as he thought, promote its welfare. particularly the revival of the prophesying used by the old Puritans. This Mr. Bridge opposed, and Mr. Simpson withdrew from communion with him and formed a church for himself. Footnote, Brooks' Lives of the Puritans, Volume 3, page 312. End of footnote. The quarrel, however, did not so terminate. Mr. Ward, another ejected Puritan, having about the same time retired to Holland, came to Rotterdam, and having joined Mr. Bridge's church, was appointed his colleague in the pastoral office. He, too, wished for additional improvements, and as he did not retire like Simpson, but continued the struggle, Bridge thought it necessary to depose him from the ministry. which his superior influence in the congregation enabled him to accomplish. To prevent the evil consequences which might have resulted from these unhappy divisions, Goodwin and Nye came from Arnheim, instituted an investigation of the whole matter, and induced the two contending brethren and their adherents to acknowledge their mutual faults and to be reconciled. Footnote. Brooks Volume 2, page 454. Edwards' Anthropologia, pages 115 to 117. Bailey's Dissuasive, pages 75 to 77. End of footnote. The reconciliation, however, appears to have been but superficial, and to have required the interposition of the magistracy ere it could be even plausibly affected. Such divisions might have caused these divines to entertain some suspicion that the model of church government which they had adopted was not altogether so perfect as they wished it to be thought. But so far as their subsequent conduct as members of the Westminster Assembly is concerned, this does not seem to have been the case in even the slightest degree. When the contest between the King and the Parliament had become so extreme that the Parliament declared its own continuation as permanent as it might itself think necessary, and began to threaten the abolition of the whole prolatic hierarchy, the above-named Five Independent Divines returned to England, prepared to assist in the long-sought reformation of religion, and to avail themselves of every opportunity which might occur to promote their favourite system. and admitting them to be conscientiously convinced of its superior excellency, they deserve no censure for desire to see it universally received. In every such case, all that can be wished is that each party should prosecute its purpose honorably and openly, in the fair field of frank and manly argument, with Christian candor and integrity, and not by factious opposition, or with a dark and insidious craft too characteristic of worldly politicians. Of these five leading independents, often termed the Five Dissenting Brethren, Goodwin appears to have been the deepest theologian, and perhaps altogether the ablest man, nigh the most acute and subtle, and the best skilled in holding intercourse with worldly politicians. borrows the most gentle and pacific in temper and character. Bridge is said to have been a man of considerable attainments and a very laborious student, and Simpson bears also respectable character as a preacher, though not peculiarly distinguished in public debate. To these Bailey adds, as independents, Joseph Carlyle, William Carter of London, John Phillips, and Peter Sterry, naming nine but saying that there were some 10 or 11. Footnote. Bailey, Volume 2, page 110. End of footnote. Neal adds Anthony Burgess and William Greenhill. Footnote. Neal, Volume 2, pages 275 and 360. End of footnote. Some of the views of the independents were occasionally supported by Hurl, Marshall and Vines, and some few others, but none of these men are to be included in the number of the decided independents. The third party in the assembly were the Erastians, so-called from Erastus a physician at Heidelberg, who wrote on the subject of church government, especially in respect of excommunication, in the year 1568. His theory was that the pastoral office is only persuasive, like that of a professor over his students, without any direct power, that baptism, the Lord's Supper, and all other gospel ordinances were free and open to all, and that the minister might state and explain what were the proper qualifications and might dissuade the vicious and unqualified from the communion, but had no power to refuse it, or to inflict any kind of censure. The punishment of all offenses, whether of a civil or religious nature, belonged, according to this theory, exclusively to the civil magistrate. The tendency of this theory was to destroy entirely all ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction, to deprive the Church of all power of government, and to make it completely the mere creature of the state. The pretended advantage of this theory was that it prevented the existence of an imperium in imperio, or one government within another, of a distinct and independent nature. But the real disadvantage in the most mitigated view that can be taken was that it reproduced what may be termed a civil popedom by combining civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions. and giving both into the possession of one irresponsible power, thereby destroying both civil and religious liberty, and subjecting men to an absolute and irremediable despotism. In another point of view, the Erastean theory assumes a still darker and more formidable aspect. It necessarily denies the mediatorial sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ over His Church. takes the power of the keys from his office bearers and gives them to the civil magistrate, destroys liberty of conscience by making spiritual matters subject to the same coercive power as temporal affairs naturally and properly are, and thus involves both State and Church in reciprocal and mutually destructive sin. The State, in usurping a power which God has not given, and the Church in yielding what she is not at liberty to yield, the sacred Crown Rights of the Divine Redeemer, her only Head and King. But as the Erastian controversy will come fully before us in the debates of the Assembly, it is unnecessary to enter upon it here. There were only two Divines in the Assembly who advocated the Erastian theory. And of these, one alone was decidedly and thoroughly rasting. The divine to whom this unenviable preeminence must be assigned was Thomas Coleman, minister of Blighton in Lincolnshire. He was aided generally, but not always, by Lightfoot in the various discussions that arose involving rasting opinions. Both of these divines were eminently distinguished by their attainments in oriental literature, particularly in rabbinical lore, and their attachment to the study of Hebrew literature and customs led them to the conclusion that the Christian church was to be in every respect constituted according to the model of the Jewish church, and having formed the opinion that there was but one jurisdiction in Israel combining both civil and ecclesiastical, and that this was held by the Hebrew monarchs, they concluded that the same blended government ought to prevail under the Christian dispensation. Of the lay assessors in the assembly, the chief arrestings were the learned Selden, Mr. Whitlock, and Mr. St. John. But though Selden was the only one of them whose arguments were influential in the assembly itself, Yet nearly all the Parliament held sentiments decidedly Erastian, and having seized the power of Church government, were not disposed to yield it up, be the opinion of the assembled Divines what it might. Hence, though the Erastian Divines were only two, yet their opinions, supported by the whole civil authority in the Kingdom, were almost sure to triumph in the end. This, in one point of view, was not strange. The kingdom has suffered so much severe and protracted injury from the usurped authority and power of the prelates that the assertors of civil liberty almost instinctively shrunk from even the shadow of any kind of power in the hands of ecclesiastics. And little less passion and fear and a little more judgment and discrimination might have rescued them from this groundless apprehension. and they might have perceived that freedom, both civil and ecclesiastical, would be best secured by the full and authoritative recognition of their respective jurisdictions, separate and independent. But indeed this is a truth which has yet to be learned by several governments, a truth unknown to ancient times, in which religion was either an engine of the state or the object of persecution. A truth unknown during the period of papal ascendancy, in which the Romish priesthood usurped dominion over civil governments, and exercised its tyranny alike over the persons and the conscience of mankind. A truth first brought to light in the great religious reformation of the 16th century. But not then, nor even yet, fully developed, brightly understood, and permitted to exercise its free and sacred supremacy. That it will finally assume its due dominion over the minds and actions of all bodies of men, both civil and ecclesiastical, we cannot doubt. And then, but not till then, will the two dread counterpart elements of human degradation, tyranny and slavery become alike impossible. Into these three great parties Presbyterian, Independent, and Erastian, was the Westminster Assembly of Divines divided, even when first it met. And it was inevitable that a contest would be waged among them for the ascendancy, ending most probably either in increased hostility and absolute disruption, or in some mutual compromise to which all might assent, though perhaps with the cordial approbation of none. The strength of these parties was more evenly balanced at first than might have been expected. The Puritans, though all of them had received Episcopal ordination and had been exercising their ministry in the Church of England under the hierarchy, were nearly all Presbyterians, or at least quite willing to adopt that form of church government, though many of them would have consented to a modified Episcopacy on the Eusarion model. Their influence in the City of London was paramount and throughout the country was very considerable and as they formed the most natural connecting link with Scotland, they occupied a position of very great importance. Although the Independents were but a small minority in the Assembly, yet various circumstances combined to render them by no means a weak or insufficient party. They were supported in the House of Peers by Lord Say and Sell, and frequently also by Lords Brooke and Kimballton, the latter of whom is better known by a subsequent title of Lord Manchester. Philip Nye, one of the leading independents, had been appointed to Kimballton by the influence of Lord Kimballton, and continued to maintain a constant intercourse with him, both while he was acting as a legislator, and while leading the armies of the Parliament. It is even asserted by Palmer in his Nonconformist Memorial that Nye's advice was sought and followed in the nomination of the Divines who were called to the Assembly. Footnote. Palmer's Nonconformist Memorial, Volume 1, page 96. End of footnote. And when, further, it is borne in mind that Oliver Cromwell was an independent and acted as Lieutenant General under Lord Manchester, it will easily be perceived that Nye's intercourse with the army was direct and influential, and that thus the five dissenting brethren were able to employ a mighty political influence. Nor can the Erastian party be justly termed feeble, though formed by not more than two divines, and a few of the lay assessors, who are not always present for both Coleman and Lightfoot were influential men on account of their reputation for learning in which they were scarcely inferior to Selden himself in the department of Hebrew literature. So high was Selden's fame that any cause might be deemed strong which he supported. And Whitlock and St. John possessed so much political influence in Parliament that they could not fail to exercise great power in every matter which they promoted or opposed. But the main strength of the Erastean theory consisted in the combination of three potent elements. The natural love of holding and exercising power, which is common to all men and parties, tending to render the Parliament reluctant to relinquish that ecclesiastical supremacy which they had with such difficulty wrested from the Sovereign. their want of acquaintance with the true nature of Presbyterian church government, which led them to dread that if allowed free scope it might prove as oppressive as even the Prolatical, beneath whose weighty and galling yoke the nation was still down-bent and bleeding, and the strong instinctive antipathy which fallen human nature feels against the spirituality and the power of virtual godliness. It is easy to perceive that the theory which was supported by these three elements is thorough and vigorous union, was one which would be no easy matter to encounter and defeat, or rather was one over which nothing but divine power could possibly gain the victory. The Scottish commissioners cannot with propriety be regarded as forming a party in the Westminster Assembly. as they and the English Presbyterians were in all important matters completely identified. Still it may be expedient to give a very brief account of men who occupied a position so important, and exercised for a time so great an influence on the affairs of both kingdoms. Their names have been already mentioned, and it has also been stated that neither the Earl of Catholis nor the Reverend Robert Douglas ever attended the Westminster Assembly. Lord Maitland and Archibald Johnston of Worcester gave regular attendance and took deep interest in the proceedings. At that time, Lord Maitland appeared to be very zealous in the cause of religious reformation and a thorough Presbyterian. But as afterwards appeared, his zeal was more of a political then of a religious character. After the restoration of Charles II, he conformed to Prelacy, became the chief advisor of that monarch in Scottish affairs, received the title of Duke of Lauderdale, and is too well known in Scottish history as a ruthless and bloody persecutor. Johnston of Worcester was in heart and soul a covenanter on religious, not political principles. from which he never swerved. One only stain appears in his life, if stain it can be called, his consenting to receive office under the government of Cromwell, after that remarkable man had reduced the three kingdoms to his sway, and when there was every reason to expect that his dominion would be lasting. Such being the case, Worcester had but to choose to serve his country under Cromwell or not to serve it at all. He chose the former alternative, and after the Restoration was constrained to flee from Scotland to escape the mean, vindictive hostility of the King. Having been at length seized by his pursuers, he was dragged back to his native country, that his enemies might satiate their malice by murdering the inch of life that existed in his aged and feeble form. He was a man of great strength and clearness of intellect, fervently eloquent in speech and of inflexible integrity. The four Scottish divines were in every respect distinguished men and would have been so regarded in any age or country. Alexander Henderson was, however, cheerfully admitted to be beyond comparison the most eminent. His learning was extensive rather than minute. corresponding to the character of his mind, of which the distinguishing elements were dignity and comprehensiveness. When called to quit the calm seclusion of the country parish, which he had spent so many years, and to come to the rescue of the Church of Scotland in her hour of need, he at once proved himself able to conduct and control the complicated movements of an awakening empire. Statesman sought his counsel, But with equal propriety and disinterestedness, he refused to concern himself with anything beyond what belonged to the Church, although the very reverse has often been asserted by his Pilatic columniators. Though long and incessantly engaged in the most stirring events of a remarkably momentous period, his actions, his writings, his speeches, are all characterized by calmness and ease. without the slightest appearance of heat or agitation, resulting unquestionably from that aspect of character generally termed greatness of mind. But which would in him be more properly characterized by describing it as a rare combination of intellectual power, moral dignity, and spiritual elevation? It was the condition of a mighty mind enjoying the peace of God which passes understanding, a peace which the world had not given and could not take away. George Gillespie was one of that peculiar class of men who start like meteors into sudden splendor, shine with dazzling brilliancy, then suddenly set behind the tomb, leaving their compeers equally to admire and to deplore. When but in his 25th year he published a book against what he termed the English Popish Ceremonies, which Charles and Laud were attempting to force upon the Church of Scotland. This work, though the production of a youth, displayed an amount and accuracy of learning which would have done honour to any man of the most mature years and scholarship. In the Assembly of the Vines, though much the youngest member there, He proved himself one of the most able and ready debaters, encountering not only on equal terms, but often with triumphant success, each with his own weapons, the most learned, subtle, and profound of his antagonists. He must have been no common man who was ready on any emergency to meet, and frequently to foil, by their own acknowledgment, such men as Selden, Lightfoot, and Coleman. in the Eurasian controversy, and Goodwin and Nye in their argument for independency. But the excessive activity of his ardent and energetic mind wore out his frame, and he returned from his labors in the Westminster Assembly to see once more the church and the land of his fathers, and to die. Samuel Rutherford gained and still holds an extensive reputation by his religious works. but he was not less eminent in his own day as an acute and able controversialist. The characteristics of his mind were clearness of intellect, waltz and earnestness of affection, and loftiness and spirituality of devotional feeling. He could and did write vigorously against the independent system, and at the same time love and esteem the men who held it. In his celebrated work, Lex Rec, He not only entered the regions of constitutional jurists, but even produced a treaty unrivaled yet as an exposition of the true principles of civil and religious liberty. His religious letters have been long admired by all who could understand and feel what true religion is. Though groveling and impure minds have striven to blight their reputation by dwelling on occasional forms of expression, not necessarily unseemly in the homeliness of phrase used in familiar letters, and conveying nothing offensive according to the language of the times. His powers of debate were very considerable, being characterized by clearness of distinction in stating his opinions and a close syllogistic style of reasoning, both the result of his remarkable precision of thought. Robert Bailey, so well known by his letters and journals, was a man of extensive and varied learning, both in languages and systematic theology. He rarely mingled in debate, but his sagacity was valuable in deliberation, and his great acquirements, studious habits, and ready use of his pen rendered him an important member of such an assembly. The singular ease and readiness of Bailey in composition enabled him to maintain what seems like a universal correspondence, and at the same time to present in a vivid, picturesque, and exquisitely natural style the very form and impress of the period in which he lived, and the great events in which he bore a part. And when it was necessary to refute errors by exhibiting them in their real aspect, the vast reading and retentive memory of Bailey enabled him to produce what was needed with marvellous rapidity and correctness. Scarcely ever was any man more qualified to catch the manners living as they rise, and at the same time to point out with instinctive sagacity what in them was wrong and dangerous. Such were the Scottish commissioners, and it may easily be believed that they acted a very important and influential part in the Westminster Assembly of the Vines. But there was another party in England, though not represented in the Westminster Assembly, which exercised a commanding influence in the affairs of that momentous period. Perhaps it is not strictly correct to call that a party, which is rather a vast mass of heterogeneous elements, without any principle of mutual coherence except that of united resistance and hostility to everything that possessed a previous and authorized existence. But the effect on the country was even more powerful for evil than it could have been had the numerous sects to whom we are referring been organized into a party. For in that case, their strength could have been estimated, their demands brought forward in a definite form, what was right and reasonable granted, and what was manifestly wrong and unreasonable detected and exposed. Even before the meeting of the Long Parliament, there had sprung up a great number of sects holding all various shades of opinion in religious matters, from such as were simply absurd down to those that were licentiously wild and daringly blasphemous. It is almost impossible even to enumerate the sectarians that rushed prominently into public manifestation when the overthrow of the proletic hierarchy and government rendered it safe for them to appear. And it would be wrong to pollute our pages with a statement of their pernicious and horrible tenants. Footnote. John Wilburn related it unto me, and that in the presence of others, that returning from the wars to London, he met forty new sects, many of them dangerous ones, and some so pernicious, that howsoever, as he said, he was in his judgment for toleration of all religions, yet he professed that he could scarce keep his hands off them, so blasphemous they were in their opinions. BASTWICK'S SECOND PART OF INDEPENDENCY. Lilburn was himself a leveler. End of footnote. These may be seen at large in Bailey's dissuasive from the errors of the times, Edward's Gangrena, a testimony to the truth of Jesus Christ, by the London ministers, and other similar works by Prynne, Bastwick, and others. The question may be fairly and properly asked how it happened that so many strange and dangerous sects appeared at that particular junction. Prolatic writers have been in the habit of asserting that it was in consequence of the overthrow of the Prolatic Church government, when people were left to follow the vagaries of their own unguided imaginations, by which they were led into all the areas of enthusiastic frenzy and fanatical darkness. But this solution does not touch the essence of the inquiry. How came men to be so prone to follow these insane and dangerous errors? In answer to this question, there are at least two points to be carefully considered. How had Prelacy governed? And how had Prelacy taught the people of England? It has been already shown that from the very commencement of the Reformation in England, The principle of the king's supremacy in matters ecclesiastical, a principle essentially despotic, by its combination of civil and spiritual jurisdiction, had been the governing principle in the English Church. At first it showed its tyrannical tendency by imposing ceremonies not warranted by the word of God and associated with potpourri. and by enforcing these without the slightest regard to tenderness of feeling or liberty of conscience. Advancing on its despotic career, it interfered with the forms and the language of worship, prescribing to man after what manner and in what terms he was to address his Creator, without regard to that Creator's own commands. At length it reached its extreme limits, and presumed to exercise absolute control over the doctrines which Christ's ambassadors were to teach, thus rashly interfering not merely with man's approach to God, but also with God's message to man. This extreme point of spiritual despotism was reached when the king and his prelates authoritatively commanded the Lord's faith to be violated, and forbade any other but the Arminian system of doctrine to be preached. Hence it appears that Prolatic Church government had proved itself to be a complete and oppressive despotism, increasing in severity as it increased in power. And let it be observed that during its progress it had silenced or ejected great numbers of the ablest and best ministers throughout the kingdom, without scruple and without mercy. Such a course of tyranny could not fail to produce a strong reaction in a high-minded people like the English, causing them, in the violence of their revulsion and recoil, to regard every form of ecclesiastical government as inevitably tyrannical, just as the extreme of civil despotism tends to throw a nation at one bond into the extreme of republicanism. In this manner, Pilate's tyranny was the very cause why so many sects sprung up, repudiating every kind of ecclesiastical government. Again, with regard to how Prelacy had taught the people of England, there needs but little to be said, for it is a melancholy truth that teaching the people seems never to have been regarded by the Church of England as necessarily any part of its duty. In a church where a despotic monarch exercises his supremacy, this is not surprising, for it requires no great degree of penetration to perceive that an intelligent and truly religious people cannot be enslaved. This Elizabeth well knew, and therefore she disapproved of preaching ministers. For the same reason, what were termed prophesying are meetings for mutual instruction and also lecturings were prohibited. And perhaps it would not be far from the truth were we to conjecture that the reason why parochial schools were never instituted in England is to be found in the same despotic principle which led the English kings and church to wish the people to remain ignorant, that they might be the easier kept in a state of blind subjection. It will be remembered also that whenever the Puritan ministers became what was thought troublesome in their endeavors to teach their poor and ignorant countrymen, they were immediately silenced, and as toleration was then unknown, they were compelled to desist from their hallowed labors on pain of imprisonment, exile, or death. Taking this view, which is the true one, It is mere mockery to say that Prelacy had ever even attempted to teach the people of England at all, unless, indeed, we were to say that it had striven earnestly to teach them, that external rites and ceremonies of man's institution are more important than the word of God, and that it was right to profane that day which God had commanded to be remembered and kept holy. Such had been the governing and such the teaching of policy in England, and it was not strange that men, groaning under oppression and kept in utter darkness, should wrench asunder their fetters furiously, and should be dazzled when they rushed at once into unwanted light. It was not strange that they should hastily conclude that whatever was remotest from such a system was best. and should therefore be eager to destroy that form of ecclesiastical government, and to resist the establishment of any other, lest it should prove equally despotic. Nor was it strange that people strongly excited on the subject of religion, and uninstructed in its great leading truths and principles, should very readily adopt any and every theory which is boldly and plausibly promulgated. Thus it was easy for any man who possessed sufficient fluency of speech to impose upon an excited and ignorant people, to gain a number of adherents to his opinions, and to become the founder and leader of a sect. It has often been said by those who support Prelacy, not as of divine authority, but as a useful and suitable form of church government. that it was devised for the purpose of producing and preserving uniformity in the Church, unfortunate device. It never could have had a more full and authoritative sway than that which it enjoyed during the reigns of Elizabeth, James, and Charles I, and it produced the most complete anarchy and gave rise to sectarianism to the greatest extent, and in the most repulsive forms. that ever shocked the Christian world. It at once kept men in ignorance and drove them to madness and ever since it has appealed to their frantic conduct as a proof of its own calm excellence. The truth of this view may be shown by a parallel but a strongly contrasted instance. After the restoration of Charles II the Presbyterian Church of Scotland was violently overthrown and its adherents subjected to 28 years of terrific and relentless persecution. Did the people of Scotland split into innumerable and extravagant sects when thus deprived of their religious teachers and oppressed with the most remorseless cruelty? They did not. One sect alone appeared after the persecution had lasted 20 years and in a parish where there had been a Prolatic incumbent all that time. It never mustered more than four men and twenty-five or twenty-six women, and it perished within a few months. What caused this remarkable difference? One answer only can be given. The superiority of the Presbyterian system, which had so thoroughly instructed the people that they could and did retain their calm and regulated consistency of doctrine and character, in the midst of every maddening and elusive element. While, on the other hand, when the prolatic government of England was broken up, its oppressed and ignorant people rushed headlong into the most wild, extravagant and pernicious errors. This was believed to be the true explanation of the matter. though we are well aware that it will not be readily admitted by the admirers of prelacy. But the truth must be stated, be offended who may. And it will be well for Britain and for Christendom, if, should a period of similar breaking up and reconstruction arrive. Men will learn by the sad experience of the past, and never more presume either to supersede God's institutions with man's inventions, or in their violent recoil refuse to submit themselves to what God has appointed and has so often and so manifestly honoured and sanctioned with his blessing. The pernicious effect of these multiduneous acts upon the proceedings of the Westminster Assembly we shall have occasion hereafter to show. It will be enough here to suggest what will then be proved. Although the independent party in the assembly did not openly avow or rather disclaim connection with the sectarians that swarmed throughout the kingdom, yet they so far held intercourse with them, and occasionally defended them, as to secure their support, and thereby to render themselves in some measure the representatives of a large portion of the English community. For this purpose they strove to retard the progress of the Assembly, while they were mustering their adherence and concentrating their strength, evidently expecting that they would eventually secure the establishment of their own system. In the Assembly and Parliament both, they had the aid of Sir Harry Vane the Younger, one of the most subtle politicians of the age, A man whose mind was full of theoretic and impracticable speculations, and whose relentless activity of temperament kept him perpetually scheming or executing something new. Whose very constitution of mind was sectarian, because it was constructed in sections, without continuity or harmony. And in the Parliament and Army they had the far more important support of Oliver Cromwell. with whom they held constant intercourse, and by whom there is every reason to believe they were employed and overreached. It is not meant that the independent members of assembly were completely identified with the political independence of the army, but there was so much of a community of feeling and interest between them that it was not difficult for such a man as Cromwell to employ both of these parties in the promotion of his own designs. What we have termed the political independence of the army were composed of sectarians of every possible shade of opinion, and from them, rather than from the religious independence of the assembly, arose the idea of toleration, of which so much use was subsequently made. As used by those military sectarians The meaning of the term was, that any man might freely utter the ravings of his own heated fancy, and endeavor to prophesize others, be his opinions what they might, even though manifestly subversive of all morality, all government, and all revelation. Such a toleration, for instance, as would include alike Antinomians and Anabaptists, Though teaching that they were set free from and above the rules of moral duty so completely, that to indulge in the grossest licentiousness was in them no sin. And Lovelace and his fifth monarchy men, whose tenants were directly to the subversion of every kind of constituted government, and all distinctions in rank and property. This was what they meant by toleration. and this was what the Puritans and Presbyterians condemned and wrote against with startled vehemence. And it is neither to the credit of the independent divines of that period, nor of their subsequent admirers and followers, that they seem to countenance such a toleration, the real meaning of which was civil, moral, and religious anarchy. It is, however, true that out of the discussions which this claim of unbounded and licentious toleration raised, there was at length evolved the idea of religious toleration, such as is demanded by man's solemn and dread characteristic of personal responsibility, and consequent inalienable right to liberty of conscience. And let it be noted that this great idea was fully admitted by those who reasoned and wrote most strongly against the unbounded toleration claimed by the sectarians. Although in their opposition to that claim, they occasionally used language which might seem to condemn what in reality they both demanded for themselves and readily allowed to others. Footnote. We shall have occasion in the subsequent part of this work to prove that the true idea of toleration in its right moral and religious sense, was first taught and first exemplified by the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, next by the Puritans, and then adopted but corrupted by the Sectarians and Independents. End of footnote. It is usual for a certain class of writers to accuse the Presbyterians of wishing to seize and wield a tyranny as severe as that of Prelacy. against which they raised such loud complaints. Without undertaking to defend all that they said and did, this may be safely affirmed that both the principles and the constitution of a rightly formed Presbyterian Church render the usurpation of power and the exercise of tyranny on its part wholly impossible. A Presbyterian Church in the process of formation still trembling from the savage grasp of prophecy, and surrounded by wild and fearful forms of sectarianism, as was its condition at the time of the Westminster Assembly, might act with some rashness and severity. A corrupt Presbyterian Church, such as was that of Scotland during the domination of Moderatism, might act despotically. But in its own nature, with its subordination of courts, and an equal or preponderating admixture of elders in them all, it can neither usurp clerical domination nor sink into jarring anarchy. In its purest state and its fullest exercise, it gives and preserves both civil and religious liberty, both doctrinal truth and disciplinary purity, both national instruction and national peace. On the other hand, prowessy in its most powerful and active state has ever tended to destroy both civil and religious liberty, has checked doctrinal truth and disregarded disciplinary purity, has neither attempted to instruct the nation but left it a prey to ignorance and error, and has both in Scotland and England inflicted the most cruel persecution and given rise to bloody civil wars. This is a startling contrast, but not more startling than true. There is yet another point of contrast. During the past century, Prowsey sunk into dormancy and became mild and indefensive. Presbytery sunk into dormancy and became cruel and oppressive, as if agitated by wild dreams under that fierce incubus, Moderatism. Prowsey has a woe and begins to mutter words of fearful import, indicating the return of its oppressive spirits. Presbytery has awoke and has begun her hallowed work of instructing her own people while she offers her cordial fellowship to all who love her divine and only head. The influence is obvious and may be thus stated. When the vital spirit of prophecy is inert, it becomes comparatively harmless. and when the vital spirit of Presbytery is inert or repressed, it becomes oppressive. Again, when the vital spirit of Prowessy is active, it becomes despotic and persecuting, intolerant and illiberal. When the vital spirit of Presbytery is active, it becomes gracious and compassionate, tolerant of everything but sin, and generous to all who believe the truth and love the Savior. But the thoughtful readers say which system is of humans and which of divine institutions, which shows the spirit of the earth, earthly, and which of heavenly origin and character. Hetherington's summary of Chapter 3 reads as follows. The assembly directed to begin the subjects of discipline, directory of worship, and government. The subject of church officers stated and discussed Pastor, Doctor, Ruling Elder, Deacon, Widow, Ordination of Ministers, Opposition of the Independence, Consent of the Congregation or Election, Contest with the Parliament about Ordination, Directory for Public Worship, Propositions concerning Presbyterial Church Government, the apologetical narration by the independents, answers to it, the anthropologia, views of the independents, keen and protracted debates, excommunication, Selden and Gillespie, nigh, attempt to accommodate, the power of congregations, suspension and excommunication, committee of accommodation, proceedings of that committee, suspended, reasons of dissent by the independents, answers by the assembly, general outline of these reasons and answers, the independents requested and enjoined to state their own model of church government, the publication of a copy of a remonstrance, assembly's answer to it, The Committee of Accommodation Revived Additional Papers Prepared Ends Without Affecting an Accommodation Brief Summary of the Points of Disagreement between the Presbyterians and the Independents Political Intrigues Errors of Both Parties Chapter 3 The Independent Controversy, Anno 1644 About a fortnight after the House of Commons had taken the solemn Ligon Covenant, and while the Assembly of Divines were engaged in discussing the doctrinal tenets of the 16th of the Church of England's 39 Articles on the 12th of October, 1643, they received an order from both Houses of Parliament requiring them to direct their deliberations to the important topics of discipline and a Directory of Worship and Government. The order was as follows. Upon serious consideration of the present state and conjuncture of the affairs of this kingdom, the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament do order that the Assembly of Divines and others do forthwith confer and treat among themselves of such a discipline and government as may be most agreeable to God's holy word, and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the Church at home. and nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland and other Reformed Churches abroad, to be settled in this Church instead and place of the present Church Government by Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors, Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons and other ecclesiastical officers, depending upon the hierarchy, which is resolved to be taken away. and touching and concerning the directory of worship or liturgy, hereafter to be in the Church, and to deliver their opinions and advices of, and touching the same to both or either House of Parliament with all the convenient speed they can. By this order, the intention of the Assembly was turned from any further examination of the Thirty-Nine Articles, and fairly directed to the important task for the accomplishment of which they have been called together. Bailey informs us that Henderson did not entertain any sanguine expectations of their conformity to the Church of Scotland, so they should have experienced the advantage of the Scottish Army's presence in England. This proves that he was not over-reached by the English Commissioners in the framing of the solemn Ligon Covenant, but was quite aware of the views and feelings which they entertained, although he cherished the hope that circumstances might lead to a better result. After having made some preliminary arrangements and prepared their own minds by keeping a solemn fast, the Assembly read the order from Parliament. pointing out the new field of deliberate discussion on which they were to enter. The first question that arose regarded the order of procedure, whether they should begin with government or discipline, and it was agreed that they should begin with the subject of church government. This suggested another preliminary point, whether the Scriptures contain a rule for government. Goodwin and other independents eagerly urged that this question should be first of all debated and decided, he expressing his conviction that the Word of God did contain a rule. Lightfoot opposed this course and wished the Assembly first of all to give a definition of the leading term of all their discussions, a church. It is evident that this would have been the most logical course, first to define a church, then to inquire into its government and lastly to treat of discipline, which is government in operation. But it was felt that this course would bring forward first the very points on which the greatest differences of opinion were known to exist, and therefore it was judged prudent rather to adopt a less perfect order of procedure for the purpose of ascertaining first how far all could agree in the hope that then their differences would either disappear or be capable of being brought into some general accommodation. It was accordingly resolved that since all admitted the existence of a church and of church government, however they might differ regarding their nature and extent, these subjects should be left for the present indefinite, and they should commence with the subject of office bearers in the church, or to use their own term, church officers. From this early and comparatively slight discussion, it was evident that both parties in the Assembly were keenly vigilant, lest anything should be done which might in any degree prejudice their opinions, and consequently that their debates would be eager, animated, and protracted on every controverted topic. But as the very object for which the assembly was called was to prepare a form of church government, of discipline, and of worship for the nation, which was intended to be final and lasting, it was judged right to give to every portion of their great work the benefit of the most full and deliberate discussion, though at the expense of considerable delay. Committees, according to the usual arrangement, had been appointed to prepare the subject of church officers for public discussion, and gave in their separate reports. That of the second committee began thus. In inquiring after the officers belonging to the Church of the New Testament, we first find that Christ, who is priest, prophet, king, and head of the Church, hath fulness of power, and containeth all other offices. by way of eminency in himself, and therefore hath many other names attributed to him. To this sacred and comprehensive proposition they appended a number of Scripture proofs in six divisions. The following names of church officers were mentioned as given in Scripture to Christ. 1 Apostle, 2 Pastor, 3 Bishop, 4 Teacher, 5 minister, but this last name was rejected by the assembly as not meaning a church officer in the passage where it is used. The report of the third committee was similar in character ascribing in scripture terms the government to Jesus Christ who being ascended far above all heavens had given all officers necessary for the edification of his church Some whereof are extraordinary and some ordinary. Out of the scriptures referred to they found the following officers. Apostles, evangelists, prophets, pastors, teachers, bishops or overseers, presbyters or elders, deacons and widows. Footnote. Lightfoot, page 23. End of footnote. In the discussion which followed upon the reading of these reports, it is rather remarkable that the Orascians took no part, although the full meaning of the main proposition that Christ contains all offices by way of eminency in himself and has given all officers necessary for the edification of his church seems to contain enough to preclude the Orascian theory. but we shall have occasion to show the reason why they allowed this proposition to pass unchallenged. It did not, however, escape the opposition of the independents. Mr. Goodwin opposed it as anticipating the assembly's work and concluding that Christ's influence into his church is through his officers, whereas he questions whether it be conveyed that way or not. Again, when the kingly office of Christ was under discussion, Goodwin doubted whether the scriptures proved that Christ was king in regard of discipline in the church. He questioned also whether the headship of Christ should be specified as being no office in the church. All these objections were overruled and the reports approved as the basis of subsequent deliberations. The four following questions were also reported by the Third Committee. 1. What officers are mentioned in the New Testament? 2. What officers of these were pro-temper and what permanent? 3. What names were common to diverse officers and what restrained? 4. What's the office of those standing officers? The general names of officers have been already stated. The debate arose on the second question. What officers were perpetual? The office of apostles was declared to be only pro-temporal and extraordinary for the eight following reasons. 1. They were immediately called by Christ. 2. They had seen Christ. 3. Their commission was through the whole world. 4. They were endued with the spirit of infallibility in delivering the truth of doctrine to the churches. 5. They only by special commission were set apart to be personal witnesses of Christ's resurrection. 6. They had power to give the Holy Ghost. 7. They were appointed to go through the world to settle churches in a new form appointed by Christ. 8. They had the inspection and care of all the churches. Little opposition was made to these reasons, and that little was chiefly made by Mr. Goodwin, particularly respecting the power of the Apostles to plant and settle churches. He being afraid, apparently, that if he admitted this power even in Apostles, it might so far condemn the practice of the Independence, where ordinary believers formed themselves into churches, and appointed their own officers totally without the intervention or aid of any other church or of any person previously ordained. Please continue listening on tape number six.