This Reformation audio resource is a production of Stillwaters 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 the free printed catalog. History of the Westminster Assembly of the Vines by William M. Hetherington, as read by Leah Domes. Tape number seven. Still further, by placing the very essence of its system in congregational power, it necessarily stood closely allied, in theory at least, with all the multidunious sects with which that period was so prodigiously rife, all of which were perfectly ready to maintain the sole and uncontrollable power of separate congregations. And thus the independents were, in a manner, compelled to become the head sectarian body, and to defend not only their own religious liberties, but also the liberty claimed by the most wild and monstrous sects, to hold and to teach errors the most immoral and blasphemous, of which they by no means approved, or rather which they strongly condemned, but could not consistently oppose. They were thus led to advocate a toleration in theory which they never granted where their own power was predominant, as in New England, and which, it may be added, that they never would consent to grant to the Presbyterians, whom they would not admit to communion with them unless they were willing to abandon Presbyterianism and become Congregationalists. But as the subject of toleration was scarcely suggested in the apologetical narration, we shall postpone the consideration of it till we reach the period when it became a leading element of controversy. All the topics which have been stated above were known to the two parties of Presbyterians and Independents in the Assembly. before the publication of the apologetical narration, and several of them had casually become the subject of debate. But there had been considerable forbearance on both sides, arising from a natural and laudable reluctance to anticipate a perhaps unavoidable contest. The Scottish divines, in particular, had repeatedly interposed to prevent any premature discussion of debatable subjects. and had recommended as much accommodation to the views of the independents as was consistent with the maintenance of principle. And although the allusions to them in the apologetical narration were sufficiently ungracious and irritating, they were in no haste to show resentment, being far more desirous to see the religious welfare of the community promoted and secured than to vindicate their own character from groundless aspersions. But nevertheless the publication of that most ill-omened production caused an estrangement which was never fully removed, and led to a degree of keenness and obstinacy in all the subsequent deliberations of the Assembly, whenever disputed points arose which tended greatly both to retard their proceedings and to obscure the prospect of ultimate and harmonious success in their great work. And having thus opened the subject of the independent controversy, we shall now proceed to trace it according to the course which circumstances led it to pursue. After some preliminary arrangements in which it was agreed that the independents should bring forward their objections to the proposition of the committee, the subject was formally stated on the 6th of February in the following terms. The scripture holdeth forth that many particular congregations may be under one Presbyterial government. The independent argument against this proposition was stated by Mr. Goodwin to this effect, as given by Lightfoot. If many elders put together make one Presbytery classical, then every one of those elders is to be reputed as an elder to every one of those churches. but the word of God doth not warrant any such thing. In proof of the minor proposition he argued thus, the deacons are not to be officers to diverse churches, therefore not the pastor. The pastor is not to preach in diverse churches, therefore not to rule. The several congregations are not to give honor or maintenance to the pastor of another church. One pastor was not chosen, ordained, and maintained by diverse churches, therefore not to have power in them. Several offices are not to meet in one and the same person." Footnote, Lightfoot, page 132. End of footnote. It will be observed that this argument opposed Presbyterial government not on scriptural grounds but on the supposed incongruities and inconveniences of the system, and this was promptly and very easily met. Mr. Vines, in answer to the major proposition, replied that what belongs to the whole, as such, does not belong to every part. But the Presbytery is an aggregate whole, and so are the churches combined under this Presbytery. Therefore, the relations borne by the Presbytery to the Church of its bounds have respect to the aggregate whole, and do not interfere with the peculiar relations which the respective pastors and congregations bear to each other." He illustrated his arguments by reference to the original government of the Hebrew Commonwealth, where the heads of the tribes governed the whole community. But this did not alter the relation between the head of each tribe and that particular tribe, and he showed that the independent argument might be retorted against their own system. Mr. Marshall began by proving the proposition of the committee that the whole church is but one body, and its members ought to act not as distinct persons but as joint members, that the office bearers were instituted by Christ for the general good and edification, and also ought to act in unity, that members are baptized not into one particular congregation, but into the general body, and that this general body is cast into societies, which are called by divines instituted churches. He further reasons that it appears from scripture that when so many were converted in any city as to make a congregation, the apostles appointed them elders, that though they increased so as to form many congregations in that city, they continued to be but one church, as at Jerusalem, that though not specifically declared, yet it seemed probable that the several pastors had their several charges, and that this pattern ought to be followed. Mr. Gillespie pursued a similar line of argument. gave an illustration from the representative government of the States General in the Netherlands, and added that the power of government in a presbytery is not power of order, but of jurisdiction, and that they govern not as presbyters, but as a presbytery. Mr. Seaman met the objections of Mr. Goodwin by proving that the inconveniences alleged against the presbyterial government of churches would would they just apply equally to civil government of the representative kind? But no such inconveniences or incongruities were experienced. Therefore, the objections urged by Mr. Goodwin could not be well-founded. He proved also that a minister may stand in relation to more congregations than one, and that several offices may, without incongruity, meet in one person. that a minister may do his duty in one congregation and also in the presbytery, as the representative may to his own constituents and also to the general administration, and that the people may enjoy their full rights under a presbyterial government, in the choice of their pastor, as in several matters they have their full rights in the choice of their parliamentary representative. Lightfoot, pages 132 to 134. Such is a fair outline of the arguments used on both sides at the commencement of the main stem of the independent controversy. When Mr. Goodwin replied, he admitted the truth and applicability of the logical maxim. What belongs to the whole, as such, does not equally belong to each part. For the whole is a presbytery but every member of it is not a presbytery. Various attempts were made by him, and also by others of the independents, to escape from the force of the argument, and to support their own propositions, but without success. A slight change was given to the course of the debate by the reference which Mr. Burroughs made to 1 Corinthians verse 4, in which church censure is spoken of as inflicted in the presence of the Church, and this, he endeavored to prove, could not have taken place had it been the deed of the Presbytery. A lengthy discussion arose on this point, in which much minuteness of criticism and subtlety of argument were displayed on both sides, till the topic was abandoned as not conclusive. During this debate, Mr. Nye admitted that there was a very close approximation between the two systems, saying that the independents held classical and synodical meetings very useful and profitable, yea, possibly agreeable to the institution of Christ. But the question is this, whether these meetings have the same power that Ecclesia Prima or one single congregation has? Footnote, Lightfoot, page 144. End of footnote. If he and his friends could have admitted one additional elementary principle, there might speedily have taken place a complete agreement. Namely, that the power of presbyteries, synods, and assemblies is cumulative, not privative. That is, that it consists in the collective power of all the congregations of which it is composed, and in reality adds to the power of each. rather than takes away its proper power from any. Becoming weary of this protracted discussion, several of the divines proposed that they should leave off these metaphysical besquishions and proceed to the consideration of those passages of scripture which might be brought forward as direct proofs. But by the vote of the assembly, the independents were allowed to continue bringing forward all their objections. This we mention in order to show that the Assembly treated the dissenting Brethren with extreme indulgence and toleration, and never attempted to run them down by the force of numbers and the authority of a vote, as they could have so easily done, and no doubt would have done, had they been the intolerant and overbearing bigots which they had been so generally and so unjustly called. On the 14th of February, the First Committee reported in confirmation of the proposition that many congregations may be under one Presbytery the following instances from Scripture. 1. The Church of Jerusalem. 2. The Church of Corinth. 3. Of Ephesus. 4. Of Antioch. Assuming that the existence of many congregations and but one Presbytery at Jerusalem had been proved in a former debate, the other instances were proved by the following arguments. Corinth, from the time of Paul's abode there, from the different places of meeting at Centuria, the house of justice, and of Chloe, and the use of the word churches in the plural, and from the multitude of pastors, 1 Corinthians 1.12, and four, fifteen, and that these congregations were under one presbytery, 1 Corinthians 5, 2 Corinthians 2, Ephesus, from Paul's continuance there, the special effect and the reason of the state given, from the multitude of pastors, termed elders and overseers, or bishops, and under one presbytery which exercised jurisdiction, Revelation 2, 1 and 2. Antioch, from a multitude of believers, Acts 11, 21 to 26, and from numbers of pastors and teachers, Acts 13, 1 and 15, 35. The report concluded with this argument, where there were more believers than could meet in one place and more pastors than could be for one congregation, then there were more congregations than one. There was so in these churches, and it was lawful for these to be under one Presbyterian government. Therefore it is so now." Footnote. Lightfoot, page 151. End of footnote. These propositions were, as usual, laid aside till the objections already stated by the Independents should have been fully debated. The discussion respecting church censure and excommunication was again resumed, with reference to 1 Corinthians 5. And Mr. Goodwin argued that discipline did not constitute a church, nor is any note of a church. Seldom doubted whether the passage referred to had anything to do with excommunication. This was answered very strongly by Mr. Vines and others. and the independents were requested to state clearly their opinion on the subject. To this, Goodwin answered, that the people cannot excommunicate, and that the people, if need be, yet must have their vote. The inference was immediately drawn, that if the elders were outvoted, the excommunication would be prevented, and thus the theory of the independents, of simple admonition or non-communion, would alone be practicable. At last the assembly decided that the argument of the independence was not proved and did not conclude against the proposition. The attention of the assembly was next directed to Matthew 18 15 to 17 by Mr. Bridge who endeavored in a very elaborate argument to prove that the church there mentioned was not a civil court not a Jewish Sanhedrin, not a Presbytery or Synod, not a National Church, but a particular congregation only, and yet that it had the power of the highest censure without appeal. Therefore every particular congregation, consisting of elders and brethren, should have entire and full power and jurisdiction within itself." Mr. Marshall met the argument point by point in an answer equally full and elaborate, assuming as the basis of his reply that the term Church neither meant universal, national, nor provincial only, nor a single congregation only, but either or all in turn as the occasion might require. Mr. Vines, Mr. Gatteker, Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Calamee, and others took part in the debate. which was conducted with great skill and ability. When the subject was resumed, another direction was given to the discussion by Seldin, who produced a long and learned argument to prove that the passage of scripture in question contained no authority for ecclesiastical jurisdiction. His object was to guard against any conclusion of the assembly, which might contradict the Erastian theory. and therefore he labored to represent the whole as relating to the ordinary practice of the Jews in their common courts, by whom, as he asserted, one sentence was excommunication, pronounced by the civil court. Hurl and Marshall both attempted answers, but, says Lightfoot, so as I confess, gave me no satisfaction. Gillespie then came to the rescue. and in a speech of astonishing power and acuteness, completely refuted Selden, even on his own chosen ground, and where his strength was greatest. He proved that the passage could not mean a civil court, because 1. The nature of the offense and cause treated of is spiritual. 2. The end is spiritual, for it is not restitution or satisfaction. but to gain the soul. 3. The persons are spiritual, for Christ speaks to his apostles. 4. The manner of proceeding is spiritual, all is done in the name of Christ. 5. The censure is spiritual, for it is binding the soul. 6. Christ would not have sent his disciples for private spiritual injuries to civil courts. 7. The Church of the Jews had spiritual censures, and the expression, let him be as a heathen, imported prohibition from sacred things, for the heathen might not come into the temple, and the ceremonially unclean might not enter, much more the morally unclean. Footnote. Lightfoot, pages 165 to 168. End of footnote. This appears to have been the speech referred to by Woodrow, and of which there still exist many traditionary anecdotes, illustrated of the very extraordinary effect produced upon all that heard it. Selden himself is reported to have said, at its conclusion, that young man, by this single speech, has swept away the labors of ten years of my life. Footnote. Woodrow's Analecta. McCree sketches page 300, appendix, and a footnote. And it is remarkable that Selden made no attempt to reply to Gillespie, though he answered some of the arguments used by others who spoke after him. About the same time, Mr. Nye craftily endeavored to excite the jealousy of the Parliament against Presbyterial Church government, but overreached himself. He had attempted to frame an argument against the power of Presbyteries on the assumption that there is no power over another power, or there is no distinction in nature nor difference in operation. But he was called to order as not speaking to the question. On the following day, finding the Assembly full of the nobility and members of Parliament, He resumed the argument, persisting in his speech against the evident feeling of the House, and after he had attempted to show that the admission of a power over a power in Church courts would lead to an ecclesiastical government commensurate with that of a civil, he drew the inference that it would be pernicious for a great commonwealth were so great a body to be permitted to grow up within it. In short, He attempted to alarm the Parliament by the dread of that phantom of which so much has been heard, an imperium in imperio, or one government within another, as a formidable and monstrous anomaly, dangerous to the peace of states and kingdoms. This insidious attempt caused a great sensation. Some proposed that he should be at once expelled, Others declared that his language was seditious, and it was voted that he had spoken against order, which was the highest censure that the Assembly inflicted. Mr. Marshall appealed to all the Parliamentary members present, whether the Presbyterial government be more terrible to them than 10,000 or 20,000 congregations, none in reference or dependence to another. Worston showed that the ecclesiastical and civil governments strengthened each other, and that one power over another in the church no more tended to produce confusion or injury than in civil matters, where one court is subordinate to another, and yet but one state. And Mr. Whitlock, MP, followed a similar course of illustration, and ended his remark by saying, What a confusion it will prove to have congregations independent. This debate ending so very much the reverse of what Nye expected, causing the independents to abate their opposition considerably. And it was voted that their arguments had not concluded against the proposition before the assembly. Footnote. Lightfoot, pages 168 to 170. Daily Volume 2, pages 146 and 147. Appendix 9. End of footnote. The next subject was respecting the instance of the Church of Jerusalem as proving that one Presbytery was over many congregations. Although considerable time was spent in discussing this topic, it did not draw forth any great exhibition of learning or power. such as had been previously displayed. Almost the only idea of importance brought out in this discussion was that suggested by Gillespie, namely that there could be no other principle whereby several congregations could be one church, but only government. Their dwelling in one town made them a civil body, but not an ecclesiastical. Their ecclesiastical union could not be but in a presbytery. for they could not meet together in one place. Therefore, it was only as forming a presbytery, and in respect to government, which is the function of a presbytery, that they could be one ecclesiastical body. Once more the independents were staggered, and could not answer. Both Goodwin and Nye admitted that at least the keys of doctrine are in the hands of the Senate or Assembly. and that as many men united have more moral power than one man, so many churches joining together must have more ecclesiastical power than one church. And in order to avail themselves of this renewed approximation, the Assembly, on the motion of Mr. Henderson, proposed a committee for the purpose of attempting to obtain an accommodation with the independents. Anne Messieurs-Siemens, Palmer, Marshall, Goodwin, Nye, Burroughs and Bridge together with the four Scottish Divines were named for the committee. On the 24th of March this committee reported that the independents had agreed to the following propositions. One, that there be a presbytery or meeting of the elders of many neighboring congregations to consult upon such things as concern those congregations in matters ecclesiastical, and such Presbyteries are the ordinances of Christ, having His power and authority. 2. Such Presbyteries have power in cases that are to come before them, to declare and determine doctrinally what is agreeable to God's word, and this judgment of theirs is to be received with reverence and obligation as Christ's ordinance. 3. They have power to require the elders of those congregations to give an account of anything scandalous in doctrine or practice. Footnote. Lightfoot, pages 214 and 215. End of footnote. The Assembly agreed to the continuance of the Committee and granted them liberty to take into consideration anything that might tend to accommodation and to report when convenient. Thus again, it appears that the assembly was the very reverse of intolerant and overbearing. Another report was brought forward from this committee about a week afterwards, containing two additional propositions, forming five in all, as follows. Four, the churches and elderships being offended, let them examine, admonish, and, in case of obstinacy, declare them either disturbers of the peace or subverters of the faith, or otherwise, as the nature and degree of the offense shall require. 5. In case that the particular church or eldership should refuse to reform that scandalous doctrine or practice, then that meeting of elders, which is assembled from several churches and congregations, shall acquaint their several congregations respectively. and withdraw from them and deny church communion and fellowship with them." Footnote, Lightfoot page 229. End of footnote. The account given by Bailey, though less minute and not using the very language of the committee, expresses his view of the result even more strongly. We have agreed on five or six propositions, hoping by God's grace to agree in more. They yield that a presbytery, even as we take it, is an ordinance of God, which hath power and authority from Christ to call the ministers and elders, or any in their bounds, before them, to account for any offence in life or doctrine, to try and examine the cause, to admonish and rebuke, and if they be obstinate, to declare them as heathens and publicans, and give them over to the punishment of the magistrates. also doctrinally, to declare the mind of God in all questions of religion, with such authority as obliges to receive their just sentences, and that they will be members of such fixed presbyteries, keep the meetings, preach as it comes to their turn, and join in the discipline after doctrine. Surely but very little more was necessary to have produced a complete agreement between the Presbyterians and the Independents, since the latter party had thus assented to all that was essential to Presbyterian church government. But unhappily they seemed to dread that by uniting with the Presbyterians they should lose their influence among the sectaries and in the army. and Nye in particular was too deeply engaged in the political intrigues of Vane and Caldwell to be willing to relinquish that influence which rendered him a person of importance. Footnote, Appendix Nye. End of footnote. On the 13th of March the discussion terminated in the affirmation of the propositions respecting church government. So far as regarded the general statements and the proofs from the instances of Jerusalem and Corinth, after having occupied the attention of the Assembly for thirty days, passed in earnest and strenuous debate, during which all the arguments which profound learning and acute ingenuity could devise were brought forward and discussed with equal minuteness and ability. The subject was then referred to the Committee, that all the points which had been decided might be systematically arranged, partly to be ready to be reported to the Parliament and partly for the satisfaction of the Assembly itself and for the sake of order. This report was produced on the 10th of April, the Assembly having been occupied in the interim with the subject of ordination, as already related. The propositions reported were the three following. 1. The scripture doth hold out a presbytery in a church. 2. A presbytery consisteth of ministers of the word, and such other public officers as are agreeable to and warranted by the word of God, to be church governors, to join with the ministers in the government of the church. 3. The scripture holds forth that many congregations may be under one presbyterial government. approved by the instance of the Church at Jerusalem. The instance of the Church at Corinth was not given, as it had been adduced chiefly for the purpose of proving the power of Church centres. Though the Independents had assented to the essence of these propositions in the Committee for accommodation, yet they vehemently opposed the sending of them to the Parliament for ratification, and the Assembly on the motion of Mr. Marshall again consented to lay them aside for a time. Footnote, right foot page 250. End of footnote. The assembly resumed the subject on the 16th of April to prove Presbyterial government from the instance of the Church of Ephesus and after some debate this instance was sustained as a proof of the main proposition. Another topic followed which cost some discussion namely that so many visible saints, as dwelt in one city, were but one church in regard of church government. On this point, Rutherford was anxious to guard against any infringement of the due power in censure and government in particular congregations, and in this he was supported by Henderson. This guard was necessary in consequence of extreme views held by some English Presbyterian who, in order, apparently, to keep as far as possible remote from the independent system, opposed any power center or government in congregations, and denied the right or propriety of congregational eldership. Footnote. Lightfoot, pages 255 and 256. Bailey, volume 2, page 177. End of footnote. This is mentioned chiefly for the purpose of corroborating an idea which has been repeatedly suggested, that instead of the Scottish commissioners being the direct instigators of the Westminster Assembly to aim at a rigid and unaccommodating form of church government, essentially intolerant and tyrannical, the very reverse is the truth. For while they refused all compromise on fundamental principles, They were exceedingly desirous to remove everything in minor matters to which their brethren could not readily sense, all from which they dreaded an interference with their own conscientious grouples. Some difficulty was encountered in stating how Christians should be most conveniently and regularly formed into distinct congregations. so as best to obtain the benefit of pastoral instruction and superintendence. This the assembly thought should be by the bounds of their drawings, that is, by the parochial system, but the independents opposed it because it was contrary to their mode of gathering churches, as it was termed. The proposition was, however, affirmed. But the subject of ruling elders was again resumed on the 3rd of May after having been laid aside for a considerable time. At first it was proposed that there should be at least one ruling elder in every congregation, but this was strenuously opposed by the Scottish commissioners, as in reality not forming a congregational eldership. It was at length decided that in every congregation there should be, besides the minister, others to assist him in ruling, as elders, and some to take care for the poor, as deacons, the number of each to be proportioned to the congregation. Another topic then called forth a strenuous debate of five days' duration, namely, that no single congregation which may conveniently join together in an association may assume unto itself all and sole power of ordination. Against this proposition, the independents mustered all their adherence and put forth their whole strength because it condemned the central principle of their system. When it came to the vote, it was affirmed by 27 and denied by 19. And this business, as Lightfoot, had been managed with the most heat and confusion of anything that had happened among us. Footnote, Lightfoot, page 262. End of footnote. When the reasons to prove the general propositions were brought forward, another keen struggle took place, the first reason being carried by a majority of four votes, the second by a majority of five. Footnote. Abidham, page 267. End of footnote. The committee appointed to frame a summary of church government produced instead of a report A proposition to be debated to the following effect. Concerning the ruling officers of particular congregations, they have power 1. Authoritatively to call before them scandalous or suspected persons. 2. To admonish or rebuke authoritatively. 3. To keep from the sacrament authoritatively. 4. To excommunicate. The first topic was easily admitted. with a slight change on its terms, as was also the second. But the third led to a protracted and very learned debate, having been recast into this form. Authoritative suspension from the Lord's table of a person not yet cast out of the church is agreeable to the scripture. Footnote. Lightfoot, page 268. End of footnote. This proposition was opposed by Coleman, Hurl, case and particularly by Lightfoot, who attempted to prove his view by the instance of Judas, and this led to a discussion on that point in which scarcely any agreed with Lightfoot's opinion. The chief advocates of suspending scandalous persons were Young, Calame, Gillespie, Weatherford, Reynolds, Burgess, and Dr. Hoyle. The independents did not enter warmly into the discussion. and Goodwin, after endeavouring to represent it as differing little from admonition, concluded by saying that his judgement fell in with the proposition, only he liked not the authoritative doing of it. It was at length decided in the affirmative, none voting against it but Lightfoot. But though the proposition had thus obtained the sanction of the Assembly, it was afterwards opposed by the Parliament. as, indeed, might have been expected from the lax notions entertained generally by men of the world on all such subjects. The subject of excommunication was not again resumed till the 16th of October, when two passages of Scripture were brought forward to prove it, namely 1 Corinthians 5 and Matthew 18, 17 and 18. Both were admitted and the proposition was further supported by this argument. They that have authority to judge of and admit to the sacrament such as are to receive it have authority to keep back such as shall be found unworthy. Against this Lightfoot alone voted in the negative and that chiefly because he was not convinced that there is suspension or excommunication as a power belonging to the church. an opinion which sprung from his Erasteanism. Thus terminated the debates on that much contested point on the 25th of October, so far as the Assembly was concerned. The opinions of the Parliament will fall under our observation when we come to the Erastean controversy. Affairs had now attained so much maturity that a crisis had become inevitable. For every point having been very fully debated between the Presbyterians and the Independents, they must either unite or adopt some new course which should render union impossible. The Presbyterians had done everything in their power to meet the scruples of the dissenting Brethren, both by allowing them to bring forward every objection which they could devise, and to debate till all were thoroughly exhausted and also by appointing a committee of their own number to confer with them, in the hope of avoiding a final disruption. But when the dissenting Brethren could not persuade the Assembly to adopt their views in preference to its own, they renewed their intrigues with the independence in the Army, by whose influence they knew they would be supported. The state of political affairs was favorable to their schemes. Soon after the Battle of Marston, in which the King's Army sustained such a severe defeat, proposals were made for a Treaty of Peace, of which the Presbyterians in the Parliament were cordially desirous, if it could be obtained on terms sufficient to secure the liberties of the Kingdom. But this was by no means what the Independents in both Parliament and Army desired. Consequently, the scene of contest was removed from the attentive field to the legislative assemblies, and this brought Oliver Cromwell to the House of Commons. This deep-minded and far-foreseeing man perceived clearly that were a peace concluded and church government established, his ambitious prospects must be completely distorted, and with his usual sagacity, anticipating the unyielding obstinacy of the King, which would render any satisfactory Pacific arrangement impossible, he set himself chiefly to prevent the settlement of the Church by means of a Presbyterian establishment. This day, 13th of September, says Bailey, Cromwell has obtained an order of the House of Commons to refer to the Committee of both Kingdoms the accommodation or toleration of the Independence, a high and unexpected order. In another passage referring to the same event, Bailey adds that this was done without the least advertisement to any of us or of the Assembly. This has much affected us. These men have retarded the Assembly these long twelve months. This is the fruit of their disservice. To obtain really an Act of Parliament for their toleration, before we have thought anything for Presbytery, either in Assembly or Parliament. Footnote, Bailey Volume 2, pages 226 and 230. End of footnote. The order from the House of Commons was produced in the Assembly on the 16th of September in the following terms, that the Committee of Lords and Commons appointed to treat with the Commissioners of Scotland and the Committee of the Assembly to take into consideration the differences of the opinions of the members of the assembly in point of church government, and to endeavor an union, if it be possible. And in case that cannot be done, to endeavor the finding out some way how far tender conscience is, who cannot in all things submit to the same rule, which shall be established, may be born with according to the word. and as may stand with the public peace, that so the proceedings of the Assembly may not be so much retarded." Footnote. Papers for Accommodation, page 1. End of footnote. In compliance with this order, the Committee met on the 20th of September and appointed a subcommittee consisting of Dr. Temple, M. Marshall, Pearl, Vines, Goodwin, and Nye, to consider other differences of opinion in the Assembly, a point of church government, and to report to the Grand Committee. These divines accordingly formed what was called the Subcommittee of Agreements, and prepared several propositions concerning the government of particular congregations, ordinations, and so on, which they laid before the Grand Committee on the 11th of October. Having some additional propositions to frame respecting the jurisdiction of presbyteries and synods, they were adjourned and appointed to meet again on the 15th of October and then to produce a completed report. When they met on the day appointed, their additional propositions were read. But when it was proposed to take them into consideration, it was objected. It was not consistent with strict propriety to discuss objections against a proposed rule of Church government, till that rule itself should have been completed by the Assembly and the Houses of Parliament. The proceedings of this Committee of Accommodation were therefore suspended by the House of Commons, till their further pleasure. no real progress towards an agreement having been made. Without relating minutely the proceedings of this committee, it may be enough to state that in what was termed the preface of their report, they expressed their confidence that they would jointly agree in one confession of faith and in one directory of public worship, their only difference being in points of church government. They framed nine propositions respecting the power of individual congregations, and six of which they were all agreed with a slight and unimportant explanation. The points of the other three in which the independents could not quite agree with the Presbyterians respected the power of congregations to excommunicate members or ordain elders by the sole authority of the people. seeking merely the advice of neighboring ministers, but not subject to the control of a Presbytery, and the parochial system, which the Independents opposed, as contrary to their theory of gathering churches out of other churches. To this system of the Independents, the Presbyterians would not consent, as giving countenance to schism, and perpetuating strife and jealousy among both ministers and people. With regard to the jurisdiction of Presbyteries and Synods, the Independents could consent to nothing more than the advice of neighboring ministers to be respected, but not authoritative further than admonition. And in case of the offending congregation not submitting, withdrawing from it, and denying church communion and fellowship, but without any actual power within the range of any particular congregation, over any offending member, though the congregation itself might be admonished for not putting forth its own power to reform its own members. It is plain that the essential difference between the two parties remained undiminished. The independents continue to maintain the sole power of congregations to exercise church government and to demand the privilege of gathering churches or congregations. out of the congregations of the Presbyterians, with whom, nevertheless, they could continue to hold occasional communion. These points the Presbyterians regarded as utterly subversive of their whole system, and though they would have tolerated in practice, they could not consent to give it an avowed and legal sanction, regarding it as nationally impolitic, in a religious point of view sinful, and with regard to the Covenant, a violation of their oath, being virtually to sanction and legalize schism. Besides, they perceived clearly that this avowed and legal sanction to the independent system would of necessity involve an equal permission to the wildest and most immoral and blasphemous sectarians to frame separate congregations, and collect adherents by every artifice and to the ruin of both church and kingdom. Although no accommodation resulted from the deliberations of this committee, there is every reason to think that Cromwell and Nye obtained the end they had in view when it was proposed. The progress of both Parliament and Assembly towards the ratification of the propositions respecting church government was suspended, and time was obtained for adopting another course. Accordingly, on the 7th of November, the Independents began to talk of giving in to the Assembly their reasons of dissent from the Assembly's propositions respecting church government. On the 14th of November, these reasons were produced, and on the following day were read, and a committee of 20 appointed to take them into consideration. The most prominent persons of that committee were Doctors Temple and Hoyle, Messrs. Marshall, Tuckney, Calamee, Palmer, Vines, Seaman, and Lightfoot, and their answers to the reasons of dissent were read in the Assembly on the seventeenth day of December, and continued on the following days till they had been fully heard, previous to their being transmitted to the Parliament. It thus terminated the deliberations of the Westminster Assembly, so far as regarded the proceedings of the year 1644. But as these proceedings had chiefly involved the controversy between the Presbyterians and the Independents, and as the points in which they differed had been all thoroughly debated in the Assembly in the course of the year 1644, and the contest had now assumed a literary character, in consequence of the production of written reasons of dissent, and written answers to those reasons, it seems expedient to complete our brief outline of this important controversy, though touching a little upon the events of subsequent years, before directing our attention to the Erastean controversy. The dissenting brethren entered their dissent with reasons in writing, to be presented to the Honorable Houses by the Assembly, to the three following propositions, as the only points in which there existed direct and essential differences between them and the Presbyterians, namely, 1. to the third propositions concerning Presbyterial Government, 2. to the propositions concerning subordination of Assemblies, 3. to the propositions concerning the power of ordination whether in a particular congregation, though it may associate with others. The third proposition concerning Presbyterial church government was as follows. The scripture doth hold forth that many congregations may be under one Presbyterial government. This is proved by instances. One of the Church of Jerusalem, which consisted of more congregations than one. and all those congregations were under one Presbyterian government. 2. Of the church of Ephesus, in which there were more congregations than one, and where there were many elders over those congregations as one flock, though those many congregations were one church, and under one Presbyterian government. As this proposition, together with its subordinate details, and the Scripture text on which the whole was founded, or stated fully in the Confession of Faith and Directory, it cannot be necessary to occupy space by their insertion. The dissenting brethren gave in reasons against the proposition itself, and also against the instances by which it was proved. Their argument against the proposition is in the following terms. If many congregations having all elders already affixed respectively unto them may be under a Presbyterial government, that all those elders must sustain a special relation of elders to all the people of those congregations as one church, and to everyone as a member thereof. But for a company of such elders already fixed to sustain such a relation, carries with it so great and manifold incongruities and inconsistencies with what the Scriptures speak of elders and their relation to a church committed to them, and likewise with the principles of the Reformed Churches themselves, as cannot be admitted, and therefore such a government may not be. The proposition thus stated is explained, defended, and enforced in a treaty of forty pages by the dissenting Brethren, whose names now increased to seven, are subscribed to it, namely Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, Jeremy Burroughs, Sidrock Simpson, William Bridge, William Greenhill, William Carter. It does not appear necessary to give any summary of the arguments brought forward by these Brethren against the Assembly, or an illustration of their own negative proposition, because, from the proposition itself, every reader will see that their major proposition rests on an assumption which itself requires to be both explained and proved. and that their minor proposition was merely a conjures of proposed incongruities and inconsistencies which they asserted would follow but which could not be proved to be necessary consequences and had not followed in churches already under Presbyterian government. The answer of the assembly extended to 80 pages which in one point of view was much more than enough but aware that their task was not only to meet the argument of the dissenting brethren, but also to produce a defense of Presbyterian Church government, such as might be laid before the public. They entered fully into the subject, both meeting objections and restating their own direct arguments. In this manner, they produced an exceeding able treaty, exhibiting clearly and amply the grounds of scripture and reason on which the Presbyterian church government, in their opinion, rested. And certainly the dissenting brethren themselves must have felt that they were more than answered, even allowing for their natural pre-dilectation for their own system. It is impossible to condense this able defense of Presbyterian church government so as to present it within the limits of the present work. This only can we state that the Assembly's answer begins by proving the fallacy and the pernicious consequences of that assumption on which the main argument of their opponents was based. They then showed that the argument of independence was really directed against a proposition which the Assembly never held, and therefore that it was beside the question altogether. And then, returning to the subject as stated by the dissenting brethren, and for the sake of argument, allowing it to be regarded as fairly put, they proceeded to meet and refute it point by point, in a very masterly manner, uniting extensive learning, acuteness of distinction, logical precision of thought, clear and energetic language, and a profound knowledge of scripture, and veneration of its sacred truth, as the sole rule of God in all matters of religious nature. The second subject against which the independents entered their dissent with reasons was the proposition concerning the subordination of assemblies. These propositions were three in number, but as their dissent was directed chiefly against the third, the statement of it may be enough. It is lawful and agreeable to the word of God that there be a subordination of congregational, classical, provincial, and national assemblies, that so appeals be made, from the inferior to the superior, respectively. Proved from Matthew 18, which holding forth the subordination of an offending brother to a particular church, it doth also, by a parity of reason, hold forth the subordination of a congregation to superior assemblies. The dissenting brethren introduced their argument in the following manner. Although we judge sinners to be of great use for the finding out and declaring of truth in difficult cases, and encouragement to walk in the truth for the healing offenses, and to give advice unto the magistrate in matters of religion, and although we give great honor and conscientious respect unto their determination Yet seeing the proposition holds forth not only an occasional, but a standing use of them, and that in subordination of one unto another, as juridical, ecclesiastical courts, and this in all cases, we humbly present these reasons against it. 1. All such subordinations of courts, having greater and lesser degrees of power, to which, in their order, causes are to be brought, must have the greatest and most express warrant and assignment for them in the word. Whence is argued thus, those courts that must have the most express warrant and assignment for them in the word, and have not in their power is to be suspected, and not erected in the church of God. But these ought to have so, and have not. Therefore their power is to be suspected, and not erected in the church of God. 2. If there be such a subordination of synods in the church of Christ, then there is no independency but in an ecumenical council. 3. That church power which cannot show a constant divine rule for its variation and subordination and ultimate independency is not of God, and so may not be. But this variation of church power into these subordinations cannot show any such steady and constant rule for these things, therefore it may not be. 4. The government which necessarily produces representations of spiritual power out of other representations, with a derived power therefrom, there is no warrant for. But these subordinations of sentence, provincial, national, ecumenical, for the government of the church do so. Therefore for them there is no warrant." To these they added some arguments against the instances from Acts 15 and Matthew 18 which had been adduced by the assembly. In the reasonings of the dissenting brethren it is somewhat curious to observe that they made use of both the erasting and the Episcopalian arguments as these seem to serve their purpose. As, for instance, the Eurasian, why may not all other churches be governed as well as that of Geneva, without appeals, if the magistrate oversees them and keeps each to their duties?" Footnote. Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren, page 124. End of footnote. The Episcopalian argument is not so succinctly stated but is an attempt to turn against the Presbyterians the argument used by them against the Episcopalians of the want of an express institution of the subordination of office bearers in the Church. And in the course of their argument and illustrations, they made so many concessions that it is rather difficult to conceive on what their final opposition rested. As for instance, they admitted that synods are an ordinance of God upon all occasions of difficulty, that all the churches of a province may call a single congregation to account, that they may examine and admonish, and, in case of obstinacy, may declare them to be subverters of the faith, that they have authority to determine in controversies of faith, that they may deny church communion to an offending and obstinate congregation, and that this sentence of non-communion may be enforced by the authority of the civil magistrate, and that they may call before them any person within their bounds, concerned in the ecclesiastical business before them, and may hear and determine such causes as orderly come before them." Footnote. Reasons and Answers. Page 138. End of footnote. Having made so many and such important confessions the Independence might, with very little difficulty, have assented fully to the Assembly's propositions, and probably would have done so but for the influence of intriguing politicians, who dreaded nothing so much as an early and harmonious adjustment of all differences in the Assembly. The answer of the Assembly began by laying open the essential point of difference, which consisted, not in a denial of sentence, but of the standing use of them, and their subordination to one another, not the subordination of congregations to them. They then showed that the main argument of the independence was not directed against the proposition of the assembly, but against the peculiar construction of it by themselves, and that, too, a construction disclaimed by the assembly. Then, as in their previous answer, they proceeded to consider the reasonings of their opponents, sometimes proving that these are self-destructive, and confuse their own theory, sometimes pointing out their fallacious character, and sometimes meeting them by distinct and irresistible reputation of a strictly logical kind. In one instance, the mode of the dissenting brethren's argument is very strongly urged against themselves, and since they demand the greatest and most express warrant for the subordination of synods, they are asked to prove their own system, namely, the gathering of churches out of churches, the ordination and deposition of ministers by the people alone, the passing by one single congregation of the sentence of non-communion against all the churches in a province or a kingdom, which would surely require a warrant as great and express or should teach them somewhat to abate in their demand. footnote, a bit on page 147, and a footnote. In short, it is perfectly clear in our apprehension that both in point of conformity to the language and arrangements of scripture, and in point of distinctness and strength of logical reasoning, the answer of the assembly is abundantly conclusive. The third subject against which the independence entered reasons of dissent in writing was, the proposition concerning the power of ordination. That proposition was in the following terms. It is very requisite that no single congregation that can conveniently associate do assume to itself all and sole power in ordination. Against this, they offer these reasons. Where there is a sufficient presbytery, all and sole power in ordination may be assumed, though association may be had. but there may be a sufficient presbytery in a particular congregation. Therefore, a particular congregation may assume all and sole power in ordination. That which two apostles being joined together might do in a particular congregation, the ordinary elders may do in a particular congregation. But Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in particular congregations, though they might associate. Therefore, ordinary elders may ordain in particular congregations. Footnote. Reasons of dissent. Pages 190 and 191. End of footnote. The expansion of this argument served only to dilute it the more, and to make its fallacy apparent. In their answer, the Assembly Divines seem almost to have been ashamed to analyze and expose the weak sophistry of the dissenting brethren's argument. We expected, say they, from our brethren, in a search for truth, not a contest for victory, arguments to prove that every single congregation have the whole power of ordination within themselves, and that none but themselves may ordain for them, but this they are pleased to decline. They then prove that the argument is illogical and vicious, containing more in the conclusion than in the premises. and yet not concluding against the proposition in debate, and entering into a more minute examination of it, they not merely refuted, but by availing themselves of the concessions made by the independents in the course of their own illustrations, they completely overthrew the whole congregational theory. For the independents had admitted that association of congregations neither adds to nor diminishes the power of a Presbytery, but is by way of accumulation, not privation. And this argument is in itself an answer to all their own accusations against the Presbyterian system of church government, on the ground of its depriving congregations of their due power, since the association of congregations, like that of elders, is by way of accumulation, not privation. It will be observed also that there is in the argument of the Independents a deceptive use of the word presbytery, which they employ to mean the elders of a particular congregation, whereas the proper sense of the term implies the collective ministers and elders of several contiguous congregations. The answer of such arguments was an easy task and was very successfully accomplished. These reasons of dissent and the answers by the Assembly occupied the attention of that venerable body during the conclusion of the year 1644 and the early part of the year 1645, and when fully completed, both the reasons and the answers were submitted to the consideration of the Parliament. After remaining in the possession of the Parliament for a considerable time, and when the discussions of the Assembly had terminated, An order was issued by the House of Lords on the 24th of January, 1648, or 1647, according to their style, that these reasons and answers should be printed from the papers in the hands of Adoniram Byfield, one of the Assembly's scribes, after having been inspected by Messrs. Goodwin and Whitaker, to secure their genuineness and authenticity. and they were published in the same year under the title of The Reasons Presented by the Dissenting Brethren Against Certain Propositions Concerning Presbyterial Government, together with the answers of the Assembly of Divines to those reasons of dissent. In the year 1652, the same publication received a new title page and was called The Grand Debate Concerning Presbytery and Independence. by the Assembly of Divines convened at Westminster by authority of Parliament. This a careful examination of several copies of both dates and titles enables me to state with perfect certainty not only the pages but the verbal and literal errors being everywhere identical. And this is here mentioned in order to put it in the power of any person who may possess the volume to verify the preceding account. whether as here given or as referred to by other authors under the title of the Grand Debate. About the time when these written discussions began to be interchanged, there was one remaining topic unsettled, on which some difference of opinion was interchanged. The Assembly had unanimously agreed that excommunication is an ordinance of Christ, But some difference of opinion existed respecting the body to which properly the power of excommunication belonged. A small committee was appointed for the purpose of attempting an accommodation between the Presbyterians and the Independents on this point. And on the 10th of January, 1645, this committee gave in a report to which all assented, and it received the unanimous and glad sanction of the Assembly. Four days afterwards, the Independents requested that the whole Directory of Excommunication might be referred to a similar Committee of Accommodation, and this too the Assembly granted, in the hope of at last obtaining an amicable and harmonious arrangement. Yet, when the report of that Committee had been produced, assented to by the Assembly, and voted to be transmitted to the Houses of Parliament, the Independents entered their dissent from it. as an accommodation, in any other sense than that each might interpret and use it according to their own peculiar views. Against this procedure the Assembly complained, regarding it as a deceptive evasion, much more fitted to perpetuate disagreement than to promote accommodation and lead to union. The assembly further complained that the dissenting brethren never gave any definite statement of what they really wished that merely opposed almost every proposition respecting church government and brought forward objections. At length, one of the independents on the 11th of February 1645 said that they were willing to be formed into a committee to frame and report their judgment respecting the best model of church government. This the Assembly gladly hailed, declaring that there was nothing which they more earnestly desired than to know the full mind and wish of the dissenting Brethren. Immediately the Independents recoiled from their proposal, and declared being made a committee for that purpose. On the 21st of March they were urged to enter upon the task, and one of them read a paper containing seven propositions, but refused to give it to the scribe, would not reproduce it, and finally declined the discussion. Again, on the 4th of April, the Assembly resumed the suggestion, and, notwithstanding the opposition of the Independents, resolved that the brethren of this Assembly that had formally entered their dissent to the propositions about Presbyterial government shall be a committee to bring in the whole frame of their judgment concerning Church government in a body, with their grounds and reasons. Being thus in a manner constrained to prepare their own desired model, they first requested that it might be brought forward and debated part by part, as the subject of Presbyterial government had been. To this the Assembly objected, both because their own course of procedure had been that of necessity, not choice, and not, in their opinion, the best mode, and because there were not many points against which the Independents had dissented, so that the whole might most easily and conveniently be brought forward at once. The Independents then obtained permission to refrain from attending the ordinary committees, that they might have sufficient leisure to prepare their own model of church government. Long and anxiously did the Assembly look for the promised model, but in vain. Wearied at last with this protracted delay, on the 22nd of September they urged the Independents to make all convenient speed, and requested them to give in a report of what they had done, within a fortnight if possible. One fortnight passed and no report was produced. Another ran its round and still no report appeared. But on the 22nd of October 1645, instead of the long expected model of church government, the independents laid before the assembly what they termed a remonstrance, stating the reasons why they declined to bring forward their model of church government. This was soon afterwards published. without the authority of either Assembly or Parliament, under the title of a copy of a remonstrance. The Assembly immediately prepared an answer to this remonstrance, and having laid it before the House of the Parliament, it was, after some delay, directed to be printed by an order of the House of Lords bearing date 24th of February 1646, or according to the Parliamentary Year 1645. Footnote, Bailey Volume 3, page 344. End of footnote. The answer of the Assembly is expressed in somewhat sharper terms than any of their preceding papers, which is not surprising considering the disingenuous and evasive conduct of the Independent Party, and it certainly exposes their duplicity in a manner altogether unanswerable. The conclusion of this paper is peculiarly significant. upon which considerations we think, not that the brethren have any cause to decline the bringing in of their model at this time, but that they have some other cause than what they pretend to, and that something lies behind the curtain which doth not yet appear. Possibly not any one of them is yet at a point in his own judgment, nor resolved where to fix, they having professed to keep as a reserve liberty to alter and retract, which, if their model were given in, they could not so fairly and honorably do. Or possibly they are not all fixed in one and the same point. Possibly they cannot agree among themselves, for it is easier to agree in dissenting than in affirming. Or possibly, if they seven can agree, yet some other of their brethren in the city to whom it may be the model was communicated did not like it. Or so, yet possibly the Brethren might foresee that if this model should be published, there are some who at present are a strength to them, and expect shelter from them who may disgust it, or at least they are resolved to wait a further opportunity to improve what they have prepared. It may be when the assembly is dissolved, and so not in a capacity to answer them, or when the Presbyterian government begins to be set up When they promise to themselves there will be discontent among the people, and look upon that, it may be as the most advantageous time of putting pen to paper. But whatever the cause be, we commit our cause to the Lord, who loves truth and simplicity and will. We doubt not. Discover it in due time. Footnote. Answer to a copy of a remonstrance. Page 24. Almost simultaneous with the production of these papers, one effort more, a last effort, was made to prevent, if possible, a final disagreement between the Presbyterians and the Independents. The Committee of Accommodation, which had been in abeyance for nearly a year, was revised by an order of both Houses of Parliament, dated 6th of November 1645. This committee met on the 17th of the same month and resumed their now well-nigh hopeless task to find some ground on which both parties could harmoniously unite. Several meetings were held and several papers framed by each party, but no approximation towards union appeared, both retaining their peculiar views with little, if any, modification. The last meeting took place on the 9th of March, 1646, when very long and elaborate answers were produced by the members of assembly to the opinions, reasonings, and requests of the dissenting brethren. After that, the committee met no more. The controversy, so far as regarded debate and writing, terminated without any agreement, and the matter became a conflict of principle against intrigue and power. It is impossible to review this protracted controversy between the Presbyterians and the Independents without the deepest regret. From the very beginning, it greatly hampered the proceedings of the Assembly, gave rise to excessively protracted discussions on almost every subject connected with church government and discipline, exposed the unsettled affairs of both church and state to all the perils of delay. and gave time to every hostile element to acquire matured strength, and every dangerous machination to obtain complete development. Yet the differences between the two contending parties did not appear to have been necessarily irreconcilable, had it not been for the perverting power of political influence. In point of doctrinal views of sacred truth and modes of public worship there existed no material disagreement between the Presbyterians and the Independents. In matters of discipline, the difference of opinion became narrow to a single point, and even that point was at one time removed in the Committee of Accommodation, though it was again partially replaced by the Dissenting Brethren. The three propositions against which they gave in reasons of dissent, namely concerning Presbyterial government, the subordination of assemblies, and the power of ordination, were all capable of being reduced to one point also, and that a point so minute as almost to disappear under discussion, and to require considerable dexterity in its maintainers to discover, and again bring it into prominent manifestation. For the admissions of the independents at different times extended so far as to leave nothing in dispute, except the single link connecting their system with that of the Brownists and the other sectarians of the period. The right of a congregation or church to use their own term, however few in regard to numbers, and even though devoid of a pastor and elders, to possess and to exercise all and sole power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction within itself, without regard to any and every other church in the world, and accountable to none for its procedure, be that what it might. How the independents contrive to reconcile this central principle with their repeated concessions respecting the authority of synods as an ordinance of God, the sentences of which might be enforced by the civil magistrate, it is somewhat difficult to imagine. Nor did they, in point of practice, act according to this principle or theory. For in the churches of New England, which were all constructed according to the independent system, they did not hesitate to coerce and restrain with great rigor and severity those who presumed to differ from them in religious matters, inflicting the sentences of imprisonment, banishment, and even perpetual slavery." Footnote. Bailey's volume 2, page 183. End of footnote. Please continue listening on tape number 8.