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. dot SWRB dot COM. We can also be reached by email at SWRB at SWRB dot 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 11. Had not this been the case, Erastianism would not have characterized so strongly the conduct of the English Parliament, exercising a power so baneful in impeding the final settlement of the desired religious uniformity, involving the nation in protracted anarchy, and exposing the cause of freedom to the crushing grasp of military usurpation. There might be traced, did our limits allow it, a very close connection between the development of arresting principles in the Parliament and the success of disasters which befell them through the insubordination of the Army in its growing republicanism, so close that the latter would almost seem like the direct infliction of retributive justice upon the former, ending in the completed guilt and the final overthrow of the Parliament being almost simultaneous. The great advantage which would arise to Christendom from the existence of something approaching to a general religious uniformity must be apparent to every reflecting mind, both as a general homage to the certainties of revealed truth, and as itself the master element of general harmony and peace. But it is contrary alike to the nature of religion and to the constitution of the human to suppose that this desirable object can be obtained by compulsion. Open, candid, brother-like consultation may do much when Christian men fairly and honestly wish to arrive at as close a degree of uniformity in doctrine, worship, and government as can be obtained with due respect to liberty and integrity of conscience. It was for this very purpose that the Westminster Assembly was called, and that the Scottish Divines were requested to be present at and aid in its deliberations. This was right, and bore fair prospect and promise of good. But mutual jealousies and rivalries arose. Men misjudged and misinterpreted each other's intentions, and the intrigues of mere worldly politicians intermingled with biased and baffled far higher and holier objects than those with which such men are usually conversant. Probably the two parties of a religious character, we speak not now of mere Erastians, of whom the assembly was composed, the Presbyterians and the Independents, were both in error. Probably they both entertained narrower conceptions of the nature of religious uniformity and also of religious toleration and liberty than the terms rightly understood imply. Uniformity is not necessarily absolute identity. Neither of these two parties held that absolute identity was necessary, as appears from their respective writings. But such of them dreaded that nothing less than absolute identity would satisfy the other, and to that neither of them could agree. And this apprehension was enough, not only to prevent the accomplishment of the purpose for which they met, but even to act as a wedge, rending them daily more wildly and hopelessly asunder. Yet in spite of this unpropitious misapprehension, a very considerable amount of religious uniformity was produced. The independents expressed no dissent from the confession of faith and the Directory of Worship prepared by the Assembly. All the Puritan non-conformists received these documents with cordial approbation. Parliament gave to their most important principles and arrangements its legislative sanction, and England was on the very point of being favoured with the establishment of a Presbyterian Church. So far did this proceed that at first the University of Cambridge and afterwards that of Oxford, were new modeled, and the professorships given to Presbyterian divines. Prolatic writers having been in the habit of representing this change as barbarizing these universities. To refute such calumny, nothing more is necessary than to name the men on whom these academic appointments were conferred, men than whom none more eminent for learning, abilities, and true piety ever graced the universities of any age or country. But something still more striking may be said in answer to Prahladic calumny. Not only did the new professors ably sustain the reputation of the English universities, they also infused into them a spirit of freedom, originality, and energy of thought. which burst forth in the manhood of the men trained under their care, with a degree of power and splendor that has scarcely been ever equaled, much less surpassed. In proof of this, it is enough to mention the names of Locke, Boyle, Newton, Tillotson, Stillingfeet, Cave, Whitby, Self, and many others. In short, the Presbyterian dynasty of the universities infused into them new life, the vigorous tone and movements of which were not exhausted for the lapse of two generations. Closely associated with the subject of university learning is that of eminence and theological acquirements and pulpit oratory. On this point also a very prevalent fallacy exists. and is repeated and believed without inquiry. It is very common to meet with extravagant praises bestowed upon the eminent learning and the valuable theological works produced by the Church of England. But it seems to be generally forgotten that by far the largest and most precious portion of English theological literature was composed either by the Puritan divines or by the Presbyterians of the Westminster Assembly, or by the generation which was trained up under them in the universities. If all the works produced by these men were carefully marked and set aside, and the works of none but the genuine Prelatists were ascribed to the Church of England, her renown for theological literature would be shorn of its beams indeed. It is not denied that the Church of England has contributed many valuable additions to the literature of Christianity, and considering the ample means of her command for bestowing on her office-bearers extensive education and literary leisure, it would have been strange if she had not. But it is not the less true that a very large share of her reputation is derived from the writings of the Puritan and Presbyterian divines, and their immediate pupils, from the very men whom she columniated and persecuted, and strove to exterminate when living, and when dead, has pillaged of their hard-won honours, which she arrogates for her own, or suffers to be ascribed to her by unwise or unblushing flatterers. Not only was an impulse given to the universities during the short prevalence of the Presbyterian Church in England, but also throughout considerable districts of the kingdom. Strenuous exertions were made to provide an adequate remedy for the deplorable state of ignorance in which the great body of the population had been suffered to remain. The removal of scandalous and ignorant ministers was the first step taken towards this desirable object. Another was the sequestration of the surplus wealth of the Palladic dignitaries, a portion of which it was intended to employ in providing academies, schools, and all that was necessary for instituting a national system of education. This noble and generous scheme also was embarrassed and impeded by arresting interference, because it would have naturally fallen under the superintendence of Presbyteries, to the erection of which throughout the kingdom, with full and due powers, they could not be persuaded to consent. Even when almost paralyzed by this unhappy arresting interference, the Presbyterian ministers set themselves to promote education to the utmost of their power. There may still be found, in several country districts in England, where Presbyterians once abounded, schools having a right to a small salary to the schoolmaster, on condition that he shall teach the children the assembly's shorter catechism. Footnote. One of these, the author was fortunate enough to assist in rescuing from the hands of a few years ago on the strength of that very condition. The people of England do not yet know, and cannot easily conceive, how grievous was the loss which they sustained by the unfortunate failure of the attempt to render the Presbyterian Church the ecclesiastical establishment of the Kingdom. To them it would have been a source of almost unmingled and incalculable good, giving to them the advantage of an evangelical, pious, laborious, and regularly resident ministry in every parish, together with cheap and universally accessible education, the constant inspection of elders to watch over their moral conduct, and deacons to attend to the wants of the poor in the spirit of Christian kindness and benevolence. all regulated by the superintendents of presbyteries and synods, to prevent the hazard of injury from local neglect or prejudice. And surely a truly wise and paternal government ought to have rejoiced at the opportunity of attaining so easily advantages so inestimable to the nation at large, and consequently to its rulers, and to all that wished its welfare. All this was once attainable, was very nearly attained. Has it become forever impossible? We will not think so. A time may come. Reference has been repeatedly made to the state of the army and of the almost innumerable varieties of sex which appeared in it and throughout the kingdom. And it has been shown that this strange and formidable chaos of religious opinions can best be accounted for by attending to the fact that almost the entire population had been allowed or rather constrained to remain in a state of deplorable ignorance by the wretched policy of the prelates and of the despotic monarchs who deemed it inexpedient to teach the people to think, lest they should turn their attention to public matters and learn to think and act for themselves. The direct consequence of this was, that when the naturally strong mind of England was fairly roused, it put forth its strength, but, like the mighty Hebrew, when fallen into the hands of his adversaries, put it forth in blindness. At the commencement of the war between the King and the Parliament, ministers were appointed to accompany the parliamentary army to train the troops in sound religious knowledge. and guide them in the worship of God. But this was both an irksome and a dangerous task. Sufficient numbers could not be obtained. When the Westminster Assembly met, some of the ablest were called to attend its celebrations. And after the self-denying ordinance, when the army was new modeled, it was left almost entirely to the wildly erratic instructions of self-called and uneducated lay preachers. It was not strange that enthusiastic notions should be promulgated, and should be widely received, when poured forth amid such exciting scenes and circumstances by the wildly eloquent fervor of strong and earnest minds. And as little was it strange that the thoroughly learned and deep-thinking divines of the Assembly should perceive the dangerous consequences to religion, morality, and peace which must inevitably follow from the unrestrained diffusion of all the lawless and extravagant fancies by which the fermenting public mind was agitated and borne along. They knew what had taken place in Germany when the peasantry were roused to insurrectionary tumult. by the licentious principles and harangues of the Anabaptists, and they dreaded the occurrence of similar events in England. For such reasons they were exceedingly anxious that a regular and authoritative system of church government and discipline should be established and put in operation with all convenient speed, and this wish was in itself of a truly pious and patriotic nature, even though it could be proved that the means by which it was sought to be realized were not the most judicious that could have been imagined. This course of reflection leads to make some inquiry into the subject of religious toleration, of which so much has been said and written, in the present as well as in former times. The term itself, toleration in matters of religion, is one which has rarely been defined with that care and exactness which its great importance demands. Consequently, the whole subject is liable to every sort of sophistical perversion, and very many of the controversial writings that have appeared concerning its start from different points. and run on either in parallel or in diverging lines without the possibility of ever arriving at the same conclusion. Many thousands have been oppressed, persecuted and put to death for maintaining and promoting God's revealed truth. Many thousands have suffered equal extremities for maintaining and promoting satanic falsehood. and many thousands have sustained all degrees of punishment for the perpetration of immorality and crime. But who will assert that the same principle appears in all these cases? Who will say that because it is right to suppress and punish the commission of crime, therefore it is right to suppress and punish men for asserting religious truth? or that because it is wrong to suppress truth, therefore it is wrong to suppress crime, or discount in its error. But men try to escape from such reasoning by asserting that truth cannot be ascertained with certainty, and that therefore it is best to give equal toleration to all opinions, lest a grievous mistake should be committed and truth suppressed instead of error. This is a language of skepticism, and the principle which it promulgates is not toleration, but latitudinarian laxity and licentiousness. Such language really implies either that God did not intend to convey saving truth in a manner intelligible to the minds of men, or that he failed in his intention. But since few will be found reckless enough to maintain such opinions in their naked deformity, the advocates of skeptical laxity have recourse to every kind of evasion in order to conceal alike the nature of the principle which they support and of that which they oppose. And unhappily, these evasions are but too consonant to the character of the fallen mind of man. which is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. This is the truth which the sincere Christian feels and knows, but which philosophers and politicians reject, despise and hate. The essence of the inquiry is, has God revealed sacred saving truth to man, as the only sure guide and rule in all religious, moral, and social duties? And if this be admitted, then arises the next question. Can this truth be so fully ascertained and known as to become a sufficient guide and rule in all such duties? If this too should be admitted, we then arrive at the important practical inquiry. In what manner May the knowledge of this sacred saving truth be most successfully diffused throughout the world. For such truth has been revealed and can be known, man's first duty must be to know it himself, and his next to communicate it to others. But he may err in this second point of duty, and may actually impede while he is intending to promote its progress. few will deny that it is the duty of every man in his station to encourage the extension of truth by every legitimate means within his power. But it does not at once appear so clear whether it be also his duty to engage so actively in such a removal of opposing obstacles as would involve the direct suppression of error. And it is at this stage of the inquiry that the question of religious toleration arises in its proper form and character. For it never ought to be made a question whether truth ought to be tolerated or not. Truth ought to be encouraged and diffused. But the question is, ought error also, and with equal directness, to be suppressed? The best method of obtaining a right answer to this inquiry is to consult the Word of God and to investigate the nature of conscience. The Word of God, in almost innumerable instances, commands the direct encouragement of truth and also the suppression of certain forms of error, as of idolatry and blasphemy. but gives no authority to man to judge and punish errors of the mind, so far as these amount not to violations of known and equitable laws, and disturb not the peace of society. And with regard to the nature of conscience, it is manifest to every thinking man that conscience cannot be compelled. It may be enlightened, it may be convinced, that its very nature is the free exercise of that self-judging faculty which is the essential principle of personal responsibility. Hence it is evident that it is alike contrary to the word of God and to the nature of conscience for man to attempt to promote truth by the compulsive suppression of error, when that error does not intrude itself on public view by open violation of God's commandments and the just laws of the land. But it by no means follows that toleration means, or ought to mean, equal favor shown to error as to truth. Truth ought to be expressly favored and encouraged. Erring men ought to be treated with all tenderness and compassionate toleration. that error itself ought to be condemned, and all fair means employed for its extirpation. This could never lead to persecution, because it would constantly preserve the distinction between the abstract error and the man whose misfortune it is to be an erring man, and to whom it would show all tenderness while it strove to rescue him from the evil consequences of those erroneous notions by which he was blinded and misled. There is great reason to believe that the Presbyterians and the Independents of the Westminster Assembly misapprehended each other's opinions on the subject of religious toleration. What the Presbyterians understood their opponents to mean by that term was what they called a boundless toleration implying equal encouragement to all shades and kinds of religious opinions, however wild, extravagant, and pernicious in their principles, and in their evident tendency. And when they somewhat vehemently condemned such laxity and licentiousness, the independents seemed to have thought that they intended or desired the forcible suppression of all opinions that differed from their own. Yet surely the independents might have better understood both the principles and the practice of Presbyterian churches. In Holland, a Presbyterian country, they had themselves enjoyed the most complete and undisturbed toleration in religious matters. They had often witnessed the interposition of the Scottish divines on their behalf in the debates of the assembly. And if they experience somewhat sharper treatment and more pointed opposition from the English Presbyterians, that might easily be explained by the difference of temper in men struggling to obtain the establishment of a system, and in men living in that system when established, and then acting according to its native spirit and character. They might have made allowance also for the feeling of excited alarm with which the Presbyterians regarded the pretentious growth and multiplication of heretical sex alike dangerous to religious truth, to moral purity, and to national peace. For it must be observed that during Cromwell's administration, when the Independents were in the enjoyment of chief power, many of these sexes, such as Lovelers, the Fifth Monarchy men, the Sassanians, the Antinomians, the Quakers, and so on, were forcibly suppressed without any opposition being offered by them to this suppression, as an intolerant interference with liberty of conscience. The only explanation we apprehend which can be given of this inconsistency of the is one not very credible to their character for integrity of principle. During their struggle with the Presbyterians, they needed the support of numbers, being but few themselves, and therefore they advocated a boundless toleration, of which they did not really approve, and which, when in power themselves, they did not grant. Some, perhaps by toleration, understand an universal, uncontrolled license of living as you please in things concerning religion, that everyone may be let alone, and not so much as this countenance and doing, speaking, acting, how, what, where, or when he pleases, in all such things as concerneth the worship of God, articles of belief, or generally anything commanded in religion. And in the meantime the parties of variance and litigants about differences, freely to revile, reject, and despise one another according as their provoked genius shall dispose their minds thereunto. Now truly, though every one of this mind pretends to cry for mercy to be extended unto poor, afflicted truth, yet I cannot be persuaded that such a toleration would prove exceeding pernicious to all sorts of men. Essay by Dr. Owen. Appended to a sermon preached before the House of Commons. April 29, 1646. page 66. End of footnote. It has been often confidently asserted that the independents were the first who rightly understood and publicly advocated the great principle of religious toleration. That they did assert that principle is certain, but that they were the first who did so is not the truth. Luther declared that the Church ought not to force persons to believe, nor to an advert capitally on those who follow a different religion. That to believe is something free, yea divine, being the fruit of the Spirit. Wherefore it cannot, and ought not, to be forced by any external violence. The language of Zwingli is not less explicit. It is at once contrary to the gospel and to reason to employ violent measures to extort a confession of faith contrary to conscience. Reason and persuasion are the arms that a Christian ought to employ. Even Calvin and Knox, terrible as their very names appear to some, and associated with the very essence of intolerance, repeatedly expressed sentiments precisely similar, strenuously maintaining the liberty of the conscience, and condemning persecution. And in Scotland, where the Presbyterian Church was early established, and repeatedly enjoyed much power, often as that church suffered persecution in every form and degree, it never, in its day of power, persecuted its enemies in return. This, some will think, a strange assertion, accustomed as they have been to hear so much about Presbyterian intolerance. Yet it is not more strange than true. And did our space permit, we could furnish ample proof that the true principles of religious toleration were both held and practiced in Scotland by the Presbyterian Church, both before independency had come into existence, and during the very time of the struggle between the two parties in England, and even in the Westminster Assembly, at the time when the subject of toleration was under discussion, the true principles of religious liberty were avowedly held and publicly taught by the Presbyterian divines. the very men who are so vehemently accused of intolerance, at least as distinctly and earnestly as they were by the independents. Such sentiments as the following were frequently expressed by them in their public sermons. Fierce and furious prosecution, even of a good cause, is rather prejudice than promotion. We must tenaciously adhere to all divine truths ourselves, and, with our wisest moderation, plant and promulgate them in others. Opposites, indeed, must be opposed, gainsaid, reclaimed. But all must be done in a way, and by the means appointed from heaven. It is one thing to show moderation to pious, peaceable, and tender consciences. It is another thing to proclaim beforehand toleration to impious, fiery and unpeaceable opinions. In the last sentence of this quotation a distinction is drawn which touches the essential point of the controversy between the Presbyterians and the Independents. The Presbyterians wished church government to be established in the first instance and then a toleration to be granted to tender consciences. The independents, on the other hand, strove to obtain a legislative toleration first, and then it would have been a matter of little moment which, or whether any, form of church government should be established. The Presbyterians not only appended that this would amount to the establishment of the independent system instead of their own, and consequently to the frustration of the very object for which the Assembly had met, and for which they had sworn the Covenant, namely the promotion of uniformity in religious matters throughout Protestant Christendom, independency being prevalent in no European country. But also they regarded it with strong alarm, as sanctioning all the pernicious heresies with which England abounded, and establishing the principle of universal licentiousness. On the other hand, the independents knew well that unless the spirit of our Presbyterian Church should be different in England from what it was in every other country, its establishment would not prevent toleration to the utmost extent that God's word warrants and an enlightened conscience can require. Such indeed was the conviction of Dr. Owen, who, though not a member of the Westminster Assembly, was thoroughly acquainted with many of the leading Presbyterians, knew their sentiments, and understood their system. Had the Presbyterian government, says he, been settled at the King's restoration by the encouragement and protection of the practice of it, without a rigorous imposition of everything supposed by any to belong thereunto, or a mixture of human institutions. If there had been any appearance of a schism or separation between the parties, I do judge that they would have been both to blame, for they allowed distinct communion upon distinct apprehensions of things belonging to church order or worship. all keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. If it shall be asked, then why did they not formally agree in the assembly, I answer, 1. I was none of them and cannot tell. 2. They did agree in my judgment well enough, if they could have thought so, and further I am not concerned in the difference. ANSWER TO STILLING FEET'S UNREASONABLENESS OF SEPARATION WORKS VOLUME XV PAGE 433 JOHNSTON AND HUNTER'S EDITION The real cause, most probably, why they did not agree was what has been already suggested, that the intriguing spirit of Nye involved the Assembly independence in the political schemes of Cromwell. But though that ambitious man made use of them to promote his designs by retarding the settlement of anything till his power was matured, and though he continued to bestow upon them the chief share of his favor after he had seized upon the scepter of imperial sway, he neither granted nor did they sue for universal toleration. This is placed beyond doubt by the circumstances connected with some ecclesiastical arrangements proposed in his Parliament in the year 1654. The leading independent ministers laid before the Committee of Triers at that time formed a series of requests in the form of a representation, one article of which was as follows. that this Honourable Committee be desired to propose to the Parliament, that such as who do not receive those principles of religion, without acknowledgement whereof the Scriptures do clearly and plainly affirm that salvation is not to be obtained, as those formerly complained of by the Ministers, may not be suffered to preach or promulgate anything in opposition unto such principles. In consequence of this, a discussion arose respecting the extent to which religious toleration was to be carried, when it was voted that all should be tolerated or indulged who profess the fundamentals of Christianity, and a committee was appointed to nominate certain divines to draw up a catalogue of the fundamentals. to be presented to the House. These divines, chiefly Owen, Nye, and Goodwin, accordingly drew up sixteen articles, and presented them to the Committee of Parliament, by whom they were ordered to be printed. A strict interpretation and application of these sixteen fundamental principles of religion would exclude from toleration all deists, papists, Socinians, Arians, Antinomians, and Quakers, and even Armenians, by no very strained construction. Footnote. The principles of faith presented by Mr. Thomas Goodwin, Mr. Nye, Mr. Simpson, and other ministers to the Committee of Parliament for Religion, and so on. 1. that the Holy Scripture is that rule of knowing God and living unto Him which whoso does not believe cannot be saved. 2. That there is a God who is the Creator, Governor, and Judge of the world, which is to be received by faith, and every other way of the knowledge of Him is insufficient. 3. That this God, who is the Creator, is eternally distinct from all creatures in his being and blessedness. 4. That this God is one, in three persons or subsistences. 5. That Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man, without the knowledge of whom there is no salvation. 6. That this Jesus Christ is the true God. 7. that this Jesus Christ is also true man. 8. That this Jesus Christ is God and man in one person. 9. That this Jesus Christ is our Redeemer, who by paying a ransom and bearing our sins has made satisfaction for them. 10. That this same Jesus Christ is He that was crucified at Jerusalem, and rose again and ascended into heaven. 11. That this same Jesus Christ, being the only God and man in one person, remains forever a distinct person from all saints and angels, notwithstanding their union and communion with Him. 12. That all men, by nature, are dead in trespasses and sins, and no man can be saved unless he be born again, repent and believe. 13. That we are justified and saved by grace and faith in Jesus Christ and not by works. 14. That to continue in any known sin upon what pretense or principle soever is damnable. 15. that God is to be worshipped according to his own will, and whosoever shall forsake and despise all the duties of his worship cannot be saved. 16. That the dead shall rise, and that there is a day of judgment, wherein all shall appear, some to go into everlasting life, and some into everlasting condemnation. Neil, Volume 2, pages 621 and 622. End of footnote. From this it is evident that whether the Presbyterians really did understand and act upon the true principles of religious liberty or not, it cannot with truth be said that the views of the Independents were, in any respect, more liberal and enlarged For this we blame them not, but merely state the fact. Perhaps the exact truth is that their opinions on the subject were nearly identical, all the difference between them being that of position and circumstance. And it may fairly be admitted that the subject had not at that period received all the attention it deserved, and the elucidation of which it was capable. It was, however, brought so strongly before the notice of the public mind, and attention was so forcibly directed to it by the ejection of the 2,000 ministers on St. Bartholomew's Day, and by subsequent events during that and the succeeding reign, that it became one of the essential elements which produced the Revolution of 1688. and was secured by the Toleration Act of the following year. The Toleration Act itself may therefore be fairly regarded as one of the results of the Westminster Assembly, though few have been hitherto disposed to trace it to that truly illustrious source. There was one great and even sublime idea brought somewhat indefinitely before the Westminster Assembly. which has not yet been realized, the idea of a Protestant Union throughout Christendom, not merely for the purpose of counterbalancing potpourri, but in order to purify, strengthen, and unite all true Christian churches, so that with combined energy and zeal they might go forth in glad compliance with the Redeemer's commands, teaching all nations and preaching the everlasting gospel to every creature under heaven. This truly magnificent and also truly Christian idea seems to have originated in the mind of that distinguished man, Alexander Henderson. It was suggested by him to the Scottish commissioners, and by them partially, brought before the English Parliament, requesting them to direct the assembly to write letters to the Protestant churches in France, Holland, Switzerland, and other Reformed churches. Henderson had too much wisdom to state the subject fully to the Parliament, lest they should be startled by a thought vast beyond their conception. They gave to the Assembly the desired direction, and the letters were prepared and sent. A hasty perusal of these letters might not suggest the idea of a great Protestant union, the greater part of them being occupied with a statement of the causes which had led to the calling of the assembly, and in vindication of themselves against the accusations wherewith they might be assailed. But towards the conclusion the idea is dimly traced. and along with these letters were sent copies of the Solemn Lagan Covenant, a document which might itself form the basis of such a Protestant Union. The deep-thinking divines of the Netherlands apprehended the idea, and in their answer not only expressed their approbation of the Covenant, but also desired to join in it with the British kingdoms. nor did they content themselves with the mere expression of approval and willingness to join. A letter was soon afterwards sent to the Assembly from the Hague U. written by Drozd, the celebrated John Dury, offering to come to the Assembly and containing a copy of a vow which he had prepared and tendered to the distinguished Axel Stern, Chancellor of Sweden. wherein he bound himself to prosecute a reconciliation between Protestants and point of religion. Footnote. Lightfoot, page 86. End of footnote. That this was a real object contemplated in this remarkable correspondence is indicated with sufficient plainness by Bailey. We are thinking of a new work overseas. if this church were settled. The times of Antichrist fall are approaching. The very onward providence of God seems to be disposing France, Spain, Italy and Germany for the receiving of the gospel. When the curtains of the Lord's tabernacle are thus far and much farther enlarged by the means which yet appear not, how shall our mouth be filled with laughter our tongue with praise and our heart with rejoicing." Footnote, Bailey Volume 2, page 192. End of footnote. There are several other hints of a similar character to be found in Bailey's letters. And on one occasion, Henderson procured a passport to go to Holland, most probably for the purpose of prosecuting this grand idea. But the intrigues of politicians, the delays caused by the conduct of the independents, and the narrow-minded rastinism of the English Parliament all conspired to prevent the Assembly from entering farther into that truly glorious Christian enterprise. Days of trouble and darkness came. Persecution wore out the great men of that remarkable period. Pure and vital Christianity was stricken to the earth and trampled underfoot. And when the time of deliverance came at the revolution, it found the churches too much exhausted to resume the mighty tasks begun, but not accomplished in the previous generation. Peace and repose were chiefly sought, listless inactivity and spiritual deadness ensued, and all the noble purposes and great ideas of a former age were basely forgotten or sinfully despised. But although the Westminster Assembly and its labourers seemed to have been thus consigned to oblivion, or mentioned by prolatic or infidel historians merely as a topic on which they might freely pour forth their spite or their mockery, its influence in the deep undercurrent of the national mind was unseen, but was not unfelt. Even in England, where every effort was made to destroy alike its principles and their fruit, it succeeded in communicating a secret impulse of irresistible energy to the nation's heart. This was first proved by the noble testimony borne on St. Bartholomew's Day in defense of religious liberty, and the feeling thus called into action showed its might when afterwards the Popish tyrant James VII was hurled from his throne by the indignant voice of a free Protestant people. Let it be frankly granted that the English bishops bore a considerable part in that memorable revolution, but let it also be remembered that in their youth they had imbibed the principles of religious and civil liberty under the insurrection of Presbyterian and independent professors and masters in the universities. And let it also be remembered that the Toleration Act was the production of the same well-trained generation. And when these things are borne in mind, it will not be said that the nation derived no advantage from the labours of the Westminster Assembly. In Scotland, its results were more directly and signally beneficial, being fully accepted by the Church and ratified by the State. Not even twenty-eight years of ruthless persecution could extinguish the bright light of sacred truth, which it had contributed to shed over our own northern hills, or trample out of existence the strong spirit of liberty which it inspired and hallowed. What can ever expel from the mind and heart of a Christian people that single sentence of the confession of faith? God alone is Lord of the conscience. and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his word, or beside it in matters of faith or worship. The people who can feel and understand that sacred truth can never be enslaved, and although after the union the perfidy of traitorous statesmen introduced the unconstitutional element of patronage into the external arrangements of the Church of Scotland, contrary to the express stipulations of the Act of Security, by which the Scottish nation has so anxiously sought to protect their national church. Yet it required the lapse of generations to produce a race sufficiently degenerated to allow the pernicious element to do its work. Even when a majority of the Scottish ministers have become unfaithful The confession of faith and the catechism continued to infuse their strong and living principles of Christian truth into the hearts and minds of the people, maintaining a spirit and an energy that nothing could subdue. The effect of this was seen in the secession, and not less manifestly in the deep and steady devotedness with which the ministrations of evangelical truth were attended in the established church itself. A recent and still more signal manifestation of the power of these principles was displayed in the memorable disruption of 1843 when, in vindication of their truth and to secure the liberty of maintaining them, 474 ministers gave up all connection with the state and all the advantages thence arising rather than surrender spiritual freedom in obedience to Christ alone. Such was the state of the churches in both kingdoms throughout the listless length of a dreary century. The still and heavy torpor of lethargic sluggishness above, the silent but strong current of a deep life stream beneath. Chapter 6 The Theological Productions of the Westminster Assembly It has been suggested repeatedly that in order to render this work a full history of the Westminster Assembly, it ought to contain at least a brief sketch of its theological productions. This was not at first thought necessary, because as its chief production was the Confession of Faith, and as that was held to be almost universally known, there did not appear much need for anything more than the mention of its name. But in deference to the opinion of others, a distinct chapter is now added to this edition containing the suggested outline. After having spent a few weeks in discussing the doctrines of the 39 Articles of the Church of England, the Assembly was required by the Parliament to direct its deliberations to the important topics of discipline and a directory of worship and church government. On the 17th day of October, 1643, accordingly, the Assembly took into consideration first the subject of government. The whole matter was very fully argued, chiefly on scriptural grounds, during the remainder of that year and throughout the whole of 1644, with numerous delays and interruptions, and when completed was not ratified by the English Parliament. but allowed to lie dormant in the hands of the Committee of Accommodation till June 1646. But a copy of it was transmitted to Scotland, laid before the General Assembly and approved by that body on the 10th of February 1645. It contains a very distinct statement of the supremacy of Christ, of the Church, of its office-bearers, of congregations and their office-bearers, of church courts and their jurisdiction through all their ascending gradations, sessions, presbyteries, provincial synods, and general assemblies, and of all that relates to the ordination of ministers. These topics are all succinctly and clearly stated and supported by proofs from Scripture. No other proof by reasoning or reference to tradition or the practice of primitive Christianity or of other churches is given, because the assembly regarded nothing as having any authority in regard to the church but the word of God. But if any person should wish to know the reasonings of the assembly on the subject of church government, he might find them in their fullest form in the volume commonly designated the Grand Debate. The Directory of Public Worship was another of the strictly theological subjects which engaged the attention of the Westminster Assembly. As the whole Pilatic system had been abolished before the Assembly met, and as the enforcement of its liturgy and ceremonies had already been the cause of such prolonged contests and excessive afflictions in England, till nearly all its truly evangelical ministers had been forced to join the Puritans, and in doing so had already adopted a purely scriptural form of public worship, the assembly had little to do but to state in their own well-weighed and concise terms a directory of public worship in which nearly all were already agreed. This was accordingly done during the course of 1644, its various topics being taken up from time to time. in the intervals between their discussions on more controverted matters. The directory was transmitted to Scotland along with the subject of church government and approved by the General Assembly on February 3rd, 1645. It will be found in the common editions of the volume usually designated the Confession of Faith from the most important portion. The topics of the Directory need not be here either enumerated or explained, but we may be permitted to recommend its very careful and repeated perusal by all Ministers and all who are preparing for the Office of the Ministry. They will find it both full of sound and well-expressed instruction and eminently suggestive, much more so, we anticipate, than they would readily expect. When the assembly was about to begin the important task of preparing a catechism, it was suggested that it would be a more prudent first to prepare a confession of faith, and then the catechism might be so constructed as to contain no doctrinal proposition but what was in the confession, and thereby be a preparatory training for the subsequent study of that graver work. The mode in which the Assembly carried on its work has been already described and need not be repeated, further than by stating that a rearrangement of the committees was made with express reference to the framing of the Confession, so that the primary committee appointed to prepare and arrange the main propositions which were to be submitted to the Assembly was composed entirely of its most able and learned divines. These were Dr. Hoyle, Dr. Gouge, Mr. Turrell, Gadiker, Tuckney, Reynolds and Vines, with the four Scottish Commissioners Henderson, Rutherford, Bailey and Gillespie. Henderson was already well prepared for entering on this most important task, having been requested by the General Assembly of the Scottish Church in the year 1641 to draw up a new and full confession of faith, which the church might adopt, and although this had not been actually produced, yet the subject had been thereby placed definitely before his captious mind, and must have frequently engaged his thoughts. These learned and able divines began their labors by arranging in the most systematic order the various great and sacred truths which God has revealed to man, and then reduced these to 32 distinct heads or chapters. These were again subdivided into sections, and the committee formed themselves into several subcommittees, each of which took a specific topic, for the sake of exact and concentrated deliberation. When these subcommittees had completed their respective tasks, The whole results were laid before the entire Committee, and any alterations suggested and debated to all were of one mind and fully agreed as to both doctrine and expression. And when any title or chapter had been thus thoroughly prepared by the Committee, it was reported to the Assembly, and again subjected to the most minute and careful investigation, in every paragraph, sentence, and even word. All that learning, the most profound and extensive, intellect the most acute and searching, and piety the most sincere and earnest, could accomplish was thus concentrated in the Westminster Assembly's Confession of Faith, which may be safely termed the most perfect statement of systematic theology ever framed by the Christian Church. In the preliminary deliberations of the committee, the Scottish Divines took a leading part, for which they were peculiarly qualified, but no report of these deliberations either was or could be made public. The results alone appeared when the Committee, from time to time, laid its mature propositions before the Assembly, and it is gratifying to be able to add that throughout the deliberations of the Assembly itself, when composing, or rather formally sanctioning, the Confession of Faith, there prevailed almost an entire harmony. There appeared, indeed, to have been only two subjects on which any difference of opinion existed among them. The one of these was the doctrine of election, concerning which Bailey informs us that they had long and tough debates. The other was about the leading proposition of the chapter entitled of church centres, namely, the Lord Jesus as King and Head of His Church, have therein appointed a government in the hand of church officers distinct from the civil magistrate. This proposition the Assembly manifestly intended and understood to contain a principle directly and necessarily opposed to the very essence of Erasmus, and it is regarded in the same light by the Erasmus themselves. hence it had to encounter their most strenuous opposition. It was, however, somewhat beyond the grasp of the lay members of the Assembly, especially since their champion, Selden, had, in a great measure, withdrawn from the debates after a signal discomfiture by Gillespie, and consequently it was carried triumphantly, the single dissentient voice being that of Lightfoot, the other, a Rastian Divine Coleman, having died before the conclusion of the debate. The framing of the Confession occupied the Assembly somewhat more than a year. After having been carefully transcribed, it was presented to the Parliament on the 3rd of December, 1646. The House of Commons required the proof by scripture text to be added. This also was done, and the completed copy again lay before the House on the 29th day of April, 1647. Finally, on the 27th of August, 1647, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland passed an Act approving the Confession of Faith, with the caveat in the concluding sentence of that Act guarding against some portions of it which might be construed as yielding too much to the authority of the civil magistrate. This act will be found in all the common editions of the Confession of Faith, and deserves to be noticed. There have been many objections urged against the use of creeds and confessions of faith, but almost the only objection which is now attempted with any degree of confidence is that which accuses confessions of usurping a position and authority due to divine truth alone. This objection itself has its origin in an erroneous view of what a confession of faith really is, and wherein the necessity of there being a confession consists. That necessity does not lie in the nature of the truth revealed to man, but in the nature of the human mind itself. A confession is not a revelation of divine truth. It is not even a rule of faith and practice, but a help in both, to use the words of the Westminster Confession itself. But it is a declaration of the manner in which any man, or number of men, any Christian, or any church, understands the truth which has been revealed. Its object is, therefore, not to teach divine truth, but to exhibit a clear, systematic, and intelligible declaration of our own sentiments, and to furnish the means of ascertaining the opinions of others, especially on religious doctrines. The Christian Church, as a divine institution, takes the Word of God alone and the whole Word of God as her only rule of faith. but she must also frame and promulgate a statement of what she understands the Word of God to teach. This she does not as arrogating any authority to suppress, change, or amend anything that God's Word teaches, but in discharge of the various duties which she owes to God, to the world, and to those of her own communion. Since she has been constituted the depository of God's truth, It is her duty to him to state in the most distinct and explicit terms what she understands that truth to mean. In this manner, she not only proclaims what God has said, but also appends her seal that God is true. Thus the confession of faith is not the very voice of divine truth, but the echo of that voice from souls that have heard its utterance, felt its power, and are answering to its call. And since she has been instituted for the purpose of teaching God's truth to an erring world, her duty to the world requires that she should leave it in no doubt respecting the manner in which she understands the message which she has to deliver. Without doing so the church would be no teacher and the world might remain untaught so far as she was concerned. For when the message had been stated in God's own words, every hearer must attempt, according to the constitution of his own mind, to form some conception of what these words mean. And his conceptions may be very vague and obscure, or even very erroneous, unless some attempt be made to define, elucidate, and correct them. Nor indeed could either the hearers or the teachers know that they understood the truth alike without mutual statements and explanations with regard to the meaning which they respectively believed to convey. Still further, the Church has a duty to discharge to those of its own communion. To them she must produce a form of sound words in order both to promote and confirm their knowledge, and also to guard them against the hazard of being led into errors, and, as they must be regarded as all agreed, with respect to the main outline of the truth which they believe, they are deeply interested in obtaining some security that those who are to become their teachers in future generations shall continue to teach the same divine and saving truth. The members of any church must know each other's sentiments, must combine to hold them forth steadily and consistently to the notice of all around them as witnesses for the same truth, and must do their utmost to secure that the same truth shall be taught by all their ministers and to all candidates for admission. For all these purposes, the formation of a creed or confession of faith is imperatively necessary, and thus it appears that a church cannot adequately discharge its duty to God, to the world, and to its own members without a confession of faith. There never has been a period in which the Christian church has been without a confession of faith, though these confessions have varied both in character and in extent. The first and simplest confession is that of Peter. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. That of the Ethiopian treasurer is similar and almost identical. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This confession secured admission into the church. But without this, admission could not have been obtained. It was not long till this simple and brief primitive confession was enlarged, at first in order to meet the perverse notions of the Judaizing teachers, and next to exclude those who were beginning to be tainted with the Gnostic heresies. It then became necessary not only to confess that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, but also that Jesus Christ was come in the flesh, in order to prevent the admission and to check the teaching of those who held that Christ's human nature was in mere phantasm or appearance. In like manner, the rise of any heresy rendered it necessary, first to test the novel tenet by the Word of God and by the decision of the Holy Spirit, and then to add to the existing confession of faith a new article containing the deliverance of the Church, respecting each successive heresy. Thus, in the discharge of her duty to God, to the world, and to herself, the Church was constrained to enlarge the confession of her faith. But this unavoidable enlargement ought not to be centered as unnecessarily lengthened and minute. For let it be observed that it led to a continually increasing clearness and precision in the testimony of what the Church believes, and tended to the progressive development of sacred truth. Further, as the need of a confession arises from the nature of the human mind, and the enlargement of the confession was caused by the successive appearance and reputation of error, and as the human mind is still the same, and prone to the same erroneous notions, the confession of faith, which contains a refutation of past heresies, furnishes, at the same time, to all who understand it, a ready weapon wherewith to encounter any resuscitated heresy. The truth of this view will be most apparent to those who have most carefully studied the various confessions of faith framed by the Christian Church. and it must ever be regarded as a matter of no small importance by those who seek admission into any church, that in its confession they can obtain a full exhibition of the terms of communion to which they are required to consent. The existence of a confession of faith is ever a standing defense against the danger of any church lapsing unawares into heresy, for although no church I can regard her confession as a standard of faith in any other than a subordinate sense. Still, it is a standard of admitted faith, which the Church may not lightly abandon, and a term of communion to its own members, till its articles are accused of being erroneous, and again brought to the final and supreme standard, the Word of God and the teaching of the Holy Spirit. humbly and earnestly sought in faith and prayer. The first thing which must strike any thoughtful reader after having carefully and studiously perused the Westminster Assembly's Confession of Faith is the remarkable comprehensiveness and accuracy of its character, viewed as a systematic exhibition of divine truth, or what is termed a system of theology. In this respect, it may be regarded as almost perfect, both in its arrangement and its completeness. Even in a single glance over its table of contents will show with what exquisite skill its arrangement proceeds, from the statement of its first principles to the regular development and final consummation of the whole scheme of revealed truth. Nothing essential is omitted. and nothing is extended to a length this portion to its due importance. Too little attention perhaps has been shown to the Confession in this respect, and we are strongly persuaded that it might be very advantageously used in our theological halls as a textbook. This, at least, may be affirmed that no private Christian could fail to benefit largely from a deliberate and studious perusal and re-perusal of the Confession of Faith, for the express purpose of obtaining a clear and systematic conception of Sacred Truth, both as a whole and with all its parts so arranged as to display their relative importance, and their mutual bearing upon and illustration of each other. Such a deliberate perusal would also tend very greatly to fortify the mind against the danger of being led astray by crude notions, or induced to attribute undue importance to some favorite doctrine, to the disparagement of others not less essential, and with serious injury to the harmonious analogy of faith. There is another characteristic of the Westminster Confession to which still less attention has been generally directed, but which is not less remarkable. Framed as it was by men of distinguished learning and ability, who were thoroughly conversant with the history of the Church from the earliest times till the period in which they lived, it contains the calm and settled judgment of these profound divines on all previous heresies and subjects of controversy, which had, in any age or country, agitated the Church. This it does without expressly naming even one of these heresies, the great anti-Christian system alone accepted, or entering into mere controversy. Each error is condemned, not by a direct statement and refutation of it, but by a clear, definite, and strong statement of the converse truth. There was, in this mode of exhibiting the truth, singular wisdom combined with equally singular modesty. Everything of an irritating nature is suppressed, and the pure and simple truth alone displayed, while there is not only no ostentatious parade of superior learning, but even the concealment of learning the most accurate and profound. A hasty or superficial reader of the Confession of Faith will scarcely perceive that, in some of its apparently simple propositions, he is perusing an acute and conclusive refutation of the various heresies and controversies that have corrupted and disturbed the Church. Yet if he will turn to Church history, make himself acquainted with its details, and resume his study of the Confession, he will often be surprised to find in one place the wild theories of the Gnostics dispelled, in another the Arian and Siliconian heresies set aside, in another the very essence of the papal system annihilated, and in another the basis of all Pelagian and Arminian errors removed. Thus viewed, the confession of faith might be so connected with one aspect of church history as to furnish, if not a textbook according to chronological arrangement, in studying the rise and reputation of heresies, yet a valuable arrangement of their relative importance doctrinally considered. And when we advert to the fact that owing to the sameness of the human mind in all ages, there is a perpetually reoccurring tendency to reproduce an old and exploded error, as if it were a new discovery of some hitherto unknown or neglected truth, It must be obvious that were the peculiar excellence of our Confession as a deliverance on all previously existing heresies, better known and more attended to, there would be great reason to hope that their reappearance would be rendered almost impossible, or at least that their growth would be very speedily and effectually checked. Closely connected with this excellence of the Confession of Faith is its astonishing precision of thought and language. The whole mental training of the eminent divines of that period led to this result. They were accustomed to cast every argument into the syllogistic form, and to adjust all its terms with the utmost care and accuracy. Everyone who has studied the propositions of the Confession must have remarked their extreme precision. but without peculiar attention, he may not perceive the exquisite care which these divines must have bestowed on this part of their great work. This may be best shown by an instance. Let us select one from chapter 3 on God's eternal decree. Sections 3 and 4. By the decree of God for the manifestation of His glory, Some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained, and so on. The expressions to which we wish to draw the reader's attention are the words predestinated and foreordained. A hasty or superficial reader might perceive no difference between these words. But if so, why are they both used? For there is no instance of mere tautological repetition in the concise language of the Confession. But further, let it be well remarked that the word predestinated is also only in connection with everlasting life, and the word foreordained with everlasting death. And when the compound form of the proposition is assumed, Both terms are used to represent each its respective member in the general affirmation. Why is this the case? Because the Westminster Divines did not understand the meaning of the terms predestination and foreordination to be identical, and therefore never used these words as synonymous. By predestination they meant a positive decree determining to confer everlasting life. And this they regarded as the basis of the whole doctrine of free grace, arising from nothing in man, but having for its divine origin the character and sovereignty of God. By full ordination, on the other hand, they meant a decree of order or arrangement, determining that the guilty should be condemned to everlasting death. And this they regarded as the basis of judicial procedure. according to which God ordains men to dishonor and wrath for their sins, and having respect to man's own character and conduct. Let it be further remarked that while, according to this view, the term predestination could never with propriety be applied to the lost, the term foreordination might be applied to the saved, since they also are the subjects, in one sense, of judicial procedure. Accordingly, there is no instance in the Confession of Faith where the term predestination is applied to the lost, though there are several instances where the term foreordination or a kindred term is applied to the saved. And let this also be marked that the term reprobation, which is so liable to be misunderstood and applied in an offensive sense to the doctrine of predestination, is not even once used in the Confession of Faith and the larger and shorter catechisms. This Reformation audio track is a production of Stillwater's Revival Books. You are welcome to make copies and give them to those in need. SWRB makes thousands of classic Reformation resources available, free and for sale, in audio, video, and printed formats. It is likely that the sermon or book that you just listened to is also available on cassette or video, or as a printed book or booklet. Our many free resources, as well as our complete mail order catalog, containing thousands of classic and contemporary Puritan and Reform books, tapes and videos at great discounts, is on the web at www.swrb.com. We can also be reached by email at S-W-R-B at S-W-R-B dot C-O-M, by phone at 780-450-3730, by fax at 780-468-1096, or by mail at 4710-37A Avenue, Edmonton, that's E-D-M-O-N-T-O-N, Alberta, abbreviated capital A capital B, Canada. T6L3T5. You may also request a free printed catalog. And remember that John Calvin, in defending the Reformation's regulative principle of worship, or what is sometimes called the scriptural law of worship, commenting on the words of God, which I commanded them not, neither came into my heart, from his commentary on Jeremiah 731, writes, God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions. since he condemns by this one phrase, I have not commanded them, whatever the Jews devised. There is then no other argument needed to condemn superstitions than that they are not commanded by God. For when men allow themselves to worship God according to their own fancies, and attend not to His commands, they pervert true religion. And if this principle was adopted by the Papists, all those fictitious modes of worship in which they absurdly exercise themselves would fall to the ground. It is indeed a horrible thing for the Papists to seek to discharge their duties towards God by performing their own superstitions. There is an immense number of them, as it is well known, and as it manifestly appears. Were they to admit this principle, that we cannot rightly worship God except by obeying His word, they would be delivered from their deep abyss of error. The Prophet's words, then, are very important. When he says, that God had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind, as though he had said that men assume too much wisdom when they devise what he never required, nay, what he never knew.