trembling from the savage grasp of Prelacy, and surrounded by wild and fearful forms of sectarianism, as was its condition at the time of the Westminster Assembly, might act with some rashness and severity; a corrupt Presbyterian Church, such as was that of Scotland during the domination of Moderatism, might act despotically; but in its own nature, with its subordination of courts, and an equal or preponderating admixture of elders in them all, it can neither usurp clerical domination nor sink into jarring anarchy. In its purest state and its fullest exercise, it gives and preserves both civil and religious liberty,both doctrinal truth and disciplinary purity,—both national instruction and national peace. On the other hand, Prelacy, in its most powerful and active state, has ever tended to destroy both civil and religious liberty,-has checked doctrinal truth, and disregarded disciplinary purity,--has never attempted to instruct the nation, but left it a prey to ignorance and errors, and has, both in Scotland and England, inflicted the most cruel persecution, and given rise to bloody civil wars. This is a startling contrast, but not more startling than true. There is yet another point of contrast. During the past century Prelacy sunk into dormancy, and became mild and inoffensive: Presbytery sunk into dormancy, and became cruel and oppressive, as if agitated by wild dreams under that fierce incubus, Moderatism. Prelacy has awoke, and begins to mutter words of fearful import, indicating the return of its oppressive spirit Presbytery has awoke, and has begun her hallowed work of instructing her own people, while she offers her cordial fellowship to all who love her Divine and only Head. The inference is obvious, and may be thus stated. When the vital spirit of Prelacy is inert, it becomes comparatively harmless: when the vital spirit of Presbytery is inert, or repressed, it becomes oppressive. Again, when the vital spirit of Prelacy is active, it becomes despotic and persecuting, intolerant and illiberal: when the vital spirit of Presbytery is active, it becomes gracious and compassionate, tolerant of everything but sin, and generous to all who believe the truth and love the Saviour. Let the thoughtful reader say, which system is of human, and which of divine institution,-which shows a spirit of the earth, earthly, and which, of heavenly origin and character?

CHAPTER III.

THE INDEPENDENT CONTROVERSY, ANNO 1644.

The Assembly directed to begin the Subjects of Discipline, Directory of Worship, and Government-The Subject of Church-officers stated and Discussed-Pastor-Doctor-Ruling Elder-Deacon-WidowOrdination of Ministers-Opposition of the Independents-Consent of the Congregation, or Election-Contest with the Parliament about Ordination-Directory for Public Worship--Propositions concerning Presbyterial Church Government-The Apologetical Narration by the Independents-Answers to it-The Antapologia-Views of the Independents-Keen and Protracted Debates-ExcommunicationSelden and Gillespie-Nye-Attempt to Accommodate the Power of Congregation Suspension and Excommunication-Committee of Accommodation-Proceedings of that Committee-Suspended-Reasons of Dissent by the Independents-Answers by the AssemblyGeneral Outline of these Reasons and Answers-The Independents Requested and Enjoined to State their own Model of Church Government-The Publication of a Copy of a Remonstrance-Assembly's Answer to it-The Committee of Accommodation RevivedAdditional Papers Prepared-Ends without Effecting an Accommodation-Brief Summary of the Points of Disagreement between the Presbyterians and Independents-Political Intrigues-Errors of both Parties.

ABOUT a fortnight after the House of Commons had taken the Solemn League and Covenant, and while the Assembly of Divines were engaged in discussing the doctrinal tenets of the sixteenth of the Church of England's Thirtynine Articles, on the 12th of October, 1643, they received an order from both Houses of Parliament, requiring them to direct their deliberations to the important topics of discipline, and a directory of worship and government. The order was as follows::

"Upon serious consideration of the present state and conjuncture of the affairs of this kingdom, the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament do order, that the Assembly of Divines and others do forthwith confer and treat among themselves, of such a discipline and government as may be most agreeable to God's Holy Word, and most apt

to procure and preserve the peace of the Church at home, and nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland, and other Reformed Churches abroad, to be settled in this Church in stead and place of the present Church government by archbishops, bishops, and their chancellors, commissaries, deans, deans and chapters, archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical officers, depending upon the hierarchy, which is resolved to be taken away; and touching and concerning the Directory of Worship, or Liturgy, hereafter to be in the Church; and to deliver their opinions and advices of, and touching the same, to both or either House of Parliament with all the convenient speed they can."

By this order the attention of the Assembly was turned from any further examination of the Thirty-nine Articles, and fairly directed to the important task for the accomplishment of which they had been called together. Baillie informs us that Henderson did not entertain any sanguine expectations of their conformity to the Church of Scotland, till they should have experienced the advantages of the Scottish army's presence in England.* This proves that he was not overreached by the English commissioners in the framing of the solemn League and Covenant, but was quite aware of the views and feelings which they entertained, although he cherished the hope that circumstances might lead to a better result.

After having made some preliminary arrangements, and prepared their own minds by keeping a solemn fast, the Assembly read the order from Parliament, pointing out the new field of deliberative discussion on which they were to enter. The first question that arose regarded the order of procedure, whether they should begin with government or discipline, and it was agreed that they should begin with the subject of Church government. This suggested another preliminary point, whether the Scriptures contain a rule for government. Goodwin and the other Independents eagerly urged that this question should be first of all debated and decided, he expressing his conviction that the Word of God did contain a rule. Lightfoot opposed this course, and wished the Assembly first of all to give a definition of the leading term of all their discussions, "a Church." It is evident that this would have been the most logical course, first to define a Church, then to inquire into its government, and lastly to treat of discipline, which is government in operation. But it was felt that this course

* Baillie, vol. ii. p. 104.

would bring forward first the very points on which the greatest differences of opinion were known to exist; and therefore it was judged prudent rather to adopt a less perfect order of procedure, for the purpose of ascertaining first how far all could agree, in the hope that then their differences would either disappear, or be capable of being brought into some general accommodation. It was ac cordingly resolved, that since all admitted the existence of a Church, and of Church government, however they might differ regarding their nature and extent, these subjects should be left for the present indefinite, and they should commence with the subject of office-bearers in the Church, or, to use their own term, church-officers.*

From this early, and comparatively light discussion, it was evident that both parties in the Assembly were keenly vigilant lest anything should be done which might in any degree prejudge their opinions; and consequently, that their debates would be eager, animated, and protracted, on every controverted topic. But as the very object for which the Assembly was called was to prepare a form of Church government, of discipline, and of worship for the nation, which was intended to be final and lasting, it was judged right to give to every portion of their great work the benefit of the most full and deliberate discussion, though at the expense of considerable delay.

Committees according to the usual arrangement, had been appointed to prepare the subject of Church-officers, for public discussion, and gave in their separate reports. That of the second committee began thus:-"In inquiring after the officers belonging to the Church of the New Testament, we first find that Christ, who is Priest, Prophet, King, and Head of the Church, hath fulness of power, and containeth all other offices, by way of eminency, in himself; and therefore hath many of their names attributed to him." To this sacred and comprehensive proposition they appended a number of Scripture proofs, in six divisions. The following names of Church-officers were mentioned as given in Scripture to Christ:-1. Apostle; 2. Pastor; 3. Bishop; 4. Teacher; 5. Minister, or Aiánovos; but this last name was rejected by the Assembly, as not meaning a Church-officer in the passage where it is used. The re• Lightfoot, p. 20.

port of the third committee was similar in character, ascribing, in Scripture terms, the government to Jesus Christ, who, being ascended far above all heavens, "hath given all officers necessary for the edification of his Church; some whereof are extraordinary, some ordinary." Out of the Scriptures referred to they found the following officers-Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers, Bishops or Overseers, Presbyters or Elders, Deacons and Widows.*

In the discussion which followed upon the reading of these reports, it is rather remarkable that the Erastians took no part; although the full meaning of the main proposition that Christ contains all offices by way of eminency, in himself, and has given all officers necessary for the edification of his Church-seems to contain enough to preclude the Erastian theory. But we shall have occasion to show the reason why they allowed this proposition to pass unchallenged. It did not, however, escape the opposition of the Independents. Mr. Goodwin opposed it, as anticipating the Assembly's work, and concluding that Christ's influence into his Church is through his officers, whereas he questions whether it be conveyed that way or not. Again, when the kingly office of Christ was under discussion, Goodwin doubted whether the Scriptures prove that Christ is King, in regard of discipline in the Church. He questioned also whether the headship of Christ should be specified, as being no office in the Church. All these objections were overruled, and the reports approved, as the basis of subsequent deliberations.

The four following questions were also reported by the third committee :—“ 1. What officers are mentioned in the New Testament? 2. What officers of these were pro tempore, and what permanent? 3. What names are common to divers officers, and what restrained?" 4. What the office of those standing officers? The general names of officers having been already stated, the debate arose on the second question"What officers were perpetual?" The office of Apostles was declared to be only pro tempore, and extraordinary, for the eight following reasons:-1. They were immediately called by Christ; 2. They had seen Christ; 3. Their commission was through the whole world; 4. They were endued with the Lightfoot, p. 23.