644

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 twenty appointed to take them into consideration. The most prominent persons of that committee were Drs. Temple and Hoyle, Messrs. Marshall, Tuckney, Calamy, Palmer, Vines, Seaman, and Lightfoot, and their answers to the reasons of dissent were read in the Assembly on the 17th day of December, and continued on the following days till they had been fully heard, previous to their being transmitted to Parliament.

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 J 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 Erastian 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 proposition concerning presbyterial gov ernment; 2. To the propositions concerning subordination of Assemblies; 3. To the proposition 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, 1. Of the Church of Jerusalem, which consisted of more congregations than one, and all those congregations were under one presbyterial 'government; 2. Of the Church of Ephesus, in which there were more congregations than one, and where there were many elders over these congregations as one flock, though those many congregations were one Church, and under one presbyterial government." As this proposition, together with its subordinate details, and the Scripture texts on which the whole is founded, are 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; then all those elders must sustain a special relation of elders to all the people of those congregations as one Church, and to every one as a member thereof. But for a company of such elders already affixed to sustain such a relation, carries with it so great and manifold incongruities and inconsistencies with what the Scriptures speak of elders in 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 treatise of forty pages, by the Dissenting Brethren, whose names now increased to seven, are subscribed to it, namely, Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, Jeremiah Burroughs, Sidrach Simpson, William Bridge, W1

liam Greenhill, William Carter. It does not appear necessary to give any summary of the arguments brought forward by these brethren against the Assembly, or in 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 required to be both explained and proved; and that their minor proposi tion was merely a congeries of supposed 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 to the Assembly extended to eighty 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 defence 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 treatise, 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 predilection for their own system. It is impossible to condense this able defence 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 arguments of their opponents were based. They then showed that the argument of the Independents 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 truths,

as the sole rule of guide in all matters of a religious na

ture.

The second subject against which the Independents entered their dissent with reason was, The propositions 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 xviii., 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 introduce their argument in the following manner :- "Although we judge synods 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 offences, 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 designment for them in the Word. Whence it is argued thus:-Those courts that must have the most express warrant and designment for them in the Word, and have not, 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 produceth representations of spiritual power out-of other representations, with a derived power therefrom, there is no warrant for: but these subordinations of synods, pro vincial, 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 xv., and Matt. xviii., 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 Erastian and the Episcopalian arguments, as these seemed to serve their purpose; as, for instance, the Erastian, "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 ?"* The Episcopalian argument is not so succinctly stated; but it is an at tempt 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."+ Having made so many and such important concessions, the Independents might, with very little difficulty, have assented fully to the Assembly's propositions; and probably * Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren, p. 124. † Reasons and Answers, p. 138,