sciences of many others, he moved, that a committee might be appointed to examine what points in the ordinance were contrary to their consciences, and to prepare a petition on the subject, to be presented to the two Houses. This was accordingly done, and presented by the whole Assembly, with Mr. Marshall at their head, on the 24th of March. The main topics of the petition were, an assertion of the divine right of Presbyterian Church government, and a complaint against that clause in the recent ordinance which appointed an appeal from the censures of the Church to a committee of the Parliament. The House appears to have been somewhat staggered by this decided course adopted by the Assembly, and appointed a committee to consider what answer should be given; and what notice should be taken of the manner in which the petition had been brought forward. The report of the committee was characterized by deep policy. First, they gave it as their opinion, that the Assembly of Divines had, in their recent petition, violated the privileges of Parliament, and incurred the penalties of a premunire; and next, they proposed, that since the Assembly insisted on the jus divinum of the Presbyterian government, certain queries which they had prepared respecting that point might be sent to the Assembly, and the divines required to return answers to the satisfaction of the Parliament. The House approved of the committee's report, and on the 30th of April sent Sir John Evelyn, Mr. Fiennes, and Mr. Brown, to state to the Assembly the sentiments of the House, and to require answers to the prepared list of interrogations.

These questions display so clearly the captious character and petulant temper of the Erastians, even while pretending to be merely desiring satisfaction to their scruples of conscience, that we think it expedient to insert them here:

"Questions propounded to the Assembly of Divines by the House of Commons, touching the point of Jus Divinum in the matter of Church government.

"Whereas it is resolved by both Houses, that all persons guilty of notorious and scandalous offences shall be suspended from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper; the House of Commons desires to be satisfied by the Assembly of Divines in the questions following:-

"1. Whether the parochial and congregational elderships appointed Lv ordinance of Parliament, or any other congregational or presbyterial

elderships, are jure divino, and by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ? And whether any particular Church government be jure divino? And what that government is?

"2. Whether all the members of the said eldership, as members thereof, or which of them, are jure divino, and by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ?

"3. Whether the superior assemblies or elderships, viz., the classical, provincial, and national, whether all or any of them, and which of them, are jure divino, and by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ?

4. Whether appeals from the congregational elderships to the clas sical, provincial, or national assemblies, or any of them, and to which of them, are jure divino? And are their powers upon such appeals jure divino, and by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ?

"5. Whether œcumenical assemblies are jure divino? And whether there be appeals from any of the former assemblies to the said œcumenical, jure divino, and by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ?

6. Whether by the Word of God the power of judging and declaring what are such notorious and scandalous offences, for which persons guilty thereof are to be kept from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper,— and of convening before them, trying, and actually suspending from the sacrament such offenders accordingly, is either in the congregational eldership or presbytery, or in any other eldership, congregation, or persons? And whether such powers are in them only, or in any of them, and in which of them, jure divino, and by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ?

"7. Whether there be any certain and particular rules expressed in the Word of God, to direct the elderships or presbyteries, congregations or persons, or any of them, in the exercise and execution of the powers aforesaid? And what are those rules?

"8. Is there anything contained in the Word of God, that the supreme magistracy in a Christian State may not judge and determine what are the aforesaid notorious and scandalous offences, and the manner of suspension for the same? And in what particulars, concerning the premises, is the said supreme magistracy by the Word of God excluded?

"9. Whether the provision of commissioners to judge of scandals not enumerated (as they are authorized by the ordinance of Parliament) be contrary to that way of government which Christ hath appointed in his Church? And wherein are they so contrary?

"In answer to these particulars the House of Commons desires of the Assembly of Divines their proofs from Scripture, and to set down the several texts of Scripture in the express words of the same. And it is ordered, that every particular minister of the Assembly of Divines, that is or shall be present at the debate of any of these questions, do, upon every resolution which shall be presented to this House concerning the same, subscribe his respective name, either with the affirmative or negative, as he gives his vote.* And those that do dissent from the major part shall set down their positive opinions, with the express texts of Scripture upon which their opinions are grounded.f

* This was evidently for the purpose of intimidation. † Rushworth, vol. vi. pp. 260, 261.

It is not difficult to perceive the bitter hostility against every kind and degree of spiritual jurisdiction which pervades these questions; nor yet is it difficult to detect the sophistical fallacy which forms the basis of the whole. In these Erastian questions there is a constant endeavor to keep a variety of details prominently before the mind, so as to obscure the main principle as far as possible; and even when the proper question of principle is stated, it is done in the same manner,-" Whether any particular Church government be jure divino?" The very essence of the inquiry is, "Whether there be in the Word of God Church government?" and if that be affirmed, then the question arises, "What that government is ?" With regard to all matters of detail, on which the parliamentary Erastians loved to dilate, these would naturally arise either from Scripture precept or Scripture practice, applied as enlightened reason might dictate and emergencies require. But the Assembly was composed of men well able to detect the sophistry of their opponents, and therefore they declined entering, in the first place, into a series of detailed and circumstantial answers. But as they had been previously led to investigate very fully the same subject, in the course of their own deliberations while framing the Confession of Faith, they proceeded to state their main proposition on the subject of Church censures, on which, as will be perceived, the whole Erastian controversy turned, with the intention of giving a clear and explicit expression of their judgment respecting the master-principle and essence of the question. This they did in the following simple yet comprehensive proposition:-"THE LORD JESUS, AS KING AND HEAD OF HIS CHURCH, HATH THEREIN APPOINTED A GOVERNMENT, IN THE HAND OF CHURCH OFFICERS, DISTINCT FROM

THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE.

The affirmation of this proposition was regarded, both by the Assembly and by the Erastian party, as containing a complete rejection of the Erastian principle; for, in their clear style of reasoning, they perceived, that if Church government were admitted to be "distinct from the civil magistrate," then the civil magistrate could exercise no jurisdiction in Church matters, as that would be to break down the distinction. Against this proposition, accordingly, the two Erastians in the Assembly, especially Coleman,

directed their whole force of argument. Baillie says, "To oppose the Erastian heresy, we find it necessary to say, that Christ in the New Testament had instituted a Church government distinct from the civil, to be exercised by the officers of the Church, without commission from the magistrate. None in the Assembly has any doubt of this truth, but one Mr. Coleman, a professed Erastian a man reasonably learned, but stupid and inconsiderate, half a pleasant, and of small estimation. But the lawyers in the Parliament did blow up the poor man with much vanity; so he is become their champion, to bring out, the best way he can, Erastus' arguments against the proposition. We give him a fair and free hearing; albeit we fear, when we have answered all he can bring, and have confirmed with undeniable proofs our proposition, the Houses, when it comes to them, shall scrape it out of the Confession; for this point is their idol. The most of them are incredibly zealous for it. The pope and the king were never more earnest for the headship of the Church than the plurality of this Parliament."*

After the Assembly had debated this proposition for some time, and were about to put it to the vote, Coleman was taken ill, and sent a request to the Assembly, that they would delay it for a few days, as he had still some arguments to bring forward. The Assembly complied; but after an illness of four or five days he expired, and the proposition was passed, with the single dissentient vote of Lightfoot. In the account of this event contained in "Neal's History of the Puritans," the names of those who subscribed this proposition, according to the injunction of the Parliament, are given, amounting to fifty-two, and comprising all the men of chief eminence in the Assembly, exclusive of the Scottish divines, who spoke, but did not vote on any subject. Neal contradicts himself in his account, stating, that the Independents took "the opportunity to withdraw, refusing absolutely to be concerned in the affair;"† yet in the list which he gives, there are the names of Goodwin, Nye, Greenhill, and Carter, all of them Independents, the names of Burroughs, Bridge, and Simpson only being wanting to complete the whole of that party who signed the Reasons of Dissent, of which mention has * Baillie, vol. ii. p. 360. † Neal, vol. ii. p. 395.

been already made. Indeed, the whole of Neal's statement respecting the conduct of the Presbyterians is so warped and biased by prejudice, that it presents a very unfair view not only of their characters, but even of the facts that occurred in which they bore a leading part.

But the Assembly were not contented with thus cutting the heart out of the Erastian theory; they appointed a committee to prepare answers to the Parliament's questions, following out the principle of their own fundamental proposition. The work of the Assembly," says Baillie, "these bygone weeks has been to answer some very captious questions of the Parliament, about the clear scriptural warrant for all the punctilios of the government. It was thought it would be impossible for us to answer, and that in our answers there would be no unanimity; yet, by God's grace, we shall deceive them who were waiting for our halting. The committee has prepared very solid and satisfactory answers already to almost all the questions, wherein there is like to be an unanimity absolute in all things material, even with the Independents. But because of the Assembly's way, and the Independents' miserable, unamendable design to keep all things from any conclusion, it's like we shall not be able to perfect our answers for some time; therefore I have put some of my good friends, leading men in the House of Commons, to move the Assembly to lay aside our questions for a time, and labor that which is most necessary, and all are crying for,-the perfecting of the Confession of Faith and Catechism."* The House of Commons followed the suggestion here alluded to, which was made about the middle of July; and as the course of events rolled on, and matters of great importance occupied the attention of the Parliament, little more inquiry was made by the House respecting the Assembly's answers to their questions.

Although the answers of the Assembly to these Erastian questions were not finally called for and printed by the Parliament, there is some reason to believe that their labór was not wholly lost to the public. For after the change of affairs which induced the Parliament to change

Baillie, vol. ii. p. 378.-This is a sufficient refutation of Neal's assertion, that the Assembly durst not present their answers to Parliament for fear of a premunire.