Presbyte rial government. Memorials, P. 213. ment without delay." This settlement, notwithstanding, was to continue but three years, unless the houses thought Whitlock's fit to prolong the term. But though this government looked but somewhat precarious and short-lived, the London ministers resolved to exert themselves, and practise upon the scheme to this purpose they published a paper, entitled, "Certain Considerations and Cautions agreed upon by the Ministers of London and Westminster, and within the Lines of Communication, June the 19th, 1646, according to which they resolve to put the presbyterial government in execution, upon the ordinances of parliament before published.” 842. The assembly-divines review some the under taking. part 4. confession, and two catechisms. The two houses, who resolved to go through with root and branch work, and settle at the greatest distance from the Church of England, ordered the assembly divines to examine the Nine-and-Thirty Articles. This summary, it seems, was thought to resemble the primitive systems too much; or not to come close enough to Calvin's institutions. These divines carried their review through fourteen Articles, and with some alterations brought them to a conformity with their own noof the Thirty- tions. But finding the rest too stubborn for their purpose, nine Articles, but break off they gave over the attempt, and pitched upon a different scheme. They thought it more practicable to form a new Rushworth, confession, than reconcile the old one. In this performance They make a they decree the morality of the Sunday Sabbath, pronounce the pope "Antichrist," the "Son of Perdition," and the "Man of Sin." The Calvinian rigours of absolute predestination, irresistible grace, and the impotency of the will, are likewise intermixed. But as to the Presbyterian pretensions to ecclesiastical authority, they fall much short of the Scotch claim. They are so frank as to yield the civil magistrate a power of convening Church assemblies, and of superintending their proceedings, that every thing may be done agreeably to the will of God and thus the magistracy or civil legislature seems to be made the last judge of controversy. But as to the independency of the Church, the divine right of the presbyteries, and the setting Christ upon his throne, they are altogether silent. By their dropping these privileges, they had in all likelihood handled the pulse of the two houses, and found their veins beat too high to come under such a regimen. This confession, though imperfectly drawn, was offered by way of "humble advice to the lords and commons," for the I. sanction of an ordinance: that being thus fortified, it might CHARLES pass for the doctrine of the Church of England. These assembly-divines published another composition of their belief. It is called the "Larger Catechism," and is upon the matter little more than giving another dress to their Confession; it is put in the form of questions and answers, to make it pass, it may be, for something new under this disguise. But being somewhat too bulky to be taught in schools, and possibly too difficult for children to deal with, it was afterwards contracted to an epitome, called the "Lesser Catechism," and recommended to public use as more instructive than that in the Common Prayer. Heylin. It has been already observed, the two houses spent some divivus, time in drawing proposals, to be sent to the king at Newcastle. P. 473. When this business was finished, the earls of Pembroke and Suffolk, with four members of the commons, were made commissioners. I shall only mention two or three of the articles. The king was desired to swear and sign the solemn league and covenant, and enjoin the taking of it in all his dominions: that a bill might pass for abolishing all archbishops, bishops, &c. that the assembly of divines might be confirmed, and reformation settled on the foot of the covenant. The king demurring to these points, Henderson above-mentioned came Rushworth's to Newcastle, and importuned his majesty to satisfy the two part. 4. houses. The king alleging his conscience would not give him The king leave for such a length of concession, there passed some and Henpapers between them on the subject of Church government. bate the corTo give the reader part of the argument. 6 Hist. Coll. p. 321. derson de troversy of Church government in several The King's 1646. 18. The king in his first paper declares, "that no one thing gave him a greater reverence for the reformation of his mother the papers. Church of England, than that it was done according to the First Paper, Apostles' practice, neither with multitude nor tumult.' That May 29, it was managed within the forms of the constitution, and Acts xxiv. governed by those whom his majesty conceived ought to have the conduct of such an affair: that this advantage, amongst many other reasons, made his majesty believe the work was perfect as to essentials and as to Church government, his majesty observes the English Reformation has kept close to apostolical appointment, and the universal custom of the pri mitive Church. That therefore the adhering to episcopacy is of the last importance: that by altering the form of the Henderson's June 3, 1646. hierarchy, the priesthood must sink, and the sacraments be administered without effect. For these reasons his majesty conceives episcopacy necessary to the being of a Church: and, over and above, he is bound by his coronation oath, to support the Church in the condition he found it. And, lastly, he desires to know of Henderson 'what warrant there is in the word of God, for subjects to endeavour to force their king's conscience? or to make him alter laws against his will?" " Henderson, after some introduction of respect, answers First Paper, what the king offered from his father's example, and his own education, by putting him in mind of a saying of St. Ambrose, Non est pudor ad meliora transire;" that it is neither sin nor shame to change for the better. That Symmachus, in his harangue for the Pagan religion, argues from the topics of antiquity and the constitution: that resembling reasons were urged by the Jews against Christianity, and may be made use of by the court of Rome against the Reformation." Henderson, being sensible the king might take this for begging the question, endeavours to come a little closer. "He wishes religion was always, when occasion required, reformed by the civil magistrate; and not left either to the prelates or the people. However, he will have it, that when princes are negligent, God stirs up the subject to perform this work. He allows that Jacob reformed his own family; that Moses destroyed the golden calf; that the good kings of Judah reformed the Church in their time. But that such reformation was perfect, he will by no means allow. And for this point he instances the imperfect essays of Asa, Jehosaphat, and Hezekiah, compared with what was carried on by their successor Josiah. From hence he proceeds to arraign the Reformation of king Henry VIII. That it was extremely defective in the essentials of doctrine, worship, and government; that the supremacy was transferred from one wrong head to another; and that all the limbs of the antichristian hierarchy were visible in the body. He cites a saying of Grosted, bishop of Lincoln, that reformation was not to be expected, nisi in ore gladii cruentandi;' he calls this a hard saying, but not without some reserve of approbation. That the Laodicean lukewarmness in the English Reformation, had been the constant complaint of many of the godly in this kingdom: that it had occasioned more schism and separation than was ever heard of 1. elsewhere; and been matter of unspeakable grief to other CHARLES Churches. That it is hoped the glory of this great work is reserved for his majesty and his soul trembles to think what the consequence may be, if this opportunity should be neglected. And here he takes the freedom to glance a menacing text in Esther upon the king. "As to the king's argument, that the force of the priest's character, and by consequence the benefit of the sacraments, must be lost in the abolition of episcopacy, he replies, first, that episcopacy cannot make out a claim to apostolical appointment; that, when the apostles were living, there was no modern difference between a bishop and a presbyter, no inequality in power or degree, but an exact parity in every branch of their character; that the apostles, describing the functions of Church-officers, make no mention, either expressly or by implication, of a pastor or bishop superior to other pastors; that, in the ministry of the New Testament, there is a beautiful subordination, one kind of ministers are placed in degree and dignity before another, as the apostles first, the evangelists, pastors, &c.; but, in offices of the same rank and kind, we do not find," continues this gentleman, "that one had any odds of power or preference in degree before another. For instance, no apostle is constituted superior to other apostles, no evangelist is raised above another evangelist, nor has any deacon a priority above others in that order. Why, then, must we suppose a particularity in the character of a pastor, and that one pastor should have some essential prerogatives and jurisdiction above another? That, in matters of discipline or Church-censures, our Saviour's direction, Tell it to the Church,' refers to the congregation, and not to the bishop. "Farther: he humbly desires his majesty to take notice, that arguing from the practice of the primitive Church and the universal consent of the Fathers is not without a fallacy; that the Papists support their traditions by such reasoning; that the law and the testimony must be the rule; besides, the practice of the universal Church for many years cannot certainly be known; that Eusebius, as this divine misreports him, confesses as much; that, in the apostles' time, Diotrephes moved for the pre-eminence, and the 'mystery of iniquity began to work; that, afterwards, ambition in some and weakness in others made way for a change in Church-government; Esther iv. 14. 843. The King's Second Paper, June 6, 1646. but that all the learned and godly in those early ages gave in to such an alteration, is more than can be proved. "This divine takes it for granted his majesty will not deny the lawfulness of the ministry and the due administration of the sacraments in the reformed Churches, in Churches where there are no diocesan bishops; that it is not only evident from Scripture, but confessed by many of the strongest champions for episcopacy, that presbyters may ordain presbyters; and that baptisms, administered by a midwife or a lay-person, and by a presbyter not ordained by a bishop, are by no means one and the same thing." To disengage his majesty from his coronation-oath, as far as it relates to the Church, he conceives the formal reason of the oath ceases, and by consequence the obligation is discharged. To make this reasoning bear in the application, he observes, "that when an oath has a special regard to the benefit of those to whom the engagement is made, if the parties interested relax upon the point, dispense with the promise, and give up their advantage, the obligation is at an end. Thus, for instance, when the parliaments of both kingdoms have agreed to the repealing a law, the king's conscience is not tied against signing the bill, otherwise the legislature would be bound to the present establishment, and the altering any law would be impracticable. But if the king objects the matter of the oath is unchangeable, he refers his majesty to what has been offered upon the former head." The king, in his second paper, "conceives Henderson's precedents from the Old Testament are no evidence that any reformation is lawful, unless under the conduct of the regal authority; and that Henry VIII.'s reformation being imperfect, is no proof of any defects of that carried on by king Edward and queen Elizabeth; that Henderson cannot prove God has ever given the multitude leave to reform the negligence of princes;' and that this divine must grant there is a great difference between permission and approbation; that Henderson has failed in his promise, and not assigned any reason for refining upon the Reformation since queen Elizabeth's time that it was well he called Grosthead's sentence a hard saying, for the doctrine held forth in it has a very ill complexion; that his comparing our Reformation to the Laodicean lukewarmness, and citing remonstrances in proof of it, is |