*

tive moral strength of the two parties. Turning to Lightfoot, the opinion advanced above is confirmed by his report of the debates and other acts of the assembly. His notes betray strong prejudice against the Independents, sometimes expressed, but more frequently evinced by the manner in which their arguments are recorded, as contrasted with those of their opponents; yet even from these imperfect and partial memoranda, it is evident with what breadth and force, and often, it must be confessed, pertinacity of reasoning, they maintained their views, not only against such men as Henderson, Gillespie, and Marshall, but Gattaker and Selden. Goodwin and Nye in particular, appear to have been a match on all points for the opponents of either side."+

High, however, as was the character of the dissenting minority, more especially of "the five," they did not, on entering the assembly, represent the Independency of the country at large, neither were their principles and practices altogether such as are advocated by the Independents of a later day. The following particulars are necessary to vindicate their consistency, and to correct some of the erroneous statements published in recent times respecting this portion of our national history.

The "apologists," on their return from Holland, brought back with them the ecclesiastical opinions disseminated by Robinson, Ames, and Ainsworth, modified in some respects by those of Johnson.

* Lightfoot was an Erastian, with episcopalian leanings. same may be said of Selden and Coleman.

The

† After all, the documents in which the Independents justified their own dissent from the majority of the assembly, are their best vindication before the world and all time.

See back, vol. iii. p. 233, 234.

They disclaimed the name and opinions of the Brownists and anabaptists, and considered it a stigma to be designated Independents. They were opposed to

the very idea of a national church. On this point their views accorded with those of Henry Burton, given in a former chapter.* They abhorred prelacy, as the source of all the evils that had afflicted the nation. They were not episcopalians, but regarded the bishops and presbyters of apostolic times as identical officers. They were not presbyterians, in the conventional sense of the term; and saw no authority in scripture for government by classes, presbyteries, and synods. They were in fact Congregational Independents, and held that every local church was complete in itself for all the purposes of government and discipline. At the same time, they were in favor of associations of churches thus self-governed, for purposes of mutual counsel and friendly confederation. They also held, at this time, what Smyth termed the doctrine of a "tri-formed presbytery," or of a triple eldership, composed of pastor, teacher, and ruling elders, in every local church; and instead of giving the church, in the body of its assembled members, sole power to determine upon all matters affecting it, regarded the pastor, teacher, and ruling elders, as an executive government in the name of the church, amenable to it, and subject to its revision. In this latter point, they differed from some churches of their order then in existence, and followed the middle course between Brownism or popular government, and Johnsonism, or government by a congregational eldership.‡

* See back, vol. iii. pp. 237, 238.

+ Ibid. p. 25.

This was the course recommended by Robinson in the Amster

The chief error of these men respected the third principle of Independency. They never advocated the broad doctrine of separation between church and state. Had they done so, their names would not have been found in the roll of the Westminster Assembly. They conceded to the civil power rights which never legitimately belonged to it. They would have allowed the parliament to send the gospel to the heathen, and to provide a gospel ministry for England. They did not consider their churches exempt from "giving account to, or being censurable by," the civil magistrate. They thought that the magistrate might interpose his authority to "back the sentence" of churches refusing communion with "churches miscarrying." And referring to the ordinance of parliament convening the assembly of divines, they speak of it as "a way of God, wisely assumed by the prudence of the state," and express their willingness, as members of the assembly, to yield as far as "light and conscience" would permit, to the decision of the body, respecting questions of discipline.

Such were the actual principles of "the five" on entering the Westminster Assembly. They were Congregational Independents of the New England order, and, in respect to the great principles of civil and religious liberty, were behind many who had no summons to attend the meetings of the convention.

A reference to some of the transactions of the assembly will confirm this view.

dam dispute. See back, vol. iii. p. 21. For all the particulars stated above, see the "Apologetical Narration," published by "the five," in 1643. The object of this publication was to set the exiles right with the parliament. It created much excitement at the time, and occasioned many replies.

Soon after the assembly was convened, parliament appointed certain commissioners of both houses to repair to the general assembly of Scotland, for the purpose of "stirring up that nation to send some competent forces in aid of this parliament and kingdom, against the many armies of the popish and prelatical party and their adherents."* The commis

sioners appointed were John, Earl of Rutland, Sir William Armine, Bart., Sir Henry Vane, the younger, Mr. Hatcher, and Mr. Darley. The three last mentioned repaired to Scotland accordingly, and with them Stephen Marshall and Philip Nye, members of the Westminster Assembly, to advise in matters ecclesiastical. The result of this commission was the solemn league and covenant, by which the assumed representatives of both nations entered into a compact to perpetuate the church of Scotland; to reform the religion of England and Ireland; to extirpate popery, prelacy, superstition, heresy, schism, and profanity; to preserve the rights and privileges of parliament, and defend the king's person and authority in the defence of the true religion and liberties of the kingdom; to bring to trial malignants; to make arrangements for mutual defence against all foes; and, humbling

* Parliament was led to this step under pressure of circumstances. The royalists, at this time, had the best of the fight, excepting at Wakefield, where Lord Fairfax defeated them, in May, 1643, and in some lesser engagements in which Cromwell's invincibles were engaged. On the 18th of July, 1643, the assembly proposed to parliament to ordain a fast, on account of Sir William Waller's recent defeat at Devizes, and in "regard of the two late disasters in the north and in the west." Lightfoot's Journal, Works, xiii. 6.

The expression used is, "such things as shall concern this church." So that parliament still considered that there was a Church of England. Acts of general assembly, p. 166.

*

themselves before God, to amend their lives according to his gospel. This was indeed a solemn and weighty business: one in which Vane and Nye would have had no part, had they been anything more than congregational Independents. Much has been said of Vane's sagacity in having this compact termed a "league," as well as a "covenant," and in promoting the insertion of a clause to the effect that the reformation to be accomplished should be according to the "word of God," as well as "the example of the best reformed churches." Undoubtedly his object was to leave an opening for the enquiry, whether presbyterianism or Independency was most accordant with the word of God; but that he and Nye should have conceded to any assembly the right to determine such a matter for a whole nation, shows that they were far from understanding aright the great principle of liberty of conscience.

Further light, confirmatory of these views, is afforded by what took place in the assembly, and in the nation, in connexion with this covenant. Before Vane and Nye returned to England, they had forwarded a draft of the covenant to the parliament, by whom it was sent to the Westminster Assembly for consideration. It was approved of, after a few verbal, and some more important alterations;† but not without some sharp contention with one of their number. Dr. Cornelius Burgess, of Watford, one of the opposers, a moderate

* See the various clauses of this document in Neal, ii. 5153.

†The clause," according to the Word of God," had this ". explanation" annexed to it," As far as in my conscience I shall conceive it to be according to the Word of God."-Lightfoot, Works xiii, 10.